Pacifica City Council
March 2, 2024

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Terra Nova High School - Theater
1450 Terra Nova Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Study Session 1 March 02, 2024

SPECIAL MEETING
March 02, 2024 (SATURDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 2, 2024 at 9:30 AM 9:30 AM - OPEN SESSION
1A. CALL TO ORDER
City Clerk Coffey called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Deepa Sharma, Asst. City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Stefanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner; James Lin, Associate Planner; Katelyn Snodgrass, Assistant Planner; Jennifer Kent, Permit Technician; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk. 1B. READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.

2.INTRODUCTIONS AND MEETING OVERVIEW
City Clerk Coffey explained the process and location for all facilities. She then turned it over to the mayor.

Mayor Vaterlaus explained the meeting format and public comment guidelines.

City Council Study Session 2 March 02, 2024
Each Councilmember shared introductory remarks regarding the topic of this study session.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked that everyone be kind and respectful as they know they all have different opinions and are entitled to them. She thanked the Jefferson Union High School District for them being able to hold this meeting at this location. She thanked staff for their work in this process and all the community members present and on Zoom. She mentioned that this started in 2008 and is a long process.

3. STAFF PRESENTATION ON LCLUP UPDATE PROCESS

1. Study session to respond to community and City Council questions regarding the California Coastal Commission staff’s March 2023 suggested modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and the City’s potential alternative modifications, including the Special Resiliency Area policies.

Consider and provide direction on the potential alternative modifications.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff, hold a question and answer session for staff to respond to community questions, and provide direction on potential alternative modifications to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

City Manager Woodhouse welcomed everyone and thanked them all for taking the time to attend this important meeting. He stated that the LCLUP is a complex and challenging topic.

As a result of the December meeting, Council approved expanding the public engagement process to include this extra meeting, and with the numbers present and work done, he was hopeful that at the end of this meeting, the community has a clear understanding of the topic and know their input has been heard and Council is ready to move closer to submitting comments to the Coastal Commission to achieve a certified LCLUP in the best interest of the city while meeting the Coastal Commission’s requirement. Agreement by both agencies is the only path to the certified LCLUP which will require compromise with a certified LCLUP replacing the 1980 LCLUP and is critical to fulfilling Council’s vision for Pacifica’s future in the best interest of the entire Pacifica community. He thanked the community’s presence, all staff hard work on this, and Council’s energy and focus and resilience on this process, as well as the moderator Ryder Smith from Tripepi Smith.

Consultant Ryder Smith introduced himself and shared his Pacifica experience as well as their process. He then turned it over to Planning Director Murdock to begin the extensive presentation.

Planning Director Murdock introduced himself and his role in this process since he came to work in Pacifica in 2014, adding that he will be assisted by Sr. Planner Cervantes in the presentation and mentioned the process for the day’s agenda and background on the process up to the present agenda. He then presented the staff report.

4. CASE STUDIES

5. FAQ RESPONSES

6. LIVE Q&A FOR PUBLIC
Consultant Smith suggested that they address live questions, and if they run out of live questions, they will address frequently asked questions and set up the process to answer City Council Study Session 3 March 02, 2024
questions for staff only as public comments will be in the afternoon.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated he asked a specific question about the authority of the Coastal Commission and his answer he received.

Consultant Smith stated they would get back to his question after.

Marie Swan, Pacifica, asked how this relates to the sea wall at Sharp Park Beach in regard to existing buildings.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP is a policy document and can support or not support shoreline protection across the community. The plan they are talking about provides the fullest support that can be provided in the local plan for shoreline protection where the development is proposing the shoreline protection is eligible under the Coastal Act, i.e., current definition and law prior to 1977. This plan provides support, but specific sea walls are projectlevel decisions and not affected to approve or disapprove a sea wall. He stated that the Beach Blvd. Infrastructure Resiliency Project is not directly affected but supported by the LCLUP update policies.

Ms. Swan added that at the Beach Blvd. Resiliency meeting, there was a chart related to sea level rise and the engineer stated they lowered their projections for sea level rise, and she asked, if that is the case, why is this all about sea level rise.

Consultant Smith thought that question was regarding what projection are we using for sea level rise and what is the basis that they are trying to model around it which the Coastal Commission is also interested in using.

Planning Director Murdock responded that they are using the best available science to prepare these projections of sea level rise. The LCLUP is based off 2018 Ocean Protection Council sea level rise projections and they are updating those statewide. The projections applicable to the LCLUP may be lower than anticipated, but final adoption of that data has not yet occurred. He highlighted a key feature of the LCLUP is periodic updates and updating the hazard maps when new science projections are available.

Consultant Smith asked if the Coastal Commission was using the same 2018 data set for their analysis.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, as related to our LCLUP, that is the relevant controlling data now. They envision every five years, when new statewide data becomes available, amending this document to update the maps so they are making the best decisions on the best available information.

Mike Vernazza, Pacifica, thanked them for their work, and he asked if there was a scenario regarding the hazard zone area where they are not allowed to build, does it impact ability to collect property taxes, and if so, is there a scenario when Pacifica will be materially impacted by revenue by these properties.

Planning Director Murdock thought he touched on a complicated land use issue, i.e., question of takings. If any regulation says no development can occur on the property, a specific sequence of events by the City and City Attorney’s Office to figure out the true outcome. The questions arise of if they will insist on it and deal with the consequences of a taking or instead find some City Council Study Session 4 March 02, 2024
way to allow a minimum economic use of the property to avoid a taking. He thought most of the time some development is allowed. It may be a much smaller development pushed as far away from the hazard as possible, and they have to recognize that it may not be able to stay there indefinitely if the hazard advances over the life of that project. Obligations of deed restrictions, liability, etc., may require the owner to remove the development or further modify it as the hazard progresses; thus, most of the time, some development will be allowed and minimize the property tax impact to the city, but it is possible that ultimately people will choose not to develop.

He stated that they have not made that projection as it is a speculative long-term scenario.

Thus, there could be some impact, but probably minimal for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Vernazza asked if the city would end up being forced to buy the property.

Consultant Smith thought the response was that they would try to avoid that.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that agencies try to avoid takings by allowing whatever minimum development would avoid the takings legally.

Consultant Smith stated that he heard a different angle that there is also a bunch of infrastructure for the city now which could theoretically have to be picked up and moved. That has massive costs compared to in the protected areas where they could stay in place, adding capital improvement cost issues as well.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that, if the city had no ability to protect the infrastructure, a huge costly redesign and reconstruction of the city systems would need to occur. That is a long-term planning challenge requiring a lot of city focus and community involvement; that is not advocated for in the LCLUP. The LCLUP is trying to put in place policies that allow time for that type of planning to occur when it is determined that change to the city’s infrastructure is needed.

Bob Boles, Pacifica, stated he has a technical question about the definition of substantial structural modifications, i.e., regarding fire, if you have a small fire or bigger fire, some structure is going to have to be replaced even if you want to replace the building as it was before, and how does that fit in. Also, regarding termites and dry rot, you may not know if you have those problems until you start a project and pull off the siding, roofing, etc. and look at the structure underneath and could replace 50% of a building structure that you don’t know about when you start a project. He commented that the Building Code has some language about these issues and he hopes the Planning guidelines can conform with the Building Code so fewer discrepancies and uncertainties when you start projects.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they tried to note in the case study examples that there is currently an inconsistency in the policies between a full loss of destruction of a property that might result from fire or another disaster. The Coastal Act allows you to rebuild that, and they are pursuing adding that back into the SSM definition to be clear about that. He stated that what is not clear because the Coastal Act does not directly address it is what happens if part of your structure is damaged by a fire or some other type of disaster. Staff thought the normal development policies would apply and cover that. If it is less than 50% non-SSM restoration project or, if significant fire, dry rot or termite damage and 50% or more of the structural components of the property need to be removed or replaced, then it would trigger the SSM and associated new development-related policies that they discussed.

Sean Rhodes, Pacifica, asked why are the Coastal Commissioners never at these meetings to say where they are coming from so people can get an idea of what they are up to, as the City Council Study Session 5 March 02, 2024
terminology changes in the paperwork. He thought they should stand here and be asked questions and answer as well.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they invited the Coastal Commission to participate in this as well as prior community engagement sessions. He stated that staff is trying to relay back as much as they can directly from our community’s voice about these policy issues. He stated that it has been helpful in some cases to get them to recognize how important some of these key changes will be for Pacifica and how they can be deal breakers in some instances for Council.

He stated that staff is trying to be their conduit when they are not here to hear the community directly.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, eventually, our LCLUP will go before the Coastal Commission and that is a public meeting where the public can show up and ask questions directly to Coastal staff and Coastal Commission.

Margo Solimon, Pacifica, asked why they have to work with the Coastal Commission who is not present and does not know them. She asked if we can choose not work with them and just do what is in our city’s best interest. She thought they were trying to impose all of these regulations on homeowners and she asked why they do not build the sea wall stronger and protect all of us without putting it on individual homeowners.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Coastal Act was acted in 1976, creating the Coastal Commission. The state law empowers the Coastal Commission to regulate development, environmental protections, etc. in the coastal zone. They are operating from this high level, overarching state law that empowers the Coastal Commission to have authority in these areas.

The Coastal Act also provides requirements for incorporated jurisdictions like Pacifica and counties, local agencies, to have local coastal programs. They talked about what those mean, i.e., broad policy documents, zoning, etc. and empowers the Coastal Commission to determine if those local plans consistent with the Coastal Act and includes a requirement that the Coastal Commission certify those policies and plans before they can take effect. That is why they have to work in partnership with the Coastal Commission and not against it, and mutual agreement is needed between the agencies before any of these policies can take effect in our local plan. He stated that they cannot just build a sea wall they may want to protect our community because a) the Coastal Commission has a retained permit jurisdiction in areas below the mean high tide and in other areas where sea walls typically are constructed and they may need to get a direct permit from that agency and b) any other projects the city might approve would be appealable to the Coastal Commission in those locations. One way or the other, they are dealing with the Coastal Commission and they need to reach an agreement in relation to those kinds of policy documents or sea wall permitting decisions.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated that the people who empowered the Coastal Act are the voters and it was intended to protect the beaches and public land against development that would erode that. He stated that the construction of the special resiliency zone says that Pacifica will put certain areas of the coast in exclusion of the Coastal Act. He asked if they have determined how much legal liability that puts the city in with the Coastal Commission and for how long.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they have been working on these policies in very close coordination with Coastal Commission staff. These policies require a different approach to Coastal Act compliance, called the conflict resolution process, to harmonize different Coastal Act policies. They focus a lot today and other times on policies related to no shoreline protection for new development, existing development, etc. He stated that there are other City Council Study Session 6 March 02, 2024
Coastal Act policies about infrastructure protection, protection of coastal access, and protection of visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone that can support shoreline protection. He stated that in Pacifica’s two neighborhoods, those are at conflict. These SRA policies are coming out of that conflict resolution process and that discussion is very close with the Coastal Commission so they can do this in a way that is compliant with the Coastal Act so there is not that liability or enforcement threat he alluded to if they were trying to unilaterally pursue such policies.

Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, asked when they expect these policies to go into force.

Planning Director Murdock thought the timeline is important to all of us. He stated that, ultimately, that will be a decision for Council to determine how to proceed following this meeting.

He stated that there is a scenario in which he can imagine these policies taking effect before the end of this calendar year if all goes as planned. He stated that there are other scenarios that could push this into later years before they have an LCLUP update which he hopes is not the outcome of this process, but potentially as soon as the end of this year if Council supports this approach and they find their way to the Coastal Commission before the end of the year.

Consultant Smith added that the potential variability in that timeline could be subject to Coastal Commission action or to potential lawsuits that may be raised by one party or another in the process.

Planning Director Murdock stated, on the policy side, decisions could be made for more community engagement. There could be a decision to not pursue these policies and pursue something else, and that will take time to analyze and bring back to Council and the community.

What staff has been doing and the way they have been framing this process is to complete the 2008/2009 LCLUP update process to get the 2020 approval from Council certified by Coastal Commission to conclude the process. Anything else would be a new process and they would have to figure out the timeline for that.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if Planning Director Murdock could describe the basic procedural steps about when the document is finally adopted and is in effect.

Planning Director Murdock explained that, when the local process concludes, they will transmit a certain request in this process that they mapped out to the Coastal Commission. There will be a certification hearing or hearings and, if they make a decision to certify the LCLUP, he thought in every scenario they will have changes to what Council approved in 2020 and to bring it back to Council for final action to take effect in Pacifica.

Ms. Greene asked to include language in the official documents that any project permitted before it goes into effect that may be ongoing are under the old laws, as the community needs to know what the laws are to protect them moving forward.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was important to note that, if and when the policies take effect, there is not a trigger that something will happen to anybody; no one from the city or Coastal Commission will come to their property to say they are over the SSM 50% and require reconstruction. He stated that it becomes relevant if people decide a year up to ten years down the road to do a project, they will come to Planning Department and they will hear the facts and refer to a specific policy and view their options. They can then choose to pursue the project and make the necessary changes or choose to do a different project that will not trigger the threshold. Staff is there to give them their options.

City Council Study Session 7 March 02, 2024
Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, thought that when they answer questions, it is a one-sided conversation.

She would like to know why, in the process, there is no planning for a community-driven study of the original Coastal Commission policy. Since the Coastal Commission was voted in, she did not think it was conforming to its original parameters it was voted to uphold. The state’s sea level guidance is supposedly the science behind the policy moves, but the document states scientists disagree on this matter after 30 years. She asked if there can be a written study from the community in the document to speak for themselves.

Planning Director Murdock thought he would need a better understanding of the type of study she is referring to, and he would encourage her to follow up after the meeting or write to them on [email protected]. They will look at the specifics if they have an idea or study that would help the process. He stated that the process has been a product of many studies so far, including technical hazard analysis, vulnerability assessments, etc., related to development in the coastal zone. He recommended if they have specific ideas that might help them get to a conclusion in the process that they submit them to staff.

Michael Bookman, Pacifica, stated that we are not the only coastal city in California and he asked how this is handled in other cities and are the resiliency zones in Pacifica special or something being done in other areas that we can replicate.

Planning Director Murdock stated that cities up and down the coast are trying to undertake this process and we are somewhere in the middle of the jurisdictions in the coastal zone trying to achieve success with a comprehensive LCLUP update. New laws take effect, money comes from the state to put policies in place; that happened shortly after the Coastal Act was enacted and that is why there are a lot of 1980s/1990s LCLUPs , including ours, and why a lot of cities are undertaking major updates now, as a big chunk of funding came from the state several years ago to update plans to reflect sea level rise and climate change. He stated that those ahead of us have not had great success with the Coastal Commission. To simplify it, Coastal Commission has insisted on a one size fits all approach and tried to ram the policies into effect with more restrictive type of policies; communities have reacted negatively to that because they are worried about the loss in their community and loss of development. Many of those communities have chosen to withdraw their applications, regroup, and come back later. Pacifica has had the benefit of learning from their experiences and the benefit of cities and other interested parties working together with the Coastal Commission to think of new ways forward.

Neighborhood level adaptation has been the leading effort in this, as well as elevating the conversations to higher levels in the Coastal Commission leadership. Pacifica is at the forefront, being among the first cities to potentially take these kinds of special resiliency areas or neighborhood carve-out policies to the Coastal Commission for action. He stated this is a potential way to move forward to tailor all these to parts of communities that need a different approach, such as West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach.

Mr. Bookman asked, if we are the first to do this, would that put us in a legal liability that we would be bearing the cost and is there any benefit in continuing to see what other cities do.

Planning Director Murdock did not know where the legal liability is in this, as Pacifica is undertaking a plan update using the standard process and would be getting certification from the Coastal Commission as part of the required process. If Pacifica were to impose or implement policies that were not certified by the Coastal Commission, there can be liability and enforcement penalties from the Coastal Commission. We are playing by the rules and explore new creative approaches that could be consistent with the Coastal Act.

City Council Study Session 8 March 02, 2024
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that there was a very disturbing new policy from the state in response to housing crisis called builder’s remedy, which is threatening to ram through a lot of projects that may undermine our local control and threaten our hills and hillside preservation.

He asked if this has any effect in the coastal zone.

Planning Director Murdock did not identify a situation aligned with what he described. He stated that some people characterize the builder’s remedy as it relates to Housing Element compliance, not Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

Consultant Smith stated, to summarize the question, he thought the question is if someone was coming in with a builder’s remedy project, assuming someone could make that application, could someone try to put in an application for a builder’s remedy project inside the coastal zone that would bypass Coastal Commission approval for that particular coastal development.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is a very complex question and he thinks the simple answer is probably not. The projects still need to be consistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. They also need to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated that every time they deal with the Coastal Commission, they come back with new increasing demands. If Pacifica were to approve this SRA idea, who is to say they will not come back with another set of new demands that have never been seen before.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was easy to generalize the Coastal Commission but it was important to recognize their Coastal Commission staff and Coastal Commissioners who form the Coastal Commission. They are often in alignment, and sometimes they reach different conclusions on a particular issue. Pacifica has been working in very close coordination with the Coastal Commission staff; they are using their best professional judgment and experience, as Pacifica staff are, to hammer out areas of compromise so both agencies can agree on an update set of policies that both agencies can adopt. He thinks they are setting up a process by working cooperatively and productively with the Coastal Commission staff to minimize the potential for that to occur.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated that she felt the facilitator seems to have a bias in his responses and she is looking for a neutral and transparent process. She stated that several biases have come from city staff as well, and she would like to hear these things put forward more neutrally to be inclusive.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the Zoom speakers.

Jaroslav Brych, Pacifica, would like to know how the sea wall fits into this plan. His understanding is that the science shows the wall has nothing to lessen the force of the wave, and it impacts more the beaches down the coast so they can save one place but negatively impact neighboring regions.

Planning Director Murdock stated they are here to recognize that shoreline protection structures like sea walls do have impacts on the coastline, and those impacts are required to be mitigated through the permitting, construction, and ongoing maintenance operation of the structures. The Coastal Commission has gotten better in incorporating required mitigations over the years, as they have learned more through the course of decades about permitting these and the subsequent effects. He thought what they were trying to reflect in today’s discussion is there are existing shoreline protection structures that are present in our community. To analyze City Council Study Session 9 March 02, 2024
hazards and new development potential as though they are not there, even though they are very likely to remain for decades to come, given the core infrastructure and streets and developments they protect as it is, is a sort of unreality in the LCLUP process that they are trying to reconcile with the Coastal Commission in select portions of our town because the adverse impacts of moving or analyzing as though the walls are not there are significant. It is a policy question for Council, but in his professional judgment, those are adverse impacts on our community inland of the shoreline. He stated that it is ultimately a balancing act. If they were to armor the entirety of Pacifica, huge coastal resource impacts would occur. That is not what anyone is advocating for and not what the plan would say in any version contemplated.

Mike McCarthy, Pacifica, referred to the SRAs proposed and knows we are one of the early cities contemplating such a thing. He asked what projections staff has come up with regarding how the SRA will impact our property values and what the projections for people in the SRA zones are to be able to insure and finance their properties.

Planning Director Murdock replied that it is a citywide policy document and is not imposing policies directly related to insurability, property value, or the ability to lend or get a loan on a particular property. He stated this plan was trying to modernize, to recognize the science, to reflect where hazards are present already in the coastal zone based on publicly available information that is already out there about these hazards. That same information is available to insurers, lenders, and others to make their decisions. He thought we are newer to the game and reflecting and confronting the impact of coastal hazards in our community, but he thought it was helpful to think of this situation similarly to the evolving understanding of wildfire hazards across our state. He stated that few communities have correct or up-to-date fire hazard maps, but they know insurers and lenders are making informed decisions about wildfire risk, losses they experienced, etc., not directly related to any sort of local government policy document.

Private property owners offering to buy properties and lenders looking to loan on property or insurers looking to insure they are going to make their own decisions based on their business needs and the information they typically consider in making those kinds of decisions.

Naikaly, Pacifica, understood the Coastal Commission must uphold the Coastal Act which says they need to protect structures built before 1977. For the community, she thought one of the biggest concerns is preserving the pier and sewer line, which was built after the Commission going into place in 1977. She stated that the Coastal Act says sea walls shall be permitted to protect existing structures. Her question is about property rights, as potentially one of the provisions for SSM requirements would be to remove Section 30312, and she read the specific requirements. She asked about private homes that have been on the Palmetto area before the Coastal Commission pre-1977 and does it allow the city to push back some of the requests that the Commission is asking for.

Planning Director Murdock thought anybody could look at the Coastal Act and find a provision that supports their particular position. The art is balancing the various provisions in the Coastal Act that would result in different outcomes. His opinion is that the Coastal Commission, in recent history, has balanced it more on the coastal resource protection side, rather than the development protection and construction side. That was a policy call that the agency is entitled to make resulting from the appointments the Governor, Assembly, and Senate are making to the Coastal Commissioners. He stated that those interpretations in the policy balance changes over time but is currently balanced towards the environmental and coastal resources side.

Thus, he said the question of shoreline protection structures authorized to protect existing development is subject to much consternation. He stated that January 1, 1977, is an interpretation of the Coastal Act on what existing development means by the Coastal City Council Study Session 10 March 02, 2024
Commission, and people have and are continuing to litigate that question; it is a question for the courts and legislature to sort out. He stated that the city is currently bound by this interpretation of January 1, 1977, and they are trying to operate in good faith based on that. Relating to property rights, he thinks Council previously indicated that property rights is a key theme in the LCLUP from their perspective, and figuring out ways to be most protective of property rights in our community was an important theme while balancing environmental and other resource protection considerations. He stated that they are exploring ways with Coastal Commission staff to potentially put special resiliency area policies in place that would allow the reflection that existing shoreline protection is having a protective impact on properties in the areas identified.

If that were to take effect, it would provide more development potential with fewer hoops to jump through for properties in those areas subject to those policies where the rest of the city would be subject to the baseline policy approach that the Coastal Commission has pushed for. He stated, if she thinks a different outcome needs to apply from the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act, those are legislative questions, and she would need to talk to her elected Assemblymember, Senator, and Governor to change the Coastal Act or the appointments to the Coastal Commission to get a different outcome. He stated that staff is trying to operate within the conditions that they are today.

Irene Lee, Pacifica, thanked them for the meeting and allowing her participation. She asked which agency is the final determinator for drawing the redline on the hazard zone and how often is it updated.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the redline she is referring to is one of the coastal vulnerability zones in the city’s maps projecting coastal erosion, using the best available science at the time, notably the Ocean Protection Council sea level rise projection. He stated that the redline was drawn as a product of a city-led process with the consultant hired by the city, highly qualified coastal and geotechnical engineers using their expertise to use the data available to project the hazard zone on a citywide basis. He stated that site specific analyses could result in different specific line drawing on a specific property, and the LCLUP contemplates that. He stated that the maps are intended to be a filter of where further site-specific analysis is needed and where it may be foregone to extreme line or make the development process quicker and less expensive. Staff is envisioning those maps being updated every 5-10 years to reflect the best available science. They talked briefly earlier about an update coming to the sea level rise projections in the near future to update the 2018 data. He stated that, as new science and new data that is accepted as the best available science becomes available, the city can make a decision to update those maps and see if the lines would result in different places, meaning different policy outcomes would result if the lines were changed. He stated that is one of the benefits of this document, i.e. be able to undertake periodic updates to reflect the changing dynamic nature of the Coastal Act.

Consultant Smith stated that they are now going to back to frequently asked questions.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are trying to make this an accessible and informative process. He stated that they received numerous questions in advance of today’s meeting.

They are focusing on answering questions now that were submitted in advance after the agenda was published. He stated that they received more than 140 questions before the agenda packet was published and have answered those questions to the best of their ability in the staff report.

He is focusing now on those that were submitted after agenda publication.

Planning Director Murdock began with the first theme: Fiscal Impacts/Economic Vitality. The questions included:

City Council Study Session 11 March 02, 2024
• What will the City do to protect this revenue and challenge the CCC proposal or, alternately, if the coast is not maintained, how does Pacifica plan to fill that potentially enormous budgetary shortfall?
• How will the planned Special Resiliency Area (SRA) impact the economic vitality of our Sharp Park neighborhood?
• How will the SRA impact West Sharp Park home values?
• What are the projections for the SRA with regards to individuals being able to finance and insure their homes and properties?
He answered that the insurers, lenders, and purchasers are making their own decisions based on the information they have. He added that the information in this plan is distilled and analyzed from publicly available information. All the insurers, lenders and purchasers have access to that information. Staff thinks the special resiliency area policies will provide better development potential and maybe greater property values for those properties subject to the policies than those with more restrictive policies. Ultimately, property values vary for different reasons.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the second theme: Development/Open Space. The questions included:
• What is the intent for the City to develop more undeveloped land that is not being used now? How will this impact our City’s open space?
• What undeveloped land is going to be at risk now? How can we stop new development? He thought the updated LCLUP will have more policies to clearly protect environmental resources. The city cannot make all privately owned land open space and prohibit developments of any kind. It is a balance, and the city needs to allow economic use of individual private property owner’s property but can make development of those properties to reasonable regulations, such as avoiding adverse impact to environmental resources, many policies which would be implemented through the LCLUP update. He highlighted the quarry in the presentation, which was a subject of a lot of community interest, and there is a balance in that site where they see reddish pink areas indicated in the LCLUP for visitor-serving commercial development in the future and the green areas as conservation area to not be developed and protected into the future. He stated that up and down our coast in this plan is a balance of protection and reasonable development.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the third theme: Responding to CCC Suggested Modifications. The questions included:
• Has the City responded to these comments? How is the CCC direction being incorporated into the final LCLUP?
• What is the true reason for the CCC changing the LCP that the City of Pacifica so tirelessly worked on to present to them, and that the People of Pacifica agreed to? He thought the questions related to the March 2023 suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission. He also noted they had already touched on some of the reasons for Coastal Commission staff releasing those suggested modifications which include changes to the city’s February 2020 version which they think are needed to achieve Coastal Act compliance. He stated that we are having this process to specifically figure out how the city should respond to the March 2023 suggested modifications. In the staff report packet, staff, through its own work City Council Study Session 12 March 02, 2024
and close coordination with Coastal Commission staff, has prepared a series of alternative modifications that they think Council should consider sending back to the Coastal Commission in response to their work. He stated that discussion is ongoing and Council will ultimately give us direction on how that should proceed. He referred to the second question and stated that the reason we are doing this work is that the Coastal Commission have said the plan that came out of the city’s process in February 2020 is not consistent with the Coastal Act. He stated that the question is to what degree does it need to change and are there other compromises other than what the Coastal Commission identified in March 2023 that it could change and still be found to be Coastal Act compliant. He stated that those are the key conversations and considerations that they are undertaking now.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the fourth theme: Deed Restrictions and SSMs. The questions included:
• To require a deed restriction and the signature of an assumption of risk waiver seems like the CCC is overreaching and expects Pacifica to enforce this overreach. Has the City Attorney reviewed this proposal and weighed in on the legality of it? What about my 5 th Amendment rights as a property owner? Does Pacifica think it is immune to lawsuits in regards to this type of overreach?
• When does the ‘clock’ start for Substantial Structural Modification? Will it be applied retrospectively to nonconforming home improvements made prior to LCLUP approval? • What happens when an SSM is “triggered”? Will something right away? He referred to the first question on deed restrictions and substantial structural modifications or SSMs. He stated that the Coastal Commission is the state agency in power under the Coastal Act to enforce and administer and interpret the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission has used a deed restriction tool for a while to implement one of the key provisions in the Coastal Act, i.e., that new development shall be designed not to need shoreline structures. Deed restrictions are used at various levels of government, including by the city in some cases when it acts on development to provide notice to current and future property owners of important limitations on the use of their property. The deed restriction is a reasonable mechanism used by various government agencies, including the Coastal Commission. Through the LCLUP, the city would make wider use of that to put on notice current and future property owners that they have waived their rights to future shoreline protection, which is a Coastal Act interpretation that is reasonable even though some people do not like the outcome of that, but is provided for in the Coastal Act in plain language. Relating to legal liability and lawsuits, the courts over time have consistently upheld reasonable government regulations of developments and mitigations and deed restrictions, etc., that are needed to manage and respond to the impacts of development to mitigate significant impacts identified and staff was not seeing any issue with this approach.

He addressed the next two questions. He stated that the starting date is available permit records from the city or Coastal Commission. Those permit records are inconsistent for some properties. They are left with the available records they have to try to make informed decisions and determinations. He stated that they will have to establish a baseline based on whatever permitting records or other reasonable information they have available and compare it to a proposed development based in the plan information submitted. They will have to work carefully on a site-by-site basis when a development is proposed to determine whether they think the SSM definition will be exceeded or not and to have that conversation with the property owner so they can make informed decisions about how to proceed. He stated that is in conjunction with wanting to undertake a new project for a property. He emphasized that there is no trigger when the LCLUP is certified. When that time occurs where the city will require changes to property because the plan has been adopted, they are not coming to say that City Council Study Session 13 March 02, 2024
property owners committed an SSM violation and must change their property. He referred to possible limitations that will be in place on further modifications to property, which would come out of this modernized LCLUP. However, if you have a property that is legal in its current form because you obtained relevant permits, the city will not make you do anything different to your property through adoption of this plan.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the fifth theme: Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs) and Post-LCLUP Approval. The questions included:
• Why is the City selling out some neighborhoods to get the SRAs? • What happens after LCLUP adoption?
Planning Director Murdock clarified that he would not characterize this situation as selling out some neighborhoods to get the SRAs. He stated that, if they follow the sequence of events relative to the LCLUP update, the March 2023 modifications from the Coastal Commission were written in response to the city’s February 2020 City Council approval document. He stated that the city had a pro-development, pro-protection LCLUP, and the Coastal Commission has commented on that in some very important ways that will require a compromised approach. He stated that the Coastal Commission modifications would put it much more to a less protected policy posture and approach reflective of their interpretation and application of the Coastal Act.

Staff is exploring in response to that March 2023 set of comments new ways to provide greater protections and greater development potential for some of our neighborhoods, such as West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach, through this SRA concept. He stated that nothing is being made more restrictive for any of our neighborhoods in order to get the SRA. The SRA will be a net benefit for those areas from the policies by being able to consider protection from existing shoreline protection structure when performing their hazard analyses. They would expect, in most cases, less hazard and more development potential on the property subject to the SRA policies. It is not coming at the expense of other neighborhoods, even though not all neighborhoods will get the benefit of SRA policies. He stated that, in his professional opinion, they will not get SRAs or something like it for the entirety of our city. He added that they need to figure out the next best compromising approach to get them to a certified LCLUP and be a document that Council and our community can support. He stated that they think the SRAs could be that approach and why they have put significant staff work in exploring that policy framework with the Coastal Commission. Regarding the question of what happens after LCLUP adoption, in the SRAs, that would mean coastal hazard analysis can reflect protection from existing shoreline protection structures in the SRA areas. More broadly after LCLUP adoption, if you have a property and are not looking to undertake development, nothing changes for you, but what changes is if you want to undertake a new project or improve your property, new requirements and potentially new restrictions will apply. That is the fact of a new LCLUP policy reflecting 40+ years of Coastal Commission interpretation, policy, and practice, and a heightened understanding of hazards in the world as it exists in this very dynamic and hazard prone coastal zone. He added that after LCLUP adoption the city has a lot of work to do to update zoning and other policy and programs and implement the LCLUP. They city also has an obligation, if the SRAs are enacted, to put together a shoreline management plan to do visitor amenity improvements, to identify areas where armoring over the long term could be removed or modified to reduce or minimize coastal resource impacts, and to periodically update the hazard maps based on new science, which is a lot of work to make this LCLUP a living document in a way that the 1980 LCLUP has not been. They want to do better with the new LCLUP, having a routine of periodic updates.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the sixth theme: Sharp Park Specific Plan, City Council Study Session 14 March 02, 2024
Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue property, and Specific Project Questions. The questions included:
• How does the LCLUP square up with the Sharp Park Specific Plan? • Questions related to Pedro Point
o Calson Property
• Questions related to specific shoreline protection projects and impacts He stated that, broadly, we need the up-to-date LCLUP to reset the baseline on a citywide basis so the more specific policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, more detailed zoning, more detailed site design, architectural design, transportation and other policies can then be integrated into the LCLUP with a subsequent LCP amendment with the Coastal Commission.

He stated that they need this first to enable the Sharp Park Specific Plan to then be worked on and certified with the Coastal Commission. He then referred to a second series of summarized questions related to Pedro Point and the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, otherwise known as Calson Property. Several of the questions asked were why is the city allowing certain development potential there and why is the city not doing more to protect the known environmental resources and wetlands on the site. He responded to that by saying that the Council has considered this issue extensively leading up to the February 2020 approval and they ended up in a place through the policy that is in the LCLUP to allow reasonable development potential at that property, which the city needs to do, but at the very low end of the range of residential development in that land use which calls for mixed use, commercial and residential, and explicitly put into place policies ensuring the recognition of potential wetlands and other environmental resources and other coastal hazards present on the property. He stated, if and when development is proposed at a site level on that site, it would be allowable within the range of uses and densities but also would undergo very detailed environmental and hazard technical analyses to conclude exactly what areas of the site would be suitable for development. He stated that, with questions related to specific shoreline protection projects and impacts and city infrastructure, they received a variety of questions, i.e., what about a specific property, specific sea wall, etc. He added that those are very project- and site-specific and they do not have the ability to provide all those answers because they are project-level issues that need to be analyzed at the project level. He stated that at the policy level, which is where the LCLUP is, there is ongoing support for shoreline protection where properties would be eligible and where city infrastructure would be eligible, consistent with the Coastal Act. There are robust policies to protect environmental resources where possible, which is a balancing act and set of tradeoffs.

Planning Director Murdock concluded with the seventh theme: Case Study Questions. The questions included:
• Say a 1,000 square foot (sf) building was built in 1945. Then in 1975 the owner obtained a building permit and the building was legally enlarged to 1,800 sf, which is more than a 50% modification. Does this past action automatically trigger SSM now in 2024? • Say a 1,000-sf building was built in 1965. Then in 1985, the owner did not get a building permit, but enlarged the property to 1,750 sf. Does this illegal remodel if discovered now by the City automatically trigger SSM? Even if the current owner is not making any changes now?
• Say a 1,000-sf building was built in 1970. Then in 1985 the owner obtained a building permit and the building was legally enlarged to 1,200 sf. Now, the current owner proposes to enlarge it again, this time to 1,600 sf. Does this request trigger SSM? City Council Study Session 15 March 02, 2024
He stated to take a careful look at case studies 2 and 3 in relation to non-SSM and SSM development, as they are looking at the available permit history to make those determinations on whether an SSM would apply; in some cases, development would be more or less restricted based on the outcome of that analysis, as well as the presence of coastal hazards. With any individual property owner with questions, staff would invite them to come to the Planning Department, and they will do their best to give them answers to those hypotheticals in relation to their specific property.

Planning Director Murdock stated, to wrap up this session of the meeting, he wanted to reinforce some key points in LCLUP update from the city staff’s perspective. Modernization of a 40+ year old LCLUP will bring with it new requirements, which includes Coastal Act interpretations from the Coastal Commission that have revolved over 40+ years. It is important to recognize our 1980 LCLUP was certified just a few years after the Coastal Act took effect, and they are getting an update on what the Coastal Commission has learned in 40+ years of administering the Coastal Act in the coastal zone. The reality is that they have to incorporate a lot of those lessons into our new plan, and it will also reflect updated science in coastal hazard understandings that were not available in 1980 and need to be incorporated into a new modernized LCLUP. He stressed that it is important to recognize a fundamental Coastal Act principle does not allow new development to rely on new or existing shoreline protection and we need to figure out how to recognize that and work with it. One way to work with it is to work with the Coastal Commission and their staff on compromise approaches, potentially including the special resiliency area and SRA policies, where we can use a different approach to Coastal Act compliance in a narrow subset of our community, in this case, West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach. He stated that it is innovative and maybe we can be one of the first communities in California to get such policies and are exploring that as part of this LCLUP update process. He expressed the importance to note in responding to the FAQs is that deed restrictions waving rights to shoreline protection and assuming risk are the new normal to implement the Coastal Act. He stated that it is a reasonable mechanism, supported by the law, implementing the Coastal Act to put current and future owners on notice about limitations on shoreline protection relative to development. In the context of triggers if the plan is adopted, when you decide to undertake a project in the future that may be a component of any potential approval you, as a property owner, will need to make an informed decision whether to move forward with the project in this new policy framework and accept everything that comes along with it or to choose not to undertake the project. He stated that inconsistency with the 2040 General Plan adopted in 2022 will become increasingly challenging over time. Where there are conflicts between the 1980 LCLUP and the city’s 2040 General Plan, the 1980 LCLUP and the coastal zone will need to continue to take precedence. That limits the ability of the city to implement the variety of key changes that were the product of that extensive General Plan updated process, many of which are carried forward in the new LCLUP. New land use, environmental protections, mixed use, revitalization of our neighborhoods, provision of housing and affordable housing opportunities, strengthening the city’s tax base and economic development will all continue to be limited if we operate under a 1980 LCLUP as compared to updating it and aligning it with the 2040 General Plan. He added that an update to our LCLUP is coming regardless of what we do in this particular moment in time. State law enacted at the end of last year, Senate Bill 272, requires this type of LCLUP update by January 1, 2034. We have no indication that conditions for that update will be more favorable then than they are now. When every coastal zone community or many of them will be rushing by the deadline to update their LCLUPs to comply with state law, he thinks we are less likely to get the kind of individual attention from the Coastal Commission in the future as we have now and we should try to take advantage of that now. He was hopeful that they can find a way as a community with City Council support and working with the Coastal City Council Study Session 16 March 02, 2024
Commission to find compromise and move this process forward.

7. LUNCH BREAK
Consultant Smith thanked everyone for the excellent questions asked and the thorough answers provided and they will break for lunch and return at approximately 1:00 p.m., moving from Q&A and public comment into providing effective feedback.

8. STAFF PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATIONS Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting and mentioned the agenda going forward and asked Councilmembers if they had any changes.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked that they have another live Q&A for public before going to staff presentation.

City Manager Woodhouse asked clarification that she was asking for a third item on the agenda and then continue with the original agenda which will also include a public comment Q&A and it will compress the Council deliberation and direction at the end of the meeting.

Councilmember Boles thought this was good to give the public the opportunity to comment and maybe reduce the public comments and questions later.

Mayor Vaterlaus proposed two minutes for each commenter/questioner.

City Manager stated that they are adding a new agenda item and they would need a vote to add it to the agenda.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer moved to add another agenda item 7A with a 2-minute public comment and Q&A period; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

MOVE TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 7A (WITH 2-MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT AND Q&A

PERIOD)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor Vaterlaus then mentioned the revised agenda.

Planning Director Murdock stated what they were imagining for the public comment/Q&A was they will note questions during the course of the comment period, not provide answers immediately for each commenter.

Mayor Vaterlaus clarified that their questions will not be answered immediately but the staff responses to questions raised in public comments will take place after. They will finish with Council deliberation at 4:00 p.m.

City Council Study Session 17 March 02, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENT AND Q&A FOR PUBLIC
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he was pleased that the city has articulated alternatives to the Coastal Commission staff suggested modifications. He thought everyone is concerned that this process is taking a long time and struggling with the dilemma that the LCLUP is essential for the city to move ahead but complying with state law and regulatory guidance may compromise some plans. He see two paths: continued protractive debate on specifics, most stalled for years, and on this path they would have no LCLUP for the foreseeable future; and the other path promises a certified LCLUP right away where Coastal Commission staff recommended that their modified version be approved by the Commission and we are close, as most of the suggested modifications are already deemed acceptable by the city and only 30 remain. He stated that our LCLUP will not be static and as said by staff; amendments are common. The SRAs fit into this plan and the Coastal Commission staff encouraged that we consider that we can make future modifications after the LCP is certified.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated that the city keeps misrepresenting a taking. He shared his thoughts regarding changing the land use designation for places like the Pedro Point field to residential and felt that upfront hazard and environmental analysis cannot be deferred when changing the land use designation.

Allison West, Pacifica, stated that the Coastal Act mandates the California Coastal Commission protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the state’s coastal resources, and they are an agency. She stated it was misleading to say they invited them because their job is not to show up here as the courts are not coming here when it is a judicial issue. She stated that over the past ten years in Pedro Point, they have provided expert reports on biology, CEQA from experts, and legal opinions about the undeveloped property on San Pedro Avenue, and feels that the city ignores the reports and is not paying attention to a tsunami evacuation area, flood zone and habitats, and CEQA.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, stated her comment is similar to what the previous commenters pointed out, i.e., on the undeveloped property on San Pedro Avenue. She submitted a question asking why they would change to the land use designation to coastal residential mixed use from its current land use. She stated that it is a hazard zone, a tsunami evacuation area, and a flood area. The answer she heard was that the number of residences that will be built will be reduced, but she asked why is there any number of residences, people, and property that they would put in harm’s way.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated that vilifying the Coastal Commission is not going to get them to a solution. The spirit of the Coastal Act is to preserve our public lands against private interests who would destroy them. He agreed that people have a right to protect their property, but when they talk about allowing revetments, protections, and arming against the beach, they know the science shows they will erode the beach and asked who that would benefit. He stated that 53% of the homes on Beach Blvd. are unhosted STRs and he has severe misgivings about underwriting our community and underwriting corporate STRs on Beach Blvd. He stated that, when the plan is emphasizing development, he asked for whom that development benefit and at what cost.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, pointed out that the coastal vulnerability maps that staff repeatedly refers to are not supposed to be used for planning and procedures and are invalid. He stated that ESA was hired to produce these maps in 2018 and the original maps had a disclaimer at the top City Council Study Session 18 March 02, 2024
saying that the erosion scenario does not account for shoreline protections but shoreline protections do exist and he thought the red line on the maps predicting where shoreline erosion would reach in 2100 are wrong. He added that the CVZ maps are not using the best available science that the LCLUP claims to use. He stated that ESA used Ocean Protection Council’s State of California sea level rise guidance 2018 update and asked how OPC’s new State of California sea level rise guidance 2024 affects this plan.

Richard Harris, San Francisco, with the SF Public Golf Alliance, stated he has emailed and mailed a letter on the special resiliency areas, saying that the southern part of Sharp Park, mostly the golf course, and the West Fairway Park subdivision meet all the criteria that the draft LCP sets for the coastal resiliency areas. This is low income and low cost public recreation protected under the Coastal Act and Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy and Pacifica City Council’s policies for the drafting of the resiliency. He added that the city’s critical infrastructure runs through that policy and is documented in his letters.

Jennifer Smith, Pacifica, asked three questions: 1) How were the SRAs determined (such as only neighborhoods with public use areas)? 2) Can you provide a real world example of the risk of not having the Coastal Commission certify this updated plan (such as risking state and federal funding)? and 3) Why did it take so long to get from a 2009 start to this point of approval for an updated plan today?
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, referred to Figure 4.3, ESHAs (environmental sensitive habitat and restoration) and references inside the document. She filed comments in 2020 saying the document was not updated and ESHAs that have been identified by the Coastal Commission are included in the updates. She shares the desire of Council that they move forward with an LCLUP that is as solid as possible and not challenged in court and asked that they update the language to reflect that the Pedro Point field is a known ESHA.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comment.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would try to provide answers to some questions he noted mixed in with the comments.
• Does the public get compensation for the lands lost in sea walls and other shoreline protection devices?
He stated yes, in a sense. During the Coastal Commission permitting process, one component is a calculation of sand mitigation fees and they use a process to calculate how much sand will be lost as a result of a shoreline protection device being constructed. It requires payment of a fee by the applicant for that to offset impacts. He does not have full information on how those fees are used, but they may help provide grants to construct other types of coastal access points in the vicinity. It is a question for Coastal Commission for a full answer. He stated that there is a legal process to some extent but not providing access to those lands immediately fronting the shoreline protection devices that over the long term no longer create accessibility to the public.
• Regarding disclaimers on the coastal vulnerability zone maps, why is staff talking about them having value or effect in the process?
He read a portion of the disclaimer: “the CVZ maps are not detailed to the parcel scale and shouldn’t be used for real estate, finance or insurance transactions, or navigation, permitting or City Council Study Session 19 March 02, 2024
regulatory uses.” He also read another portion: “to confirm vulnerability potential, further studies should be performed for the CVZs. CVZ projections were sourced from publicly available data and existing models not created by Pacifica.” He stated that they were using these and other maps in the LCLUP as a screening tool to determine where further analysis is required. They are not using them to make permitting decisions or proposing to use them to make permitting decisions that would run afoul of the disclaimer. They are using it as a tool to determine where further site-specific analysis as described.
• Do the coastal vulnerability maps use the best available science? He stated, in the time period they were prepared, they used the 2018 Ocean Protection Council’s (OPC) sea level rise data. There is a process to update those to the 2024 OPC data.

When the projections are finalized, that would trigger a process for Pacifica if the LCLUP were in place to update the maps and ensure they reflect the best available science as in effect at that time. As the new projections are not in effect, it would be premature to base maps off those.
• Why could the text not be updated to reflect environmentally sensitive habitat areas beyond developed San Pedro Avenue site?
He stated they could consider that, but they have not done the significant undertaking to identify all the sites where site-specific analyses have been done and where Coastal Commission staff has analyzed where site-specific investigations have identified ESHA. He stated that was not the purpose of the maps for the LCLUP as a tool. The map uses generally available resource agency maps of known or suspected potential ESHA. The maps as they exist, are combined with a policy in the LCLUP regarding areas within 300 feet of those need to have site-specific investigation and the property in question is also within 300 feet. He added that whether through site-specific evaluation through the generic policy of 300 feet or the site-specific policy Council has already thoroughly deliberated on, all roads lead to site-specific evaluation being done when a development is proposed in the future. Impacts do not exist in the abstract but in relation to a proposal and there is no need to do further study at this point unless a development proposal is submitted to the city.
• Who identified the special resiliency area neighborhoods and how? Is it only neighborhoods that include public use?
First, the identification of the SRAs emerged through careful staff-to-staff communications between Pacifica and Coastal Commission. They considered a variety of criteria that might support identification of an SRA. Pacifica was trying to build a concept based on existing public infrastructure, an existing shoreline protection structure, publicly owned and providing broader protection than a single property or small number of properties, broad coastal access like trails and roadways, protected by those protection structures, and other Coastal Act uses, such as hotel accommodations as priority land uses in the Coastal Act. Coastal Commission would prefer an approach that focuses on existing shoreline protection structures as described but related to public infrastructures and roadways, not as much about the land uses as much about infrastructure and access. That is the current model on which the SRAs are being considered.

It is in part only neighborhoods that include public use but primarily public infrastructure running through the area and protected by the shoreline protection structures there presently. • What is the danger of having a plan that the Coastal Commission does not certify? Will City Council Study Session 20 March 02, 2024
we risk missing out on state or federal funding? Please provide real examples.

He stated that they talked about the benefits of having an updated LCLUP, such as land use designations supporting the vision of the community’s future, the type of community they want, infill development, mixed use, housing and affordable housing, vibrant commercial and economic development opportunities, strengthening the city’s tax base to provide public services, and protecting the environment. Those are all advanced through an updated LCLUP.

The 1980 LCLUP, mentioned in numerous case studies, has few if any policy on point to address these public desires and demands, many of which surface through the General Plan update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, or this process, or the Housing Element process, and an updated LCLUP would help tie those together. He stated that one risk of the 1980 LCLUP for those areas in the Coastal Commission appeal jurisdiction is when actions are taken in those areas or appealed, the Coastal Commission is imposing policies that deviate from the 1980 LCLUP, many of which they expressed an interest to implement through their suggested modifications. He stated that the risk is that the policies they are discussing will take effect anyway and they will have little to no control over the manner in which they are applied. He stated the risk is the loss of local control by failure to update the LCLUP for those areas. • Why did it take so long since 2009 to get to this level of review for the LCLUP update? He stated that there are various reasons. He referred to 2014 when he started to work for Pacifica. What was related to him from staff at that time was that the process started with the best intentions, but the great financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 had significant negative impacts period of time had on local government finances and the need to prioritize resources for core city service functions. Spending a lot of money on a long-term plan update was not prioritized.

He is only relaying the best information he got regarding the cause of pausing the process during the 2009-2012 time frame. Then the work resumed and culminated with a 2014 draft release of the LCLUP. In the 2014-2015 time frame attempts were made to take it back to the Council and Planning Commission process, which included study session between the two of them. There were other emerging policy issues at the time that he thought took the priority away, such as Highway 1 widening, and other emerging priorities such as cannabis permitting, rent stabilization and rent control, which consumed staff time and financial resources over the LCLUP update. He stated it was not until 2019 that they were able to re-engage in long-term planning actions as the Plan Pacifica effort. They completed the LCLUP update phase for the city in 2020 and moved it onto the Coastal Commission phase, and completed the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan updates in 2022. They are circling back now that they are in a critical juncture in the Coastal Commission certification phase subsequent to the February 2020 approval, June 2020 transmittal, and global COVID-19 pandemic affecting the city’s ability to undertake major planning activities. He stated that today they are trying to figure out the way to move forward in this process.

STAFF PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATIONS Mayor Vaterlaus asked if he wanted to talk about alternative modifications also.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and presented the alternative modifications.

9. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND Q&A TO STAFF
Councilmember Boles asked to see the maps of the Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park SRAs. Regarding the Rockaway Beach SRA map, she confirmed the boundaries at the ocean City Council Study Session 21 March 02, 2024
line and at the freeway which is not in the coastal zone. She asked if this map changed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the policies they are talking about affect the coastal zone and the boundaries are roughly the eastern extent of the Highway 1 right-of-way with some exceptions. The LCLUP policies will only apply in the coastal zone. The key change she noticed is the result of further discussion with Coastal Commission staff, who indicated a preference to focus on the area of the shoreline and protection devices.

Councilmember Boles wanted to know the northern boundaries and how the pump station and quarry relate to the SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is hard to describe but they can see the termination flanking to the left at the end where the public parking lot is.

Councilmember Boles stated there is a lot of overlap with the quarry and asked if a portion of the quarry is in the SRA.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. An individual or property would not be in or out of an SRA in the current conception; you would be able to use the shoreline protection from that device that is mapped, regardless of where the property is located.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the blue lines are water lines.

Planning Director Murdock stated that for illustrative purposes they are using Google Maps, which is not meant to be technical resource maps. He stated that Calera Creek is shown at the top, and there is a blue line that is drainage feature, not the creek.

Councilmember Boles referred to the West Sharp Park map, stating the previous map included the Shoreview neighborhood was included with its armoring and it was not now and asked if that was also the Coastal Commission suggestion.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was a revision that came back after the Coastal Commission review process. He understood that the intervening private development there was problematic in the framework on shoreline protection. The intervening private property between the shoreline protection and roadway where public infrastructure is was a disqualifying factor in that review process.

Councilmember Boles referred to the golf course, stating it is San Francisco property and there is not hard armoring there, which may have been staff’s answer on why we are not expanding that further.

Planning Director Murdock stated in relation to the berm, it was San Francisco property. They do their own land use planning under typical zoning and general planning. Under the Coastal Act, they are in our local coastal program, and some jurisdiction needs to have the LCP and we have it. Our policies can guide what will occur there, but ultimately it is agency to agency between San Francisco and Coastal Commission as well as agency to agency of Pacifica and Coastal Commission. He thought it was complex but he was not aware of public infrastructure running parallel and protected by that berm. That would be threshold question #1 for SRA purposes under the current discussion of what might qualify in SRA.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked to go over the criteria defining the true SRA location.

City Council Study Session 22 March 02, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated, in its current form, the key components as follows: 1) existing publicly owned shoreline protection structure, 2) protecting public infrastructure that would be in jeopardy without the shoreline protection, and 3) public access or public streets that would be compromised for public access parking lot, such as in the northern end of Rockaway Beach or parts of Beach Blvd. Those public infrastructure and public rights of way access are the leading qualifying factors under the current discussion with Coastal Commission staff.

Councilmember Boles wanted to understand the armoring in the SRAs and how a property evaluates the existing armory in terms of how it provides protection. She asked how the project evaluates the infrastructure and asked how does the revetment help and work over the required life of the structure.

Planning Director Murdock stated that coastal hazard analysis needs to consider anticipated life of development, 75-100 years, and the shoreline protection structures have varying lives. If you think about the justification for the SRAs, these are shoreline protection structures protecting critical public infrastructure as needed to serve the community on a long-term basis; those types of infrastructure or public access almost have an indefinite life and are needed as long as there is a community until the infrastructure is relocated. He stated that there is no timeline of anticipated life for those, and the associated shoreline protection structures may need to be replaced periodically to continue protecting those infrastructures. He stated that, even with the SRA, if you were to undertake a private project, you are still recording a deed restriction waiving your rights to future shoreline protection. If the city chooses not to rebuild the shoreline protection, and chooses to relocate the infrastructure and remove the shoreline protection, that is a choice to develop that the property owner made in full disclosure and acknowledgement to undertake the development; they would not be entitled to shoreline protection for their project in the event the city went away from its practice of renewing, building, or replacing shoreline protection structures. They have to reconcile and accept that the infrastructure and shoreline protection will be there and know, in the event it is not, the development has an obligation to remove the development or modify if the shoreline protection is removed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought there were provisions in the Coastal Act regarding the ability to have those protection structures that relate to when the Coastal Act was passed. She understands that, if the development preceded the passage of the Coastal Act, there are elements of the Coastal Act that specifically speak to the ability of the private and public properties to protect.

Planning Director Murdock stated she was correct. He stated that there is an interpretation of the Coastal Act that the Coastal Commission currently uses related to what is an existing structure. They sometimes use existing development interchangeably, but the Coastal Act says existing structure; it says, if needed, shoreline protection can be constructed to protect existing structure. He stated that it includes more things than buildings, such as infrastructure. He stated that some challenges to that interpretation are that it only means existing at the time the Coastal Act took effect in 1977. He stated that it is unsettled and they are continuing under the current assumption that it means prior to January 1, 1977. In the broader LCLUP context is the issue of substantial structural modification and what it means for your entitlement to armor it.

Councilmember Boles was confused about the timeline he is talking about, that in the foreseeable future we can maintain shoreline protection. These are hazardous areas and the hazards will increase, and she was not sure it was fair to say that they can keep replacing the armoring where it is, i.e., building taller or higher.

City Council Study Session 23 March 02, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that no one knows what the future holds. He stated that the SRA is not saying carte blanche, no risk for the present; it is saying that your analysis can factor in whatever protection that structure is providing. He stated that hazards still are present in the SRA area with the shoreline protection structure, and the existing Beach Blvd. sea wall will continue to remain even with the SRA and those need to be factored in to the hazard analysis.

He stated that the most significant hazard for development potential is coastal erosion, which is effectively zero with the shoreline protection there today. He stated that it goes from a no development potential because of erosion hazard to development potential and how do they design that development to be resilient and mitigate hazards. He stated it does not give a free pass to ignore all coastal hazards but lets you account for whatever shoreline protection structures are providing and leaves a smaller range of potential hazards that need to be mitigated on the property.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they are very focused on the hard armoring or shoreline protection structures, i.e., the berm. It also pertains to storm and sewer infrastructure. They are not necessarily discussing the notion of building a wall that will always take care of over topping, but what happens when the water hits, etc. Regarding the golf course, she wondered about the sanitary sewer force mains that run through the golf course. When staff was talking about public infrastructure, it seemed focused on roads and transportation corridors. There is other public infrastructure that is critical, such as in the golf course, and she has a hard time reconciling how they address that.

Councilmember Bier stated that she had that same question of what would it look like, if the SRAs are okay with the Coastal Commission, then what is the timeline to address the infrastructure that is deteriorating.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated about how the North Coast County Water District relates to the agency to agency piece in the LCLUP, similar to the San Francisco golf course.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that we are the relevant jurisdiction for the LCLUP. They can try to identify where this additional infrastructure may exist. He stated that they do not have Public Works staff present now to provide their opinion.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciated that and would like to eventually come back to the specific question on sewer infrastructure and force mains in the golf course and then drinking water infrastructure and how does that factor into it and she wants that on the list of questions.

City Manager Woodhouse stated there was not city wastewater infrastructure that runs through the golf course but they will verify that it goes around the golf course. He stated that he cannot speak to the NCCWD infrastructure and there is probably some San Francisco irrigation lines.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer requested they return to that when the information is available.

Another question is on the real intention of the Coastal Act. It is a California voter-approved law that created the Coastal Commission as the agency that enforces it. She thought the key intention is coastal access for all. They recognize the jurisdictional boundaries of San Francisco, but she acknowledges that the berm is also providing that kind of coastal recreational access.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Beach Boulevard infrastructure carries all the sewer and water from the north end of town, and the infrastructure is not just affecting those homes and we need to City Council Study Session 24 March 02, 2024
maintain our pumps.

City Manager Woodhouse stated she was correct that most of northern Pacifica is coming down to the major pump station on Beach Blvd., and around the golf course and up the hill to the Calera Creek Water Treatment Plant.

Councilmember Bier asked how we are integrating new data into their decision-making and will it affect the maps.

Planning Director Murdock stated that process is ongoing and the public comment period is still open. The timeline is dependent upon the number and types of public comment that come in; thus, he does not know what the process entails after close of the public comment period.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the public comment period just got extended, from the original date of March 4 to March 8. The intention is for the Ocean Protection Council to vote on the draft 2024 guidance in June 2024, at which point it becomes the best available science and the maps are currently based on the then best available science which was 2018 OPC guidance.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about how it looks when we incorporate that science into the maps and any policy that might be affected in the document.

Planning Director Murdock stated they would confirm the final data and staff determines if that results in a change for Pacifica. They prepare their analysis and take it to Council to recommend the LCP amendment to incorporate the new map and policies to ensure the LCLUP has the best available science. They then file the LCP amendment with the Coastal Commission in a 3-6 month timeframe, the Coastal Commission approves and certifies the LCP amendment, and staff updates the map pages in our book and have new coastal vulnerability zones that inform decision-making based on the best available science, 2024 sea level rise projection updates. He stated that science could come from other sources, but related to sea level rise and coastal erosion, this is the primary source for that data. If different information came, the same process would unfold, and then it would take effect in our LCLUP.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if when new science is finalized could the Coastal Commission want to remain conservative despite what the science says after we passed this document.

Planning Director Murdock had no reason to believe they would ignore the best available science to further their policy objective to be more conservative. The LCLUP policies are set up to reflect whatever the best available science says, and he was confident that they would certify that based on the Ocean Protection Council guidance. If they want a different approach, that would trigger a whole sequence locally of amending other LCP policies and figuring out if we want to do that. That would be a different policy than what is in the document now, i.e., best available science.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought all the other jurisdictions will be asking for amendments.

Councilmember Bier was curious if it would change the hazard map which would then be integrated into our living document.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are not taking the Ocean Protection Council data to the Coastal Commission to certify. He stated that staff knows there is new data, new best City Council Study Session 25 March 02, 2024
available science, that would result in some change to our consultant-prepared hazard maps.

They would ask consultants to update the maps using the best available science, come to Council for approval of the LCP amendment, and take it to Coastal Commission for certification.

Councilmember Boles referred to tsunami maps, and asked staff to explain the difference between reference to tsunami evacuation versus tsunami inundation and who is responsible for the inundation proposed as an alternate measure.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were no tsunami inundation maps prepared. The tsunami evacuation zone maps are prepared at a statewide level for evacuation planning purposes. The change from tsunami evacuation to tsunami inundation would be in the course of doing the site-specific hazard analysis, specific site elevations, and other surrounding features that would relate to a reasonable tsunami event could be analyzed for the property. If the site is determined to be likely inundated based on a probable holistic event, the deed restriction requirements would kick in along the lines of what the policy indicated. The tsunami evacuation zone map was overly broad and not likely to reflect a probable hazard event; it is a worst-case assumption for evacuation planning purposes and not the right instrument for the policy outcome the Coastal Commission commented on and would affect less area of the city.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked how the LCLUP affects our regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it does affect the RHNA numbers. We have 1980 land use designations that are not consistent with the General Plan or the forthcoming Housing Element rezoning we are obligated to undertake. Relatively few Housing Element sites are identified in the coastal zone so limited number of rezonings are required, but it has a bearing on housing production capacity and delays the city’s ability to implement housing.

Councilmember Bier asked if they discussed with the Coastal Commission tradeoffs or benefits they expect within the SRA areas.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that they discussed with them the tradeoffs and benefits that they would get and is the entirety of the shoreline management plan. At the December 5 meeting, it was the visitor amenity improvement and it was intended to be a post-certification document. It would involve a public process and Council approval. It is a document of 5-year increments that would mitigate existing shoreline structures, etc. Thus, it will contain a variety of short-, medium-, and long-term steps the City can do; they would take it to the Coastal Commission for approval and then implement it. At the 5-year mark, they will report back to the Coastal Commission on what they did and update the plan on a 5-year increment process to meet the goals of the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Boles concluded that this was additional work to be done in another planning document and in projects in perpetuity while they want to keep these SRAs. She thought it was important for them to understand the cost-benefit analysis. Staff was saying that the SRAs are helpful for more development, more property tax value, more income to businesses, and denser housing, but are offset by the mitigations they have to do. She understood they were looking at visitor amenities because they are easy to identify, but she was told this list was in priority order that the Coastal Commission would like to see and visitor amenities are the last item.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, with a plan in place, grant funding is more easily obtained, and the Coastal Commission has a grant program for those items.

City Council Study Session 26 March 02, 2024
Councilmember Boles agreed. She asked who is paying for the costs, adding that there are benefits to the people living in the area and are those who do not paying for all the mitigations plus with our own armoring.

Planning Director Murdock heard their concerns regarding getting benefits with some obligations and what is the cost or obligation. He stated that it is asking to do the shoreline management plan now when it needs to be figured out through a thoughtful public process.

They do not know what the improvements could or should be, as that is a process in its own rights. He stated that they cannot promise to do more than they can afford, and they will need to qualify those upon identification of external funding sources or consider how internal funding sources are established through taxes, fees, etc. That is a public process. They explained to the Coastal Commission that they have to say the priorities include removal of shoreline protection. The Coastal Commission expressed that they understand but it needs to be there as a matter of policy. That is why they spent a lot of time talking about the visitor amenities as they are more foreseeable, likely to be within the city’s means, and readily available external funding sources. If a great opportunity comes for removal of armoring, and the funding is there, that is great. He expects this will come out with a manageable program that the city can reasonably fund and undertake in the 5-year cycles. The catch is that, if the city falls short and not making a good faith effort, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission could suspend the SRA policies for some period of time. There are checks and balances and he thought it was better to only commit to what we know we could carry out.

Councilmember Boles asked if he thinks they are not going to be requiring any mitigations immediately upon adopting the SRAs that can happen within a 5-year period, and asked if the Coastal Commission staff also said, for that 5-year period, amenities are enough.

Planning Director Murdock stated that assuming the policies are certified and adopted, there will need to be time to undertake that public process to develop the plan, let alone carry out the projects. They are trying to put in place an interim effective period along the lines of a 2-year horizon to give us time to prepare the plan. There would be limited improvements in the first 5- year plan because we are in the first 5-year cycle.

Councilmember Bier thought it was important to understand what they are going to expect, etc.

She knows how much it costs and that is what makes it so hard.

Planning Director Murdock thought one great benefit of the SRA is that they have to put the visitor amenity improvements, etc., in place, but our community will yield great benefits, i.e., an enhanced shoreline with facilities and amenities for our community as well.

Councilmember Bigstyck has questions from the public on SSM, the first regarding termites and dry rot, i.e., when trying to upgrade to make sure you can maintain homeowners insurance. He asked if they had the opportunity to throw in refined definitions of that might be allowed under the category of substantial structural modification before it becomes an SSM.

Planning Director Murdock thought there was still room for discussion and has not ended in this regard, but major policy changes would be difficult. The Coastal Commission is looking to get these types of definitions aligned statewide. He thought they could have a reasonable conversation with the reasonable probability of getting dry rot or termite damage exemptions.

Councilmember Bigstyck applied the same question to water heaters, solar panels, conduits, City Council Study Session 27 March 02, 2024
and PG&E infrastructure.

Planning Director Murdock did not think there was anything to read into the SSM definition as it is from the Coastal Commission or as they would currently propose to modify it. It would affect any of those electrification-related activities described, unless you need to upgrade your roof structure to support the weight of the solar panel. Major destruction due to infestationslikely would count toward the 50% threshold under the current forms of the definition being discussed.

Those deserved further discussion.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought it would be good to have a clear understanding of common maintenance. He referred to a question related to the definition of development.

Councilmember Boles asked if she could add to the SSM issue, as she wanted to understand how much they can push back on computerizing records, and asked if it was possible for them to put in a date, instead of since 1977.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that they did not have a good way to get records of this range of types of improvements prior to the digital era for their recordkeeping system.

Coastal Commission staff understood and took it back in their process and acknowledged that they may not be able to locate the records. However, as a matter of policy, they did not think they could commit to something other than initial LCP certification or Coastal Act enactments.

There are only a few years of difference, and he stated that for our purposes today, they generalized it as the available permit history.

Councilmember Boles read that there are differences in the substantial structural modification requirements, whether in the SRA or not. Staff is proposing to limit it to coastal hazards, but in other parts of the city substantial structural modifications are broader, including zoning. She asked if they were adding things that are not already in statewide requirements.

Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding the policies, it is always a challenge with the variety of laws and policies in effect in a jurisdiction to reconcile them. He thought there will be instances where the Building Codes will result in a more restrictive, conservative outcome relative to the LCLUP. One is not going to potentially supersede the other as they need to work together.

Councilmember Boles stated that they are doing planning review and the Coastal Commission is doing their CDP and they are not looking at Building Code requirements. She thought it might be a surprise to someone trying to get their CDP and then need an SSM as well.

Planning Director Murdock stated that in most cases it would be the city reviewing the CDP and they do route the projects to our building official. They do not do a full plan review level because most of the time they do not have all of the building permit detailed information at a CDP or coastal development permit level review. However, they try to flag bigger picture issues that might come up as a building code trigger at the CDP stage when they have sufficient information to identify it. He does not think there is a situation where someone will go down the road and are somehow obligated to follow through with the project that would be an SSM to their detriment. He thought it was conceivable that someone would spend time and money through a CDP process only to find out in the building permit stage that the CDP does not cover them because they are triggering an SSM and would have lost time and money. Nothing would compel them to follow through with the project so they would need to regroup and could make an informed choice about amending the CDP or a new CDP or changing the project.

City Council Study Session 28 March 02, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to his example of a seismic upgrade required by the building code for health and safety. She thought it goes to the issue that we do not want to have a policy for LCLUP that creates a scenario where people are penalized by putting together health and safety required by another part of state law or city ordinance. She referred to the mention of electrifying a home and did not want people to be unsafe due to trying to put an addition to their home.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is very difficult for him to sign off on a policy that would seem to discourage people from doing the right thing, i.e., keeping your house from falling apart because of an earthquake, etc. He added that they have to translate what that policy looks like in terms of legality.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can add to the discussion potential mandatory seismic upgrades of the brace and bolts and he did not know if they would be exempted. He thought a brace and bolt probably would not count toward an SSM as it does not add or replace significant structural components of the home that would run afoul of the SSM. He stated that they can introduce this and try to sort out that type of issue.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he wanted to do a time check, as they are coming up on an hour left in the meeting.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Council was done with the questions.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there was one other thing in the same category, i.e., there was a phrase she read “like for like” that needs more clarity.

Councilmember Boles also asked regarding the difference between SSM and the SRAs and not, as that is significant what staff is proposing.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can point to Mod. 6.46, policy CR-I-49, and read the policy. He then read the alternative modification staff is proposing to add.

Councilmember Boles asked why we think the SRA gives us extra benefits that the rest of the city does not.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the goal is to say that less is happening, fewer hazards and less of a need to change the site to conform with current policies because you are relying on protection from the shoreline protection structure. There is not a hazard that would justify needing to do these major changes to the site to eliminate the hazards or other non-conforming conditions that are problematic from a permitting standpoint for new development. What they see most often in Pacifica is situations where a residential use is located in a commercially designated area. It is problematic in the sense that if, an SSM is triggered, they would need to bring that into land use alignment with the designation, in other words commercial. That is not going to compel them to undertake that project, and it also leaves the door open to Council saying they are open to amending the LCLUP to make that residential use so they do not force those people to discontinue the residential use. He added that it is broader and less applicable in Pacifica’s case, but there are communities where non-conforming industrial uses are present.

Council always has the discretion to try to change the LCLUP, except they may also need Coastal Commission certification of those changes, which is uncertain until they have that conversation.

City Council Study Session 29 March 02, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify a point regarding wastewater infrastructure and the golf course. He stated that the forced main goes around the golf course and the master plan shows a line that goes through the golf course more on the eastern third of the golf course.

They will come back with further information about that as it might be a San Francisco maintained line, etc.

10. COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENT AND 2ND Q&A FOR PUBLIC
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they are done with questions and they still have deliberations and they will now return to combined public comment and Q&A for public.

City Clerk Coffey asked, is someone has already spoken in public comment, will they allow a second public comment for an individual.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma recommended that everyone have the opportunity to speak again.

Kim Finale, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts on the special opportunities she experienced all her life in Pacifica, and felt these opportunities are dwindling to private homes and apartments close to the sea. She shared the joy of enjoying the beach and ocean with family and pets.

Lee Gwee, Pacifica, stated they need to move forward by no longer allowing any more buildings or structures too close to the coastline and cliffs. She also thought the cities, states, and federal should work together as there are grants to shore up whatever damage has been done and we need to work together.

Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, referred to Planning Director Murdock’s mention of balance which resonates with her as they will have to balance things with the Coastal Commission with what residents want. She thought Jim Kremer’s comment on going with the 80% version knowing we will be making changes is worthwhile. She thought we would not get everything that we want but we hopefully share a concern for the benefit of the community.

Marie Swan, Pacifica, referred to the topic of costs, and she understood that if managed retreat was to take place moving the city infrastructure such as water and sewer could cost around $240 million. She stated that building the sea wall is significantly cheaper.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated there were misleading statements, including that many cities have not had their LCPs approved due to the Coastal Commission. He stated that it is also about coastal resources, like the beach, that we have to protect. He stated that it seems arbitrary picking and choosing when best available science is going to be used. He stated that CEQA regulation, Section 15125, specifically prohibits future plans as the baseline for updated LUP and states the correct baseline is physical conditions as they exist, which rules out a deferred analysis. He stated that in the Fairway West neighborhood the sea wall will destroy the beach which will destroy the first and best line of defense for that neighborhood.

Larry Bothen, Pacifica, stated that, if coastal armoring like the sea wall is acknowledged as necessary to protect critical infrastructure, what happens where the armoring ends. He pointed out that the Shoreview revetments are already gone. His next example was the revetments to protect the San Francisco RV Park, stating that it also protected a sewer line that runs under the RV Park and the other infrastructures that run down Palmetto. Once that revetment is gone, within a year or two, it will erode up to the Manor on-ramp on Route 1. He stated that they have City Council Study Session 30 March 02, 2024
a serious problem there and he wants to know how it is consistent with the Coastal Act. He asked if the Coastal Commission should have to balance imposed costs from removing armoring with much lower cost of improving and extending existing armor.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, wondered if due to SRAs there will not be any kind of remediation for the beach that we lose to people protecting the properties on the beach front. He noted that there is a mentality where we are prioritizing property development at the expense of a lot of things. He stated his concerns with the SRA and builder’s remedy that does not have to comply to any kind of zoning regulation. He thought they have to get serious about working with the Coastal Commission.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, had asked a question related to the undeveloped property on San Pedro Avenue and the LCLUP changing the land use designation to commercial, residential, mixed use, where it is currently an undeveloped property. She stated that the community feedback is saying no change to the land use which is currently commercial recreational and shared her thoughts about this place where there are environmental hazards.

Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, asked why they are even talking about increasing housing density in our coastal community or anywhere in Pacifica when we have an enormous proliferation of unhosted STRs, which are providing zero value to our neighborhoods. She stated that our current infrastructure cannot support more housing than it does directly benefit our community.

Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, would like to add another perspective and cite a study done by Jim Kremer who cataloged over the past 50 years all the large-scale projects that have been proposed in Pacifica, i.e., huge casinos and card clubs and freeways and mega home developments right on the beach. He stated that due to the activism of Pacificans and the Coastal Commission, we have the town we have today. He stated that the reason many homes exist as they do today with access to the beach has a lot to do with the Coastal Commission and stated that we need to work with them, and he encourages us to work together.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, stated that the purpose of the Coastal Commission was to provide access to the coastline for all Californians and he was disappointed that they did not talk about the revenue opportunities that would provide.

Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, stated she has 28 affordable housing units in Sharp Park. She shared her concerns about having a hard time refinancing because of redline maps they found on the internet. She sees that the maps keep changing and she finds it very dangerous as today her property is in better shape than it was two years ago. She felt that it was very important to be very careful as they are dealing with people’s lives and livelihood. She stated that, due to Prop. 19, she is paying current market rate property taxes and the Coastal Commission is potentially going to start devaluating her property.

Tom Carey, Pacifica, stated he was speaking on behalf of himself and his daughter as they own a couple of infill lots in the SRA area. She is a 3rd generation San Mateo resident and has a pending application for a small home. He stated that he disagrees with Planning Director Murdock as they do not think the SRA has any benefit at all. He stated that they would not be able to get a loan as no banker is going to give you a loan on your property with those things you have to sign, i.e., deeds or construction loan. He favors improving the sea wall and anything to enhance the ocean protections for all of Pacifica. He stated that there has to be further discussion on this issue to make it fair for everyone in the community.

City Council Study Session 31 March 02, 2024
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that the coastal zone is not only California’s most valuable asset, but also Pacifica’s. She stated that the concept of carving out any piece of this area to allow for more protection and greater development potential is in direct conflict of the voterapproved Coastal Act. She stated that it will not remedy but increase risk to future generations of Pacificans by building up and intensifying the coastal zone, one of our most vulnerable areas of the city. She referred to a list of modifications that the Coastal Commission had presented and they have still not gone through them line by line. As they heard earlier from several speakers, Council should get the plan approved and move on to the other ideas.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that delays cost staff time and public disapproval makes Pacifica totally ineligible for sources of funding. He suggested that they could approve the suggested modifications, get a certified LCP fast, and then make the changes that they think are important.

They can do those amendments later when they have a working LCLUP. He asked if we can afford protracted discussions that will be required if we go forward with a path to pursue the SRAs and the alternative modifications. He added that private property rights and municipal property rights must yield when the ocean wants to move in.

City Clerk Coffey stated that Cheryl Greene conceded her time.

Jeff Guillett, Pacifica, referred to a new SRA boundary and to the berm. He asked if it is because it is part of San Francisco, that is why it is not considered something that residents in West Fairway Park can plan against. He stated that there is a warranted distrust of the Coastal Commission because they are punitive. He referred to the new addition of the dunes being protected structure means they cannot close the Clarendon gap. When they say that 50% or more of incremental changes constitute an SSM, what does that mean, i.e. remodeling a kitchen or doing bathrooms. He asked if a homeowner has to report a deed restriction because they’re in an area currently with a 2018 guidance and required to report a deed restriction when a line moves back with the new guidance, what happens then.

Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated that the reason we are faced with the problems they are dealing with today is the result of colonization and the attitude of not being in balance with nature. She stated that to consider armoring the coast or sea walls is short-sighted and detrimental to the natural world. She stated that they need to look to mother earth, the natural world, and science.

Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, stated that California sea level rise guidance has given the scientific basis for making these plans and in it they had a most probable, intermediate, and most severe sea level rise prediction. She suggested that we go with the most probable one, but what was adopted was going with the most severe. She also commented on the discussions of sea walls and berm and wondered why currently used engineering processes around the world is not included as well as the difference between sea rise and erosion.

Elizabeth Boles, Pacifica, expressed confusion and concern about the SRAs. She wondered what happens if they are building more housing or apartment buildings in these SRA areas and at some point decide it is no longer economical or decide to move the pump stations elsewhere.

She asked if we are making false promises to people who are choosing to invest more in their homes or in apartment buildings in the area, given that these might not always be areas that can be protected or should be protected.

Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated that the city is basing a policy to change the way these designations on a known ESHA. She referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioning the importance of coastal access, and she stated the new version of the LCLUP erases existing City Council Study Session 32 March 02, 2024
coastal access at Pedro Point at the railroad berm and that is in the certified 1980 LCLUP.

Referring to Jim Kremer’s comment regarding the public trust doctrine and we do not have the inalienable right to keep developing on the coast in perpetuity.

Marj Davis, Pacifica, asked what feedback from the Coastal Commission prompted the city to come up with the SRA compromise. In addition, what has the initial response and/or reaction from the CCC been regarding the SRA concept.

Irene Lee, Pacifica, asked if the slides can be made available to the public through the website.

Secondly, she asked if the SSM guidelines is just for the SRA or is it for all areas. Thirdly, what happens if a house is damaged by storm, such as a tree falls over, and is the replacement of the house considered as totally new according to the SSM guidelines.

Alan Greene, Pacifica, wanted to comment about something that surprised him about the presentation last month regarding the new visitor amenities of Beach Blvd, particularly regarding wheelchair access. Regarding the new promenade with the wheelchair access in the higher spot, he thought about how great that will be for many generations.

Monica Meagher, Pacifica, asked what is the plan for this infrastructure outside of the SRA.

Her understanding is that Coastal Commission suggested modifications assume no shoreline protection and the city’s alternative modification is that you cannot assume it is there if it is in the SRA. But when they look at areas outside of SRA, such as on Esplanade, she understands there is a lot of sewer and water infrastructure that runs along that area. She asks what happens to infrastructure if we live in this neighborhood, and how long do the residents and businesses that rely on it have. She stated they need to be able to plan their own retreat if not done at a community level.

David Chamberlin, Pacifica, stated that, on SSM, it is unclear to him how previous work applies to future work. If a house is built in 1945, renovated in 1997, and that renovation was extensive enough to trigger an SSM, does that mean that any future work, no matter how small, would end up triggering an SSM. He then referred to the SRAs, stating that, if they are approved, one of the earlier comments seemed to imply that deeds would still be restricted, indicating no reliance on shore protection even if in the SRA.

Eileen Campbell, Pacifica, stated that, in 1974, she voted in her first election for the establishment of the Coastal Commission and she was excited when they put that into place.

She stated that, as Pete Shoemaker alluded, over the years it has protected our coast from all kinds of development and has allowed many people to have access to our beaches. She was excited to learn that Pacifica is at the leading edge of conversations with Coastal Commission and having in-depth discussions about whether there are SRAs or innovative ways to solve some of these technical, emotional, and political issues. She appreciated staff engaging with the Coastal Commission to come up with things that work for all of us, even if we do not all agree with all the details.

11. STAFF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Director Murdock stated that he run down the questions he noted and the team can let him know if they noted other questions.
• What counts as a substantial structural modification? Would a kitchen remodel to trigger that?
City Council Study Session 33 March 02, 2024
He thought almost certainly it would not. The definition relates to exterior structural components of a building, not interior remodeling, and that is not the correct application for what it is intended to address.
• What happens if the coastal vulnerability zone maps are updated but one had already reported a deed restriction?
He stated it is not currently addressed in the policy. A reasonable approach from city staff would be to support removal of that deed restriction. He acknowledged that possibility of if the maps change again and required the work to be done and thought they needed to work through that.
• Would the coastal dunes addition to ESHA prevent closing the Clarendon gap? He explained that coastal dunes are a habitat type being added in the definition for completeness; it is not creating a new category of ESHA. Whatever policies apply to environmentally sensitive habitat areas would apply. The coastal dune addition is just for clarity and fullness in our definition. Staff does not have any information classifying that area as a coastal dune. They do not have any indication that a coastal dune is present there currently that would need to be evaluated in the subsequent stage of the project. • What has changed the special resiliency area boundary? He clarified that how the boundaries are mapped has changed since December. They acknowledged that previously there was a line around the area and now it maps the shoreline protection and if you are or are not protected through the policies. It is a different approach from a policy standpoint, but not exactly a different mapping approach, and it would be more inclusive than requiring you to be in the SRA rather than not in the SRA. He acknowledged that this is an evolving area of the policy, and they are on the leading edge of developing the policies and they may evolve further. He stated Council will have the final say on the policies they are willing to agree to.
• What is the cost of moving infrastructure?
Planning Director Murdock did not know if they had a precise calculation on all the infrastructure that needs to be removed and the secondary system redesign. He would estimate tens of millions of dollars, somewhere between $40 and $80 million for the no project alternative. This would be a project-level BBIRP question.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, to clarify further, he would refer BBIRP-related questions to that project and there is a lot of information on that webpage. In the preliminary feasibility study, the estimate for the no project alternative is $243 million. The BBIRP cost estimates are being updated on the most recent preliminary design but the most recent cost estimates are $80 million for construction of the project and an additional $30 million or so for operations and maintenance from the period 2030 to 2080 (50-year operations and maintenance) and would include, if feasible, the sand replenishment.
• Why is the California Environmental Quality Act review not being done or being impermissibly deferred as part of the LCLUP?
City Council Study Session 34 March 02, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that the CEQA guidelines clearly state that, for Local Coastal Program amendments such as the LCLUP, the Coastal Commission performs the environmental review.
• Does the Coastal Commission balance the cost of infrastructure relocation vs. the cost of armoring?
He thought yes, in a sense. One of the elements of a shoreline protection structure application process and review process with that the Coastal Commission is evaluating various alternatives, including the least environmentally damaging alternative. That could be factored into the process, including costs and other environmental impacts of that. It is not the leading consideration for them but can be one consideration among several. • Do SRAs provide mitigation for beach loss?
He clarified that the SRAs are not promoting or approving shoreline protection structures but saying the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structures can be accounted for. There is no further mitigation because those structures are already there and whatever mitigation was needed or required would have been effectuated already at the time of the permitting and construction. He added that what is coming with the SRAs, if approved, is other offsetting mitigations, like looking for shoreline protection structure removal opportunities from the city, adaptation opportunities to include nature-based solutions to minimize impacts, as well as coastal visitor amenity improvements or opportunities to acquire public open space along the shoreline. He clarified it would include mitigation-type activities, but not direct beach loss or sand mitigation, as that is done at the permitting stage for those structures. • Does the LCLUP deviate from the California Building Code? He stated no, there is nothing they talked about that would call for deviations or exceptions from the California Building Code. He stated they may relate to one another in circumstances where one may be more restrictive than the other and thus require following the most restrictive policy. • Does the LCLUP relate to the builder’s remedy?
He stated no, the builder’s remedy is related to Housing Element compliance and certification, not LCLUP certification.
• Why is the city considering changing the land use at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and allowing some sort of residential and mixed use commercial and not keeping its current designation?
He stated that Council considered that extensively and came down in a particular policy position, which is not being revisited presently. He also clarified the current land use is CR (commercial recreation). He stated that the land use designation in the LCLUP in 1980 is a broad single commercial designation that would allow up to 22 units per acre of housing development, whereas Council has indicated 3-5 units per acre. It was a policy decision in placing the balance of that land use in light of all the other considerations. He recognized that any project that will come in the future will need to do those environmental hazard determinations and see what type of development would be permitted there.

City Council Study Session 35 March 02, 2024
• What happens in the SRAs if the sea wall is ultimately moved? He stated that the development approved in the SRA and are subject to the SRA policies would need to record a deed restriction waiving rights to future shoreline protection. They will be making a choice to proceed with that development, knowing that in the future they will not be able to construct their own shoreline protection but allowed to rely on the protection provided by the sea wall or shoreline protection structure that is there for as long as it is there and as long as SRA policies are in effect.
• What feedback from the Coastal Commission led to the SRA “compromise”? He stated that there is a broader statewide conversation about neighborhood-level carveouts to find alternative approaches tailored to local needs. City staff’s conversations with the Coastal Commission staff build on that broader series of conversation happening at the statewide level.

He stated that we did not invent the concept but are trying to refine it and apply it to Pacifica’s local context.
• What is the Coastal Commission’s reaction to the SRA concept, including questions and comments about liability if we were the push forward with these? He explained that the city is moving forward in close coordination with Coastal Commission staff on these SRA policies. They are going forward together to try to find policy approach that both agencies can support. They are not doing it against the Coastal Commission’s wishes. • What happens if a tree damages a house during a storm in the coastal zone? Can it be rebuilt and restored?
He stated, as covered in the case studies, partial damage under the current framework would be regulated like regular development, repairs, or additions. It would largely depend on whether it is exempt entirely from a coastal development permit (10% or less of the building area) or is it a 50% substantial structural modification that would trigger those broader policy upgrades and compliance requirements.
• How does previous work apply to the substantial structural modification (SSM) and would any work even small trigger it if previous work would have already exceeded it? He stated, as explained earlier, that there is no trigger to make you do anything retroactively if you are not undertaking a new project. However, if you are undertaking a new project and they find that their home or building would have already exceeded it, you may not be allowed to proceed with the project unless you comply with the SSM policies. • Are you prohibited from relying on shoreline protection, even in the SRA? He explained that one benefit of the SRA is you get to use protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures in your hazard analysis, which will generally provide more development potential than if you could not account for that protection. The flipside of that is the deed restriction you would record, waiving your rights to future construction of shoreline protection on your own. Thus, in the future, you would not be entitled to your own shoreline protection structure. If the city-owned and -operated shoreline protection were to be removed in City Council Study Session 36 March 02, 2024
a long term scenario, you would be giving up those rights as you would elsewhere in development in that coastal vulnerability zone.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the slides will be made available on the website.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that they will package them up and post them on the Plan Pacifica website.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked what the plan is for infrastructure outside of SRAs.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP is not specifically planning for any particular infrastructure projects. As they explained in the case study related to infrastructure, outside of the SRA, for critical infrastructure projects, we need to do a hazard analysis just like other types of development and locate them outside of the 100-150 year hazard projection. It would require significant inland movement of new infrastructure projects for those triggering being classified as new by 50% or greater replacement. There are very impactful differences between SRA and non-SRA critical infrastructure projects. He referred to a question that he had missed regarding the plan for infrastructure using the 500 block of Esplanade.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that is referring to the pump station at the old wastewater site.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is critical infrastructure that is protected the shoreline protection. She asked, if that infrastructure is moved, could it still be an SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated that a subsequent LCP amendment will be needed to remove the SRA classification. It is not specifically infrastructure-dependent but based on the shoreline protection structure. If the fundamental justification for the SRA were to be relocated or moved, he imagined there would be pressure from the Coastal Commission to amend our LCLUP to remove that. That is a future policy question, as nothing would happen immediately on the basis of that.

He referred to the question of if we are not evaluating the berm because it is the property of the city and county of San Francisco. He believed the answer was no, we are not evaluating issues related to the berm because that is a project-level analysis in decision-making. He stated that, in terms of evaluating a potential SRA eligibility, they noted earlier that they need to do some follow-up on precisely where the city or North Coast County Water District infrastructure might be in that area so they can provide that information to Council.

He referred to the question of why we are increasing density or residential uses when we have a surplus of unhosted STRs.

Consultant Ryder Smith stated that they were talking about using the SRAs to allow for more density and create more housing but, at the same time, we are seeing a lot of housing absorbed by short-term rentals. The question is how they are reconciling short-term rental policies with all the additional housing they are trying to accommodate.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were two parts to that, i.e., the broader short-term rental issue known Council, staff, and the community, which is a separate policy analysis project, and an item that the city is undertaking to address the related issues of STRs. He thought the issues of SRAs is allowing development, less focused on use. He thought it was not a direct relationship or justification for SRA classification.

City Council Study Session 37 March 02, 2024
He referred to the question of why sea level rise is not differentiated from coastal erosion. He stated they are focused on the coastal erosion hazard, which is the dominant hazard in Pacifica related directly to the question of special resiliency areas, and using shoreline protection structures and the protection they provide. He stated that the coastal vulnerability zone maps do account for sea level rise, and those hazard projections and analyses are the hazard plus how sea level rise projections would increase the hazards. It is accounted for in the plan but not as a stand-alone hazard. It is included with all the others of coastal erosion and related flooding hazards that are exacerbated by sea level rise projection.

12. CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DIRECTION
City Manager Woodhouse stated, in the interest of time, he was seeking clear direction on the what the next step will be in this process. Council, depending on time, can choose to deliberate on other factors, but they heard a great deal of questions, answers, information, and clarifications. As outlined in the staff report, where we want to get to next is to begin Council deliberations about the alternate modifications that they are going to be recommending to the Coastal Commission with the matrix in the packet and draft transmittal letter. The suggestion is for the next meeting to be at a City Council meeting to begin deliberating about going through those to get to that point.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer heard two different things: 1) How come we are not going through the matrix of all those issues? and 2) Those modifications are 80% fine and we should sign off on what was presented in those modifications. She thought they have to go through those carefully and make sure they make a commitment to that and clarify for the community that it is going to happen. She stated that she is hearing some concern that we are bypassing it in favor of discussing SRAs, etc. She asked how they clarify that going forward at the next meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can start with taking that matrix as outlined before, and they are all open for discussion. They want to verify each of those and Council will spend more time, having now an understanding of the SRAs, substantial structural modifications, and case study examples to help explain this, looking at the policy language that Council wants to transmit to Coastal Commission and their suggested alternate modification. He stated going through each one of those would be the goal at the next meeting.

Councilmember Boles added that that is an important goal that will lay out the policies, as many of these are applicable in both the SRAs and in the rest of the town. Staff has modified the document since the last time and some of this has been changed with Coastal Commission and changed to add the SRAs in the spreadsheet. She stated that, if they go through all the items, some members of the public pointed out that there may be an option that we do not need to do the SRAs. They can go through all of them to make sure they understand the implications and then look at the SRAs. She was struggling with the document in that she thought it was important to read it in context with the redline version. There are some policies that sound like they apply in the whole city but need to be looked at in context, for Sharp Park in particular.

She asked how do they know where the different modifications came from.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that they tried not to change the text. The redline document was brought in October when staff brought the changes for General Plan consistency and those are the same red lines they are seeing in this version. She stated a previous staff report had the redline version from the Coastal Commission staff’s suggested modification and those are the black texts which are unchanged. She stated that the new text that corresponds to the third City Council Study Session 38 March 02, 2024
column in the summary table is the green text. Because they did not want to change what they had previously seen in the red and black, they added the new green color to coordinate with the green table.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if they all agree on the next step, will just happen in a Council meeting or do they need a larger space where the community can come.

Councilmember Bier agreed and she felt it was important that she completely understand all the changes and going line by line is important. She did not think they can do that during their regular Council meeting. She thought they need another special meeting to do that and understand everything fully, with or without SRA, how it fits into the SRA, etc.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, whether it is a special Council meeting or a regular Council meeting that is dedicated to only this item, the time frame is probably early April that would be the feasible next step. He stated that going remote is very expensive and staffintensive and the technology is very challenging. He stated that Council Chambers are set up to do that readily, i.e., having Zoom hybrid capabilities and the screens available to go through the lines. He felt that was a consideration for Council.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, at the next meeting, they will go through it line by line, and he asked if it was possible, after that is done, are they ready to sign off on the letter they are sending in response.

Councilmember Bier thought they need another meeting.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he asked that because, when they have that meeting, this is the appropriate level of space they will need for everyone in our community to have that last opportunity to come out and get feedback. He agreed that having the setup in Council Chambers is probably ideal for that.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated, if they can do it in Council Chambers where everything is at their fingertips and all set up, it would be easier for all of staff and Council, and thought they start the meeting at 6 pm and plan on going to midnight.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated his only concern is the amount of turnout from the public.

Councilmember Boles asked what if they had an overflow room, such as the Sharp Park library, where everything could potentially be projected but they could walk over and give public comment and ask questions if they wanted to be in person.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the downstairs room from the library would be the place to do something like that if staff finds it feasible.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added if PCT finds if feasible as well.

Councilmember Bier also suggested the Community Center.

Councilmember Boles stated that does not work very well for Zoom.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there were approximately 100 people in person today and 60+ on line and the Council Chambers capacity is larger than 100. He thought it might be 150.

City Council Study Session 39 March 02, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus thought they have consensus that they want to do it in Council Chambers.

Councilmember Bier agreed that they need the screens to look at all the lines.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed that they will be in Council Chambers, adding that she is not sure doing an evening meeting only going through the green lines. She asked if they are thinking of a day-long format, a one-night format, and/or another night format. She stated that she wants them to go thoroughly through the document.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he thought it would be good to begin around noon and take it as far as they can take it.

Councilmember Bier stated on the weekend and then have another meeting to come back.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they were trying to weigh the options (two evenings versus one all day) and he did not hear where the Council ended up on that.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated start at noon on a Saturday to try to finish it all in one day.

Councilmember Bier did not know about noon.

Councilmember Bigstyck was happy wherever consensus lies.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that one reality is extremely difficult to schedule these meetings and everyone’s availability. He stated that this meeting happened later as Council intended it to happen earlier in February. He stated finding a Saturday is very difficult. He stated that he has the first regular Council meeting in April exclusively reserved for this topic in the tentative agenda planner. He stated that they can shoot for a Saturday and see if something is available and start a regular meeting and continue if Council did not finish the work.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if they do it at a Council meeting, they need to set a reasonable stop time and a continuation.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they want to look at their calendars and throw out dates.

City Manager Woodhouse stated his recommendation would be to not try to figure out a date here because there are a lot of variables, including staff variables.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they will figure it out.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was up to Council whether they want to continue deliberation or not. He is hearing that they are going to look for a Saturday meeting at Council Chambers to start the process of going through all the alternate modifications on this process.

Mayor Vaterlaus preferred adjournment and asked for input.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if the moderator, Consultant Ryder Smith, wanted to make any closing comments.

City Council Study Session 40 March 02, 2024
Consultant Smith stated this is a great community and their engagement was thoughtful, especially in one of the longest community forums he has ever been to in California.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked everyone involved in this and all the extensive time everyone spent on this, thanking the public who stayed in the beginning, the public until the end, and the public on Zoom and PCT.

Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 4:28 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 4/8/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor