Pacifica council narrows short-term rental rules, signals 60-night cap and tighter operator rules

Pacifica’s City Council spent the April 14 continuation hearing on short‑term rentals narrowing several major policy choices and giving staff firm direction to draft a revised ordinance for Planning Commission review and later City Council hearings.

Council members signaled they want a 60‑night annual cap on short‑term rentals (STRs), tighter limits on how operators may use accessory dwelling units, clarified occupancy limits that exclude young children, and stronger local response and accountability requirements for operators and platform listings. The council did not adopt a final ordinance tonight; staff will revise the draft and return it to the Planning Commission and then to council, and the city will submit any local coastal plan (LCP) amendment required by the California Coastal Commission after council adoption.

The direction matters because the council’s choices will affect coastal‑zone rental availability, enforcement needs and how the city balances housing supply with visitor lodging. Community Development Director Samantha Updegrave told the council the city is now focusing deliberations on “the maximum rental nights, allowing ADUs to be the primary residence for hosted STRs, occupancy limits, and complaint response time.” She said staff will incorporate the council’s direction and take the revised ordinance to the Planning Commission for review before returning it to council.

On the number of nights: City Attorney Denise told the council that Coastal Commission staff had not insisted on a specific cap and would expect Pacifica to document its rationale. Nonetheless, most council members indicated they preferred 60 nights over the 90‑night option presented earlier. “A decision about 60 nights versus 90 nights is a very direct financial impact to the program,” Denise warned, and Council Member Wright and others acknowledged the city’s ongoing budget pressure while saying they favored a lower cap to reduce speculative profitability.

On occupancy and families: Council agreed on an occupancy formula of two people per legally permitted bedroom, with children under age 6 excluded from the count. Council Member Beere urged the change to preserve access for families with young children, saying parents often need flexible sleeping arrangements. Staff noted enforcement challenges for any age‑based rule but recorded the council’s direction.

Hosted/unhosted rules, ADUs and operators: Council directed staff to close a potential loophole that could arise when a host lives in an ADU while short‑term‑renting the main house. After discussion with staff and the city attorney, council members instructed revisions to make clear that operators must be on‑site in the primary residence for hosted STRs (not the ADU) and that ADUs cannot serve as the permitted STR unit when the primary residence is effectively being short‑term‑rented. Council also instructed staff to add a definition of “natural person” and to require the operator (the person responsible for the permit and compliance) to be a natural person rather than a corporate shell.

Responsible‑party response and signage: Council kept the requirement that every STR have a local, 24/7 responsible party who is reachable and “able to respond at the short term rental within a reasonable time (30 minutes) to any complaint regarding condition, operation or conduct of occupants,” and to take remedial action where necessary. Staff proposed, and council supported, a uniform exterior sign (weatherproof, up to 2 square feet) with the short‑term rental permit number and a QR code linking to contact and compliance information; the Planning Commission had recommended a template sign to standardize that requirement.

Insurance, platforms and public listings: The council asked staff to require a certificate of insurance to be submitted with permit applications so operators notify insurers that the property is used commercially. Council also asked staff to maintain a public list of permitted STR addresses (staff suggested a simple, dated address list rather than a live GIS map until public‑facing GIS capability is available) and noted the ordinance language on platform accountability modeled on Santa Monica’s approach.

Enforcement, noise and other technical issues: Council members agreed not to create a new noise numeric standard in the ordinance and to rely on the city’s existing noise code and enforcement tools; they also asked staff to preserve language that allows the city to rely on established enforcement (strikes, permit suspensions, fines) when operators fail to respond appropriately. Staff will draft the revised ordinance text and return it for Planning Commission review and council public hearings; a Coastal Commission LCP amendment will also be required for the coastal zone.

Next steps: Staff will incorporate the council’s directions into a revised draft ordinance and return it to the Planning Commission for review. Following Planning Commission recommendation, council will hold a new public hearing and, if adopted, the ordinance will require an LCP amendment to be filed with the California Coastal Commission. The draft will also contain the implementation details the council requested — signage, primary‑residence documentation, insurance certificates and a public listing of permitted addresses.

Ending: Council members and staff emphasized the technical complexity of the changes and the need to document local rationale for thresholds the Coastal Commission will review. Samantha Updegrave closed the staff report by asking for any further council priorities to refine the draft; council members added a few technical clarifications and asked staff to return the revised text and implementation procedures to the Planning Commission before returning to council.