Planning Commission - workshop

I'd like to ask the city clerk to please take roll call.

Council Member Espinosa.

Here.

Council Member Beer. Here. Council Member Beckmeyer. Present. Vice Mayor Wright.

Present.

And then the record will note that Mayor Bowles is absent tonight. We'll go through the roll call for planning commissioners. Commissioner Sanchez? Present. Commissioner Redfield?

Present.

Commissioner Ferguson?

Here.

Commissioner Davis? Here. Vice Chair Berman? Here. Chair Hauser? Present. And Commissioner Fisher is absent tonight.

And at this time, I would like to invite Samantha Hauser, the chair of our planning commission, to please read our land acknowledgement.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramatush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth, As the indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Thank you. At this time, I'd like to invite Sue Beckmeyer to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Public meetings are a limited public forum. meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on non-agendized items must address, comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject jurisdiction and do not fall into these categories. The city will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic. If a warning is not followed, chair of the meeting will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone and throughout this warning system, I will seek the assistance of the city attorney in identifying comments not related to the agenda item and not within the subject jurisdiction of the city. This is a special meeting and we have a very short amount of time. We have a one hour time limit. It would be very helpful to me if we could have all the comment cards up at this time. And at the time that I have the final yellow card, I will be asking for how many people are online and would care to raise their hands who plan to make a comment so I can adjust accordingly in order to be able to make it so with all 10 of us being here, everybody will have sufficient time to ask our questions as well and get responses. Thank you. At this point, I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven cards. That's 21 minutes. How many people are online and have signified they wish to comment? In that case, it looks like we can afford the usual three minutes. I will not be accepting any more cards or comments online, please. No, the one person.

Vice Mayor Wright, we have two raised hands on the Zoom.

Okay, we still can afford that within an amount of time that will allow us to have sufficient time for questions and deliberation. First person I would like to call is Sam Casillas, followed by Stephanie Robbins, and then Cindy Abbott.

Is there a staff report? Vice Mayor, I just want to make sure you want to take public comment before staff's presentation.

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

I thought I was off the hook. Sorry.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Wright. And good evening, Council Members, Chair Hauser, and Planning Commissioners. Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director. And we're here tonight for a joint study session to discuss the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the city's STR ordinance. Oops. Just a second here to get my computer synced up. Great. So this evening we'll just briefly touch on the meeting purpose, the 2025 Short-Term Rental Ordinance, the Coastal Commission modifications, the modification process, short-term rental permit renewals, short-term rental code provisions, and conclude with our legislative options. 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 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 and In 2025, the city council adopted comprehensive updates to the STR ordinance that really struck the balance between, it was the result of eight years of work from the initial adoption of STR regulations in 2018. And it was really looking to strike the balance between the benefits of STRs and the impact on surrounding residential uses. So currently that ordinance is effective in areas outside of the coastal zone. In order for it to become effective in the coastal zone requires certification of the Coastal Commission. And then just relevant to the issue at hand, which we'll dive into a little more, is that our STR permits are renewed annually on October, starting October 31st. So our renewal period is October. Just to kind of give a sense of the landscape, 55% of the city's permitted STRs are in the coastal zone, and 78% of those are unhosted compared to 22% of non-coastal STRs. So the Coastal Commission... recommended two modifications at their August 12th hearing. Remove the primary residency requirement and to replace the 60-night max rentals for unhosted STRs with a 120-night max. So the process for modifications So the Coastal Commission approved the amendments with the modifications I just mentioned. And then the city may accept, agree, and adopt the modifications to the zoning text, which then requires going through the city's standard legislative process. So that's where we are right now. Following that, the executive director of the Coastal Commission would report out to the Coastal Commission at a hearing in order to adopt the modification. If the Coastal Commission accepts it, then the zoning ordinance becomes effective in the coastal zones. So again, the STR permit renewal period is October 1st through the 31st. 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. 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.

Could you say that one more time just so I can understand this?

The Coastal Commission said that they can likely bring adopted modifications to their October hearing. Thank you. Just in terms of the timeline, it's a very, very tight timeline. And so in order to be successful, all of these stages have to be completed in order to line up with the renewal process. So as noted, the Coastal Commission meeting is not guaranteed. However, we did hear from Coastal Commission staff today that they believe they can get modifications to their October meeting. Just kind of a quick review of some of the highlights of the 2025 STR ordinance standards. Other than the primary residency requirements, these highlight some of the major changes that were part of the regulation. 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 STR permit number on all the advertising platforms, exterior signage providing contact information for operator and the responsible party, requirements for the hosted STRs to have an operator on site overnight, maximum occupancy of two renters per rented bedroom, established visitor hours from 8 to 10 p.m., prohibition on using outdoor pools hot tubs and spas between 10 p.m. And 7 a.m. Requirements for noise monitors one parking space per rental bedroom for unhosted rental nights a two-night minimum stay And then it as modified by the Coastal Commission 120 max rental nights and it also prohibits unhosted STRs and multifamily units, which includes duplex and attached single family units, requires inspections for life safety and health, and provides revocation provisions upon second violations of the ordinance. So there are three primary legislative options. The first is to accept, agree, and adopt the modifications as is. or to accept, agree, and adopt the modifications only in the coastal zone, or to resubmit a revised ordinance to the Coastal Commission. So I'll go into a little more detail on each of those. So the first option is to approve the modifications as is, remove the primary residency requirement, and double the unhosted rental limit from 60 to 120 nights citywide. The pros are that it adds those positive permit and operational standards from the 2025 ordinance and applies them citywide. A con is that it removes the primary residency requirements and doubles the night of unhosted STRs. So when we made this presentation, the Coastal Commission hadn't gotten back to us yet. So again, it's very likely that we'll be able to get to the October hearing based on what they've told us. But it's still not guaranteed. Option two 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 hosted nights outside of the coastal zone. A con is that then you have stronger and stricter ordinance in the non-coastal zone. And again, that would not affect the timing. We did hear from the Coastal Commission also at 5.08 p.m. today that they could still process those modifications administratively. The third option would be to consider additional amendments. So to amend the STR ordinance, including significant modifications to what the Coastal Commission has suggested that is in a manner to be determined. The pros really depends on the specifics as determined through the city's legislative process. Some cons are that You know, it's not immediately evident what ordinance changes could preserve primary residency or the 60-night limit on unhosted in the coastal zone. It's time and resource intensive for staff and 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, and I'm here along with City Manager Sean Charpentier and Assistant City Attorney Denise Bazzano to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to invite anybody from Planning Commission who has a question prior to public comment, or if they prefer to reserve their questions until after public comment, that's acceptable as well.

I'LL WAIT.

I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUICK CERTIFYING QUESTION. PLEASE DO. SO, DIRECTOR UPTERGRAVE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO SLIDE 14, PLEASE, OPTION 2? I MAY HAVE MISREAD IT. OKAY. THIS IS IT. YEAH. SLIDE 13, SORRY. Pros and cons. I'm trying to understand, what do you mean when you say it's a con that we have stronger and stricter ordinance in the non-coastal zone? Because my understanding is that with this option, that ordinance that is in place would remain, but why, if it's as we wrote it, in hearing from the public, why would you consider that a con?

Well, it's a potential con. It would essentially have two separate standards, one outside of the coastal zone and one within the coastal zone. So again, it's a potential, not necessarily an absolute statement.

Thank you. Thank you. I think that was important to clarify that. Thanks so much.

And through the chair, the the ordinance in the non-coastal zone would have more policy levers for the city than those in the coastal zone.

Thank you.

Lauren?

I'll hold my comments. Sam? I have just one. We got a lot of comments, and many of them were kind of about how it felt like the Coastal Commission was maybe exceeding their jurisdiction by talking about our whole city. But what I'm gleaning from this slide and from the 5 o'clock communication is that since the staff report was put out, the Coastal Commission has contacted us and said that they recognize that those comments seem to be accurate and that we can have two separate ordinances. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. It's a huge change, and I want to make sure that not just me but that everybody here understands the scope of that change. Yeah.

Thank you, Chair Hauser. That is a great question. So we immediately reached out to Coastal Commission staff and asked the question, are these modifications, the way that they've been presented, they would apply citywide? And our understanding is that the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction is within the coastal zone. I think because of the way our ordinance is written, we tend to have the same ordinance apply within coastal and non-coastal. We go through this two-step, second-step approval process. And so the way that they presented it in the staff report was just eliminating primary residency. There was no distinction. But they wouldn't have necessarily done that in our ordinance, right? Because that is starting to really go, I think, far afield. And so we had reached out right away to ask that question. One of our particular concerns was, You know, if we change it from the verbatim what they show in their report, will that knock us out of that more administrative process where the executive director reports out, says yes, they've met the intent, you know, they've done what the commission says and have the commission accept it. We didn't want to put something forward and then have them say, well, that actually needs to go back to a full hearing. And so they had been diligently working on finding those answers and weren't able to get them to us before the report, but they got them to us tonight.

That's helpful, and I really appreciate Stop being so proactive.

Council Member Beckmeyer.

I will wait. Thank you so much.

Great, fantastic. Then at this time, I'd like to begin inviting public comment. I'd like people to once again keep in mind that we only have till 7 o'clock when the next meeting starts, and I'm sure that there are a number of questions from the people who reserved their questions. And then we're also going to need to deliberate some. So once again, starting with Sam, followed by Stephanie Robbins, and then Cindy Abbott, please. Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members and commissioners. First, I'd like a quick moment of silence because a true patriarch of country music passed away today, Dolly Parton. Don't take my time yet. This is for Dolly Parton. Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge that because she was always a true advocate of affordable housing. So my name is Sam Casillas. I've been a resident for Pacific for 23 years. In 2003, I was fortunate to buy my first home here, a two-bedroom, one-bath bungalow with no garage and just two blocks from the beach. I thought I had died and gone to heaven when a welcoming committee knocked on my door, handed me some homemade cookies and a little rose plant that I still have today. A few years later, I got married to my wonderful wife, Andrea, and over the next 10 years, we saved to either renovate our place or find a new place. We were lucky enough that just a few doors down, we found a rundown place, and over the next eight years, we built a new home. A person who has multiple Airbnbs in our neighborhood wanted to buy our old place, from us, all cash at a premium price where no regular family could compete at that price level. We did not sell, and in our old age, we will return to this place. So in the meantime, we would rent it to someone who needed a place to live because Pacifica is already a hard place to find safe, affordable housing. He asked why we wouldn't just Airbnb and make more than double the rent. Some of these places offer nightly rates of $2,500, so let's stop the nonsense that these places are adding more access to the coast for regular and disadvantaged classes. And also let's stop and be clear that the unhosted STR owners are motivated by one thing and one thing only, profit. We wouldn't sell because these STRs are tearing our neighborhood apart. The corporate owners ignore our concerns of criminal activity because the owners don't live here, we do. Because of our budget restraints, these corporate owners know There is little to no enforcement, which also needs to end. They hire fancy lawyers to meet with the California Coast Commission and have the Coast Commission now say our ordinance is legally flawed. Yet just down the highway in Half Moon Bay, they have pretty much the same ordinance we advocated for. But Pacifica is not good enough for that same ordinance? The bigger issue reveals the big lie of how they supposedly bring revenue to our city and provide access to the coast out of the goodness of their hearts. In reality, these unhosted STRs are taking homes away from prospective families who just want to live in a good, safe community where they know their neighbors. By taking these homes out of the housing stock, STRs have created a school crisis in Pacifica. Pacifica just closed Ocean Shore Elementary and Vallemar Middle School because the state cuts our school funding due to the decrease in enrollment, which the STRs are directly responsible for. We need to take bold action before our city becomes a desert of hotel rooms with no families and no schools. Thank you.

Thank you, Sam. Last name Robbins? I'm sorry if I got your first name wrong.

I think you got it right. It's Stephanie. So I want to just thank the council members and city staff and management who went to the Coastal Commission meeting. I was very proud to be part of Pacifica. I felt very well represented. I come today to speak to council planning and staff and management. to really urge you to go with option number two and have the ordinance that has already been set and put in in the non-coastal zone. Leave that alone. It's settled. We spent eight years getting here. I'm exhausted. I'm sure you are too. and go ahead and go with the modifications from the Coastal Commission into the coastal zone and let's ratify that, let's get it done by October, through October before the permits renew. If you look at the majority of coastal towns throughout California that have STR ordinances, they have two, they have a coastal zone ordinance and they have a non-coastal zone ordinance. It's extremely common to have two because of the coastal zones requirements. And so I just want to urge you, we spent a lot of time working together. You had a lot of the citizens like myself come out and tell you how things have affected us. I think we came to a very good conclusion. And so I just want to urge you to go ahead and ratify it with the two modifications from the Coastal Commission in the coastal zone only and leave the non-coastal zone alone. Thank you.

Thank you. Cindy Abbott, followed by Bob O'Donnell and then Gary.

Good evening, Cindy Abbott. We've been on a long journey together. Walking over here, I was thinking of other long journeys. The Hobbit trilogy is 474 minutes long. Lord of the Rings, extended cuts, 682 minutes. Then I thought, I have to throw in the Odyssey because that sort of feels like where we are right now. 172 minutes. That comes to 22 hours of journeys and odysseys. I think we've been together longer on this over the past four intense years that we've been working on this. So at this point on the journey, though, isn't it time to fall back? We need to keep moving forward and doing it together. And we can't give up anything that was won so long. For a year, we've heard the great stories of families coming back into houses outside of the coastal zone. It's a real success story for Pacifica, for our neighborhoods and our residential areas. So unfortunately we need to go ahead with two sets of rules within the same ordinance. We provided information about how to really easily do that in just a few sections of the ordinance and resolution. So tonight let's retain all of those provisions outside of the coastal zone, implement the two unfortunate changes for the coastal zone itself. Because sometimes the path on a journey ISN'T CLEAR, BUT TONIGHT IT IS, AND THAT'S OPTION TWO.

THANK YOU. BOB O'DONNELL, FOLLOWED BY GARY, FOLLOWED BY BRIAN RONERO.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, IT LOOKS LIKE OLD FRIENDS. WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE OVER FOUR YEARS. WE'VE TRIED TO CHANGE THE ORGANICS, AND WE DID VERY SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THAT PROCESS LAST OCTOBER, AND THE NEW ORGANICS WENT INTO EFFECT. Unfortunately the Coastal Commission has thrown a wrench into this and we have no control over the coastal area But we do over the non coastal area and so I'm urging you both 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. Again, we have no control over the non-coastal area, but we worked hard and long for four years, really, to create this new ordinance, and it really has the potential to change our neighborhoods. It's really important that we protect that. But what we can and what's out of our control, we'll just have to probably accept. But please find a way to protect the non-coastal area and let our ordinance continue to be in effect there. Thank you.

Thank you. Gary, followed by Brian, and then Michael Wallman.

Good evening. My name is Gary Chinka. I live on Aspen Drive. And I urge you to please consider and adopt option two. We had an Airbnb SDR up the street from us. And after the ordinance passed last year, it was sold. And since it's been sold, we haven't had one incident of anybody urinating off the porch. We haven't had any loud music or loud birthday parties that go into the 1 and 2 a.m. And a regular family is living there. And once again, it's a normal neighborhood. So please review. what you've done and how it's the positive effects it's had on our local houses and adopt option two. And I wish the Coastal Commission would go with option two. It would go with the same ordinance 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.

VICE MAYOR WRIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS BRIAN RONERO FROM PEDRO POINT. I 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. I'VE NEVER HAD SO MUCH FUN IN A CONFERENCE HALL SINCE STAR TREK CONVENTION 91. I am urging you tonight to preserve the primary residence requirement and the 60-day cap that is currently in effect in the non-coastal zone. Council members and planning commissioners, please preserve the primary residence requirement. Excuse me, pardon me, lost my place here. While I'm profoundly unhappy with the California Coastal Commission's decision to deny these important protections to the Pacificans in the coastal zone, there's absolutely no reason to deny these important protections to the folks in the non-coastal zone. They've had these protections for a year now, and to strip them would be actually a rollback of the policies that we've all worked so hard to put in place. The Coastal Commission, as you're aware, has no jurisdiction in the non-coastal zone, and Pacifica's implementation of ordinance number 901CS is final and enforceable immediately, unless it's taken away this evening. We in the coastal zone still have a long journey ahead of us. But our inland neighbors that have stood shoulder to shoulder with us deserve these protections. Remember that Pacifica is burdened with an unfair, inflated, and unfunded arena allocation that forces us to build over 2,000 new homes. Without the primary residence requirement and the 60-day cap, there will be little to no mechanisms to prevent these new homes from becoming full-time, unhosted STRs. Imagine just a few years from now when we will have lost Boy Scout, aka San Pedro Mountain, and replaced with rows of luxury party houses all to the benefit and profit of out-of-town corporate STR operations. Please hold the line, protect our inland residents, and preserve the integrity of our housing and neighborhoods by keeping the original ordinance intact outside of the coastal zone. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Michael, followed by Lila Ranero, and then Margo.

Vice Mayor, council members, commissioners, city staff, city administrator, Mike Wallman, District 2. So I would tend to think that having one ordinance for the entire city would be the most straightforward, simplistic, administratively to both create policy for and enforce. We do know that we have a budget crisis. Of the maybe unpopular opinion that doubling the number of days hopefully also doubles the amount of revenue from the STRs. Furthermore, having that extra income also from the non-coastal zone could probably be useful for the city. 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. Let's see the numbers. How much of a difference does this mandate from the Coastal Commission increase our revenues? 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. Thank you.

Thank you. Lila Renero, followed by Margo, followed by Greg.

Good evening, everyone. Thanks again to all of you for your efforts at the Coastal Commission meeting earlier this month. I've already said just about everything I think needs to be said about tonight's topic, so I'll save some time and try not to repeat myself too much. Of the three options presented tonight, option two sounds like the best of the three to me. It's not perfect, but I think it's the best solution to have one ordinance that clearly addresses the difference between the coastal zone and the rest of Pacifica rather than creating two separate ordinances. I would be absolutely overjoyed if there's a way to get Pacifica's ordinance approved by the Coastal Commission as it was submitted while preserving those existing protections. There's still a tiny part of me that apparently is uncynical enough to believe that maybe the Coastal Commission simply got themselves a little tripped up when that messy decision came down on August 12th. Maybe there's a way to untangle this that we haven't found yet, and I really hope that there is. My father would have turned 90 today, and today we also lost Dolly Parton. Both are people that I look to when I need guidance. I sometimes ask myself, what would Frank do? What would Dolly do? I think the answer from both of them would be the same. do the right thing, and fight like hell to get it done. So tonight I'm asking you to find that solution. I would be overjoyed if we could leave here knowing Pacifica has found a way forward that gets our ordinance approved while protecting the people who would otherwise lose those protections. Thank you.

Thank you. Margo Myman, followed by Greg Hirsch.

Good evening, city council members and planning commissioners. Margo Myman, resident of the Coastal Zone for 21 years. Thank you for your many hours of work on short-term rental ordinances, I guess plural now, over the past several years. As you know, the Coastal Commission's August 12th hearing is behind us and we have received their suggestions for Pacifica's STR ordinance in the Coastal Zone. I was alarmed to learn that the Pacifica City staff, after working so tirelessly to make our case to the Coastal Commission regarding requirements for primary residents and the 60-night cap on unhosted nights, have now suggested the removal and increase of these requirements for locations outside the coastal zone. Staff makes no justification for this change. The fact that the Coastal Commission has suggested these modifications for properties within the coastal zone does not imply that these changes should apply east of Highway 1. Several coastal cities have dual SDR ordinances, including Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, so it's not without precedent at all for a municipality to have multiple distinct ordinances. So please choose option two, 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.

Thank you. And our final in-person speaker is Greg Hirsch.

Hi. I want to also thank you for all the work you've done on this. I kind of got into this late, but I ended up watching the CCC meeting while I was working. I thought it would be like maybe a 45-minute presentation. It went on hour after hour. And I thought at the end, well, it looks like we're going to win this thing. They had some comments by people. And then somebody threw this monkey wrench at a couple people with all these crazy additions, which didn't make absolutely no sense. and he wanted the city manager to kind of go ahead and just say, was that okay? And he said, I've never seen anything like this in my life. But anyway, when they had a vote, I'm not convinced that the people even knew what they were voting on. There was some confusion afterwards. One woman asked, well, can we vote on the motion between the city, between the recommendation and the city? And she was informed, well, we already voted on that. So I don't know if there's any way to address this, and maybe ask them, do you guys actually understand what you voted on? And the other comment I had is, they made a big thing about, well, there's only 150 out of 15,000 residences, and I don't know if they grasp what Pacific Coastal Zone is, just this little strip west of the highway, which is mainly West Shire Park and Pedro Point. And I can guarantee you we have way more than 1% on Pedro Point. I think we have maybe 5%. You guys could probably... 10%? Okay, yeah. It's just basically turned into a hotel zone. So anything that can be done to try to rectify the decision, which I don't know was really made the way they wanted it, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And at this time, I'd like to ask how we still only have the two hands on line.

A third hand has been raised.

You have three hands raised. Okay, can we start with the first one, please?

Our first caller is Caitlin Quinn. I've unmuted you, and I allowed you to unmute yourself.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. Hi, Vice Mayor Wright, council members, and our esteemed members of the Planning Commission. Lovely to see you all. I'm so sorry that I'm not there in person. I have a bad case of COVID that was on the mend, and then I had a relapse as of yesterday. So trust me, nobody wants me in this room. I am so, so relieved. to see option two up on that slide and to hear from Samantha Updegrave that the Coastal Commission staff seems to be implying that they can work with making those modifications so that all of our folks east of the one in an area over which the Coastal Commission does not have jurisdiction, does not lose those hard-earned rights to primary residents and the 60-night total max for unhosted. Super, super excited about that. I really want to encourage everybody to go in that direction. I think it's the only fair thing. I don't think we should be handing the Coastal Commission any more power than it already has. And I just want to say, I love Cindy Abbott's comments about the 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 at the threshold that Odysseus has. He's 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 win his queen over. And I'm like, yeah, we don't have suitors. Here we are at the threshold. We got the Coastal Commission. But this is a struggle at the threshold, and we will get through it. And I know we've still got a lot of work to do Getting the primary residents and the 69 cap back for the coastal zone. I get that that is a fight for another day and I just want to thank you all staff and commissioners and council members for the incredibly hard work that you've all already put in and to echo Lila Raniero and Stephanie Robbins super super proud of of Pacifica at that meeting and how we all, you all showed up for us and just super grateful to you all. And I'm going to stop talking because I have COVID brain. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next caller is Tor Neilens.

Hello. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Tor Neelance. My wife and I have lived on Grand Avenue and Pedro Point for 19 years. And the too long, didn't listen version of this is that we strongly support option number two. I'll try and unpack that a little bit. But first, I'd like to thank everyone who represented Pacifica before the Coastal Commission. We strongly supported the ordinance that our city adopted, including its primary residence requirement and 60-night limit on unhosted rentals. And we are disappointed that the Coastal Commission removed the residency requirement and increased the limit to 120 nights in the coastal zone. And I totally agree with Greg Hirsch's comments about the whole bizarreness of the process. Nevertheless, tonight we urge you to move the modified ordinance forward. City staff has explained that accepting these modifications is the way to apply the ordinance in the coastal zone for the coming permit year. Residents should not lose another year's benefit of the protections that survive simply because the Coastal Commission gave us less than what our community wanted. These protections matter to us personally. We've experienced increased traffic and noise from nearby unhosted STRs, visitors trespassing through our property while trying to reach the Pedro Point Headlands, and an incident in which guests in an unhosted STR down the street began preparing to set off illegal fireworks immediately next to our home and adjacent to the extremely dry coastal vegetation around the 4th of July weekend. Fortunately, I was home and stopped them before they ignited the fireworks. There was no host present to do so. In fact, Pacifica's original ordinance was already a significant compromise for us. We prefer not to have the whole house commercial short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods at all. But we support true home sharing through hosted SDRs, together with limited allowance, run hosted rentals. So as you proceed, we ask for three things. First, please move the modified ordinance forward now so that its remaining protections can take effect for the coming permit year. Second, please make absolutely certain that the Coastal Commission's modifications apply only to the coastal zone. Preserving the primary residence requirement and 69th limit already affect elsewhere in Pacifica that you all and we worked so hard over the past eight years to develop and implement. And third, accepting the Coastal Commission's modification does not require Pacifica to endorse them as good policy. After eight years of public process, our city decided that primary residency in a 69 limit represented the better balance. Please preserve that position and continue working towards restoring those protections within the coastal zone. So I think if we go with option two, that really strategically gives us the most options as we move forward looking down the road and will not be as likely to lock us into something that would be harder to change later if we want or need to. Thank you very much for considering my comments and for all of your hard work. Thank you.

And our final speaker? Our final speaker is Remy Tan. Remy, you need to unmute yourself.

Hello, I'm Mr. Ramey Tan, resident and architect over at Pacific Manor, Edgemar. I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to adopt, I guess what I'm hearing is option two, which is keeping the current ordinance basically east of Highway 1. and making the Coastal Commission request modifications to the west of Highway 1 in the Coastal Commission jurisdiction. I appreciate all the hard work that this city council, past city councils, and staff have done over four to eight years to get the ordinance where it is, so let's not throw that out. and um and and you know go with kind of this this uh compromise i think it's the best thing so we'll still have the protections for most of the city which is east of highway one and then um you know we we have the modifications of that protection by yeah coast commission uh to the western one and we can come back and you know peel that on another day but you know we have this October, I guess, deadline coming up to renew, you know, the SDRs. So we want to make sure we have an ordinance that they can renew and that's enforceable. It sounds like the ordinance is working based on testimony from, you know, other residents that I heard this evening. So again, urge the client commission and the city council to approve this option too. Thank you.

Thank you. And at this point, I'd like to close public comment and bring it back to our joint study session. I'd like to apologize to Planning Commission for how long it went on. 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. 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. And Becky, would you care to start us off?

I just have a question. These two ordinances, are they tied together? Could we leave, and I apologize, I'm kind of learning a lot of this stuff, but could we leave the primary residence requirement, but then can we do them separate? Can we change them?

staff would you care to comment i i'm sorry commissioner sanchez was the question whether we could leave primary residency in for all of the city or just in the non-coastal zone um in the in the coastal zone like if or all the city what are these two things tied together or could we evaluate them separately Yeah, that's a great question. Thank you. So in terms of the Coastal Commission voted to remove the primary residency requirement. And so that would be one of the modifications that the city would need to... accept if it wanted to move forward with the modification. And they have shared that that can be kind of bifurcated between we can leave the primary residency requirement in the non-coastal zones and remove it from the coastal zone, and that would meet what they intended. If we wanted to retain primary residency also within the coastal zone, then we would need to come back with a different ordinance. So it would basically be almost like starting over.

Thank you. Next, Sue Beckmeyer, do you have a question?

No, I don't have a question. I just have a comment. Well, yeah, I guess it is a question. We received a public comment, a suggestion that We not accept in wholesale the statements the Coastal Commission makes in, I think, in the resolution where they specifically state that they have a finding that allowing unhosted rentals for 120 nights per year, it preserves the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods, that those are the Coastal Commission's language in their findings. And the question in public comment was, can we strike that? I mean, they didn't directly say that, but that's what they asked. Is that, is it possible, because it's been the contention of many in this room and throughout that it actually harms the unique qualities of the residential neighborhoods.

Thank you, Council Member Beckmeyer. The City Council could, or the Planning Commission could remove that recital from the resolution. The Council could remove that recital from the ordinance. I do believe that was in the a recital in the original ordinance referencing the 60-day limit. If you recall, our prior ordinance had no limit. Well, it didn't even differentiate between hosted and unhosted and had no limit. And so that was a finding that the city had made based on the 60-night limit. So it's really up to the Planning Commission and the City Council as to whether you feel that still applies, whether it's 60 nights or 120 nights. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Ferguson.

Question for you. Would you like this as one big pontification, or do you want comments or questions? How are we going to tackle this? Because I've got a lot to say.

I would love to have one question. I'd like to make sure that everybody has a chance to get at least in one question because we have limited time together.

I'll pose my comments as a question. I was not in favor of the way that we tackled this in the first place. I thought we should have had neighborhood by neighborhood quotas because there is by far an undue pressure on West Sharp Park, Pedro Point. I live in West Sharp Park, have for a long time. I know a lot of us here don't live in the coastal zone, but 55% of the units being in a neighborhood that's way less than 25% of the city. 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 without having some sort of a area by area limit. You have in this city 98 units on the waterfront, which many are multifamily and not eligible. You could have every single one of them go to an unhosted short-term rental with 120 nights a year. I believe that's very economically viable. A quick average of what they're charging per night in a small home is it comes out to $90,000 to $100,000 per year. 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. I also think, in addition, you're going to lose more housing than we have approved in my entire five years on the Planning Commission. through the adoption of this. So while I'm 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, you're adding fuel to an already bad problem for my neighborhood in particular. I have a bunch of comments and questions, but I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Mayra?

Actually, what questions do I have? We've already been through all of this. My concern about everything, I would like to keep the residency. It is important to me because we want to preserve the homes that we have for the people who live there. and work in Pacifica. And allowing, removing the residency is, I believe that we are opening the door to investors to come here and take all of our homes and have our community turn into hotels, which I believe when we buy a house, we're supposed to peacefully enjoy it.

Thank you. Just as a reminder, this is the time for questions and deliberation will come later. We're even on that. So, Chris.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Question for staff. I'm very curious between the February Coastal Commission apparent approval back then and the August reversal. What, if any, reasons were communicated to city staff on their reversal of their previous approval, essentially without question? So what was the, if any, what were any reasons given for their change of heart?

Thank you, Commissioner Redfield. The Coastal Commission staff decided to continue the item from the February meeting as a result of the public comments that they received. They had shared that the primary residency requirement was something that was challenged within those public comments and something that they were looking at. 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. So we didn't have really a lot of communication about that. And I think the reasons for the primary residency that we did discuss after the staff report came out, and it was in their analysis that combination of the citywide 150 cap, our more limited hotel stock, and the 60 night, and all the other regulations. So it was really for them the accumulation of those things with the primary residency and the 60-night stay kind of being the things that pushed it over the edge.

So would it be fair to say that the city was blindsided in that short notice on the 60-day stay? with the very short time as was reiterated in the meeting, very little time for staff to react to that in a...

It was certainly unexpected.

Thank you. Mary?

Yeah. Sarah, can you pull up the slide that shows the protections that are in place right now in the non-coastal zone? And I just want to reiterate something, so I'm just going to ask the question. I think it's the one that, yeah, that has all the lists, this one. So my question is, if we were to, my phone's listening to me right now, it's so freaky. So if we were to accept option two, then all of these protections would be in place in the coastal zone, including the multifamily unit And duplexes, which is very, very important to me.

That is correct. These are the... If everything falls into place. Yeah, if everything falls into place and we adopt an ordinance and it's certified by the Coastal Commission, that's correct.

Okay. I just wanted to make it super clear that this is what we'll be looking at. Thank you.

And Mark.

I just have one, again, kind of clarifying question. So I was caught a little off guard by Chair Hauser's question that I was really pleased to hear her ask and answer. But I think you referred to a 5 p.m. communication, and it seemed like perhaps Council Member Beer had received that. I did not. It would have been helpful. So I don't know if there was a communication, but I wanted to just mention that. But I just want to make sure I understand. We did not. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, that was an assumption on my part. I apologize because you said your question was the same as hers. But just so I'm understanding, so it sounds like there was some acknowledgement from the CCC that they overstepped. with modifying the ordinance as it applies to the entire city, and that we now have kind of the okay to do either a bifurcated ordinance, or could we do just the simple edits that were presented in the example of the public comment from Cindy Abbott, Brian Laranero, and Caitlin Quinn, and it's a two-part question. So that's the first part. Could we make those changes there? Then could we go back to the Coastal Commission and resubmit for the PPR in 60-day in the coastal zone now that we have their staff report, which, frankly, I sat through the 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. The Coastal Commission did not say that they overstepped their authority. But I do believe, though, as we've discussed, the way in which our ordinance is organized is that, you know what, Currently, everything was intended to apply equally within the coastal zone and the non-coastal zone. And I know some members of the public have spoken about how other jurisdictions will often have two different ordinances. And that's just not the way that the City of Pacifica has really approached our zoning regulations. So again, I think when staff was recommending the changes, they were just looking at the structure that the ordinance had and I think not really considering that these were things that would then be happening citywide. So I don't believe, and the confirmation that we're able to pursue option two and still have it go through the administrative process, to me signals that their intent wasn't to try to step outside of the coastal zone, but was merely working with the ordinance that we provided. And then I believe your second question was could we go through this modification process and then return to Coastal Commission at a later date with new revisions, with a new ordinance? And we could certainly do that if the council wanted to explore different provisions, different policy directions to try to regain primary residency in the coastal zone. But it would be a separate effort.

Through the chair and the vice mayor, if option two is accepted, We would advise waiting some time before trying to broach this topic with the Coastal Commission again. So our goal would not be to turn right around and come back and ask for a reinstatement of primary residences. They weighed in pretty strongly in August against it.

Yes, I would agree. And just to clarify, because I feel like I've made a faux pas here, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I just heard the word communication, and I've been trying to stay on top of this in quite Frankly, kind of, like, concerned about it ever since I read the packet originally. And I would agree with City Manager Charpentier. I would not have expected us to turn right around and run back down there.

Yeah.

So, appreciate the clarification.

Commissioner Mermin.

Commissioner Davis actually asked my question, but I'm going to ask it again just to request a hypothetical step forward. So if we hypothetically, if planning commission in our next meeting recommends that we move forward with option two, then we understand we don't want to approach Coastal Commission directly after going through the process of solidifying option two. When might we feel comfortable returning to Coastal Commission to work towards amending the coastal zone requirements.

Thank you, Commissioner Berman. I mean, I believe that's really up to the city council, and it would, you know, it There'd be some hard decisions, I think, to make about what comes off the work plan in order for staff and the community to take up a new STR ordinance. Okay.

I think some of the precipitating factors would be if it were simply unworkable and we documented that. Like, look, we tried our best and see there are still these repeat complaints one after another. Perhaps if the commission changed or their outlook on the way they treat STRs, as well as the legal environment. I don't mean to speculate on Commissioner Redfield's question about what changed, but it is public knowledge that they went through some legal travails earlier in the year around the same time. And in their staff report in August, they did mention that they felt like it was legally deficient, which we don't agree with, but those were their words. So I think if those changed, that would be the best policy argument of look, we tried it your way. It just didn't work. This is not sustainable.

»» Okay. So effectively having some data points of working with the ordinance that we have hypothetically if it's option 2 and then coming back with concrete request and then some backing to it as well. I guess if we did go with option two, we'd be working with it for a while, is kind of what I was trying to internalize. Thank you.

Chair Houser.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think, City Manager, what you just said is probably the answer to my one question. I'm really appreciative that option two is an option, and the stress level that I felt walking into this room went from like a 10 to a 2 with that in there but it's still at a 2 because there's kind of a lack of parity between us and other cities and this city worked really long and really this was a community led initiative that took a lot and so my question was why isn't there parity and I'm going to assume that what you just said is the reason but I would love to I'd love to understand why Half Moon Bay can do it and we can't because that's part of why we came to the conclusion that we did. Why was it legally okay for them, but not for us?

That's a great question, Commissioner Hauser. I do think, to the city manager's point, the legal framework, the legal environments change, the commissioners change. There's a lot of things that are outside of our control. The Coastal Commission did Coastal Commission staff did acknowledge that, you know, there was a change, you know, and that they had initially, you know, were supportive of the changes throughout, really throughout the whole process because we were coordinating with them and then in their original assessment. You know, in looking at some of the other there's actually a lot of nuance in There's just so much variation that it is very challenging, I think, to do the apples to apples. For example, they did note that Half Moon Bay has over 800 hotel rooms. Their entire city is within the coastal zone. I believe their cap is only on unhosted. So there's all these different variations that... that make it difficult to just do that apples to apples comparison. I was disappointed that the Coastal Commission didn't defer to the local process, but again, I think that really speaks to the changes in the legal environment.

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. And that's why we presented, you know, and the community really came out at the commission meeting to advocate for that level of parity in terms of policy tools. And its lack of that is noticeable and problematic. And that is why we present option three, which has, there are trade-offs in each one of these options and risks. But option three is go back to the drawing board and come back with a full resubmittal. And we outline the risks associated with that, too, and they are significant.

Thank you. And the final question for the first round, I would like to hear, and I apologize, I didn't realize that option two was really going to be a possibility until just now. But in order for us to be able to build submissions a good data set to Lauren's thing. What data set should we consider compiling in the event that we think we need to effectuate further changes at a later date in front of the Coastal Commission? Could you give me a list of a few that pop into your head

That's a great question, Vice Mayor. I think it would really depend on what the issues are. I think information about... I'm going to need to think about it and probably get back to you. But I know that they had questions about... There's nothing that necessarily compels a property owner to rent their property to a long-term resident. So I think looking at things like conversions from short-term rentals to ownership or rental, but these things are very difficult to... The information is difficult to collect and interpret because there are so many different factors. I think another thing is looking at if there were a way to capture why the STR market fluctuates so much. Again, that's something really difficult to quantify. And then, as they said in the hearing, there's not a lot of hard data about STR's impact on affordability and affordable housing. And so I think those are the kinds of things we would want to be looking at.

Thank you, John. Would you care to elaborate?

We don't have the data sets yet, and that would be part of an ongoing effort. But if you think about it, as of February, 45% of our SCRs were non-coastal and 55% were coastal. So it's sort of close to parity. So we'd look at complaints, nuisance 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, is it 45, 55 after this? Does it change? Some folks mentioned, and we've documented it, that in some of our neighborhoods, it is higher than the 1.5%. There's a higher concentration, and does that start to exceed that and warrant looking at this on a more geographic neighborhood basis or zoning basis? So all of those data points would be useful if this is that we would like to track. and it's a work in progress, we don't have that data right now, but as we move forward with implementation of the STR ordinance, and that would give us guideposts on what's the problem, where is the problem, what's the solution.

Thank you. We already have eaten significantly into Planning Commission's time, but I would like to touch base and see how you guys feel. Do you want to do another round of questions, or do you want to move to deliberations? I know Commissioner Ferguson had more questions. How are we feeling? Show of hands in favor of another round of questions.

I think if anyone has additional questions, I'd like counsel to have the benefit of hearing them too. But I do have a question. Do we have to make an announcement formally on a planning commission's meeting being delayed?

That's a really good question for staff.

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. The special Planning Commission meeting was noticed to begin at 7 o'clock. That has not begun yet and will begin immediately following the joint study session of the Council and Planning Commission. The Zoom link and access will be on the same, so it will be a seamless transition. Thank you.

WONDERFUL.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. BY ALL MEANS. HYPOTHETICALLY, THE RESOLUTION THAT'S IN THE PACKET FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WHAT WOULD BE THE PATH WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE, BECAUSE IT DEFINITELY IS NOT OPTION 2 AS I READ IT, UNLESS IT'S ALREADY BEEN MODIFIED. How do we handle that?

So this is the joint study session. This is the opportunity to discuss and deliberate on the Coastal Commission's recommendations. The Planning Commission meeting that follows will talk about what the Planning Commission has before it and what they can do to modify it if the Planning Commission so desires.

As soon as it was halfway out of my mouth and I saw you count that, I knew where I was. I just want to keep the meeting separate.

And just to be clear, Planning Commissioners will have additional opportunities for questions and deliberation in their meeting in addition to what we're doing here.

Correct. This is the opportunity for you both to come together to talk about the Coastal Commission's determinations, suggested modifications, and potentially discuss options and approaches. And then the Planning Commission will discuss what recommendation they want to make to the council on the proposed text amendments.

Vice Mayor, if I may make a recommendation on logistical proceedings, I would recommend that maybe only council do whatever comments so that the Planning Commission may have the benefit of hearing those, or that if commissioners have questions, that they be questions for council members that we may want to have input from.

Great suggestion. 100% in favor of it. I've always enjoyed working with you and would love to continue doing so. Mayra.

I do have a question. I wanted to ask this question so everyone knows that, just for the record, that the Planning Commission only changed two things from their original ordinance. Is that right? The Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission only changed two items. The primary residency and the 60 days for 120, and everything will stay the same? That is correct. Thank you.

Are there any other council questions?

I didn't have a question. I pushed the button, though. Did you see that I pushed the button?

I apologize. No, I did not. Rookie.

Rookie. Rookie.

I just wanted to reiterate what City Manager Charpentier said in response to the question about what kind of data sets or what would be, and the commissioners, a couple of them, made a point of saying we don't have data that shows us there's really that many problems. And so I was just going to reiterate that point that gathering exactly as you said, those data points of time, intensity, time of day, et cetera, I think will be VALUABLE.

THAT'S ALL. THROUGH THE MAYOR AND THE CHAIR, WE ALSO SUBMITTED ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE HAD RECEIVED OVER THAT ODYSSEY PERIOD, IF YOU WILL, TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION SO THEY WERE FULLY AWARE AND THAT DID PROVIDE AND ALSO WE PROVIDED PUBLIC RECORD DOCUMENTS BUT THAT DID PROVIDE THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THOSE COMMENTS ON HERE'S HOW IT IMPACTS ME AS A RESIDENT, AS A NEIGHBOR. As a person who lives in Pacifica.

Is it up to grade? Did you have a comment?

No, I think I'll read.

Commissioner Ferguson, you seem to have a number of questions. Do you feel like you will have time later? Or do you feel like there's something that you need to ask now?

If I could ask one thing of the council while you're here. I do believe this was a high priority item for you guys. I'm sure you heard all the same complaints I did from our constituents. I'm sure those constituents, by and large, are in the coastal zone. Those are all the ones I'm getting complaints from, but they are my friends and neighbors. I have to push back on there being parity between the coastal zone and the non-coastal zone. Yes, we have 55. They have 45. The non-coastal zone is an order of magnitude larger than the coastal zone. So imagine that's more like 10 times as many houses per block that affected and you are going to create an economic mandate to push all of these units into the coastal zone it's it's going to make this problem worse for those of us that are feeling it the most um have to give that pushback and one quick question for staff uh there's a note on the fiscal impact is one of the bullets on the um on the effect of this ordinance changing from a 60-day to 120 days is listed as no fiscal impact, and there's no way that's correct from a staff and budget standpoint. If there is a budgetary impact to the city, it would be good if that was actually listed.

Thank you, Commissioner Ferguson. Just to clarify, the fiscal impact has to do with the joint study session, not...

The time of doing the study.

Correct, not the... not the actual ordinance itself. So should an ordinance advance, we'll have fiscal impact information at that time.

Got it. And then to refer to staff, do you think that we would have time for each person to make a deliberative statement prior to turning it over to Planning Commission or from a process perspective?

This is a joint study session, so it's at the will of the Vice Mayor and the Chair.

And there's only four, you know, I mean, I think we can make our statements.

Yeah.

Without worrying about it too much.

I'm all for it. I just feel bad that we're already 25 minutes into this.

Well, I mean, I think we had the benefit of hearing from our community, the same community that we've been hearing from for four years, the same community that came down to the Coastal Commission meeting. same community that was just as upset as we were about what happened during that meeting. And so the feedback that I've received, that we've received from my community, our community, was very beneficial for me. I had no clue that there was going to be an option two. Super stressful. I have this whole pontification about the Coastal Commission that I am going to save. 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. 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 primary residence and the 120 days. So I think option two is the way to go in order for us to get as many protections as we can

quickly as we can thank you so much you stay at all Mary there's nothing else to say but my concern also is that on hosted multifamily I'm bringing this back here because I feel that we already cover that on the original ordinance is that right

That's correct. They left in place the prohibition of unhosted STRs in multifamily units. Okay.

So it would be in place. It would be in place. I appreciate that. Well, we heard the community, and all of us, it's good to hear from them, and it's good to hear what works for them. And even though we are accepting Option two, we're going to keep working on the non-coastal to make it work for us. Because I believe that we need to make sure that we take responsibility on protecting our homes here. Otherwise, we're going to be a... and I don't have any short-term rentals next to my house. So if I would, I guess they won't put up with me. I'm going to be the one that they can put up with.

So I feel like most of the people here are so nice.

You guys are very nice that you put up with short-term rentals in your neighborhoods.

Ms. Beckmeyer.

I favor option two.

Thank you. My statement is going to be slightly different. I came in here thinking we were going to have zero good choices. And we were picking between many, not lesser of evils, but many just plain wrong. I was extremely disappointed. with the Coastal Commission process, outcome, interaction between their staff and their commissioners, and it was upsetting. I came in here angry. Getting that news that we have resumed a collaborative relationship is encouraging to me, not just for now, but into the future. But I also want to take this opportunity to recognize what it was that staff did to get us from an S storm to where we are now. And it's a big deal. 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. And I just want to let you know I appreciate that. 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.

So moved.

Second, anyone? Second. Do we need to vote?

Do we need to vote to adjourn? So the council needs to vote, and the planning commissioners need to vote.

OK. So, council first. Do we all vote on the same? No, I think we have a new second motion, right? So, roll call vote.

We'll do a roll call vote.

Oh, roll call.

Okay, I'll start with Commissioner Sanchez. Approved. Commissioner Redfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Ferguson.

Yes.

Commissioner Davis.

Yes.

Sarah, they didn't have a motion or a second for Planning Commission. They have to do it separate.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, the council made a motion. Motion made by Council Member Beer, seconded by Council Member Beckmeyer. I'll start the roll call vote over with the council members. Council Member Espinosa. Yes. Council Member Beer. Yes. Council Member Beckmeyer. Yes. Vice Mayor Wright.

Aye.

And that motion is 4-0 with Bowles absent. Okay. A motion to adjourn by Planning Commissioners.

Would the Planning Commission like to make a motion to adjourn?

I motion we adjourn. I'll second.

And with the motion made by Vice Chair Berman and seconded by Chair Hauser, I'll start the roll call vote with Planning Commissioners, with Commissioner Sanchez. Yes. That was a yes. Commissioner Redfield. Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Ferguson.

Yes.

Commissioner Davis.

Yes.

Vice Chair Berman. Yes. Chair Hauser. Yes. And that's a unanimous vote, 6-0, with Commissioner Fisher absent.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

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 stopping more time?

We can start at 7.40.

Okay, we'll start at 7.40. Thank you. Planning Commission, it is 7.46 p.m. This meeting is called to order. May I please have roll call?

Chair Hauser?

Present.

Vice Chair Berman? Present. Commissioner Ferguson? Present. Commissioner Redfield? Present. Commissioner Sanchez?

Present.

Commissioner Davis?

Present. Commissioner Davis, can you please lead us in the salute to the flag?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Before we start on the agenda, any member of the public wishing to make a public comment tonight should complete a speaker card and bring it to the front and hand it to staff. Members of the public may also participate in the meeting via Zoom or by dial-in option. Once dialed in, once you're called upon, please unmute yourself by pressing star 5 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city, and comments on agendized 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 the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic. If the warning is not followed, I will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone. And throughout this warning system, I will seek the assistance of Assistant City Attorney Bozzano in identifying comments not related to the agenda item or not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. So tonight, I was going to say I have one item on the agenda, but technically we do have administrative business. I do not have any comment cards on the administrative business. Is there anyone on Zoom or on the phone with their hand raised for not short-term rentals, but for administrative business?

There are no hands raised.

Okay, then I will close public comment on administrative business and ask for a motion to approve the order of the agenda.

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Please vote.

Aye. We don't have our voting board up, so we do the roll call vote. On that motion, Chair Hauser?

Yes.

Vice Chair Berman?

Yes.

Commissioner Ferguson? Yes. Commissioner Redfield? Yes. Commissioner Sanchez? Yes. Commissioner Davis?

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Okay, we have no minutes to approve tonight. 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, I believe, to September 14th?

That is correct, Chair Hauser. 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, and so if you wanted to designate a different alternate...

I would love to designate a different alternate. I will still plan to be there, but will someone come with me? Who's coming? I'm just kidding.

What date are you going to be?

The 14th. September.

I probably could.

Okay. Then Commissioner Davis and... No, Commissioner Davis and I.

It's my turn to be in a national park that day. Yes. Awesome. Oh, nice.

Okay. All right. That brings us to oral communications. I also do not have speaker cards for oral communications, I think. I think Mr. O'Donnell and Gary, I believe you both want to speak on SGRs. I'm seeing head nods. Okay. No, I'm sorry. We're still in oral communications. I just want to make sure that I don't overlook an oral communication. Are there any oral communications on the phone?

There are no hands raised.

Okay. Then we will move on from oral communications to the main event, new public hearing 2026-024TA-131-26. Considerations of text amendments to Article 49, short-term rentals. May we have a staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Hauser. Good evening, Commissioners. Welcome back. Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director, presenting on behalf of staff on the Coastal Commission modifications to the short-term rental ordinance. This presentation is very similar to the one that we just had. So I'll go very quickly through these slides. If you have any questions at the end, though, please let me know if you feel like I've skipped over. So again, the city adopted comprehensive updates to the short-term rental ordinance in August of 2025. Those have been effective in areas outside of the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission certifications required prior to being effective within the coastal zone. And then just relevant to our conversations this evening, our permit renewals for short-term rental permit renewals are coming up. So that renewal period is October annually. I'm just going to skip. So when the local coastal program amendment went to the Coastal Commission, they suggested two modifications. One, to remove the primary residency requirement and two, to replace the 60 night maximum rentals for unhosted with 120 nights. 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 So we're going through that legislative process. This is the first hearing on the draft ordinance. Again, in order for the 2025 ordinance as modified to be effective in the coastal zone, for this next round of permits, they would need to be in effect before the end of October. And we heard just this evening before the joint session that the Coastal Commission believes they can bring these modifications back to the Commission at their October meeting, which is October 7th through the 9th. Again, all of these, it's a very tight timeline. to adopt legislation and have it certified by October. And so every single one of these things has to happen successfully in order to reach that renewal period. 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 hosted operator has to be on site overnight, maximum occupancy, visitor hours, prohibition on outdoor pools, hot tubs and spas at night, noise monitors, parking, two-night minimum stay, prohibition on unhosted STRs and multifamily units, which includes duplex and attached single family, life safety inspections, and revocation provisions. So there are three primary legislative options. The first is to accept, agree, and adopt the modifications as is, or to accept them in the coastal zone only, or resubmit a revised ordinance. So option one would remove primary residency and change the rental limit night from 60 to 120 nights in unhosted STRs citywide. The pro is that it gets those positive permit and operational standards from our 2025 ordinance into effect in the coastal zone. And then the con is that it removes primary residency and increases the number of unhosted nights also outside of the coastal zone. Option 2 is a newly available option which would codify the modifications but only in the coastal zone. So again, that would add those positive permit and operational standards into the coastal zone while retaining some of the other protections in the non-coastal zone. And Coastal Commission has indicated that that can stay within their administrative process and likely go to the October hearing. The third option is to consider additional amendments. So that would essentially be kind of starting over. So we would have to resubmit and go back through a public hearing with the Coastal Commission after going through our own legislative process. And that could definitely not occur before this upcoming STR permit renewal, but could extend it for up to probably two cycles. In the staff report, we provided just kind of a straight modification or acceptance of the Coastal Commission standards. So we do have a motion for that. And then based on the feedback we received from Coastal Commission today, we're also providing an alternative motion for Planning Commission to consider which would be in the coastal zone only. So we've distributed a alternate draft resolution and draft ordinance. And I'm going to put the changes up on the screen for the record. And then there are copies of that available in the back for the public as well. And so this would be making those modifications only in the coastal zone. So first in terms of the primary residency, it would add the statement, in areas outside of the coastal zone, each operator operating a short-term rental shall have their primary residence at the site of the short-term rental. So, again, that's just bringing that primary residency to only apply outside of the coastal zone. And then there's a conforming edit under the permit requirements to say that in areas outside of the coastal zone the operator has to provide specific documentation. And then in terms of the unhosted nights, it would add a section maintaining the 60-night limit outside of the coastal zone and then add a section with the Coastal Commission modification for 120 nights within the coastal zone. And it's just the same language with the different dates. One thing that we did not include in the draft that we would read into the record is that the Coastal Commission in their correspondence today did say that they would like to see clarification added to the definition of primary residence to add extra clarification that it only applies in the non-coastal zones. And so we do have a motion for approval should the Planning Commission want to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the modifications only in the coastal zone. And that concludes staff's presentation. And if I skipped over anything too quickly, please let me know. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for staff before we go to public comment? there will be an opportunity for questions again or public comment. Okay, seeing none, I do have one procedural question since we just had a study session. We have a lot of folks who sat and gave comments at the study session, and I'm wondering if there's a way for the record to reflect those comments for this meeting since this is the meeting that has the actual action being taken.

I think we could ask that the minutes include the public comments from the joint study session. This is a public hearing. So if people want to provide comments for this meeting, they can. But I think if the Commission is inclined to just incorporate those comments from the joint study session by reference. Sure.

That can be noted in the minutes. So let me give a little bit of foundation for what I'm saying. We had a bunch of speakers at the last meeting, and I have four speaker cards. So I want to make sure that we don't miss information, understanding that there will be additional information provided during public comment right now. So would all of the commissioners be amenable to including the last hearing, the study sessions? I'm seeing nods. Yes, unanimous. Okay. We'd like to do that. Thank you. So Without further ado, I will go to public comment. Commissioner Ferguson.

I just have a question, but I can wait until afterwards.

No, let's do it now.

And a quick procedural question. Since this option two that we are deliberating on is, in effect, a change to what was approved by the Coastal Commission, does that mean we have to adopt it exactly verbatim, or are there some changes we can make with an administrative approval? Specifically, I am thinking of inputting a sub-cap for the coastal zone units not to affect what is currently in place, but to make it such that you don't have a landslide effect of 45% of short-term rentals moving into the coastal zone. Some cap that's very close to what you have now, but doesn't eliminate any current, but prohibits that from happening in the future.

Thank you, Commissioner Ferguson. That would need to be submitted as an amendment. And so I think we have some flexibility in terms of...

This is an amendment.

Yeah. Well, this is a modification. It's a text amendment to 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 basically a resubmittal of the local coastal program amendment and go back to public hearing.

Even though they effectively gutted the two biggest portions of our resolution?

That's correct. Any additional changes would need to be a resubmittal.

Okay. Commissioner Ferguson, I'm going to just build on that a little bit. Because if an option that would go to Coastal Commission in October would include would be the ordinance that council passes, would it be possible for the resolution that Planning Commission produces include additional, I'm going to call it conversation points that we would ask the council to consider? Is that a possibility that does not create Coastal Commission?

So, Chair Hauser, that is perfectly acceptable. If the Planning Commission wants to make recommendations aside from the text amendments that are being proposed, that is, the Planning Commission can make those notations or items for consideration.

And just to make sure I'm reiterating the, I think, the missing bridge here, there's not a concern that that would jeopardize the dates and the probable acceptance by Coastal Commission.

Right. I mean, it would just be an item that's submitted up to the council. The council can consider that or not consider that or take action on that or not take action on that. But I think what Director Updegrave was saying is that the options for the city are very narrow. You accept the suggested modifications for the commission or you don't accept them and then you resubmit a revised ordinance. Now, we are making... very minor changes to the suggested modifications to make a distinction between coastal and non-coastal zone which is consistent with the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction. So it's not really an expansion of the suggested modifications. It's really just a clarification that the suggested modifications will only impact the coastal zone.

Can we put the red language back on the screen for one moment? Because I was going to save a question, but since Commissioner Ferguson is asking about language. Yeah, so either one is fine. But did this language come from staff following communications, or did this language come from the Coastal Commission?

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.

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, I wonder if that would be seen as material at this point.

Yeah. I mean, so we're trying to make very precise changes that would be consistent with the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. What I would suggest is you could put that your suggested modification to the language in the recommendations to the council and potentially between now and then we can consider that a little bit more.

Can I ask a legal question? The Coastal Commission's purview is the STR ordinance or just the language in the local coastal land use plan that incorporates the STR?

So the LCP amendment that we submitted was the ordinance itself.

Right. So the City of Pacifica has passed this STR. So we know the Coastal Commission has no jurisdiction over outside of the coastal zone. So why change the short-term rental ordinance at all? You could adopt there, but it would still only affect the local coastal plan. It doesn't affect your short-term rental ordinance and doesn't affect anything outside of the coastal zone anyways.

That's a great question, Commissioner Ferguson. The way that Pacifica's zoning ordinance is organized is that our ordinances apply both within and outside of the coastal zone. And so our entire zoning ordinance is part of our local coastal program. Got it. And so, yeah, so we just don't have a separate ordinance for STRs.

And as Director Updegrave mentioned earlier, the Coastal Commission made the suggested modifications without making a distinction between coastal and non-coastal zones because that's not what was submitted to them. The ordinance doesn't make that distinction. So making that distinction from their part is arguably beyond what was submitted.

So with that, we will open public comment. I have four speaker cards up here. If anyone else would like to speak, please bring a card up to staff or raise your hand in Zoom or by phone. I'm just going to read all four of them in the order that they're in. So the first is Michael Wolman, followed by Bob O'Donnell, then Gary, then Cindy.

Hello, commissioners, city staff, city administrator, members of the public. Mike Wallman, West Sharp Park. So as we know, most of the concerns, probably the overwhelming amount of the concerns have been raised about short-term rentals have been raised by people that live along the coast. And now what we're hearing is we'll protect everybody except the people that are the most impacted by this. I think that is... wrong to do to the people who live along the coast. It will also create an economic incentive for more short-term rental operators to just continue to get more property along the coastline to rent out because it's gonna be in their economic interest to do so. It's basic, pretty basic stuff. Anybody knows the supply and demand is gonna take over with that, especially since they will make double the revenue if they are able to do something they can't do elsewhere. So I believe this two different rules in one city is going to disproportionately harm the people in the coastal zone that are already the most impacted by this. So that's one thing to be mindful of. And then, you know, recently there was a great city council meeting or planning meeting where somebody shows up as Darth Vader. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my three-year-old son, who's a big fan of the Dark Lord of the Sith. But I will say that the Coastal Commission would be Darth Vader in this particular instance. And, you know, they've told us what to change. In the past, apparently, their staff said, hey, you're good to go, and then the actual commissioners voted no. That's not what we said. So what's the risk now that this last-minute speech that, hey, this will get done, will actually be approved by the actual commissioners and the Coastal Commission? We don't know that for certain. And if they reject it again, then what's the impact to our renewal date in October? Do we miss it now? I don't think it's worth the risk to play around with that because, as we know, Darth Vader will tell us that he's changed the deal and pray that he doesn't change it more. Thank you.

Thank you. Bob, followed by Gary, and then Cindy.

Commissioner, it's really... Interesting that our former mayor is here because I can think back four years ago when he led a city council study session on the issue of short-term rentals. And I'm one of many citizens that have been impacted by the short-term rental process. I'm in the non-coastal zone, but we appreciate that the problem is all over the city. We've gone through a lot as planning commissioners and as citizens and as a city council. And over those four years, we've created a new ordinance very effective ordinance. It's a model and very similar to other ordinances produced by cities all around us to protect ourselves from the worst impacts of these short-term rentals. We could go on with a litany of problems that have occurred, but we've already discussed that. So what I want to say tonight is we can only do what we can do. We're subject to the California Coastal Commission. and we don't have direct control over that. But we do have direct control over the non-coastal area. And we created a model ordinance that we need to protect and make as useful as possible in the city. So our recommendation is you go with what we discussed in the council study session earlier, option two, and strong language that protects the things that we want and now have in the non-coastal zone. And then we'll do all that we can to protect the coastal zone, too. But we're going to lose the whole baby and the bath and the whole Camilla if we don't do something to protect what we have a right to protect. So I urge you to find a way, working with the council, to protect what you can and what we've worked so hard to do for four years. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Gary, and then Cindy, and then Sue.

Good evening. Gary Chenka, Aspen Drive. I am here to support option two. As stated before, we worked long and hard to get an ordinance that went into effect last October, and it seems to be working very well for the area outside the coastal jurisdiction. But I think if we don't accept the Coastal Commission's recommendations and are forced to go back and start the process over again, it could be another four years before anything is done. So I think we ought to adopt the changes the Coastal Commission is recommending and see how they work and maybe later on change them or start to change them if we want, but get something done. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Cindy and then Sue Degree and that's the last speaker card I have.

It's good to see you again this evening, Planning Commissioners and staff. I wanted to clarify something that came up in several of the prior public comments on this about other coastal cities having two ordinances. Actually, very few of them have multiple ordinances. but they do have different rules within the same ordinance, just like is in front of the City of Pacifica. I spent the weekend reading lots of them again, even though I'd read them before, to clarify that point. So many have, as we've heard Commissioner Ferguson bring up, and what we will end up with here, different sets of rules within the same ordinance, But rules for the coastal zone, rules outside. So again, it's kind of rare to have two ordinances. So I wanted to bring that up. The second thing is, gosh, I was an advocate for caps by neighborhood all along, but that's not what was voted on. Over the four years, that's not what anybody would agree to. So what I'm going to be heartened by here as a 30-year West Sharp Park resident is that a lot of the provisions that are in the ordinance hopefully will alleviate that influx of places here. We have small lots. We have very limited parking. There's a lot of apartments and multi-family units here. So I'm hopeful that that's going to remedy this huge group of people coming in here and buying up spaces. So that's the reason I can go along with that part of it. 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 a future case. But that time is in the future. I appreciate seeing these modifications. And it's very clear that all they are doing is clarifying that what was made by the Coastal Commission as changes are just clarified between the coastal zone and outside of the coastal zone. That's all it's doing. It's not changing anything. And I think that that's really important. I would go on like page five of the resolution to either strike That section CI that was brought up by Councilmember Beckmeyer earlier, at minimum, please strike that, you know, maybe leave in that you're limiting the number of nights of unhosted rentals, but strike that 120 days. That does not belong here because we all know that's not what we were looking for. So strike the whole thing or not, but please continue and go with... Option two.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Sue Degree. Thank you. I really appreciate the conversation between Planning Commission and staff this evening. I like your spunk. I mean, we all want the same thing on both sides, east and west. I appreciate the delineation of the jurisdiction that the attorney and city manager mentioned. Option two seems like the best way, but I really appreciate... You're thinking out of the box and trying to save everything. The consequence, as Commissioner Ferguson mentioned, is very scary. And I appreciate what Cindy said. It gives you a little bit of hope. What she said is that there's natural causes that may help against that. So you and Council are up a toughy one. I really appreciate your spunk, though. We want it right on both sides. So good luck in your proceedings. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So that was the last speaker card. Are there any raised hands?

We have two raised hands online.

Okay, let's go to the Zoom members.

Our first raised hand is Remy Tan.

Hello, it's Remy Tan again. RESIDENT MANNER, EDGEMAR. AGAIN, I URGE THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT OPTION TWO. IT SOUNDS LIKE GIVEN THE TIGHT TIMELINE WITH THE OCTOBER 31st RENEWAL OF ALL OF THE STRs THAT ARE WITHIN THE AUDIENCE, THAT'S THE WAY TO GO. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL ALLOW THE Everybody in the east side of Highway 1 to keep the ordinance as is. And then with the modification of the Coastal Commission for the folks on the west side of 1. And then, you know, we can come back another day to appeal or fight that one. But, you know, at least we'll have, you know, 90% of our ordinance in place. So I think that's really important. It sounds like the ordinance is working. The previous... testimony this evening. And, you know, we do have a cap, so I think the concern that one of the residents brought up about you know, people, you know, buying out houses on the west side of one because of the 120 versus 60 days, you know, that if we're close to capped at 150, somebody will have to rescind their permit, you know, for somebody to buy, you know, and do a, you know, SDR on the west side of town. So, you know, I think that's going to be slower than, you know, YOU KNOW, HAPPEN. I'M ASSUMING ALL OF OUR PERMITS ARE TAKEN BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE 150 OF THEM. SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND, YOU KNOW, Please, you know, really enforce and make sure that all the money that's coming from the SDRs, you know, we do get the transit occupancy tax. I was at a meeting a couple weeks ago on the budget, and every dollar of transit occupancy tax that we have, we can get, is really important. So, you know, we have some little bit of shift to the west side where there are, you know, higher rates. That's more tax dollars for us. Thank you.

Next up we have Caitlin Quinn.

Hello planning commissioners again. Yeah I just thank you so much for doing this really important work tonight both to commission and staff. Obviously I am 100 percent for Option number two, listen, I think a lot of you know me. I mean, I am the poster child for how hellish life can be, living next door to an unhosted STR that is poorly managed. And as much as I want relief, I do not want that relief to come at the expense of my fellow Pacificans on the east side. I do not want those people to lose hope the primary residence requirement and the 60 nights, you know, just so we can push through an ordinance that would give me potentially some modicum of relief here in West Sharp Park. And to Commissioner Ferguson's comments, I read you 100%. Yeah, it is. It is not good here We have so many of them. I mean Beach Boulevard is over 50% unhosted STRs as we know and you know, listen, what the Coastal Commission has handed us here is not what we wanted, it's not what we need, and it's, basically, it's a steaming pile. I'm not gonna lie, but I mean, it's, what are our choices? It's like the small steaming pile or the giant steaming pile. It's, you know, sorry to be so graphic, but it's kind of a deal with the devil, and I think we have to just suck it up and take this. And I will say, as others have said before me, Going forward, let's get this fixed. And going forward, enforcement is going to be so, so, so important. And we know that this is something that the city has not done a great job with up until this point. I mean, I walk down Beach Boulevard. We've got one operator who's operating 10 STRs unhosted in multi-unit buildings who doesn't have a permit for one of them. And I just sit here and go, how are we letting this happen? I mean, literally, like talk about leaving money on the table and honestly allowing someone to steal from the city because that is what it is. Thank you for the work that you're doing and really appreciate your consideration of option two. Thank you.

Thank you, Caitlin. I don't think we had anyone else.

That's all.

Okay, so with that, I will close public comment and bring it back to the commission for questions and deliberation. We are going to mix it up, deliberate, ask whatever you'd like. You don't have to press the button. Just go ahead.

I have a timeline question for staff because I think I know what's going to happen tonight. If option one or option two is approved, and we move forward with something. Option two does not have to go before Coastal Commission's October meeting. Is that my understanding?

Either option will have to go back. So essentially, the Coastal Commission has to confirm that whatever modifications we've approved and adopted meet what their requirements are.

It's my understanding they adopted it, but just with changes. So as long as we accepted those changes, it was set to go.

They approve it. And actually, City Clerk, if we could pull up slide...

I have a follow-up question that may clarify what I'm trying to get at. If we were to go with option two tonight and the Coastal Commission deliberates in October, but renewals for permits are in October and then it would have to come back before us again, if somebody with a current permit, can they renew on October the 1st before the Coastal Commission deliberates and then get one more year with, say, a multifamily in West Sharp Park? because they had their permit renewed before the ordinance went into effect?

Right. That's a really good question. The permit renewal period, the permits are good until October 31st. And so the new permits don't go into effect until November, technically I think until November 1st. So the renewal period is October. So that's when people are applying. But new permits don't actually go into effect until November 1st.

So we effectively hold all applications until the 31st, and they find out on the 31st what their fate is for the next year?

We would be reviewing that application. So we review all of the STR applications in the month of October, and then new permits aren't issued until November 1st.

I'll get even more specific. If we go with either option one or option two, it eliminates... the use of STRs in multifamily housing. There is no way with either of those options that somebody renews a permit for next year for an STR in multifamily housing.

That's right. Even if they were to come in today and obtain a permit to have an STR in a multifamily unit, they would be required to renew that permit in October. So regardless of when you apply, the permit is only good through October 31st annually.

Can I ask it a different way?

What about the eventuality that we don't get this done by November 1st?

Then it would not apply.

So what is staff's, 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 in the coastal zone?

If the city does not accept and adopt modifications and those aren't certified by the Coastal Commission, then the current standards that are in place in the coastal zone would still apply to this next cycle. And so I do have, I pulled up on the screen here the schedule. This is why we are having special hearings. It is a very tight timeline. If the Planning Commission adopts a resolution making a recommendation to the City Council, we would then hold a special City Council meeting in place of the Planning Commission meeting on September 8th, and it would then go for a second reading at the regular City Council meeting on the 14th, and then we would need to submit to the Coastal Commission.

So just to make sure that this is amply clear to everyone, if we don't make a recommendation tonight and continue this, what you're saying happens definitively. If all of these things happen, then the best case scenario is our fate is in the Coastal Commission's control.

Kind of looks like you're threading a needle.

We.

All right. I was just clarifying.

Thank you.

Through the chair, if... If for whatever reason one of these steps does not occur and we do not make that deadline, we would return to council immediately for direction as that may alter the public's interest and the council's interest in which one of those options to look at.

I believe with option two, it won't really matter if we don't get this done in time, right? Because it would go into effect for the city and the Coastal Commission has no purview over anything outside of the...

But it It would matter. Oh, it can't.

It can't without Coastal Commission approval. Right. Even though it's not within...

This ordinance is already in effect in the non-coastal zone.

Right.

Currently.

Yeah.

So the only thing that's not in effect, right, is that... That's correct.

Understood. Thank you.

Can I re-ask, and maybe this wasn't Commissioner Ferguson's question, but... I developed the question after hearing yours. If just the logistical process for current permit holders or anyone who wants to submit a permit in the beginning of October, they have the understanding of what the current ordinance is, so not inclusive of what we're looking at tonight, is when staff reviews over the course of the month, And then on October 31st, when permits get issued, the permits get issued with whatever requirements are in effect as of the 31st. So that is when a permit holder learns what the requirements are, potentially, if they change.

And we will update our public information to reflect... whatever is happening in the process. And so, you know, if council is considering, you know, introducing or adopting an ordinance, you know, we'll make sure that that information is updated on our website so that people are aware of that change.

Okay. So then, because the hypothetical situation I'm thinking of is right now in the coastal zone, there's no regulation effectively.

There's the existing ordinance.

The prior ordinance, yeah. And let's say someone, well, I'm just trying to, I guess this mainly relates to unhosted. Because the example I was thinking of is if they live in a different country and they wanted to continue to rent out their house, but that could still be the case if we choose option two.

There's not an appeal period following the Coastal Commission?

That's a good question. I believe, I will have to look into that, but the This is more of an administrative acceptance, I think more so than a decision, but we can look into that. But my understanding is that the effective date is the date of the Coastal Commission action.

I'm sorry if I derailed that. I don't think any of this really affects our process tonight. It's just good to know.

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.

I've got to still get some clarification on the application process. So assuming that we're all good, but also assuming if it doesn't get to Coastal Commission and doesn't make OUR DEADLINE. WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR, AGAIN, YOU HAVE AN EXISTING OR EVEN A NEW APPLICANT THAT COMES IN SO THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING REGULATIONS. SO IF THAT APPLICATION IS FILED AND THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OLD ORDINANCE, WHEN THEY FILE FOR THE NEW ONE, WHAT IS THEIR OBLIGATION FOR COMPLIANCE ON THE NEW RULES? The sound monitors, all the parking, all the various good neighbor policies that are in place.

Permits that start on November 1st will have to meet the new requirements if this is adopted and accepted by Coastal Commissions.

So they would still have to be compliant with the new inspections, the whole kit and caboodle. And they would know that going in. They may think, oh, they're seeing the old ordinance and I'm good to go. I paid my money for my permit. And now all of a sudden I'm getting hit with, I have to do what? That type of thing. I'm just worried about being caught off guard and not being able to do what they signed up for, essentially.

Right, and again, we don't have any formal actions at this point, but we will be updating our public information. So we do have a short-term rental page that provides links to all of the requirements, to the application, and so forth, and so that's a place where we would put it.

And I also have to ask, are we geared up for those inspections and all the compliance issues that require... the city staff the safety inspections etc etc to go with the The code enforcement to go see if the signage is in place if the noise monitors in place I would assume that that's done at the same inspection for just for efficiency and that's correct, so we're the way that the process works is that we have to conduct the inspection before the permit can be approved and

And so they are checking for those things.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chair Hauser. Yes, please. If I may, I just wanted to mention that this ordinance has been in effect for quite some time in the non-coastal zone. And so the city has put a lot of education, even in the last renewal period, there was a lot of education to all STR permittees about the new ordinance. So I think there is a piece of education that will continue through the renewal process this year as well. And I do want to point out that there is a provision in the ordinance that the 2025 ordinance that provides basically a phase process for implementation of the ordinance in the coastal zone once the certification from the Coastal Commission takes place. the ordinance were to proceed forward or the Coastal Commission doesn't consider it by October 1 and the Council doesn't want to make any changes and accepts the modifications as is. But the certification comes after November 1. There is a phased approach whereby some provisions would go into effect immediately. Other provisions like the big ones, the primary residency, not the primary residency but the hosted and the unhosted, those would not go into effect until the renewal period comes again.

What about multifamily?

I'd have to check on that.

So just to make sure I understand what you're saying, because that's really helpful nuance. If we go with option two, which is, I think, far and away what the majority of the community has said, and we miss the October commission hearing that the Coastal Commission would have, I think what I'm hearing you say is there's not a scenario in which the non-coastal zone would go backwards, right?

If council wants to proceed with the suggested modifications, as the city manager mentioned, council may want to do something different. But let's assume they want to proceed with the modifications as is, but it just doesn't happen that they get certified by October 31st. The code allows a phased process whereby once certified, certain provisions of the ordinance go into effect immediately. Other provisions don't go into effect until the next renewal cycle.

So an SJR in the back of the valley could not lose its primary resident requirement if something slipped to November.

Wait, I'm sorry, say that again?

City Manager, are you following me?

The question is, if we move forward with option two and let's just say the Coastal Commission meeting in October doesn't happen because they lose power or there's a storm or whatever, does that affect the current protections in the non-coastal zone? And the answer is that in the non-coastal zone, they would stay as status quo.

Because this bifurcates it.

Because this wouldn't be in effect. Because nothing...

Uh-huh. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Right? Right. That's right.

Yeah. So the modifications which makes the distinction, option two makes distinction between coastal and non-coastal zone.

Okay.

That doesn't go into effect until the Coastal Commission certifies it.

Okay.

And they're already operating.

It's already operating. There's nothing weird about the October 1st to October 31st application. Right.

Okay. In that case, if you went back to the Coastal Commission with changes... Would you still leave all the protections you have in a non-coastal zone? So if you made substantive changes and said, you know, we disagree with what your point is, here are these following additions we'd like to change, the existing ordinance that's already in effect in the non-coastal zone, that would stay, correct? Correct.

If nothing happens at all, what is in effect in the non-coastal zone stays in effect in the non-coastal zone. If there are changes that are material and require resubmission, then we do not have the opportunity to impose the good neighbor standards in the coastal zone starting November 1st. There is a risk that we may not make it.

The reason I'm bringing this up is this guts 90% of what the what the push for this ordinance was in the coastal zone and so if we make changes we are in no way threatening the non-coastal zone what do we have to lose by pushing for changes in the coastal zone if that's the case all of the other regulations right the list that was on that slide yeah correct and i would love to hear the end of the city manager's answer the the trade-off is between the

ability to impose the new standards in the 2025 ordinance, which include the list that was on the slide.

I think we're all familiar.

That's the ability to use those in the coastal zone is the benefit of moving forward now. And the phase two would do that if everything falls into place in a way that would protect that would not change the existing protections in the non-coastal zone. And we did, to be fair, we did present an option three, which is a material resubmission, which would be very time-intensive, and we would lose at least two cycles of renewals, because once we submit an application to the Coastal Commission, they have 12 months, is that right, to review it. That's correct. So if we submit an application in, let's just say, March, they have till March 28, so that's another cycle. So we're looking at at least two years, and that assumes everybody's in alignment, at least two years without having those additional protections in the coastal zone. And it is a trade-off, and we may not make it. Even with option two, we do want to be clear, a lot has to happen and fall into place, but we know that without option two,

There's no chance.

And we recognize this is not always an easy decision and there are a lot of things to consider.

I want to say that I really appreciate that there's a lot of common ground in what staff, the council members, the community, everybody seems to be pushing for option two. And I know that a lot of the people that have spoken tonight live in the coastal zone. So... I think that's helpful at least.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm also for option two. 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. A lot of people were saying otherwise, but that is, given these three choices, that would be the way I would lean also. Not that it matters because I'm going to get outvoted unanimously. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what the path is for, right? Because they've gutted something that took us five years of work and that I live with day to day and my neighbors all live with day to day and it frankly doesn't the multifamily is a big win. Other than that, there's nothing here that helps those of us that live with 55% of the short-term rentals in Pacifica.

And through the chair, I do want to address Commissioner Ferguson's question about multifamily. So the provision that I mentioned about the phased approach, it would provide that prohibition on the unhosted in multifamily wouldn't occur until the next renewal cycle.

So next year, November 1?

Right, if it's certified after the renewal period. And that's in Section 9-4.4905, subsection B. And, again, that's just unhosted in multifamily.

DR. We do share the concern about having two zones, and we do have very limited data, but we do have data points between December and February. And what's interesting, and we don't have a good explanation for, is that STRs decrease in both zones. Coastal and non-coastal. We didn't see a migration from one to the other. It's a short sample. We don't want to draw a complete conclusion to that, but that is what we have in the Coastal Commission.

We signaled to the people that we're going to make it economically unviable to do STRs. None of them had this information that's now before us when they were making that business decision. I know someone personally who decided to remove the STR because of the ordinance they saw coming down.

Anything from this side?

I'm clear.

May I comment, Chair?

Absolutely.

So, yeah, it was an extremely long, challenging meeting. I left my notes. I sat up until 11 o'clock, I think, the night before the meeting and finally found the pad, and I forgot it, so I did them in the car on the way down there. And they were very short and sweet. And it's kind of good because the way this reads, I would have probably gotten the ire of the commission. But these two right here were stunning. And I really loved Mr. Sharpentier's work. Shock and dismay. I can't even think of all the words. When that was, you've never seen that unprecedented in your career. A decision like that, that was essentially done and then reversed. It was on the fly. I think you wrote more, Director Updegrave, on the fly as you two were commiserating on what to do next as it was happening. So I really think that, and this has spoken to me on several members of the public, that I think, and I surmise this as myself, That the people coming out of that meeting, I don't think there were probably 10% of the people that came out of there were confident that they knew exactly what just occurred. I believe that wholeheartedly. Including the commissioners, without a doubt. Without a doubt. It was unique. It was rather shocking and appalling at some of the things. The turnout from the public was I mean, it's not like we're just going down the street for that meeting. So, yeah, it was quite amazing to see. And I think, again, there couldn't have been a better pitch from the city, from all involved. So it was quite amazing. What was the, God, the one I had, I had a real zinger in here somewhere and I can't remember what it was. Oh, it was, yeah, I love a lot of it came through. And I think one of my last things here is that it appears that the environmental justice lens suffers from severe cataracts. Pacifica's vision is clear, equitable, and accommodating to all. And I think that was truly the ordinance. And I think they were influenced. I believe their outside influence got the best of them. I really do. My opinion. So that's it, but thank you.

Okay. Well, I want to make sure that some of the things that we heard in the study session just get brought up for the record, so I'm going to start reading a couple things in. There was a discussion about gathering data points. I know that we've discussed that more in this meeting, but I think that we had said that if we do go with option two that we could also discuss potentially adding more teeth to some of what we potentially have lost at a future date and that we would gather data. Does staff need any more information or deliberation on that before we move on to some of the other things?

It would be helpful to I think just articulate more explicitly what you wanted to say and then to just confirm the consensus so that we get it right.

Commissioner Ferguson, I might defer to you a little bit on that since I think that came out of one of your comments. I do think that we should start, instead of saying coastal zone, non-coastal zone and amounts, we should start adding like a population density. So like proportion, like the 10% of the coastal zone homes are STRs versus like the 1% of the non-coastal, like whatever the actual percentage is, that should be articulated.

I believe this whole process came out of squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? And the squeaky wheel was West Sharp Park and even tonight, it's all West Sharp Park and Pedro Point. And these are the people that stood up and made this a priority. And these are the people getting the least benefit from it. And now maybe it's one more year until they get any benefit from it. So I'm just here advocating for my neighbors and family and friends. Also on that note, I know that it got slashed from 60 to 120. We deliberated for a long time about the 60 number, but from 45 and 90 would be great. I don't know if it's a discussion to be had. I don't know how 120 came up. I was out of the country when the meeting happened. If there's a number more than 60 and less than 120, every one of them is better, right? I mean, I think the 60 was basically developed in conjunction with it being a primary residence to, like, hey, this is where it's economically a benefit to someone who's retired and wants to make extra income but not run a for-profit business in your neighborhood as a hotel. 120 wasn't part of the discussion because, like, That's still profitable if you bought your house for half a million dollars to make $90,000 a year renting it out short term.

So, if I may. Go ahead. And I actually, to the $90,000 a year, I'm not sure how you came to that. And I'm certainly not advocating.

Average nightly rental times 120. What? Average nightly rental.

I did that, too. Maybe we came up with different average rentals. I just, you know, asked AI like everybody else does. I broke my own rule. But mine came, yeah, 120 times. My average was 320. It's $38,000 a year. And I certainly couldn't afford to pay a more, you know, who's got a $3,000 mortgage in Pacifica? But anyway, that being said, the original staff report that was included in the study session packet, W13B, from the the Coastal Commission staff, they recommended striking the primary residency and striking the 60 nights, period. And the Coastal Commissioners, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, actually came back with the 120 days. So they were ready to leave it. The staff was recommending 365, no restriction whatsoever.

They came back. during the meeting at 180. I believe that was Commissioner Wilson that came back at 180.

But what they landed on was the 120.

And they pared that back down.

Yeah, most of that revenue is right. It's a couple weeks around the holidays, and then it's weekends, right? So you've now got every weekend, plus you've got a few weeks. You can rent all the revenue days at 120 days.

Okay.

Okay. I think that exhausts the data question. Do you have more then to add into the microphone, please?

I do not at this moment. I have some ideas that I could compile for them if they'd like, but I don't. Off the top of my head, it's a little difficult.

I think the problem is we need to MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. WE NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE A MAJORITY CONCUR WITH WHAT THE IDEAS ARE. CHAIR HOUSER.

IF I MAY INTERRUPT. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO US AT THE TABLE WHAT IS WHAT YOU'RE WORKING TOWARDS SPECIFYING. IN TERMS OF DATA, I MEAN, YOU HEARD DURING THE STUDY SESSION THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY DOES. with or without a Planning Commission recommendation. So that's not necessarily something that needs to be included in the Planning Commission's recommendation. You can, of course, but that's not specifically necessary for this item.

Okay. I think what I would like, if you don't need more for us on this, then we can move to the next.

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 that could be done separately.

Chair Hauser, earlier in our planning commission meeting you mentioned wanting to provide in our recommendation to council potentially some alternative language. I have a question regarding that. Was the idea you had just to document in the record some of the alternative ideas or requests that we have but with the likely understanding that council may put forth what was already redlined tonight yeah i think that and i'm going to ask director up to group to check me on this but i think that what i heard was that the red line that we have has already been shared with the coastal commission and we're feeling

a degree of confidence that at least staff feels comfortable with the language in the red line. So any of the language that I think Commissioner Ferguson had asked about or like my reversal of how we say it.

My discussion would be for the next thing after this, right?

Right. And so I think that we, my personal recommendation, but there are six of us here tonight, is that we don't change the red line and that we make sure that we do the kind of safer alternate two. But that if we do have, there is nothing from our planning commission resolution that's going to really go to the Coastal Commission. This is for the record. This is for council. And if we do have comments like, hey, we should really look into creating a coastal zone specific or a neighborhood by neighborhood specific quota, or that we should do this by population density or whatever, you can do it in here safely in the resolution.

So almost like saying we agree with what staff is recommending, but we also want these things considered for the future.

Yeah.

I think, I mean, I think we could either add a whereas statement or in the now therefore, but the thing that we're recommending is still this new ordinance with the red lines. Right. Okay. Do you have more on that? I wanted to go to the community comment we got about striking C, little Roman numeral one, out of our resolution. I concur that that verbiage of... Could we get a page number? Oh, I'm sorry. It's page five, section C, little Roman numeral I, of the new resolution. Also the old resolution. So I think the idea was that the little Roman numeral I would be stricken or at least the Preservation of unique qualities would be stricken, but I have no issue like I don't think it helps to have that Section and I would be totally for striking the whole portion Chair Hauser the that romanette one and that Supports

the consistency determination with general plan policy CDG3. So if that doesn't, if the planning commission does not believe that that supports the general plan consistency determination, is there alternative language that can be crafted?

I think the offending language was the clause to 120 days. So by limiting the number of nights of unhosted rentals, comma. And just getting rid of two 120 days was the kind of least that we would need to do to reestablish the spirit of what the original language was. Right.

So I would suggest just removing the 120 days because the rest of the sentence is to expanded operating regulations that address potential neighborhood impacts such as noise, litter, and parking.

Okay. Is there consensus on the dais?

I think that works. It does support.

One, two, three, four, five. Marge, anything else? Okay, so that was on the list. We had two council members very specifically ask us to go, three council members very specifically go to option two out of the four that were here at the study session. And I wrote a note from Council Member Beer that said, get as many protections into place as possible. I think she's saying that that was what option two did. So I mean, that's kind of the list that I heard. And we have the community comments that we heard at the study session being put into the record. So they're more deliberate. Is there anything else that staff would like us to discuss or to reiterate from the study session for the record?

Thank you, Chair Hauser. I think that the Planning Commission has covered discussion of options one and two, as well as provided some potential recommendations for future ordinances.

Then does anyone up here have additional items or anything that they would like to change resolution or include. Okay.

I would recommend that we say at a later date ask Council to consider ‑‑ Is there a way to just add a no teeth note at the end that just says, you know, we urge Council to consider at a later date prioritizing these constituent issues like neighborhood by neighborhood quotas, reducing the number of nights or re-incentivizing the, I don't know if it's going to be a non-served coastal commission to have hosted versus unhosted.

It's not going in the ordinance. I mean, if council wanted to put it in the ordinance, but we're not making a recommendation or changing the recommended ordinance to council. I think you could put whatever you want in the resolution and I would just ask that you propose it in a way that the city attorney thinks is logical.

Yeah, and so we were discussing at the side table that, you know, the Planning Commission can make a motion to adopt the resolution that's before the Planning Commission as modified by staff to be consistent with Option 2 and also provide comments to the Council as follows. And the comments can be listed out so that the comments aren't in the resolution itself, but the comments will be presented to the Council.

Okay.

So, again, it is up to the Planning Commission what those comments or those points are.

I mean, I feel like there's one key one that we keep talking about, but I think it needs to be stated the way you'd like to hear it, and then I think we have consensus.

Yeah, if I can spit something out and we can decide if we have consensus on it.

Before you do, did we decide which whereas this would belong? I'm thinking the last one in our Planning Commission resolution.

I'm sorry.

Well the language that Commissioner Ferguson's about to recommend that we add into Planning Commission's resolution for tonight's meeting. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page of where it would go for context I'm thinking it would go on page for the last whereas which discussed 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 would hold more weight in the resolution. I don't know if others agree.

I agree with you. I just want to do the least risky thing to our timeline and our mission.

I mean, this resolution, correct me if I'm wrong, Director Updegre, but this isn't going to be presented to the Coastal Commission. So it is really just for the council. But, of course, it will be part of the record. So we want to be cognizant of that.

It is included in any executed action showing the legislative history gets included.

Okay. So then there you go.

I don't see how it would jeopardize, though, if it's not affecting the legislation.

Do you?

I think we're hearing that if it goes into the record, like I would be over, look, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Capitulate. Honestly, I think that we as a planning commission do a lot of things that are long-term planning and that are, you know, approving projects that happen in the very long term. And this is a very unique position we're in where the choice that we make tonight or the recommendation we make tonight has immediate impacts on the people that live here. and their enjoyment of their homes, right, especially in the coastal zone. So I want to be very cognizant that this is not, like we're not in a position here where we want to, like we heard every single person that came up here essentially say that they would like to go with option two for right now. I don't think we want to jump right in.

I'm comfortable not amending this at all and just having this be a hill to die on at future council meetings. You know, I know these people. I know where to get a hold of them. We've all gotten a hold of them, gotten this far.

Let's have a list that goes into the staff report as commission topics that we ask for recommendation by the, or we ask for consideration by council. And I think you should spare what you see.

Through the chair, there are a couple of ways we could accomplish this. We'd probably rather not have it in the resolution. but you could also make a motion, approve the resolution as amended, the 120 days amendment, and then say also include in the staff report these comments, or you could just direct us to include these comments in the council staff report, which we will faithfully do, recognizing that they are comments and not necessarily the full force of the planning commission. Okay.

You just, for some reason, struck a brain cord. Do we need to designate a liaison from this special meeting to the council meeting? 9-8.

Or 9-8. Or 9-8.

Good question. So unfortunately, that's not on the agenda. And the planning commission typically agendizes those designations. Planning commissioners can certainly attend the council meeting where these are going to be considered.

It was on the agenda. Okay.

Neighborhood specific quotas would do it all for me. I think we should address the 120 days, but that's a issue for later. Always I thought the best approach would be to do neighborhood by neighborhood because otherwise you get what we have where 50% of one neighborhood is short-term rentals and 0% of another neighborhood. That's the whole problem.

Another thing I would suggest we add, both Lauren and I asked about it, about resubmitting to the Coastal Commission. We know it can't be done right away and we need to collect some data. And I think that we could use their staff report, like I said, as a basis for how we might resubmit so that we do try and get these same protections in the coastal zone as we have in the rest of the city. So I would add that to the list.

More as a foresight for council?

Yes. Okay. For future. Yes.

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.

Percentage of single-family homes going forward, right?

And I did have a question that I just remembered from one of the public comments. I want to, oh, Denise is listening, great. So I believe there's a, well, no, and I know you guys need to do that, but so there is, I thought there was, and I read so much this weekend, and I came, I was hopped up, I'll tell you. I'm sitting here like, no, I don't have any questions. Well, it's because option two is what my brain kept saying, why can't we just do this, right? So I got to view it as we get what we can get now, and if it's approved by the 30th, by Coastal Commission, then now we have those protections except for the heart of it. Sorry, I agree with you. It gutted it. But we still have some protections in place. And one of them, it seems to me I read that the owner couldn't own more, that there's some limit on how many units they can own. Is that true? Operator can operate more. Operator can only operate one. So that brings me back to Caitlin's comment about this person that has 10 of them. And would that reflect in the permits? I mean, is that something that would be easily caught during the permit process if this did indeed get approved, that we could then maybe take some sort of action about not renewing all those permits for the various locations? Kind of a hypothetical, but based on her comment. I was curious about that. That's assuming that it gets approved by the October deadline by the CCC.

So a single operator can only hold one STR permit.

Okay.

There may be some clever folks who try to do things with other institutions to try to hide that, but we do our best to try to find out. Okay.

She had also mentioned that there's people operating without a permit. Is that something, how do you guys monitor that or how does that?

It's a somewhat separate issue in terms of enforcement. STR operators are required to have a permit. And code enforcement, we work with a third party with HDL on our monitoring and enforcement. And so we do have active cases of people operating STRs without a permit.

I'm trying to understand where to go from here. There's not a motion to make, is there?

There is a motion to make, and we should put the option two. I'm going to be presumptuous because no one has corrected me otherwise. We should put the option two motion on the screen. We should make sure that we are incorporating the recommendation to strike the language in little Roman numeral one of section C, and everything else seems to be outside of the resolution. And so if we are done, then someone should feel free to make a motion.

I would just make sure to add to the motion what Chair Hauser said about the resolution and then the recommendations to counsel.

Yes, City Manager.

Do you want us to restate what we heard, roughly, in general terms, for the recommendations to communicate to Council?

I think that'd be wonderful.

So it was analyze, 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. And then for the data collection, prepare data that show coastal zone as well as non-coastal zone as well as the percentage of housing in each district to show the different proportionality. Because as noted there is a concentration in the coastal zone.

And I would add to that one of the things I thought I heard was including exploring neighborhood caps and quotas. Yes. I was just going to say that.

I believe that was Commissioner Ferguson's

We haven't beaten that drum for five years, so maybe.

Well, we just tuned it up.

So we'll enumerate those in the staff report as additional comments received from planning commissioners.

Thank you.

I move we adopt a resolution initiating text amendment TA131-26 and recommending that the City Council approve the text amendments as modified to differentiate between two areas within the coastal zone as necessary to implement certain provisions of the local coastal program as certified with modifications by the Coastal Commission at their August 12, 2026 hearing and find the adoption of the ordinance exempt from CEQA including recommendations as read back by staff.

Is there a second? I'll second. All right, please vote.

Roll call. On that motion, Chair Hauser?

Yes.

Vice Chair Berman? Yes. Commissioner Ferguson? Yes. Commissioner Redfield? Yes. Commissioner Sanchez? Yes. Commissioner Davis?

Yes.

That motion passes.

Okay, I'm just going to reiterate the thank you that we've kind of given. This was a much different conversation tonight than I think we all were prepared for, so thank you to Doc for making that happen. And now, does anyone have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second. All right, let's roll call vote, please.

On that motion, Chair Hauser.

Yes.

Vice Chair Berman.

Yes.

Commissioner Ferguson. Yes. Commissioner Redfield. Yes. Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Davis.

Yes. All right, we're adjourned. Thank you.