CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 April 15, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING
April 15, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on April 15, 2024 at 5:33 PM 5:30 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.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; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
CONSIDERATION
1. Modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), including the Special Resiliency Area policies, and direction to staff regarding transmittal of alternative modifications to the California Coastal Commission.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission.
City Council Special Meeting 2 April 15, 2024
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bier stated she was concerned about the pending updates for the sea level rise projections for West Fairway Park, and she thought that was important information for our community to have as that could change the maps.
Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff believes the key takeaway is that the overall projected sea level rise over the next planning period is less than it was in the prior 2018 data; thus, it has the potential, but has not been mapped yet, to reduce the coastal vulnerability zone, i.e., the flooding projected in that area.
Councilmember Bier asked if he has any idea when the maps would be updated.
Planning Director Murdock understands that as potentially as early as June, the Ocean Protection Council may adopt the new data. He stated that, once that is done, City staff need to undertake the process with the City’s consultant to prepare new maps using that data. It is one of the near term activities city staff needs to undertake to update this.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to check in on the process for this meeting, including looking at the table of the modifications. She felt an important underlay to that was their definition of some terms. She suggested starting at the back of the table with some definitions.
Councilmember Boles also wanted to ask where public comment fits. She has some general questions before going into the table and she has specific questions that she thinks would be better asked as they go through the table. She stated that Council normally asks general clarifying questions and then opens public comment.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if Council is not asking questions on the policy until later after public comment, she thought it might be good to have another public comment session later in case the public is responding to anything that Council has said.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated we do not generally do that. She asked audience members to hand in speaker cards to identify how many people are going to speak on the topic.
Councilmember Boles understood.
Mayor Vaterlaus suggested starting with questions.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed the process, i.e., general questions of staff now, then public comment, and return to the Council for further deliberation.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission provided the first markup of the 2020 LCLUP submission and those markups were the minimally acceptable LCLUP that the Coastal Commission could certify. She asked if that is correct
Planning Director Murdock stated that is the Coastal Commission staff’s characterization of their suggested modifications.
City Council Special Meeting 3 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles concluded that we can do a lot more, but it can become a living document that we can modify later instead of having to do a whole revision like now.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated the best practice in terms of managing typical Land Use Plan or General Plan level documents is a more robust ongoing update process every several years, making important incremental changes and, if when needed, comprehensive updates every 20 years or so.
Councilmember Boles stated that the staff report states some of our proposed modifications seem to be favorable to the Coastal Commission but that is not their final word.
Planning Director Murdock agreed and clarified Coastal Commission staff and city staff will not know until the hearing day what a majority of the Coastal Commission will support or not. He stated that the city can try and use the city’s staff and Coastal Commission’s staff’s best judgment and experience as to what they know about their decision makers to try to craft a policy that hopefully both agencies can live with and go in with a coordinated request to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles thought we would get the Coastal Commission’s staff report in 2-3 months depending on how long they need. She asked, if there are substantial changes they are recommending or recommending denial, if there is an opportunity for the city to come back and say we understand why the policy might be problematic. She spoke with San Mateo County Director of Planning of Building Steve Monowitz, who used to work for the Coastal Commission, and his advice was not to have too many areas of disagreement, otherwise the Coastal Commissioners would not take it up and would send the LCLUP back to staff.
Planning Director Murdock generally agrees with her summary. He stated that staff’s goal and focus in coordinating with the Coastal Commission staff is to try to get policy language that the City Council supports and Coastal Commission staff recommends approval of. He stated that city staff’s goal is to get a document supported by City Council based on their extensive discussions with Coastal Commission staff where they are not proposing any further changes or the smallest number of changes possible so the Coastal Commission feels it reflects a well thought out deliberative process between agencies. He added, to her other hypothetical idea, it could be the case that the Coastal Commission staff comes out with a different recommendation with extensive changes. In that scenario, staff would state to the Coastal Commission that more time is needed before the public hearing and bring the LCLUP back to Council and seek guidance, which is what they did in March 2023 with the last set of recommendations.
Councilmember Boles referred to the OPC guidance and the difference in terms used. She stated that the current document analyzes medium-high risk from 2018 and the new guidance refers to intermediate, intermediate low, and intermediate high. She asked what category do we use and does that vary depending on the type of project.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, currently, upon certification, city staff would continue to use the medium-high risk version level of sea level rise projected in the 2018 data until an update is made to our LCP to reflect new modeling using the new data, and some terminology changes would need to be incorporated. He stated that there is language in the LCLUP setting for that medium-high risk version level as our selected level for planning purposes and staff would need to find the closest corresponding level in the new data to align with that intent.
City Council Special Meeting 4 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that OPC guidance predicts, while sea level rise might be decreasing, there would be increased rate of erosion. She was not clear without numbers of how the city would incorporate something like that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, on an overall composite level of risk, it is not simply a change in the sea level rise projections as there are other factors if different assumptions are warranted for expected coastal erosion per year. He stated that the good news is that LCLUP as it exists calls for the use of the best available science, and that is an important part of the mapping update process, which requires more judgment and modeling required. Staff recognized that those maps will need to be periodically updated. The good news is staff is on the cusp of new data coming and staff has an opportunity, shortly after certification, to put forth some amended maps to show what the updated, best available science indicates in terms of hazards in our community.
Councilmember Boles stated she wants to understand development on the coast now. She referred to staff report, which says, “The SRAs will allow for development to continue in the city’s most prominent visitors’ areas that contain a number of desirable land uses.” She thought there was no prohibition now for developing in those areas as long as staff is designing to address the hazards and asked if that is correct.
Planning Director Murdock thought, objectively, what she said is true, and the reality is that significant portions of these neighborhoods are subject to significant coastal erosion hazards, among other hazards. It may have little to no remaining development potential and, to avoid takings, it may be afforded the minimal level of development that is allowable to avoid takings but also to recognize the coastal hazard. He stated that the SRAs would allow a much more conventional or typical level of development because the properties could rely on the protection from shoreline erosion provided by the existing shoreline protection. There are very different outcomes as to potential for development in those areas, with SRAs and without SRAs.
Councilmember Boles asked how calculations work with the SRAs. She referred to a project at a Coastal Commission meeting that could be designed without having to go through the evaluation of the armoring.
Planning Director Murdock thought the potential exists but he was not familiar with the particulars of the Dana Point Project. His sense is there is probably a coastal erosion hazard of some type. He stated that there is also quite likely a tsunami hazard at that site and they required the living areas to be elevated out of the inundation zone and allow the water to flow through the uninhabitable spaces. He thought it is also possible they needed to allow some development to avoid a takings. He stated that there are potentially many different ways to approach these challenges, and developments are likely to be much more limited without the SRA policies than with the SRA policies in the two areas identified.
Councilmember Boles stated that even our new sea wall we are designing here is not being designed to prevent overtopping and prevent flooding the way we have now. She stated there are some benefits to erosion but probably to other hazards the projects are still going to be designed to mitigate or be outside of those hazards.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that the key takeaway from the SRA policies is that people can rely on whatever protection the existing shoreline protection provides. Other factors, such as other types of shields to block the overtopping, hardening of the building, or use of different zoning materials, are options if necessary to mitigate applicable coastal hazards and City Council Special Meeting 5 April 15, 2024
would remain in place, even with the SRA policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer reiterated that the purpose at this meeting is about focusing on Pacifica and our LCLUP.
Councilmember Boles was trying to understand what is required now and exactly how the SRA process would go through and how an applicant would do the necessary evaluation of the armoring so that Council understands and try to make sense of whether it is worth it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought we have to work through what does the SRA mean before applying specific examples at this juncture.
Councilmember Boles stated her experience with geotechnical reports is that they are extremely risk averse. She asked, in a scenario where a project is evaluating the existing armoring to see if it helps, how do we or a project geotechnical engineer do that.
Planning Director Murdock stated what he can represent, having looked at other projects along the coast where this task was required of the engineers on the project, is that the engineers use a number of data points, including the wall design, its current condition, and changes along the coastline affecting the intensity or types of wave events. The engineers use their professional expertise and certain modeling methods to determine, in their professional judgment, the level of protection that a particular shoreline protection structure is providing applied to a particular piece of property based on its elevation, solid composition, etc. He stated that there are engineering methods used in this community to make such assessments and doing so with respect to the sea wall is the important delta under this SRA policy construct.
Councilmember Boles spoke to Planning Commissioner Lauren Berman this afternoon, who felt that geotechnical engineers would not want to evaluate something off of their site and that is a huge burden for developers. She stated she had another concern related to new development in coastal hazard zones or coastal vulnerability zones being designed for a 100-year life, and she asked how an engineer would certify that if the armoring is not designed to last 100 years.
Planning Director Murdock did not think there was any part of the SRA policies that contemplated an engineer certifying or guaranteeing or the city committing to a shoreline protection structure being there indefinitely. He stated that the presumption is that structure would be there for a long time and the key point is whether it is in effect at the time that a permit decision is being made; there is the safeguard on the other side of this process where, despite being allowed to rely on the existing protection, there is the need to record the waiver of rights to future shoreline protection, as new developments are required to do under the Coastal Act, and commit to indemnifying the city and modifying or removing their development if and when circumstances require. He stated that there is a backstop to potential open-ended authorization for development. He stated that the other side of it that is more pressing and important immediately is that little development, if any, would be allowable without the SRA policies, given the standard construct for coastal hazard analysis for new development, thus illustrating a stark difference in the development outcomes in these neighborhoods with and without the SRA policies.
Councilmember Boles asked about requirements for certifying something to last 100 years.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, as it relates to the usable life of the development that is proposed, it is not certifying something lasts, like a sea wall, for 100 years but looking at the City Council Special Meeting 6 April 15, 2024
hazard condition without any protection and where is that projected to advance over that 75- to 100-year usable life and in constructing the development outside of that. He stated that it is not fail-safe and the Coastal Commission in the past has acknowledged sometimes those projections are wrong. He stated that those are not things they can 100% safeguard against, but any technical effort uses the best information available and qualified individuals to make the best assessment at that point in time. That is the same process the city followed and has been followed up and down the coastline in California for a long time.
Councilmember Boles asked what the city’s legal responsibility is to protect coastal access, infrastructure, and roads, as well as the city’s obligation to protect private property.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she is correct. The city’s responsibility is to protect its infrastructure and the public spaces where public infrastructure is maintained, public facilities, etc., but it is not the city’s responsibility to protect private property.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Allison West, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts on the flaws in Pacifica’s proposed LCLUP and shared her concerns on the city’s process on this issue.
Lisa Villasenor-Volosing, Pacifica, stated she is a member of several San Francisco groups, which support the extension of the special resiliency area.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding STRs, etc. taking away our limited housing stock and affecting our SRAs.
Andrew Meiman, Pacifica, shared his concerns on questionable data in this EIR and the LCLUP process.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on hazards other than sea rise and his concern for flaws in the draft of the LCLUP and CEQA and Coastal Act violations.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated Council is here to consider suggested modifications offered by CCC staff to our city’s draft LCLUP and a list of alternative modificationss preferred by city staff.
He then shared his thoughts and resolution on this evening’s process.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on this issue and suggested options he has for Council to consider to be fair, logical, and legal for Pacificans.
Allison Thompson, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue and asked that they consider the community’s needs.
Giselle Valdez, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue and the need for Council to protect Pacificans’ homes.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, shared his concerns if Council decides to approve this item against the wishes of citizens in the coastal zone.
Spencer Potter, San Francisco, expressed his personal thoughts that Sharp Park Golf Course should be included in the SRA and shared the process of working with the Coastal Commission.
City Council Special Meeting 7 April 15, 2024
Richard Harris, San Francisco, shared his thoughts on the process of working with the Coastal Commission and his concerns on the proposed process going forward.
Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on the issue of government’s right to take private property for public use.
Dan Yonts, Pacifica, appreciated Council’s updates and improvements, and shared some of his concerns on terminology and his suggestions on this issue.
Naikaly Dehnad, Pacifica, shared her concerns on what the terminology means for private property in the coastal zone and owner’s rights.
Mark Stechbart, Pacifica, stated he was in opposition to this item and offered a suggestion that Council postpone the LCLUP to get more data to control consequences.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, asked that Council not accept this draft, and shared her concerns on the possible negative consequences.
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, encouraged Council to take a step back and shared her thoughts and concerns on the city’s goals.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated his concerns on the history and present issues of this item.
Gordon Tannura, Pacifica, appreciated the thoughts and work by Council and staff and shared his thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Joanne Gold, Pacifica, acknowledged the long process for an important LCLUP update and shared her concerns and suggestions on the plan.
Stanley Lamport, Pacifica, stated that he was a land use lawyer representing clients in the coastal zone and shared his thoughts and input on the LCP.
Jeff, Pacifica, shared his concerns that nothing in the document offers him any protection to his property on Shoreview and shared previous problems during storms.
Mandy Sackett, Pacifica, stated she is worried if the city moves forward with these modifications and shared her thoughts and concerns on possible negative impacts.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her approval of the Coastal Commission’s modifications of the draft LCLUP and shared her thoughts and suggestions on future modifications.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed his concerns regarding the city’s plan for approval of SRAs by the Coastal Commission and felt this plan was not ready yet.
Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, referred to comments from staff regarding city not being responsible to protect private property rights and shared her concerns on that issue and the process and asked that Council reject this plan for now.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to comments by the public on the staff report and stated that City Council Special Meeting 8 April 15, 2024
the staff report was published with the agenda and, if the speakers were referencing staff’s presentation, that was simply a synthesis and summary of the staff report.
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council had process questions on the dais and thought we should start with definitions before we continue.
Councilmember Bigstyck referenced the acronym SCS for Sustainable Community Strategy, which he could not find in the glossary, and he noticed what was originally there was deleted.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the change was done in October 2023 to incorporate the 2040 General Plan consistency changes, and it was based on updated data. She stated that they could add the Sustainable Community Strategy (spelled out) and add it to the glossary.
Mayo pro Tem Beckmeyer added to define it in the text as well.
Sr. Planner Cervantes answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about a specific line: “In this LCP, ‘development’ is synonymous with ‘new development’.”
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the various iterations of the LCLUP process, different approaches have been taken to describing this issue of what development means.
Development is a term defined in the Coastal Act and necessarily defined in the LCLUP to understand what triggers the need for a coastal development permit or the application of other policies through the coastal development permit process. He thought there was an attempt over time, depending on the approach du jour to segregate different types of development, such as new development is different than redevelopment. He thought this was trying to clarify that new development is the same thing as development and vice versa for purposes of the definition and it is not something else subject to different policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked where this was in relation to redevelopment and to existing development.
Planning Director Murdock stated existing development is a term used commonly and he thought existing structure is the term used in the Coastal Act in relation to shoreline protection.
He thinks redevelopment is one of the other terms du jour that was part of an approach to describe what happens when part of a property is redeveloped or a building or structure is demolished and reconstructed. City staff have tried to simplify the uses of these terms in this latest version to focus on development being development in its various forms. Some types of development, if minor in nature, are exempted from coastal development permit requirements, and some types of development might trigger the substantial structural modification and be treated like new development and subject to the standards that are associated with that.
Councilmember Bigstyck reiterated development is something being developed whereas, if something has already been developed, it is a structure.
Planning Director Murdock that that was one fair way to put it, but it is important to note that development can be things other than building of structures, like intensification of use or changing access to the shoreline. He stated that the definition of development in the Coastal City Council Special Meeting 9 April 15, 2024
Act is broad but he thought what Councilmember Bigstyck said was correct.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he had a question around environmental justice. The way he read the LCLUP suggested modification was that environmental justice refers to housing specifically. He thought his understanding of environmental justice does not comport with this.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the version of environmental justice as defined in the document before Council mirrors what was adopted in the General Plan. It was not with the intent of creating new policy that this definition was changed. It is his opinion that Council retains some discretion to modify that definition if there is a desire, but it would be best to try to align it with the General Plan to avoid any inconsistencies when environmental justice considerations may be relevant.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how does that align or not with where Coastal Commission defined environmental justice and does it limit the way we can discuss that with Coastal Commission.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the definition of environmental justice in the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy appears to mirror the language that was deleted in the document and that might be a tension that needs to be resolved in terms of trying to achieve consistency with the General Plan while understanding what environmental justice means through the coastal planning context. He added that might be an area Council wants to weigh in now or provide guidance on mirroring the Coastal Commission’s definition if that comment comes back.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would like as wide a definition as possible for accessibility.
Planning Director Murdock read the definition from the Coastal Commission: “Environmental justice means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.”
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred the LCLUP which stated, “In 2019, the Coastal Commission adopted its first environmental justice policy,” and “The policy is designed to achieve more meaningful engagement, equitable process, effective communication and stronger coastal protection benefits under the Coastal Act that are accessible to everyone.” She stated that, in that sense, it was a broader application. She thought environmental justice is narrowly defined in our General Plan with regard to housing and said we need to have reference to this broader scope. She thought getting a good handle on that definition as it pertains to all aspects of our coastal involvement in Pacifica will be important.
Planning Director Murdock stated his understanding of the concept is that it reflects the history of land use decision making intentionally targeting people of certain economic or racial categories to bear a disproportionate burden of environmental impacts from freeways, noxious land uses like factories, etc. What he thinks he is hearing from Council’s discussion is more of a focus on a broader equity-based decision making. He thought environmental justice has a particular meaning in land use, but involving equity into the decision-making process is a very important component of broad inclusive decision making process to think of people with different abilities, different needs or economic resources, etc., that may not fall under the environmental justice umbrella but with environmental justice being a subset of a broader equity-based planning process. He stated that the Coastal Commission’s policy interestingly does have a City Council Special Meeting 10 April 15, 2024
definition of equity while our city’s document does not, and it might provide some space to think about how to resolve this.
City Manager Woodhouse added that the LCLUP includes the guiding policy, PR-G2-8, which entirely refers to the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy as they define it regardless of how the city’s document in the glossary defines it.
Councilmember Boles thought the glossary restricts it to housing and the environment but it is broader, and she thought they could strike that language and refer to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked city staff for taking the comments Council gave them at the March 2 meeting.
Councilmember Bier referred to the definition of development and asked why the existing structures have been struck out altogether.
Councilmember Boles stated that was a strike-out by the Coastal Commission, not city staff.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, when discussing this with Coastal Commission staff, they agreed to disagree on how to describe what an existing structure is. He thought they agreed that it may be best not to seek to define the term in the LCLUP because they would not agree on what that term would mean and it would be a point of contention that they would be unable to resolve. He stated it would be best to wait until the courts or legislature provide a clearer meaning on that term.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the city is notified in advance that species are going to be proposed for special status species.
Planning Director Murdock believed that is now the law reads with respect to the protections afforded to special status species. His understanding is that, if a species is proposed, it is noticed publicly as part of a rule-making process to formally list a species but, until that administrative process provided under the law is completed, it is a proposed or candidate species and this fits within the normal structure of special status species protection.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to public comment about vague terms in terms of referencing permit, echoed by Councilmembers Boles and Bier.
Planning Director Murdock stated permits are relevant in the LCLUP context as coastal development permits, and that is the mechanism in the LCLUP to apply policies to development.
He thought it should be understood, unless clearly indicated as an exception, that permit means coastal development permit. He stated city staff has thought about that comment previously and are not opposed to going through the document, if needed, and indicating coastal development permit or CDP or addressing it in the glossary to make sure it is clearly not building permits, encroachment permits, or parking permits, but coastal development permits.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and thought it would be valuable to go through document and update it to make sure the definition is specific to that.
Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Boles referred to the definition of development and the definition of substantial City Council Special Meeting 11 April 15, 2024
structural modification; in neither place does it say that substantial structural modifications count as new development, and she thought that might be helpful to clarify in one place or another.
She stated that another thing she thinks is missing is definition of mean high tide line, especially as it relates to public trust lands.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, as comments are made, they should confirm a consensus in terms of whether the whole Council agrees that a change should be made or if only one Councilmember agrees and the remainder disagree with that change being made.
She stated she wanted to be sure the whole Council agrees that the change should be recorded by city staff and made as due process in documents.
Mayor Vaterlaus requested consensus on defining mean high tide.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was reasonable. She asked if staff feels that they have concurrence with Coastal Commission staff on what the city means.
Planning Director Murdock thought it may be a loaded term and may defy a technical definition as it requires application in a particular location, but city staff, at a minimum, can describe functionally what the mean high tide line is intended to be, i.e. the line delineating private properties from public trust lands.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that because of the nature of the tide changes any given place, there is no objective definition that applies to every single part of the coastline.
Councilmember Boles stated there is an objective definition as engineers can calculate that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referenced using an engineering definition in the document.
Mayor Vaterlaus confirmed consensus for this comment as well as all other previous comments.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to CR-I-43 and stated that, regarding development, city staff established, per their discussion with Coastal Commission staff, that they mean new development or any development.
Planning Director Murdock referred to policy CR-I-43, development proposed in coastal vulnerability zones, and stated a subset of the coastal zone already projected to have applicable coastal hazards requires further technical analysis for coastal engineering, geomorphology, and other relevant technical reports.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for clarification.
Planning Director Murdock thought the question is interested in what types of development need to undertake further technical studies. He thought the challenge was that it was hard to know, without the analysis, whether specific development will have a negative impact. He stated that the LCLUP has modeled areas where hazards are believed to be present and used that as a filter to determine where additional technical analysis is needed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, regarding the hazards versus the vulnerability zones, that seemed like a shift in our current version of our LCLUP from what they started with in 2020 which they originally submitted. She thought a broader set of conditions was introduced.
City Council Special Meeting 12 April 15, 2024
Planning Director Murdock asked if that might be the policy related to the tsunami evacuation versus inundation areas.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles thought there was also a change in the previous LCLUP that called for properties on the coast and now the definition is further because it is the coastal hazard zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in that context, the 2020 LCLUP approved by Council limited some of the more restrictive policies to shoreline development as defined and it was properties that had a frontage on the ocean. He stated that the Coastal Commission felt that was too narrow and did not encompass areas with significant coastal hazards in many cases, and that is a revision that has been the subject of ongoing discussion. He stated that the coastal vulnerability zone method is more inclusive and encompasses more property, but it does reflect technical information suggesting hazards are present and warrant further technical study consistent with the Coastal Act.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is the challenge for her as it opens up how many levels of technical reports are needed to apply for a coastal development permit or even a building permit. She agreed that it does broaden the area, but her concern is perhaps too much.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she is saying the coastal vulnerability zone is too much.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, based on the hazards, yes.
Planning Director Murdock saw her perspective from 2020 LCLUP outward, but he thought there was another reasonable perspective to have (from Coastal Act to Pacifica LCLUP).
Recognizing the Coastal Act as he understands it, the absence of a filter like the coastal vulnerability zones might necessitate all development needing technical studies rather than limiting it to just the coastal vulnerability zone. He stated that the question is how much is too much, how is it overly broad, how narrow is too narrow to then be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. He thought there was a good chance that the Coastal Commission would find some sort of reversion closer to the 2020 LCLUP inconsistent with the Coastal Act. He added that it isn’t to say that the coastal vulnerability zone method is the only method but it is certainly a wellreasoned method based on science, data and engineering modeling as one approach, whereas the other one is just defined by location alone without technical analysis to support it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that those analyses are produced underscoring best available science, and she asked if these analyses basically come from FEMA.
Planning Director Murdock was not certain that these are driven by FEMA data primarily, as FEMA flood maps might be one input into the models. He stated that the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) is one that is a more comprehensive coastal model that helps to inform coastal erosion or sea level rise related analyses, but he does not have all the technical information to respond.
Councilmember Boles stated the definition of those zones is from our vulnerability assessment.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated it used modeling methodology using the best City Council Special Meeting 13 April 15, 2024
available science at the time, using accepted coastal hazard modeling methods, etc., that we would expect to replicate periodically, such as every five years or so as new sea level rise or other available data can be put into the model and yield different results that reflect the best understanding of what the likely hazards are at that period of time.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the glossary and definition of coastal vulnerability zone refers to “and as may be amended from time to time based on updated best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding and other coastal hazards.” Councilmember Bigstyck referred CalNRA and OPC guidance from 2018, and he imagined that, if this is passed, the city will shortly go for an amendment that would say OPC 2024, and asked if that was the kind of nomenclature Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was referring to.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken by the commenter of waiting the two months and incorporating the 2024 OPC guidance. He thought, to the point, it is written into the policy that the city will be looking to the 2024 and it seems a natural fit to update it. He stated that, meanwhile, the pertinent data is waiting for the city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed but added the 2018 data is more restrictive based on studies and the best available science at that time. She stated this document’s requirements ultimately could be burdensome for some of our areas and the homeowners and property owners in those areas. She asked how to streamline it. She stated that the default becomes everybody needs to get the analysis. She asked, if it is overly broad, how can we bring it closer while addressing the point of statewide consistency and the concerns of our partners with the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles asked when OPC will vote on the 2024 guidance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated June 4.
Councilmember Boles thought they might be submitting to the Coastal Commission around then, and she thought city staff was saying that the earliest we can get to the Coastal Commission was August. She thought there would likely be some revisions that will come back to the city. She thought there might be time before it is adopted as a new policy that we could update the science with another amendment. She thought that was a good goal.
Planning Director Murdock clarified that the 2024 data will come out, consultants will need to be engaged, work will need to be performed, work will be reviewed, and work will need to go through a public process locally, so they are talking about many more than just two months. If city staff wait two months, then work on the maps, and then submit to the Coastal Commission, that easily puts the city into the next year for a potential certification hearing. Proceeding and understanding the policy is meant to be a living document, they may consider some other number of minor post-certification amendments they would want to refresh what is, in many respects, a 2020 document or a 2023 document, including coastal access maps, potentially ESHA maps, etc. He stated that there are many ways to do it, but he did not think it was a fair characterization to say they can wait two months, get the data, and insert it into the process.
Councilmember Boles suggested making the update in parallel, once the city gets the data, knowing they have months before they will get Coastal Commission approval and before City Council Special Meeting 14 April 15, 2024
Council certifies it as a final document.
Planning Director Murdock thought there were multiple ways city staff can get to a map update and they need to discuss that specifically with the Coastal Commission. He contemplated a potentially streamlined way to incorporate the new modeling as a minor amendment and request approval on an expedited basis by the Coastal Commission. He thought that would be ideal and plausible to do that, perhaps in short order after a certification, so the end of this year or early 2025 we may have new maps. The in-between period of an effective LCLUP and the 2018 data is a minimal amount of time.
Councilmember Boles added that it does not affect anyone until they are applying for a permit.
If they know it is coming in a couple of months, they can wait.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating this applies to projects that need coastal development permits and many projects do not because of the exemptions already in our implementation plan.
Councilmember Boles assumed not all coastal development permits, just those in the coastal vulnerability zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was correct. For some of the neighborhoods where this has been of keen interest, very little of the West Fairway Park neighborhood is in a coastal vulnerability zone and fewer people are potentially affected by this in-between period. He agreed that it was important to consider every person impacted.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to the conversation around minimizing what possible effect could be on a homeowner and asked what realistically is the window of time between this conversation and when city staff would actually effectuate the new science where a homeowner might be affected by a coastal vulnerability zone that is larger than it may be under the 2024 guidance. He asked about a time frame of six months or two years.
Planning Director Murdock thought a matter of months if we are able to prioritize this in the broader scheme of work the city staff is trying to manage. He did not think it should take more than a few months to get this updated post-certification. It could take longer if some unexpected aspect comes up with the Coastal Commission process, but city staff can strive to get our consultant working on a map update in June when the sea level rise data are adopted by the Ocean Protection Council, and have them ready to go for the first procedural opportunity to get them incorporated into the LCLUP post-certification.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would like to reference that that is the city’s intention in the city’s submission to the Coastal Commission. She stated that the biggest concern for her is to make clear the city’s intentions in a way that is incontrovertible. She expressed desire for a clear blanket statement applying to the entire document, as there needs to be some very clear intentional statement in the submission. She also added regarding a similar situation with the 2020 submission where they had to put a footnote with specific regard to maps to make it clear for the community what city staff meant and what the maps were to be used for and not be used for.
Planning Director Murdock asked, if they were to look at policy CR-I-43, whether Council would support the language in the third bullet for that purpose.
City Council Special Meeting 15 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if in theory city staff has not submitted the amendment but we have the active live science in our hands because of that statement and we should be considering that rather than the 2018 guidance since it is live.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that attention has been paid to the coastal vulnerability zone maps which are based off of the 2018 data that city staff anticipates will be updated soon to reflect different sea level rise projections which presumably will result in different map areas in the coastal vulnerability zones. Staff knows they need to update the maps to the extent they are used in relation to policies to filter different types of development from having to do more analysis or not. He stated that there is the policy CR-I-43, which is a critical policy in the LCLUP related to development in those zones and the technical studies those developments need to do and stating that those technical studies need to be based on the best available science. Whether in the LCLUP context or just a standard professional requirement to use the best available science, they should be using whatever is current and adopted and the best available science at the time of the analysis, not artificially backdating to the 2018 data set if it has been superseded by 2024 data.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if paragraph 6.40, Technical Reports, regarding maps or assessments approved in the last five years, was specific enough to address the point.
Planning Director Murdock thought this was another aspect in this policy written intentionally to minimize the number of property owners who need to undertake their own analyses.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is where she is going.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, if we have a coastal vulnerability zone map that is recently updated, well-prepared, and using the best available science, it may be adequate to rule in or rule out a property for further technical analysis, which is the intent of the maps. He stated that, if particularly recent, it may be adequate enough to do more than that, i.e., rule out meaning to do any of the more detailed work as well or if a development next door has a publicly available report that could be relied upon to reference that. He stated the intent is to not require redundant analysis if there is a recent sufficient report that can say the site is subject to a hazard or not, thus not burdening individual applicants unless necessary.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was her point, i.e., make sure the policies are specific enough so that does not happen inadvertently and become the default. She realizes the policies have to be broad enough to apply all over but she is trying to tighten it specifically enough so property owners know what they are in for. She wanted to be sure all Councilmembers understood before asking if there was anything else to add to it or move on.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested, if we move on, to continue from the beginning, Councilmember Bier thought the point Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer brought up was important and, if it needs to be more specific, she is in favor of that.
Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned inviting the nomenclature when the time arrives.
Mayor Vaterlaus noted CEQA was mentioned many times and she asked if we would normally have a CEQA document on something that was not already planned.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the comments about CEQA analysis. He stated that City Council Special Meeting 16 April 15, 2024
there were comments that harkened back to the General Plan update process and concerns some commenters had about that environmental impact report that was prepared. He stated that city staff stated many times on the record with respect to this LCLUP update that the CEQA guidelines provide environmental reviews as performed by the Coastal Commission, not the local agency, so city staff has not prepared CEQA analysis for this document nor does the law require that they do that. He stated that the Coastal Commission will perform their CEQA equivalent analysis when this goes before them for action. He stated that city staff does not prepare CEQA analyses on hypothetical projects of the future on individual properties.
Councilmember Boles stated CEQA is required during rezoning, and the city is about to do that for the Housing Element, i.e. analyzing the impact of the changes of zoning if more housing is being built than was there before. She stated the Calson field decision was made as part of the General Plan change and the CEQA analysis in the General Plan is adequate for that rezoning.
She asked, because the Coastal Commission will review the LCLUP that talks about that rezoning, if they have gotten their sign off on that rezoning at this point or will they be reviewing that as part of this process.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the General Plan update performed CEQA at a program EIR level for all of the policy changes, including the land use plan changes. He stated that a land use plan change for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site was proposed in the General Plan, aligned with what Council approved in February 2020 in the LCLUP. He stated the city did not need to do CEQA for the February 2020 land use plan change for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site because the law says the Coastal Commission will do environmental review but, after February 2020, the city adopted a General Plan with equivalent land use plan changes and did perform CEQA on those land use plan changes at a program EIR level. He thought it was important to note the policies related to that site have various caveats and reflect that there is a high likelihood of potential biological resources and other sensitive coastal resources that require further analysis. At the program or plan level that these actions are being taken, it is not common to do detailed site specific resource analysis and that is not being done in this case.
He stated that the Coastal Commission can perform whatever environmental review it thinks is necessary within the context of the LCLUP and, if they think it is relevant to consider all the data, they will make that decision at that point in time.
Councilmember Boles stated some of the commenters have said that the Coastal Commission’s biological consultants have already identified those so that may be something that they modify.
Planning Director Murdock stated they may do that and added there were few modifications to that site specific policy, presumably following adequate environmental review for the Coastal Commission’s CEQA-equivalent process to have supported adoption of the LCLUP in March 2023, after identification of the ESHA in question. He mentioned that the Coastal Commission may recognize the difference between a project level review and a plan level review.
Councilmember Boles asked if we have confirmed the new zoning.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we have not undertaken a rezoning yet.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what and how the impact of rezoning pertains to the LCLUP.
Planning Director Murdock stated it is the same situation again and it depends which process proceeds first. He stated, if city staff updates the implementation plan, effectively the zoning for the LCLUP, we likely will not need to undertake CEQA as the Coastal Commission will consider City Council Special Meeting 17 April 15, 2024
that as part of the approval of the implementation plan. If city staff undertakes a city level rezoning prior to that, we may need to prepare an EIR or follow on analysis to supplement the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the city does not get out of doing CEQA if they go the city process first, and CEQA or some equivalent version is done by the Coastal Commission if city staff goes the LCP amendment route first.
Councilmember Boles asked, in the situation that the owners of that field want to propose a project now, how would they know what the zoning is and what they are actually allowed.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in the hierarchy of California planning law, the zoning needs to be consistent with the General Plan and similarly the implementation plan needs to be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The question needs to be answered by which (General Plan or LCLUP) will be in effect and then they would need to add to their project, potentially, a zoning amendment to conform with the applicable land use designation or, as is often the case, they propose to change the land use designation and the zoning to align with a particular project. He stated that it is speculative as to what would occur in the event of a future development and when that development would be proposed.
Councilmember Boles noted a question regarding the SRA maps and the infrastructure at the golf course later on in the chart.
Councilmember Bier had one process question: For people seeing the document for the first time, columns that state “N/A” mean that we accept the Coastal Commission’s modification.
Planning Director Murdock clarified that “N/A” means that the city staff is recommending the Council accept that modification as presented.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, as it was recommended that they go through this line by line, whether they were going through each item one at a time.
Councilmember Bier stated go through every one.
Councilmember Bigstyck began with Modification No. 2.1 and asked if staff were aware of properties it would apply to regarding beaches or coastal dunes or bluffs.
Councilmember Boles assumed the houses on Pacifica State Beach.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned private properties like the boat dock houses. She stated that the impact of that modification is a good clarification and asked if there was anything he was proposing they would want to do about that.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated no, that it was a question so he could have clarity over which ones they are talking about.
Councilmember Boles stated the dunes are separate, and she asked Planning Director Murdock before about the Fish and Bowl site, which is considered dunes in the Fairmont District.
Councilmember Bier stated Modification No. 2.2 is fine with her.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would pardon himself until Modification No. 3.5.
City Council Special Meeting 18 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated she has a comment on Modification No. 2.6.
City Manager Woodhouse asked for clarity if city staff could presume everything is fine between Modification Nos. 2.2 and 2.5.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively for Modification Nos. 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.
Councilmember Boles stated regarding Modification No. 2.6 that non-permanent improvements shall not require additional analysis, further defined by bench and trash receptacles. In her experience, the trash cans and tables can become hazardous. She thought, if they delete that sentence, then perhaps Council is okay with what the Coastal Commission has said.
Councilmember Bier thought staff could give them clarification about why it was necessary.
Planning Director Murdock thought the intent is to provide some flexibility for relatively minor improvements to not have to undergo a coastal development permit process or hazards analysis. He thought it does imply responsible placement of these non-permanent improvements but to not burden them with the full rigor of a substantial development project.
Councilmember Boles asked if they normally get a permit for a picnic table.
Planning Director Murdock thought they might need to as it is development and, unless it is clear that it is exempted somewhere, it may need a coastal development permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought the language could stay as is.
Councilmember Boles hoped staff would ensure they are secured for those hazards.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if it is not a coastal development permit that ensures the heavy table is installed safely, what would be within the context of the city to address concerns and what would be the city practice to address that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he may have to defer to Dir. Petersen in the Public Works Department if they want to address that.
City Manager Woodhouse began that, when we are talking about installation of garbage cans or replacing benches, more and more as they learn how they can be moved around by storm events, we do not have a specific policy or practice about how they will be installed; like with any project, we would go through appropriate safety considerations in installing them, and he thought it was a public safety related item, and what is being talked about here is entirely different, i.e., coastal development permit process where the Coastal Commission has to review and authorize how we are going to install a trash can on the promenade.
Councilmember Boles thought that made sense and voiced concerns on the potential hazards.
PW Director Petersen stated PW does look at safety issues related to elements, such as the benches and other types of moveable infrastructure that goes onto Beach Boulevard. She stated that it is important to remember that, even with the concrete, staff need to consider the type of foundation needed for securing. She stated that the wave force may be so phenomenal that it may just be a choice between either the city have something in there that is moveable so we can take them out of the way when we know big events are coming or we do not have them City Council Special Meeting 19 April 15, 2024
there. She stated that it is almost impossible to completely secure them in every type of event and that is what they are finding, even in the heavy concrete picnic tables. She thought that may be a choice or discussion that PW has with Council when it comes to the BBIRP project on what they are going to be putting out there with that project as part of the design.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that answered her concerns.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 2.6 and 2.7.
Councilmembers Boles and Bier highlighted Modification No. 2.8. Councilmember Bier asked Planning Director Murdock to explain what “at a density range of the lower third of the CRMU density range” means.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) land use designation allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre of residential development in conjunction with commercial development; the lower third of that would be 1-5 units per acre of residential development, and that is consistent with what City Council previously extensively considered and approved (3-5 units per acre). He was not sure why the Coastal Commission took exception with that narrower band of allowable development density.
Councilmember Bier thought it said somewhere that it could lead to larger density.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is not true in any dimension he considered. CRMU goes up to 15 and this would limit it to 5. City Council previously allowed 3-5. Therefore, they are both limited at 5 at the lower third of CRMU density range.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked to clarify if the underlined change was from Coastal Commission staff.
Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff made the change. He stated that the Coastal Commission staff was proposing to change it to low density residential development which city staff thought was confusing and could lead to more density than the City Council had authorized. He did not think that was the Coastal Commission’s intent, but rather they wanted low density not defined. However, in the context of the plan low density means 3-9 units per acre, which exceeds what City Council had previously extensively considered, so city staff proposed this alternative to push it to the lower third to reflect the land use designation.
Councilmember Boles asked if he could read the definition of CRMU.
Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 78, where it clarifies the Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation, and read the paragraph.
Councilmember Boles stated she may have missed the discussion where that site was rezoned and she was concerned about allowing vacation rentals or timeshares, but not a hotel, as that is an area that sees many tourists. She stated, if Councilmembers recalled a change of use of why hotels are not there and why residential was important there, that would be helpful.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her recollection is that it was about intensity of use and that a very low density mixed use would not have the same impact on traffic that a hotel would.
City Council Special Meeting 20 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles thought a timeshare used as a hotel would have that same kind of usage.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was on the Planning Commission at the time of the rezoning discussion and thought the conversation was around what the original zoning of that piece of property was which was fairly low impact commercial but there was a residential component of mixed use but fairly low impact. As the Planning Commission at that time was going through the documents, their conclusion was in lieu of trying to minimize impact and use to maintain more or less what the original zoning was.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought it was recreational.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Boles thought it did not allow housing before.
Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff’s research has found, without dispute, that the land use designation from the 1980 certified Land Use Plan is commercial; there is a single commercial land use designation in the 1980 LCLUP which does not give a lot of control. The commercial designation allows residential development up to 21.8 units per acre. He stated that what was less clear and required more research is the zoning applicable to that site is CR, commercial recreation; based on his research, that was an older zoning designation that they did not have any more and did not allow residential uses. He thought at some point in the mid90s, City Council amended the zoning to eliminate CR through a text change in the zoning to direct it to C2, which allows mixed use housing consistent with the commercial land use designation. He stated that it was never certified by the Coastal Commission and the zoning map was never changed to change CR to C2. He stated this is not the only property affected by that but is among the more notable properties in the coastal zone where that lack of Coastal Commission certification is potentially problematic. He reiterated that, in the hierarchy of plans, the Land Use Plan should control what the zoning is, and the zoning should not be the tool to say what the Land Use Plan does or does not allow. He stated, if there were a development proposed today that wanted to change the zoning to allow housing, that is a change that City Council may have to allow unless it also changed the Land Use Plan and sought Coastal Commission certification for that. He stated as to what the allowable uses ought to be, the Land Use Plan in the 1980s certified LCLUP, commercial allowing mixed use residential is probably the best resource to point to in answer to that question.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that at that point Planning Commission and Council, within the context of the joint study session, did what they could to try to minimize the amount of development, which the neighborhood strongly disagrees with, but it was the city’s best attempt to reconcile the history versus what the realities of the mechanics seem to be.
Councilmember Boles heard concerns from the community that, with the housing laws and density bonuses, the density could be much greater.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the problem is that the site already allows housing but there is a lack of willingness to accept the fact that the Land Use Plan is commercial and commercial allows housing in a mixed use configuration already. He stated that this LCLUP update would push down the amount of allowable housing through the policy that is site specific to the lower third of the CRMU or, in the worst case, up to 15 units per acre which is still considerably less than 21.8 units per acre.
City Council Special Meeting 21 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated she is still not clear if all these density bonuses apply to the coastal zone. She mentioned a discrepancy in the text in that paragraph, “establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning district to allow small scale visitor oriented commercial uses as a stand alone project without any residential ...” and second to last sentence says “... residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial uses, provided the overall site contains both commercial and residential uses”. She thought it seems to say it can only be commercial at the beginning and then it says residential is needed too at the end.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he reads the last sentence to say the project cannot be residential only, whereas in the first sentence it says the opposite, i.e. commercial only, so he was not reading an inconsistency. He thought it was trying to get out of someone saying that the policy allows them to build a detached residential use and not build any commercial.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was talk of changing the C2 definition in relation to the Crespi Project, as right now C2 only allows residential above commercial, and she stated that is another discussion if they change that definition.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that it is beyond the scope of this discussion as it is a zoning matter. He thought, generally, it is both in the General Plan update and LCLUP update processes and Council supported more flexibility in the form in which mixed use development can occur; currently it is very restrictive in the LCLUP, i.e., can only be in the same building above the ground floor as a commercial use. He thought the sense of Council was that there are sites where that is not the most desirable mixed use configuration and to allow the zoning to further calibrate that for a particular site as long as the General Plan or the LCLUP support that greater flexibility.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11.
Councilmember Bier stated, regarding Modification No. 12, she asked for an example to understand the suggested modification and why all of the language from the Coastal Commission is not suggested.
Planning Director Murdock stated that part of the issue in city staff’s perspective with the Coastal Commission suggested modification is that it is a very limiting policy with respect to public infrastructure that can be constructed in the coastal zone. He stated, of particular concern, is that it is limited to development consistent with the LCP, which would necessarily mean it could only account for development in the coastal zone with respect to infrastructure in the coastal zone; much of the city is outside of the coastal zone relying on infrastructure in the coastal zone, and that was one significant issue that city staff identified with that modification.
He thought the concept was fine as they do not want growth inducing infrastructure to self-fulfill more development because the capacity is there but is not reflective of our community and how much Pacifica relies on infrastructure in the coastal zone but the developments outside the coastal zone. He stated that the other issue is prohibiting development in the coastal vulnerability zones which is problematic; particularly some of our wastewater infrastructure and other infrastructure is currently constructed in the coastal vulnerability zone and may need to be replaced. He stated that city staff needed to modify the policy to allow for instances where it is unavoidable to construct infrastructure in a vulnerability zone so that we can do it subject to other policies like flood proofing or other steps to minimize adverse impacts to the infrastructure.
Councilmember Boles thought “without any significant impact to coastal resources” should be City Council Special Meeting 22 April 15, 2024
added back in. She previously asked who reviews the feasibility if no feasible alternative exists because it seems like there are feasible alternatives but they might be more expensive in relocating infrastructure out of harm’s way.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there was nothing in the policy that would mandate City Council to undertake any particular infrastructure project. If it is a policy choice of Council to undertake some other kind of infrastructure project that would not be in a coastal vulnerability zone, that is the prerogative of Council. He stated that this provides the flexibility to do that, reflecting that for the foreseeable future, the city will continue to have infrastructure located in the vulnerability zones and may need to install new infrastructure in those areas until the system can potentially be adapted outside of those hazardous areas. He stated that the policy, as written, may preclude Council from doing that or present significant obstacles to doing that.
Councilmember Boles stated that she had asked who is the ultimate arbiter, and the answer was that it depended on whether it was in the Coastal Commission appeal district, and it seems the city has the Sharp Park pump station, the Rockaway pump station, and the Linda Mar pump station. She stated all of it is within the Coastal Commission’s appeal and Council could process something but Coastal Commission could decide to take it up.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer he provided to her question was that it was the permitting entity that makes the determination. Even for projects that are in the appeal jurisdiction in the first instance, it is the city, and then, if appealed, which is not always the case, then it would be the Coastal Commission acting on appeal; or, for a project that might be in an area of retained jurisdiction, it would be the Coastal Commission in the first instance making that feasible determination. He thought feasibility is always a challenging term, sometimes further qualified as a technical feasibility, as it is a more encompassing consideration which could include financial feasibility. Regarding a situation if there is a technically feasible option but it costs many times more than the city could conceivably afford, is it really feasible, and he stated that it could be technically feasible but not feasible in the context of this policy. He stated that there is room to work within the way the policy is written to consider various relative factors.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 2.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he had a comment on Modification No. 3.5.
Planning Director Murdock stated, related to PR-I-24, there is a typo that was identified. He stated that what the policy should read is “support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with CDP terms and conditions and support development of additional recreational uses in upland portions of the Park located outside the coastal zone east of Highway 1".
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded he was taking out “redeveloping source” and putting in “consistent with”.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated this seemed to be the one policy that pertains to the golf course. He asked Council if they feel like there needs to be stronger language in support of the golf course here.
Planning Director Murdock stated there is a policy on point for the Sharp Park Golf Course in City Council Special Meeting 23 April 15, 2024
Chapter 6, policy CR-I-23, and he read the draft alternative modification. He stated that the Coastal Commission had proposed to delete that policy in its entirety and the context behind that was their concern, as discussed in a previous LCLUP meeting, with the specificity of the policy as written to support “maintenance of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm and armoring”.
He stated that was overly specific, and potentially Coastal Act inconsistent in the Coastal Commission staff’s opinion, to be so prescriptive about maintaining armoring in a particular context like that. City staff said that the golf course and the berm are very important to our Council and community and the conversation led to the Coastal Commission staff saying they could include a policy that talks about everything the city likes about the berm without stating information on the berm that is subject to a permit level decision by the Coastal Commission in their permit jurisdiction where the city’s LCLUP may be advisory but not going to be controlling.
He stated that the policy Council sees in the draft alternative modification tried to strike that balance with the Coastal Commission; as the commenter mentioned, the city’s LCLUP would be advisory to the Coastal Commission in such a permitting context but it would not mandate a particular action. There is a long history with the berm and associated permitting issues and, without having direct control, the sense by city staff was not to make this a pivotal make or break policy in the entirety of the LCLUP update process. He hopes, if there is interest in this topic, that they find a way to strengthen and bolster this policy in some way, but they can get up to the line without crossing it in terms of discussing the berm’s location.
Councilmember Bier was concerned about the language, especially regarding their community’s feedback and fears.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought it was difficult because the city does not own it and does not have control of the golf course or the berm. She thinks it makes it difficult for Council because, as Director Murdock said, Council is only advising.
Planning Director Murdock thought one way to give voice to those concerns is to describe a situation in this policy where the berm is being modified or relocated or removed and say ensure a thorough analysis of erosion, flooding, and other applicable hazards and any modification of the berm in the future.
Councilmember Bigstyck added vulnerable species.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added ESHA.
Planning Director Murdock stated, whatever is of concern, it may be fine to say it should be thoroughly studied and addressed in any sort of alternative that may arise in the future. He stated that the insistence on keeping the berm exactly where it is and how it is as armoring is going to be a major sticking point in this process.
City Manager Woodhouse added the Council did approve a comment letter back in 2017 that makes that exact point about the berm. That was when San Francisco was working with the Coastal Commission on renewing their permit and allowing maintenance and the city’s comment letter, paraphrased, was “if anything different is going to change with the berm, there are analyses and mitigation that would be necessary to ensure flood protection for the neighborhood behind it, ESHA, etc.” He stated that was a position that Council has on record.
Dep. City Clerk La stated that there was an active raised hand on the line.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they are not in the public comment period at this moment.
City Council Special Meeting 24 April 15, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought Council needs to air the issues.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought they could reopen the public comment briefly after.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She felt that we need to address the jurisdictional boundary between the city and the Coastal Commission. She had a great concern about this issue. She added that we make sure to accurately reflect the coastal access point on our tables and the improvements in that area that have been made in terms of our environmental justice concerns.
She stated that they are talking about a coastal recreational asset, the berm, that is providing accessibility, safety, low cost visitor serving opportunities, along the berm, which is part of the golf course that is also low cost visitor serving, environmental justice focus, and protecting ESHA. She stated it was difficult that they cannot talk about it because it was not in the city’s jurisdictional area. She felt that the city does whatever we can do, as strongly as we can in this document, to show exactly where we stand. She stated that there has been a call for a third SRA or an extension of the first SRA because of the reasons she outlined being consistent.
Council understands that is not going to be acceptable to the Coastal staff which leaves Council in a very difficult place. Referring to Councilmember Bier’s point, she stated Council has to take care of our community and while at the same time working with our partner. She stated that the reality is the Coastal Commission has to be a partner and we have to be a partner with them.
She stated that there are some in the community who think we do not have to work with the Coastal Commission at all, and she emphasized that we are in the coastal zone and are one of 69 coastal cities and county jurisdictions and we have to work with them.
Councilmember Bier added without mentioning armoring for this modification.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought everyone here is in support of keeping the golf course and the berm exactly where it is. She agreed with her and asked how they go about that.
Councilmember Boles knows regionally there is a lot of support for the golf course as there were efforts by San Francisco before. She stated in previous meetings with President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Aaron Peskin that the golf course is huge financial burden for San Francisco. She stated that San Francisco is spending money here that they do not have as well as the fact that Pacifica does not have the money to run it. She stated that the county is not interested in it. She is personally happy saying we support the golf course and the berm.
She noted that the Coastal Commission does not want every place in Pacifica to be armored and they do not really want to expand this, but the city is allowing armoring in certain areas where we have a lot of building and infrastructure to protect. She stated the infrastructure here is much further in and can be protected other ways, i.e. nature-based solutions. She had a chat with Len Matterman of OneShoreline and they did a similar project at the golf course in Palo Alto; OneShoreline’s project purchased some land from the golf course to widen the creek so the flooding was contained, and by selling that land, the golf course had money to refurbish their course. She thought there could be a nature-based solution and she did not want to lock them in to saying that this is armoring when this is one of the few places we have that we can do nature based solutions and do all these things.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if they do go back to policy CR-I-23, in the spirit of what staff has heard from Coastal Commission staff about statements in the document supporting all the aspects and values that the berm provides without talking about the berm, if we want to focus on language about that and expanding, it was mentioned adding environmental justice to that list and helping fulfill Coastal Commission environmental justice policies. He added “ensuring continued access of the coastal trail between the Beach Boulevard Promenade and Mori Point,” City Council Special Meeting 25 April 15, 2024
as that is part of the coastal trail and we have the mutual goal with the Coastal Commission about ensuring that. There may be some other language to put in to bolster the importance of this connectivity.
Mayor Vaterlaus suggested calling it the coastal trail instead of the berm.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated those additions.
Councilmember Boles referenced coastal access in the conversation and highlighted the map of the coastal access in Modification No. 3.4, policy CR-I-12.
Councilmember Bier stated that she supported this part of the conversation. She thought it would be good to understand which things are being removed, such as access points, and what it means and what Council can do about it.
Councilmember Boles noted there are discrepancies between this map and the spreadsheet in the packet that she wanted to clarify. She commented that coastal access point no. 3 needed the color label corrected or to be removed due to the erosion of the path.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would recommend keeping it, as the property is pursuing a coastal development permit authorization from Coastal Commission to formalize the realignment of the trail. They have an obligation to maintain that coastal access.
Councilmember Boles reiterated the color label change. She added that she would like coastal access point no. 5 to be restored to an access path (needing a color label correction).
City Manager Woodhouse asked if the access point being discussed is no. 6, and Councilmember Boles clarified that the 1980 Plan called for a public access to the beach on coastal access point no. 5.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought they experienced some realities since that 1980 Plan was approved and wondered in terms of adding an access point to the beach if they were added where feasible and/or safe to use.
Planning Director Murdock understood that the map is intended to reflect the current condition of these sites and there are notes about what they strive to be in the plan and he thought there may be a way to reflect the current condition where it is not a suitable access point to the beach.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano suggested that Council direct staff to review the map and come back with any potential changes related to color changes and confirming the access points.
Councilmember Boles agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the Milagra access point has been restored.
Councilmember Boles stated that is the one mentioned in policy CR-I-12, and she concluded that the city’s PW staff restored that trail.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it was SF RV’s responsibility and city staff helped facilitate an efficient restoration of that.
City Council Special Meeting 26 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if SF RV is helping to pay for it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they had to provide the authority and access to do it. He stated he would defer to Director Petersen on the details of payment. He stated that an interesting point on the map is that storms will change access points, temporarily close one, get restored, and he thought this was a snapshot in time in 2019 about these access points. He stated that, periodically, as changes occur, they can update the maps but it will never be accurate to any given year, hence why he did not believe Coastal Commission recommend any changes or updates to this map.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would like corrections made to the map regarding wheelchair ramps. She asked if Council agreed, and they responded affirmatively.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would prefer to put a single access point and have a note that says multiple access points along the berm or along those lines in order to balance the scale of the map with the symbology.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer emphasized the need for the wheelchair ramp.
Councilmember Boles stated another potential correction to the coastal access point at the Cottages at Seaside. She then referred to public comment about the Pedro Point coastal access point which in the previous LCP was a coastal access point from the berm and has been changed to just a viewpoint. She asked about the change.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that was because of the prescriptive rights issue. She stated it is a private road so she asked how it is a public access point in that berm area. She stated that what is stated in our city document as a public resource is a concern.
Planning Director Murdock thought the map should show locations where we are certain that there are legal public access rights. He stated that a lot of these coastal access points may have public access rights but are not expressly legally defined like with an easement or ownership of the site; prescriptive rights can be powerful but very site specific investigation is needed to confirm that. He wants to strike the right balance of comprehensiveness but not include sites where they are leading people to places where the public does not have a right to go and set up a potential conflict.
Councilmember Boles concluded that there was language to the prescriptive right study that was needed for this one. She asked for an explanation of what prescriptive rights are.
Planning Director Murdock stated it would be through past use where the public has acquired a right through conspicuous, continuous use of the property. There are various ways that the public could have obtained rights to access the shoreline over time. He stated that it requires extensive research of these issues for each potential access point.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the addition of a conductive prescriptive right study was made by the Coastal Commission or by city staff.
Planning Director Murdock believed those are Coastal Commission suggested modifications where they are reflecting lack of clarity to the full extent of those access rights. He thought it is calling out the need to do further research to the full extent of the access.
City Council Special Meeting 27 April 15, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the modification, in the way it is written, is telling us to conduct a prescriptive right study.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is the proposed improvement for that access point, i.e. to do the prescriptive right study to identify the full scope of potential rights there.
Councilmember Boles thought that was true for Shelter Cove as well.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are agreeing to do that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she understood that they are trying to identify coastal access where it is accepted by the Coastal Commission and the city that it is an access point generally open to the public. She stated that, confining the identifiers on this map to those types of coastal access points, is important. She referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggesting identifying accessible locations and clarified that is not the point of this map. She emphasized the purpose of the map is to indicate locations that the public is generally able to access the coastline. She suggested that they limit this map to the coastal access areas only.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood but disagreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus noted there is coastal access in the middle of the berm not present in the map.
Councilmember Bier thought they needed a comprehensive map about coastal access.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is a key policy of the Coastal Commission to provide that access and to have it accurate so they know what we do have.
Councilmember Bier asked Council if they were okay with city staff reviewing the map for corrections, and she got consensus.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 3.5 and 3.6.
Councilmember Bier asked staff to help her understand Modification No. 3.7, where they changed the title to “bicycle roadway retrofit”.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was an expedient way to distinguish the issue that the Coastal Commission was concerned about, and suggested something like “complete streets, roadway, retrofits” would hopefully address her concerns and align with the Coastal Commission’s concern.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Boles thought we may not want to delete “such as coastal hazard concerns” and thought we needed to evaluate that as we do not want to be putting paths where waves are often overtopping and the danger as we have no way block off any of these paths.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the reason it was struck out was because, when we talked to Coastal staff, they assumed that the city was saying additional analysis would include coastal hazard analysis. When we look at the policy, the policy is saying that additional analysis will identify areas in the city that are acceptable for retrofits to create complete streets. Staff deleted that suggested modification and added at the end that “retrofits will be consistent with the LCP” City Council Special Meeting 28 April 15, 2024
which means that they will be consistent with the policies in Chapter 6.
Councilmember Boles concluded that, because they are not temporary structures, city staff would have to look at the coastal hazards.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 3.7, 3.8, 4.1, and 4.2.
Councilmember Boles stated, regarding Modification No. 4.3, there was public comment that said we did have to define a buffer and not have it be vague.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reiterated the question of if the city has to define the buffer area.
Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission put in a buffer of a minimum of 50 feet and city staff is proposing to take that out for site specific, and she asked if we are required to have a buffer.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she is not aware if the city is required to have a buffer and deferred to Planning Director Murdock.
Planning Director Murdock stated all of the amendments were crafted in close consultation with Coastal Commission staff, and we spent time on this particular issue, explaining why deletion of that text (“and no less than 50 feet in any case”) was important for staff in the Pacifica context.
He stated that the buffers should be informed by expert advice from a biologist who is qualified to analyze the potential impacts and the protection needed. He stated that striving for 100 feet is clear in this policy, but there are any number of different circumstances that might warrant a reduced buffer in some instances advised by the expert biologist’s opinion. He had no reason to believe that the Coastal Commission staff will raise new issues with this as written, given the discussions city staff had with them. He thus would argue that they do have a buffer of 100 feet that is supposed to be the buffer, unless there are circumstances that justify a reduction. He stated that the Coastal Commission reduces the buffers below 100 feet routinely when needed and has done that on Pacifica projects in the past.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have reduced it to less than 50 feet on a project.
Planning Director Murdock stated there is no requirement for a 50-foot buffer or any specific buffer to his knowledge, but 100 feet is the best practice to strive for.
Councilmember Boles asked if we are expecting a site specific biologist to look at things regarding the ESHA map that are not defined in our General Plan.
Planning Director Murdock stated, if he understands the question, there is a misconception that, if it is not on the ESHA map, it is not protected, and he thinks that is not a correct understanding. He stated that there is a good faith effort to map environmentally sensitive habitat areas as they are known, particularly if there is critical habitat that may be adopted for a particular species by US Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
That high level habitat information is mapped to ensure these areas of interest will be protected.
He stated that there are plenty of other instances where site specific analysis will be needed and required in the LCLUP for biological resource impacts to plants or animal species, to perform wetlands delineations, to determine where those types of resources are located and need to be buffered and avoided. He stated that the ESHA map is a starting point, not an end point, in terms of ESHA protection, and that needs to be clearly understood.
City Council Special Meeting 29 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if the biological reports typically analyze wildlife corridors.
Planning Director Murdock thinks the context needs to justify it. His understanding is that it is contextual, including linkages between different areas, and he would have to believe that those are relevant factors to be considered. Council will see at the end of the policy that resource agencies are supposed to be involved in that process as well, i.e. US Fish and Wildlife Service and CFW. If the biologist did not consider a wildlife corridor but those agencies believe that is a relevant factor, they have the opportunity to be involved in that.
Councilmember Boles stated that the next modification does not have those caveats with all the different agencies, but maybe they are covered under the one above.
Planning Director Murdock thought it may be a different set of circumstances as it is looking at temporary disruptions as determined by a qualified biologist, thereby somewhat lower standard of review in that sense.
Councilmember Boles clarified that she was talking about permitted uses within the buffers.
Planning Director Murdock reiterated that under Modification No. 4.3.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 4.3.
Councilmember Boles asked about the deletion of text in Modification No. 4.4.
Planning Director Murdock thought the deletion looked like it arose from General Plan consistency edits. It was also removed due to redundancy.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to check on Modification No. 4.14. The buffer areas concern her when they have ESHAs occurring immediately adjacent to existing developments.
She asked if this particular buffer is the same issue they had on the other page where they were keeping it more flexible and less prescriptive.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.
City Council Special Meeting 30 April 15, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about the deletion of text in Modification No. 5.2.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was proposed to be deleted because there is a definition of “coastal bluff” as opposed to “bluff” in the glossary and he thought the Coastal Commission was trying to align the definitions in the text more precisely.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer had a question regarding Modification No. 5.1. She asked if city staff recalls the conversation or specific issue around adding “and coastal resources”. She knows Coastal Commission says it is adding clarifying language but she asks what that language actually means in terms of natural hazards. She understands public health and safety but not how it pertains to coastal resources.
Planning Director Murdock thought the concern was that there could be a need in the policies to address the way the environment is degrading other aspects of the environment as well with these policies and not simply hazards related to public health and safety, the way we have been more traditionally thinking of hazards from a local government context, i.e., protecting people and property, but protecting the coastal resources as well.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that Coastal Commission was making a vote for the beach and shoreline, not human aspects of the coastal environment.
Planning Director Murdock stated there are a variety of coastal resources that could be adversely impacted from hazards.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed ESHA impacts as well.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding there is a range of potential coastal resource impacts that could be adversely impacted by coastal hazards.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
Councilmember Boles stated she had a question regarding Modification No. 5.4. She did not think we can require prevention by vegetation, as a project may not impact the vegetation and we do not want to disturb the existing native vegetation already on the slope. She thought it could mean that putting new plants or new trees in an area could cause more erosion. She thought the word “require” was too much, suggesting maybe replacing with “consider” as it is not always appropriate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she was suggesting “require” is too strong.
Councilmember Boles stated that city staff added it back.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she was saying we need to add it back.
City Council Special Meeting 31 April 15, 2024
Planning Director Murdock thought the focus was on restoring the overall policy intent and Coastal Commission staff was concerned that it could be an end run to support shoreline protection related to bluff erosion. That was not the intent of the policy, and what city staff did in the alternative modification was try to make it much more clearly applicable to hillsides related to slope stability and not bluff erosion from wave action.
Councilmember Boles thought it could be something handled on a project by project basis and not necessarily a policy that is broad and may not be appropriate everywhere.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the “require” language is a little unusual in the LCLUP policy document. Some other phrasing like “consider natural methods of erosion prevention to maintain some stability such as re-vegetation” or something else could be fine. The intent to support some stability was the policy objective. He stated city staff could make a change if there is some suitable alternative and suggested “incorporate natural erosion”.
Councilmember Boles asked about adding “where possible”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they still have to protect the hillside.
Councilmember Boles stated that not necessarily if the area is not impacted and the plants on it are stable as is.
Planning Director Murdock thought the concern is, where erosion is a problem, action must be taken, but if the area is vegetated already and erosion is not a problem and slope stability is not a problem, then nothing would need to be done. He thought that was implicit in the structure of the policy but there may be a clearer way to state that; it is not suggesting that there is a stable slope without erosion problem but they need to clear it and then re-vegetate it to protect it. He stated that was not a reasonable interpretation.
Councilmember Boles asked if this could be handled project by project.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, but the project requirements ideally have a basis in the LCLUP as a policy that is being implemented at the project level. He understood the concern with “require” and he thought there is perhaps a better way to phrase this policy if Council believes that maintaining slope stability and minimizing erosion is important.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if the Council majority wants to direct staff to work on revising this language.
Council agreed.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.4.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, for Modification No. 5.5, they had 50 feet and now have 300 feet. She asked how the jump is justified.
Planning Director Murdock understood that it expanded the distance but indicated in coastal vulnerability zones. There is somewhat of a tradeoff, but most of those places are likely to be in coastal vulnerability zones. He also pointed out that projects potentially can impact the stability of bluffs much further away than 50 feet; having an extensive analysis of that is important from a hazard mitigation standpoint. 300 feet is the figure that the Coastal City Council Special Meeting 32 April 15, 2024
Commission feels is appropriate for that purpose. He did not know that we have an alternative distance that is supportive of any evidence at this point to suggest. The point is reasonable that 50 feet is not that much when thinking about sizeable coastal bluffs, weights, drainage, etc., could affect the stability of the bluff.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she heard “300 feet” often in Coastal Commission meetings as a standard when it comes to bluff erosion and she was unsure if there was a basis for it.
Planning Director Murdock was also unsure. He compared it to the 100 foot ESHA buffer. He stated that someone has to draw the line somewhere and they come down on a coastal resource protective place in a lot of cases.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands their concern but she is worried about the impact on our studies and our property owners and the proposals they bring forward. She assumed, based on this, 300 feet is determined to be the safest expectation they can cement into documents like this.
Planning Director Murdock stated they have not engaged on that particular point in relation to the distance. He thought more relevant is the fact that it is in coastal vulnerability zones and, as from the other policies, geotechnical analysis is required in a coastal vulnerability zone.
Councilmember Boles added that geotechnical analyses are required for a building permit for new development or substantial structural modifications and they would have to do it regardless and it is better to know that now.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.4 and 5.5.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the deletion of text in Modification No. 5.6.
Councilmember Bigstyck wondered if it needs to be called “new development” if all development for the purposes of this document is new development, as per the definition.
Planning Director Murdock thought part of the issue is new development must be sited not to require shoreline protection and it will be required to waive rights to future shoreline protection so there is no need to include discussion of not accelerating the need for shoreline protection or increase the likelihood of needing a sea wall. He thought it was removed in that sense.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the Coastal Commission did not agree with the italicized part, “small improvement projects are exempt.”
Planning Director Murdock stated exceptions are addressed elsewhere, primarily in the implementation plan; city staff has a robust list in the zoning, so the reference is redundant.
Councilmember Boles understood there was an exception that modifying a structure by 10% did not need a coastal development permit.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that they are either in the Coastal Act or the implementing regulations adopted by the state and there is an equivalent provision in city staff’s implementation plan that exempts that development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed it is not listed and attached to this particular policy, but it is City Council Special Meeting 33 April 15, 2024
in the other policies.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.6.
Councilmember Bier stated she has a question about Modification No. 5.7. She stated that this is talking about flood zones in the coastal zone vulnerability maps and that goes back to what they were talking about before, i.e., the new data that might change those maps.
Planning Director Murdock stated that other agencies are mapping different types of flooding and FEMA maps do not account for sea level rise projections. The coastal vulnerability zone maps do; that change in sea level rise assumptions would change the city’s coastal vulnerability zone map for flooding projections. He stated that, in many cases, the FEMA maps will coincide with the coastal vulnerability zone maps but will be a smaller flooded area because they are not adding in increase of sea level rise as is in the plan currently. He stated that they may be related but in a different and important way.
Councilmember Boles shared a resident’s experience regarding insurance and sea level rise and flooding from that and reminded everyone to look at their policies.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.7.
Councilmember Bier stated Modification No. 5.8 used “tsunami hazard zone” but there was previously “tsunami inundation zone”. She asked why the language was changed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this policy in Modification No. 5.8 is talking about considering siting and design of development and pointing out two kinds of hazardous areas that have relevant hazard considerations: 100-year flood planes (more conventional flooding) and tsunami hazard zones for potential tsunami inundation. In other policies, there is the discussion that the Coastal Commission wanted tsunami evacuation zones, i.e., the tsunami hazard zones for purposes of a deed restriction waiving rights to shoreline protection. He stated that, in any case, a deed restriction and some requirements will have to get to that. One is in the tsunami evacuation zone, which is a much broader area than likely tsunami inundation zones where the hazard is probably acute enough to justify that burden on the property for a deed restriction. He stated that, in using tsunami hazard and identifying a different extent of that hazard for different purposes, in this case it is probably okay to consider the potential first tsunami hazard because the area is potentially subject to inundation from tsunami and should be considered as a relevant hazard.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not understand why “with flood damage prevention programs” become “without the need for armoring”. She asked about other flood damage prevention programs. Sea walls or some hard armoring did not seem to her as the only options, but the way this is modified, it specifically is addressing just that point.
Planning Director Murdock thought they were all well-aware of the Coastal Act provisions about shoreline protection. He stated that this is just reflecting that in a different context where sometimes shoreline protection also provides protection from flooding even though its primary purpose is usually erosion protection. He thought it is highlighting that point and encouraging use of other techniques through the flood damage prevention program. He stated that it seems to reflect the baseline policy context that is elsewhere in the document, even though it deviated somewhat from the original language of the city certification draft.
City Council Special Meeting 34 April 15, 2024
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.8.
Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding Modification No. 5.9, the ordinance was not yet certified in the LCP, not that the Coastal Commission had an issue with the concept of the flood damage prevention ordinance.
Councilmember Boles asked how long ago did city staff create this document and are we going to be seeking certification.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the Coastal Commission’s position is that the city needs to, even though it is a federally required ordinance for purposes of mitigating flood damage.
City staff intends to undertake that as part of their implementation plan update. He thought they may have put the ordinance in place in 2017, at least prior to 2020.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.9.
Councilmember Boles stated that she had asked for a map regarding Modification No. 5.10.
She would like to understand the flood control structures, drainage channels, and stream beds.
Mayor Vaterlaus added culverts and drainage canals.
Planning Director Murdock did not know if the issue is terminology. The natural creeks are a designed part of the city’s stormwater infrastructure, which need to be routinely maintained to remove debris or vegetation overgrowth, etc. He stated the Coastal Commission recognized that initially and city staff wanted to point out the fact that the maintenance is necessary. The compromise was the maintenance could be done in compliance with the Coastal Act and protecting the resources during the course of that maintenance.
Councilmember Boles stated that was her concern, as these are very sensitive habitat areas.
Planning Director Murdock stated these need to be maintained and there is very little linear length of the creeks in the coastal zone relative to the overall maintenance obligation; regardless of what the LCLUP says, other resource agency permitting, such as from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, is required. He stated the LCLUP cannot give authorization to go do that work, as there is likely to be other permits and approvals required.
City Manager Woodhouse added that city staff is working on obtaining the Routine Maintenance Authorization (RMA).
Councilmember Boles asked what is Coastal Act Section 30236.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read Coastal Act Section 30236. She voiced her concerns about maintenance of streambeds and creeks in neighborhoods and under highways.
Planning Director Murdock did not know the technical answer. As it pertains to the city as a public agency undertaking a project, it needs to obtain the authorization and should do so to make sure we are properly mitigating our actions. He did not know the answer for an individual private property owner doing reasonable maintenance in a creek area.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are culverts all over Pacifica that used to be maintained by the city and now they are maintained by homeowners; people do have to maintain them and City Council Special Meeting 35 April 15, 2024
they do it privately, as the city does not.
Councilmember Boles asked if some of the creeks are in private property.
Planning Director Murdock thought they may be in some instances.
Councilmember Boles asked if, in San Pedro Creek, people could do work in the creek even though that is a sensitive habitat area.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated there were some tree problems the winter before this one and the maintenance work that had to be done was private property requirement because of the stream slope. It was not the public agency, i.e. Pacifica, that did it because it was their private property so the city compelled them to do it.
Councilmember Boles asked if they knew they needed a permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer knew they were in contact with the city. She concluded that it does affect private property.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that people do own to the middle of the creek.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that PW Director Petersen did confirm that we do have the routine maintenance agreement with Fish and Wildlife.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, regarding Modification No. 5.14, whether there could be a circumstance in which the city is denying the NCFA vegetation management program.
Planning Director Murdock thought possibly but unlikely. There are some potential situations where the laudable task to reduce fire hazard could run afoul of other LCP policies related to resource protection or other relevant hazards.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he had a major concern with this item.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Council will likely see in such an instance is that city staff will identify that potential conflict and need to find out some sort of alternative or mitigation to balance the competing policy priorities. He thinks it is just ensuring that there is coordination and consideration of potential impacts from such programs so they do not run afoul of the LCP in terms of coastal resource protection.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought, as long as there is a path whereby a resolution can occur in which that fire hazard is mitigated, he would ask if there is augmented language that might be helpful for that understanding.
Planning Director Murdock thought it is generally the case in a policy document context that there is a balancing act, mitigations that may be required, or alternatives that need to be pursued to achieve multiple competing policies that might call for different actions to occur.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would appreciate some clarifying language around that particular policy. He would love to see some language about collaboration and cooperation in City Council Special Meeting 36 April 15, 2024
NH-I-39.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer supported that.
Councilmember Boles asked if we have reviewed the NCFA vegetation management program.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we have not reviewed that.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.14.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested reviewing Chapter 6 another time.
Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that part of the reason there is a lot is because when Council and city staff wrote our LCLUP draft the first time, we renamed this chapter. We thought it fit their needs and reflected our community and our priorities very well, but it may have caused an additional amount of emphasis or focus. It is clear there is a lot to go through and she was sure that staff will have a lot to tell them about what the issues were with different specific policies in staff’s work with the Coastal staff.
Planning Director Murdock stated that what she might be alluding to is that the culmination of the vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning processes, which were lively with the community, was the formation of Chapter 6 that was added to the earlier 2014 version of the LCLUP. Everything that garners significant community interest in the 2017 - 2019 time frame related to essentially sea level rise related planning all got wrapped up in Chapter 6. It is dense and of great interest to Council and the community, and there is very important policy content that affects a lot of things in our community, including what homeowners can do with their property, things the city can do related to its infrastructure, and the whole issue of special resiliency areas and whether that is an appropriate policy construct to resolve some of the attention between the city and Coastal Commission that may have been present in this process.
He agreed there is much to discuss.
City Manager Woodhouse stated if Council does not want to continue tonight on Chapter 6, there are a couple of options. Council can continue this discussion at the next Council meeting on Monday and get through Chapter 6 then. City staff still have to come back with a properly noticed public hearing for adoption of the resolution at a different future meeting. If Council chose to continue this discussion on Monday, then they pick up where they left off and go through. He stated that he will need to rearrange some things off of the agenda for Monday.
The other option is to find a date for a different additional special meeting again on another day and continue this discussion, and if properly noticed, be prepared to wrap it all up and adopt the resolution to transmit to the Coastal Commission.
Council agreed to continue the meeting to Monday.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the motion would need to be to continue the meeting to a date certain, April 22.
City Manager Woodhouse added, since public input was already provided on the item, we do not need to redo public input on this discussion in that continuation.
City Council Special Meeting 37 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that public comment would be a part of their considerations on Monday as the chair may or may not invoke that conversation.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they will decide that on Monday.
Councilmember Boles stated, before they vote, there are some questions about the SRAs and about the way that they might do this other tsunami inundation versus tsunami hazard map.
She would like to have a geotechnical engineer here so they can ask questions, if possible.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that her concern is that the consultant may not be specifically retained to comment or opine at a meeting on the LCLUP update. While there are on-call consultants that the city regularly uses, it may not be that someone is retained specifically to come and speak at a public meeting on this topic.
Planning Director Murdock thought staff can reach out to those they have access to as on-call consultants and see if any may be available and retained under a contract that would allow them to participate for this purpose and see if they are available on relatively short notice for a very complicated subject. He stated that, while they can make a reasonable effort, he does not know that they can commit to that.
Councilmember Boles added if there is PW staff that has more of that type of technical expertise that could be here that would be helpful.
Planning Director Murdock is not aware if there are PW staff who have that level of specific expertise that could opine on this.
PW Director Petersen stated that he is correct. They use outside consultants.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can check on availability and see.
Councilmember Boles appreciated that.
Councilmember Bier moved to continue the meeting to a date certain, April 22; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE CERTAIN, APRIL 22
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer requested an opportunity for clarification regarding a previous public comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they can just state for the record the clarification that needs to be made to the minutes.
City Manager Woodhouse read into the record that Mr. Spencer Potter clarified for the record that, during oral public comment made tonight, he was speaking in his individual capacity rather than as an official statement from San Francisco Rec and Parks Department, and the specific City Council Special Meeting 38 April 15, 2024
comments he made were not approved ahead of time by SFRPD’s general manager or by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 5/13/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor