CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Community Center
540 Crespi Drive
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 December 05, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
December 5, 2023 (TUESDAY) - 6:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on December 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM 6:00 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck convened the special study session at 6:12 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call of City Council. All Councilmembers present.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Deepa Sharma, Asst. City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. Planner; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Mayor Bigstyck recited the Lands Acknowledgment. Mayor Bigstyck led the salute to the flag.
CONSIDERATION
1. Community roundtable to discuss potential alternative modifications to the California Coastal Commission staff’s March 2023 suggested modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP).
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff, observe the community roundtable discussions, and receive public input about potential alternative modifications.
Mayor Bigstyck introduced the Consideration agenda item topic and emphasized that tonight’s City Council Study Session 2 December 05, 2023
meeting is an opportunity to learn something new, share perspectives and listen to become conversant in new ideas being presented.
City Manager Woodhouse made initial remarks regarding this important topic for Pacifica, acknowledging that coastal planning is ordinarily a very complex and challenging topic and with factors of sea level rise adaptation becomes an extraordinarily complex topic, legally, environmentally, socially, politically and economically. He mentioned working on an earlier stage of the LCLUP Update six years ago in this room packed with community members and Councilmembes. Since then city staff has worked collaboratively with Coastal Commission staff to understand their perspective and to develop alternate policies to discuss tonight at the tables that City and Coastal Commission staff together think have the possibility of meeting both agencies interests and could result in a Coastal Commission Certified LCLUP that is also acceptable to the City. He stated that the tabletop discussions tonight will be captured in notes and observed by Councilmembers and will become part of the report that helps inform City Council decisions. City Manager Woodhouse commented on various ways to structure meetings for public engagement and encouraged focusing energy tonight to make the most of the structure of the meeting tonight to discuss and listen with neighbors about the topic, noting that tonight will help to inform the structure and content of the third public meeting of this threemeeting public engagement process for the LCLUP Update.
Planning Director Murdock then presented the staff report with an overview of the LCLUP Update process, introduction of alternative modifications, case studies and facilitator introduction. The presentation is be be followed by Roundtable Discussions, a Report Out from Roundtable Discussions and Public Comment.
Following the presentation, Planning Director Murdock introduced facilitator Cordell Wesselink from Community Boards, a San Francisco-based non-profit. Mr. Wesselink introduced the Roundtable Discussion format in tables of up to eight participants with a facilitator and notetaker at each, ground rules and discussion questions.
At 7:05 p.m. the meeting format transitioned to a break out session for Roundtable Discussions.
Following Roundtable Discussions, the meeting transitioned to reports out from each table summarizing key notes from the individual table discussions and feedback.
Facilitator Wesslink introduced the facilitators from each breakout table to provide a report out of the key summaries from each table discussion.
Table 3 summary: Concern that this is unrealistic and under-explained in terms of legality and the city capacity to do this plan. The hope is that the plan does get done, agreed to and settled with the Coastal Commission so the process that has taken so many years can come to an end.
Suggestions that there is a cost analysis and timeline of the SRA’s and the Sharp Park seawall and everything needs more information.
Table X summary: Concerns that there is a trust factor of the Coastal Commission. There is a lot to absorb and concern about understanding all of this. It feels like the Coastal Commission is taking away the rights of homeowners to do with they want with their property. It is not clear when 50% is triggered and what they can and cannot do. There is confusion about along the coast the different jurisdictions involved and who does what and not a unified organization.
Concern about keeping areas west of the highway natural and ability to build. Skeptical of perception of power grab by an entity that we don’t have any say over.
City Council Study Session 3 December 05, 2023
Table 1 summary: Tranparency is important specifically about the California Coastal Commission: how they work and who they are and is there any way to connect them to this community in some way, if there are representatives that are responsible for this community could they be brought here to meet them. In terms of public information that is available about the plan, there is a real hope for concrete implications of this plan for me and my property and its value in the future in five years, ten years, one hundred years down the road including things like restrictions and deeds under this plan versus the 1980 plan in some likely scenarios. Table expressed general appreciation for city staff.
Table 8 summary: One of the major concerns was about the seawall: seawall or no seawall.
Also concerns about funding from where, how, a plan. Where is the plan and we need a plan.
Concerns about if there was a seawall built it is not good environmentally because the water coming around the side can still be destructive even with a wall. Citizens haven’t received enough information about the state of the coastline and would like to hear more from the Coastal Commission about what they are proposing and how amenable the Coastal Commission would be with the City’s proposals. Where does the underground infrastructure of Beach Boulevard fit into the LCLUP? There was a lot of concern around managed retreat process or policies. There is a fear that people are making an educated guess with no protection for the future when buying along the coastline. Suggest possibly getting people together from at-risk coastlines to discuss, as they want a plan. There is a question about whether a real professionals are being hired. There is a question about what are the alternatives and what if they can’t afford the alternatives. Someone wanted to know how involved is state and federal government in this issue.
Table 5 summary: Some concerns were why is the whole city on the hook for coastal property; what is the definition of incremental for SRA’s: is it cumulative since ’77 or by owner or by property; will the effect of the policies or triggers turn areas west of Highway One into a ghost town for commercial properties that gains no income causing costs that are hard to pay for moving the heavy infrastructure located there. Hopes are that they are happy that the Council is looking toward the future. Suggested changes are that the Council needs to lay it out in layman’s terms what they are proposing, who pays - be specific per property like a specific tax assessment for property. They were also wondering if the Coastal Commission will be amenable to the changes being proposed.
Table 6 summary: Concerns about the property owner losing control and the ability to get mortgages, insurance, who determines whether it is 25% or 50%, those type of things. The other concern is about damage versus expansion, for example if your kitchen burns down and you have some structural damage and have that looked at differently from expanding to five bedrooms from three. They thought the good was that it gives additional protections to the city from lawsuits because they felt everyone would share in paying those. They had a split opinion that the new policy does not impact owners in areas outside of the coastal zone as much. They also thought that it was great that the City and Coastal Commission staff worked together on something and that was really impactful not just for this but going forward, also. Suggestions:
be able to do repairs without triggering the percentage clause – don’t look at percentages if it is something that is just repairs, create HOA’s or special assessment districts for areas of higher risk, give the same protections to homeowners as trails and public amenities.
Table 7 summary: A question was raised about how does this align with Pacifica’s Housing Element – the State is saying there has to be a certain amount of new housing units built and will this hold that back? Concern about the impact of the infrastructure loss, holding erosion City Council Study Session 4 December 05, 2023
back – using plants and roots ahead of time, basically what technology works and what technology the Commission will allow and plan for that in the future. There is concern about transparency around the SRA’s – what makes an SRA an SRA, will new development be allowed in the SRA?
Table 12 summary: Concerns were that the Coastal Commission may not approve the SRA process. The hope was to seek different options and cost analysis. A suggestion is to look at alternative nature-based solutions and also respond to the 125 comments that were commented on at the previous session. A question is if no changes to the LCLUP and the City of Pacifica denies / no response, what happens next?
Table 11 summary: One of the biggest concerns was the feeling that there is a lack of time, need more meeting time to understand this as community members. This table had deep discussions about how other communities who live on the water are coping throughout the world, such as Amsterdam, London, Paris, New Orleans, Boston, New York. They are doing it, so why is it such an issue here on the coast – it is the Coastal Commission. The hope is to have technology are resources to solve these problems; we are right by Silicon Valley and Stanford and some of the smartest people in technology in the world, so let’s see if we can use their knowledge of resources. A suggestion was to see a presentation by Smart Coast. A question is how can the public be involved with the bidding process to see who is going to be the consultant to help guide us along.
Table 10 summary: Biggest concern was also the amount of time to study the plan; there was a feeling there was not adequate time either to study it or comment for whatever additional changes need to be made. There was a concern about the definition of the SSM, Substantial Structural Modification, in the SRA’s feeling it was too restrictive. There was not enough time to analyze to identify hopeful elements. In terms of changes they would like to see, they would like a return to the 2019 / 2020 SSM definition. Questions included what is the rationale for Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach being chosen as SRA’s and why is West Fairway Park not part of the SRA’s? The lumping of everything west of Route One was also a concern.
Table 9 summary: The most common concern was the need for more details, wanting more information on the implementation and structured outline. For hope, it was encouragement for development of new rights for building. Most common suggestion was for a simpler summarized version for review, an easier version to look over to read and understand, a plan to address strategies and identify beach protection – worried about erosion.
Table 8 summary: The main concern was how does this affect me specifically? There are two dimensions to that concern: specific address and what area does that put me in – in terms of the SRA, etc; the second dimenstion is once I know what area I’m in, it was then difficult to fully understand everything as there was so much information in the slides. The other concern was questioning whether we think this is the best deal we are going to get from the Coastal Commission and to we think we can get a better one?
Table X summary: Concerns included that this is eminent domain by a thousand cuts, it is a planned retreat – what does that verbiage say? It assumes defeat, basically give up, that is the way it is being presented. We are not being equipped to be empowered to actually direct what we want with our community and to support our Councilmembers to do that. Instead we are being presented with a firehose of things that scramble our brains and not representing our rights. We have plans submitted and that is what we liked; let’s stick to that. Why did it take a year to hear back that it was rejected? Suggestions – representation: there is a non-profit group City Council Study Session 5 December 05, 2023
called Smart Coast California that has had a record of success providing consultation for communities like us without a lot of finances and don’t know their rights. They charge half of the consultant fee to the community, which we could easily cover with about 5 tables of each person giving about $100 each, it is $3,000 for us and $3,000 for them. We are not ready to forfeit what we have spent our life earnings to acquire because we are being presented as if this is not negotiable and we don’t have rights over our property. Concerns about what is next, if this is something that is conceded, what is next? What happens to the people along the fault lines and their houses and what are they forced to accept? Lastly, who made those boundaries and why are those the boundaries?
Table 14 summary: There were many concerns, but the main concerns were with coastal access and if there is a plan to prevent neighborhoods blightness and deterioration. For hope, it is about working with the Coastal Commission and improving relationships. For suggestions, to provide cost analysis and more information on capital projects. For questions, having more information on zone changes and any potential funding analysis.
Table X summary: The biggest concerns were new development, existing development and infrastructure in those areas. We had to make it clear that it is not just the houses and businesses we are protecting, but the infrastructure and where our waste goes, etc. We still need clarification on what the Coastal Commission’s role is. What are the conditions of the area? We talked about visitor facing, which led to conversations about future hotels, economic sustainability which all comes down to some of these decisions. Sharp Park and Rockaway are major assets to Pacifica and we are all stuck in the managed retreat versus no managed retreat and “we want to develop everything” crowd and most of us are stuck in the middle. There were concerns about who is going to pay for this. They wish the presentation was a little more clear and in layman’s terms.
Table 16 summary: Everything they had from this table was touched on by others. In addition, the main concern was clarity, transparency, communication. A few good ideas at the table were providing more examples in the presentations, speaking about specific neighborhood or zones, and the effects on those neighborhoods. A point was made, before it can even be about specific issues or effects, just understanding what is happening as well as a feeling of trust and transparency and being straightforward about what is going to happen to you. Getting some questions at the table answered by the Planning Director and getting that clarity seemed to be very impactful
Overflow Room participants’ summary: Concerns were: all proposals need flexibility or mechanisms to adapt to changing forecasts, technology, conditions and solutions; each proposal and policy needs to clearly describe negative impacts and possible consequences; and negative impacts to insurance, mortgage and property values. For hopes: rebuild and/or maintain an optimal seawall along Beach Boulevard and Sharp Park Golf Course; it can develop a vibrant downtown; and public amenities / fresh approaches for ocean protection. Suggestions were: eliminate accumulation of percentile limits for maintaining or improving one’s home or property; no person should be forced to waive their liability or protection rights or city services.
Questions or other information that would be helpful: is there a better way, such as citywide referendum or vote, to protect freedom and choice of Pacificans than giving power to a small, unelected group – the California Coastal Commission; what is the negative impact of existing coastal, sea level protections?
Facilitator Wesselink concluded the reports out from the tabletop discussions and presented a QR code to provide feedback on how the Community Boards facilitators did this evening.
City Council Study Session 6 December 05, 2023
Planning Director Murdock indicated that there will now be a public comment period.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comment.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he questioned what the difference between the repairs and reconstruction, where repairs may be more than the sheathing but also get into the “bones” and may trigger putting people over even though they are just trying to repair and maintain their property. He stated that they also need to consider all the areas from the north of Pacifica to Pedro Point, and some of those areas are visitor-serving and potentially visitor-serving areas to account for all of that to make Pacifica the best we can and what we want as a community.
Mike Vernazza, Pacifica, stated his concerns about the state taking away the ability for generations of family and can no longer afford to inherit the family home due to property taxes.
He mentioned concerns about how to pay for all of these things and pushing back against entities that are forcing our town to do things that we can’t afford to do. He is concerned about the liability for those in the Manor zone according to the red line and the general viability of the town long-term.
Bob Boles, Manor District, Pacifica, stated that this is a very complicated subject and how much confusion there is and there is so little definition and complicated details, such as the concept of adding an addition to the house exactly how much can you do and how much you can’t do, the SRA zone and what it means if you are just a block away and the impact on individuals’ houses, which are their whole livelihood. He stated that he did not think this could be rushed.
Robine Runneals, West Sharp Park, Pacifica, stated that depending on what map you look at she is just outside of the SRA and she thinks that they have benefitted from protection which has allowed that historic district neighborhood to flourish and there is a potential for it to do greater things if allowed to do that. She mentioned economic development potential for the area, including the Pacific Coast Fog Fest along Palmetto. She stated a big concern for the future is insuring that event. She is concerned about if West Sharp Park becomes an SRA, what that will mean for insurability, finance, construction, and the impacts that it will have on the property and the businesses there. As a property owner, she feels that all areas deserve equal protection for their homes and the city’s infrastructure. She stated that she is willing to contribute to bring Smart Coast California to present to us and consult with us.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated that there may be some good aspects to this proposal as well as a lot of drawbacks, but there is so much to digest that she doesn’t fully comprehend it and hopes that there will be another opportunity before the ultimate meeting to have more questions answered. She feels for the people who live in areas that might become SRA’s. She has concerns about the process and if we don’t end up with a certified plan, asked where are we.
She stated there may be state money under SB 272 for coastal resiliency projects that we need that we may not qualify for if we don’t have a certified plan. She had concerns about the time, cost and resources needed to fund this new process. She is concerned about the trade-offs involved with the SRA’s and the information in the staff report seems very vague.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he was perplexed by the staff report indicating under “Alternative Options” it listed none identified. He thought that meant we are throwing out what we had been offering the Coastal Commission before and this is the only option we have. He also asked what the precedent is for an SRA. He stated that we need to have an LCLUP and is City Council Study Session 7 December 05, 2023
willing to go with what the Coastal Commisison is asking for. He stated that we need clarity and to be able to explain this to someone without a college degree, how it is going to personally impact them and be able to answer their questions and suggested a format for answering questions.
Kim Finale, Pacifica, stated that she requests that they do not hire a consultant that can provide a biased assessment of the route they need to take.
Roy Earnest, Pacifica, stated that infrastructure that is not talked about much is the beach and he would like to see a coastal plan that includes a section on how our community plans to preserve the beaches we have and restore some of the beaches we have lost if that is possible through beach nourishment or other strategies.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he saw the key foundational idea behind SRA’s is the SPD’s, the Shoreline Protection Devices, we call them seawalls, rip rap and berms, etc. The SRA’s are defined by the presence of a protective seawall or SPD. He pointed to an example of repeated wording in the document referring to maintenance or alteration of the existing SPD’s, but “existing” is a very fraught word in a legal sense and there is litigation around its meaning. He mentioned alteration, indicating that the compromise by the Coastal Commission offered to allow us to keep our existing seawalls and allow some maintenance and alteration of those existing seawalls, which sounds straightforward, but would like to know more clearly what those words actually mean – for example, mitigation with alteration. He would like more clarity and specificity on the definitions of these words.
Jeff Guillet, West Fairway Park, Pacifica, stated that he does not understand why West Fairway Park, which is a neighborhood a quarter-mile from the beach and 42 feet above sea level is not included in a carve-out and needs to be treated like it is right on the coast. He mentioned some confusion and disagreement with what the Coastal Commission says about SSMs, Substantial Structural Modifications, providing an example of impacts of the restrictions imposed by SSMs such as deed restrictions, indemnification of the city, impact on ability to obtain insurance, property values and causing blight. He mentioned a map used in the presentation showing encroachment of sea level rise in 100 years with a 100-year flood and all the sea level protections removed, e.g. the berm, stating that the berm exists and these Draconian restrictions are a big problem. He mentioned the concern about the Coastal Commission’s addition of 4-words, “… and tsunami evacuation areas” meaning the entired area is subject to these restrictions.
Richard Harris, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, stated that he provided a letter regarding an inconsistency in the definition of the Special Resiliency Area in the plan submitted to the Coastal Commission, where Sharp Park, Mori Point, Sharp Park Golf Course and the southern part of the Sharp Park District are in a single Special Resiliency Area, but in the plan presented tonight does not have that same definition, stating the inconsistency is at Clarendon Avenue.
He stated he has mapped it in the letter and objects to the new district because of that inconsistency and more.
Kathy Moresco, Pacifica, stated that she is concerned about the deed restriction because it would apply if you remodel your property and almost everything in West Sharp Park is old. She stated if you buy a property there and you want to fix it up, make it better, you will first need to get permits and then you get a deed restriction that makes the property worthless and people will be hesitant to want to improve their properties if they are going to lose their value, the ability to get loans, financing or insurance for it. She thinks the deed restriction will hurt Pacifica’s City Council Study Session 8 December 05, 2023
ability to improve and be a better city.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, stated that there can be no compromise on the October submittal. He thought the SRA’s are unacceptable, the entire city of Pacifica is a pre-existing use over which the Coastal Commission should have no jurisdiction stating that their demands are unfunded mandates with unacceptable consequences. He stated that right now the greatest threat to life and property is not sea level rise, but the Coastal Commission. He stated that we have the solutions to sea level rise – the new seawall connected to the golf course berm.
Ed Ochi, Pacifica, stated that he is concerned about the timeline for this plan, that it is the kind of plan that requires a good deal of assessment, review and evaluation and there are a lot of unanswered questions. He thought that making decisions at the third meeting without more time to discuss will lead to bad decisions. He mentioned concerns regarding some definitions that have not been fully spelled out. He stated that he heard discussions at his table and others that felt there was an “us versus them” factionalized feeling for different neighborhoods. He stated that more information needs to be provided on the cost implications. He emphasized that this is a city decision, not “us versus them” or a neighborhood decision.
Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments. Mayor Bigstyck thanked staff and the people who showed up to the meeting and that this was a really helpful step forward to making the best decision we can.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 01/08/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor