CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 July 11, 2022
SPECIAL MEETING
July 11, 2022 (MONDAY) – 5:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on July 11, 2022 at 5:02 PM 5:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the special meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, with Councilmember Beckmeyer not present.
City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having Planning Commission meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.
STUDY SESSION
1. Study Session regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation regarding a status update of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Dep. PW Director Bautista began the staff report then turned it over to Consultant Ryan Orgill (Carollo Engineers) to continue the presentation.
City Council Special Meeting 2 July 11, 2022
Ryan Orgill, Carollo Consultant, continued the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they didn’t receive a large response from Rockaway Beach Boulevard area.
Mr. Orgill stated that they noted that it was a spring that has been an ongoing issue and they can talk more about that in the Q&A, but they are developing solutions for that problem, also.
He then completed the presentation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they mapped out the 10% and 5% events and it was the October 1% event that he found particularly eye opening and it became the forefront of his concern. Regardless of whether or not it was a 1% event, he thought it seemed like climate change is not getting better and it continues to be his concern going forward. He thought it would be nice to see a third entry on the table where it shows whether the model projects for the 1% event. He thought it was concerned that they weren’t able to capture it, but if the model holds then he supposed that is negligible.
Mr. Orgill stated that he wanted to touch on that a bit more. He stated that, with these types of rainfall events, it was extremely rare to get that large of an event happening in October. He stated that the big rainfall events in the Bay Area are historically starting in December and can last into February or March and, in terms of scoping the project and making sure they have a schedule, they were working off of the historic knowledge that is typically how things happen with a rain-bomb in October is hard to predict.
Paul Friedlander, Carollo consultant, emphasized that the purpose of the monitoring is to calibrate the model and, even though they captured the December storm, it allows them to model storms of the draining map and they don’t have to capture storms at the extremes to be able to model and calibrate it to be able to analyze those big events.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his concerns has something to do with patterns shifting as they go on, but he appreciated that they don’t have a crystal ball to monitor that as they like. He would like a third entry for those 1% events so they can add that into the mix of what they are looking at.
Mr. Orgill didn’t think that would be a problem.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, when they have development and they are going to have to increase housing supply, referring to RHNA numbers, if that increases the rain flow to the storm drain system as they have roof areas that went to the ground before but now roofs are not pervious and it drops them down and is it calculated in the plans they are making for the next two years.
Mr. Orgill agreed.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, during the development when a developer builds homes on a piece of land, the pre-flow from the site must be equal or less than the post-developed flow running off the site and typically a lot of the runoff generated on the site is going to be equal or less than the post development flow. He asked if Mr. Orgill had anything else to add.
Mr. Orgill stated it was right and the city’s policies are set up to a point where future City Council Special Meeting 3 July 11, 2022
development isn’t going to significantly increase the amount of runoff coming into the system.
He stated that they worked with the Planning Department to understand that, with any new developments happening within the system and current applications, they will make sure that they will account for any increases or runoffs. He stated that it is not a major concern because of the way the city’s policies are set up.
Mayor Bier asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if he wanted to add to that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista largely covered the point he wanted to make. He stated that there was a policy they will see to formalize that approach in the General Plan discussion later in the meeting. He stated that, for projects under the city’s municipal regional permit for storm water discharges, many types of projects, such as larger sort they might expect to accomplish their RHNA, will be known as what are called regulated projects and they will have another layer of review to not only capture the amount by volume but also to treat that storm water to improve the water quality running off of the site. He stated that, on a number of bases, they would expect the flows from future development conditions to be less impactful to the city’s storm drain system.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they are going to have increased use of retention basins or is it going into storm drain systems and if a retention basin, how would that be accommodated if there is no physical way to have a retention basin on the project.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will respond and then engineers can expand on it. He stated that there are different engineering methods to retain that storm water and the area method of dedicating portions of the site for that is one common method, but there are others that can use other three-dimensional approaches to retain water, pipes or other types of configurations that can be accommodated on space constrained sites.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, when they come back with the CIP in September, he would be curious to see the alternative methods to retention basin, as we have 2 or 3 retention basins now, and he would like to know if there are any others, and if the rest of the Council is interested as well, and if not, he could have a discussion with him.
PW Dep. Director Bautista asked the consultants if they had anything else to add regarding retention on the site.
Mr. Orgill thought Acting Planning Director Murdock covered it pretty well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer seconded Councilmember O’Neill’s request as she would be interested in that information as well, as they hear about retention basins and she discussed this with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck when he was on the Planning Commission and his request for increasing retention basin sizes, and she was thinking about a particular project and was curious to hear about that. She then referred to them mentioning that they weren’t collecting data during the October 2021 event but had captured the data in the December event, and asked if they have data that the Department of Public Works collected, can that be incorporated into their model or is there anything illustrative for them in that.
Mr. Orgill stated that, in terms of storm drain and actual data collected, there is not a lot of hard data they can get and collect in storm drain systems, but they worked with the City’s operations staff to understand where flooding had occurred and where the issues they had in the system were during that October event and it was very helpful, as well as reaching out to customers City Council Special Meeting 4 July 11, 2022
and figuring out where there were issues. They got interesting videos and pictures that conveyed the gravity of some issues they are having and it has been very helpful.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a question for him and staff. While she didn’t expect an answer now, but it was an item of concern for her which is what the funding horizon looks like for the CIP he is describing. She stated that, apart from our wastewater system which has its own rate structure, storm water is clearly another cost but has an unclear funding source to her. She wondered if he had any input, suggestions or knowledge about forthcoming infrastructure money, such as at county level, CCAG, etc.
Mr. Orgill stated that they have a task in their scope of services called a funding options task, and there are a few different things associated with that. He was not an expert with funding, and they have other experts in their company doing that. He stated that there are two pieces included in their scope, conduct an evaluation of different grant funding sources and do a high level literature research and to educate the city on potential areas of funding they need to pursue that would likely be successful. He stated that there was also another piece of it, looking into different ways of setting up the storm water utility at the city and another high level evaluation of how that would look and structured and what are the next steps the city could utilize to help fund some of these projects. He stated that the lack of available funds has been the biggest challenge from 2012 moving forward. He stated that the city was looking ahead this time to make sure they had a task in the master plan to help guide that process moving forward.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they will be bringing that back in September during the study session. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s earlier question regarding data, stating that city staff can look up historical data of any kind of rainfall events that have happened in California and he wanted to add that they can look that up as well.
Mr. Orgill stated that it would be more along precipitation rates. He stated that, when he said there wasn’t a lot of data, he meant by actual flowing pipes.
Mr. Friedlander thought there will be opportunities for grant funding but in the long term, they aren’t necessarily something they can depend on for funding storm water construction and that is important to know.
Mayor Bier stated that his volume was pretty low and they are having a hard time hearing him.
Mr. Friedlander reiterated that there will be opportunities for grant funding and long-term loans for storm water infrastructure but, over time, that isn’t something they can depend on and he thought it would behoove the city to look at other options for ongoing revenue.
Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to them mentioning that they have an idea for Rockaway and she asked if they could give a brief idea of what they plan for Rockaway and for Monterey Road, and Linda Mar also.
Mr. Orgill stated that he can give her a preview, but the next one will go into more detail as they are time limited at this meeting. He stated that, for Rockaway Beach, the initial plan is constructing an inlet in the source where the actual spring is which will necessitate building a pipeline across the street and down into a ditch that is across the street would be the solution there, then for Monterey Road, they looked at a couple of options, with the first being put into a new storm drain line with additional inlets as one of the issues happening there is that it is a steep road coming down and a lot of the runoff that is being conveyed through the street is City Council Special Meeting 5 July 11, 2022
bypassing an inlet there because it is undersized and they also have the Big Inch Creek that is growing pretty heavily. He stated that they can either put in a new storm drain line in the street right away with inlets to help mitigate that flooding issue, but the other concept they are leaning towards now is replacing Big Inch Creek with a storm drain pipeline which will provide additional capacity and alleviate some of those issues of erosion that have been happening in the channel which is the solution they are looking for. He then referred to lower Linda Mar, stating the solution they are recommending now is consistent with the 2012 master plan and that is what they call a relieve line, so they will be recommending parallel pipeline upstream of where the majority of the runoff being conveyed down to the lower Linda Mar area where it is actually occurring and redirect it around the bottleneck so they don’t have flooding happening by the shopping center.
Mayor Bier stated that they have a lot of constituents asking questions about these specific areas so the more general language they can provide will be helpful when they are answering questions.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that one of the councilmembers asked about them not being able to get the October numbers from that event and, if he remembered correctly, such as if that was the first time they turned on the equalization basin which was 2 million gallons, if they have records of what is normal flow with the sewer treatment and now the additional amount of stuff that went into the system because of the rain, and he asked if there was some algorithm or estimate they can give for the October event to have that included in the numbers.
PW Director Petersen stated that the EQ Basin has been in use before the October storm but they have information related to that and the pump station information which they can make available to Carollo if that would be helpful for them.
Councilmember O’Neill just wanted to be that, if they have it, they share it.
Mr. Orgill asked if the EQ Basin was for the sewer system.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, adding that with all the bad sewer laterals and bad sewage pipes, there is a large infiltration of storm water that goes in there and it has to be treated and that is what overwhelms the sewage treatment plant and why they built the Equalization Basin.
He stated that they know they treated everyday whatever, 5 million gallons, in the sewer treatment plant, but if, in October after that event, they saw 10 million gallons, he thought it was safe to say they had 5 million gallons of rain. He stated he was a novice speaking.
Mr. Orgill stated that there was a lot of nuances there and it was a matter of what they call Rvalues, so it is a percentage of rain that enters those sewer systems. He stated that they are not unique in having I & I impacts to the treatment plant in the Bay Area but in terms of using that data to help quantify the runoff rates in the storm drain system, it is going to be hard to do because there is a lot of variables there.
Mr. Friedlander thought it was important for him to keep in mind that they can model more variables in the calibration that would allow them to do that.
Mr. Orgill stated that he was going to say that as well. He stated that they can run the October event through the model and see what flooding occurred. He stated that it was probably going to be a lot of the same areas that staff told them was happening. He stated that the question they get from that is that, when they have the large 100-year storm event or even higher, is it City Council Special Meeting 6 July 11, 2022
reasonable or cost effective to plan the storm drain infrastructure for something that is a risk system that already doesn’t have a funding source. He stated that is a policy decision that staff will have to make in terms of industry standards, as the design storms that they are running through the model are well in line with the industry standard.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is 65 probably lived through 4 or 5 100-year events and they seem to be happening more often as climate change is happening. He stated that you talk to people and you talk about people on Anza, and stated it isn’t that you get the toilet overflow but a major damage. He thought it was worth our effort for our constituents to tell them that they spent $22 million on the equalization basin because ....... and this is why and what they are saying now is contradicting, to him, what is the point of the Equalization Basin if this is not going to be a variable for the storm drain. He stated that right now, our sewer system is acting as our storm drain in a lot of instances because of the poor sewer laterals and the seepage and the leakage. He thinks that needs to be a part of the equation in calculating a CIP because no one wants to see streets torn out several times to keep making the pipe bigger.
PW Director Petersen would like to jump in, stating that they have a lot of data that was collected related to their Linda Mar pump station and the pump station related to the storm drain. She agreed with Councilmember O’Neill that they have correlation related to the amount of water that came down and got into our sewer system and then went into our EQ Basin and they have an excellent wastewater engineer on our staff who was able to figure out a lot of that differential between the storm water and wastewater and they will share all that with Carollo and she thinks it will be very helpful for them. She thanked him for bringing it up as it was a good point.
Mayor Bier asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck had a question or should they go to public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had a question. To emphasize what Councilmember O’Neill was saying, empirical observation would suggest that these low frequency storms seem to be happening with higher frequency and they do want to get as ahead of that curve as feasible. He stated that his question was on the Pedro Point area and he had sent an email on it earlier to PW Director Petersen around the Danmann / Kent area. He stated there was a project that he had been looking at for Planning a few years ago, and while he was there looking at it, one of the neighbors came out and showed him where it looked like there might be an underground spring that was possibly causing some sort of street damage at the time and that resident seemed to imply that there was a sinkhole forming as the result of an underground spring. He thought it seemed like there might be spring issues going on in the Pedro Point area, even just surveying some of the residents to see if they are aware of issues where an underground spring is having an effect and he thought incorporating that into the report would be a good idea.
PW Dep. Director Bautista thanked him for his comment. He stated that, in regard to the spring, their field services crew is documenting the locations of these springs and it will be incorporated into the document.
Mayor Bier thought it was important to go to public comment as they only have about ten minutes left in their time, and opened public comments.
City Clerk Coffey stated that she will be calling on public commenters at this meeting.
Mayor Bier asked how many hands they have now.
City Council Special Meeting 7 July 11, 2022
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have three hands raised. She then introduced the speakers.
Bob Boles, Pacifica, stated that his wife, Christine will speak later. He stated that they live in the Manor District on the banks of the Big Inch Creek and experienced floods in their front, side and rear yards, and the neighbors down street suffered even more with permanent damage to their properties that they are still repairing. He then mentioned his thoughts on comments and the issue specifically along with suggestions.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that, when he moved into the area that had back-to-back 500- year storms, they were taken back quite unprepared. He then shared his concerns on the issue, concluding we have heard from mother nature.
Chaya Gordon, Pacifica, stated she is with Pacifica Social Justice and supported upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Council approval of this draft GPU.
Mayor Bier stated that they are taking public comment on the storm drain and she can come back again.
Ms. Gordon apologized and stated she would.
Sara Woodhull, Pacifica, stated she would add to the comments regarding considering the 100-year storms and possibly 500-year storms and agreed they should include those.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that she is speaking as a witness to a lot of the storms, as was here in 1997 when they had 3 inches in one hour, mentioning some of the particulars, and mentioned her thoughts on what they should consider.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she appreciated the consultants’ work. She then expressed her thoughts, personal actions and suggestions on the issue.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he appreciated the study going forward, and expressed his thoughts on the issue and information provided by PW Dep. Bautista, Ms. Boles and Councilmember O’Neill.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. She reminded them that it was an update session and she appreciated the information brought to the table with the next session being more detailed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to follow up on a couple of public comments and ask for some report in September or when appropriate around the issue brought forward by the consultants of possibly undergrounding Big Inch Creek In terms of the environmental impact it might have, as well as any alternatives. She thought Chris Redfield was bringing up the idea of larger storm drain catchment but she would have to follow up with him on that. Per Mr. Boles’ comment, she asked if they could have some comment on the items that were recommended in 2012, what they were able to do and fund and what the result was as part of connecting with what they did in the past with what they are looking to for the future.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any comments and, seeing none, she thanked staff and consultants for all the information they provided and they will look forward to what they bring to City Council Special Meeting 8 July 11, 2022
them in the future. She then went on to the public hearing.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for City Council approval of a General Plan update and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status:
Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (File No. 2009-001) PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a General Plan update and certify an environmental impact report.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he was joined by Alison Moore and Andrew Hill from Dyett & Bhatia and Chris Dacumos from Good City Company to be available for help with their expertise. He then presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier asked him to repeat the information about the evacuation.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the claim comes up in relationship to Assembly Bill 747 and has a requirement for General Plan Safety Elements to consider evacuation routes, locations relative to hazards and capacity for various evacuation scenarios, i.e., evaluating Highway One’s capacity in a major event to evacuate all impacted areas of the city and what that looks like under that planning scenario. He stated that level of analysis is not required at this point for the Pacifica General Plan update and timing triggers of that requirement in state law would apply to the city’s next adoption of the local hazard mitigation plan. He stated that last fall the Council adopted the most recent update to the local hazard mitigation plan and they might expect, in the next 4-5 years, to consider that AB 747 analysis. He then said that the Council could undertake that analysis sooner if interested in doing so, but there is no legal inadequacy for not including that analysis at this point in time.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the safety mitigation plan, and asked when their next hazard mitigation plan set to be looked at again.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that those are updated on a five-year timeline and he thought there was a slight shift in the timeline due to Covid and they might expect in the 2025 time to seek Council approval of the next update. He stated that, prior to last year’s update, the prior update was in 2015.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they look at the local hazard mitigation plan and they change that, whether they then amend this General Plan to reflect the new information at that date.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the city can comply with AB 747 in a number of different ways. He referred to his mentioning its relationship to the hazard mitigation plan, stating he was trying to say that the legal timing requirement in state law is associated with the next adopted update to the local hazard mitigation plan and that analysis could be in the local hazard mitigation plan or it could be in a safety element amendment or both, but the timing is driven by the next adoption of the local hazard mitigation plan.
Mayor Bier asked if Council had any other questions and, seeing none, she invited the City Council Special Meeting 9 July 11, 2022
appellants, Christine Boles and Mark Hubbell, to speak.
City Clerk asked the appellant if he wanted to save three minutes of their presentation time for rebuttal.
Christine Boles, appellant, stated that they have decided, and Mark Hubbell can confirm, that their presentation is just under eight minutes and they will reserve what is left but they would rather not be interrupted during the presentation. She added that her husband will be making a public comment on her computer later.
Mayor Bier asked if they see Mr. Hubbell as she didn’t want to start until he is present.
Ms. Boles stated she would text him.
City Clerk Coffey stated she has promoted him to panelist.
Mayor Bier stated that they can begin their presentation and they will not interrupt them and use what is left over for their rebuttal.
City Clerk Coffey informed them that the timer will not be displayed on the screen and asked if, when they reach the eight-minute mark, they want her to let them know they are at that mark.
Ms. Boles agreed, but just asked she do it quietly.
City Clerk Coffey stated she will start the timer as soon as they start the presentation.
Ms. Boles then began the presentation. She stated that they are appealing the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the 2022 General Plan and EIR. She asked, as they listen to their appeal, that they consider the safety and welfare of Pacificans who voted them into office and whether their decision protects and serve the interest of those whose lives are directly impacted by this General Plan. She stated that the hazard maps and policies have serious errors and omissions that need to be corrected. She stated that there is very little new information they are presented, such as several letters and emails sent over the past six months were not addressed by the Planning Commission, then showed them some examples. She stated the version of the General Plan that the Planning Commission approved did not include landslide data for the north end of town, and Acting Planning Director Murdock admitted these were wrong and said he was working on new maps but Planning Commission approved the General Plan before seeing them. She pointed out that Pacifica is the poster child for debris flow mudslides, referring to the 475 slides in 1982 which cost millions of dollars in property damage and killed three children. She pointed out the map by Howard Donnelly the city provided to study and map those slides and compared it to a new map showing debris flow landslides in 1982, areas susceptible to slides and actual slides, indicating that the new map was not complete, giving her examples of slides missing on the new map. She then pointed to a subsequent map of historic landslides beyond 1982 that also had missing landslides including the 2017 landslide that closed Highway One for 18 hours and Department of Conservation stated that they created the map only on data reported to them by the city. She reported other maps that have landslides from city records missing as well, referring to examples such as those on the Vista Mar site documented in her appeal and landslides from the 1998 El Nino.
She stated that sometimes the real risks are sometimes missing in new development applications as the geotechnical reports only look at the sites within property lines, but debris flow landslides can start uphill and suggested that they must make sure they are not creating City Council Special Meeting 10 July 11, 2022
landslide risks for the homes below. She stated that her letter included mitigation measures to add to the General Plan from Howard Donnelly and Dr. Frost but were never discussed by the Planning Commission and the new General Plan, other than the maps, does not mention debris flow. She pointed out that accurate hazard maps are critical to land use planning to ensure we are not creating more danger for residents and she was shocked that the properties on Esplanade where apartments fell in the ocean are still zoned high density residential, while others were changed to the lowest allowed density. She asked the questions but the Commission never discussed it. She then pointed out that the only fire map in the General Plan is blank within the entire city limits while the EIR includes a map that seems more realistic, and they want that map included in the General Plan. She stated that it contains clear errors. The consequences are real and dire, not acceptable or representative of historical facts and need to be sent back for revision.
Mark Hubbell, appellant, stated that the city is almost in the 21st century plan but the exception being a lack of foresight in the mitigation of loss and damage by hazardous wildfires. He listened to fears from residents over the increasing reality of deadly or damaging wildfires in various areas of the city encouraged him to take a positive action. He stated that the neighborhoods listed contain half of the total population. The city has a history of fire but mostly without loss of human lives, and mentioned a specific example in 2007 that required an aircraft spraying fire retardant over the San Pedro Creek watershed, and that is old data. He stated that a new General Plan must be future facing to guide us through the next few decades. He stated that CalFire says new fire maps are in the process of being created with modeling features to replace obsolete maps. He referred to climate change, global warming, drought, etc., are already here and he hoped the city and agencies will subscribe to the real time data for the safety of Pacifica the best available data and will be available soon. His main concern with this General Plan is the absence of coherent evacuation plans. He stated that, Park Pacifica Valley, the only two available evacuation routes will be ineffective in accommodating the likelihood of thousands of vehicles heading to safety and these maps are missing information to access the safety and viability of routes in emergency scenarios as required by AB 747. He stated that the designated Zone Haven evacuation destination is only through two of the most highly fire prone areas of the city, and he stated that they need to send it back to the Planning Commission to be updated. He appreciated all the work put into this General Plan.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they had one minute and 55 seconds remaining.
Mayor Bier asked if they had questions for the appellants, and seeing no one, she opened public hearing.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they had 14 hands raised.
Mayor Bier stated that they will need to do two minutes.
City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.
Julie Starobin, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal as she thought Planning Commission’s approval was thoughtless and premature as Pacificans deserve decent maps and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.
Blue Murov, Pacifica, stated that Council should honor the appeal as, even though within legal bounds, it is incomplete and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.
City Council Special Meeting 11 July 11, 2022
Chaya Gordon, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the draft and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.
Deeg Gold, Pacifica, stated that she supports the appeal and then expressed her concerns on specific aspects.
Victoria Becker, Pacifica, stated that she was speaking for Pacifica Social Justice in support of this appeal and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, expressed her concerns on specific aspects, as well as appreciation on the appellants compelling information, and stated that the General Plan should be the best it can be and she supports this appeal.
Debra Etienne, Pacifica, stated that she was disappointed that the safety of Pacificans was not a top priority in the General Plan, and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, stated he was in support of the appeal and thought it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the figures used and best available data and expressed his concerns and thoughts on what will help Pacifica.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he had concerns about meeting specific requirements but not what is the public interest, and he asked that they deal with the safety issues and send it back to the Planning Commission.
Denise Leonardi, Pacifica, stated that she supported the amendment on the draft and asked that that they update the map to address fire, flood landslide risks and other hazards, and expressed concerns on specific aspects.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, stated that she had concerns and mentioned the specific aspects, such as having proper maps and she supported the appeal, expressing her gratitude for the appellants bringing this forward.
Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, thanked the appellants for their appeal and their research efforts and she expressed her concerns on specific aspects and asked Council to listen to the concerns expressed and honor the appeal.
Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, appreciated staff’s work and the appellants and expressed his concerns on specific aspects that need to be updated and fixed, asking that the safety element be sent back to Planning Commission.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, echoed her concerns on the landslide maps, and expressed her concerns on other specific aspects such as fire risk and need for a comprehensive evacuation plan for the city.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked the appellants who filed the appeal, and she expressed her concerns and suggestions on various specific aspects.
Sara Woodhull, Pacifica, expressed her concerns on specific aspects and agreed with the appellants and asked that Council uphold the appeal and send the General Plan back to the Planning Commission as it needs more work.
City Council Special Meeting 12 July 11, 2022
Cassie Leonardi, Pacifica, stated she supports the appeal and then expressed her concerns on specific aspects and thought the appellants’ presentation was insightful.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that he supports the appeal and expressed his concerns on various specific aspects that are unacceptable and need to be updated at least in the safety elements.
Bob Boles, Pacifica, mentioned some specific bills regarding safety measures, and stated the map needs to be re-drawn and re-evaluated by the Planning Commission and then mentioned concerns on other specific aspects.
Brooke Leonardi, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal and mentioned her concerns on the specific aspects, and asked that they send it back to the Planning Commission to be updated.
Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that he supported the appeal and then mentioned his concerns on the process when it was approved by the Commission without having staff address their concerns.
Vicki Sundstrom, Pacifica, stated that she supports the appeal and expressed her concerns on various specific aspects.
Margaret Goodale, Pacifica, stated that she supports the appeal as well as all the knowledgeable comments and she expressed her concerns on specific aspects such as the plan matching what their insurance companies think.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, thanked the Planning Commission which he thinks is excellent and did an excellent job on this document. He acknowledged that it is not perfect but added that you aren’t going to find a perfect document. He then mentioned his positive thoughts on the various aspects discussed.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, asked Council to consider the comments made by all the speakers, uphold the appeal. She then thanked the appellants for the time they took to prepare a detailed appeal directly related to public safety and expressed her thoughts on the best process to completion.
Ellen Hage, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal and expressed her thoughts and concerns on specific aspects.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing. She then asked appellants to present their rebuttal.
Ms. Boles stated that she would like to get staff’s response first as these were all very moving comments, and she questioned if they were trying to defend not updating the documents.
Mayor Bier stated that they will have the appellant’s rebuttal first and then back for Council deliberation and they will have discussion at that time.
Ms. Boles stated she would then speak.
City Clerk Coffey asked if she wanted the timer to be shown or their presentation shown.
City Council Special Meeting 13 July 11, 2022
Ms. Boles didn’t know if Mark Hubbell wanted to speak as they are not in the same room.
Mr. Hubbell told her to take it away.
Ms. Boles said he was free to jump in. She stated that she was moved by all the speakers’ comments, and the history in Pacifica connected with climate change, etc. She stated she got involved with looking at the Vista Mar project and began learning about the history of 1982 when there were homes destroyed and floods. She felt that we can’t ignore the facts and let this document stand the way it is, as there is not a reference to the study and recommendations by the consultant who was paid to fully study what happened. She stated that the hazards are real and she asked that Council please send this back.
Mayor Bier then brought it back for Council deliberation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was aware they have Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser online but he didn’t see her yet. He was going to be asking her questions over the course of deliberation.
City Manager Woodhouse asked to comment on process. He stated that there were a number of very thoughtful comments from the public, many of which they have heard before and addressed throughout the various General Plan hearings, but some are topics that, at the first General Plan special meeting on June 25, Council made recommendations about policy revisions and they would be showing those revisions later in this evening at the adjourned special meeting session. He stated that not all the comments relate to the basis for this appeal hearing, and he stated that they can take time now to cover those suggested revisions or address the different issues raised in Public Comment now rather than, depending on the outcome of this appeal, waiting to the special adjourned meeting later. He stated that there are revisions Council suggested and they are prepared to show redline revisions in that item later that directly address some of the comments that were made. He raised that information for Council to discuss the process for proceeding. He stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock may have additional suggestions as well.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, before diving into those specific points, he wanted to touch generally on some of the public comments made as well as some of the points by the appellants. He reminded Council that the appeal relates to a recommendation by the Planning Commission and ultimately, with a recommendation, Council has the final decision of what to do in response to that recommendation. He stated that there is no right or wrong recommendation from the Planning Commission which seems suggested by some of the speakers. He stated that the Planning Commission weighed the information and made its best recommendation at that time. Staff incorporated many of those additional edits that Planning Commission requested into the information presented to Council which the City Manager alluded to. He stated that Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser as the liaison with respect to the General Plan recommendation also confirmed whether Planning staff’s modifications hit the mark as far as what Planning Commission had intended with that recommendation. He pointed out, as one speaker pointed out, there is a plan for evacuation during hazard events in Pacifica and is managed by the Police and Fire Departments. He stated that they can have Acting Police Chief Glasgo or Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh speak to what that process looks like. He stated that it is not the case, as could be interpreted from some of the comments, that there is not currently any plan for evacuation. He stated that the AB 747 analysis discussed is a very specific requirement in state law and they looked at additional details about evaluation routes, but it is not a plan for evacuation. The city has such a plan based on existing transportation network City Council Special Meeting 14 July 11, 2022
and existing resources and ability to coordinate among first responders. He added that, on the topic of evacuation routes, SB 99, as was mentioned in public comments, is a very brief provision in state law and it basically says the General Plan needs to identify residential development in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. He stated that there are no criteria or guidelines for determining how to identify those locations and staff used judgment in identifying those locations in map in Figure 8-8 on packet page 4381. He stated that they mapped those areas using what staff thinks is reasonable judgment and they think the best interpretation of residential developments in SB 99 Is neighborhood units and they have several neighborhood units that have only one way in and one way out and they have mapped those areas on Figure 8-8. He stated that they didn’t think the best interpretation of residential developments was small cul-de-sacs that might exist between broader neighborhoods which he stated was the ultimate judgment call of Council and that is the rationale staff used in preparing the map. He stated that, as with all elements, they can evolve with time as the needs of the city might evolve. He then reiterated the point made by the City Manager, i.e., they have slides with specific redline edits that they prepared for potential consideration later in the evening but they can jump into those whenever it suits Council.
Mayor Bier stated that they have heard many people express their concerns on the safety element, and she wanted to make sure that they are very clear that, if they decide to talk about all the things that were brought to them at this meeting through the appeal process, during the deliberation about the General Plan, they will have the time and patience to go through each one of these in detail as she believes the community deserves that. She is passionate about it, but it is important that they are very clear that they care about each and every one of the comments and they will take the time to address them during their deliberations later in the meeting and she needed to get that out as it was important to her.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that a theme for him now is going to boil down to the word continuity and part and parcel to that is the continuity of the meeting which is awkward because it starts with the General Plan in a special meeting and ends with the General Plan in a special meeting and, at this point, they are constrained by the context of the appeal but they may want to bring up some of the discussion they are having during this part of the agenda and discuss it in that part of it and given that this could be a final opportunity to discuss this through, he wants to be sure that, if that is the case, they do as thorough and robust a job as they possibly can as he hopes they have been doing the entire time. He stated that, if they need to walk over the same road a couple of times to make sure they see what there is, which is important to him. He referred to fire safety, and he thinks about the robust two-day seminar he attended on fire safety in April which was exhausting but he walked away with so much good information. He stated that, when experts from all over California were discussing fire maps, specifically the difference between threat maps and hazard maps, the specifically made a point that when looking at the threat and hazard maps, the average individual is not necessarily going to make heads or tails out of it as trained professionals would and when discussing publicly, it was important, stop, take a moment, slow down and do as robust a job as they can describing the difference between threat and hazard maps and how they are used. He hoped Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh can walk them through it, but the broader, general context is fire risk itself. He stated a commenter asked why the fire map was blank and that was a pure way of looking at a huge chunk at odds in the community that he can imagine. He stated that the greater question is whether the maps change their EIR policies that will ultimately mitigate hazards and asked what the relationship between the fire maps we have and how we keep people from burning down at the end of the day. He asked if Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh can teach them.
City Council Special Meeting 15 July 11, 2022
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that if everyone would go to the CalFire Office of State Fire Marshall’s severity zone maps, there are pages of descriptions of what the severity zone maps are, and the ones that were done in 2008 were the last maps done. He stated that the maps aren’t saying there is not a fire risks, and he thought it was important for Council and the public to know that there is a fire risk throughout the entire state of California including Pacifica and that is not what the maps are saying. The severity zone maps or LRA (Local Responsibility Area) only show high severity zones for LRA and it is not in a very high severity zones throughout the entire state, it doesn’t show that on the maps. If you pull up San Mateo County as a whole, there is a very small percentage of the county that is in a very high severity zone.
He stated that there are a lot of elements used to determine what that severity zone is, such as vegetation, topography, weather, history, the ember test that is done if a fire starts. He added that it was important for everyone to realize that the maps are used to evaluate hazards, not a risk, and that is the difference between the high severity zone maps. He stated that there is a risk in California for fire as we have fire everywhere in California but the hazard is different from San Mateo County to Shasta County to Riverside County, etc., and there are different hazards.
He appreciated everybody’s comments, and he is thinking that they have people confused on the maps. He thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck did a good job explaining as he was on that same conference call for two days, as it can be confusing. He asked everyone to go to the CalFire OES site and look at all the data on there as it is broken with questions and how everything is derived. He stated that CalFire, by law, has to update the severity zone maps and it hasn’t been done since 2008 and they are working on the SRA portion which is all State Responsibility Area and once that is done they will warp into what is called LRA which is going to affect Pacifica. They do the modeling and we get it and get to do a recommendation on that.
He did not have a time frame when that will be done but they hope it will be in the next year, but it could be even a year and a half. He stated that they tried to get the SRA maps done last year but they weren’t done. He appreciated everyone’s concerns with the maps, and there is a 100% fire risk in Pacifica, but this does not fall into the very high severities. He stated that he will take any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his first question is whether there are any other maps they should be using and, if not, why. He asked how the General Plan address fire safety outside of the maps which are clearly not intuitive or user friendly to the average observer.
Acting Planning Director Murdock showed a map from the Environmental Impact Report so that it is clear to Council and the community that wildfire risk has been considered by the city in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the appropriate level of review based on wildfire threat has been incorporated in this process. He stated that it is Figure 3.14-1 from the EIR. He stated it is the fire threat map prepared by the state. He stated that, if they go to the website where they can download which is at a statewide scale, it is difficult to use. They provide geographic information system (GIS) data that allows you to do a finer scaled map for a particular locality which is what staff prepared for the EIR. It shows areas ranging from low to high fire threat based on CalFire factors that are evaluated in creating that map. The map informs the creation of those very high fire hazard severity zone maps. He stated that, as Dep.
Fire Chief Kavanaugh mentions, the map is not the same as a fire hazard severity zone map and it is a component of politics as very few local jurisdictions on the 2007-2008 timeframe adopted those maps recommended by the state. He stated that there is a lot of political push back from property owners, that are concerned that adoption of those maps are going to somehow adversely affect them in terms of their property insurance and other financial impacts, thus, few communities adopted those maps and why they are left with a blank space that some commenters described on the official state adopted maps. The state proceeded with finalizing their state responsibility area maps and that left a void in terms of information mapped for those fire hazard severity zones for local responsibility areas in Pacifica. He stated that they City Council Special Meeting 16 July 11, 2022
mentioned that in prior meetings, and they encourage the Council to have a very robust community discussion about those new maps recommended by the state when they come out and now is the time to swallow the pill and say that it is the risk they are confronting as a community to ensure that the fire hazard severity zone maps are actually formally adopted by the city and formally adopted by the state. He stated that they can’t have that conversation now as the maps are not out, but they have considered fire threat for the EIR and have not recommended including that fire threat map in the General Plan because of the likelihood for confusion. The General Plan law requires that they do include the adopted final fire hazard severity zone maps which has specific implications for development review and other policy decisions. He thinks there is a high probability of misuse of the fire threat map as compared to the fire hazard severity zone map, and it is not staff’s recommendation at this time to include that until there is a more robust process that can provide clearer distinction of what that information is and the intended uses for it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to check with Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser because, after watching many hours of robust deliberation of this diverse group of experts from various perspectives on land development who live in Pacifica and wish to keep themselves safe, as well as the rest of us, and asked if she could give him insight on why the Planning Commission felt comfortable making the recommendation of approval, given what they were looking at when it came to fire risk.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser stated that the City Attorney has asked her to clarify that she has been appointed liaison to Item 13 but now, for the record, she is speaking more as an individual planning commissioner. She stated that they did review it and they asked the same question of Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh and his team and she understood that it was also asked by Council on the 25th. She stated that the thoughtful response and explanation given made a lot of sense, but what bolsters that for her is that Figure 8-7, which has the fire hazard, is a map, but the policy themselves are not limited by the maps. She referred to SI94, 95, that are guiding and implementing policies and none of them are limited or solely in fire hazard zones but cover the whole city, whether you are in a fire risk, fire hazard zone or any area with no fire hazard. She thinks that Pacifica and California have taken this seriously and she thought the General Plan has done a good job doing that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 4379, where they can see the policies related to fire. He added that, as explained in the master response for the EIR and other public hearings on the General Plan update, there are additional existing law that is in place to protect the community and environment from wildfire and there are requirements to analyze wildfire risks under the CEQA for projects that are proposed that would trigger CEQA review. There are also components of the California building code already on the books that would allow the city, in risky locations, to ensure that wildfire risk is property evaluated and the site design and structural design are intended to mitigate wildfire risk as well. He stated that there are a number of complimentary policies and the General Plan is just one of those in terms of the policies that it would include. He then stated he would turn the microphone to Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Mayor Bier stated that, before she speaks, she wanted to clarify what she was saying before, i.e., that they have the opportunity in Item 13 to make changes and have detailed conversations about each item. That is what she meant and she then passed to Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to ask Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh, regarding the state responsibility area of the SRA maps coming first, and hopefully very soon after the LRA maps, and she heard him say was that these were last approved in 2008. She asked if he can tell City Council Special Meeting 17 July 11, 2022
them what happens when the new updated LRA arrives, such as what will happen with his department and how are those treated.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that, once the review is done by the state, they are sent to all the local jurisdictions and Pacifica will receive those recommended maps. He isn’t sure the number of days for review (60 or 120) that the city has to either adopt the recommendation that the state has given or if they want to make changes to that document for our area. He stated that they have the ability to review, make changes or accept the document that has been provided after all the modeling done for the applicant review.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to put a bookmark on the Milagra on ramp during Item #13 as it is not in the scope of the appeal they are hearing, and he heard it and wants to discuss it later. He referred to discussion of why they are approving maps the Planning Commission has not seen, and he thought the point was well taken when he said that, at the end of the day, Planning Commission made a recommendation to Council, the decision makers, that is unlike when they approve a development and, if there was an issue and it appealed to Council, they would make a decision one way or the other but ultimately they are the initial deciding body but they are not in this case but the recommending body. He stated that, at the end of the process, Council becomes the deciding body in the process.
Acting Planning Director Murdock understood, and he would say it in a different, i.e., when they receive a project to consider on appeal, they are being asked to determine if the Planning Commission did something wrong, and does Council need to fix it. When they are considering a recommendation by the Planning Commission, and as he mentioned there is no wrong recommendation but just the judgement of the Planning Commission to recommend their best thoughts on the General Plan and Council determines whether they agree with that recommendation or do they want to reach a different conclusion. He thought, specifically regarding some of the items raised on this appeal, Council has already seen that information, and it is not a guess as to what staff has done to address the Planning Commission’s recommendation and they have prepared the revised maps for Council to see and they can talk them through those to whatever extent there is interest by Council to understand what changes occurred between Planning Commission and the June 25 Council meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck recalled that they enjoyed the maps presented to them at Council’s meeting and he will be happy to discuss them further if they feel the need. He thought the appellant brought up the USGS survey maps and whether or not they have updated data from the north. He thought something got lost as he listening and he can’t recall if the new data they were presented on that Saturday did update. He stated that there was a lapse in continuity between what is being appealed versus what they have already discussed past what is being appealed.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, he was happy to jump in but wants to be respectful to Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser as she has her hand raised.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser wanted to add a little nuance to what Acting Planning Director Murdock said, i.e., not only did the Planning Commission make a recommendation but, as a liaison, she was given the opportunity to review the hundreds of changes they recommended to ensure that staff had incorporated all of them and she thought all but 17 were formally incorporated into the document and the other 17 were formally presented at the meeting on the 25th and she believed that Council reviewed each one of them in depth following all the reviews of the element. She stated that, from that standpoint, it was not only been City Council Special Meeting 18 July 11, 2022
recommended and the requests that they made have been incorporated into the document that they reviewed on the 25th and is in the agendized item for later in this meeting.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to follow up on what Acting Planning Director Murdock offered. She wanted to move off of fire maps but staying within the realm of what has been brought forward by the appellant. She asked if he can speak to the landslide maps and the status of that, referencing what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck is saying with regard to the continuity and the changes presented to Council on the 25th.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there were two maps at issue. He stated that there was an issue of incomplete information on a map of debris flows, and he will address that one first. He stated that there was the issue of the debris flows where it was acknowledged in the 1983 seismic safety and safety element update. He stated that the official mapping of those hazards at that time was incomplete and only for the southern half of the city. He stated that was the information staff first came across when making their best attempt to respond to some of the public comments on that point. They provided that information through further engagement with the California Geologic Survey and were able to confirm that additional information was available from a different source that had the full city mapped out. They worked with the California Geologic Survey to pull that information out and combine it into a complete map of the entire city for those map debris flows. He was having problems with that map and he shifted to the other map of historic landslides that had occurred in the past and mapped by the state. The city used information specifically provided to them by the California geologic survey. After they reviewed the map staff created based on the information they gave the city, they stated that it was not right. They went back with them again to confirm actual historical landslides and the prior information also combined groupings of landslide risk and the map, revised Figure 8-X, actually has the correct information provided from the state of historic map landslides. Staff has acknowledged that it does not include every landslide that occurred in Pacifica and they think the focus of effort should not be on making Pacifica a landslide agency but using whatever resources they can bring to bear to get that information to the state so they can include it in their official maps. He stated that the benefits of that are obvious, such as they get correct information and more holistic information of that hazard and that information is more broadly available to all users of that geologic hazard information, including licensed professionals that prepare geotechnical hazard assessments. He stated that, if it is tucked simply in the Pacifica General Plan, they may not know to go find it there and he thought all roads, from staff’s perspective, lead to engaging with the state to get the information in their official maps and that is something they are prepared to do and forcefully support through staff’s actions. They would prefer not to seek out attempts to map those landslides on their own.
Mayor Bier asked if that includes sending them information they have received from our community.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it does, and it could include sending them the totality of the 1983 Howard Donnelly report and say that they believe they have missed some of the map landslides, and ask if there was a reason they didn’t map them or did the information not get to them in the appropriate form and they can make the decisions as relevant experts on whether to update the state maps with those landslide hazards.
Mayor Bier thought it would include the one that occurred in 2017.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they will need to send any maps information they have and that 2017 landslide occurred in Caltrans right-of-way and it is not clear to staff if City Council Special Meeting 19 July 11, 2022
Caltrans officially mapped that up but it is an example where they can engage with Caltrans and ask them to send whatever information they have on that to the state’s California Geologic Survey seismic hazards mapping program and try to get it integrated into the official maps.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the appropriate venue for making this happen be including a policy in the General Plan that, as we become aware of these landslides, we send to the state to update.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that could be an appropriate avenue and/or considering some specific ordinance on this particular issue to give more specificity than the General Plan might be able to do as the particular obligation of different parties, whether private parties or public agencies and what their respective obligations are. The benefit of that is that they would have the force of law to require them to do it as well as a mandatory obligation under the ordinance. He stated that they may not be able to obligate state agencies but they can definitely obligate the city and any private parties operating in Pacifica under the circumstances or threshold identified in that ordinance for mapping and reporting landslides.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that the ordinance might be a more thorough way of doing it than writing a new policy.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it could be and would require a more robust discussion and a separate undertaking that they city needs to resource. He stated that it sounds like there is a lot of community concern and energy to address that hazard with a focused effort, as a couple of sentences and policy in the General Plan is not going to get them there, although it could provide initial support to prioritize that but they will need to take a focused effort with an ordinance and have the community conversation and Council decision in that venue.
Mayor asked if they can decide to do both.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated they can do both.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if he can explain the difference between debris flows and landslides, as they heard a huge number but those could be a trickling of water which is a tiny debris flow.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, that while he is not a licensed civil engineer or engineering geologist, generally, landslides are used to describe more deeply seated large mass movements of earth and debris flow is a term used where shallower, more channelized flows of earth and other debris and material are typically aggravated through heavy saturations from rainfall and channelized in a sort of a valley of hillsides and then rushing downhill. The larger and deeper they are and the farther they are able to run, they can then sometimes become what are called debris avalanches as, much like snow, avalanches they obtain achieve a lot of speed, mass and a lot of destructive force and that is why they are an important hazard to identify and recognize and ensure that appropriate engineering interventions are included in site specific geotechnical reports for a particular development.
Vaterlaus asked if, after the major landslides in 1982, the city developed programs to alleviate a lot. She knows the city can’t alleviate all landslides and debris flows but she asked if there were measures to alleviate the risk in a lot of locations after that.
City Council Special Meeting 20 July 11, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought, given the 40 years that has past, some of that knowledge has been lost. He thought PW Director Petersen and speak more about the ongoing activities in her department, but Planning staff understands some focused efforts were made in the Park Pacifica neighborhood where drainage improvements and some debris flow containment or mitigation structures were constructed at particularly hazardous locations to help minimize those hazards learning from the experiences of those very traumatic impactful events of 1982 and 1983. He did not know of any citywide infrastructure effort, but those most impacted areas in the back of the valley did have a number of property specific interventions identified and constructed. He stated that, as far as a citywide approach, the outcome of that 1982-1983 period was an update to the seismic safety and safety element as mentioned, and citywide policies addressing new development were included in that to ensure that there was sufficient assessment of site-specific geotechnical hazards and the immediate surroundings of those site. He stated it was important to recognize that happened in a particular point in time and he thought that what the city did in 1982-1983 was commendable which responded to immediate community needs. He stated that it happened before that particular issue was standardized and systematized at a statewide level. The seismic hazards mapping act of 1990 was enacted this experience occurred in the city and it charged the state with undertaking a comprehensive statewide seismic hazard mapping program, including seismic induced landslides with impaction hazards and other hazards so that there is a statewide map of those zones. If they look at Figure 8-1 in the General Plan Update, nearly the entire city has been identified in the seismic and geologic hazard zone, triggering that mandatory site-specific geotechnical investigation for development. He stated that much has changed since the early 1980s , 1970s and 1960s and much of those impacted areas were subdivided and intensively developed and there are now provisions in place to provide that type of analysis and it is complimented again, much like the fire hazard issue, by geologic and soils hazard assessment and mitigation required through the CEQA process as well and large subdivisions of this sort that occurred, such as in Park Pacifica and Linda Mar, would require a much more focused analysis of those types of geologic hazards, drainage and debris flow, containment walls and other types of mitigation measures will be component of subdivisions in new developments these days that were not a part of those Park Pacifica subdivisions and developments in years past.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it was telling that they keep hearing about the tragedy of 1982, but he was not hearing of similar such tragedy transpiring since then. It occurs to him that, while he is not clear on the history, in that moment in time or in a possible tragedy since then, but the city made a concerted effort to do everything they could to make sure that such a tragedy did not happen again and our policies have been keeping us safe. He referred to the idea brought up during the appeal of the landslide potentially performing from outside of the site itself, and asked if there was any policy in place currently to address it going on to another property or coming down from another property and, if not, should they.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that his assessment of applicable requirements for site specific geotechnical hazard investigations is that it does not clearly charge those design professionals as engineers with analyzing conditions beyond the site. He stated that it is good engineering practice to consider those potential hazards, but strictly speaking, it is ambiguous at best, whether they would be obligated to do that in preparation of that type of report. He thought the appellants are suggesting that the 1983 seismic safety and safety element would do a better job than the current General Plan in that regard, and he thought there may be a fair argument to make on that point with respect to policies that are more generalized in the proposed General Plan. He didn’t think that including a policy in the safety element is going to achieve the desired outcomes as he understand them from the appellants, and he clarifies that City Council Special Meeting 21 July 11, 2022
you can have a good policy basis to support that type of analysis in the General Plan but it is only going to affect projects and activities that require some consideration of the General Plan as part of their approval. He stated one example is a project permit for a discretionary permit that might go to the Planning Commission and require that finding to be made for General Plan consistency but that is the minority of projects in Pacifica. He stated that, when he says that an ordinance might be a better approach for addressing this issue, in mandating that design professionals go beyond the minimum requirements of state law for their geotechnical assessments in Pacifica, he means that they can apply that through a local amendment in the building code when that is updated later this year and/or in a stand-alone ordinance to indicate assessing hazards, upslope and downslope, that are relevant to not only the structure’s design in ensuring the structure is safe, but that it is not going to cause adverse impacts downslope and not going to be impacted adversely from hazards that may be present off site but upslope.
He stated that the main caveat he wants Council to understand with that type of requirement is that it can require a consideration in whatever fashion that the ordinance might specify, but there are practical and legal limitations to conducting particular detailed assessments, such as soil borings or reconnaissance investigations on another property owner’s property without that property owner’s consent. He thinks that needs to be understood as the potential limitation of that future process, but at a minimum, they could at least explain that it is Council’s intent that the maximum amount of investigation of those offsite hazards should be taken into account so they have a more holistic and 360 assessment when they are doing a site specific geotechnical investigation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, if the building element winds up being the smoother way to accomplish it, he would favor it. He stated that it sounds like they have a second thought on an ordinance coming out of this appeal. He thought they will have to give direction, but he would favor that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated his screen is now working to show the debris flow figure, and he hoped it will work this time. He asked them if they see the map. He pointed out that it was the updated figure 8-3b that was the outcome of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He asked that they look at the version of the figure presented to the Planning Commission which only had information for the southern half of Pacifica and was in a slightly different cleaner form as it used the GIS (geographic information system) data to create it. He stated that the scrapped that and went to the paper-based maps that were a bit grainier but provides the information on a citywide scale and it corrects the omission of information for the northern half of Pacifica and utilizes the data from the California Geologic Survey to address the map debris flows from prior occurrences.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was what he was getting to earlier about updating data in the north. He asked if there was a United States geological survey map that they are aware of but we are not using, and if so, why not.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he cannot profess to know all of the map geologic information out there between the various expert agencies like the U.S. Geologic Survey and California Geological Survey, but he can say that staff is open to incorporating whatever geologic information for Pacifica that Council feels is appropriate. He stated that it all helps to paint the picture of the level of risk that exists in our community and they are not trying to sidestep that but trying to strike the right balance of helpful information without being overwhelming with that information and using information that supports a particular policy or decision. He stated that this information helps describe the extent of that geologic risk throughout our community as does Figure 8-1 which he mentioned earlier with the extensive City Council Special Meeting 22 July 11, 2022
seismic induced landslide and liquefaction hazard zone information that reflects the very broad risk exposure for geologic hazards in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he sees that Allison Moore has come on, and before she goes, he is looking at the footnote on packet page 4348, 8-3b which says that the source is USGS so that is what she was apparently about to say. He stated that they have the maps, and he asked if the maps change the EIR policy to mitigate hazards or where is the nexus between maps and mitigation of hazards versus policy and mitigation of hazards, such as where is the overlap, where does one end and the other begin, as he concludes the goal is to mitigate hazards and keep a tragedy from happening, such as happened in 1982, and keep people alive and their houses intact.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will speak to the policy component and Ms.
Moore can speak to the relationship of this information to the EIR analysis that was prepared for CEQA. He stated that there is a robust list of policies in Chapter 8 which is the safety element of the draft General Plan and generally speaking all roads lead to a site specific geotechnical hazard investigation. He stated that there is more than one way that refers but the key and fundamental way, in his opinion, is that, as a result of state law reflected in Figure 8-1 which is in areas of mandatory investigation which includes those seismic landslide hazard zones and liquefaction hazard zones and nearly all types of development are going to require a site specific geotechnical hazard investigation to determine whether engineering principles can mitigate those geologic risks to a suitable level that the site can be developed safely. He thought they have acknowledged a limitation in the minimum requirements of state law to look at the site and the structure in the development being proposed without an explicit mandate to look beyond the site. He stated that it is good engineering practice and many engineers do that, but there is no requirement for them to do that that he is aware of and that is where Council can intervene and broaden that requirement beyond what the state’s minimum requirements are and get to some of that concern that the appellants have about perceiving that the 1983 element is more protective of public health and safety. He didn’t think that was the case because, as mentioned, many projects are not subject to that General Plan policy in terms of findings for their approval and, through an ordinance, Council could actually effectuate that for many more, if not all, types of projects that might be of a concern for Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, as we are trying to keep us safe, ordinance is the way to go.
Mayor Bier agrees with that. She also reminded them about what they are doing. She knows they are going through everything which she thinks is important and she wants to do it during Item #13 as well. She stated that they can carry on but they are an hour and 15 minutes over time. She stated that it doesn’t really matter this is the most important topic they are ever going to talk about, but she wanted to say to Brian Martinez that she was sorry he had to wait so long but they will get to him.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck also thanked Mr. Martinez, but stated that it is the nature of the appeal and addressing safety is the nature of the appeal specifically and why he is trying to do his due diligence. He referred to Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser and the extraordinary job the Commission did, and then asked what she saw when she was looking at the safest element and why were they comfortable sending it to Council without looking at the maps.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser thought they talked about the policy and she agreed with what Acting Planning Director Murdock just said, and they got a lot of these comments in the first meeting and a lot of written comments and reviewed all the comments on the EIR as City Council Special Meeting 23 July 11, 2022
well, and the first large portion of their deliberation was asking the same questions that Council is asking and that the community asked in this appeal. She stated that they took very detailed lists of all of the questions that came before them to make sure that they created a platform and got the answers the questions. She stated that, from a logistical standpoint, she felt comfort able knowing that Council was going to review the maps with the updated information and she has asked staff to confirm that the maps are 100%, and confirmed that they do not need change and all the recommendations that the Planning Commission made were included, if not in the redline, then in the presentation that was made to Council on June 25. Based on the large amount of both general and implementing policies, besides the ordinance idea that is coming up, she can’t imagine what additional policies could be recommended here beyond what is in there.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck had a question for Acting Planning Director Murdock about the high density residential on Esplanade, and was not sure what part of the map it was, and usually when they do an appeal hearing, they talk about ex-parte communications, and he talked to Christine Boles ahead of time. He didn’t know if it was necessary to say it before. He was referencing some that as he was going through this.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, before he addressed his question about land use designations on Esplanade Avenue, he wanted to make one final point about the interface of policies and to Councilmember Vaterlaus’ question about actual physical improvements in response to these hazards. He stated that Policy SAI 14, packet page 4352 was a good example of a policy that is in the safety element that addresses what are known as geologic hazard abatement districts. He stated that it is a component of state law that allows cities to address these kinds of hazard across specific property lines. They can put mechanisms in place to seek to abate them pro-actively rather than waiting for some unfortunate tragedy to occur. He stated that it was another tool that the General Plan would support for Council to consider under appropriate circumstances and he wanted to give that example for Council. He thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was interested in the land use maps in Chapter 4, land use element of the General Plan. He is trying to get to the particular figure that shows it but he clarified that, in prior statements, there was a perception or belief that the General Plan proposed the properties on Esplanade Avenue at medium density residential and they were proposed at high density residential which is the same land use designation included in the 1980 land use plan for those areas. He thought they can talk about that in more detail in a later hearing at this time, as there are reasons not to change those land use designations currently, such as they have already indicated that those land use designations in the certification draft local coastal land use plan sent to the Coastal Commission and they want to be cautious not to affect that process adversely by changing significant components or policies in that plan at this point in time. He stated that another component is that any future development there would need to comply with other policies including policies in the local coastal land use plan and local coastal program that require new development not to require shoreline protection and it may not be possible to achieve those high density residential densities and the more units on the site in terms of theoretical units that could be developed, the more valuable in private property ownership to potentially support a transfer of development rights. So, if you could transfer of high density and forego all those future development rights is a greater economic incentive for that. He thought the most striking component is that the city is in eminent domain action for three of the properties on Esplanade where the city previously demolished the apartment buildings on those sites and the city has identified and confirmed its right to acquire those properties through eminent domain and, once that property ownership change occurs and the city owns the property, no residential development of any type will be undertaken on those properties. He thought there were multiple reasons not to look to the change land use City Council Special Meeting 24 July 11, 2022
designation at this point but when that change in property ownership occurs, that might be an appropriate time to undertake a land use designation change.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was Figure 4-3, but he thought he addressed everything he was concerned about. He then referred to him bring up something that was brought up many times by comments which was the LCP consistency. He asked if there was an inconsistency that he should be discussing later on in the evening.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he was welcome to discuss it again. He stated that they have acknowledged that the potential exists for elements and components of the General Plan update to be inconsistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan which is currently in effect as they recognize that those documents need to be consistent for the provisions in the General Plan to be implemented in coastal zone, such as some land use designation changes have the potential to be inconsistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Land use Plan. There is a policy in the General Plan that expressly clarifies that where a conflict exists between the General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan that is certifies by the Coastal Commission, the certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan would prevail. He stated that it will be a fact specific and issue specific analysis for the city staff to determine where those conflicts may arise and clarify when the 1980 LCLUP will be relied upon. He stated that the alternative is undesirable and Council had consensus on this point on June 25 which is to delay any action on the General Plan for the entirety of the city to basically forego that action and to sacrifice that authority for Council and waiting for the Coastal Commission to certify the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and Council was not in favor of delaying a city wide General Plan update and recognizing that most of the buildings, people, development and land area of the city are outside the coastal zone and a General Plan update is sorely needed from the 1980 General Plan. He stated it is appropriate to advance the General Plan at this point in time and use that policy to resolve any conflicts until the Local Coastal Land Use Plan is certified.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the best available data is in this Plan.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought all reasonable data from authoritative sources is in the Plan and staff has acknowledged that there may be information that is not contained in the official maps from the state and good effort should be put in to try and rectify that moving forward but the information contained in the General Plan is adequate, accurate and appropriate to support City Council adoption of the General Plan.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a comment about technical reasons versus public interest, and he wanted to say something on that unless Acting Planning Director Murdock has something to add. He hears what Planning Commission has been going through and what Council has been going through, and as they are addressing this, they are developing potential ordinances on the fly and that, while technical reasoning is a basis for checking the boxes, he stated that, as they are deliberating they are doing everything they can to address public interest as they understand it at any given moment. He stated that the last thing on his list is traffic. He stated that one commenters, who is more of an expert on traffic issues than he is, brought up a list of things, and the big traffic issues that came out of outreach, and he asked where that list is, how was it addressed, as complete streets requirements was the way he interpreted the next comment and addressing all thorough fares and whether or not the circulation element is aligned with land use.
Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to a point he made, and said he would emphasize one or two things. What is being asked of the Council is hard, as most City Councils since 1980 City Council Special Meeting 25 July 11, 2022
has undertaken a comprehensive General Plan update and the more time that has gone by, he feels the harder it is to do it as they think they need to keep doing more and more work to make a perfect document and one lesson learned from that is that the longer you wait and the more time that goes by, things change and you can never catch up. They have the never ending attempt to get a perfect document and the world is constantly changing. He thought the relevant point of reference in that respect is whether this 2020-40 General Plan they prepared for Council to consider is a marked improvement over the 1980 General Plan and he thought that was the fair comparison as everything else is wondering if they can do more, make it better and continually improve. He stated that the answer is yes. They have acknowledged a number of areas where further analysis would be beneficial for the document and they have committed with prioritized resources in mind by the Council to undertake that work where community interest warrants it. He stated that, ultimately, it is one of Council’s core responsibilities to be the body that interprets that community interest and community need and its priorities. He stated that what they have outlined for Council in previous meetings is that there is a process already in place each year to report out on what is working well or not working well with limitations and hopefully the newly adopted General Plan and to prioritize whatever those issues are as part of the city’s goal setting process and are not in this situation ever again as 40 years or more have gone by before they really made meaningful improvements to the General Plan so it never gets so far off from the point that it is not serving the community’s best interests. He stated that it is professional opinion that the 1980 General Plan is no longer serving the community’s best interests and the community will be much better off when the 20-40 General Plan is prepared but ultimately the decision needs to be made by Council. He stated that, with respect to public comments on transportation issues, it is important to disentangle environmental impact report related transportation issues and General Plan related transportation issues. He stated, as they mentioned earlier, congestion is not an appropriate basis for significant environmental impacts in the EIR and that is why there is not a more robust analysis of those types of impact in the EIR. He stated that the General Plan does include a variety of intersection and roadway segment analyses for level of service, congestion and potential improvements, and hopefully Ms. Moore can elaborate more on what those issues are, but he will briefly touch on the other two points. First, there is a minimal requirement in the General Plan state law that requires the city to map and identify and generally describe the major thoroughfares in town and relate those to the land use plans. He stated that the city has done that, as all land use plans include the major roadways and street network in Pacifica, which meets the minimum requirements of General Plan law and it is not clear to him what more needs to be done in that regard to have a legally adequate General Plan. He stated that, with respect to complete streets, there is a policy that requires an assessment of the city transportation and investment in decision making to consider multiple modes, not simply automobile as the primary mode of travel and he agrees that the General Plan is not going to solve all the community’s transportation issues, but at the General Plan level for the city overall very broad high level plan, this plan includes policies that say the city must consider in its transportation decisions and investment more than just automobiles and they have done that by including much more robust information on bicycle networks and facilities, and the Planning Commission had a very robust discussion on that and continues to discuss that as part of the Sharp Park Specific Plan. The city has undertaken in the General Plan references the recently updated bicycle and pedestrian master plan and has a very robust discussion of non-automobile modes of transportation and this is a large leap forward, in his opinion, to address complete streets and multi-mobile transportation along the lines of what the public comments mentioned.
He asked Ms. Moore if she would like to talk more about the transportation analysis.
Ms. Moore stated her comment is about how future land uses and trips generated were included in the traffic modeling and in the traffic counts for the existing conditions as well as future City Council Special Meeting 26 July 11, 2022
conditions, impacts to roadway congestion are included in Chapter 5. Based on where the traffic analysis indicated that there would be more congestion in the General Plan, there are specific policy recommendations related to certain interceptions, coordination with the count or Caltrans on improving congestion, such as along highway one, and those were taken into account. From a VMT perspective, the way that works is that they use a CCAG model, VTA model, and the way that is set up is that it takes improvements by buildout in transportation analysis zones and includes that in the context of regional changes as well. To do both VMT analysis and an estimate of where additional congestion might occur and both those studies were taken into account as part of the preparation of the General Plan and the EIR.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser if she has any other comments that have occurred to her over the course of everything.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser stated that there was a lot of discussion on the circulation element and one of the things she appreciated were the implemented policies that required these complete streets and talked about congestion on Highway One, Hickey and Skyline, and she thought all the CI-G-1 through 10, all of the CI-I-1, were thoughtful policies and she was looking forward to seeing them starting to be implemented in the city.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that all of his questions have been asked and answered to his satisfaction. He mentioned that, as a Planning Commissioner, he heard of a development on Beach Boulevard and he had no problem with it except that there was only one evacuation route in the neighborhood which was known to have the seawall in that area and the retaining wall was inclined to breach. He stated that it occurred to him that, in a worst-case scenario during a winter storm, and someone had an emergency, there was a far-off potential for a catastrophe to strike and a breach of the wall and them not being able to get out. He stated that, at that time, it occurred to him that there was a perfectly good alley behind the houses that neighbors aren’t letting them to use for this development as an evacuation route and, in a worst-case scenario, he will not be able to live with himself if something were to happen and he voted yes for the project and somebody died as a result of him approving the project. He stated that it was a much heavier trip and bigger scale in which, in his current role, there is nothing he can do to alleviate tragedy when you are talking to 40,000 people, but he can say that he has done everything he can imagine to evaluate what has been presented to him in this appeal and public comments over months, if not years, and he does everything he can to bring the document to a place where he feels comfortable voting at least to deny the appeal, as they get to discuss the document one more time before the evening is through. He stated he is comfortable denying the appeal at this time so they can discuss the General Plan later in the evening.
Mayor Bier recognized that two of the appellants have raised their hands and all the questions asked by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck were on her list and probably everyone else’s and she acknowledged that they had raised their hands and probably wanted to speak again. She thought it was really important for the appellants to understand that each and every one of the points they brought up she fully intend on digging into in Item #13 and that is why she is prepared to deny the appeal and move into that conversation so they can make some changes based on all the things they brought to the table. She asked if there were any comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she will keep her comments really brief. She wanted to acknowledge the concern that the appellants are showing for our community, as well as the concerns that all the individuals who spoke at this time expressed. She agreed with Mayor pro Tem and Mayor’s position on denying the appeal. She wanted to make it clear that there is a difference between determining a deficiency due to some shortcoming and not meeting a legal City Council Special Meeting 27 July 11, 2022
requirement and what the appellants, council, citizens, staff may desire to be the case, to incorporate into the plan to make sure that we are protecting ourselves and why wouldn’t they want to do that. She stated that they heard that questions multiple times over this process. She wants to make it clear that they are not saying they don’t want to make our town safe or that it is not important, but it was difficult and slippery. She has had a hard time getting her own arms around that nuance difference between determining if something is legally falling short of the mark and deficient versus as expansive and inclusive as they may want it to be. She referred to the Mayor’s point about wanting to dig into these things to the point that Mayor pro Tem brought forward and Acting Planning Director Murdock stated about the need for an ordinance around landslides and that kind of thing, as there are other solutions to address the issues that are clearly valuable and important to our community, and is not happening in this General Plan.
She thought there are some more useful and direct tools that they can explore and will explore.
She wanted to make that statement about the difference between finding something legally deficient or inaccurate at a legal sense versus as expansive and inclusive as they can possibly make it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that what she said made sense to him.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the General Plan update and certify an Environmental Impact Report; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Mayor Bier clarified that they are going to talk about them in the next item. She stated that they all need a break before they move on.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the motion passed unanimously.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the Special meeting at 8:41 p.m., called a ten-minute break and then reconvened for the Regular meeting.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 9/12/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor