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 April 13, 2026
April 13, 2026 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Christine Boles called the meeting to order on April 13, 2026 at 6:03 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Boles called the meeting to order at 6:03 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: Yulia Carter, Interim City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Daniel Patten, Interim PW Dep. Director (Wastewater); Lucy Xie, Dep. Finance Director; Zach Harris, Human Resources Manager; Stephanie Douglas, PB&R Dep. Director; Stephanie Coy, Financial Analyst; Craig Wittner, Acting Fire Marshall; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep.
City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Boles read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 13, 2026
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation: Carole Tollefson (Retirement)
Mayor Boles read a proclamation honoring the retirement of Carol Tollefson as property clerk in the Police Department.
Police Chief Sarasua honored Ms. Tollefson by sharing the department’s respect for her dedication to the department and our community.
Ms. Tollefson appreciated working for 30 years and felt Pacifica’s Police Department was the best. She looked forward to volunteering and seeing everyone in Pacifica.
Councilmember Bier agreed that when we live in Pacifica, we love Pacifica and serve Pacifica and that is what Ms. Tollefson did. She appreciates all Ms. Tollefson did.
Vice Mayor Wright stated it is the dedication, sense of duty, and integrity that has helped make Pacifica the third safest city. We are lucky to benefit from the service of her last 30 years and he thanks her from the bottom of his heart for being there for all of us.
Councilmember Beckmeyer emphasized Ms. Tollefson’s grace and generosity. She thanked her for what she has given and will continue to give to our Police Department and our City.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked her for being a public servant for this community. She stated that 30 years speaks for itself and she thanked her on behalf of our community.
Mayor Boles saw at the retirement event that everyone loves her. She also said Ms. Tollefson’s husband must look forward to seeing her more after she retires and travels. She mentioned that Ms. Tollefson worked with eight police chiefs, going back to the Little Brown Church.
There were no public comments.
B. Proclamation: Volunteer Appreciation Month - April 2026 Mayor Boles read a proclamation honoring Volunteer Appreciation Month in April 2026.
PB&R Dep. Director Douglas thanked Council for this proclamation honoring all our volunteers across the City. She shared several of the adult and youth volunteer programs and shared gratitude for the impact volunteers make in our community.
Mayor Boles asked about details for the upcoming volunteers appreciation dinner coming up.
Dep. Director Douglas stated that PB&R has 120 volunteers and the special event for them is on April 29 at the Community Center.
Councilmember Bier stated that our City could not work without them and she thanked them so much. It is the heart of Pacifica and they see it everywhere.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that it is great that Pacifica is this way. It is people helping people, building community, and having the City able to help pull those people together to build that community that makes us stronger and better.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 13, 2026
Councilmember Espinosa knows they do not do what they do for recognition and she sees their work everywhere. She thought Pacifica would not be the same without them and all their work.
Council is always interviewing people for committees and commissions and sees so many with talent and willingness to put time into working for the City.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought of volunteers as Pacifica’s superpower. She started with volunteering in her professional and political careers, and she suggested being mindful of the hours they are spending and what they are doing, and for all of us, the more we do, the more we learn, and the more we want to do and give to help.
Mayor Boles stated it is wonderful to interview everyone for our committees and commissions, and everyone wants to give back and is grateful to live in this beautiful community. She added that she, Vice Mayor Wright, and Interim City Manager Carter are planning an overall City volunteer appreciation picnic later in the year.
There were no public comments.
C. Presentation - The San Francisco Peninsula's 2025 - 2028 Strategic Plan Mayor Boles introduced John Hutar and Nova Maldonado who are making a presentation on the San Francisco Peninsula’s 2025-2028 Strategic Plan.
John Hutar, President and CEO of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau, presented the San Francisco Peninsula’s 2025-2028 Strategic Plan.
Councilmember Espinosa asked for his thoughts on the best area of Pacifica for tourism.
Mr. Hutar stated that are so many stories to be told and referenced Pacifica’s proximity to San Francisco, long-established restaurants, and the pier.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referenced a phrase coined by former Councilmember Sue Digre:
“Our environment is our economy.” She considered Pacifica to be the recreation capital of San Mateo County with surfing, hiking, walking, swimming, pickleball and all the outdoor activities, including the golf course. She also thanked them for including historical resources, such as Sanchez Adobe, the Council Chambers, the Little Brown Church that is now the Coastside Museum and soon to be our railcar from the original Ocean Shore Railroad, and the Pedro Point Fire House. She also mentioned the murals in Pacifica. She thanked them for bringing attention to our community.
Mr. Hutar thanked her for all that feedback which they definitely will incorporate it.
Councilmember Bier thanked him, stating that any way we are able to partner and collaborate and work with them is very important. She thanked them for all the attention they are bringing to Pacifica. She stated that we have an Economic Development Committee and it would be great for them to understand the work SF Peninsula is doing.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked them so much for all they do and he sees them in our community actively promoting us all the time. He felt that it has been a pleasure to work with all of them.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 13, 2026
Mayor Boles thanked them for being here now and educating us all about the work they do for Pacifica and the rest of the peninsula. She stated that we will be getting a presentation from them later this year about our Hotel BID and the advertising as part of an official contract for that marketing and she thanked them for that work. She mentioned at a meeting with the Peninsula Healthcare District last week that they discussed blue zones as a way to build community health and longevity, etc., and she thinks Pacifica is a great example because of all we have to offer for health and wellness in our businesses, restaurants, trails, and other activities.
Mayor Boles opened public comment.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, shared her knowledge and past experiences with SF Peninsula members and expressed excitement at working with them.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, thanked them for all the work they are doing. He thanked Sue Digre for her many comments that our environment is our economy, thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer mentioning the coastal trail, and added focus on the Bay Area Ridge trail.
Javier Chavarria, Pacifica, thanked SF Peninsula for their efforts, input, and improvements to Pacifica. He shared his positive work experiences with SF Peninsula members in the City.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Boles stated that she would pull the minutes and staff will review for corrections.
City Clerk Coffey confirmed that Item #2 will be continued to the next meeting.
City Clerk Coffey read a correction into the record regarding the resolution for Item #7, the Esplanade Full Trash Capture Device Project: The title should say “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Services Agreement with GSW Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,104,580.00, authorizing a budget authority in the amount of $1,270,267.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; authorizing staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and authorizing the City Manager to sign Contract documents related to the Esplanade Full Trash Capture Device Project”. The body should further be corrected to state “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved […] authorizes a budget authority in the amount of $1,270,267.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts…” (from 14% to 15%).
There were no public comments.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Item #2, with Item #7 as amended; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 13, 2026
APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #2, ITEM #7 AS AMENDED) RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
1. Approval of Disbursements for 3/1/26 through 3/31/26 PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of March 2026.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the February 9, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.
5. Adoption of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Municipal Pooling Authority and Appointing Members to the Board of Directors.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution:
1) Approving the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Municipal Pooling Authority for providing Property, Workers' Compensation, Public Liability, and other insurance coverages, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement; and
2) Appointing the Primary and Alternate Members to the Board of Directors for Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California.
6. Amendment to the Agreement with the County of San Mateo for Continued Provision of Animal Control Services for an Additional Three Years from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amendment to the Agreement with the County of San Mateo and twenty cities in the County for Continued Provision of Animal Control Services to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three years from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029.
7. Award of Construction Contract for the Esplanade Full Trash Capture Device Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Services Agreement with GSW Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,104,580.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $1,270,267.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fourteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 13, 2026
Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related to the Esplanade Full Trash Capture Device Project.
8. Approval of Consultant Services for FY 2027-28 Pavement Resurfacing Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Approving the Consultant Services Agreement with NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $201,600 for the FY 2027-28 Pavement Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $222,000 which includes a 10% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Joaquin Jimenez, Half Moon Bay, stated that he is the former mayor of Half Moon Bay and he was running for County Supervisor of District 3. He shared his reasons for running, including food production and food security on the coast.
Lynda Conlan, Pacifica, stated she is former Pilates instructor of Pacifica Beach Yoga Studio and shared her concerns about community safety and accountability due to hateful comments and legal violations done by her previous employer.
Kelli Sandoval, Pacifica, stated she is former Yoga teacher at Pacifica Beach Yoga Studio and shared her concerns about community safety and health and wellness due to hateful comments made by her previous employer.
Yanan Sun, Pacifica, stated she was representing Marbella Lane Corporation, a licensed operator at 1987 Beach Blvd. She stated that they have responded to every neighbor complaint received and have followed all rules in protecting the neighboring community and asked Council to address the harassment they have been experiencing.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated he is following up on his previous comment on trails and shared his concerns about a safety issue along Highway One.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared positive benefits of the implementation of the STR ordinance, i.e., several STR homes have been put on sale for full-time residents. She also asked Council to work with Coastal Commission to expand the STR ordinance into the coastal zone.
Pete Adams, Pacifica, stated that they are the homeowners of 1989 Beach Blvd. and shared concerns about issues connected with 1987 Beach Blvd. He stated that several concerns had not been addressed by the neighboring STR and described difficulties living beside them.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, shared concerns about unhosted STRs in the City, including noise, constant visitors, lack of accountability, and loss of stability in neighborhoods. She expressed need for action now regarding 1987 Beach Blvd. and urged Council to work with Coastal Commission to expand the STR ordinance into the coastal zone.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, described the constant problems that 1987 Beach Blvd. has caused in their neighborhood, including trespassing, removal of property, vandalism, illegal dumping, and defacement for the past four years.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 13, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s CEQA determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24 for construction of an approximately 3,180-square foot single-family residence with an approximately 668-square foot attached three-car garage and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet eastnortheast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022- 062-550). (1.5 hrs)
PROPOSED ACTION: Deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution; and, incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Community Development Director Updegrave presented the staff report.
Mayor Boles invited the appellant team to speak / present up to three minutes.
Vera Toth-Fejel, appellant, focused on summary of areas that have not been addressed by the applicant and builders, i.e., the driveway and code violation. The new rendering shows a strip of grass that puts more pressure onto 125 Bay View so they would request the applicant come back with a more appropriate rendering. They emphasized the need for the appropriate measure to ensure the drawings are accurate and the retaining walls are put up to Code.
Another area that has not been addressed is air quality and environmental standards, as well as the initial CEQA study that was requested but not done. The City has conducted no air quality analysis, no Bay Area quality measurement threshold, and no mitigation measures for air quality. She reiterated that they are not against the project and urged Council to send it back to Planning Commission for an appropriate legal review.
Mayor Boles invited applicant representative Javier Chavarria to speak / present for up to three minutes.
Javier Chavarria, applicant, stated he was speaking for applicants, Mr. Robert Benda and John Spenker. He stated that the renderings are visual aids, not construction documents, and are accurate from the topography and imagery point of view. They believe they have complied with all aspects required for the project and the project has been deemed adequate from multiple reputable sources. He understands and appreciates the concerns of the neighbors and shares those concerns of doing a project that will be beneficial for everyone and believes that the applicant has done everything they have been asked to do. He stated that they have prepared a set of documents that are ready to be moved forward to the building permit phase.
Mayor Boles invited Council questions of the applicant or appellant.
Mayor Boles thought there was confusion by the neighbors about the driveway and retaining wall on the right side of the driveway. She referred to the rendering and expressed that the neighbors were concerned that the construction of the driveway might affect some of the existing construction, either the path or the house. She asked Mr. Chavarria if he can speak to that in general and refer to his site sections.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 13, 2026
Mr. Chavarria stated there were no retaining walls on the right side of the driveway along the house, only a curb ranging between six inches and 12 inches in some sections to create a degree of separation between the driveway and adjacent property. The driveway starts getting lower than the grade as it goes further back so there is a 3 1/2 foot retaining wall at the very back of 125 Bay View where it intercepts the property at issue. Along the side of the existing residence, there is no retaining wall.
Mayor Boles concluded the driveway itself is at grade all along the house. There is no retaining wall in the driveway, just a curb to keep the wheels and water from going off. She appreciated him showing the windows in the house. She also asked Planning Commission Chair Hauser about whether the project needed CEQA review.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser stated that was one of the questions at the continued Planning Commission hearing and was one of the reasons they continued it. Staff and City Attorney did a full analysis on that and came back with information. Her understanding was that it was hard to say that this site has peculiar circumstances, based on our General Plan map, when everything surrounding it is an existing single-family home and this is the true definition of the type of exemption that staff analyzed was appropriate.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is correct that the single-family home is subject to a Category 3 exemption under CEQA, but the Planning Commission had originally asked if there was an exception to that exemption; that exception says if there are unusual circumstances, the exemption would not apply. They went through the analysis, provided confidential memos to both Planning Commission and Council outlining their analysis, and their analysis concluded that the unusual circumstances exception did not apply and the exemption applies. When the exemption applies, there is no CEQA review as it is categorically exempt.
Mayor Boles added that air quality would only be analyzed if CEQA review was required.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Community Development Director Updegrave added that there are air quality requirements for construction, demolition, and earth work, so there is a standard condition of approval included in this project that the applicant will prepare the dust control plan per the State standards.
Mayor Boles concluded that there was some protection for the neighbors.
Community Development Director Updegrave responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boles referred to the site sections on page 372 and asked if Mr. Chavarria could explain the drawing on the top right where it shows the existing house to show where the driveway is in relation to the grade and curb.
Mr. Chavarria stated that there are curb sections and the first section is cut 17 feet from the curb. On the left side, they have a retaining wall that is approximately 3 feet high and that is facing the driveway to the left. To the right, there is a 6-inch retaining wall and a 6-inch curb.
As they are moving up the driveway, there is another section 3 feet up that is the same condition as the first one. The image on the right side is 80 feet from the curb, a little over the back of the existing house of 125 Bay View. At that point, the driveway meets the existing grade. The rear yard is where the grade starts going up a little bit. He stated the upper right side at the grade of the rear yard of 125 Bay View is a little taller than the proposed driveway City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 13, 2026
because the driveway is maintaining the slope that is required by the Fire Department. They have about an 18-inch retaining wall on the right side. At the rear property line of 125 Bay View, there is a 4-foot tall retaining wall between the neighbor’s yard and the proposed driveway. In no condition is the driveway higher than the existing grade. At all the specific areas, the driveway is equal to the existing grades or lower than the existing grades.
Mayor Boles concluded that there is nothing that undermines the house or construction next door because where they are building these taller retaining walls is the open space backyard.
She referred to packet page 370 and confirmed that 120 feet wide and 70 feet deep are the required dimensions by the Fire Department for those turnarounds.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the intent of the dashed line was to represent the dimensions of the fire turnaround. That area is going to be no parking area and the hatched area is a representation of the minimum requirement for a fire truck to turn around.
Mayor Boles stated, besides cars, there should not be construction that encroaches that. She referred to the existing chain link fence and stated the dash line going beyond the retaining wall is something to be adjusted in their construction drawings to meet this clearance requirement.
Mr. Chavarria agreed.
Mayor Boles wanted to get that in the record to make sure that the Fire Department was aware when they are reviewing these drawings in the final round. She then opened public comments.
Gregg Jones, Pacifica, shared his concerns regarding safety and construction on his project, including the required dimensions of the fire turnaround and the impact on the trees. He also shared past examples that argued driveways are structures as built on the ground and requires a 5-foot setback. He was also concerned about large trucks coming in and out during construction and asked who would be responsible for natural disasters.
Carol Fregly, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the history of this project and warned about potential safety hazards from trucks coming in and out during construction, possible lawsuits from property damage, etc.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated his sympathy goes to the neighbors who may become collateral damage during the project construction.
Jon Honeth, Pacifica, shared his concerns regarding the specific classification of the project, stated the categorical exemptions would not apply to the project due to findings in the geotechnical report, and argued that the driveway was a structure.
Susan Woo, Pacifica, stated this house is not built right and will affect a lot of people, especially regarding trucks coming in and out during construction, and raised issues with the steepness and safety of the driveway.
Gigi Chow, Pacifica, asked if there are any soil runoffs or erosion issues from the construction if the applicant would be responsible and if there was documentation to show they will have sufficient funds in escrow to cover such costs.
Frances Flannery, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the setbacks between the project site and the southern house and wondered if someone can address that.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 13, 2026
Julie Vest, Pacifica, stated that she had two letters from neighbors of the project and read aloud their opposition to the project, including concerns of public safety and impact on open space and natural beauty.
Mayor Boles closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boles stated that Council has to review the appeal issues raised and any other concerns about the project under the de novo hearing. She referred to the appeal conditions starting on packet page 335. She asked if anyone has general questions.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she has a question about the setbacks because the Code does not say anything about driveways and it is like a loophole that does not address if a driveway is considered a structure. If it is, it will have to have the setbacks like the other one in the front, rear and side of whatever structure is put in. She would like to know where in the Code it excludes driveways from setbacks.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are no setback requirements for driveways so parking access and design standards are in Article 28 which talks about the location of parking, the width of driveways, etc. The City does not apply setbacks to driveways.
Councilmember Espinosa feels the Code needs to be reviewed to address that. She thinks that is why this project is taking so long as everything is an exception and we do not have a clear understanding of what is the right thing to have. She stated she drove to this property and this driveway is right at the edge and there might be an encroachment there.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated there are no setback requirements for driveways, as it is not in the Code. In terms of the driveway width, the fire access standard is 20 feet. The Fire Code has provisions that allow for various exceptions. In exchange for the reduced width, they provided a hammer head turnaround.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated, regarding the driveway, typically, the minimum fire apparatus access is 20 feet. In the jurisdictions throughout the state and country, it is routine to reduce those widths for single-family dwelling driveways because of the use of the space of a single-family dwelling lot and the lower hazard classification. If we look at the minimum construction standards for San Mateo County, it is common to reduce that minimum 20-foot width to less than 20. In this case, they felt like reduction to 18 feet was reasonable plus the applicants proposed and are going to provide a grooved concrete driveway at substantial expense with a full fire department hammer head turnaround which provides them adequate Code compliant access for the project.
Councilmember Espinosa wanted to make sure everyone understands that this is an exception to the 20 feet and we are making accommodations for this project.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner reiterated that they make accommodations on a case-by-case basis on numerous projects. He stated that, once the plans are submitted officially for construction, these will not only be checked and reviewed for Code compliance thoroughly but also subject to field verification.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 13, 2026
Mayor Boles asked if Fire allowing a different driveway width that is reduced per the normal Code is not something we would approve as a variance as that is within the Fire Code, whereas variances are typically granted to Planning Code, Municipal Ccode, etc.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated, in this case, they used what the law allows for in Chapter 1 of the California Fire Code, similar to the Building Code, state regulations on alternate means and methods. If you cannot comply with a prescriptive requirement of the Code, you are allowed to propose an alternative or performance-based method and, if that method is reviewed and determined to be an equivalent to, they would generally accept that.
Mayor Boles stated her understanding is that the distance between property line to the home at 125 Bay View is 4.75 feet. The retaining wall in the driveway can be built up to that 4.75 feet because that is all on their property.
Community Development Director Updegrave responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier stated the whole issue is the driveway and she would not want that driveway to be built next to her house. She questions why it would be built that way.
Mayor Boles stated that she looked at other cities’ Codes and even San Bruno requires a 5-foot setback for the driveway from the property line. She mentioned a lot of cleanup in our current codes and that is something they can consider. She thinks this is where we do not have something in the Code that we can point to that would prohibit that. She added that we made it clear in Council’s last deliberation that the fire access does need to be 18 feet wide, and that is part of what needs to be sorted out with the agreement and the easement. That was something between the applicant and that property owner at the other house.
Vice Mayor Wright referred to Tree No. 1, the magnolia tree at the bottom of the driveway on the neighbor’s property and asked Community Development Director Updegrave to speak to that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Council discussed that tree at a prior hearing and added a Condition of Approval that would require, if it does need to be removed, that it be replaced at a 2-1 ratio consistent with our Tree Protection Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, in terms of the liability piece for any potential damage caused by the construction project, how is that typically handled.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there is a standard Condition of Approval related to repair of roadways, sidewalks, etc., that are damaged. The Planning Commission added a condition requiring a video survey of the existing improvements in the area to provide visual documentation of the existing condition.
Vice Mayor Wright asked how many Conditions of Approval there are.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes 48.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there are any community concerns that have not been addressed through conditions.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she looks for Council to decide.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 13, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright thinks we have attempted to address each and every one of them through the conditioning of the project. In terms of legal liability, in the event we deny this appeal, what are the legal consequences.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks there are serious implications and legal exposure if Council moves forward with denial, but that is always within Council’s authority to deny.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there were any objective standards.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser concluded the question referred to if the project comports with our Objective Design Standards. She thinks, by virtue of the fact that staff has recommended approval and Planning Commission has recommended approval, if there were any standards that were thought of as not being met, by definition, those would be subjective because there would be a disagreement between Council, staff, and Planning Commission.
She thinks case law supports that. For the Objective Design Standards, she thinks what is in the Municipal Code has been analyzed and the project comports with those standards.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked Planning Commission, staff, and the public for bringing all these issues to Council’s attention.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the condition that Council placed regarding drainage.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is Condition No. 45, and it was added by the Planning Commission to require an improvement agreement with the City to ensure that construction would not leave the site unprotected. In Condition No. 45, Council added the word “drainage” to ensure that it was included.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that condition is about returning to the best of the ability if the project is abandoned. She referred to concerns regarding impact to other neighbors.
She asked if Chair Hauser can address from the Planning Commission’s standpoint and, with building projects like this, what is the insurance for the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser stated that an improvement agreement is something that is defined in our Municipal Code. It would be recorded on the property and would happen as a condition prior to any of the gradings and construction starting. The reason the Planning Commission thought this was an appropriate form of agreement is because of the securities required. There are bonds required in case construction stops or there is a safety concern where the City has to call the bonds and go in and complete the work. If you look in our Municipal Code, at the end of the work, those bonds are replaced with a warrantee bond and that warrantee bond is what lasts beyond to make sure, from a time standpoint, that the improvements are done properly. That is all in Section 10-1 of our Code under improvement securities.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that would address retaining walls and asked if it would address any improvements for site drainage.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser stated that it does with Council’s insertion of the word “drainage”.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if there is something Council missed. She knows 48 Conditions of Approval is a lot. She acknowledged that we cannot do a setback because it is City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 13, 2026
not part of that Code and cannot deal with the driveway any other way as it is not part of the Building Code but part of Fire Code.
Vice Mayor Wright referred to the trench drain at the bottom of the driveway where all the water rushing down the driveway and asked if it is collected up and put into the stormwater system, rather than shooting down the hill.
Mayor Boles stated another thing the Planning Commission widely added was maintenance of some of the drainage capturing devices. She stated that it is a steep site and she wants to professionally explain to everybody that, with a project like this, you have to hire a geotechnical engineer. Because she works in this profession, she explained that whenever they get a geotechnical engineer involved, these professionals have their own liability insurance and theirs are some of the highest around because of potential issues and liability. They tend to be conservative in the design criteria that they put on a project and you will find that the project will be very expensive to build because they are involved and because of the extra safety factor. It is not just how the project is designed but the geotechnical engineer has to be on site for inspections and has to sign off to the City. She is not worried about that and thinks the other caveat about the drainage is that it has to be less than it is now; it needs to be managed and disbursed and will hopefully help the drainage issues and cracks to retaining walls. She encouraged everyone to take pictures of everything they have on site now before the project starts so they have something to point to if they see changes. The architect engineer also has liability insurance and is usually a seven-year protection and the homeowners should have insurance if their property does damage to others. She added that it seems dangerous on these steep hillsides and we have a lot of rain coming this winter. She asked staff if there is typically a grading moratorium and grading work is not allowed to happen in the rainy season. If this is approved tonight, they still will need to get their building permit and how does the grading moratorium on such a steep site fit into actual start of construction.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the grading moratorium from the Chief Building Official occurs from October 1 through April. There are situations where the Chief Building Official may allow for a grading permit to still be issued and there are circumstances behind that, but if they were to try to start construction during this time for all the grading, it would not be allowed to try to progress through the entire grading activities throughout this time frame. It would be more like conducting grading all through the summer. There may be things we want to allow them to proceed in windows to button up the site to prepare for the winter. Even the applicant’s plan has shown that they want to do the grading, as there is a note on their plans saying that grading is to be conducted during the summer season.
Mayor Boles stated he mentioned that it is not typical to grant exceptions to the grading moratorium on steeper sites.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, adding, in general, that is not something that the City would want to do to grant a grading permit during the winter, even if it was flat. That would trigger all sorts of additional inspection fees from our inspectors. Instead of visiting the site once a week, they would be visiting the site almost every day and checking winter reports every week to see if they can proceed. It would be a permit granted for a week and will be revised every week or two.
Mayor Boles stated that the building permit plans now are not complete as there might be changes and will be changes with the Fire Department but those plans are available to the public for review as the construction documentation is finished and approved by our Building Officials if requested. She asked if that is correct.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 13, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the approved building plans can be reviewed in-person only. They cannot be duplicated.
Mayor Boles concluded the neighbors can see what has finally been approved for construction.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked PW Dep. Director Yip if he could help her understand how the location of the project relates to the area on Rockaway Beach Avenue where we have had ongoing continual drainage issues due to the spring. Her understanding was that the stormwater drains would be improved and wondered if the timing of that work would then have construction trucks driving up and down and undoing that work. She asked what the remedy is if that occurs.
Councilmember Bier added, in general, how are we going to plan around this.
PW Dep. Director Yip believes there is a Rockaway Beach Avenue natural spring in the Storm Drain Master Plan. This project, however, is not in the five-year CIP. In terms of prioritizations for storm drain projects, it is unlikely that we are going to do Rockaway soon because there are other storm drain projects which are likely a higher priority and there are also not allocated funds for storm drain projects. Storm drain projects are very difficult to fund, not like sewer or water in terms of wet utilities, which are like enterprise funds.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated this was an enterprise fund project. It was not a storm drain project, but replacing a pipe of some kind through Wastewater.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would have to check on the project.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, to make it more general, assuming the project is going to happen and it gets done before the construction is complete or before it even starts, if the road has been fixed and repaired and cost has gone into doing that, and later private property construction damages that road, what is the remedy for the City.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, if it was a sewer main improvement, it is only going to replace the width of the trench which is usually 18 inches and then another foot outside of that. It does not resurface the entire street. If it was a resurfacing done by the City in the five-year master plan, and if they do cut into brand new pavement within our moratorium period, which is three years, they will have to resurface the street from curb to curb and ten foot outside of their trenches.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what if the damage does more than surface damage.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated we could request pre-construction videos that would take care of all of the damages, but likely if it is below surface and outside of trucks or trenches, some of the things we could try to do, which is Council’s discretion, would be to install CCTV for the lines in the area. It has to be appropriate to the work, as a truck will not cause damage to storm drains.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood, adding it has to be a nexus between what we are asking for and the likely possibility. She is concerned about the roads and safety. She asked what is the general approach with traffic management. She asked, when all those trucks are coming and going, how is the safety of the neighborhood in that vicinity protected by the project.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the applicant will have to submit traffic control plan for engineering review and will be part of their encroachment permit requirements. In addition, our City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 13, 2026
inspectors will visit the site and, if there are additional concerns from truck drivers or contractors, we can do some additional visits to ensure that people are properly using their truck rounds that have been approved. The City welcomes the residents to send videos, photos, etc. and staff will let the contractors know to have that corrected. They will follow the traffic control plan and they can put stop work notices on the project to make sure they follow the approved plans.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the particular challenge on this street because of garbage trucks going in and out. She asked about the overlay with that happening with construction and is it timed in such a way that Recology is done before work is allowed to start.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that can be a condition on the traffic control plan that they are only approved to do deliveries outside of a certain time. Typically, the sweeps are early but we can condition the traffic control plans and have any adjustments needed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what point in time does that traffic control plan get determined with those specific conditions.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that will before approving an encroachment permit and that will be submitted in order to get their encroachment permit.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked how staff can assure that these concerns are put into the traffic control plan.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he will make sure it happens. Major projects get assigned to specific engineers who work on it from beginning to the end. The engineer who will be working on this project has already reviewed all the previous meetings and, for continuity, that same engineer needs to review the building permit and the encroachment permit when it comes in.
Any project that goes through Planning entitlements is structured this way for continuity.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser was thinking about Condition No. 42, which adds the video survey, and for avoidance of doubt, she wondered about adding language similar to “If the city improves Bay View Road or Rockaway Beach Avenue at any time prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, applicant shall redo the video survey and restore those roads to the City improved condition at the applicant’s expense.”
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she would be willing to propose that amendment.
Vice Mayor Wright asked about any potential fire issues during the course of construction.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that they will likely review the grading permit, particularly in summer. They will review that for potential ignition sources and comments, fire safety, and for compliance in Chapter 33. At no time will they allow any type of project to obstruct their access to structures.
Vice Mayor Wright is impressed with the Planning Commission and the way they deliberated on this and the conditions they put on it as well as they also had the community’s interest at heart and took that responsibility seriously.
Mayor Boles referred to the community’s comments about the HAA and the State forcing all those housing on us and cutting our ability to review projects the way we used to and that is City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 13, 2026
what we are coming across now. Every year there are more and more laws that take away our ability to review projects. She stated that getting involved at the State level and complaining on all the housing units that the State is forcing us to plan for and build without giving us money for our staff and infrastructure improvements is a lot.
Vice Mayor Wright added antiquated Codes have stopped Council from having the ability to address them.
Mayor Boles agreed, adding that those are things that she knows Planning staff is working on as they are on the work plan. We are also going to be working on Objective Design Standards.
She wished she could deny this project, but she does not feel that she has a legal basis to deny it with how our hands have been tied. She does not know if everybody is going through the resolution and the appeal issues. She thinks staff did a good job addressing those.
Councilmember Espinosa would like to see that the driveway could be listed on our Code to say if it has a setback or not and to see that corrected on our Pacifica Code to make sure that we have a standard for all of the projects we get people to submit. Tonight she would like to see that we can correct that and include that on the setbacks for driveways.
Councilmember Bier stated that we cannot do that tonight.
Councilmember Espinosa understood it cannot be set tonight, but to put it in later as it is important to clean up the Code to make it simple and easy for everyone to understand.
Mayor Boles states she wished we could require story poles, as the whole coastside does. She knows the State is trying to make it easier to approve housing and limiting other things we can ask for, but that is something we can look into, especially for steep lots that are hard to understand the mapping and impacts on the land.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the driveway and the issue of developing paper lots and paper streets and where there, in fact, is no street. She asked, as there are paper lots all around it, what is the likelihood or constraints around this driveway that it cannot become the street. She asked if there was any way to say that the driveway is for this property, not to develop the whole hillside into a neighborhood.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that the location of the property does not allow other properties, as it is half of the two properties.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there are paper lots all around them and they have a huge retaining wall. She concluded that the likelihood of it is zero.
Mayor Boles referenced questions of, if this is being developed, does it make it easier to develop the other homes off Calera Terrace which is a paper street. Bay View already does not meet our standards so any major development is going to have a hard time.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are a lot of practical difficulties in developing Calera Street.
Mayor Boles asked for the changes made in the Conditions of Approval.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 13, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there was a change to Condition No. 42: “Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all in public improvement limits at Bay View Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bay View Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by the applicant at the applicant’s expense. If the city improves Bay View Road or Rockaway Beach Avenue at any time prior to acceptance of the improvement by the city, the applicant shall redo the video survey and restore those roads to the city improved condition at the applicant’s expense.” Vice Mayor Wright referred to “repair of the road at the applicant’s expense” and asked who would do the repair to the road.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser stated it would typically be the applicant.
Vice Mayor Wright asked how that comports with our preferred union people.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we cannot control private contracting.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that it is our public street.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it would be subject to Public Works encroachment permit.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to adopt the resolution ratifying denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and approval of 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 single family residence within approximately 668 square foot attached three-car garage and associated improvements, including as staff has amended for tonight; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, for the record, she felt the driveway is a structure and structure means anything constructed or erected to use which requires location on the ground for attachment to something. She has a problem with the setback, hence why she is voting no.
Mayor Boles thanked everyone as she knows this has been hard. Council has tried to listen to the public’s concerns and conditioned the project to minimize the impact as any construction next to them will have impacts. She encourages them, knowing what has been approved, if they are seeing violations, damage to the street or their property, to report it. She appreciates everyone being here at this meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 13, 2026
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier
NAYS: Espinosa
CONSIDERATION
10. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Planning Process, Timeline and Preliminary Budget Strategies (1 hr)
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report and provide additional policy direction for the preparation of the FY 2026-27 Budget.
Interim City Manager Carter and Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez presented the staff report.
Councilmember Espinosa asked how each department is going to figure out what is needed and who will evaluate each department.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that the Executive Team is going to be working on this and department directors will review budget recommendations and services with their staff and management staff. That is something most cities would do in difficult budget times. She stated that the exercise staff are proposing here is that each department will be able to identify the services in three categories. We need this budget development process as the most collaborative process, which includes every department, division, and all management employees working together on this, is super critical because that will help us identify what this budget deficit means to all community services.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez added that the Finance Department works with the departments one on one and this is a learning process for new managers or supervisors, but Finance tries to provide the resources to staff to help them review everything in this year as well as prior years so they have some history to be able to help with trend analysis.
Mayor Boles stated the biggest part of our budget is staff expenses. She asked if what is essential and what is not gets translated into people.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that it may, and as part of the strategy, staff will be reviewing vacancies. Some of the vacancies may translate into what service that the vacancy provides.
Staff will develop recommendations but there may be exceptions, i.e. the City would not implement a universal freeze because certain positions will still need to be filled. They will be looking at this from individual approach or basis. In general, Pacifica is a full service city and, in some cases, staff will have to look at vacancies and what services are provided.
Councilmember Bier asked if that includes the review of contracts and consultants.
Interim City Manager Carter agreed. She added that most of the expenses are divided into three categories: salaries and benefits of people doing the work, contractual services by outside consultants, and materials and supplies.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 13, 2026
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that they all know that revenue is where it is going to end, and she shared her thoughts on the issue, including the Visitor Bureau involvement, and she has faith in our ability to have revenue from within.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on pushing this item until the new City Manager is on board to participate in the entire process. She expressed concerns about current economic development plans to raise taxes, build housing or hotels, etc. are not enough.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the budget calendar on packet page 430. She stated that our next session on this topic will be May 11 which will involve being presented with a 2026- 2027 base budget as well as an updated long-term financial outlook, including any new knowledge about ERAF, VLF or such, as well as our CIP budget. She stated, in terms of the calendar, our new City Manager starts on May 4. She added that, on May 11, we will also have the Strategic Plan and priorities and there is almost a month from the budget study session No. 2 until their review of what looks to be the final realistic budget scenario for FY 2026-2027.
Interim City Attorney Carter stated that Council’s decisions regarding reductions or enhancements of the services will happen on June 8.
Councilmember Beckmeyer and Mayor Boles discussed potential flexibility in the timeline.
Interim City Manager Carter emphasized budget adoption in June. She added that the reason for the budget calendar’s dates is that we need to account for time as it is the most collaborative project and the departments are working on this and there needs to be time for department heads and Finance to build the budget, build the recommendations, do the analysis, etc.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if on May 11 if each department head will talk specifically or if it will be combined into a presentation by the Finance Department.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that staff will take Council’s direction on this.
Councilmember Beckmeyer remembered in the past part of this process involved hearing from department heads about what they foresee their budget priorities are in their department and what the coming year involved.
City Clerk Coffey recalled that, in past years, there were built-in study sessions for some discussions by department heads on the budget process.
Councilmember Beckmeyer respected that executive staff needs to work out a process among the department heads. There will be an opportunity for our City Manager to give input, ask questions, give guidance, and participate in this process prior to Council approval of the budget.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that is how we have done it in the past as well. The process includes each department identifying the service level needs, whether it is reduction or increase in services. They are submitted to the City Manager’s review and prioritization citywide. The City Manager recommends the budget and it will come back to Council for the June 8 meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 13, 2026
Financial & Administrative Services Director Gómez added that staff sent out the invitation for briefings with Council and expect that the incoming City Manager would attend those as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked PB&R Director Scott Leslie, in light of the unacceptable impacts of Vehicle License Fee funds being withheld from the County of San Mateo, what, if any, impact to our human services do we anticipate for Meals on Wheels. She stated that we are one of few scratch cook food programs and our Meals on Wheels is supported by volunteers. She is looking at this VLF shortfall and fearful that something like that exemplary program we have could be threatened.
PB&R Director Leslie stated other funding sources in the City, County, State and federal government are always in flux. We are currently in the process of going through an RFP for the county for senior services and are asking for more money for more services with the idea that we can get some to support the program in general. From a childcare point of view, everything seems currently as steady as we can expect. In terms of PB&R funding and social services, outside funding seems to have stabilized this year, but there are a lot of factors that he cannot speak to. Meals on Wheels is supported by funding from the County and State, but there is General Fund in those programs and participant fees, so it is a mixture and a matter of where it is going to fall on our scale of the three buckets. Staff will go through all their programs and try their best to articulate how much in General Fund dollars, participant fees, and grant funding will go into it as part of their discussion.
Interim City Manager Carter added that this is exactly the example of how they look at the service level, i.e. looking at outside funding, cost recovery from outside funding, and General Fund level of support for that service need.
Mayor Boles stated that we recently lost $100,000 in federal funding for our senior programs and asked if there is more at risk now.
PB&R Director Leslie stated we have contracts reduced by $100,000 over several areas but ultimately $100,000 toward seniors. We are going through a process of asking for funding and our hope is to maintain our current levels but we will not know until the RFP is awarded. The hope is that it will at least be the same as it is now but are hopeful and are trying to put good strategies together to ask for additional dollars.
Mayor Boles added that the VLF impacts the County as well.
Financial & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated the presentation included the compounding impact for the County losing their funding because it supports community organizations that Pacificans take advantage of, and that is something to take into account.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referenced VLF amounts and that, in any given year, those dollars that should have come to us were from two years ago. Because of this deal from years back, part of the deal is that the State would withhold the money and give it to us later and we are constantly getting it in arrears. She concluded that VLF backfill potential loss is losses to Pacifica because the State is withholding the County’s money.
Financial & Administrative Services Director Gómez agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated every city’s number is going to be different.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 13, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright stated it is the City’s money, not the County’s money.
Councilmember Bier stated our allocations are paying fees.
Councilmember Beckmeyer reiterated that there is a countywide effort on the part of elected officials, the supervisors, staff, finance directors and everyone collectively, including a lawsuit against the State to get our funds given back to us.
Mayor Boles stated that part of the difficulty is it is just three counties in the state and everyone else is getting paid their fair share in other ways. She stated the State had not wanted to talk to legislators at the County at all but Supervisor Noelia Corzo mentioned that the State finance team finally did meet with County representatives and compensations are happening. They are under a confidentiality agreement now as negotiations are in process. Everyone is following this very closely and hopefully we will get this money back. We still have a $3.4 million deficit.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added due to lack of funds relative to expenses.
Councilmember Bier added that we are looking for a permanent solution, so it is not this backfill all the time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that last year we got two-thirds of the amount.
Mayor Boles would have liked to see that one-third added into what they owe us this year.
Councilmember Bier reminded everyone that we have been hearing about this for awhile. She thinks Pacifica has always dealt with this in one way or another and we need to put our heads together to see what we can do.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it has been a decades-long challenge. When our City voted to incorporate in 1957, a big issue was if we could afford to run a city, to maintain our own public spaces, and afford to do all the things that a city provides. It was not a landslide vote and there was debate in town about money. She stated it is not comforting, but it was consistent.
Councilmember Bier referenced pension obligations and skyrocketing benefits.
Mayor Boles stated the community was polled about potential revenue generation measures and asked at what point in the process Council has that discussion and a presentation and an opportunity for the community to comment.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that the last time when we had this discussion with Council, the direction of Council was to explore options for parcel tax and the results of the survey showed it was not feasible at this moment. Council may schedule a separate meeting to discuss this closer to June-July timeframe.
Councilmember Beckmeyer made a formal request to Mayor and Vice Mayor in terms of agenda planning that it is on their list.
Vice Mayor Wright stated retention is a problem and asked if we do any tracking on how much it costs us when we have that constant turnover.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 13, 2026
Interim City Manager Carter stated that we track vacancies and retention rates and how often we do recruitments on specific positions. The cost includes recruiting, engaging, onboarding, background check, and training. She added redistribution of other work to other employees in the process of all this. She stated that we are a leanly staffed City and are about 21% below the average. In comparison to our neighbors in San Mateo County, that number is even greater, closer to 40% threshold.
Vice Mayor Wright asked when we talk about budget shortfall how staffing levels factor in.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that we are looking at the current level of services and compare to specific point in time. She stated that we are understaffed and under-resourced but even well-funded cities have CIPs that may not be covered.
Vice Mayor Wright suggested framing the conversation in a more realistic way may help our community better understand the challenges we are facing.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that we did that during the revenue generation study, i.e. what it would take to add 46 employees and what would it take to fund the CIPs. We can explore the ways we can educate the community and provide this information during the budget development process, maybe in some narrative discussion.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that we have been balancing our budgets on the backs of our employees, overworking them and underpaying them. That affects our retention, our training cost, etc. He asked what we do in terms of analysis to understand when we hire contractors and when we hire employees in order to maximize the most efficient use of funds.
Interim City Manager Carter stated that the time would be now as we go through the services and look at how the services are currently being provided, such as by consultants or City staff, and is the service essential, core service, or enhancement. Every time we provide recommendations to Council, we include some of this analysis, whether recommendation to increase the staffing or recommendation to fund contracts for specific projects. Each recommendation will have its own budget form, including what is being requested, what the impact of this request is going to be, and what alternatives you have to consider.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, in terms of having a number of different strategies here in terms of directions to try to save money, if she can put any rough numbers on what the potential is for each of those different strategies.
Interim City Manager Carter stated Director Gómez mentioned that ERAF for the current year is about $3.9 million and that is in General Fund. VLF funds is listed for next year as over $1 million. On the other strategies, it will be hard to put a number on it now. The User Fee Study will probably include some conservative analysis once we get information from the consultant on what the full recovery will look like and what kind of money we are talking about at 100% recovery. We know 100% will not happen because some of the services have private benefits and public benefits and it is a policy decision what kind of recovery it will be. We will conservatively assume something to include in the budget because, once Council adopts the user fees, we will generate some additional revenue throughout the year.
Financial & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated Finance worked with the departments to fill out their budget forms and, normally, they will have budget forms for service enhancements. This year, they might be having those budget forms for reductions, and they will City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 13, 2026
put a number to those specific by department service reductions that they will be presenting and provide that to Council in the next budget study session.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, in general, from a policy perspective, if there has been any analysis done on whether it is better to pay people the right amount of money and have less of them or better to have more of them and pay them less.
Interim City Manager Carter stated it all depends on the specific service, function, and need of the department. It is much easier to recruit when you are competitive and can attract talent. We have also invested a lot of time and culture building in this organization and bringing what money cannot buy, but there is a limit to this.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we do any output tracking, such as do our employee groups that get paid closer to the average produce more.
Financial & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated not at this time, but we can explore trying to visualize some of that in our presentation as we go through the vacancy exercise with the department heads. Normally, we want to always tie something back to the strategic goals or service level review. Staff will try to visualize that in a different way.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, as an example, a good set of plans saves you money whereas a notso-good set of plans ends up costing you more money. That is what he is trying to figure out.
Interim City Manager Carter stated, as part of the service analysis, we will be looking at efficiencies. It is in the best interest of individual department to identify areas of efficiencies.
Staff may be asking for some additional allocation in order to achieve efficiency or return on investment.
Mayor Boles stated that staff have been doing some of that work, like updating finance software and planning software, as well as AI to help write staff reports.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we should consider AI like for repetitive tasks.
Interim City Manager Carter stated we are using AI and rolling out workflows, such as PB&R.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, to the nearest 100 million, how deep is our capital improvement hole.
Interim City Manager Carter reported $371 million at the revenue generation study session.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked Interim City Manager Carter and Director Gómez for their diligence.
Mayor Boles referenced reviewing PG&E bills and what we can reduce, Community Finance Districts, and other money-saving measures.
Interim City Manager Carter concluded that Council is generally supportive of including the five strategies into the base budget and, as staff do that, that will reduce the deficit to some level before they start doing this analysis and analyze what this deficit translates to for departments.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 13, 2026
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated regarding VLF that the County’s lobbyist on this issue is going to hold a meeting in Sacramento as part of the City Leaders Summit (April 22-24).
Councilmember Bier hoped Council received the email from Supervisor Corzo about the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative mental health training for electeds on Saturday, May 9. She is proud of it as they have been working since she was mayor on different strategies for mental health across the County and in our cities. It is important for them to take care of themselves and each other and our communities. She also shared a Youth Summit on April 25 at JUHSD District Office.
Vice Mayor Wright mentioned that he feels like they have been doing a better job working together and how much he appreciates that. It makes him feel more productive in all of the meetings he goes to. He thanked Councilmembers and appreciated every one of them.
Mayor Boles stated that he is everywhere and getting to know people all over and being a voice for Pacifica. She thanked him as it takes a lot of time and effort to build those relationships.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that she wanted to collaborate with him to bring more night life to Pacifica and make the money.
Mayor Boles stated both she and Vice Mayor Wright went to the Sustainable San Mateo County awards night and was lovely to see students from Oceana High School presenting their projects.
She reminded everyone that EcoFest is on Saturday and the Pacific Beach Coalition is organizing cleanups at all the beaches followed by the festival with all kinds of booths to learn about environmental things and there will be a special tour of the creek and the work happening at the creek. She added that Council asked some time ago about trying to get a coordinated calendar so we know all the different activities and who is going and hopefully Council and staff can coordinate and make sure all the different things are covered in our community and outside.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Boles adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 6/22/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor