[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6390679,"mediaKeyId","2112164-8ab25be156aa68814410838665d9c632","parentId",2112164,"title","Pacifica council extends public comment on housing-element EIR to Feb. 3","audioSeconds",1392,"startMs",9728000,"endMs",11120000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2112164-8ab25be156aa68814410838665d9c632&start=9728&end=11120","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2112164-8ab25be156aa68814410838665d9c632/thumbnail_9728000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6390679/Pacifica/San-Mateo-County/California/Pacifica-council-extends-public-comment-on-housing-element-EIR-to-Feb-3","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6390679-f2ccbae2324ab4abe479c94b0bd853e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437984&Signature=YbRXHC3TNXs1NtftBpWNxu0P9jYX-bGQOJ077GArOE3WXtqVolUjWKdkHlfqSDdkN33amTBfU7rsAe-n8I4aOlyLmXNL80BZ~HEvuWLM1sY9u6GRY3oJ2CwyWXgXlLvIi7IOgeePYN983AoxgxLzH~Cm73bKjt31cb6U1ivgHVPxo1LQIY8nSXU9fUGMS~j14jKSQcO7wsPXojFc8izIdG1EHT220gNTck9tlaRDyFWZLEHRtU68Pu9qv00HeMQ-akeZqW-m2kso8UpVPSWLVAi-b7rp-NDMMhARjZkGnTR8L0X1~ppe2ZtFiAQMCfswslfuqEPtvMJgykYnhAV-bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Pacifica CA","date","2025-01-14T14:37:09Z","article","The Pacifica City Council on Jan. 13 voted unanimously to extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the city’s targeted general plan amendments, rezoning and objective development standards program tied to the housing element.

Council member Christine Bowles moved to extend the draft EIR comment period; Mayor Sue Beckmeyer seconded. The motion set the new comment deadline for Monday, Feb. 3, 2025, at 5 p.m. The council’s action applies to the city’s public comment deadline and aligns the city’s calendar with the state agency review window.

City Manager Kevin Woodhouse and planning staff briefed council on the procedural context. Woodhouse explained that the CEQA baseline public comment period is 45 days and that local governments can extend that period but generally should not exceed 60 days. “The California Environmental Quality Act regulations say comment periods are 45 days… but they could go up to 60 days,” Woodhouse told the council, adding that longer extensions can increase schedule risk for housing-element certification and pose a potential window for “builder’s remedy” applications.

Bowles said she proposed a short extension to give the public more time to download and review the substantial document, and to address concerns that notification reached some residents only after the holidays. “I would like to suggest extending the deadline by a week,” she told colleagues during the item’s discussion.

Council members asked staff for follow-up procedures: staff will continue to accept and compile written and agency comments, and the consultant preparing the EIR will respond to comments in the Final EIR that will be returned to the council for certification. The council emphasized that the extension was intended to increase public participation while minimizing schedule risk.

The motion to extend the EIR public-comment deadline to Feb. 3, 2025, was made by Council member Christine Bowles, seconded by Mayor Sue Beckmeyer, and passed unanimously.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","PCC 1/13/25 - Pacifica City Council Meeting - January 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council voted unanimously to extend the Draft Environmental Impact Report public comment period for the housing-element rezoning program, giving residents and agencies until Feb. 3 (5 p.m.) to submit comments. City staff warned of CEQA timing trade-offs but supported a short extension to increase public review time.","taxTitle","Pacifica, San Mateo County, California","taxId",54263,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6390684,"Pacifica public demands redo and clearer rules after contentious mayor pro tem selection",8030,11190000,19220000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2112164-8ab25be156aa68814410838665d9c632&start=11190&end=19220","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2112164-8ab25be156aa68814410838665d9c632/thumbnail_11190000.jpg","/articles/6390684/Pacifica/San-Mateo-County/California/Pacifica-public-demands-redo-and-clearer-rules-after-contentious-mayor-pro-tem-selection","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6390684-62ad329ed0e9c43b240bfdf72bc36cc3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437984&Signature=WN7bfkdTnnZFe-R02bnErAVGS0mdvmYBGgHrlwKSgADorp0Uj3euGfS2EPbUm7JYl7EUGR73CDlWZMmTBfaeBcRRoY8JeJnGU8eBZWgAcQp~YwhO6-wNMzMkkD0UtNAfLUD7~6Xfhj7dal1yOxqr5f3n5SqkPNIfuZMd5Mk99ZaT2mJeKeJh~0FQwrP7vHv0PlsaoyF16-YiRN4Jv1oT0aMBfvweQbRNRdUBa6telAllLvVyRZDegeyCsuIBqJpG7N1j~KxeiQJIgQjJIpUGwc5eekWxOLSb-FYv9R86xPkt0wlkDCWhdKQ000OiKv7yUbISt3NnlHgIJQlRkF6hRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dozens of residents urged the Pacifica City Council on Jan. 13 to correct what they called a flawed, “rush”-style selection of the council’s mayor pro tem at the Dec. 9 meeting and to adopt clearer, written procedures for future leadership nominations.

The meeting opened with council members and the mayor addressing the public’s anger and disappointment over December’s vote. Mayor Sue Beckmeyer apologized at the dais, saying, “I would never do anything with the intention to humiliate my colleague. I love and respect my colleagues,” and acknowledged the need for clearer procedures.

The mayor pro tem selection drew sustained public comment at the Jan. 13 meeting. Dozens of residents described the Dec. 9 vote as abrupt and exclusionary and asked the council either to hold a new vote or to adopt a transparent nomination process. Several speakers representing different parts of the city said the outcome denied a district’s voters the expected opportunity for representation.

“I support a revised process,” resident Victor Carmichael said during the public comment period, calling last month’s action “ugly, autocratic and unbecoming.” Joanne Arnaud, another speaker, asked the council to “correct this as soon as you can,” and Cliff Lawrence called for a “do‑over,” saying the episode left the council with a stain unless addressed quickly.

Council members agreed the selection process lacked clarity. Council member Christine Bowles, who had asked the item be placed on the Jan. 13 agenda, told colleagues she had requested this review “so that we could deal with it first thing this year.” City Manager Kevin Woodhouse summarized the procedural gap for the public: “The City Council rules and code of ethics does not include any special considerations or guidelines for the selection of mayor or mayor pro tem.”

Council members discussed options including adopting a formal rotation, requiring a written nomination period with public comment before votes, and referencing standard parliamentary guides such as Rosenberg’s or Robert’s Rules of Order. Several speakers and council members cited examples from other Bay Area cities that either write the selection process into council rules or rely explicitly on established parliamentary manuals.

No formal vote was taken to overturn December’s selection. Instead the council reached a working consensus to return the topic to the Jan. 27 agenda: staff will present options and – if directed by the council on Jan. 27 – an ad hoc subcommittee would be formed to draft recommended rule changes for council consideration. City Attorney advice and governance training for council members were discussed as likely steps in the review.

Public commenters said they view a timely fix as essential to restoring trust. “When you make a mistake, you don’t move on — you fix it,” public commenter Betty Duran said. Council members said they want a clear, equitable process that prevents similar controversy, preserves public comment opportunities, and ensures fair representation across districts.

The council did not adopt a specific replacement selection method on Jan. 13. Members asked staff to agendize the options, and several council members volunteered to meet with colleagues and members of the public before the next meeting to help draft guiding parameters.

The council moved on to other agenda items after the discussion and public comment. The review process and any potential re-vote or formal revision of December’s appointment will depend on the council direction and an ad hoc group’s recommendations when the topic returns to the council agenda.

Ending: Council members said they intend to pursue changes quickly and in public; the Jan. 27 meeting is expected to include a staff report and a possible motion to create a short-term ad hoc subcommittee to draft rules and a schedule for consideration.","At the Jan. 13 Pacifica City Council meeting dozens of residents criticized the council’s Dec. 9 selection of a mayor pro tem as rushed and disrespectful. Council members acknowledged mistakes, apologized and agreed to put a process-review item on the next agenda for an ad hoc subcommittee to draft clearer nomination and voting rules.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pacifica council extends public comment on housing-element EIR to Feb. 3

Pacifica public demands redo and clearer rules after contentious mayor pro tem selection