CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Study Session 1 November 13, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING
November 13, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on November 13, 2023 at 8:15 PM 7:00 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck convened the special study session at 8:15 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Remote
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call of City Council. She stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer is participating remotely pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 which allows remote participation for Just Cause.
Councilmember Beckmeyer confirmed she was requesting participation under the Just Cause provision. She stated that it is due to a contagious illness that prevents in-person participation and that no one was in the room with her.
City Clerk Coffey added that no vote is required due to her remote participation due to Just Cause and she is required to participate remotely through both audio and video technology and any vote at this meeting will be conducted by a roll call of Council.
Mayor Bigstyck explained that this was a study session regarding the Coastal Land Use Plan.
He then invited veterans to lead them in a salute to the flag.
Salute to the Flag led by Local Veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) – Alan Hale and Greg Stepanenko.
City Council Study Session 2 November 13, 2023
CONSIDERATION
1. Study session to hear an informational presentation and respond to questions regarding the California Coastal Commission staff’s March 8, 2023, suggested modifications to the City’s Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP).
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation and respond to City Council questions regarding the California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff’s March 8, 2023, suggested modifications to the City’s Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) so the Council and the community clearly understand the CCC staff suggested modifications in advance of the next community meeting.
Planning Director Murdock and Sr. Planner Cervantes presented the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they could bookmark the item of erosion prevention on hillsides.
Mayor Bigstyck and Councilmembers Boles and Bier asked questions and discussed some concerns about the format of the presentation.
Planning Director Murdock appreciated that the Councilmembers have been very thorough in their preparation and they will have an opportunity to go slide by slide at any point that they would like. He stated that this may be a more helpful repackaged thematic version for the public that they are also trying to inform on this process.
Sr. Planner Cervantes continued the staff report.
Planning Director Murdock clarified some of the coastal resiliency related policies.
Sr. Planner Cervantes completed the staff report and moved on to Council questions.
Mayor Bigstyck noted that the modifications were user-friendly and straightforward. He is interested to hear the proposed suggestions around all the green delineations where the conversations have to be more robust. He stated that the next meeting is when they talk about what proposed suggestions might answer the disparity between the direction the city has clearly given and the response that Coastal Commission has clearly given.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that what they hope will be clear upon the conclusion of this meeting is that there is still some space between the city’s February 2020 certification draft and what the Coastal Commission staff has recommended to the Coastal Commission for certification and the city would want to find compromised approaches. He stated meeting No. 2 is specifically structured to talk about a set of potential alternative modifications the city could recommend to address some of the most critical issues, including how to address some of our existing development pattern vis-a-vis the development related policies. This includes addressing the reality that shoreline protection exists in some locations and people need to be able to go about ownership and enjoyment of their property with a reasonable set of parameters in light of the existence of shoreline protection in some parts of the city. They think it is essential to try to resolve why there is a difference between what Council approved and what Coastal Commission staff has suggested to their decisionmakers to ultimately certify.
Mayor Bigstyck stated he is glad they will be discussing that a little more at the next meeting City Council Study Session 3 November 13, 2023
and discussing flexibility down the road. He appreciated the overview.
Councilmember Boles is puzzled about the process and stated that she has some general questions.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are trying to understand what the Coastal Commission meant with any given comment, and he was happy to entertain general questions to a point, but he wants to get back to what they are specifically looking at and discussing the recommendations from the Coastal Commission that diverge from what they originally sent to them. He was open to suggestions from Councilmembers.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thought there was too much to do initial questions.
Councilmember Boles agreed and thought they will have to pull the slides back up.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus and Mayor Bigstyck commented on the format in which the information was presented.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought staff has done an amazing job navigating all of the changes and condensing it into the table and articulating between Attachment A and Attachment B. She appreciates the references as it gives her some place to hang on to and make notes and come back to. She stated that they will need to go back through this and restate it in the way they speak to be sure they have a grounding and understanding of what the issues are. She asked if the goal at this meeting is not to debate the issues but to make sure we have clarity on what the issues are.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed that was the intention of this first meeting of three meetings.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can go through the matrix they are following linearly and talk about each of the green ones. He stated that they heard an overview established by Planning Director Murdock, and the biggest takeaway from that overview may be that there are still some significant issues between the city’s certified draft and Coastal staff’s recommendations. They saw that there are certain themes that relate to those big issues and big gaps. As the focus of this night’s session is to come away understanding what it is that Coastal staff is recommending but not discussing and evaluating what that is. That will lead into the next meeting. He suggested that they through each of the green ones and say are there any questions they need to answer to understand what Coastal staff is saying. After they finish all the green ones, if there are questions about some of the white ones, they can hit on those.
Mayor Bigstyck appreciated it. He asked that they start at the simplest place, what does green ones and white ones mean.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the staff report contains Attachment B, which is the matrix, a chart at the end of the document with columns, chapter, page number, city certification draft, CC staff suggested modifications as was modified by their staff, and a brief summary at a very high level of what type of comment it is. He stated that this includes all of the suggested modifications in the document, and among those there are ones our staff has identified as critical modifications with the greatest impact and they highlighted those in the green cell. In Attachment A, they have color coded along the right margin comment numbers 2.6, 2.7, 4.1, etc. to allow people to tie together Attachment A, the document produced by the Coastal Commission staff, to this matrix and you can see in the document a particular suggested City Council Study Session 4 November 13, 2023
modification is located. He stated that there are different ways to digest it, i.e., they can read the Coastal Commission’s version and jump to a red comment number or read the matrix and jump back to the Coastal Commission document or both, whatever is more convenient for the reader.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded his general understanding is that, in staff’s estimation, the brief summary blocks highlighted in white are more or less trivial and the green shaded blocks are the places where they really need to have a discussion.
Councilmember Bier thought it will be important for her to really understand the issues that the Coastal Commission has. She thinks they need to state it plainly and help them to understand the implications which they will talk about at the next meeting.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that meetings 2 and 3 are implications and conversations about what to do about it.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he can quickly go through the names of the themes.
Councilmember Bier asked for a copy of the presentation.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that staff can provide a copy of the presentation. She stated that the themes are as follows: Direct City Impacts, Environmental Considerations, Preparation of Policies, Coastal Resiliency, and subcategories in Coastal Resiliency are specific policies that suggest modifications to Shoreline Protection Structures and to Development.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they are attempts at plain language groupings. He elaborated on the preparation of policies, i.e. narrative about the city’s process where the certification draft may have said something about the process and one of outcomes and the Coastal Commission’s modifications to that. He stated a specific example is narrative about the cost-benefit analysis and how to characterize that and the overall LCLUP context and modifications that the Coastal Commission would suggest to that non-policy language but process language.
Councilmember Boles stated she is new to this and has been trying to understand the documents. She asked, while talking about the vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan, if they can explain the relationship of those two separate documents to this document.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the chronology can add confusion to the process, but he will try to take it in sequence. In 2008-2009 timeframe, the city kicked off a comprehensive General Plan and LCLUP updates and started and stopped for a variety of reasons over time; midway through the process, around 2017 timeframe, as climate change and sea level rise related matters grew in prominence for the state government as well as the Coastal Commission specifically, the city was awarded a grant in 2017 to undertake some focused sea level rise planning. Coincidentally, this LCLUP update process was underway and they paused to take the grant and do this important work related to sea level rise planning. The way it unfolded was to first do a vulnerability assessment of the coastline, greater understanding and data about types of buildings, uses, people, infrastructure, etc. would be vulnerable to different sea level rise scenarios, and tried to apply an analytical approach with the best science about sea level rise projections. Once the understanding of vulnerabilities was gained, they shifted to a second stage of adaptation planning, as they have vulnerabilities and what do they do about it. The adaptation plan was intended to try to break the city into sub-areas and, given the City Council Study Session 5 November 13, 2023
unique vulnerabilities and existing development patterns, what measures could be implemented under different scenarios to trigger subsequent adaptation actions. The way that ties into the LCLUP is that the adaptation plan that was concluded was integrated largely into the new Chapter 6 Coastal Resiliency chapter. The adaptation plan and vulnerability assessment were not intended to be stand-alone ongoing documents but to inform an LCLUP amendment specifically to incorporate them so they are integrated into the overall policy context, development infrastructure, environmental resource protections, etc., to understand how they all fit together. It was challenging because they had a broad unfinished LCLUP done that they were inserting new dynamics, but it allowed the city to repackage the LCLUP into what was approved in 2020 by Council.
Councilmember Boles concluded that those documents are still there in the background. She thought there are a few things from them that are in the LCLUP but there is a lot more interesting technical information in them that we can still refer to and use as we move forward.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was right in a general statement but process wise is harder to do that. They are at a stage where they structured a process to consider the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications and react to those, not necessarily revisit the prior adaptation planning process and reincorporate new approaches or policy outcomes.
Theoretically it is possible. He stated one caveat is that the data is at least five years old and there are probably new approaches, technical information, or sea level rise data that is likely to come out in the near future. The backward-looking process may or may not be the best technical and scientific approach to do forward-looking policy document at this point in time.
City Attorney Kenyon thought the way to view both of those vulnerability and adaptation plans is they were structured to inform the Council at the time that the LCLUP was first being discussed and ultimately submitted to the Coastal Commission; it is not the same as having a document such as the General Plan that our zoning has to be consistent with, not the same hierarchy of documents. The Council at that time commissioned those studies to inform them in that initial LCLUP draft. An analogy for this Council would be if you felt you needed more information in order to respond to the Coastal Commission’s comments, then Council would commission additional studies to inform this discussion.
Councilmember Boles felt that was helpful. She then asked them to explain the timetable and deadline she sees in the documents of June 2024.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the June 2024 deadline reflects the soonest feasible opportunity staff thinks the certification process could occur by the Coastal Commission. They have charted out that timeline in that process most efficiently in view of the overall 15-yeartimeline for the LCLUP update process to bring it to a conclusion at the earliest possible opportunity. There is no statutory requirement to conclude this process by then, but it has been staff’s interpretation of Council’s prior direction, including the February 2020 certification draft approval and the more recent direction to resubmit to bring this to conclusion that there is interest in concluding this process at the earliest opportunity, which is reflected in the June 2024 estimated timeline.
Councilmember Boles thought that was a great goal after all the time they spent. She stated that the report says, in the interest of meeting the deadline, they are only addressing items that the Coastal Commission redlined; but if they find some other things in some of the white policies that they might want to address or needs a bit of information that helps them meet the intent of Council’s goals, is that definitely precluded or can they discuss.
City Council Study Session 6 November 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that, under the umbrella of the process that they outlined and are undertaking to reach that June 2024 milestone, any of the suggested modifications are fair to discuss and to prepare responses to. Many more than just those green ones highlighted are, on staff’s mind, to include in that potential comment letter to be discussed in meeting No. 3. In the interest of efficiency in getting through all of the suggested modifications, staff has prepared those they think are most critical at this meeting to focus on, but all of them are fair game for Council to react and respond to in some way if there is a desire to get a different modification from the Coastal Commission process.
Mayor Bigstyck appreciated staff’s analysis of the suggested modifications. He referred to a green cell on packet page 230, regarding the deletion of “development”: “Development” was rewritten as being synonymous with “new development” and the definition of “existing structure” is summarily deleted and “development” is apparently deleted. He questioned why they are okay with “development” being synonymous with “new development” and why they are okay removing the definition of “existing development,” given that existing development references the Coastal Act and everything that exists prior to Coastal Act. He feels like the way this document was initially geared feels like they are giving away that definition of “existing development”.
Planning Director Murdock thought the simplest way he can put it is there are too many terms to describe the same things. Where development is occurring, there is a definition of “development” in the Coastal Act and it is very inclusive. In discussing their comments with the Coastal Commission staff, the general reaction was that they need to simplify the terminology and, rather than the definition being loaded with policy importance, let the policies address the different types of development under the different scenarios and conditions. Development is development to a certain extent under the Coastal Act and permitting processes, but a development occurring as part of a modification of an existing structure (pre-Coastal Act) may be different than a development occurring on a currently undeveloped site. He stated that those are addressed elsewhere in the policies but not quite so much in the definitions. He thought there was some logic to those modifications proposed by Coastal Commission staff, when the certification draft LCLUP definitions approved by the city may have tried to import policy that the Coastal Commission is saying is not consistent with the Coastal Act. From their perspective, the July 1, 1977 date as being the threshold for new or existing development is not as clear as that, but that has been a practice of the Coastal Commission. That is unsettled and is evolving in the courts and potentially through legislation; simplifying the definition of development allows different policies to address the text of development scenarios that are relevant to the term.
Mayor Bigstyck stated the chart indicates we accept development being synonymous with new development, and he asked why they are okay with that but not with deleting the definition of new development if they already redefined new development under development.
Planning Director Murdock stated they are trying to clarify the significance of the modifications.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, when he sees the white cell, his assumption is that staff came to the conclusion that they are okay with it, which, for the most part, he thought he agreed.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that some of the modifications that were left in white essentially directly tie into some of the modifications that were turned green. Staff feels that, if we get discussion of potential revisions to those key highlighted modifications, it will help them address potential revisions on some of the other suggested modifications. Staff felt that, if they get City Council Study Session 7 November 13, 2023
policy direction on some of the key modifications, they will be able to take that direction and apply it to the other suggested modifications. That is why some of the cells that are coded white are not necessarily because they agree or disagree with them but because they think they can get policy direction on multiple items with one key highlighted modification.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, as they are discussing that one highlighted new development, at the end of the discussion it will naturally unfold into sorting out the white cells.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed.
Councilmember Bier stated that it will be helpful for her to go through each green one and get clarification on each one in a linear fashion.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they can do it now or after public comment. He asked Council if they have a preference in terms of order: questions or public comment first.
Councilmember Bier did not have a preference.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed with public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks that will be beneficial. With respect to the public, she agreed to hear from them and then proceed.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are discussing clarity around these policies, especially the bigger ones they will be discussing robustly down the road and comments to that are what is helpful at this meeting. He then opened public comments.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated his comments are representative of the vast majority of the Pedro Point neighborhood, then expressed his thoughts and concerns connected with the city honoring the Coastal Act.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on the process of this issue, adding that he will share his printed concerns with staff.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she was a bit confused, but acknowledged that staff was working with Coastal Commission staff and shared her thoughts on the process.
Suzanne Drake, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns about the Coastal Commission’s handling of this LCLUP.
Laura Walsh, Pacifica, stated she works for the Surfrider Foundation, and she shared her thoughts on working peer to peer on a specific issue.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and suggestions on the process to finalize this plan.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, echoed the comments from Ms. Walsh of Surfrider, and shared her thoughts and concerns on the process, and applauded that the city is working on them.
Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, agreed with many of the previous speakers, and then shared her concerns and suggestions on some of the issues in this plan.
City Council Study Session 8 November 13, 2023
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated she was requesting that they not rezone the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and shared her thoughts on that issue.
Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments. He referred to some comments concerning understanding consequences. He asked for staff insight on their conversations with Coastal Commission as well as the tabletop discussion format of the second meeting.
Planning Director Murdock stated he could respond to some of the questions raised by the public related to suggested modifications discussed. He referred to the comment of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, stating that the Coastal Commission is not about the land use designation. He stated that the discussion on that site is the site-specific policy where Council further specified an allowable range of development. He thought the Coastal Commission’s comment may have inadvertently increased the range of development density by discussing low-density residential generally. The Council previously determined to allow the low end of the low-density residential range of 3-5 units per acre, whereas the Coastal Commission comment would allow 3-9 units per acre. He thought this is one where they would suggest pointing that out, and they have discussed that in person with the Coastal Commission staff with a way forward which they can propose at the meeting No. 3 opportunity.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he was saying that our proposal was less than the Coastal Commission’s proposal.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He then referred to statements made about CEQA compliance. Under state law, with Local Coastal Program amendments such as this, cities are not required to comply with CEQA; that burden is placed on the Coastal Commission and its review and certification using their CEQA equivalent process. He concluded that we do not need to worry about environmental review issues in this Council action.
Planning Director Murdock referred to comments about flooding and flood protections; he would need to see more specifically the public commenters’ points that they have made when they submit their email comments. He stated that it is staff’s assessment that the LCLUP, even with Coastal Commission suggested modifications, would provide significant support for flood proofing and adaptation to flood hazards to protect property; if there is another interpretation coming out of the commenters, they would like to see that after this meeting.
Planning Director Murdock then referred to shoreline adaptation plan requiring Coastal Commission certification, and stated it is the reality that any new major program that could affect the coastline is going to need Coastal Commission certification. This is explicitly stating the reality and he did not see any significant staff concern with that.
Planning Director Murdock referred to city staff and Coastal Commission staff conversations.
He stated they had six meetings in fewer than six months, which is frequent for inter-agency meetings; in the course of those meetings, they had discussions from the high level to the very minute level and everything in between. He stated staff started out similar to how they started with our community at this meeting going line by line to discuss suggested modifications and their significance. He stated that they did that through 125 suggested modifications. City staff tried to reflect and respect Council’s certification draft approval and explain why that was important to community and Council and hear why Coastal Commission staff felt modifications will be needed to achieve Coastal Act consistency. He stated that it was not a binary approach on some of the issues. He stated there could be multiple interpretations that could be Coastal Act consistent, and that is where they put the focus of their time, i.e., issues related to new City Council Study Session 9 November 13, 2023
development or resolving conflicts where existing development might be behind shoreline protection and not explicitly requiring it as part of the development; those are gray areas that are not clearly encompassed within the Coastal Act framework. He stated that it is those places where it is more interpretation rather than strict reading of the statute where they sought to utilize opportunities in the Coastal Commission process for conflict resolution and balancing of policies; much of that discussion is going to be publicly announced and undertaken in meeting No. 2. Related to the unique conditions in Pacifica where they have existing neighborhoods with existing shoreline protection and not necessarily owned by individual property owners and how to deal with those unique particulars, that will be very much be within the meeting No. 2 conversation. He stated that is where they put a significant amount of their energy and effort with Coastal Commission staff to explore what an alternative approach could look like that the Coastal Commission could live with as well as our community for a compromise.
Planning Director Murdock then referred to comments about Coastal Commission staff, stating that, in his opinion, they have been good partners thus far in the process, particularly since release of their suggested modifications. They have been open to hearing all the city’s thoughts and ideas about alternative approaches and suggested many constructive alternative approaches of their own. He felt it has been a very rewarding process thus far, and both agencies are acting in good faith toward the certification.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the important question of what happens if this LCLUP is not certified. He stated it would be a disappointing outcome for this overall process and our community. He stated that there were a lot of examples demonstrated in the General Plan update process about why we needed a new General Plan; everyone kept pointing back to the last update being in 1980, and the same is true at this point in time about the city’s certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan. It was from the 1980s and a companion to the General Plan. He stated that some positive outcomes are updated maps and other information to support decision-making, enhanced environmental protections to benefit coastal resources, enhanced economic development and more housing, including affordable housing based on updated land use designations, and alignments of policies in the coastal zone between the 2040 General Plan and the LCLUP. He stated that the converse of that is that they would get none of those things in the event of a failure to certify the new LCLUP. He does not have the understanding that there would be any particular legal consequences or Coastal Act violations that would result, but the information, data, and policies supporting the activities in the 1980 LCLUP are no longer reflective of the condition of neighborhoods in Pacifica or the community’s needs for the next 20 years, rather than the past 40+ years. He thought it would be a lost opportunity to end up without a certified LCLUP at the end of this process, and they will have a setback of multiple years of trying to start over and regroup and figure out how we get to a certified LCLUP.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked why the triggers were removed.
Planning Director Murdock referenced triggers, such as those based on a particular amount of sea level rise that may be observed, as something Council decided makes sense for Pacifica and Coastal Commission staff thinks can be an appropriate adaptation approach. It is his understanding from the Coastal Commission staff is that they perceive that the way that those were incorporated into the LCLUP was not complete and was not robust enough to have significant policy value. Until a more robust set of policies and actual actions that could be undertaken were included and described how they would be carried out were put together, he thought it was the sense of the Coastal Commission staff that it would not be appropriate to have incomplete sea level rise triggers and adaptation actions when it was important and significant for the community.
City Council Study Session 10 November 13, 2023
Councilmember Bier reiterated there are three questions she has for each one of the green cells, i.e., what was suggested, why, and what was the significance.
Councilmember Boles added that she wanted to follow up on the triggers. She appreciated Jeff Guillet’s comments, and she had talked to Jim Kremer about this. She thought it was a beautiful way forward that they are defining policies when something happens and not proactively saying what we need to do in a certain time and year. She understands the Coastal Commission struck that because they asked for more information, and she would like to know what more information they asked for. She stated that she found the February 19, 2020 letter from the Coastal Commission as it explains what they were looking for.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she also had a question about triggers, and she asked if Planning Director Murdock could comment, i.e., was it his sense that some of the trigger language was questioned or removed by Coastal staff because of the age of when and how it came about. She remembers that it was part of the adaptation plan prepared in 2018, and she wondered if the science that was based on is inaccurate or less accurate in light of the fact that OPC is coming out with numbers in the next month or so. She asked if it is not the notion of triggers in general that is objectionable but the specific trigger language that was reflected in our adaptation plan.
Planning Director Murdock stated definitively that the notion of triggers is not objectionable to the Coastal Commission staff and they see a role for sea level rise triggers based on routine monitoring program and good science to suggest what the triggered adaptations should be. He did not have a sense that the Coastal Commission staff’s modifications they proposed were a result of the perception that the science was out of date as he believed the city used the best available science at the time, but he thought she hit on the key point that Council needs to consider about how to move forward, which is do they put time and effort into trying to salvage a process already five years old when they know they are on the cusp of having a whole set of new sea level rise projections that might change the timing or trigger category. He stated that they also have the benefit of our community and other communities and the Coastal Commission having gone through these types of planning processes so do we go back to the version 1.0 or think about how to structure in the near term (within the next 1-2 years) of a version 2.0, using the new science or lessons learned. He felt it was a tough choice as there is some benefit, as mentioned by Councilmember Boles, to getting into the document because we could hit some of those triggers at any time. He questioned what they could do to try to make this the best document long term. He said his last point is that, if you look at the adaptation plan, it does contemplate needing to periodically revisit it and update it with new science. He stated, given the amount of time gone by, maybe they internalize that they need to update it again rather than trying to shift the focus retrospectively and look back to incorporate what was done in the 2018 process.
Councilmember Boles stated the overall question she has is whether some of the new policies that they added more difficult because we do not have the triggers.
Planning Director Murdock thought you do not need the triggers to do the right thing in terms of adaptation; you can still study or plan, whether for city’s infrastructure, or guiding and encouraging individual property owners to plan and adapt. He stated that a lot of the triggers related to new shoreline protection structures or other types of coastline improvements and, if conditions can be met by age of development and other factors, it is possible to seek a permit for shoreline protection structures. He did not think they need the policies to end up doing the City Council Study Session 11 November 13, 2023
right thing, but the policies give a cover for the city, an objective trigger that can be identified to begin the hard work. He stated that they can make do without having them in the document for some period of time if the choice is made to undertake a new process that is more reflective of new science and new approaches to adaptation planning.
Mayor Bigstyck suggested that they reconvene at 10:20 pm. He then reconvened the meeting.
He suggested that they make a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck asked that staff start from the beginning of the document chronologically, line by line. He thanked Sr. Planner Cervantes for the initial overview and all the work she put into it.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 2.6.
Councilmember Bier asked what that means for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP).
Planning Director Murdock was not sure the policy directly relates to the BBIRP but more importantly to the 2212 Beach Boulevard site, particularly the policy about hazard considerations. It would be that the current or future sea wall are not there and how much of the site would remain developable in light of the hazards, which is a direct interface with meeting No. 2's potential alternative policy discussion. He stated that it is well-intentioned and textbook Coastal Commission comment, impactful in terms of hazards and reflecting the existing armored condition of this particular area.
Councilmember Bier stated that was the information she was looking for.
Councilmember Boles stated, within the coastal vulnerability zone, they have to comply with that as they do in any other coastal hazard zone, and asked if they are looking for a specific carve out for this area.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the policy of this draft says what they would expect the Coastal Commission to say (largely what the Coastal Act says) i.e., analyze the hazards and avoid them so you do not need shoreline protection at some point in the future. It is not objectionable on that level, given what the Coastal Act says about redevelopment, but it is impactful and the Coastal Commission is calling it out; it could only be addressed by some alternative modification to minimize the impact on this site and other sites in this vicinity. He stated that is why it is important to be aware of it and discuss it.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 2.12.
City Council Study Session 12 November 13, 2023
Councilmember Boles referred to the comment “including at buildout,” and she asked how is buildout defined.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is the buildout of the projections within the LCLUP, not the broader General Plan. It is a much smaller subset of potential development in Pacifica and does not include the Sharp Park Specific Plan and the modest intensification of development that would result from that plan.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 4.3.
Councilmember Bier asked, moving forward, if they will be able to have a visual of what will look like, when she says some of the properties within the coastal zone.
Sr. Planner Cervantes showed an exhibit that is in the LCLUP, and as many of the city certification draft policies were drafted, they say shoreline that are ocean front properties. Many of the modifications were changed from shoreline to include coastal vulnerability zones. She pointed out on the map the multiple different types of zones and the new zones were mentioned at the bottom of the map that were suggested modifications in many of the policies. Instead of the policy being applicable just to the shoreline property, as suggested by Coastal Commission staff, they are now applicable to all the properties that are within these areas of the blue, red, and green lines.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus concluded that they are going to the other side of the highway.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the regulatory impact of that would be limited to the coastal zone. These maps reflect the actual conditions but would not extend the jurisdiction of the LCLUP beyond the coastal zone.
Councilmember Boles thought this item was talking about creek banks and riparian vegetation, and she asked if they have a map that shows where those are in the city.
Planning Director Murdock stated they are not specifically available at this meeting, and probably the two most significant examples would likely be San Pedro Creek and Calera Creek.
He stated that there are some other smaller creeks, some of which have been undergrounded in the past and are not as immediately obvious at surface level. He added that, related to the 100- foot creek setback policy, it was important to note that it is consistent with a General Plan policy.
Setting a baseline of 100-foot setback requirement for creeks is not problematic, in staff’s perspective, related to this policy. He referred to Sr. Planner Cervantes mentioning that some of the defined exceptions are potentially more significant; indicating no less than 50-feet in any case is a little too firm, as there could be site specific issues that call for a lesser creek setback in this case. He stated that it could strictly qualify how you would go below 50 feet, but saying absolutely that you cannot is one of the more notable aspects of this particular policy.
Sr. Planner Cervantes continued and explained Modification Number 4.3.
Councilmember Boles, referring to questions posed earlier by fellow councilmembers, stated that as they get into discussion in the next two meetings, she thought staff will be providing more information from the Coastal Commission on whether there is some flexibility, what is important to keep, and where they might be able to change things.
City Council Study Session 13 November 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that this is a good example that is wellintentioned and setting the expectations for the buffers and indicating when you can go into the buffers, with permit modifications for certain types of coastal dependent uses or temporary encroachment sensitive to buffer for construction. As noted, some of the particulars are not dialed in effectively from city staff’s perspective, such as perhaps not absolutely having a 50- foot minimum but further qualifying how you go below that to avoid takings or reflective of the small lot sizes in Pacifica, etc., to customize it to our local condition. He thought there was probably some room to make this better but without changing the overall dynamic and intent that Coastal Commission staff is trying to address.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 4.7.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this is another example where the reality is such that, in his opinion, this determination is going to be made by the Coastal Commission ecologist or biologist in the event of an appeal or the need to obtain a CDP. While it may be uncomfortable or new and they need to process it, it probably already affects the reality of development in the coastal zone and it is better to disclose it up front, so the city and potential applicants understand the implications and can figure out what their options are, rather than to find it in the midst of a Coastal Commission permitting process. He stated that he does not have information to suggest that it is a widespread habitat category in town, but there is at least one property where this may have an implication and he thinks this probably reflects the Coastal Commission’s work on that to incorporate it into the LCLUP.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 4.13.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it fell under the heading of Environmental Considerations.
Sr. Planner Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bigstyck thought a lot of them can be placed in that one category.
Councilmember Boles stated that she had a related question to one of the previous policies that is not highlighted. She stated that it refers to the figure that defines the ESHAs and, in light of some of the public comments, she asked whether our map is accurate of all of our ESHAs or are there somewhere we have some other studies from a particular project that might also be ESHAs but are not necessarily in the figure.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the map does not claim to identify all ESHA but it identifies major areas of potential ESHAs as a framework to begin the discussion and analysis.
He stated it is the case that ESHA could be identified through a site specific biological resources assessment, such as at the project level, and then triggers all these policies even though it is not mapped. He stated, in a hypothetical site where someone believes ESHA exists, that is important information that would need to come out in a development review process and, if and when qualified biological information is presented, we would apply these policies regulating the protection and the buffering around ESHA.
Councilmember Boles thought there were several sites in Pacifica where they are under one ownership with ESHA identified; when they abandon the project and a new developer comes in, she asked if we share they are already in ESHA because we have the information from a previous project.
City Council Study Session 14 November 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that they do their best to identify information from prior projects that may be relevant. If they know, they will do their best in almost every case to disclose it. He is not aware that the Coastal Commission staff has commented on our particular ESHA map to say it needs to be refined.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred the question about the ESHA map, and she stated that maps in general are not necessarily accepted or accurate. She was concerned about that in terms of our original draft. She wants to make sure they are not using maps cavalierly in accepting maps that we formerly did not approve of for our LCLUP. She thought there was some disagreement between Coastal staff and our interpretation of the maps that were put forward in our LCLUP.
Planning Director Murdock asked, if she has a particular map or maps in mind, as they aren’t aware of disputed maps at this time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that we put a disclaimer on some of our maps, and she wanted to be sure that those disclaimers are carried forward. She asked if that came up in their conversations.
Planning Director Murdock stated he is not aware of any comment that would remove the disclaimer on the coastal vulnerability zone maps. He thought the gist was that they are thematic, indicative of potential issues but you need to do a site specific or site level analysis to really determine whether or not your property is in that zone. He thought it was particularly true the closer you get to the line may do a site-specific analysis that uses new science or a different analytical approach that might change that line somewhat and either rule in or out a site. He stated that the policies and the process in the LCLUP would allow for that: Someone could submit more specific technical information that says that, on the parcel level, the map is not accurate to the applicable hazards and exempt themselves from the more rigorous set of policies or they may find out that the property actually is in a flood hazard or some other hazard zone that is not mapped. He stated that it could work both ways, similar to the ESHA discussion response to Councilmember Boles’ point. You may or may not be ESHA, and the map is saying where it is likely to occur, but it may or may not actually be there or on all of the property once you do a site level detailed technical analysis.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the Coastal Commission has said anything about our maps.
Planning Director Murdock stated not that he can specifically recall, as they have a working understanding that they will be updated over time and that may trigger subsequent LCP amendments to reflect new science or new technical approaches that will hopefully reflect the best available science and technical approaches at that five-year or ten-year increment in which they update the maps.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the disclaimer says “to confirm vulnerability potential, further studies should be performed for the coastal vulnerability zones”.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Sr. Planner Cervantes was about to touch on Modification Number 5.4, and the mayor had specifically called this one out earlier in the meeting.
Mayor Bigstyck asked do they not want plants to keep erosion from happening.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification 5.4.
City Council Study Session 15 November 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock added reference to new sea wall construction.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the issue concerned the phrase “or other acceptable methods”.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was some combination of hillside meaning bluff and the open-endedness of other acceptable methods in staff’s understanding with the Coastal Commission staff.
Councilmember Boles referred to the question of bluffs and protection of erosion, and asked if that was somewhere else or might they be there if they wanted to.
Planning Director Murdock thought the subject matter Councilmember Boles is describing is captured in the new development policies, along the lines of the following: In addition to not needing shoreline protection, you are not going to have any adverse impacts on the coastal resource or bluffs, which means managing storm water and ensuring other types of secondary impacts from the new development do not adversely impact the bluff.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the language is present elsewhere in the document.
Planning Director Murdock stated not as a specific prescription like for bluff erosion.
Mayor Bigstyck thought it would be helpful to extol natural adaptive strategies.
Councilmember Boles mentioned that storm water management practices have changed dramatically in the last few years, and she thought perhaps there is a place where, if a project is being remodeled and not necessarily a new project, they are making sure that they can capture their storm water on site and not running off the edge of the bluff. She is asking the question if there might be something they want to put in that could help, as that could be a contribution to bluff collapse.
Mayor Bigstyck thought that would fall under the category of other acceptable methods.
Councilmember Boles understood but thought it might be a follow-up question for Coastal Commission staff.
Planning Director Murdock thought that could probably go one of two ways: After the meeting, if they come across some other policy that touches on that directly or tangentially, they can let staff know and they can figure out how to improve that with a comment; the other one that is not as well-suited to the process is a new policy outside of the framework of responding to the suggested modifications, i.e. a future LCP amendment.
Mayor Bigstyck indicated he wanted this pinned for further discussion.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 5.10.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, regarding Modification Number 5.9 (deleting policy around the ordinance that is not currently certified by Coastal Commission), if that might be something they take up in the future.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the suggested modification is to delete the entirety of that City Council Study Session 16 November 13, 2023
policy and staff’s understanding is that it was deleted because the city flood prevention ordinance is not currently certified by the Coastal Commission. Their preference would be that the city bring forward that ordinance and get it certified and then it will be an LCP amendment in the future and the city can put this policy back into that document. She concluded that it was the Coastal Commission trying to make sure consistently that policies in the LCLUP are certified by the Coastal Commission.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it renders that ordinance unenforceable until the amendment is in place.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is an interpretation of that being the case. There is another interpretation that, as long as we demonstrate that it is not inconsistent or causing adverse coastal resource impacts, we can utilize it. There is even a third way. He stated that there are multiple ways to potentially continue to administer it, and this is one of those practical challenges where every potential ordinance of the city, even those required by law, such as a flood prevention ordinance to qualify for flood insurance, needs to be certified in a strict reading of the Coastal Act. He stated that one approach is, when they take the zoning subsequent to LCLUP certification to get that certified, to package this up and any number of other ordinances we want to explicitly make clear are applicable in the coastal zone to do that cleanup work.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she is going back to Modification Number 5.10 which says “including but not limited to”, so she thought stream beds could be in there anyway.
City Attorney Kenyon commented in terms of how to interpret it legally, stating that the record for this LCLUP will now contain the fact that they had it in there and then took it out means that we did not mean to include it as “including but not limited to”.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding one point is most of those creeks used for flood control purposes are outside of the coastal zone and there is very limited linear length in the coastal zone that would be subject to this. He stated the other point, in speaking with Coastal Commission staff, is not that they necessarily think the stream beds should not be maintained but the potential resource impacts to work within the stream bed if you do not have the proper permitting in place. They think they have an approach to satisfy their concerns while also reflecting the stream beds in the coastal zone are important to convey storm water. He stated that they will see a suggested modification in meeting No. 3.
Councilmember Boles asked if stream beds and creeks are different.
Planning Director Murdock stated that a creek could have a stream bed, as the term stream bed is used more broadly in terms.
Councilmember Boles stated she was thinking back to the riparian as some streams might be riparian habitats. She thought that may be part of the issue where they have to understand the environmental impacts if they are doing some clearing.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was the essential element of the Coastal Commission’s suggested modification and it does not reflect the fact that very often jurisdictions get routine maintenance authorizations such as from California Department of Fish & Wildlife to do regular vegetation removal that is not altering the fundamental biological characteristics of the stream bed.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.1.
City Council Study Session 17 November 13, 2023
Councilmember Bier asked City Attorney about the fact they took the language out.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she did not think the same legislative history concerns that she had with the stream bed language is the same here because, to staff’s point, this is just policy. It is not a regulation, just intent, and added that it does not mean that it still cannot be our intent, just what the Coastal Commission is saying. She thought, in meeting no. 2, they will hear more discussion from staff in terms of why this is important to the Coastal Commission. Ultimately this deletion does not impact Council’s ability to be concerned with the protection of property rights.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if the protection of personal property rights is included in the preamble.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed the preamble they are discussing is in Chapter 6.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus concluded that they took that whole line out.
Planning Director Murdock stated the protection of property rights is an important theme.
Mayor Bigstyck stated we can discuss it vigorously later but at the same time they are suggesting that property rights is not an important theme in this chapter. He was looking forward to hearing what middle ground might exist between city staff and Coastal Commission staff to inform that meeting.
Planning Director Murdock stated they may have a way forward on this one to be discussed at a future meeting, more about the phrasing and the way it is included in the overall context of relevant consideration.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.3 and 6.4, as well as Modification Numbers 6.7, 6.13, and 6.21.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the golf course item and stated that Council was aware that it was a challenging permitting process. He stated that there are also some technical and legal components, as they are another government agency and their direct interaction with the City and County of San Francisco with the Coastal Commission in terms of that permitting. He stated that the implication is that, if the berm is removed, there would be potential impacts to the Sharp Park Golf Course, recreational component, neighborhood, Fairway Park West and coastal access and trail changes as well. He stated that there are a lot of critical issues in that same single policy based on the modification.
Councilmember Bier asked by virtue of discussing it later if they see a possible way forward.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was one that was particularly challenging in the discussions with Coastal Commission staff. He understands their perspective very clearly and he respects it. Part of that perspective is a permitting level decision and there is not a direct relationship with having the city get involved with a Coastal Commission permit action. He questioned, while it is important from the city’s perspective to express support for all of those desirable things that the berm is currently supporting, protection of neighborhood, golf course, biological resources and endangered species, coastal access along the trail and the recreational amenities that provides, whether there was a way to express support for all of those things and ensure whatever the permitting outcome is, relative to the berm, that those tangible City Council Study Session 18 November 13, 2023
aspects are represented, supported and maintained or changed in ways that are palatable to the city without expressly saying that the berm has to stay there in that location. He questioned if there is a way to try to get support for the coastal access, recreational opportunities, flood protection etc., that currently the berm is providing in some other fashion.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.2, which applies to the Sharp Park, Mori Point, and West Fairview Park areas. She mentioned staff is understanding the additions to say they have to comply with the California Coastal Act but adding that clause that says we also need to be consistent with prior permit conditions limits how they can revise or update our existing and new shoreline protection structures.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it relates to the previous conversation around existing structures or just about protection itself.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was more of a technical point on the prior permit conditions and how it does not need to be stated. He stated that whatever is done needs to comply with permit conditions. Essentially it will have the effect of restricting the city to hold permit conditions as drafted, rather than allowing whatever the current best permit conditions are at a particular point in time. He stated that shoreline protection structures periodically get new CDPs issued for maintenance that might have additional new requirements or conditions of approval, and limiting this to prior permit conditions is fixing a point in time that is not appropriate on a policy level document.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there might be ways to modify the structure itself.
Planning Director Murdock agreed and questioned why limit backward looking when you should be applying the current permit conditions, which is the critical issue. He wanted to make the point that this is getting into the sea level rise trigger policies with 0-2 feet SLR, sea level rise, in this instance. The suggested modifications delete that part of the policy title. He referred to looking back at Modification Number 6.23 in the document produced by Coastal Commission staff; there is strikethrough on the 0-2 feet SLR for this and all of the subsequent sea level rise triggers, all batched into that underlying issue with the adaptation plan and shoreline monitoring plan.
Mayor Bigstyck thought he previously said that Coastal Commission staff felt like those triggers were incomplete, and he asked if that was the reason they were striking them out.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that they need to be tied to the broader, comprehensive adaptation plan that is reworked and more fully developed in their perspective.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that what is frustrating is that they are trying to include these things to be proactive, and by removing those triggers, there is a frustration as that seemed a more robust way to stay on top of what they need to do in whatever scenario.
Councilmember Boles referred to triggers and read from an email by Julia Koppman-Norton that replied to Jim Kremer’s questions about triggers, indicating that specific triggers are not against the Coastal Commission guidance and intent of the California Coastal Act but that they feel strongly that they would need to be cleaned up and clarified in terms of how they would actually be implemented in order to be effective. She thought that calls out about what Coastal Commission is asking for relating to certain tasks.
City Council Study Session 19 November 13, 2023
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.38.
Mayor Bigstyck emphasized “without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection”.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed, adding that was the second part of the modification.
Councilmember Boles asked for confirmation that they are talking development which in their definition means new development, not existing development.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that they will discuss that further.
Councilmember Boles referred to her mention of anticipated life and asked if they were requiring new development to be designed for 100-year life.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed, and that was one of the highlighted modifications in the glossary.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it has typically been the case of 100-year assumed economic life, but as mentioned, that may change in the LCLUP.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.40.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they have a map for tsunami evacuation zones in the General Plan, but it is limited to deed restrictions, assumption of risk, and waiver of future shoreline protection and is not in and of itself a limit to development. He stated it was a critical distinction.
Councilmember Boles asked if they could add the tsunami map to the LCLUP since they are bringing this into compliance with the General Plan.
Planning Director Murdock said they could.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it was important to note that one of the Coastal Commission’s responses will be that this is for the benefit of the city and this is just imposing a condition of approval which requires reporting a deed restriction in favor of the city, that they will hold the city harmless and essentially indemnify the city. It is important to understand the implications of including this as it is a further protection for the city, but this requirement would apply to more properties than what was initially considered by Council. She stated that the concept was specifically considered by Council, but not to the degree of number of homes that it would apply to.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this topic came up numerous times in public comment during the LCLUP process where residents felt compelled to protect the city in its permit decision-making in the future, and they cited specific instances of the city having to intervene and incur financial costs to demolish buildings. He stated that some community commenters felt an expanded deed restriction and waiver of rights might protect the city in such instances.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.41.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this was one of the most significant modifications in the LCLUP. The subject of how the city defined it required great effort by staff when crafting the LCLUP adopted by Council and has been a subject of significant discussion with the Coastal City Council Study Session 20 November 13, 2023
Commission staff as they have tried to align this definition that triggers this policy with their residential planning guidance in response to sea level rise. This is a critical pivot point for the upcoming policy discussions in meeting no. 2 and eventually meeting no. 3, understanding how the definition flows into the policy and how the policy flows into triggered changes on individual properties, even when relatively innocuous additions, i.e. replacing a wall or bumping out a bedroom, cumulatively over time might tip over a critical threshold and trigger the whole site to have to be re-evaluated as if it is a new development.
City Attorney Kenyon added, from a legal perspective, eliminating a common zoning principle, which is the concept of a legal non-conforming use, is a dramatic change from standard zoning regulations and principles found in every zoning code in the state. She agrees with the Planning Director that this is a significant issue to be discussed in meetings no. 2 and 3.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to talk about the definition of substantial structural modifications. She stated she is working architecturally in other cities not in a coastal zone, and when someone is doing a substantial remodel or adding on a certain percentage, they are often required to bring the whole project into compliance. She has had to take out some walls of an existing house that were over the setbacks because they did not have a proper survey when they first built it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it will depend upon the definition of substantial structural site modification.
Councilmember Boles stated that it may not be saying that we have to fix everything for something that has to be done.
Planning Director Murdock stated, depending on how it is defined, these could be less substantial or very substantial, but there is a point at which people may be doing a lot of work and may be a new building. There are projects that may be called renovations when they, in reality, are new development. He stated that there is a place to consider this issue, but the particular triggers and thresholds are the critical part of the conversation. He acknowledged that Council had asked to go line by line, but he thought this might be a place to jump down to the definition briefly and come back, given the integral relationship to those two suggested modifications.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated, if she owns a property that is zoned commercial but has been residential for the last 100 years and she wants to add two bedrooms, that is a substantial structural modification. She asked if they could make her turn that property back into commercial as it is non-conforming.
Planning Director Murdock thought there was possibly a way to read that modification that way but he thought this was more so reflecting the physical non-conformities and that could be a critical clarification in terms of applying to the physical building but not the use. He did not know how essential the use is relative to the physical component of the development, but that could be an important clarification. He stated, before they jump into the definition, he wanted to confirm that the certification draft LCLUP does have a tsunami evacuation area map in figure 5- 3 and they can address the updated figure if need be in the General Plan re-submittal. He stated that the General Plan certainly reflects the current state evacuation area map.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 7.10.
City Council Study Session 21 November 13, 2023
City Attorney Kenyon referred to a point Councilmember Boles made about this requirement being found in other communities, including Pacifica, and she agreed that it is when any permitting or renovation is 50% or more. She stated this would reduce that, in the history of the project, to a total of 50% or more but they could have an individual project that was 10% but, if you have prior projects, 1, 2 or more that equal 40%, if you are at 10.5% then this triggers and you are going to be impacted by this change. She stated that is the issue and, while it may not be a big change, it is something Council should discuss because it is not a common legal nonconforming use trigger to be less than 50%.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with the City Attorney and she is having a hard time imagining how they are going to resolve this issue because it seems like it is creating legal jeopardy for the city in the way that the language has been suggested by Coastal Commission staff.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they need to work through the city’s policy first and then understand more about where the Coastal Commission is coming from. He stated, as mentioned by Sr. Planner Cervantes, the way the city’s initial definition is crafted to apply to particular types of projects tries to get at the heart of what our understanding was for why a substantial structural modification matters; they are doing something that changes the project’s relationship to the coastal hazard so that is why exterior modification makes sense in staff’s judgment and Council ultimately adopted that. He referred to seaward encroachment and stated if you are getting closer to the shoreline and the erosion and wave overtopping, that was important. He stated if you are removing or replacing exterior walls, that is important as it changes the envelope and relationship to the coastal hazard. He stated that it remains unclear to him what difference it makes for interior structural modifications, i.e., if floors are modified or interior loadbearing walls are modified, as those do not change the relationship to the hazard.
It is simply the Coastal Commission trying to use an economic vehicle to say that you have invested so much money into this property and is essentially a new property. He stated that there is a case to be made for that depending on your perspective, but it is not directly associated with the hazard at issue and he did not think it was the right approach. He stated that is the fundamental first half of the difference, and our policy orients to the hazard and the Coastal Commission orients to a reasonable economic trigger for saying something is new.
Planning Director Murdock explained the second part where he thought they deviate in a different way where the city has tried to eviscerate the number and types of projects that are going to be subject to this trigger because we have so much existing development in our community and Council determined that people should be able to continue utilizing their properties, if they are already developed in most cases. He stated that is why things such as rebuilding a new single-family residence would have been exempt from this trigger, even though it would remove 100% of the structural components of a particular project. He stated that is an aggressive set of exceptions, and the Coastal Commission has reacted to that. He stated that there are some that Council may want to continue pushing for, such as clarifying Section 30610, Disaster Rebuild, i.e., if the property is lost to a fire, etc., should they be allowed to rebuild largely as they were before. He stated that, most often, that is the case and he thought there was some work to be done on that.
Planning Director Murdock then focused on the Coastal Commission’s side and understanding more about where this is coming from, and stated that if you read the sea level rise residential planning guidelines, this is one of the critical issues they seek to address. They suggest something very much like the Coastal Commission’s suggested modification. But that policy guidance not only says it is not regulation and thus not mandating any of this, it seems like that City Council Study Session 22 November 13, 2023
morphed into de facto regulations in some of the Coastal Commission’s decision-making. He stated that is one important thing to remember: how hard can we press and how much is it worth fighting. He thought this might be one where it is worth it. The second thing is, in the sea level rise guidance that he referenced, it says get something very close to this, get the right trigger for a significant change, but tailor it to your local contacts. He stated that, even looking at the Coastal Commission’s own interim guidance, there is probably some room to continue working on what those definitions are and to get somewhere back from where the Coastal Commission’s suggested modification is but maybe somewhere dialed back from where the city’s definition and set of exceptions were.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Boles
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Planning Director Murdock thought there has been a misconception among some that a re-roof would trigger this and he stated that is not what the policy would say, even as modified by the Coastal Commission. He stated that shingles are expressly excluded; there was room to clarify whether the plywood sheeting beneath the roofing shingles needed to be replaced because of dry rot and whether it was a significant structural component. He felt it should not be and that is the type of thing where there is likely room to clarify as it is a common component of re-roofs and likely not the type of property maintenance that the city’s policy should be discouraging for fear of triggering something significant like this; he thought it was likely worth exploring that in a comment back to the Coastal Commission. His last comment is how to measure cumulative 50%,. He stated that there are many different reasonable ways to do it, and the Coastal Commission has been firm in the sense that putting some date there that is too recent is going to be concerning to the Coastal Commission. He thought remaining silent and relying on what records the city has is one approach to try to resolve that tension rather than arguing over a date. If we do not have comprehensive records of those types of improvements that we can access prior to 2010 or 2000, we can only use the data in permits we have to measure the comprehensive change so it may not be as bad as it seems in terms of adding the comprehensive history for projects, given the city’s permit records, but that will not be the situation in every case.
Councilmember Boles thought they could say this is the starting point when we adopt this document and you do not have to go backward as it just going forward from here.
Planning Director Murdock agreed that it was a reasonable approach and one that he thinks is most fair and reasonable. He added that the Coastal Commission staff has said, in their opinion, that would be a non-starter with the Coastal Commission, come certification time. He stated that staff has suggested rolling back to our digital permit record which is in 2010 and Coastal Commission staff stated that is fairly new still so there is some judgment there about how hard the city presses. Potentially, one approach is to be silent on that point and let what records we have serve as the basis and, in some cases, maybe there are not clear records and City Council Study Session 23 November 13, 2023
we are not able to account for those modifications.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated he mentioned the word seaward, and she asked if that is only applied directly to shorefront properties or all properties in the coastal zone. She stated that a lot of properties could move shoreward.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the suggested modification would not be limited to shorefront development, but the Coastal Commission’s suggested modification also does not talk about shoreward encroachment. It is not clear what the implication would be in that case.
He stated that they will need to end up in this LCLUP with some critical triggers, 50% of something, i.e., exterior walls, every structural component that adds in, property value, assessed value, appraised value, etc. He questioned what is the most reasonable balance in terms of measuring and getting the right trigger that is reflective of our local condition, hazards that are being addressed and getting the appropriate adaptation and change over time when, if someone has redone 90% of the building, should they be under 1950’s zoning in absence of coastal hazard planning or should they be held to a 2023 or 2024 or 2030 set of hazard planning standards. He stated that is very difficult policy question in this definition in the policy that it is related to hits right on the head of our community that has significant amounts of preCoastal Act development that never even took into account coastal hazard planning.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.42 and Modification Number 6.43.
Mayor Bigstyck asked do sand retention structures refer to artificial groins.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.44.
Councilmember Boles asked where this guidance comes from, such as state guidance or Coastal Act compliance.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is referencing Section 30235 of the Coastal Act.
Councilmember Boles asked if that particular objection Sr. Planner Cervantes is mentioning is something that is required in the Coastal Act.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Section 30235 does not include a 50% trigger; that Coastal Act provision talks about various types of improvements that alter natural shoreline processes, so sea walls are shoreline protection that fall into that category. He stated that it looks like the Coastal Commission is trying to impose some additional trigger thresholds, and 50% being the common one and reasonable in a lot of contexts. He asked what that means for a city like Pacifica that is routinely having to maintain the Beach Boulevard sea wall and is that going to be a trigger for us at some point that precipitates a new process.
Councilmember Boles asked if our rock revetment is included in this.
Planning Director Murdock thought it would.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained part 2 of this same policy to existing shoreline protection structures.
City Council Study Session 24 November 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock wanted to jump back to the prior discussion and stated that it was not in the Coastal Act but it was Coastal Commission adopted regulations related to the 50% trigger, i.e., unless destroyed by natural disaster, the replacement of 50% of more of a single family residence, sea wall revetment, bluff retaining wall, break water, groin, or any other structure is not repair and maintenance under Section 30610(d) but instead constitutes a replacement structure requiring a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Boles stated that exception is important.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13252(b).
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.45.
Planning Director Murdock it is essentially stating what the Coastal Commission process will be and these are parameters that are applied to those permitting decisions by the Coastal Commission which, in most instances, the shoreline protection device is going to need a CDP from the Coastal Commission. Understanding up front that it needs to be the least environmentally impactful feasible alternative and impacts to the shoreline need to be mitigated are important to disclose and have upfront in the decision-making process. He stated it was not necessarily an objectionable policy but one that is different and may have impacts expressly stated now rather than be identified later in the permit process.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 6.46 and Modification Number 1.7.
Councilmember Boles asked what is defined as critical infrastructure, i.e. roads, sewage pipes, or sea wall.
Planning Director Murdock responded yes to everything, but he stated the sea wall more than likely given that it is typically at the point of where the hazard is present, such as coastal erosion. He thought we should understand that critical infrastructure to be relatively broad.
Things like sewer lines, water pipes, electrical, sewage treatment plants, and pump stations are critical infrastructure for the development they support and this policy with the expanded 100- 150 year anticipated life will automatically require greater hazard effects from the shoreline and quite impactful. It is well-intentioned as those need to be around for a long time to support the development that they are serving but it will have important impacts.
Councilmember Boles stated that even sewer pipes are not going to last 100 or 150 years. She stated the pump station and all the equipment gets depreciated and old.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating it is well-intentioned but the nuance is less sensible in some specific applications, but there are sewers in the east coast that were built 150-200 years ago that are still going. He stated that it really depends on the particular infrastructure, materials, and method of construction.
Sr. Planner Cervantes explained Modification Number 7.8.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in structuring the certification draft LCLUP, the city sought to only apply the most onerous or impactful new development policies to certain sites and, in this case as defined, sites where no other development currently exists, so it is a narrower set of potential sites than other properties. He thought it was an attempt to limit the City Council Study Session 25 November 13, 2023
application of those broader, new development policies and, in part, the Coastal Commission saw that and did not think it necessarily aligned with the set of policies that should apply to development or triggers such as for substantial structural modifications. He mentioned earlier that letting development be development but then the specifics of that be addressed through the different policies so triggers for substantial modifications or additions or modifications.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that was the last modification on the list, as they already discussed Modification Number 7.10. She stated that if Council has any additional questions, she will be happy to respond.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he would like to make comments on two white cells: On packet page 118, Document page 108, Modification Number 4.6, he thought there was a minor typo where it reads “wetlands also occur along in creeks”. The other one was on PR-I-60, No. 3.8, Packet page 96, Document page 86, and he just wanted clarity.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was addressing a routine governmental function, which is to periodically abandon or vacate public rights of way; occasionally those are no longer needed and the city tries to abandon them so they can revert to the underlying or adjacent property owners so they can resume private use of the property that is no longer needed for public purposes. This policy would put additional restrictions on the city’s ability to do that and his understanding and interpretation of these modifications is that it is in furtherance of ongoing coastal access, ensuring that the city can maintain those for pedestrian or bicycle use rather than vehicular use in the case of a street. What is more concerning is where it says “shall only be approved if coastal resources can be protected in as good or better conditions as exist at the time of permit evaluation,” etc. He stated it was not clear how the city would ensure that after it abandoned or vacated a right of way and that is a huge obligation that runs contrary to why the city is seeking to abandon the right of way, which is that it does not need it and/or does not want to maintain it any longer. Those have potentially important impacts that need to be worked through for the city.
Mayor Bigstyck asked why that cell is coded white instead of green.
Planning Director Murdock thought that, in part, a relatively minor tweak to “shall consider” rather than “shall only be approved” was in their thinking. It is concerning but is a relatively simple fix that they think can be worked through and why it is not highlighted green.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that they think our approach is going to be a quick fix and will not require a dialogue to figure it out.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the next meeting is the opportunity to discuss. He hopes they leverage that opportunity to our greatest potential so that, when we get to meeting no. 3, the tone is brought to a level that they can have that conversation as robustly as they please.
Councilmember Boles stated she had comments on two white cells. Referring to Chapter 5, page 132, Modification Number 5.1, Natural Hazards, she stated that at some point it referred to Figure 5.2 and the landslide maps. Her question was making sure that whatever landslide maps were in the Local Coastal Plan also match the General Plan. She then referred to page 181, Modification Number 6.38, CR-I-43, and asked for explanation.
City Council Study Session 26 November 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in a non-engineer and non-technical understanding, those are multipliers to whatever the calculated hazard is to add a margin of safety beyond the minimum of cutting it right to the line, kind of setback or design standard. He stated that is another bucket of it is going to be part of an appeal or a Coastal Commission requirement for the permit process and get it disclosed and incorporated into the city’s process as soon as possible. He stated that these types of calculations have frequently been a point of contention with CDPs that have gone on to appeal to the Coastal Commission. He thought it was a helpful edit to get from the Coastal Commission on more of those kinds of technical requirements they are going to expect to see and we can live with and get into our documents and policies, as it was better for us and for applicants.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to what the mayor was saying about preparing ourselves to have as open-minded a conversation as possible on December 5, and she wanted to express some concern about the format that they heard expressed at this meeting. She is not understanding how staff envisions that working and if there is any thought about modifying the format slightly so people can hear the conversations about all of the topics, not just the ones at their table.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they have tried to structure the process model off of what staff would perceive as successful similar processes in the past where difficult issues were confronted in smaller groups to allow more dialogue between and among members of the community. He stated that meeting No. 2 as currently conceived is going to introduce important new policy language for the community to consider on a subset of these most critical issues that we discussed at this meeting that relate to development, new development, redevelopment, within our existing neighborhoods; rather than have it be a more structured study session or consideration type item where the public will get a single opportunity to speak for three minutes, this will give them time with the help of professional facilitators to get multiple viewpoints and have the opportunity to provide multiple points of input on these issues to be captured and collected by the facilitators, aggregated and synthesized by staff and, for any member of the public who feels like his or her input has not been effectively captured, they still have the opportunity to provide their own written or verbal comments at meeting No. 3 for Council and community to hear. He stated it was the best of both worlds from a certain standpoint where there is more opportunity for them to provide input, even though it will be delayed in how it gets to all of the Councilmembers because they cannot be at all the tables at one time and it is a tradeoff. They could consider a different meeting format but this one, in small groups facilitated and aggregated after the fact, has proven effective in confronting housing issues and other types of sensitive community issues in the past which is why they structured the meeting in this format.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he values the opportunity for people to talk with one another. He is sensitive to capping time limits as sometimes there is a feeling during those conversations of they only have so long to talk and it is forced and, if they do not hit all the topics in the allotted time frame, the next time they hear from them is at meeting No. 3, and they did not have a chance to voice their piece robustly. He stated it would be good to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to have a robust discussion without an artificial time frame unduly limiting a good conversation that might yield a really helpful comment by meeting No. 3, if not beforehand when staff is compiling all of the feedback given.
Councilmember Bier stated that they will be listening.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked them for all the detail and amazing work on this.
City Council Study Session 27 November 13, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck also thanked staff for putting so much thought into it. They look forward to hearing what the next set of recommendations are and what the conversations look like.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 12:27 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 12/11/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor