[0:19] I'd like to ask the city clerk to please take roll call.

[0:24] Councilmember Espinosa. Here. Councilmember Beer. Here. Councilmember Beckmeyer. Present. Vice Mayor Wright. Present. And then the record will note that Mayor Bulls is absent tonight. We'll go through the roll call for planning commissioners. Commissioner Stan Chaz. Present. Commissioner Redfield. Present. Commissioner Ferguson. Here. Commissioner Davis. Here.

[0:50] Here, Vice Chair Burman, here, Chair Hauser, present, and Commissioner Fisher is absent tonight.

[1:01] And at this time, I would like to invite Samantha Hauser, the Chair of our Planning Commission, to please read our land acknowledgement.

[1:09] Thank you, Mayor Proton.

[1:11] The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unseated ancestral homeland of the Ramatosh Aloni peoples,

[1:19] who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

[1:23] We honor the Ramitosh Aloni peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth.

[1:27] As the indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions,

[1:30] the Ramitosh Aloni have never seated, lost, or forgotten their responsibilities

[1:34] as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

[1:40] We affirm their sovereign rights as first peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors,

[1:45] ministers, elders, and relatives of the Ramatoshaloni peoples.

[1:50] Thank you.

[1:52] At this time, I'd like to invite Sue Beckmeyer to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[1:58] Public

[2:07] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[2:20] Public meetings are a limited public form, meaning that there are rules for

[2:25] commenting at these meetings.

[2:28] Comments on non-agentized items must address comments on non-agentized items,

[2:35] must address matters within the subject jurisdiction and do not fall into these categories.

[2:43] The city will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction

[2:48] of the city or on topic.

[2:51] If a warning is not followed, the chair of the meeting will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone.

[2:59] And throughout this warning system, I will seek the assistance of the city attorney in identifying comments

[3:05] not related to the agenda item and not within the subject jurisdiction of the city.

[3:12] This is a special meeting and we have a very short amount of time, we have a one hour time limit.

[3:19] It would be very helpful to me if we could have all the comment cards up at this time.

[3:26] And at the time that I have the final yellow card, I will be asking for how many people are online

[3:32] and would care to raise their hands to plan to make a comment.

[3:37] So I can adjust accordingly in order to be able to make it so with all ten of us being here everybody will have sufficient time to ask our questions as well and get responses.

[3:52] Thank you.

[3:53] At

[4:04] this point, I have 1, 2, 3, 7, 7 cards, and that's 21 minutes.

[4:14] How many people are online and have signified they wish to come in?

[4:18] In that case, it looks like we can afford the usual three minutes.

[4:23] I will not be accepting any more cards or comments online, please know the one person.

[4:31] Vice mayor, right, we have two raised hands on the Zoom.

[4:33] Okay, we still can afford that one in the amount of time that will allow us to have sufficient time for questions and deliberation.

[4:42] First person I would like to call is Sam Cassias, followed by Stephanie Robbins and then Cindy Abbott.

[4:53] Sorry, staff. Sorry.

[4:56] I just want to make sure you want to take public comment before staff's presentation.

[4:59] You know what, I think in light of things, it would be a really good idea to have the staff report first.

[5:27] Thank you, Vice Mayor Wright and Good evening Council members, Chair Hauser and Planning Commissioners.

[5:34] Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director.

[5:37] And we're here tonight for a joint study session to discuss the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications

[5:43] to the city's STR ordinance.

[5:49] Oops,

[5:54] just a second here to get my computer synced up.

[6:00] Great, so this evening we'll just briefly talk about touch on the meeting purpose.

[6:04] The 2025 short-term rental ordinance, the Coastal Commission modifications, the modification process,

[6:11] short-term rental permit renewals, short-term rental code provisions,

[6:16] and are concluded with our legislative options.

[6:24] So tonight, really the purpose is for staff to provide a presentation, for you all to hear from the community discuss options to inform upcoming planning commission and city council actions.

[6:39] So this is a reminder, so STR, short term rentals, is the use of a dwelling unit or portion of it for rental of less than 30 consecutive days.

[6:48] In 2025, the City Council adopted comprehensive updates to the STR ordinance that really struck

[6:58] the balance between, it was the result of eight years of work, from the initial adoption

[7:04] of STR regulations in 2018.

[7:08] And it was really looking to strike the balance between the benefits of STRs and the impact

[7:14] on surrounding residential uses.

[7:16] So currently that ordinance is effective in areas outside of the Coastal Zone in order

[7:22] for it to become effective in the Coastal Zone requires certification of the Coastal

[7:27] Commission.

[7:30] And then just relevant to the issue at hand, which will dive into a little more is that

[7:35] our STR permits are renewed annually on October, starting October 31st, so our renewal period

[7:44] is October.

[7:48] Just to kind of give a sense of the landscape, 55% of the cities permitted

[7:54] STRs are in the coastal zone and 78% of those are on the hosted compared to 22% of

[8:03] non-coastal STRs.

[8:10] So the Coastal Commission recommended two modifications

[8:16] that they're August 12th hearing, remove the primary residency requirement and to replace the 69 max rentals for unhosted STRs with a 129 max.

[8:31] So the process for modifications, so the Coastal Commission approved the amendments with the modifications I just mentioned.

[8:42] And then the city may accept, agree, and adopt the modifications to the zoning text,

[8:49] which then requires going through the city's standard legislative process.

[8:53] So that's where we are right now, following that the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission

[9:00] would report out to the Coastal Commission at a hearing in order to adopt the modification.

[9:09] If the Coastal Commission accepts it, then the zoning ordinance becomes effective in the coastal zones.

[9:17] So again, the STR permit renewal period is October 1st through the 31st.

[9:23] So any modifications would need to be accepted and adopted by the city and certified by the Coastal Commission in October in order for the 2025 ordinance to apply to this coming round of STR permits.

[9:38] We did hear from the Coastal Commission today, I believe at 5.08 p.m., that they do believe that they can bring adopted modifications to their October hearing, which is held the 7th through the 9th of October.

[9:56] Could you say that one more time just so I can understand this?

[10:00] The Coastal Commission said that they can likely bring adopted modifications to their October hearing.

[10:07] Thank you.

[10:13] Just in terms of the timeline, it's a very, very tight timeline.

[10:19] And so in order to be successful, all of these stages have to be completed in order to

[10:28] line up with the renewal process.

[10:30] So as noted, the Coastal Commission meaning is not guaranteed.

[10:34] However, we did hear from the Coastal Commission staff today that they believe they can get

[10:40] modifications to their October meeting.

[10:48] Just kind of a quick review of some of the highlights of the 2025 STR Ordnance Standards

[10:55] other than, you know, the primary residency requirements, these highlights, some of the

[11:02] major changes that were part of the regulation.

[11:05] So, those include having a responsible party to respond to complaints who's available 24-7 and able to respond in person within 30 minutes, requiring the SDR permit number on all our advertising, all the advertising platforms exterior signage, providing contact information for operator and the responsible party requirements for the hosted SDRs to have an operator on site overnight.

[11:32] maximum occupancy of two renters per rented bedroom, established visitor hours from 8 to 10 p.m.

[11:42] Prohibition on using outdoor pools, hot dubs and spas, between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

[11:49] requirements for noise monitors, one parking space per rental bedroom, for un-hosted rental nights,

[11:56] It's a two-night minimum stay, and then it was modified by the Coastal Commission 120 max rental nights.

[12:05] It also prohibits unhosted STRs in multi-family units, which includes duplex and single-family and attached single-family units.

[12:15] Requires inspections for life safety and health and provides revocation provisions upon second violations of the ordinance.

[12:24] So, there are three primary legislative options.

[12:30] The first is to accept a green adopt the modifications as is, or to accept a green adopt the modifications

[12:41] only in the coastal zone, or to resubmit a revised ordinance to the Coastal Commission.

[12:48] So, I'll go into a little more detail on each of those.

[12:51] And so the first option is to approve the modifications as is remove the primary residency

[12:58] requirement and double the unhosted rental limit from 60 to 120 nights citywide.

[13:06] The pros are that it adds those positive permit and operational standards from the 2025

[13:11] ordinance and applies them citywide.

[13:14] A con is that it removes the primary residency requirements and doubles the night of unhosted

[13:20] STRs and so when we made this presentation the Coastal Commission hadn't gotten back

[13:29] to us yet and so you know again you know it's very likely that we'll be able to get

[13:36] to the October hearing based on what they've told us but it's still not guaranteed.

[13:41] Option 2 would be to approve the modifications in the coastal zone only, the positives would be that it adds the positive permit and operational standards from the ordinance while retaining protections for primary residency and the lower limit on on hosted nights outside of the coastal zone.

[14:07] A con is that then you have stronger and stricter ordinance in the non-coastal zone and again

[14:14] that would not affect the timing.

[14:16] We did hear from the Coastal Commission also at 508 PM today that they could still process

[14:24] those modifications administratively.

[14:29] The third option would be to consider additional amendments so to amend the STR ordinance, including

[14:35] including significant modifications to what the Coastal Commission has suggested that is in a manner to be determined.

[14:43] The pros really depends on the specifics as determined through the city's legislative process.

[14:49] Some cons are that it's not immediately evident what ordinance changes could preserve primary residency or the 69th limit on unhosted.

[15:00] In the coastal zone, it's time and resource intensive for staff in the community and the council. And it delays the addition of those positive permit and operational standards from the 2025 ordinance. In terms of timing that could not occur before the renewal process, it's basically starting over with the new ordinance and it could extend that for up to another two cycles of permit renewals. And that concludes staff presentation.

[15:29] And I'm here along with City Manager Sean Sharpen's here and Assistant City Attorney Denise Buzano to answer any questions.

[15:39] Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to invite anybody from planning commission who has a question prior to public comment

[15:47] or if they prefer to reserve their questions till after public comment, that's acceptable as well.

[16:01] I actually would like to ask a quick, please do.

[16:04] So, um, um, uh, Director Updegrave, if you could you go back to slide 14, please,

[16:11] option two,

[16:14] I may have misread it.

[16:20] Okay, this is it, yes, slide 13, sorry.

[16:24] So, pros and cons, I'm trying to understand, what do you mean when you say it's a con

[16:31] that we have stricter, stronger stricter ordinance in the non-coastal zone.

[16:35] Because my understanding is that with this option, that ordinance that is in place would remain.

[16:41] But why, if it's as we wrote it, in hearing from the public, why would you consider that a con?

[16:49] What's a potential con?

[16:54] It would essentially have two separate standards, one outside of the coastal zone,

[17:00] and one within the coastal zone.

[17:03] So again, it's a potential, not necessarily an absolute statement.

[17:08] Thank you.

[17:09] Thank you, I think that was important to clarify that, thanks so much.

[17:14] Well, and through the chair, the ordinance in the non- Coastal Zone would have more policy

[17:19] levers for the city than those in the Coastal Zone.

[17:24] Thank you.

[17:26] Lauren?

[17:27] Lauren?

[17:29] I have just one. We got a lot of comments, and many of them are kind of about how it felt like the Coastal Commission was be exceeding their jurisdiction by talking about our whole city, but what I'm gleaning from this slide and from the five o'clock communication is that since the staff report was put out the Coastal Commission has contacted us and said that they recognize that the

[17:57] I recognize that those comments seem to be accurate and that we can have two separate orders.

[18:05] I just want to make sure I'm understanding, that's a huge change.

[18:09] And I want to make sure that not just me, but that everybody here understands the scope of that change.

[18:14] Thank you, Chair Halzer.

[18:15] That is a great question.

[18:17] So we immediately reached out to Coastal Commission staff and asked the question.

[18:22] And you know, are these modifications, the way that they've been presented, they would apply citywide.

[18:31] And our understanding is that the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction is within the Coastal zone.

[18:38] I think because of the way our ordinance is written, we tend to have the same ordinance apply within Coastal and non-Costal, right?

[18:50] we go through this two-step, you know, second-step approval process. And so, you know, the way

[18:56] that they presented it in the staff report was just eliminating primary residency. There

[19:02] was no distinction. But they wouldn't have necessarily done that in our ordinance, right,

[19:10] because that is starting to really go, I think, far afield. And so we had reached out right

[19:16] a way to ask that question, you know, one of our particular concerns was, you know,

[19:23] if we change it from the verbatim, what they show in their report, will that knock us

[19:30] out of that more administrative process where the executive director reports out, says,

[19:36] yes, they've met the intent, you know, they've done what the commission says and have the

[19:40] commission accepted. We didn't want to put something forward and then have them say,

[19:47] well, that actually needs to go back to a full hearing. And so they had been diligently

[19:52] working on finding those answers, and weren't able to get them to us before the report, but

[19:57] they got them to us tonight. That's helpful, and I really appreciate

[20:01] stopping so proactive.

[20:05] Council member, back there. I will wait. Thank you so much.

[20:09] Great,

[20:13] fantastic.

[20:15] Then at this time, I'd like to begin inviting public comment.

[20:19] I'd like people to once again keep in mind that we only have to seven o'clock

[20:23] when the next meeting starts, and I'm sure that there are a number of questions

[20:27] from the people who reserved their questions, and then we're also going to need

[20:32] to deliberate some.

[20:33] So once again, starting with Sam followed by Stephanie Robbins and then Cindy Abbott, please.

[20:39] Thank you.

[20:42] Good afternoon, council members and commissioners.

[20:46] First, I'd like a quick moment of silence,

[20:47] because a true patriarch of country music

[20:51] passed away today, Dolly Parton.

[20:53] Don't take my time yet, this is for Dolly Parton.

[20:55] Anyway, it's just wanted to acknowledge that,

[20:57] because she was always a true advocate

[20:59] of affordable housing.

[21:01] So my name is Sam Cassius,

[21:02] and I've been a resident for Pacific for 23 years.

[21:05] In 2003, I was fortunate to buy my first home here,

[21:08] a two bedroom, one bath bungalow with no garage,

[21:10] and just two blocks from the beach.

[21:12] I thought I had gone, I had gotten gone to heaven when a welcome committee knocked on my door,

[21:17] handed me some homemade cookies and a little rose plant that I still have today.

[21:22] A few years later, I got married to my wonderful wife Andrea and over the next 10 years,

[21:25] we saved to either renovate our place or find a new place.

[21:29] We're lucky enough that just a few doors down we found a rundown place and over the next eight years,

[21:35] we built a new home.

[21:35] A person who has multiple Airbnb's in our neighborhood wanted to buy our old place from

[21:42] us, all cash at a premium price where no regular family could compete at that price level.

[21:49] We did not sell, and in our old age, we will return to this place.

[21:53] So in the meantime, we would rent it to someone who needed a place to live because Pacifica

[21:57] is already a hard place to find safe, affordable housing.

[22:02] He asked why we wouldn't just Airbnb and make more than double the rent.

[22:08] Some of these places offer nightly rates of 2,500, so let's stop the nonsense that these

[22:13] places are adding more access to the coast for regular and disadvantaged classes.

[22:17] And also, let's stop and be clear that the unhosted STR owners are motivated by one thing and

[22:24] one thing only, profit.

[22:25] it. We wouldn't sell because these STRs are tearing our neighborhood apart. The corporate

[22:31] owners ignore our concerns of criminal activity because the owners don't live here, we do.

[22:37] Because of our budget restraints, these corporate owners know there is little to no enforcement

[22:41] which also needs to end. They hire fancy lawyers to meet with the California Coles Commission

[22:47] and have the Coles Commission now say our ordinance is legally flawed. You had just down the

[22:52] highway in half one bay, they have pretty much the same ordinance we advocated for.

[22:56] But Pacific is not good enough for that same ordinance.

[23:00] The bigger issue reveals the big lie of how they supposedly bring revenue to our city

[23:05] and provide access to the coast out of the goodness of their hearts.

[23:10] In reality, these unhosted STRs are taking homes away from prospective families who just want

[23:15] it to live in a good, safe community where they know their neighbors.

[23:18] By taking these homes out of the housing stock, STRs have created a school crisis in Pacifica.

[23:24] Pacifica just closed, ocean shore elementary and Valemar middle school because the state cuts are school funding due to the decrease in enrollment, which the STRs are directly responsible for.

[23:38] We need to take bold action before our city becomes a desert of hotel rooms with no families and no schools.

[23:45] Thank you.

[23:45] Thank you, Sam. Last name, Robbins? I'm sorry if I got your first name wrong.

[23:53] I think you got it, right? It's Stephanie. So I want to just thank the council members

[24:01] and city staff and management who went to the Coastal Commission meeting. I was very

[24:06] proud to be part of Pacific Eye. I felt very well represented. I come today to speak

[24:14] to council planning and staff and management to really urge you to go with option number

[24:20] two and have the ordinance that has already been set and put in in the non- Coastal Zone

[24:30] leave that alone. It's settled. We spent eight years getting here. I'm exhausted. I'm sure

[24:36] you are too. And go ahead and go with the modifications from the Coastal Commission into the Coastal

[24:43] zone and let's ratify that. Let's get it done by October through October before the permits

[24:49] renew. If you look at the majority of coastal towns throughout California that have STR ordinances,

[24:57] they have two, they have a coastal zone ordinance, and they have a non-coastal zone ordinance.

[25:01] It's extremely common to have two because of the coastal zone's requirements. And so I just

[25:07] I just want to urge you, we spent a lot of time working together.

[25:11] You had a lot of the citizens like myself come out and tell you how things have affected us.

[25:17] I think we came to a very good conclusion, and so I just want to urge you to go ahead and ratify it as with the two modifications from the Coastal Commission in the Coastal Zone only and leave the non-Costal Zone alone. Thank you.

[25:32] Thank you Cindy Abbott followed by Bob O'Donnell and then Gary.

[25:40] Good evening

[25:40] Cindy Abbott we've been on a long journey together. Walking over here I was

[25:48] thinking of other long journeys. The Hobbit Trilogy is 474 minutes long. Lord of

[25:56] the Rings extended cuts 682 minutes. Then I thought I have to throw in the

[26:03] Odyssey because that sort of feels like where we are right now. 172 minutes. That comes

[26:10] to 22 hours of journeys and audices.

[26:17] I think we've been together longer on this over the

[26:21] past four intense years that we've been working on this. So at this point on the journey though

[26:28] isn't a time to fall back. We need to keep moving forward and doing it together. And we can't give

[26:34] up anything that was one so long, you know, for a year we've heard the great stories of families

[26:41] that, you know, coming back into houses outside of the coastal zone. It's a real success story

[26:47] for Pacifica, for our neighborhoods and our residential areas. So, unfortunately, we need to go

[26:57] Go ahead with two sub-subruals within the same ordinance.

[27:01] We provided information about how to really easily do that in just a few sections of

[27:07] the ordinance and resolution.

[27:09] So tonight, let's retain all of those provisions outside of the coastal zone, implement the two

[27:16] unfortunate changes for the coastal zone itself because sometimes the path on a journey

[27:22] is not clear, but tonight it is, and that's option two.

[27:28] Thank you.

[27:30] Bob O'Donnell, followed by Gary, followed by Brian Renell.

[27:37] City Council members and planning commissioners, it looks like old friends.

[27:42] We've been here before, over four years, we've tried to change the ordinance and

[27:46] we did very successfully complete that process last October and the new ordinance went into effect.

[27:52] In fact, unfortunately, the Coastal Commission has thrown a rinse into this and we have no control over the coastal area, but we do over the non- Coastal area.

[28:01] And so I'm urging you both the commissioners on the council to either adopt number two as a possibility or create new language that guarantees the non- Coastal areas will be protected with the current ordinance and all of those will continue to be in place.

[28:19] Again, we have no control over the non-coastal area, but we worked hard and long for

[28:24] four years, really, to create this new ordinance, and it really has potential to change our neighborhoods.

[28:30] It's really important that we protect that.

[28:32] But what we can, and what's out of our control, we'll just have to probably accept.

[28:37] But please find a way to protect the non-coastal area and let our ordinance continue to be in effect there.

[28:45] Thank you.

[28:46] Thank you.

[28:48] Gary followed by Brian and then Michael Walman.

[28:56] Good evening.

[28:57] My name is Gary Trinke.

[28:58] I live on Aspen Drive.

[29:01] And I urge you to please consider and adopt option two.

[29:08] We had a Airbnb SDR up the street from us.

[29:14] And after the ordinance passed last year, it was sold.

[29:18] And since it's been sold, we haven't had one incident of anybody urinating off the

[29:25] porch.

[29:25] We haven't had any loud music or loud birthday parties that go into the 1 and 2 a.m.

[29:34] And a regular family is living there and once again it's a normal neighborhood.

[29:40] So please review what you've done and how it's the positive effects it's had on our

[29:48] our local houses and adopt option two, and I wish the Coastal Commission would go with option two, would go with the same ordinance.

[30:00] We had, but I don't think that's going to be possible. So once again, thank you, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Brian, followed by Michael, followed by Lila. Renaro, please.

[30:15] Vice mayor, right council members and commission commissioners. My name is Brian Renaro from Pedro Point. I just want to make a point that I do also greatly appreciate the effort on the city, the city manager and staff in last August 12th in the presentation to the Coastal Commission.

[30:32] I've never had so much fun in a conference hall since Star Trek Convention 91.

[30:39] I am urging you tonight to preserve the primary residence requirement in the 60-day cap that is currently in effect in the non- Coastal Zone.

[30:47] Council members and planning commissioners to please preserve the primary residence requirement, excuse me, pardon me, lost my place here.

[30:54] While I'm profoundly unhappy with the California Coastal Commission's decision to deny these

[31:00] important protections to the Pacificans in the coastal zone, there's absolutely no

[31:05] reason to deny these important protections to the folks in the non-coastal zone.

[31:11] They've had these protections for a year now and to strip them would be actually a rollback

[31:15] of the policies that we all work so hard to put in place.

[31:19] The Coastal Commission, as you're aware, has no jurisdiction in the non- Coastal Zone and

[31:24] Pacifica's implementation of ordinance number 901 CS is final and enforceable immediately

[31:30] unless it's taken away this evening.

[31:32] We in the Coastal Zone still have a long journey ahead of us, but our inland neighbors that

[31:38] have stood shoulder to shoulder with us deserve these protections.

[31:41] Remember that Pacifica is burdened with an unfair inflated and unfunded arena allocation

[31:48] that forces us to build over 2,000 new homes.

[31:51] Without the primary residence requirement in the 68 cap, there will be little to no mechanisms to prevent these new homes from becoming full-time, un-hosted STRs.

[32:02] Imagine just a few years from now, when we will have lost Boy Scout, a.k.a.

[32:07] San Pedro Mountain, and replaced with rows of luxury party houses all to the benefit and profit of out-of-town corporate STR operations.

[32:16] questions. Please hold the line, protect our inland residents and preserve the integrity of

[32:20] our housing and neighbourhoods by keeping the original ordinance intact outside of the

[32:25] coastal zone. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[32:29] Michael followed by Lila Renaro and then Margo. Vice mayor, council members, commissioners,

[32:37] city staff, city minister, my, my, my, my, uh, district two. Um, so I would tend to think

[32:45] I think that having one ordinance for the entire city would be the most straightforward,

[32:49] simplistic, administratively, to both create policy for and enforce.

[32:54] We do know that we have a budget crisis of the maybe unpopular opinion that doubling the number of days

[33:01] hopefully also doubles the amount of revenue from the STRs.

[33:05] Furthermore, having that extra income also from the non-costal zone could probably be useful for the city.

[33:13] I'd advocate that we don't create a divided situation where the pros and cons depend on if you're a coastal or not.

[33:21] Let's see the numbers, how much of a difference does this mandate from the Coast Commission increase our revenues?

[33:28] And then make a determination of how much would we leave on the table if we don't adopt the same in the other area?

[33:35] Thank you.

[33:36] Thank you.

[33:37] Landlord Renaro followed by Margot and followed by Greg.

[33:51] Good evening, everyone.

[33:53] Thanks again to all of you for your efforts at the Coastal Commission meeting earlier this month.

[33:59] I've already said just about everything I think needs to be said about tonight's topic, so

[34:03] I'll save some time and try not to repeat myself too much.

[34:07] Of the three options presented tonight, option two sounds like the best of the three to me.

[34:11] It's not perfect, but I think it's the best solution to have one ordinance that clearly

[34:17] addresses the difference between the Coastal Zone and the rest of Pacifica rather than

[34:20] creating two separate ordinances.

[34:22] I would be absolutely overjoyed if there's a way to get Pacifica's ordinance approved

[34:26] by the Coastal Commission as it was submitted while preserving those existing protections.

[34:31] There's still a tiny part of me that apparently is unsinnical enough to believe that maybe

[34:37] the Coastal Commission simply got themselves a little tripped up when that messy decision

[34:40] came down on August 12th. Maybe there's a way to untangle this that we haven't found yet,

[34:44] and I really hope that there is. My father would have turned 90 today, and today we also lost

[34:51] Dolly Parton. Both are people that I looked to when I need guidance. I sometimes ask myself,

[34:57] what would Frank do? What would Dolly do? I think the answer from both of them would be the same.

[35:04] Do the right thing and fight like hell to get it done. So tonight I'm asking you to find that

[35:09] That solution I would be overjoyed if we could leave here knowing Pacifica has found

[35:13] a way forward that gets our ordinance approved while protecting the people who would otherwise

[35:17] lose those protections.

[35:18] Thank you.

[35:19] Thank you.

[35:21] Margot Meiman followed by Greg Hirsch.

[35:28] Good evening, city council members and planning commissioners.

[35:31] Margot Meiman, resident of the coastal zone for 21 years.

[35:35] Thank you for your many hours of work on short-term rental ordinances, I guess, Plural now over the past several years.

[35:46] As you know, the Coastal Commission's August 12th hearing is behind us, and we have received their suggestions for Pacifica's STR ordinates in the Coastal Zone.

[35:55] I was alarmed to learn that the Pacifica City staff after working so tirelessly to make our case to the Coastal Commission regarding requirements

[36:05] for primary residents and the 69th cap on unhosted nights have now suggested that the

[36:11] suggested the removal and increase of these requirements for locations outside the coastal zone.

[36:18] Staff makes no justification for this change, the fact that the Coastal Commission has

[36:23] suggested these modifications for properties within the coastal zone does not imply that

[36:29] these changes should apply east of Highway 1.

[36:31] Several coastal cities have dual SDR ordinances including Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, so it's not without President at all for a municipality to have multiple distinct ordinances, so please choose option to adopt the coastal commission's unfortunate modifications for the coastal zone, but do not alter the ordinance that was implemented in October 2025 for the rest of the city. Thank you.

[36:59] Thank you, and final in-person speaker is Greg Ursh?

[37:07] Hi, I want to also thank you for all the work you've done in this.

[37:13] I kind of got into this late but I ended up watching the CCC meeting while I was working.

[37:20] I thought it would be like maybe a 45-minute presentation when hour after hour.

[37:25] And I thought it would end well, it looks like we're going to win this thing.

[37:29] They had some comments by people, and then somebody through this monkey ranch had a couple people with all these crazy additions, which were didn't make absolutely no sense on the city manager to kind of go ahead and just say was that OK.

[37:44] And he said I've never seen anything like this in my life.

[37:47] But anyway, when they had a vote, I'm not convinced that the people even knew what they were voting on.

[37:53] There was some confusion afterwards.

[37:56] One woman asked, well, can we vote on the motion between the city and between the recommendation

[38:05] and the city and she was informed, well, we already voted on that.

[38:09] So I don't know if there's any way to address this and you know, maybe ask them, do you guys

[38:13] actually understand what you voted on?

[38:16] And the other comment I had is, they made a big thing about, well, there's only 150 out

[38:21] of like 15,000 residences.

[38:23] And I don't know if they grasp what Pacific Coastal Zone is.

[38:27] This is this little strip east west of the highway,

[38:30] which is mainly West Sharpe Park and Pedro Point.

[38:35] And I can guarantee you, we have way more than 5%,

[38:38] way more than 1% on Pedro Point.

[38:40] I think we have maybe 5%, you guys could probably 10%.

[38:47] Okay, yeah, it's this basically turned into a hotel zone.

[38:50] So, anything that can be done to try to rectify the decision which I don't know was really

[38:55] made with the way they wanted it would be greatly appreciated.

[39:01] Thank you very much.

[39:03] Thank you.

[39:04] And at this time I'd like to ask how we still only have the two ends on line.

[39:10] A third hand has been raised.

[39:13] You have three hands raised?

[39:14] Three.

[39:15] Okay.

[39:15] Can we start with the first one, please?

[39:17] our first caller is Caitlin Quinn. I've unmuted you and you need to and I

[39:22] allowed you to unmute yourself. Thank you. Can you hear me?

[39:28] Okay. Hi. I'm Vice Mayor

[39:31] Wright, Council Members and our steam members of the Planning Commission.

[39:36] Lovely to see you all. I'm so sorry that I'm not there in person. I have a bad case

[39:40] of COVID that was on the mend and then I had a relapse as of yesterday so trust me

[39:45] Nobody wants me in this room.

[39:47] I am so, so relieved to see option two up on that slide.

[39:52] And to hear from Samantha up to grave

[39:55] that the Coastal Commission's staff seems to be implying

[40:00] that they can work with making those modifications.

[40:05] So all of our folks east of the one in an area

[40:10] over which the Coastal Commission does not have jurisdiction,

[40:13] direction does not lose those hard earned rights to primary residents and the 69 total

[40:21] max for unhosted. Super excited about that. Really want to encourage everybody to go

[40:28] in that direction. I think it's the only fair thing. I don't think we should be handing

[40:34] the Coastal Commission any more power than it already has. And I just want to say I

[40:40] I love Cindy Abbott's comments about Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit and the Odyssey because I have just been thinking in terms of the Odyssey, you know, there's that whole struggle with the threshold that Odysseus has, these 10 years trying to get home, fighting one-eyed monsters and battling off horny goddesses and only to get home to find out that his household is being taken over by these suitors who are eating up all his resources and trying to

[41:10] when his queen over and I'm like, yeah, we don't have suitors.

[41:14] Here we are at the threshold.

[41:16] We got the Coastal Commission.

[41:19] But this is a struggle at the threshold and we will get through it and I know we've

[41:24] still got a lot of work to do getting the primary residents in the 69 cap back for the Coastal

[41:31] Zone.

[41:31] I get that that is a fight for another day and I just want to thank you all staff and

[41:39] commissioners and council members for the incredibly hard work that you've

[41:43] all already put in and to echo Lila, Renaro and Stephanie, Robyn's super super

[41:51] proud of Pacifica at that meeting and how we all you all showed up for us and

[41:57] just super grateful to you all and I'm gonna stop talking because I have COVID

[42:01] Thank you.

[42:04] Thank you.

[42:06] Our next caller is Tor Nielins.

[42:10] Good evening.

[42:11] Can you hear me?

[42:13] Yes.

[42:14] Great.

[42:14] Thank you so much.

[42:16] Good evening.

[42:16] My name is Tor Nielins.

[42:18] My wife and I have lived on Grand Avenue and pictorial point for 19 years.

[42:22] The two long didn't listen version of this is that we strongly support option number two.

[42:26] I'll try and impact that a little bit.

[42:28] But first, I'd like to thank everyone who represented Pacifica before the Coastal Commission.

[42:32] We strongly supported the ordinance that our city adopted, including its primary residents

[42:37] requirement and 69th limit on unhosted rentals, and we are disappointed that the Coastal Commission

[42:42] removed the residency requirement and increased the limit to 129th in the coastal zone, and

[42:47] I'm totally agree with Greg Hirsch's comments about the whole, the zardness of the process.

[42:53] Nevertheless, tonight we urge you to move the modified ordinance forward.

[42:58] City staff has explained that accepting these modifications is the way to apply the ordinance

[43:02] and the coastal zone for the coming permit year.

[43:05] Residents do not lose another year's benefit

[43:07] of the protections that survive simply

[43:09] because the coastal commission gave us less

[43:11] than what our community wanted.

[43:13] These protections mattered us personally.

[43:15] We've experienced increased traffic and noise

[43:17] from nearby un-hosted STRs.

[43:19] Visitors trespassing through our property

[43:20] while trying to reach federal plain headslands,

[43:23] and an incident in which vestiment

[43:24] un-hosted STR down the street

[43:26] and preparing to set off illegal fireworks

[43:28] immediately next to our homes,

[43:30] and adjacent to the extremely dry coastal

[43:32] of education around the 4th of July, we can.

[43:36] Fortunately, I was home and stopped them before they

[43:38] accounted for fireworks.

[43:39] There was no host present to you so.

[43:41] In fact, the certificate of the original ordinance was already

[43:43] a significant compromise for us.

[43:46] We prefer not to have the whole House commercial short term

[43:48] rentals and residential neighborhoods at all.

[43:51] But we support through the home sharing through hosted

[43:54] SDRs, together with limited allowance, rent hosted rentals.

[43:57] So as you proceed, we ask for three things.

[43:59] First, please move the modified word and that's forward now so that the remaining protections

[44:04] can take effect for the coming permit here.

[44:06] Second, please make absolutely certain that the Coastal Commission's modifications apply

[44:10] only to the Coastal Zone, preserving the primary resident requirement and 69th limit already

[44:15] effect elsewhere in Pacific that you all, and we work so hard over the past eight years

[44:22] to develop and implement.

[44:25] And third, accepting the Coastal Commission's modifications does not require Pacific

[44:28] to endorse the missed good policy.

[44:31] After eight years of public buses are city decided

[44:33] that primary residency in a 69th limit

[44:35] represented the better balance.

[44:37] Please preserve that position

[44:39] and continue working towards restoring those protections

[44:43] within the costable zone.

[44:44] So I take if we go with option two,

[44:46] that release the key check week gives us the most options

[44:49] as we move forward looking down the road

[44:52] and will not be as likely to lock us into something

[44:55] that would be harder to change later

[44:56] if you want or need to.

[44:58] Thank you very much for this.

[45:00] All of your comments and comments on all of your hard work. Thank you, and our final speaker. Our final speaker is Remy Tan.

[45:10] Remy, you need to unmute yourself. Hello, this is Remy Tan, resident in architect over at the Pacific Manor, Edgemark. I urge the planning commission and the city council to adopt, I guess, what I'm hearing is option two, just keeping the current ordinance basically east of

[45:32] Highway 1 and making the Coastal Commission request modifications to the west of Highway 1 and the Coastal Commission jurisdiction.

[45:44] I appreciate all the hard work that this City Council, past City Councils and staff have done over 4 to 8 years to get the ordinance where it is, so let's not throw that out.

[45:59] and, you know, goes kind of this compromise for things, the best things. So, still have

[46:06] the protections. For most of the city, which is east of everyone, and then, you know,

[46:12] we have the modifications of that protection by the Coast Commission to the west of one.

[46:19] And we can come back and, you know, peel that on another day, but, you know, we have this

[46:23] October, I guess deadline coming up to renew, you know, the SDRs. So we want to make

[46:32] sure we have more than it's that they can renew and that's enforceable. It sounds

[46:37] like the audience is working based on testimony from, you know, other other

[46:42] residents that heard this evening. So again, urge the client question in the

[46:49] to approve this option too. Thank you.

[46:54] Thank you. And at this point, I'd like to close public comment and bring it back to our joint study session.

[47:02] I'd like to apologize to the planning commission for how long it went on.

[47:07] It seems that according to the clock, we only have 10 minutes. We're probably going to go into some of their time a little bit in order to have a sufficiently thorough discussion.

[47:16] But I'd like to go through a similar process as earlier and go one at a time, but I'd like to alternate between planning commission and council, if that's all right with everyone in Becky, would you care to start us off?

[47:31] I just have a question.

[47:33] These two ordinances, are they tied together, could we leave, or I don't, and I'm apologizing kind of learning a lot of this stuff, but could we leave the primary residence requirement?

[47:46] but then, can we do them separate, can we change them?

[47:53] Staff, would you care to comment?

[47:57] I'm sorry, Commissioner Sanchez was the question

[48:01] whether we could leave primary residency

[48:05] in for all of the city or just in the non-costal zone?

[48:11] In the coastal zone, or all of the city,

[48:15] Are these two things tied together or could we evaluate them separately?

[48:20] Yeah, that's a great question, thank you.

[48:22] So in terms of the Coastal Commission voted to remove the primary residency requirement.

[48:32] And so that would be one of the modifications that the city would need to accept if it wanted to move forward

[48:42] with the modification if and and they have shared that that can be kind of

[48:48] bifurcated between we can leave the primary residency requirement in the

[48:53] non-costal zones and remove it from the coastal zone and that would meet what

[48:59] they intended if we wanted to retain primary residency also within the coastal

[49:05] zone then we would need to come back with a different ordinance so it would it

[49:10] basically be almost like starting over.

[49:15] Thank you.

[49:16] Next, Sue Beckmeier, would you do you have a question?

[49:21] No, I don't have a question, I just have a comment.

[49:27] Well, yeah, I guess it is a question.

[49:30] We received a public comment, a suggestion that we not accept in wholesale the statements the

[49:42] The Coastal Commission makes in, I think in the resolution where they specifically state that they have a finding that allowing un-hosted rentals for 120 nights per year.

[49:55] It preserves the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods that those are the Coastal Commission's language in their findings.

[50:06] and the question in public comment was can we strike that? I mean they didn't directly

[50:14] say that but that's what they asked is that is it possible because it's then the contention

[50:21] of many in this room and throughout that it actually harms the unique qualities of the

[50:29] residential neighborhoods. Thank you councilmember Beckmeyer. The city council could or the

[50:35] The Planning Commission could remove that recital from the resolution, the council could remove that recital from the ordinance.

[50:45] I do believe that was in the original, a recital in the original ordinance referencing the 60-day limit.

[50:54] If you recall, our prior ordinance had no limit, what didn't even differentiate between hosted and un-hosted and had no limit.

[51:04] And so that was a finding that the city had made based on the 69th, so it's really up to the planning commission and the city council as to whether you feel that still applies, whether it's 16th or 120 nights.

[51:26] Thank you.

[51:27] Thank you.

[51:28] Commissioner Ferguson.

[51:31] A question for you.

[51:32] Would you like, this is one big pontification, or you want comments?

[51:37] Questions?

[51:37] How are we going to tackle this?

[51:38] I have a lot to say.

[51:40] I would love to have one question.

[51:42] I'd like to make sure that everybody has a chance to get at least in one question

[51:47] because we have limited time together.

[51:49] I'll pose my comments as a question.

[51:51] So, I was not in favor of the way that we tackled this in the first place.

[51:55] I thought we should have had neighbourhood by neighbourhood quotas because there is, by far, an undue pressure on West Sharp Park, Pedro Point.

[52:03] I live in West Sharp Park, have for a long time.

[52:06] I know a lot of us here don't live in the coastal zone, but 55% of the units being in a neighbourhood that's way less than 25% of the city.

[52:15] If we adopt what I think everyone here is in favor of adopting, I do believe that it creates an economic incentive to move all short-term rentals to the coastal zone.

[52:27] Without having some sort of area by area limit, you have in the city 98 units on the waterfrontage, which many are multifamily and not eligible, you could have every single one of them go to an un-hosted short term rental with 120 nights a year.

[52:43] I believe that's very economically viable, quick average of what they're charging for night in a small home is it comes out to 90 to $100,000 per year.

[52:53] If you look at Zillow rentals in Pacifica, that's well more than you're going to achieve by renting this home to a family.

[53:00] Also, think in addition, you are going to lose more housing than we have approved in my entire five years on the Planning Commission through the adoption of this.

[53:09] So while in favor of putting in and sustaining the protections we've given to the area least affected by this, I think that if we really create a bifurcated system here,

[53:20] You are adding fuel to an already bad problem for my neighborhood in particular.

[53:27] And I have a bunch of comments and questions, but I'll leave it at that.

[53:31] Thank you, Mayera.

[53:34] Actually, well, what questions do I have?

[53:37] We already been through all of this.

[53:40] And my concern about everything, I would like to keep the residency,

[53:49] residency, residency. It is important to me because we want to preserve the homes that

[53:57] we have for the people who live in working in Pacifica. And allowing, removing the residency

[54:06] is, I believe that we are opening the door to investor to come here and take all of our

[54:12] homes and have our community turn into hotels, which I believe when we buy a house, we

[54:21] are supposed to peacefully enjoy it.

[54:25] Thank you.

[54:26] Just as a reminder, this is the time for questions and deliberation will come later.

[54:32] We're even on that.

[54:34] So Chris, thank you, Vice Mayor.

[54:39] question for staff, I'm very curious between the February Coastal Commission

[54:45] apparent approval back then in the August reversal, what if any reasons were

[54:52] communicated to city staff on their reversal of their previous approval

[54:58] essentially without question? So what was the, if any, what were any reasons given

[55:04] for their change of heart.

[55:07] Thank you Commissioner Redfield.

[55:10] The Coastal Commission staff decided to continue

[55:18] the item from the February meeting

[55:22] as a result of the public comments that they received.

[55:28] They had shared that the primary residency requirement

[55:36] You know, was something that was challenged within those public comments and something that they were looking at.

[55:43] We hadn't heard anything about the 60-day maximum until about a week before the August hearing or about a week before the staff report came out on the August hearing.

[55:56] So we didn't have really a lot of communication about that.

[56:05] And I think the, you know, the reasons for the primary residency, you know, that we

[56:14] did discuss after the staff report came out, and the, you know, it was in their analysis

[56:20] this that combination of the citywide 150 cap are more limited hotel stock and the

[56:33] 69th limitation and kind of all the other regulations.

[56:39] So it was really for them the accumulation of those things with the primary residency

[56:46] in the 69th stay kind of being the things that pushed it over the edge.

[56:53] So would it be fair to say that the city was blindsided in that short notice on the

[57:00] 60 day thing, with the very short time as was reiterated in the meeting, very little

[57:09] time for staff to react to that, you know.

[57:13] It was certainly unexpected.

[57:19] Yeah, Sarah, can you pull up the slide that shows the protections that are in place right

[57:26] now in the non-costal zone?

[57:28] And I just want to like to reiterate something, so I'm just going to ask the question.

[57:33] I think it's the one that, yeah, that has all the lists, this one.

[57:36] So my question is, if we were to, my phone's listening to me right now, so freaky.

[57:47] So if we were to accept option two, then all of these protections would be in place

[57:56] in the coastal zone, including the multi-family unit and duplexes, which is very, very important

[58:05] to me. That is correct. These are the if everything falls into place and it's we adopt

[58:15] an ordinance and certified by the Coastal Commission that's correct.

[58:18] Okay. I just wanted to make it super clear that this is what we'll be looking at. Thank

[58:24] you. And March.

[58:29] I just have one again kind of clarifying question. So I was caught a little

[58:33] law card by Chair House, there's a question that I was really pleased to hear her ask

[58:38] and answered but I think you referred to a 5 p.m. communication and it seemed like perhaps

[58:46] council member beer had received that. I did not. It would have been helpful so I don't

[58:52] know if there was a communication but I wanted to just mention that but I just want to make

[58:56] sure I understand.

[59:00] That was an assumption on my part, I apologize, because you said your question was the same as her.

[59:06] But just so I'm understanding, so it sounds like there was some acknowledgement from the CCC that they overstepped

[59:14] with modifying the ordinance as it applied to the entire city, and that we now have kind of the okay to do either a bifurcated ordinance,

[59:24] or could we do just the simple edits that were presented in the example of the public comment

[59:32] from Cindy Abbott, Brian and Laurenero, and Caitlin Quinn. And it's two part questions.

[59:39] So that's the first part. Could we make those changes there? And then could we go back to the

[59:49] the Postal Commission and resubmit for the PPR in 60 day in the coastal zone, now that we have their staff report, which frankly I

[1:00:00] I sat through the coastal meeting, coastal commission meeting, just kind of baffled by what's seemingly flawed logic of it, and resubmit again, but having already gotten those protections in place with their two modifications. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. I will clarify that the communication received at 5 p.m. today was between city staff and coastal commission staff as part of our coordination.

[1:00:29] the Coastal Commission did not say that they overstepped their authority, but I do believe

[1:00:37] though, as we've discussed, the way in which our ordinance is organized is that, currently

[1:00:48] everything was intended to apply equally within the Coastal Zone and the non- Coastal Zone

[1:00:55] and I know some members of the public have spoken about how other jurisdictions will often have

[1:01:00] two different ordinances. And that's just not the way that the City of Pacifica has really

[1:01:05] approached our zoning regulations. So again, I think when staff was recommending the changes,

[1:01:15] they were just looking at the structure that the ordinance had. And I think not really considering

[1:01:22] that these were things that would then be happening city-wide.

[1:01:26] So I don't believe, and the confirmation that we're able to pursue option two and

[1:01:31] still have it go through the administrative process, you know, to me signals that

[1:01:37] their intent wasn't to, you know, try to step outside of the coastal zone but was

[1:01:44] merely working with the ordinance that we provided.

[1:01:49] And then I believe your second question was could we go through this modification process

[1:01:57] and then return to Coastal Commission at a later date with new revisions, with a new

[1:02:03] ordinance.

[1:02:04] And we could certainly do that if the Council wanted to explore different provisions, different

[1:02:15] different policy directions, you know, to try to regain primary residency in the coastal zone, but it would be a separate effort.

[1:02:26] Through the Chair and the Vice Mayor, if option two is accepted, we would advise waiting some time before trying to

[1:02:34] approach this topic with the Coastal Commission again.

[1:02:38] So our goal would not be to turn right around and come back and ask for

[1:02:41] reinstatement of primary residents is they weighed in pretty strongly in August against it.

[1:02:46] Yes, I would agree. And just to clarify, because I feel like I've made a faux pas here,

[1:02:52] I apologize for the misunderstanding. I just heard the word communication.

[1:02:55] And I've been trying to stay on top of this and quietly, frankly, kind of like concerned about it

[1:03:01] ever since I read the packet originally. And I would agree with City Manager Charpentier.

[1:03:06] I didn't, I would not have expected us to turn right around and run back down there.

[1:03:10] Yeah, so appreciate the clarification.

[1:03:13] Commissioner Boomer.

[1:03:16] Commissioner Davis actually asked my question but I'm going to ask it again just to request

[1:03:22] a hypothetical step forward.

[1:03:25] So if we hypothetically, if planning commission in our next meeting recommends that we move forward

[1:03:36] with option two, then we understand we don't want to approach Coastal Commission directly

[1:03:44] after going through the process of solidifying option two, when might we feel comfortable

[1:03:51] returning to Coastal Commission to work towards amending the Coastal Zone requirements?

[1:04:00] I mean, I believe that's really up to the City Council and it would, you know, there

[1:04:14] be some hard decisions I think to make about what comes off the work plan in order for,

[1:04:19] you know, staff and the community to take up a new STR ordinance.

[1:04:27] I think some of the precipitating factors would be if it were simply unworkable and we

[1:04:34] documented that, like look we tried our best and see there are still these repeat complaints

[1:04:40] one after another, perhaps if the commission changed or they're outlook on the way they

[1:04:46] treat STRs as well as the legal environment, I don't mean to speculate on commissioners

[1:04:54] Redfield's question about what changed, but it is public knowledge that they went through

[1:04:59] some legal travails earlier in the year around the same time.

[1:05:03] And in their staff report in August, they did mention that they felt like it was legally

[1:05:07] deficient, which we don't agree with, but those were their words.

[1:05:11] So I think if those changed, that would be the best policy argument of, look, we tried

[1:05:15] it your way.

[1:05:16] It just didn't work.

[1:05:17] This is not sustainable.

[1:05:20] Okay, so effectively having some data points of working with the ordinance that we have

[1:05:27] hypothetically, if it's option two, and then coming back with concrete request and then

[1:05:36] some backing to it as well.

[1:05:39] So I guess if we did go with option two, we'd be working with it for a while, this is kind

[1:05:45] of what I was trying to internalize.

[1:05:47] Thank you.

[1:05:55] I think City Manager, what you just said is probably the answer to my one question.

[1:06:01] I'm really appreciative that option too was an option and the stress level that I felt

[1:06:07] walking into this room went from like a 10 to a 2 with that in there, but it's still

[1:06:12] at a 2 because there's kind of a lack of parity between us and other cities.

[1:06:15] And this, they worked really long and really, this was a community-led initiative that

[1:06:22] took a lot.

[1:06:23] And so my question was, why isn't there parity?

[1:06:26] And I'm going to assume that what you just said is the reason, but I would love to understand

[1:06:32] why Halfmoon Bay can do it and we can't because that's part of why we came to the conclusion

[1:06:37] that we did.

[1:06:38] Why was it legally okay for them, but not for us?

[1:06:42] That's a great question, Commissioner Hauser, and I do think to the city manager's point,

[1:06:52] the legal framework, the legal environments change, the commissioners change.

[1:06:58] There's a lot of things that are outside of our control.

[1:07:02] The Coastal Commission did, Coastal Commission staff did acknowledge that, you know, there

[1:07:11] was a change, you know, and that they had initially, you know, were supportive of the changes

[1:07:19] throughout, really throughout the whole process because we were coordinating with them and

[1:07:24] then in their original assessment.

[1:07:26] And, you know, in looking at some of the other jurisdictions, there's actually a lot

[1:07:35] of nuance in, there's just so much variation that it is very challenging, I think, to

[1:07:42] do the apples to apples.

[1:07:45] You know, for example, they didn't, you know, note that Half Moon Bay has over 800 hotel

[1:07:50] rooms.

[1:07:52] their entire city is within the Coastal Zone, I believe their cap is only on unhosted.

[1:08:00] So there's all these different variations that make it difficult to just do that apples to apples comparison.

[1:08:09] I was disappointed that the Coastal Commission didn't defer to the local process.

[1:08:22] But again, I think that that really speaks to the changes in the legal environment.

[1:08:30] Through the chair and the vice mayor, it is evident to us all of our surrounding cities have primary residents, so and it doesn't sit well.

[1:08:40] And that's why we presented, you know, in the community really came out at the Commission meeting to advocate for that level of parity in terms of policy tools.

[1:08:50] And it's lack of that is noticeable and problematic.

[1:08:55] And that is why we present option three, which has their trade-offs in each one of these options and risks.

[1:09:01] But option three is go back to the drawing board and come back with a full resubmital.

[1:09:06] And we outline the risks associated with that, too, and they are significant.

[1:09:14] Thank you.

[1:09:14] And the final question for the first round, I would like to hear, and I apologize.

[1:09:20] I didn't realize that option two was really going to be a possibility to just now.

[1:09:25] But in order for us to be able to build a good data set to Lawrence thing,

[1:09:33] I think what dataset should we consider compiling in the event that we think we need to affect to a further changes at a later date in front of the Coastal Commission?

[1:09:47] Could you give me a list of a few that pop into your head?

[1:09:58] That's a great question, Vice Mayor.

[1:10:00] I think it would really depend on what the issues are.

[1:10:11] I think information about,

[1:10:19] I'm going to need to think about it and get, probably, get back to you.

[1:10:24] But I know that they had questions about, you know, there's nothing that necessarily compels someone to, you know, a property owner to rent, you know, their property long, you know, to a long term resident, you know.

[1:10:41] So I think looking at things, like conversions from short-term rentals to ownership or rental.

[1:10:53] But these things are very difficult to, the information is difficult to collect and interpret because there are so many different factors.

[1:11:07] I think another thing is looking at if there were a way to capture why the STR market fluctuates so much.

[1:11:18] Again, that's something really difficult to quantify.

[1:11:27] And then as they said in the hearing, there's not a lot of hard data about STR's impact

[1:11:38] And so I think those are the kinds of things we would want to be looking at.

[1:11:46] We don't have the data sets yet and that would be part of an ongoing effort.

[1:11:53] But if you think about it as a February 45% of our STRs were non-coastal and 55 were coastal.

[1:11:59] So it's sort of close to parity, so we'd look at complaints, news and complaints, code violations, and do a side-by-side comparison, and show that there's a difference that would be a lot of the information we want to gather about the community impact, police calls, recorded complaints, things of that nature, and track that as well as that split.

[1:12:24] But is it 45, 55 after this?

[1:12:28] Does it change?

[1:12:29] Some folks mentioned and we've documented it that in some of our neighborhoods, it is higher

[1:12:34] than the one and a half percent.

[1:12:37] There's a higher concentration and does that start to exceed that and warrant looking at

[1:12:42] this on a more geographic neighborhood basis or zoning basis.

[1:12:46] So all of those data points would be useful if this is, that we would like to track and

[1:12:52] And it's a work in progress, we don't have that data right now, but as we move forward

[1:12:56] with implementation of the SDR ordinance, and that would give us guidepost on what's

[1:13:05] the problem, where is the problem, what's the solution?

[1:13:09] Thank you.

[1:13:10] We're already have eaten sufficient significantly into planning commissions time, but I would

[1:13:16] I would like to touch base and see how you guys feel.

[1:13:20] Do you want to do another round of questions,

[1:13:23] or do you want to move to deliberations?

[1:13:26] I know Commissioner Ferguson had more questions.

[1:13:29] How are we feeling?

[1:13:35] Show of hands in favor of another round of questions.

[1:13:40] I think if anyone has additional questions,

[1:13:43] I'd like council to have the benefit of hearing them, too.

[1:13:47] But I do have a question.

[1:13:48] And do we have to make an announcement formally on a planning commission's meeting being delayed?

[1:13:56] That's a really good question for staff.

[1:14:03] I think it would be worth noting for the record that we're still in the joint study session of the City Council and the planning commission.

[1:14:13] The special planning commission meeting was noticed to begin at seven o'clock, that has not begun yet.

[1:14:20] and we'll begin immediately following the joint study session of the Council on Planning Commission.

[1:14:28] The Zoom link and access will be on the same so it will be a seamless transition.

[1:14:36] Thank you.

[1:14:39] Wonderful.

[1:14:40] So.

[1:14:43] Similar.

[1:14:46] It's similar.

[1:14:47] It's similar in pipe.

[1:14:49] So hypothetically, the resolution that's in the packet for the Planning Commission

[1:14:55] meeting. What would be the path we would want?

[1:15:12] So, this is the joint study session. This is the opportunity to discuss and deliberate on the Coastal Commission's recommendations. The Planning Commission, that meeting that follows, we'll talk about what the Planning Commission has before and what they can do to modify it, if the Planning Commission so desires.

[1:15:38] Just to be clear, planning commissioners will have additional opportunities for questions

[1:15:44] and deliberation in their meeting in addition to what we're doing here.

[1:15:50] Correct.

[1:15:50] This is the opportunity for you both to come together to talk about the Coastal

[1:15:54] commissions, determinations, suggested modifications, and potentially discuss options and approaches,

[1:16:04] and then the planning commission will discuss what recommendation they want to make to the

[1:16:09] council on the proposed text amendments.

[1:16:12] Vice Mayor, if I may, make a recommendation on logistical proceedings, I would recommend

[1:16:20] that maybe only council do whatever comments that the Planning Commission may have the benefit of hearing those.

[1:16:27] Or that if commissioners have questions that they be questions for council members that we may want to have input from.

[1:16:36] Great suggestion, 100% in favour of it. I have always enjoyed working with you and would love to continue doing so.

[1:16:44] I do have a question, and I wanted to ask this question so everyone knows that just for

[1:16:51] the record that the planning commission only changed two things from their regional

[1:16:57] audience.

[1:16:59] Is that right?

[1:17:01] The cost of commission only changed two items.

[1:17:04] The primary residency and the 60 days for 120 and everything will stay the same.

[1:17:12] That is correct.

[1:17:13] Thank you.

[1:17:14] Thank you.

[1:17:16] Are there any other counsel questions?

[1:17:20] I didn't have a question.

[1:17:22] I pushed the button, though.

[1:17:23] Did you see that?

[1:17:24] I pushed the button.

[1:17:25] I apologize.

[1:17:26] No.

[1:17:26] I did not.

[1:17:27] Rookie.

[1:17:29] Rookie.

[1:17:31] I just wanted to reiterate with City Manager Charpentier said in response to the question about

[1:17:38] what kind of data sets or what would be, and the commissioners, a couple of them made

[1:17:43] a point of saying we don't have data that shows us, there's really that many problems.

[1:17:49] And so I was just going to reiterate that point that gathering exactly as you said, those

[1:17:55] data points of time, intensity, time of day, et cetera, I think will be valuable.

[1:18:03] That's all.

[1:18:05] Through the mayor and the chair, we also submitted all of the public, we also submitted

[1:18:11] And did all of the public comments we had received over that Odyssey period, if you will,

[1:18:16] to the Coastal Commission.

[1:18:18] So they were fully aware, and that did provide, and also we provided public record documents,

[1:18:23] but that did provide those documents and those comments on, here's how it impacts me as a

[1:18:30] resident, as a neighbor, as a person who lives in Pacifica.

[1:18:36] Is up to date, did you have a comment?

[1:18:40] No, I think I'll read.

[1:18:44] Commissioner Ferguson, you seem to have a number of questions.

[1:18:48] Do you feel like you will have time later or do you feel like there's something that you need to ask now?

[1:18:54] I could ask one thing of the council while you're here.

[1:18:58] I do believe this was a high priority item for you guys.

[1:19:01] I'm sure you heard all the same complaints I did from our constituents.

[1:19:05] I'm sure those constituents by and large are in the coastal zone.

[1:19:08] Those are all the ones I'm getting complaints from,

[1:19:10] but they are my friends and neighbors.

[1:19:13] I have to push back on their being parity between the coastal zone and the non-coastle zone.

[1:19:17] Yes, we have 55, they have 45, the non-coastle zone is an order of magnitude larger than the coastal zone.

[1:19:23] So imagine that's more like ten times as many houses per block that are affected.

[1:19:29] And you are going to get an economic mandate to push all of these units into the coastal zone.

[1:19:34] It's going to make this problem worse for those of us that are feeling at the most.

[1:19:40] We have to give that pushback and have one quick question for staff.

[1:19:44] There's a note on the fiscal impact as one of the bullets on the effect of this ordinance.

[1:19:52] Changing from a 60-day to 120-days list is no fiscal impact and there's no way that's correct from a staff and budget standpoint.

[1:20:02] If there is a budgetary impact in the city, it'd be good if that was actually listed.

[1:20:06] Thank you, Commissioner Ferguson.

[1:20:08] Just to clarify, the fiscal impact has to do with the joint study session, not the time of doing the study.

[1:20:17] It's correct, not the actual ordinance itself.

[1:20:21] So, should an ordinance advance, we'll have fiscal impact information at that time.

[1:20:27] Got it.

[1:20:30] And then to refer to staff, do you think that we would have time for each person to make a deliberative

[1:20:37] statement prior to turning it over to planning commission or from a process

[1:20:45] perspective. This is a this is a joint study session so it's at the the will of

[1:20:50] the vice mayor and the chair. And there's only four you know I mean I think we

[1:20:54] can make our statements. Yeah I'm all for it. I just feel bad that it's already

[1:21:01] 25 minutes. Well I mean I think we we had the benefit of hearing from our

[1:21:06] community, the same community that we've been hearing form for four years, the same community

[1:21:10] that came down to the Coastal Commission meeting, same community that was just as upset

[1:21:14] as we were about what happened during that meeting.

[1:21:17] And so the feedback that I've received, that we've received from my community, our community,

[1:21:23] was very beneficial for me.

[1:21:25] I had no clue that there was going to be an option to, super stressful.

[1:21:30] I have this whole pontification about the Coastal Commission that I am going to save.

[1:21:37] But I do want to say that I feel like it's my priority to get as many protections in place as we can as quickly as possible.

[1:21:46] And the way I think that we can do that is to go with option two and to understand that there are all these things that are going to be put in place with the exception of the

[1:21:58] for the primary resident and the 120 days.

[1:22:04] So I think option two is the way to go in order for us to get as many protections as we can, as quickly as we can.

[1:22:12] Thank you so much.

[1:22:14] You stay at home, Mary, and there's nothing else to say.

[1:22:18] But my concern also is that unhosted multi-family, I'm bringing this back here because I feel that we already

[1:22:28] We cover that on the original audience, is that right?

[1:22:34] That's correct, they left in place the prohibition of unhosted STRs in multi-family units.

[1:22:42] Okay.

[1:22:43] It would be in place.

[1:22:45] It would be in case.

[1:22:46] I appreciate that.

[1:22:48] Well, we heard the community in all of us is good to hear from them and it's good to hear

[1:22:59] work for them and even though we are accepting option two, we're going to keep working on

[1:23:10] the non-costal to make it work for us because I believe that we need to make sure that

[1:23:21] we take responsibility on protecting our homes here. Otherwise, we're going to be a hotel.

[1:23:35] And I don't have any short-term rentals next to my house. So if I were, I guess they

[1:23:42] won't put up with me. I'm going to be the one that they can put up with. So I feel like

[1:23:50] Like most of the people here are so nice.

[1:23:53] You guys are very nice that you put up with short-term rentals in your neighborhood.

[1:24:03] This is back there.

[1:24:05] I favor option two.

[1:24:11] Thank you.

[1:24:12] My statement is going to be slightly different.

[1:24:17] I came in here thinking we were going to have zero good choices and we were picking between

[1:24:23] many, not lesser of eels, but many just plain wrong. I was extremely disappointed with the

[1:24:32] coastal commission process, outcome, interaction between their staff and their commissioners,

[1:24:42] and it was upsetting. I came in here angry,

[1:24:50] getting that news, that we have resumed a

[1:24:55] collaborative relationship is encouraging to me, not just for now, but into the future.

[1:25:04] But I also want to take this opportunity to recognize what it was that staff did to

[1:25:11] get us from an S storm to where we are now, and it's a big deal.

[1:25:21] And I want to thank you guys extremely for what it is that you did to make it possible to even get an option that isn't the absolute worst.

[1:25:37] And I just want to let you know I appreciate that.

[1:25:40] So at this point if anybody wants to make a motion to adjourn the study session and turn it over to planning commission, I'm happy to take it.

[1:25:49] Assembly second

[1:25:52] anyone do we need to vote do we need to vote so the council needs to vote and the planning commissioners need to vote

[1:26:01] Okay, so council for do we all vote on the same? No, I think we have no motion, right so roll call vote all vote

[1:26:08] Oh roll call

[1:26:11] He'll start with

[1:26:15] Commissioner Sanchez

[1:26:17] Approved

[1:26:18] Commissioner Redfield

[1:26:20] Yes.

[1:26:21] Commissioner Ferguson.

[1:26:23] Yes.

[1:26:25] Commissioner Davis.

[1:26:27] Yes.

[1:26:28] Sir, they didn't have to do it separately.

[1:26:33] Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:26:35] Okay, the council, the council made a motion, motion made by council member beer, seconded

[1:26:42] by council member Beckmeyer, I'll start the roll call vote over with the council members,

[1:26:46] council member Espinosa.

[1:26:47] Council Member Beyer.

[1:26:51] Yes.

[1:26:51] Council Member Beck-Meyer.

[1:26:52] Yes.

[1:26:53] Vice Mayor Wright.

[1:26:54] Aye.

[1:26:56] And that motion is 4-0 with a bull's absent.

[1:27:00] Okay.

[1:27:01] Would the motion be adjourned by planning commissioners?

[1:27:04] Would the planning commission like to make a motion to adjourn?

[1:27:07] A motion we adjourn.

[1:27:08] All second.

[1:27:10] And with the motion made by Vice Chair Berman and seconded by Chair Hauser, I'll start

[1:27:17] the roll call vote with planning commissioners with commissioner Sanchez.

[1:27:22] Yes.

[1:27:23] That was a yes, Commissioner Redfield.

[1:27:26] Yes.

[1:27:27] Commissioner Ferguson.

[1:27:28] Yes.

[1:27:29] Commissioner Davis.

[1:27:30] Yes.

[1:27:32] Vice Chair Burman.

[1:27:33] Yes.

[1:27:34] Chair Hauser.

[1:27:35] Yes.

[1:27:35] And that's the unanimous vote 6-0 with Commissioner Fisher absent.

[1:27:41] This meeting is adjourned.

[1:27:44] Thank you.

[1:27:46] And I would like to ask staff, it is 7.32, I'd like to, if staff will be ready, I would like to start the meeting at 7.40, or just staffing more time.

[1:27:59] We can start at 7.40.

[1:28:01] Okay, we'll start at 7.40, thank you.

[1:28:03] Planning

[1:28:45] Commission.

[1:28:47] It is 7.46 pm.

[1:28:50] This meeting is called to order.

[1:28:52] May I please have roll call?

[1:28:53] All.

[1:28:56] Chair, housing.

[1:28:58] Present.

[1:28:59] Vice Chair, Burman.

[1:29:00] Present.

[1:29:01] Commissioner Ferguson.

[1:29:05] Present.

[1:29:06] Commissioner Redfield.

[1:29:07] Present.

[1:29:08] Commissioner Sanchez.

[1:29:09] Present.

[1:29:10] Commissioner Davis.

[1:29:11] Present.

[1:29:12] Commissioner Davis.

[1:29:13] Commissioner Davis, can you please lead us in the salute to the flag?

[1:29:37] All right, thank you.

[1:29:42] Before we start on the agenda, any member of the public

[1:29:48] wishing to make a public comment tonight should complete a speaker card and bring it to the front

[1:29:53] and hand it to staff. Members of the public may also participate in the meeting via Zoom or by

[1:29:58] dial-in option.

[1:30:00] Once styled in, once you're called upon, please unmute yourself by pressing star five to rate your hand, raise your hand and star six to unmute. Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on non-agentized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city and comments on agentized items must relate to that specific item. If comments do not fall into one of these categories, the city will provide you with a second warning to stay within

[1:30:30] in the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic.

[1:30:33] If the warning is not followed,

[1:30:34] I will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone

[1:30:36] and throughout this warning system,

[1:30:38] I will seek the assistance

[1:30:39] of Assistant City Attorney Bisono

[1:30:41] in identifying comments not related to the agenda item,

[1:30:44] or not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

[1:30:50] So tonight, I was gonna say I have one item on the agenda,

[1:30:57] but technically we do have administrative business.

[1:30:59] I do not have any comment cards on the administrative business.

[1:31:05] Is there anyone on Zoom or on the phone with their hand raised for not short term rentals but for administrative business?

[1:31:15] There are no hands raised.

[1:31:17] Okay, then I'll close public comment on administrative business and ask for a motion to prove the order of the agenda.

[1:31:23] So moved.

[1:31:25] second. Second. Please vote.

[1:31:31] We don't have our voting board up, so we do the roll call vote.

[1:31:36] On that motion, Chair Hauser. Yes. Vice Chair Berman. Yes.

[1:31:40] Chair Commissioner Ferguson. Yes. Commissioner Redfield. Yes. Commissioner Sanchez. Yes.

[1:31:45] Commissioner Davis. Yes. That motion passes unanimously. Okay. We have no minutes to approve tonight.

[1:31:50] We have no designation of liaison listed, but I will note that yesterday's council meeting was supposed to be the affordable housing ordinance that has been moved.

[1:32:01] I believe to September 14th.

[1:32:03] That is correct, Chair.

[1:32:04] How's it?

[1:32:05] It has been continued to the September 14th meeting, and I did confirm that you would be available for that Commissioner Redfield is not available that day.

[1:32:18] And so if you wanted to designate a different alternate, I would love to designate a different alternate

[1:32:22] I will still plan to be there, but will someone come with me?

[1:32:27] Who's coming? It's good.

[1:32:29] What do you think it's going to be?

[1:32:30] The 14th September.

[1:32:33] I probably could.

[1:32:35] Okay, then Commissioner Davis and

[1:32:37] Commissioner Davis and I.

[1:32:42] Okay.

[1:32:46] All right, that brings us to oral communications.

[1:32:49] I also do not have speaker cards for oral communications, I think.

[1:32:57] Mr. O'Donnell and Gary, I believe you both want to speak on SGRs.

[1:33:01] I'm seeing head nods.

[1:33:04] No, I'm sorry, we're still in oral communications.

[1:33:07] I just want to make sure that I don't overlook an oral communication.

[1:33:10] Are there any oral communications on the phone?

[1:33:13] There are no hands raised.

[1:33:14] Okay, then we will move on from oral communications to the main event new public hearing 2026-024-TA-131-26.

[1:33:24] Considerations of tax amendments to Article 49 for term rentals are going to have a staff report, please.

[1:33:35] Thank you, Chair Hauser. Good evening, commissioners.

[1:33:37] Welcome back.

[1:33:39] Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director, presenting on behalf of staff on the Coastal Commission modifications to the short term rental ordinance.

[1:33:49] This presentation is very similar to the one that we just had, so I'll go very quickly

[1:33:56] through these slides.

[1:33:58] If you have any questions at the end though, please let me know if you feel like I've skipped

[1:34:02] over.

[1:34:05] So again, the city adopted comprehensive updates to the short-term rental ordinance in August

[1:34:12] of 2025.

[1:34:13] Those have been effective in areas outside of the coastal zone.

[1:34:16] The Coastal Commission certifications required prior to being effective within the Coastal Zone and then just relevant to our conversations this evening are permit renewals for short-term rental permit renewals are coming up, so that renewal period is October annually.

[1:34:42] So when the local coastal program amendment went to the Coastal Commission, they suggested

[1:34:51] two modifications, one, to remove the primary residency requirement, and two, to replace

[1:34:57] the 69 maximum rentals for unhosted with 120 nights.

[1:35:03] So now we're at the stage where the city has to accept degree or may accept degree and adopt modifications recommended by the Coastal Commission.

[1:35:15] So we're going through that legislative process. This is the first hearing on the draft ordinance.

[1:35:21] Again,

[1:35:26] in order for the 2025 ordinance as modified to be effective in the coastal zone

[1:35:37] for this next round of permits, they would need to be in effect before the end of October.

[1:35:45] And we heard just this evening before the joint session that the Coastal Commission believes

[1:35:50] They can bring these modifications back to the commission at their October meeting, which is October 7th through the

[1:36:00] 9th.

[1:36:01] Again, all of these, it's a very tight timeline to adopt legislation and have it certified by October.

[1:36:11] And so every single one of these things has to happen successfully in order to reach that renewal period.

[1:36:24] Just to highlight some of the standards that would apply or that do apply under the 2025 ordinance are requirements for responsible party listing the STR permit number exterior signage with contact information having a host to the operator has to be on site overnight maximum occupancy visitor hours prohibition on outdoor pools.

[1:36:54] Hot Tubs and Spaws, at night, noise monitors, parking, two night minimums day,

[1:37:01] prohibition on un-hosted STRs and multi-family units, which includes duplex and

[1:37:07] attached single-family, life safety inspections and revocation provisions.

[1:37:14] So there are three primary legislative options.

[1:37:18] The first is to accept a degree and adopt the modifications as is.

[1:37:24] or to accept them in the coastal zone only,

[1:37:28] or re-submit a revised ordinance.

[1:37:33] So option one would remove primary residency

[1:37:37] and change the rental limit night

[1:37:40] from 60 to 120 nights in unhosted STR's citywide.

[1:37:47] The pro is that it gets those positive permit

[1:37:50] and operational standards for a 2025 ordinance

[1:37:53] into effect in the coastal zone, and then the con is that it removes primary residency

[1:37:59] and increases number of unhosted knights also outside of the coastal zone.

[1:38:07] Option 2 is a newly available option which would codify the modifications but only in the

[1:38:21] coastal zone. So again that would add those positive permit and operational standards into

[1:38:29] the coastal zone while retaining some of the other protections in the non-coastal zone.

[1:38:34] And coastal commission has indicated that that can stay within their administrative process

[1:38:41] and likely go to the October hearing.

[1:38:46] The third option is to consider additional amendments,

[1:38:49] So that would essentially be kind of starting over, so we would have to re-submit and go back through public hearing with the Coastal Commission after going through our own legislative process.

[1:39:02] And that could definitely not occur before this upcoming STR permit renewal, but could be extended, it could extend it for up to probably two cycles.

[1:39:13] goals.

[1:39:16] We do, you know, in the staff report we provided just a kind of a straight modification

[1:39:24] or acceptance of the Coastal Commission standards. So we do have a motion for that.

[1:39:33] And then based on the feedback we received from Coastal Commission today, we're also providing

[1:39:39] an alternative motion for planning commission to consider which would be in the coastal zone only.

[1:39:46] So we've distributed an alternate draft resolution and draft ordinance and I'm going to put the changes

[1:39:55] up on the screen for the record.

[1:39:58] And then there are copies of that available in the back for the public as well.

[1:40:03] And so this would be making those modifications only in the coastal zone.

[1:40:11] So first in terms of the primary residency, it would add the statement in areas outside

[1:40:19] of the coastal zone.

[1:40:20] Each operator operating a short-term rental shall have their primary residence at the site

[1:40:25] of the short-term rental.

[1:40:26] So again, that's just bringing that primary residency to only apply outside of the coastal

[1:40:38] zone.

[1:40:39] And then there's a conforming edit under the permit requirements to say that in areas

[1:40:44] outside of the coastal zone, the operator has to provide specific documentation.

[1:40:50] and

[1:40:56] then in terms of the unhosted nights it would add a section maintaining the 69 limit

[1:41:06] outside of the coastal zone and then add a section with the Coastal Commission modification

[1:41:12] for 120 nights within the coastal zone. And it's just the same language with the different

[1:41:21] dates.

[1:41:24] One thing that we did not include in the drafts that we would read into the record

[1:41:30] is that the Coastal Commission in their correspondence today did say that they would

[1:41:36] like to see clarification added to the definition of primary residence to add extra clarification

[1:41:44] and it only applies in the non- Coastal zones.

[1:41:49] And so we do have a motion for approval, should the Planning Commission

[1:41:55] want to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the modifications only in the coastal zone?

[1:42:02] And that concludes staff's presentation.

[1:42:05] And if I skipped over anything too quickly, please let me know happy to answer any questions.

[1:42:14] Just anyone have any questions for staff before we go to public comment?

[1:42:19] There will be an opportunity for questions again for public comment.

[1:42:25] Okay, seeing none, I do have one procedural questions since we just had a study session.

[1:42:30] We have a lot of folks who sat and gave comments at the study session.

[1:42:37] And I'm wondering if there's a way for the record to reflect those comments for this meeting,

[1:42:41] since this is the meeting that has the actual, the actual action being taken.

[1:42:55] I think we could ask that the minutes include the public comments from the Joint Study

[1:43:03] Session, but this is a public hearing so if people want to provide comments for this meeting

[1:43:09] they can but I think if the commission is inclined to just incorporate those comments from the

[1:43:19] So let me give a little bit of foundation for what I'm saying.

[1:43:22] We had a bunch of speakers at the last meeting and I have four speaker cards.

[1:43:25] So I want to make sure that we don't miss information.

[1:43:29] Understanding that there will be additional information provided during public comment right now.

[1:43:34] So would all of the commissioners be amenable to including the last hearing the study sessions?

[1:43:41] I'm seeing nods. Yes, unanimous.

[1:43:43] Okay. We'd like to do that. Thank you. So without further ado, I will go to public

[1:43:49] comment. Commissioner, I can't wait to add to words.

[1:43:52] No, let's turn on.

[1:43:54] And a quick procedural question since this option two that we are deliberating on is an

[1:44:01] ineffective change to what was approved by the Coastal Commission. Does that mean we have

[1:44:06] to adopt it exactly verbatim, or there are some changes we can make with the administrative

[1:44:11] I have approval. Specifically, I am thinking of inputting a subcap for the coastal zone.

[1:44:19] You just not to infect what is currently in place, but to make it such that you don't

[1:44:26] have a landslide effect of 45 percent of short-term rentals moving into the coastal

[1:44:31] zone. Some cap that's very close to what you have now doesn't eliminate any current,

[1:44:38] But prohibits that from happening in the future.

[1:44:43] Thank you, Commissioner Ferguson.

[1:44:45] That would need to be submitted as an amendment.

[1:44:49] And so I think we have some flexibility in terms of-

[1:44:53] This is an amendment.

[1:44:55] Yeah, so-

[1:44:56] Well, this is a modification.

[1:45:00] It's a text amendment to approve the modification, accept and approve the modification of the Coastal Commission. If we want to add things beyond those modifications, it would need to be filed as a basically a resubmital of the local Coastal Program amendment and go back to public hearing. No, they affectionately gutted the two biggest portions of our resolution. That's correct. Any additional changes would need to be

[1:45:29] your recent middle? Okay. Commissioner Ferguson, I'm going to just build on that a little

[1:45:36] bit because if an option that would go to Coastal Commissioner in October would include

[1:45:44] would be the ordinance that Council passes. Would it be possible for the resolution that

[1:45:50] planning commission produces include additional, I'm going to call it conversation points that

[1:45:57] that we would ask the Council to consider, is that a possibility that does not create

[1:46:05] a proposal commission?

[1:46:09] So Chair House, that is perfectly acceptable if the Planning Commission wants to make

[1:46:14] recommendations aside from the text amendments that are being proposed, that is, the Planning

[1:46:19] Commission can make those notations or items for consideration, and just to make sure

[1:46:27] I'm reiterating the, I think the missing bridge here, there's not a concern that that would

[1:46:33] jeopardize the dates and the probable acceptance by Coastal Commission.

[1:46:39] Right. I mean, it would just be an item that's submitted up to the Council.

[1:46:43] The Council can consider that or not consider that or take action on that or not take action on that.

[1:46:48] But I think what, what Director Up to Grave was saying is that the options for the city

[1:46:56] We are very narrow, it's you accept what the suggested modifications for the commission

[1:47:02] or you don't accept them and then you resubmit a revised ordinance.

[1:47:06] Now, we are making very minor changes to the suggested modifications to make a distinction

[1:47:12] between coastal and non-coastal zone, which is consistent with the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction.

[1:47:19] So, it's not really an expansion of the suggested modifications.

[1:47:23] It's really just a clarification that the suggested modifications will only impact the coastal zone.

[1:47:32] Can we put the red language back on the screen for one moment because I was going to save a question.

[1:47:38] But since Commissioner Ferguson is asking about language, yeah, so that either one is fine.

[1:47:46] Again, but did this language come from staff following questions, or did this language come from the Coastal Commission?

[1:47:54] This is language that we sent to the Coastal Commission staff, asking if this clarification of where this applies could still be considered through their administrative process.

[1:48:09] Yes, I probably would have preferred to see the opposite of this written where it was that the operator had to be a primary resident, except in the coastal zone versus accepting the rest of our city, because it's semantical, it's the same thing, and I don't think it's worth jeopardizing potentially, but I think that in the spirit of building the foundation for what we were looking for.

[1:48:38] I would, I wonder if that would be seen as material at this point.

[1:48:43] Yeah, I mean, so we're trying to make very precise changes that would be consistent with the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission.

[1:48:56] What I would suggest is you could put that, your suggested modification to the language in the recommendations to the council.

[1:49:04] and potentially, you know, between now and then we can consider that a little bit more.

[1:49:11] Okay. Can I ask a legal question? The Coastal Commission's purview is the STR ordinance or just

[1:49:19] the language in the local coastal land use plan that incorporates the STR?

[1:49:26] So the LCP amendment that we submitted was the ordinance itself.

[1:49:32] Right, so the City of Pacifica has passed this STR, so we know the Coast Commission has no jurisdiction

[1:49:41] over outside of the Coastal Zone, so why change the toward-term rental ordinance at all?

[1:49:48] You could adopt there, but it would still only affect the local coastal plan,

[1:49:52] and it doesn't affect your short-term rental ordinance, and it doesn't affect anything outside of the Coastal Zone anyways.

[1:49:57] That's a great question, Commissioner Ferguson.

[1:50:01] The way that Pacifica's zoning ordinance is organized is that our ordinances apply both

[1:50:09] within and outside of the coastal zone.

[1:50:12] And so our entire zoning ordinance is part of our local coastal program.

[1:50:18] And so, yes, we just don't have a separate ordinance for STRs.

[1:50:28] And as Director Optigree mentioned earlier, the Coastal Commission made the suggested modifications

[1:50:35] without making a distinction between Coastal and non- Coastal zones because that's not what

[1:50:40] was submitted to them.

[1:50:42] The ordinance doesn't make that distinction.

[1:50:44] And so making that distinction from their part is arguably beyond what was submitted.

[1:50:58] So with that, we will open public comment.

[1:51:02] I have four speaker cards up here.

[1:51:04] Anyone else would like to speak?

[1:51:05] Please bring a card up to staff where raise your hand in Zoom or by phone.

[1:51:11] I'm just going to read all four of them in the order that they're in.

[1:51:14] So the first is Michael Wollman, followed by Bob O'Donnell, Gary, and Cindy.

[1:51:19] Hello,

[1:51:29] commissioners, city staff, city administrator, members of the public.

[1:51:33] Mike Wallman, West Sharp Park.

[1:51:36] So as we know, mostly concerns, probably the overwhelming amount of the concerns have

[1:51:40] been raised about short-term rentals have been raised by people that live along the coast.

[1:51:47] And now what we're hearing is, we'll protect everybody except the people that are the most

[1:51:51] infected by this.

[1:51:53] I think that is wrong to do to the people who live along the coast.

[1:51:58] It will also create an economic incentive for more short-tune rental operators to just

[1:52:05] continue to get more property along the coastline to rent out because it's going to be in

[1:52:10] their economic interest to do so.

[1:52:12] It's pretty basic stuff and anybody knows the supply and demand is going to take over with

[1:52:18] that, especially since they will make double the revenue, if they are able to do something

[1:52:24] they can't do elsewhere.

[1:52:26] So I believe this, you know, two different rules in one city is going to disproportionately

[1:52:33] harm the people in the coastal zone that are already the most impacted by this.

[1:52:37] So that's one thing to be mindful of.

[1:52:41] And then, you know, recently there was a great city council meeting or planning meeting where

[1:52:46] somebody shows up as Darth Vader. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my three-year-old son,

[1:52:50] who's a big fan of the dark Lord of the Sith. But I will say that the Coastal Commission

[1:52:55] would be Darth Vader in this particular instance. And, you know, they've told us what to change.

[1:53:02] In the past, apparently, their staff said, hey, you're good to go. And then the actual

[1:53:06] commissioners voted, no, that's not what we said. So, what's the risk now that this last

[1:53:13] Last minute speech that, hey, this will get done, will actually be approved by the actual

[1:53:18] commissioners and the coastal commission.

[1:53:20] We don't know that for certain.

[1:53:22] And if they rejected again, then what's the impact to our renewal date in October?

[1:53:28] Do we miss it now?

[1:53:29] I don't think it's the worst or it worth the risk to play around with that, because as we

[1:53:33] know Darth Vader will tell us that he's changed the deal and pray that he doesn't change it

[1:53:39] more.

[1:53:40] Thank you.

[1:53:45] Bob followed by Gary and then City.

[1:53:54] Commissioners, it's really interesting that our former mayor is here because I can think

[1:54:00] back four years ago when he led a City Council study session on the issue of short-term rentals.

[1:54:07] And I'm one of many citizens that have been impacted by the short-term rental process.

[1:54:12] I mean, the non-coastal zone, but we appreciate that the problem is all of the city.

[1:54:19] We've gone through a lot as planning commissioners and as citizens and as the city council.

[1:54:24] And over those four years, we've created a new ordinance, a very effective ordinance, a model.

[1:54:30] And very similar to other ordinances produced by cities all around us to protect ourselves from the worst impacts of these short term rentals.

[1:54:38] We can go on with a litany of problems that have occurred but we've already discussed that so

[1:54:44] What I want to say tonight is we can only do what we can do

[1:54:48] We're subject to the

[1:54:50] California Coastal Commission and we don't have direct control over that

[1:54:54] But we do have direct control over the non- Coastal area and we've created a model ordinance that we need to protect and make

[1:55:01] As useful as possible in the city. So our recommendation is you go with

[1:55:07] We'll be discussing the council study session earlier, option two, and strong language

[1:55:14] that protects the things that we want and now have in the non-cocial zone, and then

[1:55:23] we'll do all that we can to protect the coastal zone, too.

[1:55:25] But we're going to lose the whole baby and the bath and the whole good mill.

[1:55:31] If we don't do something to protect what we have, a right to protect.

[1:55:35] So I urge you to find a way working with the council to protect or you can and what we

[1:55:42] work so hard to do for four years.

[1:55:44] Thank you.

[1:55:46] Thank you.

[1:55:47] All right.

[1:55:48] Gary and then Cindy and then Sue.

[1:55:57] Good evening.

[1:55:58] Gary Chienke of Aspen Drive.

[1:56:02] I am here to support option two as stated before.

[1:56:07] For we worked long and hard to get an ordinance that went into effect last October.

[1:56:14] And it seems to be working very well for the area outside the coastal jurisdiction.

[1:56:23] But I think if we don't accept the Coastal Commission's recommendations and are forced

[1:56:29] to go back to the and start the process over again, it could be another four years before

[1:56:35] anything is done.

[1:56:37] So I think we ought to adopt the changes that Coastal Commission is recommending and see

[1:56:42] how they work and maybe later on change them or start to change them if we want but get

[1:56:49] something done. Thank you. Thank you. Okay Cindy and then Sue degree and that's the last

[1:56:56] speaker card I have.

[1:56:59] It's good to see you again this evening planning

[1:57:02] commissioners and staff. I wanted to clarify something that came up in several of the

[1:57:09] prior public comments on this about other coastal cities having two ordinances. Actually

[1:57:17] very few of them have multiple ordinances but they do have different rules within the

[1:57:23] same ordinance just like is in front of the city of Pacifica. I spent the weekend reading

[1:57:29] a lot of them again, even though I've read them before, to clarify that point.

[1:57:34] So many have, as we've heard, Commissioner Ferguson bring up and what we will end up

[1:57:39] with here, different sets of rules within the same ordinance, but rules for the coastal

[1:57:46] zone rules outside.

[1:57:48] So again, it's kind of rare to have two ordinances, so I wanted to bring that up.

[1:57:53] The second thing is, gosh, I was an advocate for caps by neighborhood all along, but that's

[1:58:00] not what was voted on over the four years.

[1:58:03] That's not what anybody would agree to.

[1:58:06] So what I'm going to be heartened by here is a 30-year Weshart Park residence is that

[1:58:12] a lot of the provisions that are in the ordinance hopefully will alleviate that influx of places

[1:58:20] here.

[1:58:21] We have small lots.

[1:58:22] we have very limited parking. There's a lot of apartments and multifamily units here.

[1:58:29] So I'm hopeful that that's going to remedy this huge, you know, group of people coming in here and buying up spaces.

[1:58:38] So that's the reason I can go along with that part of it.

[1:58:42] And I really appreciate the city manager noting that this gives us the opportunity now to be tracking things and really looking at what we need to look at for

[1:58:52] a future case, but that time is in the future. I appreciate seeing these modifications and

[1:59:00] it's very clear that all they are doing is clarifying that the, what was made by the

[1:59:08] Coastal Commission as changes are just clarified between the Coastal Zone and outside of the Coastal

[1:59:14] Zone. That's all it's doing. It's not changing anything and I think that that's really important.

[1:59:20] I would though on like page five of the resolution to either strike that section C.I. that was brought up by Councilmember Beckmire earlier at minimum.

[1:59:35] Please strike that maybe leave in that you're limiting the number of nights of unhosted rentals, but strike that 120 days.

[1:59:45] That does not belong here because we all know that's not what we were looking for.

[1:59:51] So strike the whole thing or it not, but please continue and go with option two.

[1:59:57] Thank you.

[1:59:59] Thank you.

[2:00:04] Good evening, so do great. Thank you. I really appreciate the conversation between planning commission and staff this evening. I like your spunk. We mean we all want the same thing on both sides. Eastern West. Appreciate the delineation of the jurisdiction that attorney and city manager mentioned. Option two seems like the best way, but I really appreciate your thinking out of the box and trying to save everything.

[2:00:30] the consequence, as Commissioner Ferguson mentioned, is very scary and then I appreciate

[2:00:37] what Cindy said gives you a little bit of hope, what she said, that there's natural

[2:00:41] causes that may help against that. So you and Council are up a toughy one. Really appreciate

[2:00:46] your spunk, though. We want it right on both sides, so good luck in your proceedings. Thank

[2:00:52] you. Thank you very much. So that was the last speaker card. Are there any raised

[2:00:58] hands. We have two raised hands online. Okay, let's go to the Zoom members.

[2:01:04] Our first raised hand is Remy Tan.

[2:01:11] Hello. It's Remy Tan. Again, there's a manner at

[2:01:17] March. Again, I urge the City Planning Commission to adopt option two. It sounds like given

[2:01:26] in the tight timeline with the October 31st renewal of all of the STRs that are within

[2:01:33] the audience, that's the way to go and, you know, to allow everybody on the East side

[2:01:43] of Highway 1 to keep the ordinance as is, and then with the modification it encodes the

[2:01:49] information for the folks on the west side of one and you know we can come back another

[2:01:54] data to appeal a fight that one. But you know at least we'll have you know 90% of our

[2:02:02] ordinance in place. So I think that's really important. It sounds like the ordinance is

[2:02:06] working. The previous testimony this evening and you know we do have a cap so I think the

[2:02:16] concerned that one of the residents brought up about, you know, people, you know, buying

[2:02:24] out houses on the west, west side of one, because of the 120 versus 60 days, you know,

[2:02:32] that the room close to chapter 150, you know, somebody will have to rescind their permit, you

[2:02:39] for somebody to buy, you know, and do a, you know, I see on the one side of town.

[2:02:46] So, you know, I think that's going to be slower than, you know, what happened, I'm assuming

[2:02:52] all of our permits are taken, because we only have 150 of them.

[2:02:56] So, I think that's really important to point out.

[2:03:01] And also, you know, I'd like to see Council in planning commission and, you know, please,

[2:03:08] You know really enforce and make sure that all the money that's coming from the SDRs, you know

[2:03:13] We do get to transit occupancy tax to say I was up meeting a couple weeks ago on the budget

[2:03:19] They have every dollar of transit occupancy tax that we have we can get is really important

[2:03:26] So you know, we have some little bit of shift to the west side where they're you know higher rates that's more tax dollars

[2:03:33] Thank you.

[2:03:36] Thank you.

[2:03:37] Thank you.

[2:03:41] Thank you.

[2:03:41] Next up, we have Caitlin Quinn.

[2:03:47] Hello, Planning Commissioners.

[2:03:50] Thank you so much for doing this really important work tonight, both Commission and staff, obviously.

[2:03:58] I am 100% for option number two.

[2:04:03] I, listen, I think a lot of you know me, I mean, I am the poster child for how hellish

[2:04:11] life can be living next door to an unhosted STR that is poorly managed.

[2:04:16] And as much as I want relief, I do not want that relief to come at the expense of my

[2:04:24] fellow pacificans on the east side.

[2:04:26] I do not want those people to lose the primary residence requirement and the 60 nights just

[2:04:35] So we can push through an ordinance that would give me potentially some modicum of relief here in West Sharp Park.

[2:04:44] And to commission or Ferguson's comments, I read you 100% like, yeah, it is not good here.

[2:04:53] We have so many of them. I mean, Beach Boulevard is over 50% unhosted STRs, as we know, and

[2:05:01] And, you know, listen, what the Coastal Commission has handed us here is not what we wanted,

[2:05:07] it's not what we need, and it's basically, it's a steaming pile.

[2:05:12] I'm not going to lie, but I mean, it's, what are our choices?

[2:05:16] It's like the small steaming pile or the giant steaming pile.

[2:05:21] It's, you know, sorry, it's, it's, it's, it's a graphic, but it's, it's, it's, it's kind

[2:05:26] of a deal with the devil, and I think we have to just suck it up and take this.

[2:05:30] And I will say, as others have said, before me, going forward, like let's give this fix and

[2:05:38] going forward, enforcement is going to be so, so, so important.

[2:05:42] And we know that this is something that the city has not done a great job with up until this point.

[2:05:48] I mean, I walk down Beach Boulevard, we've got one operator who's operating 10 SDRs unhosted in multi-unit buildings.

[2:05:57] who doesn't have a permit for one of them and it just I just sit here and go how

[2:06:03] are we letting this happen. I mean literally like talk about leaving money on

[2:06:06] the table and honestly allowing someone to steal from the city because that is

[2:06:11] what it is. Thank you for the work that you're doing and really appreciate your

[2:06:17] consideration of option two. Thank you. Thank you Caitlin. I don't think we had anyone

[2:06:24] else? That's all. Okay so at that I will close public comment and bring it back to the commission

[2:06:29] for questions and deliberation. We are going to mix it up, deliberate, ask whatever you'd like.

[2:06:36] You don't have to press the button. Just go ahead.

[2:06:42] I have a timeline question for staff

[2:06:45] because I think I know what's going to happen tonight. If option one or option two is approved and

[2:06:53] and we move forward with something.

[2:06:56] Option two does not have to go before Coastal Commission's

[2:07:00] October meetings that might understand it?

[2:07:03] Either option will have to go back.

[2:07:06] So essentially the Coastal Commission has to confirm

[2:07:12] that whatever modifications we've approved

[2:07:17] and adopted meet what their requirements are.

[2:07:19] As my understanding, they adopted it,

[2:07:21] but just with changes.

[2:07:22] So, as long as we accept those changes, they approve it, and actually, if we could pull up slide.

[2:07:35] I have a follow-up button to make clarify what I'm trying to get at.

[2:07:39] If we were to go with option two tonight, and the Coastal Commission deliberates in October,

[2:07:48] but renewals for permits are in October, and then it would have to come back for us again.

[2:07:53] And if somebody with a current permit, can they renew on October 1st before the Coastal

[2:08:00] Commission deliberates and then get one more year with, say, a multi-family in West

[2:08:04] Sharp Park because they had their permit renewed before the ordinance went into effect?

[2:08:09] Right.

[2:08:09] So, that's a really good question.

[2:08:13] The permit renewal period, the permits are good until October 31st.

[2:08:21] And so the new permits don't go into effect until November, technically I think until November 1st.

[2:08:30] So the renewal period is October, so that's when people are applying, but new permits don't actually go into effect until, until November 1st.

[2:08:41] So we effectively hold all applications until the 31st and they find out on the 31st, but their fate is for the next year?

[2:08:48] They would be, we would be reviewing that application, so we review all of the STR applications

[2:08:55] in the month of October and then new permits aren't issued until November 1st.

[2:09:01] I'll get even more specific.

[2:09:03] If we go with either option 1 or option 2, it eliminates the use of STRs in multi-family

[2:09:09] housing.

[2:09:10] There is no way with either those options that somebody renews a permit for next year

[2:09:16] for an STR in multi-family housing.

[2:09:18] That's right.

[2:09:19] Even if they were to come in today and obtain a permit to have an STR in a multi-family

[2:09:28] unit, they would be required to renew that permit in October.

[2:09:32] So regardless of when you apply, the permit is only good through October 31st annually.

[2:09:37] Can I ask you a different way?

[2:09:39] What about the eventuality that we don't get this done by November 1st?

[2:09:44] then would not apply then then the so what is staffs maybe it's going to be some kind of discretionary thing here right what is the plan if this isn't done by November 1 for multifamily STRs and the coastal zone.

[2:10:01] If the city does not accept and adopt modifications and those aren't certified by the Coastal Commission,

[2:10:10] then the current standards that are in place in the Coastal Zone would still apply to this next cycle.

[2:10:18] And so I do have, I pulled up on the screen here, the schedule, this is why we have, are having special hearings.

[2:10:26] meetings. It is a very tight timeline. If the Planning Commission adopts a resolution

[2:10:36] making a recommendation to the City Council, we would then hold a special City Council meeting

[2:10:43] in place of the Planning Commission meeting on September 8th, and it would then go for

[2:10:52] We're a second reading on at the regular city council meeting on the 14th and then we would need to submit to the Coastal Commission.

[2:11:04] So just to make sure that this is amply clear to everyone, if we don't make a recommendation tonight and continue that what you're saying happens definitively.

[2:11:15] If all of these things happen, then the best case scenario is the Coastal Commission's control.

[2:11:19] It looks like you're threading a needle.

[2:11:23] We.

[2:11:26] Right.

[2:11:27] Just, I was just clarifying.

[2:11:29] Thank you.

[2:11:29] Through the chair, if for whatever reason one of these steps does not occur and we do not make that deadline,

[2:11:36] we would return to council immediately for direction as that may alter the public's interest

[2:11:43] and the council's interest in which one of those options to look at.

[2:11:46] I believe with option two it won't really matter if we don't get this done in time right because there's it would be we would go to effect for the city and the coastal

[2:11:56] mission has no purview over anything outside of the but it it would matter or it can't it can't without coastal

[2:12:04] commission approval to even though it's not within this ordinance is already in effect in the non-hostile zone

[2:12:11] Currently.

[2:12:13] Yeah.

[2:12:13] So the only thing that's not in effect, right, is that I think that's correct.

[2:12:20] Understood.

[2:12:21] Thank you.

[2:12:22] Can I re-ask, and maybe this wasn't Commissioner Ferguson's question, but I developed the question after hearing yours.

[2:12:33] If just the logistical process for current permit holders, or anyone who wants to submit a permit

[2:12:42] In the beginning of October, they have the understanding of what the current ordinance is,

[2:12:50] so not inclusive of what we're looking at tonight, is when staff reviews over the course

[2:12:57] of the month and then on October 31st, when permits get issued, the permits get issued

[2:13:05] with whatever requirements are in effect as of the 31st.

[2:13:09] So that is when, so that is when a permit holder learns

[2:13:14] what the requirements are potentially if they change.

[2:13:18] And, you know, we will update our public information

[2:13:22] to reflect, you know, whatever is happening in the process.

[2:13:30] And so, you know, if council is considering, you know,

[2:13:35] So, you know, introducing or adopting an ordinance, you know, we'll make sure that

[2:13:40] that information is updated on our website so that people are aware of that change.

[2:13:48] Okay.

[2:13:48] So then, because the hypothetical situation I'm thinking of is, right now in the coastal

[2:13:54] zone, there's no regulation, effectively.

[2:13:58] There's existing forms of the existence of the prior ordinance, yeah.

[2:14:06] And let's say someone, well,

[2:14:12] I'm just trying to, I guess, this mainly relates to unhosted

[2:14:16] because the example I was thinking of is if they live in a different country and they

[2:14:21] wanted to continue to rent out their house but that could still be the case if we choose

[2:14:25] option to.

[2:14:29] There's not an appeal period following the Coastal Commission.

[2:14:38] That's a good question. I believe, I will have to look into that, but this is a more

[2:14:52] of an administrative acceptance, I think more so than a decision, but I can't.

[2:15:00] And we can look into that.

[2:15:04] But my understanding is that the effective date is the date of the Coastal Commission action. I'm sorry if I didn't think any of this really affects our process tonight. Just good enough. I think that this is really good. I mean, that was a great question. I think that we should all continue to ask questions. And I think that we know that we've got a very flexible resolution and a much less flexible ordinance.

[2:15:28] I've

[2:15:36] got to still get some clarification on the application process, so assuming that

[2:15:43] we're all good but also assuming if it doesn't get to Coast Commission and doesn't make

[2:15:50] our deadline, what does that do for, again, you have an existing or even a new applicant

[2:15:56] that comes in, so they're subject to the existing regulations.

[2:16:02] So if that application is filed in, they're in compliance with the old

[2:16:10] ordinance. When they file for the new one, what is their obligation for

[2:16:15] compliance on the new rules? The sound monitors, all the parking

[2:16:21] restrictions, all the various good neighbor policies that are in place.

[2:16:28] Permits for that start on November 1st will have to meet the new requirements, if this

[2:16:35] is adopted and accepted by Coastal Commission.

[2:16:38] So they would still have to be compliant with any inspections, the whole kit and caboodle.

[2:16:44] And they would know that going in, they may think, they're seeing the old ordinance and I'm

[2:16:48] good to go, I paid my money for my permit and all of a sudden I'm getting hit with, I have

[2:16:53] to do what? That type of thing. I'm just worried about being caught off guard and not being

[2:17:01] able to do what they signed up for essentially.

[2:17:06] Right, and again, we don't have any formal actions at this point, but we will be updating

[2:17:13] our public information. So we do have a short-term rental page that provides links to all of

[2:17:21] the requirements to the application and so forth, and so that's a place where we would

[2:17:25] put it.

[2:17:27] And I also have to ask, are we geared up for those inspections and all the compliance

[2:17:34] issues that require city staff, the safety inspections, et cetera, et cetera, to go with

[2:17:41] the code enforcement to go see if the signage is in place, if the noise modders in place

[2:17:48] would assume that that's done at the same inspection for just for efficiency?

[2:17:54] That's correct. So where the way that the process works is that we have to

[2:17:59] conduct the inspection before the permit can be approved and so they are

[2:18:05] checking for those things. Okay, so thank you. I

[2:18:12] just wanted to.

[2:18:19] Chair

[2:18:20] quite sometime in the non- Coastal Zone and so the city has put a lot of education even in the last renewal period

[2:18:27] There was a lot of education to all SDR permitties about the new ordinance

[2:18:32] So I think there is a piece of education that will continue through the process the renewal process this year as well

[2:18:38] And I do want to point out that there is a provision in the ordinance that the 2025 ordinance that provides

[2:18:46] It provides basically a phase process for implementation of the ordinance in the coastal zone once the certification from the Coastal Commission takes place.

[2:19:01] So if the ordinance were to proceed forward and or the Coastal Commission doesn't consider it biocular first and the council doesn't want to make any changes and accepts the modifications as is, but the certification comes after November 1st.

[2:19:16] There is a phased approach whereby some provisions would go into effect immediately.

[2:19:21] Other provisions like the big ones, the primary residency, not the primary residency,

[2:19:26] but the hosted and the un-hosted, those would not go into effect until the renewal period comes again.

[2:19:33] What about multi-family?

[2:19:36] I'd have to check on that.

[2:19:39] Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, because that's really helpful nuance.

[2:19:43] If we go with option two, which is, I think, far away with the majority of the community

[2:19:49] has said, and we miss the October commission hearing, the commission that have, I think

[2:19:58] what I'm hearing you say, is there's not a scenario in which the non-coastal zone would

[2:20:06] go backwards, right?

[2:20:08] If Council wants to proceed with the suggestions modifications as the City Manager mentioned,

[2:20:16] Council may want to do something different.

[2:20:18] But let's assume they want to proceed with the modifications as is, but it just doesn't happen

[2:20:24] that they get certified by October 31st.

[2:20:27] The code allows a phased process whereby once certified certain provisions of the ordinance

[2:20:34] going to affect immediately other provisions don't go into effect until the next renewal cycle.

[2:20:40] So an SGR on the back of the valley could not lose its primary resident requirement if something

[2:20:49] slipped to November. I'm sorry, say that again. City manager are you following me?

[2:20:55] I think the question is if we move forward with option two and let's just say the Coastal

[2:21:03] commission meeting in October doesn't happen because they lose power or the storm or whatever.

[2:21:09] Does that affect the current protections in the non-costal zone?

[2:21:14] And the answer is that in the non-costal zone they would stay as status quo.

[2:21:19] Because this bifurcates that.

[2:21:22] Because this wouldn't be an effect.

[2:21:24] Because nothing.

[2:21:26] Uh-huh.

[2:21:26] Okay.

[2:21:27] Okay.

[2:21:27] Thank you.

[2:21:28] Right?

[2:21:28] Right.

[2:21:28] That's right. Yeah, so the modifications which makes the distinction option to make distinction between

[2:21:35] coastal non- Coastal Zone. Okay, that doesn't go into effect until the Coastal Commission

[2:21:39] is certified. Okay. And there are already operating. There's already operating. There's nothing weird

[2:21:44] about the October. First October, so you've more established. In that case, if you went back to the

[2:21:49] Coastal Commission with changes, would you still leave all the protections you have in the non- Coastal Zone?

[2:21:56] So,

[2:22:00] if you made substantive changes and said, you know, we disagree with what your

[2:22:03] point is, here are these following additions we would like to change.

[2:22:09] The existing ordinance that's already in effect in the non-costles zone, that would

[2:22:13] stay, correct?

[2:22:16] If you do not, if nothing happens at all, what is in effect in the non-costles zone?

[2:22:21] Stays in effect in the non-costles zone.

[2:22:22] If there are changes that are material and require resubmission, then we do not have the opportunity to impose the good

[2:22:33] neighbor standards in the Coastal Zone starting November 1st.

[2:22:38] There is a risk that we may not make it.

[2:22:40] The reason I'm bringing this up is this cuts 90% of what the push for this ordinance was in the Coastal Zone.

[2:22:51] And so, if we make changes, we are in no way threatening the non-coastal zone.

[2:22:56] What do we have to lose by pushing for changes in the coastal zone if that's the case?

[2:23:00] All of the other regulations, right?

[2:23:02] The list that was on that slide.

[2:23:05] Correct, and I would love to hear the end of the City Manager's answer.

[2:23:09] The trade-off is between the ability to impose the new standards in the 2025 ordinance,

[2:23:19] that's which include the list that was on the slide.

[2:23:23] I think we're all familiar.

[2:23:25] That's the ability to use those in the coastal zone.

[2:23:29] Sure.

[2:23:30] Is the benefit of moving forward now.

[2:23:33] And the phase two would do that if everything falls

[2:23:37] into place in a way that would protect,

[2:23:41] that would not change the existing protections

[2:23:44] in the non-coastal zone.

[2:23:48] And we did, to be fair, we did present an option three, which is a material resubmission.

[2:23:55] Which would be very time intensive, and we would lose at least two cycles of renewals.

[2:24:03] Because once we submit an application to the Coastal Commission, they have 12 months, is that right?

[2:24:09] To review it.

[2:24:10] That's correct.

[2:24:10] So if we submit an application in, let's just say March, they have till March 28, so that's another cycle.

[2:24:21] So we're looking at at least two years, and that assumes everybody's an alignment, at least two years without having those additional protections in the coastal zone.

[2:24:29] And it is a trade-off, and we may not make it, even with option two, we do want to be clear.

[2:24:35] a lot has to happen and fall into place but we know that without option two there's no chance.

[2:24:42] Yes.

[2:24:43] And we recognize this is not always an easy decision and there are a lot of things to

[2:24:49] consider.

[2:24:50] Well, I want to say that I really appreciate that there's a lot of common ground in what

[2:24:58] staff, the council members, the community, like everybody seems to be pushing for option

[2:25:03] two.

[2:25:04] And I know that a lot of the people that have spoken to me live in the coastal zone.

[2:25:08] So I think that's helpful at least to-

[2:25:12] In case it wasn't clear, I'm also a four option too.

[2:25:14] I don't think it's a great, it's not the solution we all wanted, but it's the best of the three choices, like that.

[2:25:20] A lot of people were saying otherwise, but that is given these three choices, that would be the way I was being also.

[2:25:26] Not that it matters, because I'm going to get out loaded unanimously.

[2:25:30] Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what path is more right because they've gutted something

[2:25:36] that took us five years of work and then I live with day to day and my neighbors all

[2:25:40] live with day to day and it frankly doesn't, the multi-family is a big win.

[2:25:45] Other than that, there's nothing here that helps those of us that live with 55% in short-term

[2:25:56] about multifamily. So, the provision that I mentioned about the phased approach,

[2:26:03] it would provide that prohibition on the un-hosted multi- in multifamily wouldn't occur

[2:26:15] until the next renewal cycle. So, next year, number one.

[2:26:19] Right. If it's certified after the renewal period.

[2:26:22] So, and that's in section 9-4.4905 subsection V. And again, that's just unhosted in multi-family.

[2:26:39] And we do share the concern about having two zones, and we do have very limited data.

[2:26:46] But we do have data points between December and February. And what's interesting, and we have no ex,

[2:26:53] We don't have a good explanation for is that STRs decreased in both zones.

[2:27:00] Coastal and non-coastal, we didn't see a migration from one to the other.

[2:27:05] It's a short sample, so I don't want to draw a complete conclusion to that.

[2:27:10] But that is what we have in the Coastal Commission.

[2:27:12] We signal to the people that we're going to make it economically unviable to do STRs, right?

[2:27:17] That none of them had this information that's now before, that's when they were making that business decision.

[2:27:21] So, I know someone, personally, who decided to remove the FTR because of the ordinance,

[2:27:28] they saw coming down.

[2:27:33] I think that's fine.

[2:27:37] I'm clear.

[2:27:39] May I comment?

[2:27:41] I have to share.

[2:27:43] So, yeah, it was an extremely long, challenging meeting.

[2:27:50] I left my notes.

[2:27:52] I sat up until 11 o'clock.

[2:27:53] I think that I before the meeting and finally found the pad and I forgot it.

[2:27:57] So I did them in the car and the way down there.

[2:27:59] And they were very short and sweet.

[2:28:01] And it's kind of good because the way this reads,

[2:28:03] I would have probably gotten the ire of the commission.

[2:28:09] But these two right here were stunning.

[2:28:14] And I really loved Mr. Sharpen Tears shock and dismay.

[2:28:22] I can't even think about the work.

[2:28:23] or when that was you've never seen that unprecedented in your career, a decision like that

[2:28:31] that was essentially done and then reversed.

[2:28:35] It was on the fly, I think you wrote more director up the grave on the fly as you two

[2:28:44] were commiserating on what to do next as it was happening.

[2:28:49] So I really think that, and this has spoken to me on several members of the public, that

[2:28:56] I think, and I surmise myself, that the people coming out of that meeting, I don't think

[2:29:01] they were probably 10% of the people that came out of there with confidence, that they

[2:29:06] were confident that they knew exactly what just occurred.

[2:29:09] I believe that wholeheartedly, including the commissioners without a doubt, without a doubt.

[2:29:17] It was unique. It was rather shocking and appalling at some of the things that turned out

[2:29:26] from the public was amazing. I mean, it's not like we're just going down the street for

[2:29:32] that meeting. So yeah, it was quite amazing to see, and I think again, there couldn't

[2:29:40] been a better pitch from the city, from all involved, so it was quite amazing. What was

[2:29:50] the, God, the one I had, I had a real zinger in here, someone I can remember what it was.

[2:29:55] Oh, it was, yeah, I love a lot of it. It came through and

[2:30:00] I think one of my last things here is that it appears that the environmental justice lens suffers from severe cataracts.

[2:30:07] Pacifica's vision is clear, equitable, and accommodating to all. And I think that was truly the ordinance.

[2:30:15] And I think they were influenced, I think I believe their outside influence got the best of them, I really do, my opinion.

[2:30:24] And so that's it, but thank you.

[2:30:31] Okay.

[2:30:32] Well, I want to make sure that some of the things that we heard in the study session just

[2:30:39] get brought up for the record, so I'm going to start reading a couple of things in.

[2:30:44] There was a discussion about gathering data points, I know that we've discussed that more

[2:30:49] in this meeting, but I think that we had said that if we do go with option two, that we could

[2:30:58] also discuss potentially adding more teeth to some of what we potentially have lost at

[2:31:05] a future date and now we would gather data to staff need any more information or deliberation

[2:31:09] on that before we move on to some of the other things.

[2:31:18] It would be helpful to articulate more explicitly what you want it to say and then to just confirm

[2:31:28] the consensus so that we get it right.

[2:31:36] Commissioner Ferguson, I may defer to you a little bit on that.

[2:31:40] I think that came out of one of your comments.

[2:31:42] But I do think that we should start instead of saying coastal zone,

[2:31:47] non-coastal zone, and amounts, we should start adding like a population density

[2:31:52] to like proportion.

[2:31:55] Like the 10% of the coastal zone homes are STRs versus like the 1% of the non-coastal.

[2:32:00] whatever the actual percentages that we are taking away done.

[2:32:03] I believe this whole process came out of squeaky wheel gets degrees, right, and the squeaky

[2:32:08] wheel was by sharp park and even tonight, all west sharp park and p-drop point, and

[2:32:13] these are the people who stood up and made this priority, and these are the people getting

[2:32:16] least benefit from it, and now maybe it's one more year until they get any benefit from it,

[2:32:20] so I'm just here advocating for my neighbors and family and friends, you know.

[2:32:28] Also on that note, I know that we got slashed from 60 to 120.

[2:32:33] We delivered it for a long time, about the 60 number, from 45 and 90, be great.

[2:32:39] I don't know if it's a discussion to be had, I don't know how 120 came up.

[2:32:43] I was out of the country when the meeting happened.

[2:32:46] If there's a number more than 60 and less than 120, every one of them is better, right?

[2:32:52] I mean, I think the 60 was basically developed in conjunction with the in being a primary

[2:32:56] residents to like, hey, this is where it's economically a benefit to someone who's retired

[2:33:01] and wants to make extra income but not run a for-profit business in her neighborhood as a hotel.

[2:33:08] 120 wasn't part of the discussion because that's still profitable if you bought your house for

[2:33:13] half a million dollars to make $90,000 a year renting it out short-term.

[2:33:17] So, if I may, and I actually, to the $90,000 a year, I'm not sure how you came to that, but

[2:33:26] And I'm certainly not actually-

[2:33:27] Average nightly rental time is 120.

[2:33:30] What?

[2:33:30] Average nightly rental time.

[2:33:31] I did that too.

[2:33:32] Maybe we came up with different average rentals.

[2:33:34] I just, you know, asked the AI like everybody else does.

[2:33:37] I broke my own rule.

[2:33:39] But mine came, yeah, 120 time.

[2:33:41] My average was 320, it's 30,000 a year.

[2:33:44] And I certainly couldn't afford to pay a more, you know,

[2:33:46] who's got a $3,000 mortgage in Pacifica.

[2:33:49] But, but anyway, that being said, the original staff report

[2:33:55] that was included in the study session packet, W-13B,

[2:33:59] from the planning, the Coastal Commission staff,

[2:34:03] they recommended striking the primary residency

[2:34:06] and striking the 69th period.

[2:34:09] And the Coastal commissioners, it's my understanding

[2:34:12] and correct me if I'm wrong,

[2:34:14] actually came back to the 120 days.

[2:34:16] So they were, yeah, they were ready to leave it at,

[2:34:19] the staff was recommending 365, no restriction whatsoever.

[2:34:23] It came back during the meeting at 180, I believe that was Commissioner Wilson, that came back at 180.

[2:34:28] But what they landed on was the one that carried that back down, most of that revenue was right,

[2:34:33] it's a couple of weeks from the holidays and it's weekend, so you've now got every weekend,

[2:34:37] plus you've got a few weeks, you can rent all the revenue days at 120 days.

[2:34:50] Okay, I think that exhausts the data question.

[2:35:01] Do you have more than to add into the microphone please?

[2:35:06] I do not have this moment.

[2:35:10] I have some ideas that I could compile for them if they'd like, but I don't.

[2:35:17] Off the top of my head it's a little difficult.

[2:35:20] I think the problem is we need to make a recommend, you know, like we need to at least have a majority

[2:35:25] be concurred with what the ideas are? Do you want to think about it and come back to that?

[2:35:30] Chair House, if I may interrupt, it's not clear to us at the table what is what you're working

[2:35:39] towards specifying. In terms of data, I mean, you heard during the study session that that would

[2:35:46] be something that the city does with or without a planning commission recommendation, so that's not

[2:35:55] Not necessarily something that needs to be included in the Planning Commission's recommendation.

[2:35:59] You can, of course, but that's not specifically necessary for this item.

[2:36:06] Okay.

[2:36:07] I think what I would like, if you don't need more for us on this and that we can move to the next step.

[2:36:15] Yeah, and I think there is an opportunity to provide more information certainly to planning staff in the future if people think of things that could be helpful.

[2:36:25] that could be done separately.

[2:36:29] Chair House, earlier in our planning commission meeting, you mentioned wanting to provide

[2:36:35] in our recommendation to council potentially some alternative language.

[2:36:41] If a question regarding that was the idea you had just to document in the record some of the

[2:36:51] The alternative ideas or requests that we have, but with the likely understanding that council may put forth what was already red line tonight.

[2:37:04] Yeah, I think that, and I'm going to ask Director Up to be able to check me on this, but I think that what I heard was that the red line that we have is already been shared with the Coastal Commission.

[2:37:17] And we're feeling a degree of confidence that at least staff feels comfortable with

[2:37:23] the language in the red line.

[2:37:24] So any of the language that I think Commissioner Ferguson had asked about are like my reversal

[2:37:30] of how we say it.

[2:37:32] My discussion will be for the next thing after this.

[2:37:34] Right.

[2:37:35] And so I think that my personal recommendation, but there are six of us here tonight, is that

[2:37:42] that we don't change the red line and that we make sure that we do the kind of safer

[2:37:46] alternate too. But that if we do have, there is nothing from our planning commission resolution

[2:37:55] that's going to really go to the council commission. This is for the record, this is for

[2:38:00] council and if we do have comments like, hey, we should really look into creating a specific

[2:38:07] specific or a neighborhood by neighborhood specific quota, or that we should do this

[2:38:12] by population density or whatever, you can do it and hear safely in the resolution.

[2:38:20] So almost like saying we agree with what staff is recommending, but we also want these

[2:38:29] things considered for the future.

[2:38:32] Yeah, I think I

[2:38:39] mean I think we get either out of a warehouse statement or in the now

[2:38:42] therefore, but the thing that we're recommending is still the new ordinance with the right

[2:38:48] lines.

[2:38:49] Right.

[2:38:54] Okay.

[2:38:55] Do you have more on that?

[2:38:59] I wanted to go to the community comment we got about striking C little Roman numeral 1 out

[2:39:06] of our resolution.

[2:39:08] I concur that the furbiage of-

[2:39:13] Could we get a page number?

[2:39:15] Oh, I'm sorry, page five.

[2:39:16] Section C, little Roman numeral I, of the new resolution.

[2:39:20] Also, the old resolution.

[2:39:37] So I think the idea was that the little Roman numeral I would

[2:39:44] be stricken or at least the preservation

[2:39:52] I don't think it helps to have that section, and I would be totally for striking the whole portion.

[2:40:02] CHAIR POWELL.

[2:40:05] Chair House, that Rominet 1, that supports the consistency determination with general plan policy, CDG3.

[2:40:22] So if that doesn't, if the planning commission does not believe that that supports the general

[2:40:31] planning consistency determination, is there alternative language that can be crafted?

[2:40:36] I think the offending language was the clause to 120 days, so by limiting the number of

[2:40:42] of un-hosted rentals, comma, and just getting rid of 220 days was the kind of least that

[2:40:49] we would need to do to re-establish the spirit of what the original.

[2:40:56] Right, so I would suggest just removing the 120 days because the rest of the sentences

[2:41:02] to expanded operating regulations that address potential neighborhood impacts such as noise,

[2:41:07] litter, and parking.

[2:41:09] Okay.

[2:41:10] Is there consensus on the Dias?

[2:41:12] Yes.

[2:41:12] I think that works.

[2:41:13] It does support.

[2:41:14] C, gentlemen.

[2:41:16] One.

[2:41:16] Two.

[2:41:17] Three.

[2:41:18] Four.

[2:41:18] Five.

[2:41:20] Marge anything else?

[2:41:22] Hmm.

[2:41:23] Okay.

[2:41:24] Okay.

[2:41:25] So that was on the list.

[2:41:31] We had two council members, very specifically, ask us to go three council members, very specifically,

[2:41:36] go to option two out of the four that we're here at the study session.

[2:41:42] and I wrote a note from council member beer that said get as many protections into place

[2:41:46] as possible. I think she's saying that that was a little option too dead. So, I mean

[2:41:52] that's kind of the list that I heard and we have the community comments that we heard

[2:41:58] at the study session being put into the record. So they're more deliberate. Does there

[2:42:05] anything else that staff would like us to discuss or to reiterate from the study session

[2:42:10] for the record.

[2:42:15] Thank you Chair House. I think the planning commission has covered discussion

[2:42:21] of options one and two, as well as provided some potential recommendations for future ordinances.

[2:42:35] Then does anyone up here have additional items or anything that they would like to change in the

[2:42:45] resolution or include.

[2:42:51] I would recommend that we say a later date ask council to consider.

[2:42:56] Is there a way to just add a note to note at the end that just says, you know, we urge

[2:43:03] council to consider a later date prioritizing these constituent issues like everyone by

[2:43:12] The neighborhood quotas reducing the number of nights or re-incentivizing the, I don't know if it's going to be a non-star close

[2:43:20] inflammation to have hosted versus un-hosted.

[2:43:23] It's not going in the ordinance.

[2:43:25] I mean, if council wanted to put it in the ordinance, but we're not making a recommendation or changing the recommended ordinance council.

[2:43:33] I think you could put every one in the resolution and I would just ask that you propose it in a way that the city attorney thinks it's logical.

[2:43:40] Yeah, and so we were discussing at the side table that, you know, the planning commission

[2:43:45] can make a motion to adopt the resolution that's before the planning commission as modified

[2:43:54] by staff to be consistent with option two and also provide comments to the council as follows

[2:44:03] and the comments can be listed out so that the comments aren't in the resolution itself but

[2:44:08] but the comments will be presented to the council.

[2:44:13] So, again, it is up to the planning commission.

[2:44:16] What those comments or those points are.

[2:44:19] I mean, I feel like there's one key one

[2:44:21] that we keep talking about, but I think it needs to be stated

[2:44:24] the way you'd like to hear it.

[2:44:25] And then I think we can talk about that.

[2:44:26] If I can spit something out and we can decide

[2:44:28] if we have consensus on it.

[2:44:30] Before you do, did we decide which whereas this would belong?

[2:44:34] I'm thinking the last one.

[2:44:35] in our Planning Commission resolution?

[2:44:41] Well, the language that Commissioner Ferguson's about to recommend that we add into Planning

[2:44:47] Commission's resolution for tonight's meeting, I just want to make sure we're all on

[2:44:52] the same page of where it would go for context.

[2:44:55] I'm thinking it would go on page 4, the last whereas.

[2:45:00] Which discuss this planning commission meeting? Yeah, it can go there, or it can be verbally said as part of the motion. It doesn't have to go in the resolution. These items for consideration. I feel it will hold more weight in the resolution. I don't know if others agree.

[2:45:19] I agree with you. I just want to do the least time consuming, risky thing to our timeline and our mission. Yeah. I mean, this resolution

[2:45:31] pollution correct me if I'm wrong director up to great but this isn't going to be

[2:45:35] the question it's the coastal commission so it is really just for the council but of

[2:45:39] course it will be part of the record so we want to be cognizant of that it is

[2:45:44] included in the any executed action showing the legislative history gets

[2:45:52] included okay so then there you go I don't see how it would jeopardize

[2:45:56] So if it's not affecting your legislation.

[2:45:59] To you.

[2:46:00] I think we're hearing that if we goes into the record,

[2:46:03] I would be overlooked.

[2:46:06] I don't want to throw the baby out with bath water.

[2:46:11] Compitulate.

[2:46:12] On, honestly, I think that we as a planning commission

[2:46:15] do a lot of things that are long-term planning

[2:46:17] and that are, you know, approving projects that happen

[2:46:20] in the very long term.

[2:46:22] And this is a very unique position we're in,

[2:46:24] where the choice that we make tonight or the recommendation we make tonight has immediate

[2:46:28] impacts on the people that live here and their enjoyment of their homes, especially in the

[2:46:34] coastal zone. So I want to be very cognizant that this is not, like we're not in a position

[2:46:40] here where we want to, like we heard every single person that came up here essentially say

[2:46:45] that they would like to go with option two for right now. I don't think we want to talk right now.

[2:46:50] I'm comfortable not mending this at all and just having this be a hill to die on a future council meetings and

[2:46:56] You know, I know these people. I know where to get a hold of them. We've all gotten hold of them gotten this far

[2:47:01] Let's have a list that goes into the staff report as

[2:47:04] Commission

[2:47:05] Commission topics that we ask for recommendation by the or we ask for consideration by council

[2:47:12] And I think you should see

[2:47:13] Through the chair there there are a couple of ways we could accomplish this

[2:47:18] we'd probably rather not have it in the resolution,

[2:47:21] but you could also make a motion,

[2:47:23] approve the resolution as amended, the 120 days amendment,

[2:47:27] and then say also include in the staff report

[2:47:31] these comments, or you could just direct us

[2:47:34] to include these comments in the council staff report,

[2:47:37] which we will faithfully do,

[2:47:40] recognizing that they are comments

[2:47:42] and not necessarily the full force

[2:47:45] of the planning commission.

[2:47:46] Okay.

[2:47:49] You just, for some reason, like struck a brainquard, do we need to designate a liaison from this

[2:47:56] special meeting to the council meeting?

[2:48:00] 98.

[2:48:01] Or 98.

[2:48:02] Or 98.

[2:48:03] Good question.

[2:48:04] Yeah.

[2:48:08] So, unfortunately, it's not.

[2:48:12] So, unfortunately, that's not on the agenda.

[2:48:15] And the Planning Commission typically agendas those designations.

[2:48:20] The planning commissioners can certainly attend the council meeting where these are going to be considered.

[2:48:31] It was on the agenda, okay.

[2:48:37] Neighborhood specific quotas would do it all for me.

[2:48:42] Now, I think we should address the 120 days, but that's the issue for later, and

[2:48:48] always I thought the best approach would be to do neighborhood by neighborhood, because otherwise you get what we have.

[2:48:53] We have where 50% of one neighborhood is search or rentals and 0% of another neighborhood.

[2:48:58] That's the whole problem.

[2:48:59] Another thing I would suggest we add, both Lauren and I asked about it, about resubmitting to the Coastal Commission.

[2:49:06] We know it can't be done right away, and we need to collect some data.

[2:49:10] And I think that we could use their staff report, like I said, as a basis for how we might resubmit so

[2:49:18] that we do try and get the same protections in the coastal zone as we have in the rest of the city.

[2:49:26] So I would add that to the list.

[2:49:28] more as a foresight for Council.

[2:49:32] Yes.

[2:49:32] Okay.

[2:49:36] For future.

[2:49:37] Yeah.

[2:49:38] I would ask that where the amount of STRs are reported out as like 45 in the non-coastal and 52 or whatever the numbers are that those are also reported out as percentage of the homes in that zone.

[2:49:54] For percentage of single family homes going forward, right?

[2:50:01] And I did have a question that I just remembered from one of the public comment.

[2:50:07] I want to, oh, Denise is listening great.

[2:50:09] So I believe there's a, well, no, and I know you guys need to do that.

[2:50:14] So there is, I thought there was, and I read so much this weekend, and I came, I was hopped

[2:50:20] up.

[2:50:20] I'll tell you.

[2:50:22] I'm sitting here like, no, I don't have any questions.

[2:50:24] It's because option two is what my brain kept saying, why can't we just do this, right?

[2:50:29] So, I got to view it as we get what we can get now, and if it's approved by the 30th by

[2:50:37] Coastal Commission, then now we have those protections except for the heart of it.

[2:50:43] Sorry, I agree with you, it gutted it, but we still have some protections in place.

[2:50:48] And one of them, it seems to me I read that owner couldn't own more, that there's some limit

[2:50:53] on how many units they can own.

[2:50:56] Is that true?

[2:50:57] because operator can only operate one.

[2:51:02] So that brings me back to Caitlyn's comment about this person that has 10 of them.

[2:51:09] And would that reflect in the permits?

[2:51:13] I mean, is that something that would be easily caught during the permit process if this

[2:51:17] did indeed get approved that we could then maybe take some sort of action about not renewing

[2:51:24] all those permits for the various locations, kind of a hypothetical but based on her comment.

[2:51:30] I was curious about that.

[2:51:31] That's assuming that it gets approved by the October deadline, by the CCC.

[2:51:38] So a single operator can only hold one SCR per man.

[2:51:43] Okay.

[2:51:45] There may be some clever folks who try to do things with other institutions to try to hide

[2:51:53] that.

[2:51:54] but we do our best to try to find out.

[2:51:57] Okay.

[2:51:59] She had also mentioned that there's people operating

[2:52:01] without a permit.

[2:52:02] Is that something?

[2:52:03] How do you guys monitor that or how does that?

[2:52:07] It's a somewhat separate issue in terms of enforcement.

[2:52:14] SDR operators are required to have a permit.

[2:52:18] And code enforcement, we work with a third party

[2:52:23] with HDL on our monitoring and enforcement, and so we do have active cases of people operating STRs without a permit.

[2:52:46] I'm trying to understand where to go for it. There's no motion to make, is there?

[2:52:49] There is a motion to make, and we should put the option to. I'm going to be presumptuous as no one has correct me otherwise.

[2:52:57] We should put the option to motion on the screen.

[2:53:00] We should make sure that we are incorporating the recommendation to strike the language

[2:53:07] in little Roman numeral one of Section C, and everything else seems to be outside of

[2:53:14] the resolution.

[2:53:15] And so if we are done, then someone should feel free to make motion.

[2:53:20] I know it's going to

[2:53:28] be fine.

[2:53:28] Okay.

[2:53:31] It's got a red line.

[2:53:32] Probably the right one.

[2:53:33] I would just, yeah, I would just make sure to add to the motion, what Chair Halter said about the resolution and then the recommendations to council.

[2:53:48] Yes, it can be an issue.

[2:53:49] Do you want us to restate what we heard roughly, general terms for the recommendations to communicate to council?

[2:53:57] I think that'd be wonderful.

[2:53:59] So it was analyzed, and we'll go back and listen to the tape, but in general analyze the data and consider resubmitting in the future for the same protections in the coastal zone as the non-coastal zone.

[2:54:11] And then for the data collection, prepare data that show the coastal zone as well as non-coastal zone as well as the percentage of housing in each district to show the different proportionality.

[2:54:23] I do

[2:54:27] because as noted there is a concentration in the coastal zone.

[2:54:31] And I would add that one of the things I thought I heard was including exploring neighborhood caps and quotas.

[2:54:37] Yes, I was just going to say that I believe that was Commissioner Ferguson's.

[2:54:45] You haven't beaten that drum for five years, so maybe.

[2:54:48] Hope we just tuned it out.

[2:54:52] So we'll enumerate those in the staff report as additional comments received from planning commissioners.

[2:55:01] Thank you.

[2:55:06] I move we adopt a resolution initiating text amendment TA131-26 and recommending that

[2:55:12] the city council approve the text amendments as modified to differentiate between two

[2:55:16] areas within the coastal zone as necessary to implement certain provisions of the local

[2:55:20] coastal program as certified with modifications by the Coastal Commission at their August

[2:55:25] 12, 2026 hearing and find the adoption of the ordinance exempt from CEQA including recommendations

[2:55:33] as read back by staff.

[2:55:36] So our second.

[2:55:38] All second.

[2:55:40] All right, please vote.

[2:55:41] Roll call.

[2:55:43] Roll call.

[2:55:44] Yep.

[2:55:44] On that motion, Chair House or?

[2:55:46] Yes.

[2:55:47] Vice Chair Burman.

[2:55:48] Yes.

[2:55:48] Commissioner Ferguson.

[2:55:49] Yes.

[2:55:50] Commissioner Redfield.

[2:55:51] Yes.

[2:55:51] Commissioner Sanchez.

[2:55:52] Yes.

[2:55:52] Commissioner Davis.

[2:55:53] Yes.

[2:55:54] That motion passes.

[2:55:56] Okay.

[2:55:56] I'm just going to reiterate the thank you that we've kind of given.

[2:55:59] and this was a much different conversation tonight,

[2:56:01] then I think we all were prepared for,

[2:56:03] so thank you to stop for making that happen.

[2:56:05] And now does anyone have a motion to adjourn?

[2:56:08] So moved.

[2:56:10] Second, all right, let's roll call vote please.

[2:56:12] On that motion, Chair Hauser.

[2:56:13] Yes.

[2:56:14] Vice Chair Burman.

[2:56:16] Yes.

[2:56:16] Commissioner Ferguson.

[2:56:17] Yes, Commissioner Redfield.

[2:56:19] Yes, Commissioner Sanchez.

[2:56:20] Yes.

[2:56:20] Commissioner Davis.

[2:56:21] Yes.

[2:56:22] All right, we're adjourned.

[2:56:23] Thank you.

Pacifica Special Meeting - 8/25/26

Transcript