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 23, 2026
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
February 23, 2026 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Christine Boles called the study session to order on February 23, 2026 at 5:03 PM 5:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Overview of Pacifica’s Economic Development Workplan and Activities.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the update on Pacifica’s Economic Development activities and workplan and provide additional direction to inform the upcoming strategic planning and budget development process.
Asst. City Manager Carter, Consultant Alex Greenwood, Economic & Housing Development Manager Heckman, and Management Analyst Corsetti completed the presentation.
Mayor Boles appreciated the signage done by the Economic Development Committee and asked if staff can talk about where work overlaps and where it does not and where Council might be able to direct some particular tasks to the Committee.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the wayfinding signage program came up in Economic Development Committee discussion and was not an originally budgeted project. The City took it over because there was some confusion on how it is executed and funded it as a pilot project in Sharp Park only. If there is further consideration of expanding the signage program, it may come back to Council for budget allocation and discussion, possibly as a Capital Improvement Project. As far as the work plan for the Economic Development Committee, we usually have this discussion with the committee at the beginning of the fiscal year but can start this discussion sooner to align with the City’s Strategic Plan.
Mayor Boles opened public comment.
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that this is an excellent plan, but the Chamber of Commerce was absent in it. He shared that he would join the Chamber of Commerce and expand their work and shared his thoughts on how the City and business would benefit if they became successfully functioning, like the Chamber of Commerce in Half Moon Bay.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, gave shoutouts to previous Economic Development Managers Ann Stedler and Thomas Myers and encouraged the City Council to revisit a 1% for the Arts program. She also approved of the wayfinding signs and encouraged more signage in the City.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 23, 2026
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, shared his concerns about CalTrans not maintaining Highway One and thus obscuring signage and leading to public safety issues along the highway.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, referenced a public comment from a previous meeting regarding the lack of the cleanliness of the City and stated to encourage visitors the City needs to be inviting and clean. She also mentioned an article in the Coastside News on Half Moon Bay hiring a consultant to do their city staff restructuring and get an analysis of their city government.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, mentioned that the Zoom audio was cutting out.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the City’s focus on residential development as the answer to the city’s structural deficit without a cost-of-service study. He emphasized the need for more commercial development, better metrics for the Economic Development Committee, and questions about the Chamber of Commerce’s role in the City.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that several of the speakers talked about Highway One, Caltrans, and signage. He stated Councilmembers were involved in meetings over years where we worked with Caltrans for improved signage on Highway One and that has been a difficult organization but there has been some improvement and room for improvement in the future.
Mayor Boles asked if that included maintenance of the medians and landscaping.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the City has been working with CalTrans on all those issues as well.
Mayor Boles stated that it is getting close to 6:00 p.m., and she asked if we continue past 6:00 or stop and continue to another meeting.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it is Council’s discretion. If they have more to discuss, they can continue it to the end of the meeting or to a certain or uncertain future date or give direction or feedback to staff and it could be agendized for a future meeting.
Councilmember Bier gave a shoutout to EDC for their work on the signage. She referred to exploring internships and technology solutions to enhance social media presence and expand digital engagement capacity. She added that it might be a good idea to personalize the information going out by using community champions to be the messengers. She thinks there are many other areas in Pacifica that also need some attention.
Vice Mayor Wright disagreed with some of the public comments regarding statements about City staff and stated such comments dissuade people from wanting to do public service. He stated that it is easy to cast stones but hard to get stuff done.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked the Economic Development team for all their work. She concurred with Vice Mayor Wright regarding the negativity in public comments, which on some levels comes from frustration and exhaustion and there has been a desire for things for a long time. She appreciated the hopeful comments in the presentation about being positioned for action. She was excited to hear that Pete Shoemaker is joining the Chamber of Commerce board.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Espinosa appreciated the signage work done by EDC and would like to see more signage, especially on Manor intersection, and see Highway One maintained. She felt there are so many things to look at, such as cleaning the city, before we do anything. She hopes we can all work together toward that goal.
Mayor Boles had some suggestions that referenced some comments from the public. She knows the previous Economic Development Manager was working with Half Moon Bay in the Coastside Chamber and encouraged our team to reach out to them as well in order to capture tourists coming in regionally. She also shared that a Chamber of Commerce can be selfsupporting if it is funded properly and hoped the board would be a big help to our limited staff.
She was in support of the arts program as well and referenced a project in Millbrae with a similar grant opportunity for arts. We have a great art community here and that’s a great tie in supporting our businesses and our arts. The Economic Opportunity Study had a list of opportunities and timing, including experiential centers, and said there may be things like that that we can try to bring in and fill some of our large empty retails. She stated that the SamTrans Park and Ride lot was not on the priority list but that is also a Housing Element site for affordable housing. She thinks the affordable housing piece is important to economic development as we need places for people who do not earn high salaries to live and work in town. That site in the Housing Element is prioritized because it is a public site but it would also be a great site for a restaurant and bar on the roof with views of the ocean. We need more of that for residents and our visitors. She has talked to a lot of people about the concept of Blue Zones. She states what sets us apart is our coast and natural resources. She stated that there is an opportunity for partnership with the Age-Friendly people for drawing for longevity. It is something special we could be, not necessarily an official Blue Zone that you have to pay for, but as a way of identifying who we are, thinking about Native American tribes, the Quarry area, and our whales, and how do we capitalize and use what we have as the marketing terminology.
She hears a lot of complaints from residents that they find out about events afterwards. She knows the Economic Development Committee has been talking about a calendar for awhile but she thinks that would be a great resource, whether it is official or not. We talked for a long time about Councilmembers walking in districts with Economic Development staff and meeting the businesses. She knows that is something she wanted to do for three years and she hoped we can start that now that we have staff. She encouraged temporary uses, such as food trucks, that can draw people in a region. She asked if there is an update on the Sharp Park Specific Plan because that will catalyze a lot of new development in Sharp Park with the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse knows the Specific Plan has been submitted but we may not have heard back from Coastal Commission staff yet.
Mayor Boles stated that the Strong Towns event talked about trees and would love to see that looked at again. She knows the Beautification Advisory Committee may be looking at an Adopta-Tree program and there may be places where we can work across committees.
Vice Mayor Wright loves the idea of adding social media like some whale TV cameras. He wonders if EDC had a goal for how much increase they were thinking about in terms of sales tax revenue. He was wondering what additional staff’s accounts would take to help kick off the Sharp Park Specific Plan and what they could do to help further the goals of all that work that was done to develop that mixed use space. He sees that as being the future of what is going to make Pacifica sustainable. He wondered if the $15.4 million in the presentation included the VLF fees that we may not get next year or if that number is actually bigger.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 23, 2026
Mayor Boles thanked everyone, adding that she loved the idea of doing this regularly.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Boles convened the regular meeting at 6:13 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; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Marisol Gómez, Finance and Administrative Services Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Gretchen Heckman, Economic and Housing Development Manager; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Michael Christensen, Community Development Dep.
Director; Daniel Patten, PW Interim Dep. Director-Wastewater; Roland Yip, PW Dep. DirectorField Services/Engineering; Alyssa Corsetti, Management Analyst; 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 Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Boles stated that it has been requested to change the order of agenda regarding Item #8.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that it would be moving Item #8 before Item #7 on public hearing, so the item would be Item #7 and the public hearing would be Item #7A.
There were no public comments.
Vice Mayor Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 23, 2026
REORDER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA (MOVE AGENDA ITEM #8 BEFORE AGENDA ITEM #7)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
A. Proclamation: Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week Feb. 23 - 28, 2026 Mayor Boles read the proclamation for Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week.
Horace Hinshaw, Pacifica, thanked her for the proclamation and commented that this is the 35th year of honoring over 175 athletes. He stated that, without the support of Pacifica, they could not go on, adding that they are the only one in San Mateo County that has City support and owns the City’s Sports Hall of Fame.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him as he is an inspiration and looks forward to the event.
Councilmember Bier stated the event is so fun and they love him for it.
Vice Mayor Wright knows that sports is so much more than just playing games and is a big part of the learning experience and he gives them the recognition of the culmination of all those years of learning and he is a real tribute to this community.
Mayor Boles stated she is looking forward to the event on Saturday.
Mr. Hinshaw thanked them.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk Coffey stated there was a correction on Item #6, Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo for Participation in the Compost for Climate Solutions Program, on the resolution. On packet page 315, there were a few words missing in the resolution in the last clause of the resolution, “Be It Further Resolved that the City Manager or their designee is authorized to approve annual program authorization letters and funding contributions pursuant to the MOU, subject to the availability” and it gets cut off there and they should add the words, “of funds” to that sentence.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Boles requested some corrections to the minutes. She stated on page 32, in the middle of Director Yip’s paragraph, where it states “We lost some momentum by losing the BRIC grant that is $15 million,” that should be $50 million. Then, in the second paragraph on page 35, it says “Mayor Boles stated, besides the flooding, it is also a hazard” and it should state “Mayor Boles stated, besides the flooding, overtopping is also a hazard.” She added that she does not have the exact wording but at some point they were asking their consultant Aaron Holloway when the last time the Coastal Commission staff had been consulted about the sea wall and he made the point that it was before our new LCLUP was approved. She thinks that is important City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 23, 2026
and suggested to add that in at the bottom of page 36 before it states “Consultant Holloway stated that is something we will work through as part of the CDP and what it will look like in the future”.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we will re-agendize the approval of minutes for the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Wright commended staff on the budget briefings and he was impressed with their depth of understanding of our financial situation.
Mayor Boles thanked him for saying that and thanked staff on doing a great job on our financial statements.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Item #1, with Item #6 as amended; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING CONSENT ITEM #1)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the January 12, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Pacifica Police Officers Association (PPOA) MOU Amendment for CalPERS Reporting Compliance
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Pacifica and the Pacifica Police Officers Association for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, and clarifying Longevity Pay provisions in prior MOUs for the period of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012 for California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS) reporting compliance.
3. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the City of Pacifica's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), Independent Auditor’s Report, and other related documentation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025.
4. Quarterly Financial Report for the General Fund for the quarter ending December 31, 2025
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the General Fund for the quarter ending December 31, 2025
5. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2025.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 23, 2026
6. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo for Participation in the Compost for Climate Solutions Program PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo for Participation in the San Mateo County Compost for Climate Solutions Program to Support Senate Bill 1383 Procurement Compliance."
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she wanted to bring an ongoing request about transparency related to STRs and shared how it is being handled differently from other cities. She also stated it is difficult for community members to report issues related to STRs and obtain issue resolution for those reports.
Sean Stack, Pacifica, stated he is part of a Pacifica non-profit, Pacifica Bicycle Park, and requested the City’s help to support their progress, especially in regards to the TOP survey.
Michael Malone, Pacifica, stated he is on the Board of Directors of Pacifica Resource Center and shared information on various programs, like the Tax Prep program and grocery distribution.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, echoed the comments on transparency, not just for STRs, and shared her concerns on 1987 Beach Blvd. as well as the pending retaining wall at 400 Belfast Ave.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, echoed everything Cindy Abbott and Lyla Reinero stated regarding transparency, and shared his concerns on the 1987 Beach Blvd. and the safety issue regarding the tree and slope at 400 Belfast Ave.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns on a builder’s application for Shamrock Ranch and possible problems with providing sewage services to that development.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, shared her concerns on 1987 Beach Blvd. and asked for more transparency on the investigation and help for the neighbors.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there is an investigation on an STR if we lay out everything to the public to view.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it is not something we do for code enforcement matters. If someone were to make a public record request, we would provide those records subject to production related to the code enforcement matter that are not exempt.
City Manager Woodhouse stated for code enforcement violations as well as other criminal cases the City does not comment publicly on those. The notice of violation for cases is a public document and that has already been provided regarding 1987 Beach Blvd. particularly but, in terms of the case and the investigation, that is not something that is public until it is resolved and becomes public and the same goes for other activities. Transparency and due process are two incredibly important values and they need to be balanced.
Vice Mayor Wright thought sometimes they conflict with each other.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 23, 2026
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan, to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 sq. ft. detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).
PROPOSED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and: (1) introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” (2) adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and (3) find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504(Class 4-“Minor Alteration to Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).
Mayor Boles asked if there were any ex-parte communications or any conflict by Councilmembers.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated there were no ex-parte communications with the owners.
Mayor Boles stated there were conversations with community members also.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she is joined by Community Development Dep. Director Christiansen and Planning Commissioner Davis. She presented the staff report.
Mayor Boles referred to page 357 in the staff report and stated that this drawing shows the Hillside Preservation calculations as well as the uses of the various buildings. She stated that Nos. 9 and 10 are shown as single-family residences and she asked if No. 9 is being used as storage now.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes that is correct.
Mayor Boles asked, in the future, can this be used as a residence.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes it could be as it is a single family that is already existing and permitted, but is currently being used for storage.
Mayor Boles assumed, if they wanted to clear out the storage and have someone move in, it would not need to come back to staff or the Planning Commission for approval.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not believe so as it is an existing residential use that has been on the site for decades.
Mayor Boles asked if that was used as a residence, then it would need the covered parking also.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 23, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is technically legally non-conforming without the covered parking. As part of the rezoning, staff was looking for more alignment with the HPD, hence the carport for the building that is actively being used as a single family and has been in continuous use as a single family.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if the storage is a residential zoning designation.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that it was built as a residential structure. It may require a building permit, but it is a residential occupancy building that was built and historically used as a single family.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, to the best of his knowledge, there were multiple bedrooms upstairs, a kitchen, living room, bathroom and, in the downstairs, the site of an old restaurant. He thought it is potentially still very viable for use as a residential structure.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano referred to Director Updegrave’s confirmation that one of the parcels is zoned residential so it is appropriate that residential use take place in a residential zone.
Mayor Boles understood but she asked because HCD requires covered parking for residents and, if they are applying it for one, she is not sure why we are not applying it to the other. She referred to the HPD site coverage. It says zero, so no new development is allowed on the site.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it would require a variance.
Mayor Boles pointed out the arena building, No. 1, where there is no disturbance calculated.
She referred to packet page 355. The area where the soil was moved goes beyond the HPD coverage. Her reading of this is that this project and the illegal grading is a violation of HPD because they already are above their coverage maximum. The HPD ordinance, 9-4-2257, land coverage control, talks about what is included in that C-number coverage: “site coverage D shall include all areas of the site occupied or covered by building pavement and grading except recreation facilities and active recreation areas”. She does not see how Council could approve the grading without granting a variance as they exceeded their coverage.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated staff’s understanding is that these soils were relocated to areas that have already been disturbed.
Mayor Boles stated that is not part of the pictures or calculation.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it was moved to along the perimeter of the covered arena. Staff spoke with NGO to confirm that the soil has been moved to the perimeter and these are areas that have been previously disturbed.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reaffirmed that Director Updegrave spoke with NGO to confirm and it was considered.
Mayor Boles stated disturbed in terms of land is different than disturbed in terms of construction and activity. What we are supposed to look at is the condition when the permit is applied for.
She stated that it was open land and they additionally disturbed it by putting the soil outside the arena, which is her understanding from looking at these pictures.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 23, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright stated, looking at those pictures, he would agree with her, but he would also agree with staff’s interpretation from practical reality from having been there 20 years ago.
Mayor Boles stated that the disturbance happened as a result of their illegal work.
Vice Mayor Wright understands that, but that was a previously disturbed area.
Mayor Boles stated that we can go back to the HPD and she just wanted to clarify that question.
Mayor Boles opened the public hearing and invited the Applicant to speak.
Applicant Bernard Daos referred to when the Church of Christ became the owner of the property in Pacifica. They bought the property in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and their intention in every community where they establish congregations, houses of worship, etc. was to bring services to the community. This was evident when they reached out and had a project with Terra Nova Education Foundation and the Church of Christ donated $10,000 and resources to help with all of the needs of the Pacifica School District during that challenging time. They are here tonight because of actions taken in 2021 of a project manager that was overseeing their project. They want to state for the record that, when the leadership and administration of their church came to be aware of that project manager’s action, not only was he removed but he is also no longer a member of their organization. Thus, through the order that was issued and all the work that has been done, working with City staff, they have been trying to remedy the situation. There is good faith effort to correct things that happened in the past. They want to take the opportunity to thank City staff, to continue to work with them, and they hope they are able to comply with everything the City is asking of them. The application is not something they planned or recommended but is following the instructions of the City so they can comply with the laws and ordinance. They hope to work with the community and serve their needs.
Mayor Boles thanked him for explaining that this was not intentional and they have made corrections within their organization. She assumes they want to fix this issue and whatever is needed to rectify the legal grading. She asked if rezoning, carports, and other details are important to him or the church to happen as part of this process.
Mr. Daos stated that what is important to the administration of the Church is to prove to the community that they respect the community and everything that has been asked of them. If the carport is important for them to comply with the City’s instructions, then it is important for them.
Mayor Boles asked if the matter of the rezoning was important as well.
Mr. Daos stated what is important to them is whatever the instruction is by the City so they can comply with the order. He stated they respect the community and residents and thank the City for giving them the opportunity to rectify what is needed.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that Mr. Daos is looking to make amends. He appreciated staff trying to work with an antiquated code system that did not properly consider this. They have a quandary, and Mr. Daos is interested in collaborating to get to a solution that gets everybody what they need.
Mr. Daos stated that is their position.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Espinosa stated that the community thinks that they might want to do something else and Council wants to hear from him if it is their plan to do something else.
Mr. Daos stated that what is in the staff report is perfectly clear. Any other future development or variation would need to come back before Council and community once again. He does not have the authority to make any decisions. However, because of everything that has transpired and the time, effort, and resources their organizations have been spent, they are looking at alternatives.
Councilmember Espinosa reiterated they are trying to fix the problem and that is it. They are not hoping to do anything else on that project.
Mr. Daos stated, if they would put the property up for sale because of the order, they would be seriously disadvantaged by presenting it to anyone and not disclosing the current condition. If they can work with the City to remove that and show that they comply and satisfy the order, they can be made whole if they look to dispose of the property to move on to another project. He stated, at this moment and for this application, they have no other plans but to fix this order.
Mayor Boles stated that, for clarification, Council is processing the application before us and we cannot require them to tell us what they might be planning in 20 years.
Mr. Daos stated they know it is a concern of the community, so they want to be forthcoming.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Lori Yap, Pacifica, suggested to remove the retroactive grading permit requirement and thereby remove the rezoning, carport, and other changes to the property. She stated this proposal undermines the community’s desire to keep the current zoning on the property. She opposed approving the proposal without knowing the full scope of the future usage for the property.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, expressed his frustration with access to the trails through the property.
He stated the Church would open access to the trail, but approving the plan would cut the community off entirely. He opposed approving the plan.
Lisa Funkhouser, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the problems connected to this issue as an adjacent property owner and the cost of damages to their home and opposed approving this item.
Trent Wakenight, Pacifica, shared his concerns on a situation that happened in February 2022 as well as other negative interactions of INC with neighbors over time and asked for an extensive evaluation of this owner’s plans.
Joy Hitzeman, Pacifica, understood the concerns about conducting a mega church in the neighborhood and thought the best solution was for them to sell the property but they also need the permits.
Kathy Moresco, Pacifica, shared her positive thoughts about past ownership and her concerns regarding many existing problems with this new ownership and she opposed approving permits for them to move forward.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 23, 2026
Kelly Moresco, Pacifica, shared her experiences growing up and working with the previous owners and her concerns about the present owners and their intentions for the property. She asked that the City listen to the neighbors and allow the property to return to being stables.
Eric Edhammer, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the soil problem and problems if the church moves forward. He opposed approval of this item.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared concerns about the Church’s trespasses against the community and opposed approval of this item. He suggested granting this item at the escrow closing when they sell the property.
Richard Zuromski, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the approval on a prior illegal action and possible standards set for future approvals for use of the site. He emphasized the disruption to the neighborhood regarding traffic, noise, etc.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, asked for more evidence of staff’s interpretation of the HPD coverage ordinance. She considered this issue as an abatement of a violation, not as a development.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, mentioned that this area is ecologically sensitive and inappropriate for an event center.
Mayor Boles invited the Applicant for a rebuttal period.
Mr. Daos heard many of the concerns asked to consider the actions of the Church since they have been working hand in hand with City staff. He stated that the application now is the instruction of the City to comply with the ordinance. They respect the community and will do their best to show that and approve that going forward.
Mayor Boles asked if he had a response to the public comment concerning flooding damage.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is not before Council this evening. She stated that the applicant can answer the question if he desires. That is not an issue before Council but a private matter between them and the resident.
Mr. Daos stated he had no personal knowledge of that, but he would like to extend an olive branch and say he would like to discuss it with her if she is willing to.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if the applicant is aware that this whole process has cost the City more in terms of staff time and money than what the permit fees were.
Mr. Daos stated that they are aware and their Church has expended significant resources to fix the problem they created. Mr. Daos wholeheartedly thanked staff for their hard work. If there is another way they can clear the violation, they are all ears and open.
Mayor Boles closed the public hearing. She invited staff to respond to comments.
Community Development Director Updegrave wanted to reiterate that there is no proposed changes of use with this application. It is the rezoning Development Plan and Specific Plan required in order for the owner to obtain the retroactive grading permit.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 23, 2026
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there were a number of comments requesting that the applicant provide some sort of indication of what their future development will be at this site and that is not something that the City can demand of an applicant. Council needs to consider is what is before Council this evening. The application plans are speculative and any future development of the property is speculative at this point. The Council needs to consider the application that is before them for the retroactive grading permit. She reiterated that this process was as a result of code enforcement action by the City. The City indicated to the property owner that there was a violation and the way to correct the violation was to obtain a retroactive grading permit. As Director Updegrave mentioned, because the property is located in the HPD, based on staff’s interpretation of the HPD ordinance, that required a rezoning, a General Development Plan preparation, and Specific Plan preparation. All of these steps the applicant has taken is because City staff believe that the only way to rectify the grading was to obtain a retroactive grading permit; because it is in the HPD, there were all these other steps that needed to occur before that permit could be issued.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to packet page 326, Numeral 2, the Hearing Officer’s requirements. One of the things was limiting the use of the covered arena to its occupancy classification and subject to the approval of the Building Official. She does not know what the use of the covered arena occupancy classification is.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes they were holding events within the arena and that structure has not been reviewed for that type of occupancy. There may be different code requirements based on what the occupancy of a structure is.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there is in the packet a letter from the City Attorney’s Office, starting at packet page 574, issued February 25, 2022, to INC that speaks to the sports events that occurred on the February 13, 2022; that letter indicates that the covered arena is classified as a Group U for utility and miscellaneous and the category U includes building and structures of an accessory character and miscellaneous structures not classified in any specific occupancy including agricultural buildings and that INC has hosted an event that was not consistent with that Group U classification. The City Attorney’s Office sent a letter indicating that was contrary to the Hearing Officer’s order. Since that time, she is not aware of any further violations occurring on the property of a misuse of classification.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if there was currently a permit for the property once INC took possession.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is not aware of any use permit for the property.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated there was an application that was withdrawn.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that any development application that was submitted and withdrawn is not before Council at this point. It sounds like they did submit a special use permit or some type of discretionary permit but that was withdrawn.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded it was withdrawn prior to going through that process.
Community Development Director Updegrave responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 23, 2026
Mayor Boles referred to the classification for assembly, anything over 49 people, is an A occupancy. The calculation is not allowed to be 102 because the building is not designed with the right fire grading, etc., for an assembly occupancy over 49 people. It is not allowed to be used as that.
Vice Mayor Wright was uncomfortable with what they have seen in terms of zoning and the State stepping in and insisting we build more housing and taking away and mandating less local control. If we grant the zoning change, we diminish the restrictions of HPD in even the slightest way or, if the State sees it and comes down later and says in PD zones, because you changed it from HPD, now you lose more local control if we do not build the right amount, he feels uncomfortable with that in the future and setting that precedence or appearance or real granting of a benefit for doing something wrong. He asked if we were to continue this and, if the applicant was agreeable to it, do they think there would be any benefit to the two of them having the opportunity to work something out that would allow the property to remain in the existing zoning and still get some way through a collaborative effort for them to make amends for what they did.
Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that the HPD overlay is not proposed for removal and the proposed rezoning would be PD with an HPD overlay. She stated, in terms of alternative pathways, staff has examined this based on what is in the Municipal Code, and it appears to require the rezoning and the subsequent permit.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Director Updegrave is correct this has been discussed at the Planning Commission as well, with potential alternatives.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that staff cannot change the code, but Council can.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated he is correct. Staff’s interpretation is that this is development under the HPD and, if it is development under the HPD, grading requires all of these things.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we can make a finding that it is not and is it within Council’s purview.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is within Council’s purview to decide to take a different interpretation than staff.
Councilmember Bier appreciated the simplicity. She asked if this is the only way we can do this.
She wants to hear from Commissioner Davis a summary of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissioner Davis stated that this came before PC twice. At the last meeting, there were five commissioners present and they all voted for recommending denial. The two overarching concerns expressed by the Commission were that they did not want the applicant to benefit from the situation that was created by grading being done without a permit and one commissioner referred to that as rewarding a violation. They also agreed that rezoning the PD would be a beneficial outcome and they were all opposed to the PD rezone. It almost felt like the project was created around the zoning which was an element of the project in order to get this accomplished. They asked, as indicated by City Attorney and Director Updegrave, that they look at some alternatives, which is one of the outcomes of the first meeting. Several voiced the opinion that a variance seemed logical. The variance option is something they thought should be explored closely and they could take care of the unpermitted grading and yet not have to rezone the PD.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Bier thanked her and agreed.
Councilmember Espinosa suggested to send the proposal back to Planning to find an administrative solution, like a variance, to solve this issue.
Vice Mayor Wright asked to confirm the response to a potential opportunity with the applicant’s agreement to try to resolve something.
Community Development Director Updegrave’s understanding is that staff would need direction from Council to do something different.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks staff is happy to do whatever Council directs, but the problem will inevitably be that it comes back with code requirements that are legal constraints and the applicant has filed an application for these legislative acts.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what if we open up a new classification of permitting with the HPD overlay and said that it is an NOV abatement permit.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks he is referring to amending the HPD ordinance.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that would require a vote of the people.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there is some other way and would staff and the applicant both benefit trying to figure out a way around this issue.
Mayor Boles agreed with the Planning Commission that she cannot make the findings. She also referred to the permitting of the grading. As seen in the plan, the place where the soil was moved was not considered disturbed/coverage in the application and Council are being asked to approve grading in an area where they have zero coverage allowed. If Council granted a permit for grading, that would require a variance. She referred to a response from a previous Planning Director: “What happens if the site has previously been graded or otherwise disturbed? Article
22.5 does not address situations where a site is no longer in its natural state. The City has approached the situation by applying the HPD coverage control to the project site in its condition at the time of the development application unless the City has a record of prior HPD approval.” She stated that the HPD calculations do not show the area outside of the arena as being coverage. She asks if we have any record that shows that it was previously approved disturbance.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that staff interpretation is that this is a disturbed area where the covered arena and the areas where it was moved. Therefore, staff does not believe that this is considered new coverage.
Mayor Boles stated that the application and the drawings do not show that as previously disturbed. Here they have disturbed an area beyond their building and the definition. It is not paved. HPD also says areas that are not considered coverage shall remain in their natural state.
By putting the soil there, it did not remain in its natural state. She respectfully disagreed and she does not think Council can approve this permit. She agreed with other councilmembers that we need to find a way around this. The intent of HPD is to protect our steep hillsides from City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 23, 2026
excessive grading and try to leave things in a natural state, not develop more than we need to.
Moving soil out of an area under a roof on a flat ground is not covered in principle by the ordinance. She knows we are looking at the letter of the law, but she thinks we have to look at the spirit of the law. She agreed with Chair Hauser that we should not be allowing rezoning for people doing work illegally. She cannot make these findings and cannot approve this, and she would hope to send it back to the City Attorney to try to find a creative solution to resolve the illegal work.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks it sounds like there is some question as to how development is interpreted. If there are some questions that Council wants to ask staff about potentially how that term has been used in the past for other HPD projects or what the legislative history is on how that term has been applied to projects in the HPD, she is sure staff will be happy to look at that and, if Council wants to continue the matter, we can come back with that information. As she mentioned, whether the applicant is willing to discuss things with staff does not negate the fact that we have an application that is pending before Council and staff interpretation is that essentially the code does not allow for any other process besides rezoning the planned development and the general development.
Vice Mayor Wright suggested that the size of footings outside the covered arena is approximately three feet across. That extends out into the area that is represented on the map.
He asked if that is a benefit that allows the City to negotiate with the applicant.
Councilmember Bier also asked for the difference between sending it back to City Attorney vs.
Planning Commission.
Mayor Boles reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Daos stated that they are ready to work with City staff and residents to resolve this situation.
Mayor Boles closed the public hearing. She thinks it is more a question for staff and legal as the Planning Commission has asked these questions and were not able to get the answers that they wanted and why they voted to deny the project.
Councilmember Espinosa thought we have to be careful when discussing interpretations and thought we need to revisit them.
Mayor Boles called for a break.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it sounded like there is an interest in continuing this item and, if Council wants staff to look at some questions, such as what interpretation of development is, etc., staff would be happy to look at that.
Mayor Boles thought that would be a good path forward as she thinks it is clear that Council would rather not have to do the rezoning which seems inappropriate for the work that was done.
She asked if we need to continue it to a date certain or uncertain.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated continuing it to a date uncertain.
Mayor Boles asked if it means it will be a full hearing again with public comment again.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 23, 2026
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council closed the public hearing and no further public comment would be required if they are considering the same substantive issues, but it is within Council’s discretion to reopen the public hearing.
Mayor Boles mentioned someone said that there were some church services happening in the homes with 8-10 cars or so. She asked if that is permitted currently under the existing zoning for a single-family resident.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she was talking about home occupation.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they are entitled to home occupational use and they can have gatherings like anybody in a residential home.
Mayor Boles stated worship services are not prohibited but, when it becomes a larger gathering, what is the cutoff for it to become something that is not permitted.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was not sure that the City has any sort of regulations that delineates what a church service is. She has not heard of any complaints relating to the property in the last one or two years.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he has heard complaints.
Mayor Boles knows they are in a hard position. She read that Planning Commission asked about the easement for the trail and there were public comments about that at this meeting. She understands that there is not a formal easement but, legally, if a trail is open and the public is using it for a certain amount of time, something could be a prescriptive easement. She asked if we could look at if there is a possibility for reopening that trail.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that staff looked at whether there was any recorded easements, but there is no such easement. She does not know whether there is a prescriptive easement or not, as there are legal requirements. That is not up to the City to decide but between members of the public who are asserting that right and the property owners.
Mayor Boles concluded it will be something for the public to research and document.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated staff provided an answer on whether there was any type of recorded easements against the property and the answer was no.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she would have to research information about gatherings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to continue this matter to a date uncertain; seconded by Mayor Boles.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 23, 2026
CONTINUE AGENDA ITEM #7 TO DATE UNCERTAIN
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
CONSIDERATION
8. 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.
PW Director Tigbao and PW Acting Dep. Director Daniel Patten presented the staff report.
They were joined by Consultants Gregory Sands of Woodard & Curran and Bryan Burnitt of Carollo Engineers.
Vice Mayor Wright knows we are working on replacing the solar eventually at the plant and he wondered if we plan on expanding that or if there ways we can do more panels on pump station.
He appreciated that we have solar panels, but what are we doing to make that more energy independent.
PW Interim Dep. Director Patten stated that today we got back the two-year agreement with a consultant to upgrade our existing solar array which will potentially double our existing generation capacity. In the future, we will be looking into additional sources of energy generation.
Consultant Sands stated for this specific plan in that criteria stage, energy efficiency will be part of that. Pacifica has a track record of doing this with the Wastewater facilities. When we consider what we can do to modify those, we will also look at opportunities to increase efficiency, redundancy, and look out alternative supplies if that is viable.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, when we review our payouts, there are large PG&E numbers and he appreciated that they are addressing some of that concern. He would also like to hear a little bit about how to consider future growth in plans.
Consultant Sands stated that they will also be working with the Planning Department. As part of the flow and loads updates, which will largely look at historical trends and try to see where both average uses are but also those peak events where you might see high I & I and things that you need to be considering for their worst case scenario, they will also be looking to see where they think they might have additional flows coming into the plant. In terms of the evaluation, he thinks the idea is not to change the plant’s rating in any way. In theory, the design facility should not meet the growth that had been projected long term, but they are seeing some inefficiencies with the current process and they want to look for ways that they can either optimize the existing City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 23, 2026
sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) or add some sort of optimization enhancement to them. That compounded with these more extreme events are causing a capacity crunch.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, when they say more extreme events, if they are talking more frequent 100-year storms or what level.
Consultant Sands stated it is specifically the intensity of the storms that they are worried about.
Even if it is a 15-minute or 30-minute duration event, they want to make sure the facilities are as well-equipped as reasonable and as they can afford to handle those. The facility has been doing a great job trying to attenuate those events but sometimes it means that the performance in terms of the water quality is not as high as they would like to see. They want to make sure we are providing the same level of service through as many of these events as possible.
Vice Mayor Wright appreciated their attempts to handle multiple variables in order to get what is best for our community.
Councilmember Beckmeyer is looking at packet page 680 and she has a question about Task
3.4, Stormwater Pump Station Condition Assessment and Recommended Projects. She stated that the proposal outlines the methodology, including staff interviews, visual inspections, etc.
She stated that we have lost some key staff members to other cities in recent years who were very knowledgeable about our system and she wonders if it is outside the bounds of normal to reach out to key former staff who may be able to weigh in on some of this.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that is outside of what is normal. He thinks our historic record and the institutional knowledge that the department has should be able to cover that. Those people are no longer City employees and input from them, if they were to give input, would need to be as a member of the public, not as a member of staff.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that the City is supposed to have the universe of information about its facilities, processes, etc., and going outside to members of the public creates other levels of complexity as they may bring their biases or specific issues they may have for or against the City in their responses. They are also members of the public who are not required to respond.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood, adding that if there was any desire or need on the part of anyone to weigh in who is no longer employed here, it would come at the end of the process during the presentations with public comment.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it depends on how and at what phase public input is being sought in the project.
PW Acting Dep. Director Patten stated as far as past staff, a number of those who left the City have downloaded quite a bit of knowledge to existing staff so he believes we will be sufficient with our in-house knowledge.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, in terms of public comment on the process, is that built in at any point or just when the final presentation is given to Council.
PW Interim Dep. Director Patten stated it is his understanding that it is the final presentation given to Council.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Beckmeyer assumed under Task 6, final report and 20-year project roadmap.
PW Acting Dep. Director Patten responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought, from what she saw on the slides, that is happening in Q4.
PW Acting Dep. Director Patten stated ideally yes.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought maybe there will be another member of the public coming forward if after Q4. She has a question on packet page 680, stating City Manager and she discussed the optional stormwater station relocation analysis. That was in regard to planning for 2212 Beach Blvd. In the future work laid out that we are doing on a Coastal Resilience Plan, our Adaptation Plan, etc., and her question is if this is the place where we need to ask for that optional to happen. She stated that the Sharp Park Pump Station is not listed and she does not know if that is a separate optional or folded into this project.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it might have a different name and he believes it is included.
PW Acting Dep. Director Patten responded affirmatively.
PW Director Tigbao stated it is included as a part of this to analyze the pump station.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that on Task 3.3 on packet page 679 there is the relocation analysis. She asked how that is different from 3.4.
Consultant Sands stated that it is bifurcated so wastewater facilities are going to be looked at as discrete issues as they have related conveyance which is different from the storm water conveyance. There are five pump stations that will be looked at on the wastewater basis and two on the stormwater basis.
Mayor Boles appreciated that this work will be starting and helping us with our climate adaptation work. She asked what time period of climate change and what impacts are they looking at, i.e. immediate high scenarios or increasing storms and convergence with king tides.
She asked what the scope and determining factor they are looking at.
Consultant Sands stated that would occur in the criteria development phase of the project.
There are workshops incorporated as part of this where they want to integrate with other departments to try to see what their latest and best thinking is for this planning and whether it is appropriate to be staffing these discrete things or treating them as individual events. Trying to come up with those appropriate scenarios that will be the critical subpoints for determining whether or not the station is able to maintain the level of service that you want it to do or in its current location is not able to meet that level of service. Being so close to water for a lot of these pump stations is compounded as you have the effect of the hillsides which create a lot of high I & I and you also have the proximity to the ocean where you have sea level rise, potential tsunamis, king tides, etc. Making sure they stack those appropriately at the criteria stage is what they want to do as a group.
Mayor Boles asked, in terms of Council and public input on any of that, it is not until it comes before them.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 23, 2026
Consultant Sands stated there are interim deliverables as part of this project and if Council would like reports on the interim deliverables as they are developed, they can do that.
Mayor Boles thinks that would be great as they will be working on their adaptation planning and these are issues that are important to our community. She noticed they will be looking at some alternate locations. She knows that is difficult and he mentioned they were looking at available land. She stated that we do not have too much available land and she asked if there were certain times when they might say all the sewers converge here and this location might be the best and maybe they have to look at eminent domain or redevelopment of something.
Consultant Sands stated, from a planning perspective, they try to avoid those situations, but if Council wants them to broaden out they will look at other City-owned lots. He thinks a high level planning document can be pretty sensitive to identify specific parcels and propose something there when it is conceptual. They would not want to convey any sort of certainty with that.
Mayor Boles understands but she thinks, as we are looking at long-term planning and we have all this development potentially coming up, it might be good for them to know.
Consultant Sands agreed that they could be broad and he thought there were always opportunities for creativity. It is the rate payers that are using these services and paying for these services and they want to make sure it is something they are supportive of.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed and stated that is why we are acting on these questions.
She stated that we do not get to do this very often in Pacifica and that is why this is critical.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Boles attended OneShoreline, our San Mateo County flood and sea level rise resiliency district meeting, and they hired a consultant to work on guidance for all 20 cities in the County for resilient public infrastructure. She encouraged them to work with and talk with OneShoreline.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to adopt the resolution approving the agreement as stated in the packet; seconded by Vice Mayor Wright.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
9. Adoption of Resolution Ratifying Denial of Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision and Approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4- 24, Subject To Conditions, For The Construction of an Approximately 3,180-Square Foot (Sf) Single-Family Residence With An Approximately 668-Sf Attached Three-Car Garage And Associated Improvements On An Approximately 26,055-Sf, Undeveloped Lot Located Approximately 330 Feet East-Northeast Of The Intersection Of Rockaway Beach Avenue And Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550).
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Ratifying Denial of Appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s CEQA Determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 23, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave presented the staff report.
Mayor Boles stated, when the motion was made at the last meeting, she did not realize part of the motion was voting to deny the appeal. She knows Council did not deliberate on the conditions on the appeal items and they just went through the project questions and the COAs.
She stated staff confirmed that Council is allowed to deliberate tonight and, if that results in any changes to the resolution, that is something we can bring back to the next meeting. The other point she was confused about was the problems with the renderings and the plans. She heard the majority of Council ask for the renderings to be brought back and she thought they were coming to this meeting. If any Councilmembers feel that was important to their decision-making or understanding of the project, she wants to open that up again. She stated that City Attorney Kenyon specifically said we cannot use renderings to apply other conditions that are not objective. She thinks it is hard to understand these detailed grading plans and to know what they are approving and for the community to understand the project and its impact.
Councilmember Espinosa stated the applicant said the sloping grade is 49.23% and she saw a public comment saying that the building site is 56%. She visited the site and noticed that the property next to the driveway is in distress. She stated that there is another property on the other side with stress there. It is very steep, and she is concerned about the house next door to the driveway. The fence on the other side of the lot is tilting toward the driveway and she knows the people who own the house on the other side are concerned. She does not know much about the elevation and the grading but she does not know what the approval cutoff is.
Mayor Boles saw that public comment where the drawing said something but the geotechnical report said something else about the average slope. She does not think, other than HPD, we have a maximum slope by which they don’t approve projects, but she asked staff to confirm.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she was correct.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to clarify that what is before Council tonight is the potential resolution ratifying the denial of the appeal and the amended conditions of approval that were previously discussed. Her understanding is that the public hearing at the last meeting was closed and what is before Council tonight is whether or not to ratify that resolution with the amended conditions of approval that have been prepared by staff, not revisiting the project as a whole. It is whether or not this ratification for denial should be approved by Council and the conditions of approval meet the discussions previously made by Council. She emphasized that Council can deliberate on the item that is before Council as presented on the agenda. If Council wants to do something different besides the ratification for denial, Council can give direction to staff to bring back whatever it is that Council wants. She stated that tonight’s item is not intended to be a rehearing of the appeal.
Mayor Boles concluded that Council is allowed to talk to the appeal.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understands that there was going to be a discussion of what was before Council to decide whether it was adequate and whether the conditions of approval were as discussed previously. She stated that is what is before Council this evening. If Council does not want to accept the resolution that has been prepared or has issues with the conditions of approval that have been prepared by staff, Council can give direction to a first step to do something different and staff can bring back whatever Council desires.
Mayor Boles invited feedback from Councilmembers.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Bier agreed that it was so late and she is a little confused about what is before Council tonight and she thinks more clarification is needed. She is not ready to vote on a resolution ratifying the denial of the appeal.
Vice Mayor Wright stated his memory of what happened was that Council did deny the appeal and had asked staff to draft these conditions. Council voted to deny the appeal subject to having staff prepare the conditions they asked for.
Mayor Boles stated that is what happened and City Attorney Kenyon provided the language for the modified motion. Council had gotten through comments on the resolution and conditions of approval but not to any deliberation about the project and she did not understand that Council was denying the appeal as part of that motion.
Vice Mayor Wright stated it was late but he did understand it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she has the same recollection as Vice Mayor Wright with regard to the question of renderings. She is the one who brought it up and her concern was for the neighborhood to understand what is going to be and what it looks like, how high it is, how wide it is, and that is why she asked about renderings being distributed to the neighborhood.
She did not think the renderings were coming back here.
City Manager Woodhouse recalled that we were at the point of making detailed revisions to the conditions and it was too late to be able to do that at the moment and have Council consider that at the moment. Council wanted to look at those conditions with fresh eyes and that is what staff are bringing back. Concerning the renderings, he stated that there was discussion about that and, from his perspective, it was that renderings as the condition says would be created and distributed to the neighbors, but that is in the future. He does not think he would have been able to say they are going to continue this meeting to a date certain two weeks from now without consulting with the applicant about the development of renderings in time for this meeting. He would have said that we need to confirm with the applicant whether it is even feasible before we decide on a date.
Mayor Boles concluded Council’s interpretations were different from each other and from staff.
She would like to see new renderings, not just the driveway.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what views of elevations is she considering.
Mayor Boles referred to the line drawing model to show whether the drawings match the rendering.
Vice Mayor Wright also thought to put a gate at the bottom to break up the driveway as a way to address one of the concerns, but that is not for Council to decide. He wondered if, due to the late hour and excessive amount of work put into it, if Council did a disservice to this.
Mayor Boles did not think we gave the neighbors a fair shot.
Councilmember Espinosa knows the neighbors are concerned and, if we could make sure that, in every step of the building process, the neighbors can see that this process was done the way it was supposed to be done. She felt the same way and, if she lived next door, she would be very worried about her house.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 23, 2026
Mayor Bole asked if further conversations about the plans and building process need to come back to another meeting.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if the inspection report as we go through the process is the public document.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes someone could file a PRA request for job cards but was unsure what the process is while it is ongoing.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she believes that information would be available for the public if they wanted to make a public records request and if the City has that information.
Mayor Boles stated that Council can give some feedback on the COAs.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed.
Mayor Boles stated if we want to talk about other things in the project, like the appeal, we then need to bring this back.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding that Council can look at the conditions of approval that have been amended by staff and give any feedback, if Council desires. In terms of the resolution ratifying the denial of the appeal, Council does not have to take any action on that and Council can give staff direction to bring the appeal back for further consideration by Council.
Council voted to deny the appeal at the last meeting, but that was an indication of where Council was going to go with the appeal. This ratification of the resolution would make a final determination on the appeal. If Council does not want to do that, they can give different directions to staff.
Councilmember Bier apologized for the confusion from the last meeting.
Mayor Boles asked if she would like to bring it back.
Councilmember Bier stated she would.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we need to make sure not to go that late on these meetings.
Mayor Boles thought Council should honor the community by deliberating and understanding what it is that they are voting on.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he asked so many questions in order to condition the project in a way that would then make it palatable to him. His intent was to make the project safe for the neighbors in the conditions.
Mayor Boles heard the majority of Council say to bring this back with the renderings whenever that can happen. She asked if there were any other comments on the conditions of approval that have been brought back to them.
Vice Mayor Wright was pleased about the closer look at the magnolia tree.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Espinosa does not know how that tree can stay if they are going to have a driveway there.
Mayor Boles stated that the arborist is going to opine on what is written and bring that condition back up but what is written in the condition is that, if it cannot survive, they have to do a 2-1 tree replacement.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that, at the same time, these were conceptual plans not meant as builder’s sets or as specific as he thinks Council is wanting.
Mayor Boles stated that dimension matches but if the things do not work in dimension, they are not going to work later on.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that they need to make them work or the builder’s set will not get approved.
Mayor Boles stated COA 48 said no grubbing or tree removal shall take place prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, but you would need both.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that staff can add that. She stated that the building permit cannot be issued either ahead of the improvement agreement but it makes sense to have those noted with the grading and building permit noted here.
Mayor Boles referred to the rendering which showed a fence next to 125 Bay View. From her studying of the grades along that, it does not need a guard rail until it is 30 inches above ground. She thinks some kind of fence screening is important. She does not know if Council can add a condition that the applicant work with the neighbor at 125 Bay View to finalize the design for the guard rail/fence.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the fire access roadway and any improvement in that area needs to be reviewed and approved in coordination with North County Fire. She does not know about adding a requirement for a fence within that access. There is already a condition of approval for interdepartmentally to work with the applicant on improvements to that design. For adding something prescriptive, like a fence, she cannot speak to whether that is going to be approvable by Fire. She stated there are a lot of requirements that need to be met within there that Fire is working closely on. That includes surfacing, the ability to hold the weight of the truck, the surface material, the slope, any plantings, retaining walls, etc.
Mayor Boles stated that the 18 feet is clear and the curbs go up the two sides presumably so the fence will be on top of that curb and not within the fire access. She does not think it is a problem with Fire. Mr. Chavarria had stated that he would work with the neighbors and she wanted to encourage them to work with the residents who have been so impacted. The condition of approval could be written so anything the Fire Department would say would take priority.
Vice Mayor Wright stated we are looking at a good neighbor resolution to a visual obstruction.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we need good neighbors because, if a car is parked on the other side of the street, the fire truck could not get out of the driveway.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 23, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that we will have to paint the curbs red. She would like to see that as a condition. She felt it was important to try to be a good neighbor too.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated there were some public comments giving her great concern.
She recalled the conditions of approval being more aesthetic and impacting driving in the neighborhood. She asked about the condition of approval where the Planning Commission requested a bond for protection from dereliction, property destruction or abandoning. She asked what the purpose of the bond would be and whose interest is that bond in.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commission added a condition of approval related to what happens if they start the work on this project, what if they start grading, what if they put in a retaining wall, and then they abandon the project. They required an improvement agreement to make sure, if that were to happen that the project was abandoned, some site abatement or restoration work would happen in order to protect surrounding properties and to not leave an unfinished hole in the ground or whatever it may be.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to restoring property and thought of a scenario such as a drainage requirement for building this house that would impact the neighborhood if it is not completed. She asked Asst. City Attorney if there is a process by which the project can be conditioned to protect the neighbors.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that is what the Planning Commission did. He believes it was Planning Commissioner Hauser’s idea, and it was well placed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Community Development Director Updegrave read Condition No. 45 on packet page 723: “Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the
completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.”
Vice Mayor Wright asked why the first sentence ends in “and other related improvements” (like gravel and collection system) and the second sentence does not.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the first sentence provides a longer list and then, in parentheses says, “retaining wall improvements.” This means that, moving forward, that is how as referred to are defined.
Vice Mayor Wright concluded that it does include all the other things that make it safe.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that goes to the point that Councilmember Espinosa made about slopes. She referred to worries about incomplete construction of “retaining walls or slope disturbance” that would impact the neighbors’ properties. That is why she is asking this question.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 23, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave does not think we can get that detailed within this condition. This condition is meant to globally address the safety of the site, should construction stop midway. That is going to include whatever the factors are based on the state or condition.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it would be appropriate to add language like “around the perimeter” and she asked if they have to be more specific in the condition of approval.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she might ask Chair Hauser if she would like to speak to this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that the scope of the improvement agreement would address all of these issues. The improvement agreement is where we will have the details on what it includes and what the requirements are for the security and when the security gets implicated, such as when the City gets to pull down on the bond or pull down on the security to come in and make the improvements by the City if the project is abandoned, to make it safe.
Chair Hauser added that improvement agreements are a defined mechanism in our codes, Section 10-1-1007. It gives a detailed list of what is required and what the forms of the bonds are. The City would be the beneficiary of the bond. A surety would issue a bond that would be satisfactory to the City Engineer in the amount satisfactory to the City Engineer for performance and warranties. Grading, drainage and retaining walls are all included in it. She thinks it is already covered the way it is written but, if it would make Council more comfortable, they could add that. She pointed out that the Planning Commission added a different condition that requires that, biannually or a higher incidence to be determined by the City Engineer, all of the stormwater drainage features would be inspected and the property owner would be required to maintain them in a way that was satisfactory to the City. Erosion control and bonds would also cover that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she feels like Council wants to look at adding more specific language.
Mayor Boles agreed with Councilmember Beckmeyer about adding the words “retaining walls, drainage and other related improvements”.
City Clerk Coffey reminded Council that it is 10:11 PM and Council should decide whether they will complete this item tonight or extend the meeting beyond 11:00 PM.
Mayor Boles thought it will be coming back. She thought Council can complete the COAs.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if it is implied that we have permission to go on the applicant’s lot to deal with taking the bond money and fix it or is it written someplace that we have permission to their property and do work on their property.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that will all be part of the agreement. The agreement is where all the specificity is going to come in.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed.
PW Dep. Director Yip commented that the bond that is requested is fairly common, usually for larger developments. A subdivision improvement agreement is used in case a developer runs out of money and they abandon the project. There was a cash deposit in this case because of City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 23, 2026
the amount they could choose to do, and a cash deposit would be easy for the City to pull and do the improvements to stabilize the site and all the improvements they have done.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated stabilizing the site is the issue that she is concerned about.
She asked how we make the neighborhood is well taken care of and protected. She wants to make sure whatever we have in there covers that.
PW Dep. Director Yip thinks it is a valid point and he is in agreement to add the drainage into this condition 45 to be explicit to allow them to take in a security deposit or bond for that as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated that, especially in light of possible existing and/or inoperable drainage or storm drains.
Councilmember Bier added there have been problems with drainage all the way down to Rockaway Avenue. She felt it was a huge concern.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that the conditions not only apply to the neighbors next door but everyone around.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked how to make sure we encapsulate the scope of what we are talking about now in that relatively short language in the conditions of approval.
Mayor Boles stated this requires the completion of retaining walls and other related improvements, but hypothetically, if they start work, they build two retaining walls and then they decide to abandon the project, we do not necessarily want them to finish all the retaining walls.
We want them to restore the site to a safe condition. She wanted to make sure it does not lock them into a place where they are forced to build all the retaining walls that are identified as part of this project.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we will likely start with their subdivision improvement agreement that we normally use for larger developments and our goal is not to build the project but to stabilize the site. There is to be language in there that allows us to do that. The pulling of a bond and secure the project is not to finish the improvements for the next home but to stabilize the site.
Mayor Boles asked if we should change it so it does not say to require the completion of retaining walls or other necessary or optional sites for stabilization to leave the option open.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the security deposit is there so they have to give a full amount to build the retaining wall. They have a full bond for all the improvements, not just the retaining wall.
Mayor Boles asked what is our motion if we are finishing this but bringing the item back.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is hearing that a majority of Council wants to not take any action on the resolution ratifying the denial of the appeal. She stated Council can give direction to staff on what to bring back in the future for further consideration. It sounds like Council would be interested in considering and deliberating further on the actual appeal.
Mayor Boles added we would like to see two renderings updated, one of the driveway and one from the street view that were presented before.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 23, 2026
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that she wanted the neighborhood to all receive a rendering that shows them what the impact will be, including the driveway, red curb, etc..
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the red curbing is the right of the City within the right-of-way but is not something that the applicant does. The Fire Chief has not done the full review and identified where all of those things were going to be and the rendering for the next hearing would be speculation and not something within the applicant’s control.
Vice Mayor Wright recalled that Fire Marshall Wittner specifically stated he was not concerned about that.
Mayor Boles emphasized that the neighbors were concerned. She agreed that we cannot bring it back to the next meeting. She stated that Council added a condition that the neighbors would be shown the rendering before the building permit is issued and could add that the Fire Chief’s site plan showing the determination also be communicated.
Community Development Director Updegrave added that the red curbing is not part of the applicant so the condition of approval would be the City is required to provide notice.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano iterated that Council would be asking the applicant to do something that is unrelated to the application itself. That would be something on the City’s part, not the applicant’s part.
Mayor Boles concluded it is not appropriate to put that in a condition of approval.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding that it is not within the applicant’s control and they do not have any control over where the curb is painted red.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the City can make that determination whenever it wants to.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated what she is sensitive to on behalf of the neighborhood and what was expressed is the fact that the project is being built is what is triggering that to happen.
She wanted to know, if not the applicant’s responsibility but the City, how we notify the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Wright stated we are applying a different standard to the site but agreed with her about the concern regarding the neighbors.
Mayor Boles stated that, at some point, they can ask to see the building permit that are drawings. She stated that we are saying it is on the neighbors to find that information.
Councilmember Beckmeyer feels they will be keenly paying attention to this project.
Vice Mayor Wright asked about a timeframe on condition 45.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that she does not have the construction schedule in front of her and does not know if that has been worked out.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 23, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the building permit can get extended. He thinks the biggest concern here is the grading. On the erosion control plan, they are required to do work in the dry season. This is not a significant amount of work so they should be able to accomplish it in one summer.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what if they run out of money at the end of the summer and when does the City get the opportunity to step in and how do the neighbors know that winter is not coming and they are not protected.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that staff would have to look at the building permit closely on the extension as well as the improvement agreement and their timeframes in that. The City Engineer may not grant extensions on the permit and he can proceed to pull bond if he does not see progress on the project.
Vice Mayor Wright reiterated that, if in the opinion of the City Engineer, if there is risk or hazard to the neighbors, the City Engineer will have the ability to take the money out of the bond and get the City to execute on making the neighbors safe.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the improvement agreement for this is to ensure that they do the retaining wall, the grading and the drainage. It is not about the safety. If they exceed timeframes on this improvement agreement, that is when the City can take action and try to pull bond or take security deposit so we can stabilize the site. If they are out there and they are not safe, then it is a building permit code enforcement issue that we can give them stop work notices.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that does not solve the problem, as we need those walls built in order to make sure the downhill neighbors are safe in the event of impending rains. That was the root of his question, i.e., what happens in the event that they are not getting that work done in time and what is the timeframe and who is the decider of when rains are coming and they are not safe.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated one concern could be they have exposed and stockpiled dirt and they will have to cover it up if getting into the winter season. Specifically you do not do grading operations in the wintertime because it will require so much work to get that work done. That is why there is a note in the erosion control plan to do this during the summertime. He believes the single-family home can be accomplished in the summertime. However, if not, staff would tell them that they have to stabilize the site for the winter to prevent erosion impacts on the neighbors.
Community Development Director Updegrave asked for clarification on what information is being requested on the updated renderings. The previous hearing two weeks ago iterated that objective design standards are not evaluated based on renderings. Renderings are a visual tool but compliant objective standards is based on the actual plan. She needs to be clear on the revised renderings and what that is tied to in regards to an objective standard that the City has adopted for Council’s decision-making.
Vice Mayor Wright stated his consideration would be on the driveway pitch safety because of the fall and wanting to consider the obstructions.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the safety considerations are going to be based on the plans and not the renderings.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 23, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that is not an objective standard.
Mayor Boles stated Council needs to see the renderings and the plan match. She felt it impacts the conditions of approval, etc., that Council might want to opine on and are having a hard time visualizing now.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reiterated that the renderings are not final specific detailed plans.
They are artistic depictions of what is expected to occur at the site. Comparing the two may not be the right approach because the plans are always going to be the more specific tool by which things are measured. Those would be the standards by which the project is reviewed.
Mayor Boles agreed, adding that she thinks the renderings need to show the construction accurately on the site. She read the plans and noticed the renderings are wrong. She stated it is not fair to be giving these complicated drawings to the decision makers who are not able to read those drawings. The renderings help Council understand what is in the plans.
Vice Mayor Wright stated Council wants to understand what reality is going to be.
Mayor Boles stated that the Planning Commission also asked for story poles. The applicant said they were going to try and they could not because there were potential grading issues.
Community Development Director Updegrave asked if Council is looking for the same renderings but checked for accuracy of the elevations and the landscaping.
Mayor Boles added, if there are significant trees they are planting as part of the screening, that would be helpful, as well as driveway, curbs, swales, etc. to understand the impact to neighbors.
Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that story poles came up in public comment but was not something that was requested or required by Planning Commission. She needs to understand that the renderings are information needed to assess objective standards as part of the decision-making. Otherwise, she has concerns about continuing the hearing for information not used to assess the objective standards. The previous hearing was very explicit about what information needs to be on the revised rendering and what they are tied to in terms of the objective standard for the project. This is the fourth hearing and the continuation will be the fifth and final hearing where Council has to take action.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks there have to be some objective basis to require the renderings. Staff want to make sure they understand what Council is directing them to go back to applicant to see if they can provide those renderings. Stating that it helps Council understand the scope of the project does not tie the rendering to an objective standard.
Mayor Boles stated she does not have a list of the objective standards.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano referred to the previously mentioned discrepancy in the plans.
Mayor Boles stated that the previous driveway rendering was wrong with the grading plans. It showed a retaining wall that was much higher than what was there. It was a matter of height and relationship of the construction on the grades. She also knows the City does not have jurisdiction regarding retaining walls that are related to Fire Department access, but there are other retaining walls that are part of the site grading close to the setback lines.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 23, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the submittal requirements broadly include perspective renderings and it does not require information like landscaping, swales, etc. but she is hearing that there are inaccuracies in the elevation renderings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the driveway and asked how high is it, how steep is it, etc. in regards to objective standards. Council wants to give people a sense of what is going to happen to the best of their ability.
Community Development Director Updegrave reiterated updated renderings from the street and the driveway, including the windows.
Mayor Boles stated windows, guardrail, curb height, protection for cars falling off the driveway, actual height of the retaining wall, etc.
Councilmember Bier appreciated how Councilmember Beckmeyer explained all that as that is exactly how she has been feeling. She wants to make sure we have every bit of information we can give to the community, and while it is frustrating she feels she has to do her due diligence.
Councilmember Espinosa thought the project is not straightforward.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano recognized that Council closed the public hearing for the appeal at the February 9 meeting but we have gone a bit beyond in discussing conditions of approval and the renderings. She recommended opening public comment on those specific issues with the understanding that Council is going to give direction to have this come back for further deliberation on the appeal and she assumes there will be an opportunity for public comment at that appeal hearing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 PM; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
Vice Mayor Wright clarified whether Council is conditioning the project and/or denying the appeal.
Mayor Boles stated Council will discuss the appeal at the next meeting and continue that.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Vera Toth-Fejel, Pacifica, asked Council to look at the slope again as it looks like the objective information turned in is different, as well as the driveway width and where it is for a fire truck coming in without things going to her property completely.
Susan Woo, Pacifica, referred to the different driveways in two renderings and shared her concerns and thoughts for safety for everyone in the area, just as Council has mentioned.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 23, 2026
Mayor Boles closed public comments. She stated that one request was to confirm the actual slopes, as the drawings differ from the geotechnical report. She asked that staff look at that and confirm the numbers are correct.
Vice Mayor Wright believed he asked that question of the geotechnical engineer at the last meeting, who explained the way he makes those determinations and represented that the number was, in fact, correct.
Councilmember Bier asked about the point of it being equal distance between houses.
Mayor Boles stated that we asked the applicant to look at moving the driveway to the north to see if they can give a little bit more space. However, that would require going back to the easement discussion with the other neighbors.
Community Development Director Updegrave added that it would also require additional review by North County Fire. North County Fire and the applicant have been working on this design and there is a condition of approval on the building permit but, at this point, changing the representation on the plan to reflect a potential shift in that would require the review of the Fire Department for feasibility.
Vice Mayor Wright believed this was where the good neighbor discussion came in at the last meeting.
Mayor Boles stated that it is a condition of approval to try to move the driveway but Council might not have that decision and it would need to be reviewed by Fire. She thinks that is not something we can ask for.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed with Director Updegrave that staff have clear direction on the renderings and confirmed that there are three councilmembers who support that direction.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated what she has for the street view renderings from Rockaway and Bay View is to ensure the accurate height of the new building, driveway, and retaining wall from each view. She added a revised driveway rendering with an accurate slope, as well as retaining walls, guardrails, curb on the driveway going up the hill, and windows.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated on packet page 803, you can see cross sections of that driveway and it has a curb and retaining wall.
Mayor Boles stated she pointed out that to the Fire Marshall as that reduced the 18-foot width, but it is not showing in the rendering and she thought it would be helpful to all of them.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano concluded that a Council majority supports that direction. The other direction staff has is to bring the appeal back for further deliberation by Council and that can be a motion to a date uncertain. She thought we would have to agendize it as a new hearing.
Community Development Director Updegrave recommends continuing to a date certain to avoid further delay of action on the housing development project.
Mayor Boles called a break and then reconvened the meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 23, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave spoke with the applicant who felt the information being requested goes beyond the capabilities of their model, which is based on a survey of the site. The additional details being requested would require some type of surveying of the surrounding area and surrounding houses. She stated that the renderings are focused on the site and it is not something they can necessarily produce based on the information they have.
Mayor Boles asked if we can limit the amount of information outside the site. She thinks the important things are the windows at 125 Bay View.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the windows sounded like they were okay but the additional renderings from the street view have been provided as accurately as possible with the tools they have based on the site survey. She thinks the point was that they are accurately depicted as shown. If an additional level of detail and the accuracy is what is being required, then they need to do surveying of adjacent lots to include in the modeling.
Mayor Boles does not think Council is asking for that. She thinks to show the retaining walls and curbs on the driveway accurately, the windows is enough for the driveway elevation as well as the height of the walls. She asked at the last meeting to see a bird’s eye view of the model.
She wants to see the house on the site in three dimensions to verify the massing on the site in relation to the grading.
Mayor Boles open public comments again.
Mr. Chavarria stated he would like to clarify the different aspects that they are talking about. He stated that the driveway itself is no problem if they are focusing on the driveway and two adjacent walls. He was concerned when it was mentioned that the houses did not represent exactly what the house looked like. Those were placeholders, as they do not have a survey of the adjacent properties. They have accurate information of the driveway and their site and they can easily prepare a 3D review of the property from the top, but cannot show all the neighborhood around. They can provide a bird’s eye view of the building alone, in addition to a depiction of the driveway with a proper retaining wall and showing the wall of the adjacent building with the window properly located. He thinks they mentioned to verify the view from Rockaway Beach. The way they created that view, they took one elevation point at Rockaway.
They took a photo and, based on the coordinates of that point, they superimposed buildings on that area. That is as accurate as they get now.
Mayor Boles stated that Council is not asking them to hire anyone professionally but to use what they have in their capability. There were sections that she highlighted at the last meeting, i.e. a section through the ADU that had the neighbor’s house next door where they had grade points of the neighbor’s roof, etc. That is what she is looking for, i.e. to make sure the house is in the same general height as the neighbor’s house because that is what the numbers are in their sections and elevations.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they only have the location of those retaining walls. They remotely measured with the surveying instruments the heights of the building because they did not have access to the adjacent property. He also referred to some confusion regarding the slope of the site. The Municipal Code, the HPD area, has a very specific way to measure the slope: It requires to measure the length of all the contours as it goes on the property and divide that by the area. The traditional way to measure a slope is the difference of elevation between two points and divide that by the length. That is why you may get different elements. What they are City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 23, 2026
representing in the plans is what the Municipal Code calls for. When the survey was done, there were over 500 points of elevation they were taking over the site and those were used to generate contours. Then those contour lengths added throughout the site and divided by the area is what gives them the slope.
Mayor Boles added that it is an average slope.
Mr. Chavarria responded affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated staff have directions on the renderings based on what the applicant indicated they can provide and what staff also discussed was a date uncertain for potentially bringing it back for deliberations on the appeal.
Councilmember Bier moved to continue deliberations on the appeal at a future date uncertain; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
CONTINUE DELIBERATIONS ON THE APPEAL TO A DATE UNCERTAIN RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to AB 1708, which is better access to funding for unhoused for cities of our size (under 300,000 residents) and they are looking for letters of support.
Mayor Boles asked the City Manager regarding the letter of support. Now she is not so certain because the money goes through the County and then goes through the City. Council can consider that.
Mayor Boles shared that OneShoreline approved sending out our application for offshore reefs to the Department of Boating and Waterways.
Vice Mayor Wright wished his wife a happy birthday.
Mayor Boles also shared that Goal Setting is on March 7 at 9:00am.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse reiterated that Goal Setting is on March 7 and provided general information about location and public comment period.
ADJOURN
Mayor Boles adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 23, 2026
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 5/11/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor