CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Christine Boles
Vice Mayor Greg Wright
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 09, 2026
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
February 09, 2026 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Christine Boles called the meeting to order on February 9, 2026 at 4:00 PM 4:00PM - CLOSED SESSION (CITY COUNCIL)
00a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS - Property: Pacifica Pier2100 Beach Boulevard, Pacifica, California 94044. Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager and Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney. Negotiating parties: Marlene Schroeder for State Lands Commission. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. 00b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: One Case. 5:00 PM - JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS &
SAFETY COMMISSION
Joint Study Session of City Council and the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission regarding potential EPSC charter revisions.
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to the City Manager for the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission charter revisions.
Police Captain Glasgo presented the staff report.
Chair Johnson stated that it has been a helpful process to go through this. She stated there was much discussion about the word “safety” and what it meant and she felt focusing on emergency preparedness is their focus and they look forward to progressing and hope the changes go smoothly.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked all the members of the Commission and police representative for the work on this. He was particularly appreciative of bringing the youth into this process.
Chair Johnson stated that they have been talking about this for quite a long time on how to do it.
Mayor Boles asked about ex officio vs. formal voting youth members.
Police Captain Glasgo stated it was addressed and a majority of the membership felt that having a youth ex-officio member would satisfy having input from youth.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles appreciated the Commissioners’ input and understood many of the ex-officio members do not come to EPSC meetings and it would be helpful for them to be there more.
Police Captain Glasgo stated that was a concern of the Commissioners and it is up to the staff liaison to reach out to the appropriate people to make sure those entities have a seat at the table on a more regular basis, and those discussions are currently happening.
Mayor Boles stated Fire is not an official ex-officio position.
Police Captain Glasgo confirmed it is not.
City Manager Woodhouse added that North County Fire Authority is the City’s fire department and it would be unusual to have an ex-officio member from a City department.
Chair Johnson stated that, about ten years ago, they had fairly consistent representation from San Mateo County EMS, but she feels that they lost a significant input with not having a representative from the schools. She appreciated any help with that.
Councilmember Bier noticed that they added to designate the Youth Advisory Board to create a selection process for the position. She hesitates with that as there are positions in other committees and commissions too and she thought we should be recruiting and interviewing all of them in the same way as for the committees and commissions. It does not mean that someone from the Youth Advisory Board cannot be the ex-officio member.
City Clerk Coffey referred to the recommendation by the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission to create a youth ex-officio member position. Typically, for ex-officio members on the committees and commissions, it is another body that makes that designation; for instance, on the Library Advisory Committee, there is an ex-officio member position for the School District and the School District makes that designation of who would represent them as the ex-officio member. The difference is on a couple of committees where there is a designated youth position those are full member voting youth positions and the City does that recruitment for the full member voting positions. This recommendation is consistent with the way the City treats recruitment of ex-officio members.
Councilmember Bier thought we want youth to be full voting members.
Vice Mayor Wright supported that idea.
Vice Chair Miller thought part of their thinking was that they are probably going to cycle through more frequently than the other commission members.
Mayor Boles stated we have previously for other committees appointed youth for one year.
Vice Chair Miller understood and asked how that impacts their total number. She stated it was currently nine regular members and three non-voting ex-officio.
Commissioner Taverna asked if having an official voting youth member is practiced in other commissions also.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 09, 2026
City Clerk Coffey offered one more difference between the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and other committees that have youth voting members. The other advisory committees that have youth members are Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee and the Library Advisory Committee, and those are advisory bodies that have no appeal jurisdiction.
Although removing the appellate body for the 72-hour parking ordinance, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission serves as the appellate body for some building official decisions and she would have to turn to the City Attorney to advise on how that would work with a youth member under the age of 18 voting on an appeal situation like that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that might pose concerns because there are specific qualifications and a member who is under 18 may not qualify in due process.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we could add the youth commissioner and preclude them from being involved in any things that they are not allowed to vote.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we can look into that and see what things on which they could vote.
She imagined that, with most of what the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission would do, youth would be able to participate.
Commissioner Wahlman thinks, in light of the concern about members under 18 voting as far as appeals decisions, it may make sense that they have two youths on the committee in such a capacity that would balance it out to nine voting members, i.e. whenever there is a commission related item for appellate issues, those two members would not be able to vote and that would keep them at nine in such a scenario. Everything else would be 11.
Police Captain Glasgo stated that, back in 2017, the Commission charter had changed. They only had seven voting members and it was increased to nine, which is the largest Commission in the City.
Councilmember Bier asked how many empty spots they have now.
Vice Chair Miller stated that they have no empty seats. She does not know how that would work. If youth members are recusing themselves from voting on the rare appellate, they could act as ex-officio members.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that voting makes it more stressful for the kids and she is not sure that they should vote.
Mayor Boles stated that they are allowed to vote on other committees.
Vice Mayor Wright thinks, if you have to cast a vote, you take more responsibility for the position; in the course of things, it would be a better service not just the community but to our youth as well to have them vote.
Councilmember Bier suggested talking with the Youth Advisory Board to see what they think.
Councilmember Espinosa agreed.
Chair Johnson thought it was a good idea. She mentioned the difference between committees versus commissions, and that is why they came up with it being an ex-officio. For them, it would be new, as opposed to the other committees that have youth, as no other commissions do.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles suggested for the Emergency Preparedness Commission to speak to the Youth Advisory Board, perhaps at their next meeting, as they prepare charter revisions.
Councilmember Bier stated she could also comment on it as Council liaison to the Youth Advisory Board.
Commissioner Wahlman asked if it would be a study session between the two bodies.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if the direction was for the Commission to meet with the Youth Advisory Board, it would be a noticed Brown Act special meeting and it would take longer.
Chair Johnson asked if there is another commission that has a youth member.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated no, not to her knowledge.
Chair Johnson stated, if other commissions are thinking about that, perhaps it should be a group effort to figure out the whole commission issue.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the commissions are generally listed in the Code and they have a lot of adjudicatory duties and roles where she would not recommend having a resident who is not 18 on those adjudicatory bodies.
Vice Mayor Wright would love to hear from others whom they have not heard from.
Commissioner Blackburn encouraged the presence of a youth member on the commission.
However, he recalled the issue of red tagging of the three apartment buildings on Beach Boulevard and was concerned about that kind of heavy responsibility. He is hesitant on having youth as a voting member. He would be curious to see if they can have an internal bifurcated voting system or asking that the students give them their opinion as a student member. If it is something going to Council, they would have an opinion on that and would be expressed and recorded in the minutes but would not count as a vote that is a final decision.
City Attorney Kenyon stated her concern would still be the same. If someone were to challenge the decision, they could use that as a potential bias or conflict that influenced the adjudicators.
She could research that, but her initial reaction is that would pose the same problem as voting on any adjudicatory action would.
City Clerk Coffey stated another concern regarding the commissions that serve as appellant bodies, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and PB&R Commission, is that all the members of those bodies must submit their Fair Political Practices Commission Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) and she would have concerns about requiring youth members under the age of 18 to submit those forms.
Vice Chair Miller stated that they have nine filled seats, two recently appointed last year. She asked another operational or logistical consideration, i.e., what would they do, ask someone to resign.
Mayor Boles stated no, adding that they have done this at the next round of applications. She stated that, with the ex-officio, you can do that right away.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Bier appreciated the conversation and it makes sense for the Commission and staff to have youth as ex-officio.
Vice Mayor Wright heard reference to potentially doing two youth positions as opposed to one.
Commissioner Wahlman stated staff’s recommendation is one for right now.
Vice Chair Miller asked to clarify what the action was for identifying an ex-officio. She heard it was not asking Youth Advisory Board.
Commissioner Wahlman stated that staff can reach out to the other staff liaison and come up with something prior to the adoption of the ordinance.
Mayor Boles stated she saw a number of comments about their role and work plan. She mentioned she, Vice Mayor Wright, and the City Manager have been looking at spreading out the committee/commission annual reports and be able to discuss their work plans. That would be a place, if there is something they want to bring forward and they have time, where they can talk together and Council can give direction as a body.
Commissioner Taverna stated that in the past there has been some confusion on the commission on how to handle when their citizens from Pacifica may come to them with a concern about emergency preparedness. She remembers when we had high fire danger. In the future, when people come with concerns about tsunamis and evacuation, etc., they have the education, but if there are very serious concerns, they would just report it to Council. She asked if that is what they should do.
Police Captain Glasgo stated, theoretically and typically, concerns of that nature would be brought to the staff liaison who is assigned to that commission and further discussion can be had as to the direction and response to any given community member’s concerns.
Mayor Boles stated, if something was brought to you which raised an idea of something you might want to do in the community with some particular outreach, that is something the commissioners can take on.
Commissioner Wahlman asked which meeting bodies are on public access TV.
Councilmember Bier mentioned, even in OSPAC, they want more interaction and direction from us and she thinks we can figure out a way to do that.
Chair Johnson stated, in regards to the committee/commission annual report, she would like to see some potential of the different committees/commissions interacting more and the commissions keep in touch and know what they are all doing, in addition to the liaison work.
Commissioner Blackburn added they have their eyes on the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is up for a five-year renewal. He stated that identifying the risks and threats to the community is the beginning of pushing ourselves in that process whereby grant money from the federal government will be available to pay for projects to remediate or mitigate those hazards; that conversation that we would have with Council and other commissions can be very useful as they do their planning years out for projects that might be eligible and available for funding.
Mayor Boles adjourned the joint study session at 5:48 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 09, 2026
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Boles called to order the regular meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Christine Boles Mayor Present
Greg Wright Vice Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Hina Gupta, Asst. City Attorney (Zoom); Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Daniel Patten, PW Acting Dep. Director (Wastewater); Craig Wittner, Acting Fire Marshall; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Boles read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Jeanne Salisbury for service on Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission
Mayor Boles read a proclamation honoring former Commissioner Jeanne Salisbury’s service on the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission.
Ms. Salisbury appreciated the proclamation and shared her positive thoughts on her time on the Commission and appreciation for all the volunteers and staff supporters for the work they did.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for her long 19 years of service and stated that this Commission was her first liaison and she thanked them for their help to her as a Councilmember and their service to the community.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked her for the example she set and sense of community spirit.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Espinosa thanked her so much for her 19 years of service.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated hearing from her during interviews when she would apply to be reappointed. They appreciate her important service to the community.
Mayor Boles knows how much she and others did to prepare for ESPC, CERT, and Fog Fest to educate our community at every chance they get. She stated it was hard not to reappoint her as she applied again. They hope she will still stay involved in this important work through CERT and other ways. She thanked her so much.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Boles asked if any councilmember wanted to pull an item off the consent calendar.
Seeing none, she stated that she wanted to make a couple of comments on Item 7.
Councilmember Bier stated that they have something to read for Item 8.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, stated, for Item #8, he thanked Council for the reaffirmation, and for Item #7, he requested more information on that item as it was an amazing opportunity.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he was in full support and was on board with OneShoreline and shared his thoughts on this feasibility study and hoped the funding supports this effort.
Sandy Mills, Pacifica, thanked Council for protecting our community as a Sanctuary City.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared, on Item #8, that she was grateful for having this reaffirmation, especially at this time, and thanked Council.
Tom Kendall, Pacifica, had submitted a written comment supporting the Mayor signing the letter to OneShoreline and shared his support.
Mayor Boles closed public comment. She stated, regarding Item #7, Council would sign a grant application with OneShoreline to look at further studies of the offshore reef in partnership with UC Santa Cruz scientists and engineers to do the modeling and proof of concept. She stated that our staff is overworked on so many engineering projects, but OneShoreline is a partner that is supposed to help all cities in the County work on our adaptation planning and sea level rise.
She stated that, regarding the sea wall, an offshore reef outside can break the wave energy and overtopping. For now, it is a $150,000 grant application, $75,000 coming from the Department of Boating and Waterways if approved and other regional money that is possible.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked staff for their responsiveness and thoroughness on the expenditures and his questions. He felt we are very lucky to have the people we have.
Councilmember Bier stated, for Item #8, Council is sworn into office to protect our Constitution of the State of California and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. She thought this is their way of trying to do that.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Bier and Mayor Boles read the resolution for Item #8.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
1. Approval of Disbursements for 1/1/26 through 1/31/26 PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of January 2026.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the December 2, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the December 8, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.
5. 2025 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and acknowledge the 2025 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
6. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants for Design and Engineering Services related to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with CSG Consultants for design and engineering services in the amount of $114,065.00 in connection to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $125,471.50 which includes 10% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.
7. One Shoreline Grant Application Support Letter for Concept Feasibility Study of Offshore Artificial Reef
PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District’s (OneShoreline) application to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways’ FY 2027-28 Shoreline City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 09, 2026
Erosion Control Program seeking funding to lead a concept-level feasibility study of an offshore artificial reef near Beach Boulevard.
8. Resolution Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the Constitution, Democratic Values, and Human Rights
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Reaffirming the City's Commitment to Protecting the United States Constitution, Democratic Values, and Human Rights; Expressing Grave Concern over Recent Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions and Their Impact on Civil Liberties; and Calling for Accountability, Transparency, and Respect for Due Process".
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Reannah Karstedt, Pacifica, stated she and Theresa Gio will be in charge as co-presidents of Fog Fest Organizing Group and they are both excited to work together for Fog Fest’s success for the foreseeable future. She then reported that the 2025 Fog Fest was a success and they were able to raise funds matching their level in 2024 and stated that the 39th annual Fog Fest will be on September 26-27, 2026.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated that the Fog Fest theme is America’s 250th birthday and will be celebrating patriotism. They will call it America 250 and she hopes everyone registers for the parade, demonstrate their patriotism, etc.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated she is speaking on behalf of her friend, Caitlin Quinn, and her neighbors regarding the short-term rental located at 1987 Beach Boulevard and shared her concerns on revoking the STR permit due to its detrimental impacts on the neighbors.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared concerns about the effectiveness of City staff policing the number of STRs operating outside of the permit process and emphasized platform accountability. He asked how many times City staff asked for that information from platforms, how many times permit revocation hearings were held, and how many times inspections took place in the non-coastal zone under the new ordinance.
Mark Stechbart, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the issue of the STRs in Pacifica, including definitions of coastal vs. non-coastal, the STR list, rules for hearings, and strikes. He stated that communication from the City about STRs has been challenging. He raised concerns about permits at 1138 Grand Teton and 728 Noriega, and 1159 De Solo.
Aaron Reif, Pacifica, referred to the Ohlone Portola Heritage Trail and expressed concerns about the striping of the lanes near the condos on Fassler Ave, leading to speeding cars. He stated the speed limit needs to be enforced and the lanes need to be restriped.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared that most HUD funding from Housing Authority of SMC is continuing and that from Faith In Action Bay Area there have been no ICE raids in the Bay Area but other ICE raids in other jurisdictions and states. She provided resources for those impacted.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to comments made at the last Council meeting on STRs and shared his concerns on the permit renewal for 1987 Beach Blvd. He also expressed frustration on City communications regarding STRs.
Mayor Boles asked if staff can answer any STR questions such as number of violations filed.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 09, 2026
City Manager Woodhouse stated that numerous comments tonight were not accurate. The data reports from the previous years include data about the current STRs, enforcement actions that were taken, and what Council went through regarding the ordinances; those reports and records speak for themselves. Concerning specific notices of violation and enforcement action that are underway, he cannot comment on that as a matter of legal issues.
Mayor Boles stated that there have been some that are closed.
City Manager agreed and stated that he can report back to Council as staff had recently submitted updated reports in December and January.
Mayor Boles stated her understanding that every short-term rental that has received a renewal has been specifically inspected at this point.
City Manager stated she was correct and all the renewed STRs are listed and available on the website and is transparently available.
Mayor Boles stated she would also follow up with some of the other questions that were asked.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s CEQA determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24 for construction of an approximately 3,180-square foot single-family residence with an approximately 668-square foot attached three-car garage and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet eastnortheast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022- 062-550).
PROPOSED ACTION: Deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment A), including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution; and, incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Mayor Boles asked councilmembers for any ex parte communications or conflicts of interest.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he had ex parte communications with the neighbors.
Councilmember Bier stated she has as well.
Mayor Boles stated she also has had conversations with a group of neighbors.
Community Development Director Updegrave and Sr. Planner James Lin presented the staff report. Chair Hauser was also present as the Planning Commission’s liaison.
Mayor Boles referred to the storm drain and thought in the Storm Drain Master Plan drawings all the storm water in the paved areas plus the upper portion of the site will drain to the driveway underneath and eventually to the street. She stated that adding a new storm drain would mean from the driveway all the way down to Bay View to take up the street to put it underneath. She is assuming there will be verification of the capacity of the existing storm drain in Rockaway City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 09, 2026
area and that might need to be added to the conditions. She wanted to ask what it connects to and whether we are looking at increased impacts of storms which were also mentioned in the Storm Drain Master Plan. She asked if this is a de novo hearing, not just opining on the appeal questions.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that it requires approval of the site development permit and tree removal permit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated this is de novo even though it is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, and Council gets to look at the whole application de novo, or anew. If Council wants to add conditions of approval, staff has recommended one condition of approval to add already and, if Council agrees, we can add that tonight as it is a de novo review.
Mayor Boles asked if Planning Chair Hauser would like to say anything.
Chair Hauser stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this as indicated by staff. There were five commissioners present and, of the five, four voted for approval and one abstained.
She stated that this project came before them twice. The first time, Planning Commission had questions surrounding CEQA, geotechnical, storm water, as well as access. The Planning Commission appreciated that, when the applicant came back, they had done the work to do a completely new geotechnical report and clarified Planning Commission’s misunderstanding, i.e., the access was through an easement over someone else’s property. The applicant owns the access way and they amended the easement that was encumbering their land. It was a huge help in understanding access, as part of why there were discussions about potentially exploring other access points was it was not clear if access was legal. She empathizes with the community as this is a half-acre property that has been vacant for years and construction is always inconvenient. She thinks the key thing is that it is a site that is zoned for 2-6 homes and what is proposed is a minimum of one home and an ADU. She thinks there are objective design standards under state law that we have to review and both Planning Commission and City staff found that the project complied. The Planning Commission tried to address the concerns from the community through amended and additional conditions of approval.
Mayor Boles asked regarding the driveway access whether we have to provide access as they have a legal right to build something on the site. She asked if it is correct that our current codes do not define any required setbacks for driveways.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is correct that there are no setback requirements for driveways.
Mayor Boles stated that we have height limits for retaining walls, but we are not able to review this project’s retaining wall heights in the setbacks for compliance.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the project did vest prior to changes in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the retaining walls associated with fire access are not subject to that section because they are required by law to support that access.
Mayor Boles stated other retaining walls outside of the fire department driveway and turnaround are still not subject to height because of our definition that we just changed.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that they are subject to height, but with a different measurement.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles asked what are the height limitations for retaining walls in setbacks.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the retaining walls within setbacks have different height allowances. Within side setbacks, they are allowed to be six feet and, within front setbacks, three feet. Under the code that this project is vested to, the retaining wall is measured from the high side.
Mayor Boles concluded that you could have an infinitely tall retaining wall.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the retaining walls are not so limited.
Mayor Boles concluded that we cannot review retaining wall heights. She opened the public hearing and invited the appellant to speak (10 minute testimony period).
Nathaniel Launer, Greenfire Law Attorney, stated he is representing the Coalition for a Safe Pacifica. He stated there are a number of concerns the Coalition and residents of Bay View Drive have with the proposed project that require granting the Coalition’s appeal and denying the site development permit. He stated these concerns were set forth in the Coalition’s appeal and supported by public comments by neighbors and experts hired by the Coalition. He stated the project requires a variance and none was provided, and the proposed project does not achieve the objectives of the R-1-H Hillside District. The project does not minimize the adverse impacts on existing neighbors, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources. The project could increase stormwater runoff. It will require substantial grading and retaining walls in a known landslide zone with legitimate concern for impact of traffic and emergency access.
The second argument for a variance is that the project is inconsistent with the City’s design guidelines. The third argument is that the project does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance requiring minimum side setbacks of at least five feet. He also stated that the project is not exempt from CEQA and Planning Commission violated CEQA in issuing a Class 3 exemption for this project and that the project location is on exceeding steep slopes in a known landslide zone and debris flow area. He requested Council grant the Coalition’s appeal and deny the development permit because a variance is required and send it back to Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Mayor Boles asked about the data points Mr. Steve Bonds used in his letter with the C3 numbers used on the application.
Mr. Launer stated he cannot attest to what the project’s applicant used to estimate the stormwater runoff, but he knows that Mr. Bonds used the most recent rainfall data from the NOAA for precipitation frequency estimates for Pacifica, specifically. Their rainfall estimates presented as storm events return intervals from 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year precipitation records and storm events.
Mayor Boles invited the applicant to speak (10 minute testimony).
Bradley Manione, an attorney representing the property owners, Robert Benda and John Spenker, stated that no variance has been requested and no variance is needed. The project meets all specific requirements. There is no setback requirement under the applicable Pacifica Code requiring any setbacks or retaining walls or driveway. Those are not structures under the Code. This project is exempt from CEQA as it is a single-family home with an ADU and a detached garage. It qualifies for a Category 3 exemption. There are no special circumstances City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 09, 2026
that change that determination. They have submitted two geotechnical investigations that confirm that there is no concern about adverse environmental impacts of this project. The conditions of approval were imposed in compliance with applicable case law, finding that you can impose conditions that are standard regulations to make sure the project complies with requirements and there are no adverse environmental impacts. It was mitigation measures and, as such, this project satisfies the Category 3 exemption.
Javier Chavarria, project engineer, referred to the issue of the driveway. The initial driveway rendition was incorrect. The new rendering, along with the 3D shape of the terrain that was submitted to the appeal response are very accurately prepared; and, if you look at the grading plan, there is no portion along 125 Bay View, the south side of the driveway, that exceeds 18 inches in front of the building. There is no retaining wall from the right side of the driveway. The driveway follows existing grading and a curb is being constructed on the right-hand side. The retaining wall seen on the rendering at the further end of the driveway is where we turn and it is a retaining wall where the terrain at 125 is higher than the terrain on the driveway. The new rendering is accurate and there are no discrepancies, no retaining walls close to 4-feet in front of 125 Bay View and, therefore, no variance needed, as there is no structure per se along the driveway. The building has setbacks around. The driveway is a flat structure and does not protrude above the soil; therefore, no variances are required. Regarding the unusual circumstances of the project, if they look at the building immediately to the east, 741 Rockaway Beach Avenue, it is a building constructed exactly under the same conditions here. It has a driveway that is 150-feet away from Rockaway Beach and there are three buildings there, all accessible from the driveway going back there. The hillside behind them is the same hillside they have here. The amount of excavation done was the same. Regarding the size of the building, the square footage of the buildings, the heights, the soil conditions, and the access driveway are similar; therefore, they submit to Council that there is no variance needed, no unusual circumstances, and no issues with the geotechnical concerns. Regarding the drainage, he has not seen the calculations prepared by Mr. Bonds and would love to see them. It is their goal in the project to meet all the requirements. They are trying to build a home for a family and build something that is sound, complies with all regulations of the City, and is correctly done. If there is any issue, they will be willing, ready and available to fix them during the permit process.
Their goal is to have sound, properly designed project that complies with all the codes and regulations and provides a home for this family that has been trying to build it since 2018. He added, regarding the storm drain, on the topographic survey, it does not show the size of the storm drain system but at the end of Bay View on the right hand side, there is a 24 x 24 catch basin. At the base of Bay View, at the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue, there is another inlet, and those two inlets are connected by a 24-inch diameter pipe.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if the applicant considered moving the driveway uphill in order to offer some planting and more privacy for the downhill neighbor.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they did, but unfortunately, the planting easement that was granted to the property on the north initially only allowed 13-feet and through negotiations the space was increased to 18 feet. It appears that when some of the construction of the other homes was done, certain debris was thrown on this parcel and some negotiations of the previous owners granted the owners of 171 Bay View a planting easement along the 25-foot parcel and a planting easement on the eastern side which is the northern part of this property. Therefore, the access was limited and they worked very closely with the fire department and reached the situation that an 18-foot driveway would be acceptable for the fire department; the neighbors at 171 were willing and amended the easement to reduce their planting easement to 7 feet so that 18 feet would remain available for the access driveway. The 25-foot parcel belongs to Mr.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 09, 2026
Benda and Mr. Spenker, the owners of the property. That easement was the element of concern and that was the most that they were able to push it northward.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if they would be willing to have an additional conversation with the uphill neighbor to see if they could address that by moving it slightly uphill.
Robert Benda, owner, stated that there are reasons for that easement that was obtained by the Sublinskys, but part of it is the construction of a retaining wall that was required from some additional construction in the neighborhood. That easement has a long history and they are very grateful to the Sublinskys for renegotiating with them to the extent that they already have. Mr.
Benda stated that they would be willing to have the conversation.
Mayor Boles referred to the site plan and stated there was a deed that noted two planting easements, one on lot 6 and a second one on the triangular part where the swale part of the driveway and drain appear to be inside the easement. What she read on the easement is it is with the same owners as the house uphill. She asked if this has been discussed with them that they are doing work within this planning easement.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they have. The swale that is being built behind the retaining wall will be an enhancement for the planting area and they are going to be improving some of the planting that they have in that section. The Sublinskys are fully appraised of the entire plan.
Mayor Boles stated she does not see a legal document that allows them to do this work in the easement. She referred to the swale as well as the 10-foot tall retaining wall at this location.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the retaining wall does not encroach on the easement.
Mayor Boles explained a depiction on the site plan that showed the retaining wall encroached on the easement. She had spoken with the City Attorney for this to be an added condition of approval, that they are doing work in that easement and need to get the approval of the owners.
Mr. Chavarria stated that his understanding is that the easement was modified so the retaining wall would allow for an 18-foot width of the free and accessible fire access and the remaining portion is a planting easement. He stated that the original line was the original depiction of the easement but that has been modified.
Mayor Boles stated that she did not see the modification. The only modification to the easement she saw was for Lot 6, the driveway.
Mr. Chavarria stated, if it needs to be modified, he is sure it will not be a problem.
Mayor Boles referred to the other easement and the actual language that was changed on packet pages 437-438. She stated this is related to the easement on Lot 6, a strip of land uniform 13-feet along the boundary line of Lot 6. She asked if he can confirm that this is the document that was revised in working with the neighbors that had this planted easement.
Mr. Chavarria responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boles thought it was changed in 2023. She read, “The retaining wall shall be constructed in such a manner that the stem thickness is not greater than 12 inches and the entire structure does not encroach more than 16 inches into the new easement measured from the northerly City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 09, 2026
line of the easement. The Replacement Retaining Wall design in all instances shall ensure feasible construction of a driveway not less than 16 feet in width...” Her recollection is that this talks about the retaining wall and not about the swales. There is also a catch basin at the bottom of the site. There was also language that trees and landscaping outside of this additional easement would not be affected. She has some concerns about the magnolia tree in the front. She stated that packet page 439 talks about removal of other improvements and plants: “Grantor shall have the right to remove any other improvements, trees, plants, irrigation systems, located more than 7 feet to the south of the northerly boundary.” She referred to the site plan on packet page 316. The easement document talks about the retaining wall but not about this additional swale; she also had not found the dimensions for it and not sure if it meets the 18 inches altogether. There is a catch basin at the property line that is also in the easement. She asked if he can talk about those things.
Mr. Chavarria stated the communication between his clients, Mr. Spenker and Mr. Benda, has been very close with the Sublinskys and they have been involved in all the process and traction of the easement and are very eager for the reconstruction of the retaining walls as that is going to improve the stability of their homes. All the drainage has been discussed with them and he is sure there will be no issues whatsoever on revising the language of the easement.
Mayor Boles appreciates him doing that. She wants to talk about the tree permit and referred to the arborist report in the Planning Commission’s agenda on packet page 174. She believes this is tree No. 1, the magnolia. What she can tell from the arborist report is it was written and analyzed before the driveway got widened because the arborist is showing tree protection on the inside of the existing retaining walls which they are taking out and she was concerned about the protected tree.
Mr. Chavarria stated they are also very concerned with the tree and they had conversations with the arborist, and the arborist characterized the tree as fair to poor condition. The way that the retaining wall is going to be constructed is with piers and one of the approaches that he was going to take is to map the root system and try to drill in locations where it will not impact the root of the trees. If, at that point, he feels that the tree will be affected to a level that it will not survive, the tree will have to be replaced.
Mayor Boles stated that their drain catch basin is digging into the roots of the tree, not just the retaining wall, but all these things that are affecting about half of the roots of the tree.
Mr. Chavarria stated it is a shallow catch basin and it does not go deep into the root system.
Mayor Boles stated that it is in the root area and has not been studied by the arborist. She stated that it ties into the legal document that says you are not supposed to touch a tree beyond that point. She thinks perhaps it is a condition of approval that the arborist has to go back and look at the tree and opine and, if it needs to be removed, there is tree replanting protection.
Mr. Chavarria stated that is most likely a route that needs to be followed because the location is critical.
Mayor Boles referred to the new rendering of the driveway. She thinks what she saw was the retaining wall on the right is about 2.7 feet above grade, opposite the back end of the house.
She stated that it is not right at grade and it slopes up a little bit. She added that what they are doing is removing soil and reducing the steepness of the driveway as it goes up. She noted, at the back of the property at 125 Bay View, they have a 5-foot high retaining wall where the road City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 09, 2026
is below the existing grade of the house. She stated that this rendering does not show a curb on the right side but she assumes there is a curb to prevent cars from striking into the fence.
Mr. Chavarria answered affirmatively.
Mayor Boles stated that this fence they are showing is not existing now. She asked if they are proposing building a fence. She did not see any fences noted as new on their plan.
Mr. Chavarria stated it is not existing there but they felt, after the construction of the driveway, it probably would be appropriate and the neighbor would be pleased if a fence is built there to protect his property and some privacy.
Mayor Boles thought that may be a conversation he should have with the neighbors.
Mr. Chavarria agreed.
Mayor Boles wished the renderings showed the windows in the house as it is hard to understand the impact. She thinks it was hard for the Planning Commission to review the project. She referred to the on ramp and she is concerned that it is not completely accurate.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the grades are accurate. The buildings are placeholders. They were intending to render the building, but the driveway slopes and grades are accurate.
Mayor Boles stated it is her understanding that in the grading plans that retaining wall gets taller as you go up the driveway. She asked what the height is of that approximately.
Mr. Chavarria stated that at the back of the property lines of the properties on Bay View, the retaining wall is 7.5 feet, and as it goes deeper into the property to 8.5, 10, and 13 feet at the very end of the cul-de-sac. On the portion of the driveway itself, it starts at 24 inches in front and gradually grows to 7.5 feet at the back of the Bay View properties.
Mayor Boles stated it is hard to see that view. He is not showing the swale either and the impact there. She stated that the driveway, the grass in the middle, and the plantar strip are something the Planning Commission asked for and she asked if they had a conversation with Fire about this and the use of turf blocks.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they initially had planned to use turf blocks throughout and the Fire Department was not very happy with that because the design and maintenance of turf block and grass is something is not very compatible with fire trucks. They have a full concrete driveway with a center street to mitigate the appearance of the big mass of concrete. The two sections where the truck will travel are designed to fire truck standards.
Mayor Boles concluded the Fire Department was okay with the landscaping in between.
Mr. Chavarria responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boles asked about the left edge.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the left planting is only a 10-inch strip in there to allow some ivy to be planted so a truck is never going to get that close to the retaining wall.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles wanted to go back to their grading plan. She stated that they note the driveway has 18 feet and she asked if he can explain the conversations with Fire as she thought she heard that they typically required 20.
Mr. Chavarria stated no, it is 18 feet, and they would approve 18 feet as long as they have an AMMR for the building and fire sprinkler system.
Mayor Boles asked if that 18 feet clear driveable width.
Mr. Chavarria stated it is the full driveway.
Mayor Boles stated that his sections show the retaining walls inside those 18 feet dimension and that is one thing she wanted to clarify with him and Fire. Assuming 18 inches, or 8 inches for each retaining wall, that is a reduction from the drawing on packet page 318.
Mr. Chavarria stated that these drawings were presented to the Fire Department. During the building permit process, they will also be deeply, closely scrutinized.
Mayor Boles added that the retaining wall on the left and the curb on the right both project into that 18 feet width.
Mr. Chavarria understands and these drawings were presented to the Fire Department. They did not go at this level of the project into a very detailed plan check with them. They accepted the driveway conceptually. He is sure, at the time of building permit, this will be deeply scrutinized and, if they need to reduce the retaining wall location to obtain a full unobstructed 18 feet, then they will have to do that.
Mayor Boles referred to page 316 and asked if he can explain what the red dash lines and the blue curved lines are in Bay View Road.
Mr. Chavarria stated that those are the turning radius for the interior and exterior wheel of a fire truck. He stated that the red dashed lines are a tangent to the curve to establish the radius.
Mayor Boles stated there is parking on both sides of Bay View Road currently and there are driveways he is not showing for the homes across the street. He is showing the turning radius starting from the left hand side where cars are parked. She asked if he can explain how a fire truck can turn if cars are parked.
Community Development Director Updegrave thought this was a good opportunity to bring Acting Fire Marshall Wittner to speak to the fire issues.
Mayor Boles asked him to explain the Fire Department turning at those blue curves from the left side of Bay View Road when cars are parked on Bay View Road on that side.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that Fire originally asked for them to show this from the center line but then they took a closer look at that actual Bay View Road and they noticed that there are two driveways on the west side and it is unlikely that cars will be parking in the driveway section. He stated that there is a small curb section in between driveways which he does not think is long enough for an authorized spot. That would be his oversight for not calling that as a condition of approval to red curb that small section between driveways on the west side of Bay View. He stated that it is not uncommon that Fire does that, even for a non- City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 09, 2026
authorized spot, but that would be required to make that turn. If for some reason they could not make the turn, which is indicated from the engineer on there, the radiuses are 52 feet outside and 28 feet inside diameters and they would need to start from that opposite lane in order to make the turn. That is not uncommon but, as far as not calling out the portion of the red curb on the west side, that was his oversight and that would be a condition of approval.
Mayor Boles went through our planning parking codes which allow people to park in front of their driveway up to 72 hours and this condition would take away from the rights of the two property owners. She asked the City Attorney if that is something we can do.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Fire Marshall is giving his opinion on why he granted that.
He is recommending a red curb condition of approval and she asked if that red curb is on the applicant’s property.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that it is not.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is not on the applicant’s property and we do not need to make it a condition of approval because that is something, if the Fire Marshall thinks it is necessary, he would talk to Engineering and they would give a recommendation and staff would move forward.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner added that, if that did not work, the engineer and applicant would show another way to make that turning radii.
City Attorney Kenyon reiterated the concern that it does not appear from the plan that there is enough area to provide safe access for a fire truck and what she is hearing from him is that Fire has looked at this and believes, given the circumstances and actual review or vision of the road, that these plans and the addition of a red curb would satisfy any safety concerns with access.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner agreed, adding that he sent Engine 72 up there today to confirm.
He stated that it is not ideal but it is what they have to work with in Pacifica as far as narrow streets go. They look for opportunities to make things work with some adjustments; otherwise with so many areas in town that would not be buildable if not for some alternate means which carries over into hearing the Mayor asking question about the driveway width. Normally the minimum apparatus access is 20 feet. In communities statewide, it is very common to have a reduction up to X for residential driveways, particularly single family dwelling lots; it is not uncommon to reduce to 18 feet, 16 feet, and some communities allow 14 and 12 feet driveways.
He has never gone that far but he did allow a reduction up to 18 feet in the clear, not including retaining walls. That entire driveway would need to meet imposed loads of 75,000 pounds. He added that he was surprised with the applicant’s response to some original comment rounds:
When they had resubmitted, it was a big step towards compliance when they brought in their more recent design of that engineer driveway and was part of the alternate means and methods. The state code and regulation statute allows them to make exceptions, variances, or tradeoffs. If you cannot meet a prescriptive requirement as outlined in the California Fire Code, California Building Code, etc. the law allows you to propose an alternate as long as the alternate is equal to and strength effectiveness durability, etc. In this case, the engineer and applicant submitted an alternate design to have an engineered, grooved concrete driveway, reduction to 18 feet, which they felt was acceptable. Given standard streets throughout cities like Pacifica and Brisbane are even narrower than that, given Point A to Point B on many main streets, they did give us adequate co-compliant working room with a full complaint hammerhead turnaround, all on their property up where the structures were. He felt that was a good tradeoff and met the intent in the spirit of the code.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that there were no other options to that hammerhead to put it up higher on Bay View because of the distance.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner agreed that it was a tough option because they could not meet the 150-foot hose pull. There may have been some others but that was looked at and discussed before it was accepted.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, when it comes down to that turnaround spot, would it be prohibited for the residents to park in that portion of the driveway.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated technically it would. When it comes to signage from a fire service point of view, they typically do not require signage for private property and hammerhead turnaround for single family dwellings. As long as they get it recorded on the legal documents as a fire lane and turnaround, then they have legal proof that it is a requirement. If it becomes an issue in the future, they would enforce it, whereas the difference would be, if this were a commercial development, fire hazard, or an apartment complex, it would not be uncommon for them to require signage from the get-go.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, if the applicant intended to park up there, he would be required to increase the size of that parking area.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated he would be required to discontinue the parking or potentially increase or redesign it to provide Fire Department access to the hammerhead turnaround.
Mayor Boles noted there is no visitor parking other than what is in the garage, so a delivery vehicle or courier would have to be parking in the Fire Department turnaround.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that his only response to that is that it is a single family lot.
Although it is not ideal, he has seen situations, even on commercial streets, where access was an issue and he has seen where restrictions have approved loading and unloading zones in a fire lane. It is not ideal, but they know it happens and, if it were to become an issue, they would enforce it at that point.
Mayor Boles stated, if they are having a party, you do not want cars parked there in case there is a fire.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated, typically, the overall use of a single-family dwelling is going to have x number of cars and, unless they have RVs anytime, long-term storage of trailers, etc. coming and going cars do not have a lot of stock.
Mayor Boles stated 18 feet clear and the proposed drawing that shows a planter at the edge might affect their wheels or are they okay with one foot planting edge not being paved.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated it would need to be 18 feet in the clear. He knows there is a need for drainage, etc., and they are okay as long as it is not excessive and it meets the 75,000 pound engineering load for an apparatus.
Mayor Boles stated there is the 28-foot interior radius and two arcs not drawn concentrically and she asked if that matters.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 09, 2026
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that Fire uses these plans for access and water supply initial approvals. When there are stamped engineered documents, they pay more attention to those when they are submitted for plan check.
Mayor Boles appreciates that and is just concerned because, with those blue lines drawn now, they are hitting retaining walls on both sides so there is no room for error.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated, when they give their approvals in the form they use, it gives people a caveat that these are approvals but not approval to violate a provision of the code or to abase approval because they missed something. When those documents are submitted for plan review, they look at them quite thoroughly.
Mayor Boles appreciated that, adding that, if for some reason it does not work, it would preclude a development on the site.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated it would preclude that particular proposal and they would need to come up with a proposal that met the code or the intent of the code. That AMMR would then become void unless it was modified and agreed upon.
Vice Mayor Wright asked how else Fire would turn around on this street.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that what they do is use available driveways because it is a dead end street. If there is no way to turn around, their engineers are backing up with the assistance of a captain until it can turn around. They have a lot of areas in our communities where they have difficulty turning around.
Mayor Boles asked if this was in a wildland urban interface zone.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner responded affirmatively. He stated that, when this project originally came in for review, we had not yet adopted their local responsibility area maps created by CalFire; any permit issued after January 1, 2026 would need to comply with what they call the old Chapter 7A requirements, California Wildland Urban Interface Codes, meaning exterior finish improvements would have to comply with fire resistant and defensible space requirements.
Mayor Boles asked if he would be reviewing the landscape plans in terms of defensible space requirements.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that they would look at that, along with their partners in CSG.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that would necessitate ember cast proof venting.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated yes, it would be a full chapter 7A compliance because this entire parcel was located within the high fire hazard severity zone. The vast majority of the projects they have been working with have to deal with the wildland urban interface construction standards will be in the high areas.
Mayor Boles appreciated him being here. She stated she will continue to find her reference to people being able to park in front of their driveways now.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 09, 2026
City Attorney Kenyon stated the vehicle code prevents parking in front of a driveway and our code would be in conflict with state law and state law preempts codes that violate the vehicle codes. Even if we do have that code, it would be preempted by the vehicle code.
She thanked her for that clarification.
Councilmember Beckmeyer would like to know the other categories of questions that Councilmembers have. She has a question about catchment and water, the treatment of runoff, stormwater, etc.
Mayor Boles has hydrology and Geotech questions, as well as rendering questions.
Vice Mayor Wright stated most of his questions were toward staff as opposed to the applicant.
Councilmember Bier stated that we heard a lot from the community was fear around steep grading, landslide area, drainage, etc.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they can explain the catchment process and exact way in which the stormwater is treated or handled on the property. The concerns she received expressed multiple times was the sense of increased runoff in light of increased rainfall.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we can include also during construction.
Mayor Boles thought it might be helpful to pull up packet page 321 which is the drainage plan.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, with the drainage question, it is a standard comment that comes from Engineering. They are the ones who review for impacts to our storm drain system.
With every project that has impervious areas, such as grass or dirt, if they cover it with concrete, they will typically increase that area’s runoff by around three times more. They are allowed to increase the runoff, but they have to mitigate for that additional stormwater runoff before it enters our system. He read the Condition of Approval 41 in its full context. He stated that they are allowed to increase the stormwater runoff but cannot increase that flow rate during the peak storm. Staff asked for them to do 100-year storm, a storm that occurs once every 100 years, and the duration and intensity at that time of concentration of one hour. It is a large system that they have to put in place. What they have currently on the plan, which will be further verified when they enter into the building permit, is a series of bioswales across the property, a 5-foot x 33-foot and 6 inch deep gravel dissipation area to disburse the water so it does not concentrate flows and cause a stream, as well as a 2-foot diameter pipe at the southwest of the property to hold the stormwater. He then stated that, during construction, they have an erosion control plan and a construction best management practice plan and they have to put a series of fences, straw waddles, etc. that have to be spaced properly for how steep the hillsides are. If they do construction during the summer, there will be less impact. If they do not, there will be more frequent inspections on the property to ensure that those best management practices are installed properly.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, if for some reason that plan is inadequate and water or debris goes down or they get saturated soil that slides towards the neighbors, who is liable for that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the applicant will be liable for all of their construction and their contractors need to have the proper insurance as they will be liable for all the work they do.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated she is still trying to understand the rain intensity in an hour for a 100-year storm. She does not know if he had a chance to review the letter from Steven Bonds, who is consulting geologist/hydrologist, that was submitted today.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he has not had a chance to review it but it does increase it around three-fold but that is not something that cannot be mitigated for a larger project. There is a way to detain this extra stormwater to hold it until the storm has passed so it can still go into our storm drain system. After the storm passes, there is no more rain coming into our storm system and they can continue to release the water back out at that time. It is a common practice done all around and everyone has their own manuals to calculate what they call stormwater runoff; it is a standard equation called the rational method and that is done all around as all counties have their own hydraulic manuals.
Mayor Boles wants to confirm that she is looking at a C3 check list on A5.8 and it says 0.2 inches of rainfall intensity per hour and it says 4.3 hours of rain duration. She asked if that is the number that relates to what he is asking.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they use NOAA and it is different based on the storm event, 100-year storm or 10-year storm, and they will verify that. They are following the County’s requirement for a one-hour duration and one-hour time of concentration.
Chair Hauser added that the Planning Commission added the condition of approval that was read into the record and modified Condition of Approval No. 29. They have endowed the City with rights and it took a long time to do this with the City Attorney to make sure that there was a proper nexus for it, but to answer Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question, they treated this as a big site and not as a single family home site.
Mayor Boles appreciated that and that there will be more scrutiny as they go into building.
Mayor Boles called for a break and then reconvened the meeting. She had one more question regarding a bird’s eye view in the staff presentation. She stated that you can see the ADU at the top and the right side of the house is about in plane with the house on the right. She asked referred to packet page 342 with the renderings. She asked about the accuracy of the rendering that shows the house from Rockaway.
Mr. Chavarria stated that there is a drawing comparing the elevation of the house and ADU with adjacent property and it shows that the roof of ADU is 4-feet lower than the adjacent house.
The angle of this view may be a little deceptive from the eye, but the building is skewed on the property. The property lines are very strangely located as the building is contouring to the fire truck turnaround. From this angle and that vantage point, the ADU is not seen because the elevation of the roof of the ADU is the same as the highest elevation of the roof of the building.
Mayor Boles understood, adding that it is in parallel to the other building.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated packet page 341 has the section drawing of the single story accessory dwelling unit and shows the property line in the adjacent houses.
Mr. Chavarria stated that immediately above where it says Section E, that is 741 Rockaway Beach. The peak elevation of that house is about 1,004 on a relative scale and the peak elevation of ADU in their building is 1,001.06.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that the peak elevation is at the top of the slope and the bottom of the slope is fairly close to the top of the roof of the ADU. She stated you can see how close they are together here and it seems odd to her that this does not show up on the plan. She referred to packet page 315.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the setback from the ADU to that blue house is 20 feet if he recalls correctly as opposed to the four feet that was required.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that is correct. The maximum rear setback that can be imposed on an ADU under local and state law is four feet. The ADU here is located 20 feet at its closest point and 25 feet at its furthest point.
Mayor Boles stated that you can see how the ADU relates to the house as they are at about the same slope of the land and the house extends all the way over to the ADU. She stated that the rendering does not look accurate to her. She stated that this is hard for her as an architect to read these plans and trying to understand the impacts. She knows that the neighbors have asked for story poles and they were told they could not be done because doing the grading and plant removal was problematic. It is hard for a lay person and the neighbors to understand what to expect from this project. She would have asked for confirmation that those were accurate and to show the massing on the hillside in relation to the other houses.
Mr. Chavarria stated that all the architectural plans, slope land elevation, site plans, contour lines, etc. depict correctly all the information.
Mayor Boles understands that, but most people do not read these drawings and even Planning Commissioners were having trouble. If you are not going to do story poles, the renderings are important. She asked Community Development Director Updegrave if it was correct that they were requested by Planning Commissioners.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commissioners had asked for the renderings that were provided. She stated that it is also important to remember that the accessory dwelling unit is not subject to discretionary review.
Mayor Boles understands that, but the house is basically in line with the ADU. She stated that it is understanding the right side of the building and where all this sits on site. She stated that we can take out the ADU reference; that was important in terms of understanding the roof height as the roof height of the ADU is about the same as the roof site of the main house at 1001.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, as a follow up on packet page 159, you stated that the City does not require story poles for development projects, and he asked if that was something in the future that we should consider changing to make this kind of visualization easier.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is something Council could consider adding, but the trends within the state for housing development projects reviews and approvals are based on objective standards and, if they wanted to require story poles, they would have to find what the objective standard is that those are being tied to.
Mayor Boles asked if that is true for renderings as a request of the check list, especially for projects on steep hillsides that are hard to hard to understand the relationships to existing structures and the grade.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 09, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we can ask for renderings and we ask for them, which is different than putting in physical structures on a property as a development review requirement.
Mayor Boles stated the staff report said there is no requirement that the renderings be accurate.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it did not say that there was no requirement for them to be accurate. It said that renderings are a visual tool, but not something that staff bases a compliance review on. Staff are not looking at setbacks, at height, or at the regulatory or development standards requirements. That is done through the plans, not through the renderings.
Mayor Boles stated that there was not a problem that the Planning Commission reviewed the driveway with an incorrect rendering.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commission approved the project under the assumption that it was an accurate rendering and added a condition of approval asking the applicant, staff, and Fire to work together to try to find a more visually pleasing alternative and she thinks that was considered.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated this is a very complicated project and believed Council should uphold the appeal and send it back to the Planning Commission. He raised concerns with some of the layout included on the site plan.
Carol Fregly, Pacifica, stated she would like Council to uphold the appeal. She shared her concerns regarding the development of this project and nearby properties, as well as the capacity of the City to provide infrastructure to such projects.
Ted Garber, Pacifica, emphasized what Ms. Fregly said and shared his concerns on various parts of this project, stating it was a lot to be sold for profit. He also expressed frustration about the inaccuracy of the renderings.
Susan Miller, Pacifica, shared a letter from their independent contractor expressing concerns on possible development shortcuts that could lead to negative impacts on the neighborhood.
She was also concerned about errors on the renderings and plans and would like the project to meet the current ire standards. She asked that Council approve the appeal.
Gregg Jones, Pacifica, stated he supports the appeal and shared his concerns regarding the project including impacts to his home, such as water runoff and potential property damage from construction work. He also raised issues regarding story poles in the renderings and the easement agreement.
Max Reinhardt, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the project, including the loss of vegetation, the inaccuracy of the renderings, and the calculations for the water runoff. He also thought the language used by some of the public comments to discourage development was problematic.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, supported the appeal and shared her safety concerns on this project, including mudslides and rockslides, hillside runoffs, and a lack of alternative exit from Rockaway Beach Ave.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 09, 2026
Vera Toth-Fejel, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this project, including building below legal standards and asked that the project be sent back to the Planning Commission.
Jeff Morgan, Pacifica, stated he reiterates everything his neighbors said about the project and is fully in support of the appeal. He thought you should be able to develop the property you bought but he was concerned about parking opportunities on the street.
Mayor Boles asked if the appellant is providing any rebuttal, inviting 3 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Launer wanted to address two points. FFirst is applicability of the Housing Accountability Act. He stated that the Commission suggested in their summary report that, while the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the applicable city design guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reducing density of a housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. He stated that the courts have held that the HAA does not apply to single family dwellings and it does not apply to this single family unit dwelling. Second thing is that they heard that the retaining wall structure will be 7.5 feet in height at the back of Bay View at the properties on Parcel 7 at 125 Bay View Road. He reiterated that this is a structure within the definition of the Municipal Code because it is constructed, not just following the natural grade of the land but 7.5 feet in addition to that, and is constructed or erected so the use of which will require the attachment to something having on location of the ground. He stated 7.5 feet is higher than the 6-foot maximum for the applicable code regulating fences and walls of other sorts. They heard about multiple inconsistencies that warranted recommendations of additional conditions of approval at this meeting and reconsideration. He stated that there is an appropriate procedure for this which is a variance.
They recommend Council grant the appeal, deny the site development permit, and find that it requires a variance to be in compliance with the applicable Zoning Code.
Mayor Boles then invited the applicant representatives to provide any rebuttal, inviting 3 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Manione, attorney for the property owners, referred to several points. One, this project is being built as a home for the owners, not going to be flipped. Second, this is not a case for a variance as the project meets the Zoning Code. When it comes to the Housing and Accountability Act, this project includes two or more residential dwellings, a single family and ADU. It is a housing development project for the purpose of Housing Accountability Act.
Another point is the property has the right to access Bay View Road.
Mr. Chavarria stated that there is no 7.5 foot retaining walls on the south side of Bay View. The
7.5 foot he referred to is on the north end which does not impact the adjacent property. The story poles were not installed because temporarily, they would have to remove vegetation without erosion control. There is no landslide and unstable condition on site. He stated that the project complies. Most importantly, there are errors on the plan, but drawings for entitlement have not construction drawings. Drawings for entitlement are allowed to have conceptual drawings that can be modified for construction once the formal design is done.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that staff has a few points to clarify. The Housing Accountability Act does apply to this project. It applies when there are two or more dwelling units. The project includes a single family and an ADU, so it is subject to the Housing Accountability Act. She reiterated that this project meets all of the development standards in the City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 09, 2026
Zoning Ordinance and a variance is not required. It meets all of the requirements of our Zoning Ordinance. She knows the appellant had mentioned definitions in the Building Code. The Building Code does not define or establish setbacks for zoning purposes. There are no variances. In terms of CEQA, the added conditions of approval do not mitigate specific environmental impacts but represent standard conditions. Any new construction in the R1H district requires a site development permit which is a discretionary permit granted by the Planning Commission. There is no such thing as an over-the-counter approval of a single family home within the R1H unless they are invoking other state laws that allow ministerial approval between 4 to 10 units. She reiterated what Acting Fire Marshall Wittner said that the building code requirements for local responsibility areas for the high fire hazard severity zones apply to this project. Planning entitlement cannot vest a project to Building Codes and the project will be subject to the Building Code in effect when that application is made. Those requirements for the local responsibility areas are already in effect when we adopted the 2025 Building Code. The Planning Commission did not require story poles. They are not a requirement in our Code or our submittal requirement and we cannot require them as part of the review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated regarding stormwater potentially constantly flowing even after the storms are over, because the City is full of the hillsides and there is ground water over it, there are certain areas during the summer that constantly have flows. He points back to the magnitude of the amount of water that we are collecting with these storm drains, 3.4 inches per hour. These pipes are full of water at 6-8 inches. If they drive around, some of the storm drains will be full and the gutters are gushing water down the hillside, and that is the kind of storms they are talking.
City Clerk Coffey stated that it is 9:51 PM now and at 10:00 PM, Council will need to consider if the Council will complete the items on the agenda or need to adjust the agenda and/or consider a potential extension of the meeting beyond 11:00 PM.
Mayor Boles asked City Manager Woodhouse that there is another item on the agenda after this and asked if that has to be heard at this meeting or could be pushed to a later date.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the other item after this relates to their wastewater master plan contract approval to get that work going. There is not any rigid deadline or regulatory deadline related to that but he will point out that their next Council meeting agenda is very highly impacted and, if they were to push that item off, they would need to figure out how to do that.
City Clerk Coffey stated she is bringing that up for potential discussion of completing the agenda but a motion will need to be made before 11:00 PM to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 PM.
Mayor Boles closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boles referred to construction staging and thought that is something that will be submitted as part of the building permit review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, along with a traffic control plan, will need to be reviewed. All the impacts to the right of way will be reviewed by Engineering with an encroachment permit and everything on private property will be done with the building permit.
Mayor Boles asked if we can add a condition of approval that does not allow for construction vehicles to use private driveways.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 09, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can review that with the traffic control plan and it is already in condition 35.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what kind of impact is this going to have on the roads.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are conditions related to the traffic control plan. The Planning Commission also added a condition requiring a video survey or video documentation of the condition of the right of way and public improvement as documentation that, should damage occur, the owner would be responsible for the repairs.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there were any impact fees associated with that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are impact fees for new development.
City Manager Woodhouse believes that there are construction roadway impact fees that was approved by Council a couple of years ago.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there is something called a utility cut fee, any time someone opens a trench, they will be required to pay that into our utility cut fees and that is used to resurface streets in the City. In this case, they are going to have to do some sort of tie-ins with their sewer or domestic water into our system; if they have to do a storm drain trench all the way down to Rockaway, there will be significant utility cut fees for that trench.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that those are for cut fees but not for excessive wear and tear due to the weight of the high utility vehicles, other than the video necessitated repairs as a result.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the utility cut fees are used for resurfacing projects and roadway repair projects. In terms of what the trucks do to the street, if we can verify that they damaged the street, we will ask that some repair be made.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that there are a number of retaining walls on this project and asked how those retaining walls will address the build up of hydrostatic pressure behind them in order to mitigate any potential risk of mudslides, etc.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it is standard to have sub drains underneath a retaining wall so it does not build up water pressure. In this case, the Geotech report has a sub drain detail that’s required behind the retaining walls and that will be something they verify during the building permit process in their structural plans to make sure that they do have sub drains on their retaining walls.
Vice Mayor Wright asked how the Housing Crisis Act applies to this project.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, similar to the Housing Accountability Act, there are provisions within the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 that also apply because of the housing development project because it is two or more units.
Mayor Boles stated she has three geotech questions.
Project geologist John Petroff of Michelucci & Associates and certified engineering geologist Patrick Drum in California introduced themselves.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated she is reading the report from Michelucci & Associates and note No. 3 says the review of the plan prepared by JC Engineering was December 3, 2018 with the latest revision date of October 16, 2023 were reviewed but she knows there was a later issue. She asked if that was incorrect or have they reviewed a more recent plan.
Mr. Petroff stated that, at the time they were preparing the report, those were the plans made available to them to review and, no, they have not reviewed the latest plans and they expect that it will be part of the process at some point.
Mayor Boles stated that there was another place where it specifically said they had not reviewed the driveway and retaining walls in the report and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Petroff stated that was correct as they have not reviewed any plans formally for the project as of yet.
Mayor Boles mentioned to staff that it seems problematic.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we do not have the construction level drawings and plans at this point so they are still being developed. Part of the building permit review includes additional incorporation of geotechnical recommendations, conditions of approval, and geotechnical review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated there is a condition No. 17 requiring geotechnical monitoring and investigation during the project. All of the Geotech recommendations in this report does not end there; someone will have to sign off after the building permit plans are reviewed once more and during construction, all the grading, all the drill piers are installed and this geotechnical engineer needs to sign off on everything that is being done.
Mayor Boles understands there is more detail coming but was uncomfortable that major parts had not yet been reviewed. She stated that we sometimes ask for peer review of the geotechnical and she asked if we do that for a resident or is that only for larger projects.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we only ask for a third party peer review if there was something that we had a question on its feasibility. He knows this hillside project is very concerning for the residents but it is common. He stated that it can be done, and Engineering would ask only for a third party if we thought it was not feasible. The geotechnical report here is standard in terms of the recommendations to do drill piers on the hillside.
Mayor Boles stated that the Summit Engineering report said that none of the onsite soil could be used for fill and she did not see that in the more recent report. They had concerns about the driveway because those are very different soils than they found on the hillside where the buildings are going.
Mr. Petroff stated they fully intend to review the plans that are still in the development stage now and, once they have a full set of architectural civil and structural plans, they will review them formally. During construction, while excavations are being made and while digging is being done, they commonly look at the soil to see whether or not it can be used. That typically happens during the construction phase of the project.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated it may be possible, when they are working on the site, some of it is not usable and there will be more export than is currently calculated.
Mr. Petroff stated that was a definite possibility.
Mayor Boles stated that there is deep seated landslides and there are debris flow landslides.
She stated that they referred to some of the USGS reports and a great report done here locally by Howard Donnelly in 1983. She asked if he can reassure them about increased rains and what they have looked at for that and do they see the rest from slope failures above or below this site.
Mr. Drum stated that the site and all the surrounding properties are within a California seismic hazard zone for earthquake-induced landslides. Part of his job was to investigate and explore the possibility of debris flows and landslides on the property. There is a publication by the California Geological Surveys, special publication 117, which gives him a recipe to conduct a screening investigation. In order to do that, you review all the published geology maps, literature on landslides in the area, historic stereopairs of aerial photographs, visit the site, etc. There is plenty of aerial photography that predates the development there. He did not see any evidence of the landslides, debris flows, etc. on the property or that would impact the property.
Mayor Boles stated it is in an area that is mapped in our General Plan as susceptible to debris flow landslides and, as we know, we are getting more storms with more intensity.
Mr. Drum agreed, adding that there is no zero risk. His report says it is a low probability.
Vice Mayor Wright stated there seems to be a slight discrepancy in the grade calculations between different sources regarding the slope of the lot and he asked if they can explain how they calculated that.
Mr. Drum stated he can only speak for himself. When he measured the slope from top to bottom, that is the average, but inside the average, there can be steeper areas and flatter areas.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, in terms of the soil to keep on site, they want that soil to be able to compact to what ratio.
Mr. Petroff stated typically 90% if it’s on-site soil. Something that is imported, like a base rock they would typically say 95% compaction.
Vice Mayor Wright asked staff to explain the class 3 exemption for CEQA.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that class 3 exemption is for new construction or conversion of small structures; within Pacifica, it applies to the construction of up to three single family residences and includes accessory structures that are pertinent to a single family residence. ADUs are statutorily exempt.
Chair Hauser added that, at the first Planning Commission hearing, Planning Commission spoke a lot about this question and asked the City Attorney to confirm because it was mapped in all these different zones and does that create unusual circumstances. She thinks part of the fact that the entire neighborhood is built in the zone itself is a parity that is also through our zoning that got rid of the peculiar or unusual circumstances.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 09, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright thought Conditions 35 through 45 address a lot of the concerns of the people that are being the most impacted by this.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the conditions added were conditions 41 through 45. The conditions were added to reflect the regulatory requirements and to offer more specificity and assurance of compliance with the general regulations that apply to the project.
Chair Hauser thinks that Planning Commission wanted to make sure the things they were asking for were documented in conditions. Condition No. 45 took two different breaks for Commission to get the language right. Essentially, what it says is that, prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant has to enter into an improvement agreement that will require bonds. For example, because of all the slopes here, they did not want there to be a situation where the applicant ran out of money halfway through building a retaining wall. It was important to treat this as a half-acre site and not as a single-family home site for this condition.
Vice Mayor Wright stated what he heard from that is safety first.
Chair Hauser agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff and the Commission have done an excellent job in imposing conditions to make sure that this site is safe and to address all of the issues.
Condition No. 45 is a real testament to that as it is not a normal condition for a single-family home development.
Mayor Boles stated that the resolution on packet page 169 is asking Council to specify the appeal point from certain things that we are agreeing to.
Vice Mayor Wright wanted to thank the Planning Commissioners who did a tremendous amount of work on this project over the time.
Councilmember Bier mentioned historically what Pacifica does is come out and say they do not want this kind of a development but they can have this other kind of development. She feels, when a whole neighborhood comes together and continues to have all these concerns, that is up to Council to make sure that their concerns have been rectified before anything else. One thing that bothers her at this meeting is that one of the neighbors learned that there was going to be a red painted curb and parking taken away. She understands that the City does not require story poles but the developer can put them there anyway to work with the neighborhood.
She felt requiring a variance does not stop development, just assures that it fits the neighborhood constraints and the project can be tailored to those realities rather than forcing the neighborhood to absorb the impact.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated there is not a need for a variance per our zoning. She thinks the conditions of approval are the way in which the Planning Commission and staff sought to address issues. She appreciates the work to correct the driveway renderings and design of the driveway, but in the condition of approval, it says that the applicant and staff will work together to design a more visually appealing driveway. One thing she also heard tonight, with which she agrees, is that it is not clear from the drawing as submitted what the actual impact is going to be for the home at the base on the right hand side of where the driveway going up. It is hard for her to tell what that impact is going to be. She imagines the owners are significantly concerned.
She wonders if there is any way of asking for a drawing. She stated that there does not seem to be room for planting to give barrier or anything.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 09, 2026
Chair Hauser stated we have to respect that the Fire Marshall has requirements and the question she would have is can it be a 16-foot wide driveway and does it provide an extra foot or so for planting.
Mayor Boles stated that it has to be 18 feet clear which we do not have now.
Chair Hauser thinks, with a Planning Commissioner reviewing this, the whole neighborhood is hills and every single property line almost has retaining walls. Even the neighbor’s driveway is retained. The fences between property lines are on retaining walls for a significant amount of the homes here. She thinks, in the spirit of providing parity, they have to let people use their property. She thinks, in good faith, the applicant should continue to work with Director Updegrave and the Fire Marshall on an even more aesthetically appealing rendering and provide a rendering to the neighbor as a good faith effort.
Vice Mayor Wright reiterated that, at the beginning, the first question he asked was, if the applicant would again speak to the neighbor to move a deep offer that one foot planting.
Hopefully there is room for compromise there, to work together for the benefit of all so everyone can feel comfortable.
Councilmember Espinosa added making sure that the neighbors feel that Council is doing what they are supposed to do and to make sure they are safe. That is important, especially if contractors are going to build above you. She noticed that, before you buy a house, if you have a vacant lot in the back of your house, you have to consider that something might happen there and you have to be careful.
Vice Mayor Wright mentioned dust mitigation plan during construction.
Chair Hauser stated that condition of approval 44 was added at the Planning Commission hearing and addresses dust and the Bay Area Quality Management District requirements.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, in condition 44, there is a sign that is required to be placed and the telephone number for people to give the contact about dust complaints and the person shall be responsible for the correct action within 48 hours.
Vice Mayor Wright asked about fencing and waddle holes and erosion control.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can get into that if they are doing work during the winter time. He stated that the straw waddles are mainly for storm water runoff. The fencing will create a perimeter control around the whole area and that is something they will have to do.
Straw waddles are spaced every 15-25 feet depending on how steep the hillside is and that is to prevent erosion of the hillside during rain.
Mayor Boles referred to the appeal claim on packet page 172 stating that the proposed development as set forth on the plan will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood or will hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of the plans and buildings in the neighborhood or impair the value thereof.
She knows staff has refuted their arguments about variances, the driveway, and the setbacks, but she is having trouble with the cutting out light and air without seeing those renderings on the windows on the driveway to understand if the project will restrict or cut out the light. She asked if they can address that outside of the specificity of the variance and retaining walls.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 09, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that impact to light and air are not tied to an objective standard.
Mayor Boles concluded that we are completely limited to objective standards.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, not just the HAA but the fact that this property is under the HAA and the Housing Crisis Act. SB 330 also has restrictions with regard to imposing objective standards. This property is categorically exempt from environmental review which is a vehicle that we tend to use to impose conditions that she hears Council is having concerns with.
Planning Commission has done the best possible job they could with limitations of state law to impose those protections. The one issue that she thinks Council may be able to address is requiring the applicant to submit new renderings. The question for Council is when do they need to submit those renderings.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what is the maximum height of the retaining walls along the building line of the downhill neighbor.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the height of the retaining walls is driven by the requirements to provide fire access. That includes things like slope and the ability to bear the required weight as legally required to meet the six conditions for the fire access.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the applicant earlier stated the heights.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, on the plans on that side, they are shown as between 2-3 feet, terracing up, but on the downhill part of the flag pole.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what the code is for the minimum base of a window.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she does not have that information.
Vice Mayor Wright believes it is a minimum of 18 inches.
Mr. Chavarria stated the revised rendering is a duplication of the existing conditions. From the sidewalk to the back of the existing building, the existing grades do not change. They are going to grade it to create a base that the fire trucks need and put a curb on the side. The only area where the retaining wall becomes a retaining wall that is going from 18 inches to 4 feet is at the very rear corner of the property, way beyond existing building. If you look at the existing photograph, that is your driveway there and that is the relationship from the windows to the driving surface. That is what they tried to represent with that other rendering that they presented there. In front of the building, there is no retaining walls.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that was the recollection when Chair Hauser went to the site.
Chair Hauser thinks that, if we keep the condition as worded, they give a lot of discretion to Director Updegrave and the Fire Marshall. As mentioned by City Attorney, Planning Commission put these conditions on this project that are not single family conditions. The applicant was very amendable and collaborative in taking them. She is making an assumption that the applicant will continue to be collaborative with the City and, if the downslope retaining walls get smaller, the upslope retaining walls get bigger. She thinks, if they tell staff what they want to see, they can continue to craft something that will be better.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 09, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the direction she is looking for is what is our interpretation of what the community would prefer to see there, particularly the downhill neighbor.
Chair Hauser would be interested to hear what Councilmember Bier who talked to the neighbors heard because that is a more recent conversation and she thought that would be very important.
Councilmember Bier stated that Council all talked with them about storm water drainage, fear around construction, driveways being blocked, and the main driveway rendering, all of which revolve around the safety of the neighborhood.
Mayor Boles stated she spent time with the neighbors and she was showing them why the rendering was wrong and walking them through the grading plan and the heights of the retaining walls. She referred to the City Attorney saying Council could ask for submittal of new renderings, and she asked how that relates to this process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we can ask for the renderings but for what purpose. Under the Housing Crisis Act, there is a limit to the number of meetings that we can continue to have. As Director Updegrave made clear, there are some limitations on what kind of conditions we can impose. If they are not objective, then we cannot impose those. She was thinking, if we want additional renderings to give the neighbors a better idea of what will be built, we can make that a condition of approval. However, if it is about safety, the renderings will not give any more assurance regarding safety. For the safety, we need to look at the actual plan, as renderings do not tell you how that project is going to be built and exactly where it is going to be built. It is designed to give the community and Council a better idea of what it will look like but not designed to assure that the construction is built to certain specific designs. We have to think about what we want to use the renderings for. She stated, based on the concerns about the neighbors not knowing what is going to be built there, maybe Council would want to ask the applicant to provide more accurate renderings, but there is nothing that Council will be able to do with those renderings.
Mayor Boles thought it would be helpful regarding the fence design in relation to the windows.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it would help the neighbors to understand where the fence design is going to be but you cannot impose additional conditions after the rendering unless continuing to another meeting, but they have restrictions on the number of meetings.
Mayor Boles asked how many meetings we are up to.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that this is the third meeting so there could be two more.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if it was Dep. Director Yip’s understanding that they are going to capture all that roof water load and put it in the drainage system.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating that is how it has to be designed.
Vice Mayor Wright thought they will be taking some of the rainfall that would have fallen on the dirt and put it in the storm drain for the 3,000 square feet of building that they are doing.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 09, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, as all of the additional runoff that caused from the new building has to be captured inside of their storm drain detention system and held there. It cannot be released until the storms are over.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, in terms of the driveway load, if that is what is getting moved to the storm drain.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that level of detail will have to be reviewed during the building permit phase. In terms of a feasibility standpoint, it can be done. Under drainage law, they are allowed, wherever the water was going before, to continue to do that at the same slow rate, but they cannot increase flow rate on the site. On that particular area where it was draining towards Bay View, there were draining a certain flow rate and they can continue doing that. How that is split up will be reviewed during the building permit in that level of detail.
Mayor Boles asked, in terms of the parking space lost due to a red curb, if that should be noticed to the neighbors. It is a loss to the neighborhood that has limited street parking.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the red curbing would not be a condition of approval. The City has the ability to red curb and it would not be the applicant’s responsibility as it is not on their property and you cannot impose conditions that is not on their property. Red curbing determination is within the City’s discretion, not the applicant. She stated it is under Council’s discretion and they will get a recommendation from the City Engineer generally and staff who will determine why they have a rationale for the red curbing. They heard it from the Fire Marshall and it will be a determination that staff makes. She asked Dep. Director Yip about how those red curbs are approved.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the red curbs are requested through the Engineering Division and it is discretionary, based on the City Engineer, on whether or not they will approve that, based on the request. It depends on what the need is. They have not done noticing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council could request that the neighbors be notified.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if the picture on packet page 387 is the section we are talking about.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the image on packet page 387 is a photograph where the fire access will be located.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is where the driveway is going to be.
Mayor Boles stated that the problem is that none of this shows on any of the drawings and we do not know where the driveway is, how wide that section is, if another part of the curb further down the street outside of the driveway is affected, etc. She would personally like to see that come back to Council and see the renderings too. She stated that we do not know the full impact of this project as all the engineering drawings just show a line as a curb all the way and does not show any of the driveways except the roads where Calera Terra.
City Clerk Coffey stated it is 10:48 PM and we will need a motion to continue beyond 11:00.
Mayor Boles stated she has a bunch of COAs and some new ones she wants to write too. She wonders if we should continue the meeting and ask for these things and go on to our next item and give direction on that.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Bier expressed frustration for not doing anything for her community thus ar and does not think it is fair to try to do another thing tonight.
Mayor Boles asked if it was an option to continue this item.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can continue it but we would need to make it clear what the direction is for the applicant to return with. That will require deliberation and a motion to continue the meeting and describe why we are continuing the meeting and what are we waiting to receive from the applicant.
Mayor Boles stated that we can call out to a particular plan, the site plan, or grading plan, that shows the road and the neighbors’ driveway across the street and overlays the turning radius so they know the impact to the other side of the street.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we need to be careful about the level of technical information that we are requiring for a planning entitlement.
Mayor Boles stated that Fire will do their own review and Council wants to see the site plan with the impact to the driveways and the parking spot.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if she was talking about renderings.
Mayor Boles stated that renderings are a different thing but she would like to see them updated too. In terms of the plan, it is just the site plan that adds the driveways so we can see the overlap and understand the impact to the neighborhood in terms of the parking.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the renderings would not be an issue but she is not clear on what Council wants. She thinks Director Updegrave would like more clarity on exactly what is missing from the site plan that Council would like the applicant to submit.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30; seconded by Mayor Boles.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
Mayor Boles referred to packet page 314. She referred to Bay View Road and stated they show the driveway for existing house at 125 and the other one on either side of the new driveway but not the driveway for the houses across the street. They don’t fully understand where the turning radius will impact those properties and the existing parking. She stated that it is a matter of adding the driveways across the street.
City Attorney Kenyon wants to make it clear for what purpose, i.e. Council wants to know what they are going to construct or because Council thinks, by getting the additional site plans they will be able to impose additional conditions which must be objective standards, not other issues.
She thinks it is important that Council understands that, if they are continuing the meeting for the ability to impose additional conditions, that is going to be difficult if the conditions are not City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 09, 2026
objective standards. She asked what they are hoping to achieve. She does not have an issue with the renderings but with asking for site plans. They can ask for the renderings and still take action on the project tonight.
Mayor Boles stated that they cannot act tonight because they are out of time and she has a bunch of conditions of approval that she wants to add.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she is concerned about the delay, not just the meeting requirement. We have continued this item many times. There needs to be a reason why Council is continuing it and what we expect to receive when it comes back.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the renderings will speak directly to the feasibility of the turning radius for the fire trucks which is whether the project would be able to be built in the first place.
That is what their concern is and they want to protect the City from potentially moving something forward that is later going to be restricted by a more in-depth analysis by the Fire Department.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that normally they do not submit those detailed plans until they are seeking an application for their permit. She needs Council to understand that this is not the same type of discretionary review that they have with development applications.
Mayor Boles thinks it is important for Council to understand the impact to the neighborhood and to communicate those impacts to the neighbors who are very angry and upset. This is something completely new that has not been addressed in the staff report and they do not completely understand the impacts.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought we need to trust the Fire Marshall’s good judgement and, in terms of the neighborhood, it would be useful for them to be able to have a picture of what that professional decision will result in. She is wondering if they can add one condition of approval, i.e., a new rendering is done and it satisfies us and she thinks it’s for the neighborhood to be able to have access to. She does not expect them to change that decision as it seems to her that decision has been made.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Fire Marshall Wittner mentioned that the red curbing is very short; the driveway adjacent to that is a very long and skinny driveway running in the opposite direction.
Mayor Boles stated that she is saying it might be more than that red curb and how does one project get to impact multiple parking areas.
City Attorney Kenyon stated new state laws that have limited local control. She understands the frustration. However, state laws have limited Council’s ability to use their discretion in projects just like this. If they are going to continue the meeting to ask for additional plans, to impose additional conditions potentially, those conditions can only be addressing objective standards.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if they can continue it as they feel like they need to talk more.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no, adding that there has to be a reason for the continuance that is reasonable and is not for the purpose of delay. She understands that is not Council’s intent but what she is concerned about is the Council believing that, in this process, by getting additional materials, Council will be able to impose additional conditions that go beyond objective standards. She wants to manage their expectations on what they can do in that next meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 February 09, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright would like a condition of approval in the talk to the neighbor about giving that little blending strip and move that driveway uphill a foot.
Councilmember Beckmeyer would like to see renderings with a better picture of what the driveway is going to look like.
Mayor Boles stated that there are things in the resolution that are wrong and there are things in the COAs. She does not know how long it is going to be. She stated that, at some point, they are exhausted and she asked if they have to go and finish.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is trying to manage their expectations.
Mayor Boles stated she hears her and concluded that they cannot ask for that drawing, but they can ask for the renderings and come back and finish their deliberation.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if they are just asking for renderings and want to continue the meeting because of the hour, and they understand that the restrictions that they are talking about here are still going to apply in the next meeting, then that is fine. She wants Council to understand that there are major restrictions on their ability to impose additional conditions that are not objective standards. She thinks that, when the item comes back, they are going to be facing the same type of questions without the ability to do much more than they can do at this meeting, other than ask for new renderings.
Mayor Boles stated she can try to go through the things she has seen and the conditions she would like to add.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if she has conditions that she would like to see changes to, they should go through that. Her recommendation would be to use the time that they have left to finish this item, however they are going to.
Mayor Boles stated that they heard the City Manager say that it is important to get that next item as that may not fit on an agenda any time soon.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they may need to schedule a special meeting. She understands that the next item is important and what she is concerned about is delaying a decision on this project because that could lead to other exposure and other liability. She thinks, unfortunately, they are both important and her recommendation is to try to finish this item at least through 11:30 PM.
Mayor Boles referred to packet page 189, and the resolution at the top of that page talks about the arborist report, and it says the recommendations in the arborist report have been reviewed and approved by the city arborist. The point she made earlier is that the plans have changed and other trees are affected that are not properly reviewed in the arborist report and she is not comfortable with this language in this resolution.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the contention is that the magnolia was not properly considered when they widened the driveway.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 February 09, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave believes that was one of the conditions of approval that Council had been giving direction on earlier in the evening to add language about tree No. 1 to the condition.
Mayor Boles stated not just that but it needs to be reviewed by the arborist.
City Attorney Kenyon asked Director Updegrave if she was in agreement with the Mayor that they need to change that language because it is not accurate.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes it can be corrected by the condition of approval.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if it is incorrect in the resolution.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the recommendations in the report were reviewed and approved by the city arborist and that is a true statement. She stated that the statement itself is accurate.
Mayor Boles stated that it also says it recommends a tree protection plan for all trees and the tree protection plan does not work because the driveway is in the way of where they put the tree protection.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we can condition it that they have an arborist approved plan to address tree No. 1.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can add that as a condition.
Vice Mayor Wright would be in favor of that condition.
Mayor Boles asked if he is okay with the language in the resolution.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, according to Director Updegrave, that is still an accurate statement. She thinks she is saying that it may be accurate but an additional arborist report is needed. Council can impose that as a condition of approval.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, based on what Council was discussing before, a condition could be prior to the issuance of grading and building permit, the impact of access roadway and other improvements on tree No. 1 shall be analyzed by a qualified arborist.
The report shall include specific protection measures or, if preservation is not possible, recommended appropriate replacement species to be planted at a 2-1 ratio.
Mayor Boles stated that there is still the issue of the neighbors and the easement because they say they cannot touch that tree. She stated that is a separate thing for the applicant. She stated that is another condition of approval to go back to the neighbors to revise the easement for both Lot 6 and Lot 13 to correctly reflect the work that is being done in the easements.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we do not know that the easement is going to be impacted.
That is an issue between two private parties so not an issue for Council. We do not have control over that contractual relationship and we cannot impose a condition that forces the applicant to do something that he is unable to do because he does not have a willing party.
City Council Regular Meeting 39 February 09, 2026
That would effectively deny the project. We cannot impose requirements regarding negotiations on an easement that we are not a party to.
Mayor Boles added even though the owners in the public record agreed to talk to the neighbors and work on those issues.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he will take the owners at their words that they will talk to them.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks they are going to discuss it with them and she thinks, if the applicant has no issues with that, they can mention it tonight and, if they do not object, it will be fine. She is just telling them that it is a private party dispute.
Mayor Boles stated that we can add the condition about the arborist, including the drain and the swale. She wanted to talk about the trees but she does not see anything on the plan for the replacement trees, and at the bottom of packet page 190, it talks about the site plan and the setbacks. They have a few trees in a couple of spots and nothing on the southern part of the site. The neighbor to the right is also complaining about the large tree that is being removed.
There are no large trees being planted on the right to screen the property from his home.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there is a condition of approval related to the replacement trees. The conditions of approval get printed on the plans and are enforced at the building permit. She believes the landscape plan shows eight large broad leaf trees and seven small broad leave trees throughout the site in various locations. Any replacement trees would be shown on the final. The final landscape plan is also going to be reviewed by the Fire Department for defensible space.
Mayor Boles asked if how many trees are being removed now that need to be replanted at 2-1.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is just the protected tree that need to be replanted at 2-1 subject to the tree ordinance.
Mayor Boles stated on packet page 195, COA 7 talks about two Monterey pines being removed.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes the second is 10 inches and is dead, according to the arborist report.
Mayor Boles stated that this COA talks about the locations of the four replacement Monterey pines so does the COA need to be revised to reflect the right number of trees.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we can reduce it if that is what Council would like to do.
Mayor Boles stated that it conflicts with the prior document. She stated this says the four replacement trees shall be planted south of the proposed residence and serves to screen development from downhill residential properties along Rockaway Beach. That is where they have all the retaining walls really close to the property line.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not think the conditions say they have to be on the property line. These are details that need to be reviewed with the final tree planting and landscaping plan.
City Council Regular Meeting 40 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that condition 9 is where we are going to add the other language about the other trees.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated we can add language to condition No. 9.
Mayor Boles referred to packet page 197, condition 20, and suggested striking the incorrect language about the 100-year event. She asked if the 100-year event is correct.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that is his understanding of what a 100-year event is. Some of these conditions may not have been written by him as this project has been going on for quite some time.
Mayor Boles stated that she found the definition: A 100-year storm is different than 100-year event and is a rainfall event with a 1% chance or 1 in 100 probability of occurring in any given year. She stated that it is not the same as it might happen every 100 years. There is always a chance in any year that it could happen.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can go ahead and remove the parentheses.
Mayor Boles appreciated page 199 calls for adding to the survey existing fences and structures on adjacent properties within 10 feet of the property lines. She thinks it is important to be sure they understand all the project impacts, especially because this one has a retaining wall next to it, and they are being reviewed so they are not impacting existing structures. They also add on a lot of projects on steep hills of no grubbing or tree removal before granting a building permit.
Chair Hauser asked if that can also be a trigger for the improvement agreement in 45 which should also be in place before grubbing.
Mayor Boles and Vice Mayor Wright agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it needs to be worded differently or does the one Mayor Boles is adding reference condition COA 45.
Chair Hauser defers to staff on it but, in her opinion, something as simple as no grubbing or tree removal prior to granting of a grading permit or recordation of subdivision agreement as specified in condition 45 encompasses the whole thing.
Mayor Boles asked where did they say there is something about not allowing a neighbor driveway for construction vehicles. While they are looking for that item, she has a question for Dep. Director Yip. He mentioned hoping that they do their grading in the dry season but do they not have a grading moratorium in the rainy season.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he looked up their erosion control plans and there is a Note No. 7 that their grading activities are to be done during the dry season.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the traffic control plan is where engineering reviews past travel, travel to and from the site, and is condition No. 35.
Mayor Boles asked if we can add prohibiting them from turning on neighbor driveways.
City Council Regular Meeting 41 February 09, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip stated it is in the condition that this will be reviewed with the traffic control plan and they have to know their starting and returning to the City’s designated truck route.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:45 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, in their review of traffic control plans, they do not direct trucks to go onto private property to make their movements. It is not something they will approve on the traffic control plan. He does not think it needs to be explicitly stated.
Mayor Boles knows it is not approved but she fears that they will use it that way. There might be times when a truck is not necessarily driving up the driveway but it might drop off a load and then there is no place on the road within the turnaround.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated this is a question about enforcement after they have received their permit. However we condition some of these things, it is about enforcement and what they are allowed to do under their permitting.
Mayor Boles wants to talk about the storm drain in the street.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated staff has prepared a condition of approval.
She read, “prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall field verify with location and functionality of the existing storm drain system indicated on the civil plans. If the existing storm drain cannot be located or confirmed as functional, the applicant shall design and install a new storm drain line connecting to the public storm drain system on Rockaway Beach Avenue to the satisfaction of the city engineer.”
Mayor Boles asked if the satisfaction of City Engineer include verifying the capacity of the storm drain on Rockaway Beach Avenue that it can take additional storm water.
PW Dep. Director Yip is not aware of any flooding issues at that location. Whatever the flow rate is now, we are assuming that it can handle the flow but they can only discharge at that same flow rate and that is what they will have to do. They have a 24-inch pipe holding water on site.
Most of these smaller storm drains for these residential areas are 6-8 inches in diameter. They have a 24-inch line holding the water until the storm passes.
Mayor Boles appreciated that. She referred to the 18-foot clear driveway width.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that is already part of the Fire review.
Mayor Boles stated that is all she has. She thanked them all for their patience with her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added the renderings.
City Council Regular Meeting 42 February 09, 2026
City Attorney Kenyon asked if there are any other conditions of approval that Council would like to add besides what they heard from the Mayor and Vice Mayor other than the renderings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed the renderings and asked if it needs to be specified to inform the neighborhood.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she would like clarification on that. The condition would be, prior to the issuance of grading and building permit, the applicant shall provide revised rendering of the refined driveway design that includes the windows at 125 Bay View to the property owners and residents and where Council wants to do that, whether a radius or adjoining properties and provide receipt of certified mail.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is not just adjacent property but across the street too. It is a defined area.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what is the grade separation treatment with the downhill neighbor where it shows a fence on the rendering. He asked if we have clarity on that. He stated you are allowed to not have something at 24 inches in case you fall off so you do not get hurt.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that guardrails are regulated by the Building Code and that is something that will be determined during plan check.
Vice Mayor Wright concluded it is not for consideration.
City Attorney Kenyon stated he was correct.
Mayor Boles thought that will be true for these tall retaining walls that are close to property lines.
Councilmember Bier stated, to be clear, we cannot condition story poles.
Community Development Director Updegrave said she was correct.
Vice Mayor Wright added that we can change that rule.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if there are no other conditions that Council would like to add, we would need to bring this resolution back to Council for their review. She is assuming that there will be a motion to continue this meeting, directing staff to bring back the resolution denying the appeal and with revised conditions of approval as directed by Council.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we could read them into the record.
Mayor Boles thought it would be good to see it in writing because it is so late and we talked about so much today. She would rather have them come back to them in writing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is going to be another public hearing.
Mayor Boles asked if we can continue the meeting and not necessarily have public comments.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we continue it to a date certain and close public hearing and are continuing this item, then we would pick it up where they are now, but we have to continue it to a date certain.
City Council Regular Meeting 43 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles asked City Manager if we can do that.
City Manager Woodhouse would have staff build the next meeting agenda around including that. He stated that it will be another long meeting or we will postpone other important decisions.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what substantive information will we gain between now and then.
Mayor Boles stated we will be able to look at the conditions of approval that we have changed with fresh eyes.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if that is the desire of Council, then her recommendation would be that Council would like to amend the resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and approving the site development permit and tree removal permit, subject to conditions of approval which will be revised and brought back to the Council for final approval at the February 23 City Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
CONSIDERATION
10. Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard Curran for Consulting Services for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard and Curran for consulting services in the amount of $699,142 for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $769,057 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $69,915; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
The City Council continued Item #10 to the next meeting on February 23, 2026.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Boles adjourned the meeting at 11:41 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
City Council Regular Meeting 44 February 09, 2026
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 4/27/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor