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 Regular Meeting 1 April 22, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
April 22, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on April 22, 2024 at 6:09 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION - SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:09 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; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. 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 Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Preservation Award 2024 by the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee to Julie Lancelle
Mayor Vaterlaus stated their first presentation will be the 2024 Preservation Award by Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee to Julie Lancelle presented by Chair Arlene Patton.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before they do special presentations, he wanted to remove Consent Calendar Item #5 from this agenda as it isn’t ready yet for Council deliberation, which is the Resolution of Intention to establish the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District. He stated that it will return to Council at a future date to be determined.
OSPAC Chair Arlene Patton stated that there are a few members who are present to honor Julie Lancelle who has served this community for many years. She gave a brief introduction sharing her relationship with her and then read the Preservation Award.
Ms. Lancelle stated that this town has been amazing in her 30 years here, and she was lucky to be here and is happy about her time here in this beautiful place. She thanked Council for what they do and asked them to call her if they need her.
Councilmember Bier stated Ms. Lancelle was very special to her and to our city. She stated that Ms. Lancelle led with love and integrity and thanked her for being her friend and everything she has done for our city.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he has been living in Pacifica for 40 years and she had a great part in building the community he grew up in. He thanked her for her work, not just on OSPAC but across the board.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked her for her leadership and appreciated her and thanked her for being so inspiring and kind.
Councilmember Boles recounted her first meeting with Ms. Lancelle and stated Ms. Lancelle was an example of what a difference just one person can make who is involved in their community and she thanked her.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Ms. Lancelle has always been true to what she believed. They all appreciate her so much and thank her for everything she has done.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that this town has a history of creating earth heroes for Earth Day and Ms. Lancelle has been her hero for a long time.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
B. Proclamation - Mental Health Month - May 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the next proclamation from Pacifica in recognition of Mental Health Month - May 2024 in Pacifica to reduce stigma, encourage support and promote wellness to address mental health and substance abuse conditions and then read the proclamation Councilmember Bigstyck provided his thoughts on Mental Health Month and thanked Councilmember Bier who is one of the founding mayors of the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative.
Councilmember Bier expressed her thoughts on how important it is to check on each other and shared how that was made possible through the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative. She hoped everyone checks on their neighbors and family and friends as it is important to have that support and for kindness.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 22, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that there is often a stigma or fear about getting mental health services and conveyed that there should not be. She shared her personal story with mental health. She encouraged everyone at different times in their life to consider these services, as they may not need it today but may need it tomorrow or next week.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked Councilmember Bier for the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative and stated they would like to continue on with the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative and celebrate the month as Mental Health Month.
C. Proclamation - Wildfire Preparedness Month - May 2024 Mayor Vaterlaus read the proclamation for Wildfire Preparedness Month - May 2024.
NCFA Fire Inspector Claire Shum thanked them on behalf of North County Fire Authority and reminded them that Wildfire Awareness Day is May 18 in the Community Center parking lot.
Councilmember Boles thanked her for being here and for the importance of the proclamation.
She announced to the public several other events about fire hazards and insurance: an insurance crisis meeting on Thursday, April 25, at the Hillsborough Town Hall, and an event regarding recovery from fire and floods held by County Supervisor Ray Mueller on April 29 at his coastside office.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked those in the profession who are doing everything they can to keep us safe. He asked Fire Inspector Shum regarding ZoneHaven and fire reduction programs in the community.
Fire Inspector Shum stated she would check on the dates for the programs and provided information on ZoneHaven and Wildfire Awareness Day.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments and, seeing none, closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Item No. 5 was removed from the Consent Calendar and they have Items Nos. 1 through 4.
City Clerk Coffey noted a correction for Item #3, the proposed resolution for the Economic Development Committee charter: an administrative correction needs to be made to Exhibit A so the content matches what is in the resolution. This was with respect to making a correction in the membership item and the terms and general provision item in Exhibit A to state, consistent with the resolution, that the membership of EDC will be comprised of nine community members appointed by City Council plus one non-voting ex officio as designated by the board of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, and under the terms and general provisions, this is where it would note that the City Manager or designee shall serve as staff liaison to the EDC and at least one councilmember shall be appointed by City Council to serve as committee liaison. She stated that the exhibit had incorrectly noted that the staff liaison was a member of the EDC, thus correcting the content to be consistent with the resolution language.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 22, 2024
Dep. City Clerk La stated that there was one raised hand.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, asked if this general comments.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it was for Consent.
Mr. Casillas stated he will lower his hand for now.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, regarding Item No. 2, an alarm system for the new Civic Center buildings, if that means the buildings are almost done being built.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are closing in on completion of the Civic Center.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was excited they are coming to the finish line of that very long process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they hit a major milestone a couple of weeks ago with successful PG&E powering of the campus and there is a lot of details to still be undertaken such as the alarm system and other aspects. They are hopeful that they are close.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved that Consent Calendar Items Nos. 1 through 4 with No. 3 as amended by staff; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 1 – 4 (WITH ITEM #3 AS AMENDED), EXCLUDING ITEM NO. 5
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) March 25, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Construction Services Agreement with HFS Systems for installation of the Civic Center Alarm System
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Construction Services Agreement with HFS Systems for installation of the Civic Center Alarm System in the amount of $78,795 with a $9,000 (~11%) contingency for a Total Budget Authority of $87,795.
3. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Revisions to the 2019 Economic Development Committee (EDC) Charter
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council to approve the revisions to the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Charter, per the Joint Study Session on March 25, 2024.
4. Resolution of Intention to Continue the Business Improvement District Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 22, 2024
the City of Pacifica Confirming the Annual Report of the Advisory Board of the Pacifica Hotels and Business Improvement District (BID) and Declaring the City Council's Intention to Continue the BID Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 at the Same Rate as Levied in the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Without Change" and set the date of June 24, 2024, for the Public Hearing on the annual levy of assessments on hotels within the BID.
5. Resolution of Intention to Establish the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of Intention to establish the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD). Adoption of this Resolution will result in a public meeting on June 10, 2024, and a public hearing on June 24, 2024, on the formation of the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) and the levy of assessments on hotels and short-term vacation rentals.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding the idea of putting on a ballot measure for a City Council item of term limits in addition to her thoughts on the manner in which Council now does commission and committee appointments.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to the Beach Boulevard Resiliency project, and asked clarification on this project, sharing his thoughts and concerns on the issue.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck wished everyone Happy Earth Day. He attended CCAG and division events mostly. He was at the City Leaders Summit in Sacramento and the purpose of the event was to meet with local electeds at state level. Last week he talked to Senator Josh Becker, Assemblymember Diane Papan, Assemblymember Marc Berman, Senator Scott Wiener, and Assemblymember Gail Pellerin. He stated that, except for Assemblymember Pellerin, all of the others were officials with whom he talked about topics relating directly to Pacifica, such as Vehicle License Fee (VLF) tax, Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Coastal Commission (CCC). He stated that the county version of League of Cities was in Sacramento at the same time and he met County Supervisor Noelia Corzo as well as Santa Cruz Supervisor Justin Cummings who is the area representative on the Coastal Commission for us. He attended the Progress Seminar in Santa Rosa with other electeds and collaborated with representatives from Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. He spoke with San Francisco Supervisor Catherine Stefani and discussed things like our golf course and how one supervisor in San Francisco is viewing the land they have in our community. He had the opportunity to speak with Aaron Aknin with Good City Company to get an update on our Housing Element.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked Councilmembers Bigstyck and Boles and Mayor Vaterlaus for devoting their personal time to the Progress Seminar.
Councilmember Boles stated, from the last City Council meeting, following the public comment by Spencer Potter who worked for San Francisco in Dept. of Park & Rec, she decided to email the Board of Supervisors and Mayor of San Francisco to let them know what was going on and see if they might be able to get official input from them on our LCLUP. She stated that they were very grateful that she reached out and gave them the synopsis of what was going on.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 22, 2024
They will be doing their own research internally and start to look at the CDP for the berm at the Sharp Park Golf Course, which is coming up for renewal in 2027. She stated that they said the struggle for them was that they manage many properties, and their priorities are on the properties in San Francisco. She stated that they have an ongoing project to improve the redlegged frog and garter snake habitats and she hoped we can learn more about that. She hoped this is the start of more cooperation and communication between us.
Councilmember Bier thanked the Pacific Beach Coalition for a wonderful Earth Day and Whale Fest. She also thanked Pacific Coast Television for all the work they do and they had a great open house. She thanked Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmember Bigstyck for coming straight from the Progress Seminar to PCT. They had a fundraiser for Coast Pride at Table Wine and she thanked Table Wine for doing that. She reminded everyone that Blues and Brews was coming up on April 27.
Mayor Vaterlaus read a poem provided to Council by Clif Lawrence and thanked him for delivering this poem to Council as it is meaningful, especially for today.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that May is a month of many different recognitions and he added that May is also Small Business Month and the City would like to recognize all of our small businesses that help make Pacifica a unique community we all enjoy. Small businesses support the local economy, employ local residents, encourage entrepreneurship, as well as youth entrepreneurship, engage in philanthropic and civic campaigns, and contribute to the vibrancy of the city. Thus, during May, the City wanted to encourage all residents to shop local and show our appreciation to our local businesses, the cornerstone of the community, and use their promotional Shop Pacifica cards expiring on May 12, and Small Business Week is April 28 through May 4.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated Wednesday is Administrative Professionals Day and she would like to thank all of our professionals, all administration, and everyone who works for the city.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
6. Continuation of Adjourned Special Meeting from April 15, 2024 - 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: Continue deliberations from the Adjourned Special Meeting from April 15, 2024 to consider and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they already had public comments on this item and are not required to reopen public comments on the adjourned special meeting, but recommended that they reopen the public comments on this item and asked Council if there was consensus to reopen the public comments following the staff presentation. There was consensus.
Planning Director Murdock stated he is joined by Sr. Planner Stefanie Cervantes to continue the City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 22, 2024
Council’s work to go through the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications and city staff’s alternative modifications in relation to the Local Coastal land Use Plan or LCLUP update process that has been ongoing for some time. He then briefly recapped the April 15 meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Dan Yonts, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the interpretations of takings in the LCLUP and asked that they not approve this current version of the LCLUP.
Joanne Gold, Pacifica, referred to a question on why mixed use was proposed for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Field at the previous meeting, and shared her thoughts on that discussion and her concerns on the issue and the final decision.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, urged Council to stick with the 2020 LCLUP that was sent in, and shared his concerns on this revision and the problems for residents and the city.
Jenifer Behling, Pacifica, appreciated the conversations on this issue and wanted to give them her no vote, sharing her concerns.
Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, stated she owns property and provides affordable housing and expressed her concerns if this plan goes forward and asked to stay with the 2020 LCLUP.
Richard Harris, San Francisco, stated he is with the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, and he has sent the city letters addressing the issues, and expressed his concerns on the current draft of the LCLUP and shared possible options to consider on environmental justice policy.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed his concerns about misinformation on social media about this issue and shared the need for good information to counter misinformation.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on going back to the 2020 LCLUP because the revised document is not fair or equitable to those living in the coastal zone and is concerned that the Coastal Commission is setting the city up for liability.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, reiterated what Clif Lawrence shared about information they heard and the public not being clear on what is going on, and shared her thoughts and suggestions on the issue for more clarification.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, commended both Clif Lawrence and Cindy Abbott for their comments, and she shared her thoughts on the creation of the Coastal Commission as well as how to clean up the disagreements with the agency.
Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated she is representing the Local San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation and they continue to support the Coastal Commission’s recommendations for the LCLUP and shared her thoughts on reconsidering the path the city is pursuing with the draft.
Marie Swan, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the Coastal Commission’s responsibility as well as the city in protecting all homeowners in the coastal zone.
Naikaly, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on having Council take more time and giving the community more time to get more clarity and make the right decision.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 22, 2024
Linda Acosta, Pacifica, urged Council not to adopt the LCLUP as it stands as it is inequitable and unfair, and offered suggestions for equality for all under the Coastal Act.
Amber Waters, Pacifica, appreciated other homeowners’ comments and shared her experience talking with other homeowners about all their concerns regarding their properties being at risk; thus, she hoped they do not go forward with the current state of the LCLUP.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, echoed some of the comments about the Coastal Commission not being the inventor of the SRA policy, and shared her thoughts on getting clarification from city staff on concerns by the community.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Planning Director Murdock reminded Council that, in the event they go back to public recreation chapter, there was a typo in PR-I-24 related to the Sharp Park Golf Course that should read “support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with CDP terms and condition and support development of additional recreational uses and upland portions of the park located outside the coastal zone east of Highway 1".
Councilmember Boles referred to Richard Harris’ comment and stated that we are saying we are supporting the continued operation at the golf course.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was city staff’s recommended alternative modification.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Coastal Commission said that in the suggested modification.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, and that is what city staff is recommending that the document include. He stated that, at the last meeting, Mayor Vaterlaus guided Council through and sought to determine whether there was an interest in discussing each line as they progress through, and staff is present to facilitate that with information and in response to questions.
Councilmember Bier stated that she heard some comments that it might be a good idea for Council to read some things so people can understand.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what she is proposing be read, all of the boxes in the chart or just the proposed draft alternative modifications.
Councilmember Bier thought we have to be as clear as we possibly can be and she did not think they can be that clear if not reading what is in the chart and talking about it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it sounds like she wants to read the city’s certification draft text, the CCC’s suggested modification, and then the draft alternative modifications.
Councilmember Bier thought, if we talk about making changes, we need to read them through.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if the majority of Council supports that recommendation.
Planning Director Murdock stated, for their meeting management and time management, there are 14 pages of Chapter 6 modifications to get through.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse thought, as they went through the chart last week, they often would read the suggested change, as well as staff explaining the summary or reason for the modification. He stated that there may be some that are very lengthy and some that are short; as we go through each one, Council should be clear about sufficiently summarizing and/or reading and, if not, they’ll read more specifically if that works. He thought it could be line by line to make sure that it is clear what the alternate modification being suggested and why and any specific wording.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he feels like he is mired in a process that is bereft of clarity no matter how deeply into focus we would wish to bring it on any one of these given points. He felt that a lot of what is being asked from Council by Coastal Commission is born of circumstances that could not have been fathomed for more than 40 years when the Coastal Act was first put forth and now we are trying to grapple with that and he feels like there are many homeowners in town who are trying to make heads or tails of what another organization is trying to make heads or tails out of. He feels like Council is in a position in which there is no comfort or happiness and he felt the need to express that. In terms of the question of how we should best grapple with any given one of these points for the benefit of our community, he felt like it is up to any given one of Council to do whatever due diligence we feel is right to ask the questions that bring them clarity.
Councilmember Boles stated that she wants to acknowledge all the comments at this meeting and the letters and even some of the information on social media. She agreed that there is misinformation and confusion in the public. She stated that there were questions raised that make her want to go back and look at a policy from last week. She is not opposed to continuing to go through this and lay all their questions on the table but she does think they need more careful review in answering and make sure they are educating people.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that this is one of the most difficult things that she has ever done on Council. She was here for the 2020 Local Coastal Plan and was more comfortable then than she is now. When she receives the comments from the community, she feels like no one wants anything, and we are trying and doing our best to do the right thing.
Councilmember Bier noted this has always been a divisive issue as long as she can remember and she finds it telling that folks on each side of the issue are agreeing that they do not agree with Council. She thought we really need to take that into consideration because that does not happen very often in our community.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that we are not anywhere near on the same page. She stated that the characterization of the 2020 LCLUP from public comment at this meeting is that the community agreed on it and they did not. She agreed with the point of view that not everybody was happy with that final document but it was a compromise we could live with and something we brought forward. She stated that we have been presented a complete redline of that in a way that has not been explained to the community except to say because the Coastal Commission will not approve it. She stated that, to her, is not sufficient. We are trying to come up with something that the Coastal Commission would approve. She stated that the Coastal Commission is not here to help us figure this out as that is not their role, yet the information we get from the community is put it forward to the Commission, let them be the one to tell us what to do. She stated that we cannot do both, and this is an inefficient and extremely unsuccessful process right now. She has not been able to come up with a suggestion for how to make it better. As she looks at the chart now, she could not even tell in the very first policy in Chapter 6, 6.1, what even got changed until she closely read the paragraphs in the first two City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 22, 2024
columns and what got changed is the sentence “protection of property rights is an important theme in this chapter” and that was struck by the Coastal Commission. She stated that they heard from last week that Councilmember Boles brought forward a question to the City Attorney to please clarify if it is the responsibility of the city to protect private property, and City Attorney said it was not. She stated that what is happening here is that we are tearing apart the people.
She did not know what the right way to do this is. She reiterated that this is the hardest thing we have ever done. She stated, right now, everybody would say they are getting 0% of what they want. She emphasized that there has been discussion about neighborhood approach to trying to address these very difficult issues across the state for years. She stated that Pacifica did not create the concept of Special Resiliency Areas. The Council is trying to discuss something in the theoretical possible but applied to the city and she does not feel like it is a successful process. She is asking herself if it is worth going through this line by line because, in the end, are we going to be any further along or any closer to agreement. She stated that she had a goal of getting the LCLUP updated and now we are getting to the hardest part of all and she does not know if we are going to be successful. She found it disturbing and bothersome when people remind us that we are the elected representatives of the community and half of the people who call in and chide them do not live here and are representing the interest of lobbying groups and calling out the interest of other lobbying groups that are referenced by this City Council. She emphasized that this City Council has not referenced any lobbying groups and brought them in to this process, and on the contrary, she personally has sought not for that to happen. She stated that the city has been struggling to provide a fair, balanced, even public process. The community is saying that it is not working for them, and she does not know what they suggest, as she is not hearing any suggestions, but accusations and criticisms toward the staff and the LCLUP document. Her opinion is that we should set this aside as this is holding us up and tearing us apart at the same time.
Councilmember Bigstyck posed the question of what happens if Council stops or abandons the LCLUP. Before that, he stated, regarding where SRAs come from, Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer struck him as the most likely person on the dais to have deep insight into exactly what the neighborhood carveout strategy that has been worked on by the Coastal Cities group in collaboration with some Coastal Commission members and Coastal Commission staff. He asked her, comparing to her experience in actively working on that notion, if it is something that could be a tool to help cities to work collaboratively with the Coastal Commission.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it has been an abstract, theoretical conversation, not trying to apply to any specific city in any specific instance, but the area it was trying to address is a very real situation when we have properties of different ages that have a right to protection under the Coastal Act because they existed before the Act was passed (also known as preCoastal). She stated that, when there are areas like Pacifica has in Sharp Park where almost every property on Beach Boulevard is pre-Coastal but not everyone, some would be entitled or have the right to protect. If there is any sort of shoreline protection armoring in place, they have the right to keep it and maintain it, but their neighbor, who may not have been there pre-Coastal, does not have this right. She thought that was inconsistent. She stated that sea walls are not supposed to be protecting private property, but if private property receives protection under the reality that some of this armoring is protecting critical infrastructure, the Coastal Commission understands and recognizes that; but they have not sought to allow for that, so they constantly state for any future development analyses must be done as if that protection was not there. She stated the intent in discussion was to state that it is there and what does it look like and how can they allow for certain areas because of their unique circumstance to allow that armoring to be part of the calculus. She stated that is the basis of the SRA concept. She stated that is the reality of trying to take the theoretical and apply it to specific situations with specific individuals.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 22, 2024
She stated that Council has to come up with compromise, a baseline of agreement, and we are not doing that.
Councilmember Bier stated that she does not see the holistic view of the entire coastside, as she does not have a vision of what that is with this SRA for the different streets and districts.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the reality is that different physical challenges affect different parts of that coastline, and how do we address all of these different issues in the different parts of the city. She added that we are hearing clearly from the community that this is not well received. She stated that there is a lot of fear and perception of unfairness and lack of equity. She stated that Council has heard many times from many people about upholding the Coastal Act that was voted in and is a reflection of the will of the people. She stated that she is hearing do not try to interpret it or try to come up with other ways as there are already policies in the Coastal Act itself that take care of those things. She stated that Council has to figure out what does it mean for this community.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about our Local Coastal Plan and our General Plan that are from the 80s and how outdated everything is and how the Coastal Commission goes back to the 70s.
She does not know the best approach either.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she is hearing Mayor Vaterlaus say they have to modernize and deal with the realities that are today.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated the realities that are facing them today, not in 1976.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer reiterated the previously made position about the best available science. She stated that the document says it is based on the best available science but that is not true. She stated we would update it and amend it, but she also asked if we were trying to adopt something before that is available or should we be waiting for that to be available.
Councilmember Boles stated that is something she is willing to consider, in light of what they are hearing from the public. She it is important and we have been doing it for a long time but a lot of this is new in just the last year and we are having a hard time understanding it and the public is as well. She considered taking their time, updating the science, and evaluating the SRAs. She appreciated all the people in Fairway Park and Sharp Park commenting about equity, and that is why she brought up the protection of private property. She mentioned properties that are on their own and she suggested that the Council talk about equity and how we are helping all of their residents move forward and how we are protecting our population from climate change.
She stated that the Coastal Act in 1977 also did not consider climate change so that is a new mandate that they have brought forth and the state government is supporting their work in managing cities, updating their Local Coastal Plans, to plan for what is ahead. She thought those vulnerability maps are important so we know what projects they need to do, how we can improve the flooding in the golf course and on Clarendon because those were arising and increasing, and residents are at risk. She stated it is the work of elected officials to do this hard work to plan and have a vision for the future. She agreed it is hard work and takes a lot of time, and she did not think we should rush it.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to all the work that city staff has done over and over in years and trying to make something that everybody would agree on and it would go forward. She stated that the SRAs were to try to help, not hurt. When she learned the first description of the SRAs, she thought it was the greatest thing and then we listen to people and we hear the opposite.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 22, 2024
She respects our city staff and everything they have done. She came here grappling with the fact of what if she votes no. She acknowledged that it is difficult.
Councilmember Boles stated that city staff worked on the SRAs because they thought that the Coastal Commission’s modifications were not going to be approved by Council. She stated that we never talked about that, but that is the work they have been putting in. She is okay going through the policies and trying to understand tonight. She does not know the next steps and what the path is forward.
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought Councilmember Boles made the assertion that we have not had a conversation around the 2020 draft. He would like to lead into that conversation and assert that city staff has worked more collaboratively with Coastal Commission staff over the course of the last several months than any of the impressions he has had since 2018. He stated, if city staff is collaborating in a way that they had not been before, that is something he is not comfortable easily disregarding. He also acknowledged, if the community is saying this is not the way to go, he is not disregarding it if that should happen to be the outcome. Coming back to Councilmember Boles’ point, he stated that, given the recommendations of Coastal staff, based on our 2020 draft, if Council were to go forward with the draft as written anyway, with or without accepting the recommendations, he thinks what is being proposed is do not accept the recommendations. He asked if Council thinks one way or the other, if we were to present the 2020 Plan as is today, would we get closer to updating or would it be abandoned.
Councilmember Bier stated that we did submit the 2020 version and it came back with all of these suggested modifications. When she hears people say that go back to the 2020 version, she stated that the 2020 version is not what the Coastal Commission is going to accept.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the suggested modifications come from Coastal Commission staff based on informed staff relationship and knowledge of the process that happens with Coastal Commission. She stated that she has heard from community members that it never had a hearing and was never discussed publicly and it should be. She stated what does staff think about that and what happens if we say it is done and are resubmitting our homework.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if Council thinks it would be helpful, one thing city staff can do is reiterate some of the main points about the legal and regulatory framework that we are in and remind everyone what is the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, what is the purpose of that, and what are the pros and cons of a 45-year old document versus a modern one. He stated that they can talk about that to refresh why city staff is doing this and why has it been a major strategic priority for City Councils of Pacifica for so long. He stated that it remains a major strategy of Council and that is where the direction from Council to city staff to work on this comes. He stated that the challenge is the authority that the Coastal Commission has in practice and law about what cities on the coast do. The city went through a process and reached the 2020 submittal and Coastal Commission staff’s recommendation to the Commission was very resounding suggested modifications to the document. In the process, the Coastal Commission published their suggested modifications and the Coastal Commission was set for the hearing two weeks later; the way the process plays out is Coastal Commission would hear it, review staff’s suggested modifications, and send that document back to Pacifica’s City Council to accept it as edited or start the process over again. It was the judgment that the city staff want more time to work collaboratively with Coastal staff, which has been a major Council strategic planning priority, because the chasm was so large between the 2020 submittal City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 22, 2024
and the Coastal staff modification. There will need to be compromise in order, in any possibility, to get a certified LCLUP which gets back to the point about why and what is the benefit of having a modernized and certified LCLUP versus relying on a 45-year-old document. He would say that the suggested modifications on the 2020 LCLUP submission would have come back to City Council and we would have started the LCLUP process all over again because Council would not have accepted what the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications were throughout the document. He asked regarding contextual information if we want to review what the role is of the LCLUP in a city, why is it important to a community, or what are the benefits in these alternative modifications compared to a 45-year-old LCLUP. He stated that we summarized a lot of those in the case studies prepared for previous meetings. He stated this is a very difficult process and this is new to Coastal Commission and new to city staff and we worked hard to try to come at it in creative ways, such as creating all of those case studies, to show what this really mean in practice for property owners. He noted how important it is and how local government works versus state government regulatory agency and there is a whole framework there that is hard to grasp but contain legal aspects to working in that system.
Planning Director Murdock stated that everything the City Manager said about the process and the mechanics of the LCLUP certification is correct. He stated that, should the city have proceeded in March 2023 or chooses to proceed at some point with a plan comparable to the February 2020 plan adopted by City Council, that plan will be modified by the Coastal Commission, perhaps in ways even more far reaching than the staff recommendations from the Coastal Commission staff, and City Council would have 180 days to accept those modifications or start over. He thought it was important to recognize that a choice not to proceed with this update has various consequences, i.e., consequences of continuing on indefinitely or a prolonged period with the 1980 LCLUP. He stated the 1980 LCLUP is not structured and does not identify the needs of the community in the same way that they exist today in 2024. The needs have changed very much in 40+ years: environmental needs have changed, certain successes have been achieved in terms of open space protections, shoreline protection exists where it did not before, and housing needs are as acute as they have ever been in our community. He stated that there are a variety of challenges that the 1980 LCLUP will prevent City Council from addressing for the community, and it is important to recognize that, if a choice is made to continue with the 1980 LCLUP more directly or perhaps more technically, there will be practical challenges with administering this city with the 1980 LCLUP and a 2040 General Plan. He stated that there are many inconsistencies between those documents, some of which can be managed on a project review basis or a city operational basis, and some which will be difficult to manage and thus we will revert to the 1980 LCLUP in the limitations and perhaps outdatedness of some of those components. He stated at a high level there are consequences to a decision not to pursue an LCLUP on a nearer term timeline. He stated that, in terms of timeline, city staff is postured to achieve an LCLUP certification on the shortest possible timeline that he can imagine. He stated that today we have the attention and willingness to think creatively and compromise with the Coastal Commission staff in a way that he has not seen it in his time approaching ten years with Pacifica. He stated we are meeting face to face regularly in the spirit of compromise in effectuating an outcome that both agencies can live with. That is the staff-to-staff judgement and, ultimately, what matters is Council’s judgement and the Coastal Commission’s. He stated that, choosing to do a more robust start over or expanding new areas of analysis, realistically, in terms of timeline, puts them a year to two years out from having any other culminating event of a certification hearing. He stated that is the reality of the process that they would be starting rather than the process they would be concluding with this plan. He stated that tradeoffs and compromises, as well as consequences, are for the City Council to consider.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 22, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that right now we seem to have a working relationship with the Coastal Commission staff. He asked Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer for her recollection of a comment that Congresswoman Eshoo made to her during a city tour.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we were standing on the pier and we were showing Congresswoman Eshoo the damage and talking about our plans for Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project, working with Army Corps, and asking for her assistance in continuing with that work, and Congresswoman Eshoo had concerns about our relationship with the Coastal Commission. Congresswoman Eshoo said that Council needs to work with the Coastal Commission. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer said her takeaway was that Congresswoman Eshoo’s read on how well we were working with them was going to factor into how likely we were going to receive support. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that made sense because why would we want to put a lot of effort into something that will fail. She stated that the point is that we had to get closer to agreement. She feels we are doing that and is continuing. She thought we have made progress and there is learning in the process as she says that any community that tries this is going to experience. She stated that there are private property owners in every community and there are reasons that communities have pulled back and decided to hold with what they have because of the perception of overreach and taking control from state regulatory agency of things that are properly in control of the local jurisdiction. She stated that the city has to live within this environment where we have every kind of agency to balance and figure out in running our city and moving our city forward. Private property owners who happen to own in the coastal zone are in a position where those things affect them more than other property owners in Pacifica. She is beginning to fully grasp the interplay between all those other agencies and other regulators and our city and our permitting. She asked how our city takes all that and factor it into approvals for permits and feedbacks to projects that are proposed. She asked what part does the city permit and what part do they refer to other agencies for other approvals.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we did have those tours after the Coastal Commission meeting. He stated the reason he brought that up specifically is that Congresswoman Eshoo specifically gave Councilmembers helpful advice that we need to have strong collaboration with the Coastal Commission. He stated that we have other things they need to bring before Coastal Commission, such as the Beach Boulevard Resiliency Infrastructure project. He feels that is a legitimate concern as they try and figure this out.
Planning Director Murdock stated he has been hopeful in the course of discussions with Coastal Commission staff over the last year of working towards some greater understanding of our respective interests and ways that we can align them in the LCLUP, that they would be able to use this as a launch pad to even better relationships over the years for other very important activities for our community, like the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project, like addressing the needs of other parts of our town that are succumbing to coastal erosion and other needs that we have not identified yet where we need to think creatively, move quickly, and understand each other more effectively. He is not sure that whatever the outcome of this process is will necessarily adversely impact the relationship in the bigger picture. He is more concerned about is the ability to get the same time and attention for another attempt at this beyond the one that we have spent so much time undertaking on the city’s side and they have taken so much time undertaking on the Coastal Commission’s side. He stated that they are putting a lot of chips on the table from their staff side to try to line up the support internally and with the Coastal Commission for a compromise that there are few, if any, examples of on a statewide basis, and we have tried to be an equal partner in that in trying to get Council to think more broadly about compromise in the policies as well. He stated people on city staff’s side and City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 22, 2024
Coastal Commission staff’s side have not thought of some other master compromise that might be acceptable to both agencies.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about resubmitting the 2020 LCLUP draft.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in his professional assessment, he did not think there was any viable path to that February 2020 LCLUP being certified. They have significant evidence to suggest that is the case with 125+ suggested modifications.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if we start the process over, it would take two years.
Planning Director Murdock stated, the February 2020 LCLUP is not adequate, there is a need to essentially start a fresh planning process to figure out what other way to write this LCLUP with community input, analyzing the needs of the various parts of our community, and doing that from the ground up. That is what he was reflecting while recognizing that is a 1-2 or longer year process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that now we have to factor in SB 272, which says our sea level rise adaptation needs to be updated by 2034. He asked Planning Director Murdock if he could help him understand with a picture of what it looks like if the only thing they are working on going forward is the 1980. He stated that is independent of Senate Bill 272.
Planning Director Murdock stated the first thing that came to mind for him was a Rube Goldberg contraption where we have this magnificent challenge of different things moving and trying to work together that are not designed for that purpose and trying to synchronize a General Plan which is the guiding document for our city with something 40+ years old and not at all intended or drafted to be aligned with it. He thought there will be some inventive approaches needed to manage that, and there will be instances where we cannot manage that because the differences between the two are so significant or one document is silent on key issues in a way that both documents need to cohesively address. We will be scratching our heads saying what do we do and he does not know if we will get the right outcomes. We will probably be triggering many project level local coastal program amendments and that is an inefficient way for city staff and for applicants to need to undertake our development process.
Councilmember Boles asked what it means for the Sharp Park Specific Plan that they have invested a lot of time and money if we are stuck with a 1980 LCLUP.
Planning Director Murdock thought it leads to a much longer time frame before that document is likely to be certified. We had conceptualized integrating that into the baseline of a new LCLUP rather than essentially taking a new plan in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and trying to plug it in to the 1980 LCLUP. He stated that they need to be consistent with one another and it is hard for him to imagine how that would occur. If we were to talk about another 1-2 years to start over some sort of LCLUP process, we are thinking about 2-4 years before the Sharp Park Specific Plan might be certified in a best case scenario.
Councilmember Bier asked if it was possible to address the inconsistencies in the General Plan without the SRA.
Planning Director Murdock stated, if he understands the question, he thinks the answer is yes.
The SRAs are not a required policy. The Coastal Commission proposed modifications that would have had a Coastal Act-compliant LCLUP without the SRAs. The SRAs were and are an City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 22, 2024
attempt to try to use unique characteristics of Coastal Act-supported development, coastal access, etc., to justify an alternative approach that would be incidentally more protective of private property and would allow greater development potential of those private properties as a consequence of all the public benefits that closest to the shoreline. He stated that is not a required approach but the alternative is that everyone gets the most restrictive treatment in the LCLUP, which is most closely aligned to the traditional Coastal Act approach. He stated that the Coastal Commission was willing to think of this alternative conflict resolution process where they would undertake a departure from their traditional most restrictive regulations to allow protection for these Coastal Act-consistent uses. He stated that it is a lot to get them to contemplate and consider that, which has been the product of significant effort between staffs to show the need to do that. If we were to think of a new way to compromise and try to advance the LCLUP, there are complexities with that approach as well.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to go back to his comment about the most restrictive policy, and what she is hearing from the community is that there is not equity in this proposed draft.
There are much more restrictive policies being applied to some compared to others. She stated that she read many emails asking to treat everyone the same and she is hearing him say that it would be done through the most restricted way possible.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is his assessment of the situation and he thinks that is reflected in the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission that would have set the most restrictive baseline across the city. He stated that is a plan that clearly had a good chance of getting certified by the Coastal Commission. He stated that the February 2020 plan approved by City Council was a pro-protection, pro-development plan that the Coastal Commission staff concluded was inconsistent with the Coastal Act. He thought it was a false promise to the community, from his professional assessment, that there is any chance that a February 2020 like plan can get certified by the Coastal Commission, and to suggest to go back to that is a suggestion to stay for an indefinite period with the 1980 LCLUP, as that will be the consequence of pursuing the February 2020 LCLUP with the Coastal Commission. He stated that the alternative is whether there is another way where some of the community can result with more protection as a compromise and facilitate ongoing protection of very important coastaldependent and Coastal Act-supported uses like public streets, public infrastructure, trails, public parking, and visitor accommodations that provide key sources of tax revenue for our community.
That is an approach that the SRAs facilitate and is not at the expense of other communities; it is to the benefit of the SRA areas, but is not more restrictive for the areas outside of the SRA in order for the SRA to be enabled. He stated that everyone would have the non-SRA approach without the SRAs. He does not know that there are a lot of incremental benefits to be gained for those areas in a baseline treatment. He stated treating everyone the same in equity in this context means everyone gets the most restrictive policies.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked for an overview of SRAs again.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the key function of the SRAs is that where they exist, properties behind that line can factor in the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structures. Without the SRAs, the standard Coastal Act approach that is endorsed by the Coastal Commission is to act as though there is no shoreline protection in place. That means, for areas subject to coastal erosion for instance, which much of our coastline is subject to significant coastal erosion hazard, those sites will need to analyze their developments as though there was no protection and they would be subject to the maximum coastline erosion hazard and that will significantly impact the development potential of those properties. City staff will strive to avoid takings which many people are concerned about, but that is going to mean City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 22, 2024
allowing the minimum amount of development necessary to avoid a taking. That may mean putting a modular home or something that can be easily relocated in 15 or 20 years when the coastal erosion advances, but that is probably not what we want for our community for the long term if there is an alternative. He stated that is the key functional piece, i.e. we can treat the shoreline protection as being there because it is there. He stated that there are other tradeoffs, like having to put together a shoreline management plan and making some public investments in improving the shoreline and evaluating opportunities to remove shoreline protection. To Councilmember Boles’ point, some of those activities could have important financial impacts and that needs to be thoroughly thought through when preparing the shoreline management plan and, if the choice is made not to pursue that, the SRA policies would be suspended because the city did not commit to that offset. He stated that the key question is does Council want areas where they can get it to have more development potential and rely on the protection of the existing shoreline protection. He stated that is the essence of it. If they want everyone to be required not to get protection and account for the protection, that is the baseline most restrictive approach and that is Coastal Act-complaint. City staff has been working hard to find an alternative approach where we can justify it and would also be consistent with the Coastal Act.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the West Fairway neighborhood was considered in the SRA.
Planning Director Murdock stated yes, city staff had several specific conversations with the Coastal Commission staff about that neighborhood and the Coastal Commission staff’s contention was that the same sort of concentration and significance of factors is not present along that stretch of the shoreline. He stated, given the unique distance from the shoreline, the applicability of the hazards there (primarily a flooding hazard, not a coastal erosion hazard), there is room to consider alternative approaches whereas, along Beach Boulevard, there is essentially no or very little space to adapt. It is the compound effect of circumstances in West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach that make those strong candidates for this creative approach with the Coastal Commission that are not present in the Coastal Commission staff’s assessment of West Fairway Park. Looking objectively, he thinks they have a reasonable argument and, if that is the argument that they pursue with the Coastal Commission, he has no doubt that the Coastal Commission will not allow an SRA in West Fairway Park. Therefore, he would not recommend extension to include West Fairway Park. He stated, even if the SRA was applicable there, it would not make any difference because the SRA’s key function is they can rely on the protection of the existing shoreline protection and that is not protecting them from flooding and coastal erosion is not the applicable hazard through year 2100 at the very least.
Councilmember Bier asked if he can explain to her what the negative effects will be for the West Fairway Park neighborhood to not be in an SRA and what does it look like for them.
Planning Director Murdock thought the immediate answer is that there is no benefit to them being in the SRA, given the function of what the SRA does. He does not think they are any better or worse off with or without the SRA. It is a good faith relationship component with the Coastal Commission to come back to them with something that is making the exception to the rule by drawing the line farther than it needs to be to have it a narrowly tailored alternative approach, which is the SRA compromise that the staffs have discussed.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked why there is no benefit to the West Fairway Park community to be in an SRA.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is not one now, based on his understanding of the City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 22, 2024
applicable hazards and the relationship of those hazards to the shoreline protection. He stated that it is not only a matter of more development in the SRA, but also a matter of considering the protection provided by the shoreline protection structure. For the modeled coastal erosion hazard, the berm might be attenuating that erosion, but that does not get anywhere near the neighborhood through the projections through the year 2100. The small part of the West Fairway Park neighborhood in a coastal vulnerability zone is subject to flooding, not coastal erosion, so the existing shoreline protection is not providing that protection from the model flooding hazard currently.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, if the city is able to successfully close the Clarendon gap flood point for Clarendon area, then the golf course and Fairway West benefit from that, and approval of the SRAs for West Sharp Park, not directly but indirectly, as a policy matter benefits the permitting with the Coastal Commission of the BBIRP Project.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the City Manager is explaining that the protection that the West Fairway Park neighborhood needs would come from the BBIRP Project and closing the Clarendon gap. He stated that, with BBIRP, presuming that it is approved and constructed and designed in this manner, it could mitigate that flood hazard which would potentially eliminate those portions of the neighborhood from the coastal vulnerability zone and relieve them from the most restrictive components in this LCLUP that is recommended with or without potentially reduced sea level rise projections as well with the new Ocean Protection Council data. City staff has not run those models and not had the opportunity to do that with a technical consultant, but conceivably, lower sea level rise would result in fewer areas subject to a flooding hazard, and that is another way potentially that the West Fairway Park neighborhood would benefit and that would have much more impact than an SRA would in this context.
Councilmember Boles stated she is not clear that the BBIRP, even closing the gap, is going to eliminate the flooding, as we saw the overtopping this year and knowing that GHD is not designing the new sea wall to stop all of our overtopping. She thought there would still be some flooding, but maybe less. She stated that there were other policies about adding pump stations in Sharp Park and, as they go through the policies, there is talk about interior levees in the golf course area and some of those are to keep the flooding from the streets and going into the golf course and vice versa. She stated that there are other ways we can work to reduce the flooding in those areas even though they are not being helped fully by the armoring.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding there is significant support in this LCLUP as city staff recommended it to Council for flooding mitigation in various ways, i.e., flood proofing infrastructure, adapting development out of flood-prone areas, and undertaking other types of engineering interventions like pumps or levees that would mitigate flood hazards, and there are multiple policies that support that. He stated that is the key issue for that neighborhood, not related to SRAs which is primarily related to coastal erosion hazards.
Councilmember Boles thought there was still a lot of confusion about substantial structural modifications. She stated that they were going over the definition first. She stated one of the questions is are the substantial structural modifications any different in the SRAs than in the rest of the town.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the definition is not different but the consequence of exceeding the threshold of an SSM is somewhat different in and out of the SRA. Outside of the SRA, one would need to remove all of the existing non-conformities on the property with city regulations, whereas in the SRA, it is limited to those applicable to the relevant coastal hazard City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 22, 2024
only.
Councilmember Boles thought the staff report said Council would consider that later.
Planning Director Murdock stated that she may be recalling the discussion of waivers from standards, but that is not the same thing.
Councilmember Boles stated that she needs more clarification on that. She then asked, if someone is doing a substantial structural modification, they have to record their deed restriction and cannot rely on armoring in the future, but she asked if that prevent them from doing another remodel or addition in the future. She thought it did not.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the SSM definition does not directly prevent someone from doing anything at all, but it does require a fresh assessment of that proposed development to bring it as closely in line with standards for what would be new development today. The idea is, if someone making significant investments in their property, they should bring it closer in line to the current regulations. It is a conventional theory of non-conformity, i.e., someone is allowed and entitled with a vested right to keep their development the way it was permitted, unless they redevelop that or, in this case, exceed a substantial threshold of additional improvements, such as 50% structural change. He stated that, over time, properties might need to alter the way that the development is situated, such as elevating a structure out of flood hazard or pushing it further away from a coastal erosion hazard. Then, perhaps the development would be able to be permitted. He stated that it is not preventing or prohibiting development simply because you trigger an SSM.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought what makes it prohibitive is the increased cost, and she thinks that is where we getting the push back and concern legitimately. She also referred to the earlier point about ESHA and how an updated LCLUP reflects the environmental concerns of today. When we have wetlands that are reduced by drainage ditches, it is a wetland and then all the ESHA requirements pertain. She stated when we are talking about the vested rights to the existing building the way it was when it was first built, that does not count anymore. She stated that all the new ESHA requirements is what has to pertain to that property.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was generally right, but many people jump to the conclusion that, then, they will not be allowed to do anything with their property, and he thinks that is a false conclusion. He stated that what this is requiring to be done is to confront the reality of today, i.e., there are sensitive environmental resources, and steps should be taken to avoid losing those resources and thoughtful project design should try to avoid impacting those resources. He thought so much of what is in this LCLUP could be summarized by the word “disclosure” where the 1980 LCLUP is silent on so many of these issues. He stated that the law is still there, looming somewhere outside of the 1980 LCLUP, but someone may not find out about it until it is too late, either in the city’s review process or in an appeal to the Coastal Commission, without any idea at the outset of their project that they need to consider these factors, like hazard mitigation, analyzing where erosion will be, and considering where the wetlands might be approximate to the property. This document takes a great leap forward in disclosure of what all the applicable laws and requirements to develop will be.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wanted to talk about deed restrictions and impacts on valuation that those policies would have. She stated that is different than we currently have.
She stated that one thing about the 1980 LCLUP is that there were not deed restrictions, and that is a big problem for people in our community or any community. She asked what about City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 22, 2024
deed restrictions, indemnifying the city, and the larger issue of what about the city, through the process of these LCLUP policies, taking on a legal risk of lawsuits from property owners because the city is imposing deed restrictions. Deed restrictions exist in today’s world, and they are imposed by the Coastal Commission when appeals happen. She stated that what she is understanding is that city staff is going to cut all that out and put it in our LCP because that is acceptable to Coastal staff, but she asked what the downside implications are of that and which agency pays.
Planning Director Murdock stated keeping focused on the theme of disclosure is important, as ignoring deed restrictions in our LCLUP does not make them go away and for projects that end up before the Coastal Commission those will be requirements. He thinks there is an interesting tension where some are asking for equal treatment of properties. However, were Council to take mention of deed restriction, assuming it made it through the Coastal Commission process, that is going to result in an unequal outcome as well for the community, where some properties that are in the appeals jurisdiction have a high probability of ending up with those deed restrictions and properties that are outside of the appeals jurisdiction perhaps will not. He thought the potential exists that more development will get appealed and be changed in some way by the Coastal Commission the more that our LCLUP is out of step with what we expect is the reality of the Coastal Commission acting on those projects. Staff has seen several projects where the City Council took a very aggressive pro-development approach, intentionally or unintentionally, based on the 1980 LCLUP, only to see a very different outcome at the Coastal Commission. He stated that, regarding payments, it is a difficult question. He thought it was important to recognize that the City Council routinely takes actions, whether through the General Plan or zoning or various ordinances that affect different properties in different ways, affect property values to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. He stated that those, in and of themselves, are not takings, but they do have real world impacts on property value.
To maximize property value, Council might want to allow 50 units per acre on every property in the city, but there are reasons not to do that and there are some properties that get to do that and some that get to build one house on their property. He stated that City Council, in legislating in general, requires making those tradeoffs and those balancing decisions. In recognition of the Coastal Act and what the law says about new development not relying on shoreline protection, the LCLUP is effectuating and disclosing that reality that the law will not allow them to have shoreline protection for their new development in the future. He asks if it is better or worse to tell them now or later when they seek the shoreline protection and are told their development is not eligible and it gets back to disclosure.
Councilmember Bigstyck feels there is this heightened awareness and sensitivity to the notion of takings. He stated we are talking about a policy that is in alignment with coastal policy. He stated that, if we put in a deed restriction on our end versus them putting in the deed restriction on appeal, it seemed that may change which agency may get sued over the question of takings.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that may be correct, but there is a number of areas of the city where the appeal jurisdiction is not the Coastal Commission. She stated that the city makes the determination in the first instance and would be applying our policies and regulations.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed and asked confirmation that we are not currently requiring deed restrictions the way Coastal Commission would have us vis-a-vis our current LCP.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed. She stated that we do use deed restrictions for other types of land use decisions. She stated that it is not something completely foreign to land use determinations or reviews. She stated that, in this case, the city would be using the deed City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 22, 2024
restrictions as part of our regulatory documents in the manner that Planning Director Murdock mentioned in order to disclose restrictions on the property that runs with the land.
Planning Director Murdock noted previous feedback from the Council that it would have been great if people knew before purchasing a home on a specific street that there were significant restrictions or hazards applicable to the property. The deed restriction, for better or worse, is one tool to provide that disclosure so that property owners are making informed decisions prior to purchasing property. He stated that there will be a tradeoff potentially for the current property owners in relation to that transaction, but Council is being asked to balance the impact on those current residents and future residents of our community. He thought this deed restriction is one of the important dimensions, and it was important to consider whether the LCLUP would be certified by the Coastal Commission without these provisions. He stated that Council could make the choice to remove and see if it gets added back, but it will more than likely be back in the same position 6-12 months from now after that process concludes and being forced to make that tough decision.
Councilmember Bigstyck feels that they have all asked the questions around the pertinent point and the last question remaining is to analyze Chapter 6 or not to analyze Chapter 6.
Councilmember Bier stated she cannot answer that question yet because she thought it would be good for her to clearly understand what the ramifications will be for each section of our coastline if we do not have the SRAs. She asked, if they accept the suggested modifications and they do not have the SRAs, what that looks like for each part of our coastside. She felt she was not getting that picture in the wording of all the policies.
Planning Director Murdock stated that much of Pacifica’s coastline has no existing shoreline protection. He stated that, with or without SRAs, those areas would have a standard Coastal Act approach where development is proposed and that proposed development would need to be analyzed as though no shoreline protection is there and takes full account of the applicable coastal hazards. He stated that typically, most impactfully, is coastal erosion. For properties threatened by coastal erosion, their ability to obtain shoreline protection through the Coastal Commission permit hinges on whether they are considered as existing development or not. He stated that is the set of complicated issues about 1977 and later (new development) or 1976 and earlier (existing development). He stated that is the case for every place outside of the SRAs, up and down the coastline. He stated what is different for the SRAs where those policies are to be enacted is they can consider the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structures; the simple assumption is that, in almost every case, that will create significantly more development potential for those properties, giving them greater property values. He does not think it is realistic to get that same policy approach for the entirety of the coastline because shoreline protection is not there and because then it is no longer the exception but the rule; the rule is that the Coastal Act does not allow that and discourages armoring and only allows it to protect existing development. He stated that the SRAs would allow new and existing development to rely on the benefits of the shoreline protection.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she is correct that Pacifica did not make the coastal vulnerability zones or the tsunami inundation zones and Council cannot change those zones.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Pacifica did have a consultant prepare those zones and used the coastal vulnerability zones but, based on publicly available or third party data, the city staff did not prepare our own technical hazard analysis to inform those maps. The city did not prepare tsunami evacuation zone maps, as they are prepared by the state of California, which City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 22, 2024
are one of the inputs into the coastal vulnerability zone mapping. It is a type of coastal hazard that is infrequent but, when they do occur, they can be very devastating and deadly; it is one of those low probability but high severity scenarios that is difficult to figure out exactly what to do.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what the change is between what city staff submitted in 2020 and what we have before them now with specific regard to those coastal vulnerability zones and the tsunami evacuation zones. She stated she is asking it because she is continually reminded by people who see a more restrictive approach to the way those zones are applied in terms of what they can do or not do with their property.
Planning Director Murdock would characterize it as the reliance on the coastal vulnerability zones in the document today is based on the scientific understanding of those hazards at a citywide scale and, using those as a tool to say that these are areas with likely important coastal hazard exposure that need to be further studied and will likely need some sort of design consideration for the development to mitigate the applicability and impact of those hazards. He stated that the 2020 LCLUP took an arbitrary position that those most restrictive policies about development would only apply to the shoreline (properties having a frontage on the water). He stated that is not the reality of where coastal hazards apply in Pacifica; that is a very narrow subset of areas subject to coastal hazards and ignoring all the other areas where coastal hazards would apply is likely inconsistent with the Coastal Act and is not adequately addressing hazards and siting to avoid the need for shoreline protection in new development.
Councilmember Boles asked if the tsunami restrictions were in the 2020 LCLUP draft.
Planning Director Murdock believed the the Coastal Commission suggested modifications expanded the relevance of the tsunami evacuation zones relative to some policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought so too and added there is a small likelihood of possibility of tsunamis, but when it is in the LCLUP, it is a 100% likelihood of being applied to property.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated it is policy CR-I-45 and that is exactly right, recognizing that what this relates to is a deed restriction with the waiver of rights and indemnification because, if a serious tsunami were to occur, it can be quite devastating and dangerous and affect property or result in costly clean up or removal of development being required. That tsunami could occur anytime but, when it occurs, it will be very significant and impactful. He thinks what the Coastal Commission’s modification does is recognize disclosure is important so people do not inadvertently purchase property in a tsunami hazard zone and be surprised if and when they are impacted by a tsunami hazard.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked in what other ways could that occur, besides being in our LCLUP. She asked if there was anything with the purchase of the property or the private transaction. She feels like the city is getting in the middle of that to the detriment of our citizens for something unlikely to happen, but including it would 100% likely affect our people, i.e. planning for tsunamis, insurance implications, finance implications, and property value implications. She stated it felt this was given in exchange for the SRAs and armoring.
Planning Director Murdock stated it is easy to conflate these issues but it is important to understand the chronology. February 2020 had March 2023 suggested modifications. Staff believed that the modification related to the deed restriction and the tsunami came out of that set of comments. The SRA concept evolved months after that in staff-to-staff discussions. It is a general concern and approach that the Coastal Commission expressed in their comments City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 22, 2024
about the importance of tsunami hazards and to acknowledge them and recognize that shoreline protection and waiver of rights are important for that hazard among coastal erosion, flooding, and other potential coastal hazards as well. As far as other approaches, he thought there was some sort of ordinance about broader property disclosures that could be required, but he is not sure they have done that legal research. He thought it may be possible. He thought disclosure is an important part but not the only part of that policy, i.e. indemnification, waiver of rights, etc., that come with that package of hazard related conditions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that it is problematic. She asked if city staff did not do the mapping of those hazards with the new OPC data or more current science and if that analysis would look different than it currently looks based on what was done before. She does not know that it is clear to the public, but all of it feels overly restrictive and burdensome. She asked how we get around that in any negotiation.
Councilmember Boles stated that staff is proposing alternative modifications to what the Coastal Commission is asking for tsunamis in particular that would reduce the amount of properties affected. She shared that she found county maps that had tsunami inundation maps, which are much smaller areas than what is in the tsunami hazard maps.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he is aware of these maps but does not know enough about them to suggest that they are an appropriate tool to address this recommendation from staff. He stated that the County calls them the tsunami inundation zone or area but he does not know substantively what those maps are based off of. He stated that there was a change from 2009 to around 2021 where the state adopted a new methodology which, in many cases, expanded the area of tsunami evacuation zones under the high intensity hazard scenarios that are used for the tsunami evacuation planning. He does not know what is going on with those county maps other than they indicate perhaps some promise.
Councilmember Boles agreed with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer that these are questions they would like staff to take back to Coastal Commission staff and ask, such as what data do they have some flexibility on, where do these maps come from, are there other alternatives that might not be as restrictive.
Planning Director Murdock thinks we largely know the answer to the question of where do these maps come from: the tsunami evacuation zone policy recommended by the Coastal Commission come from the state based on their set of parameters relative to an ocean earthquake scenario to that triggers a tsunami, and the various other coastal vulnerability zone inputs come from FEMA flooding data plus sea level rise projection to estimate based on topography where those flood areas would be. He stated that the question is if we could come up with a different map if time and money were not a concern, and he thought the answer would be yes, but coming up with new citywide hazard maps is likely to be a very costly and timeconsuming process for the city to contemplate. He stated it is not clear how significantly they would differ from some of these more readily available models.
City Manager Woodhouse added, regarding maps and science, that these policies apply when a property owner comes in for redevelopment. He stated that, in terms of best science or updated maps, it could be the case that five years from now someone will redevelop and the maps and science will be different at that time so we must remember that we are updating the best practices over time for these documents as the data becomes available; we talked about the OPC maps last week and how that would be one of the priority updates immediately after certification. He stated that trigger is not that LCP is adopted and everybody has to comply City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 22, 2024
with that, but that the LCP is adopted and, in the future, if you redevelop, apply, and do something with your property, then it applies at that time.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in this particular case, for the tsunami hazard versus inundation, she assumed we have gone over these proposed alternative modifications with staff and the Coastal Commission staff was potentially open to a less restrictive tsunami mapping.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating everything we have seen staff propose here we have discussed and believe that the Coastal Commission staff will ultimately support in their recommendation or come back with something to further refine it as some point in their suggested modifications. He stated that staff is not putting forth anything that we think is far afield of where we can end up in a compromised solution. We introduced this concern, i.e. evacuation zones for tsunami is overly broad for a worst-case scenario, and we think something more calibrated that would affect fewer properties is appropriate, and he thought we got the requisite head nods and moved on to other issues in this discussion, of which there are many to cover with them. He thought what he is envisioning is that we formulate what that more probable tsunami event would be in the implementation plan and zoning. In their implementation, we currently have a variety of different specialized area of analysis related to geotechnical hazards and other issues that are fleshed out in more detail. This is a prime candidate to indicate what that tsunami event assumption should be for that site specific analysis.
Councilmember Boles stated the concern in the community is that we are redlining particular properties that we might not need to now, and if there is some way that we can now figure out what we can use in the maps and define it and not have to make every property owner figure out what they have to do, she thought that would be helpful to the community. She stated just asking the question of where the county maps come from and is it acceptable could be helpful to move them along.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we can do more work to try to check with the county as to how they develop those maps. He stated that the general concept is there may be an inclination from the community to not want to confront the hazards that are applicable in the coastal zone as that is a highly hazardous area, and this LCLUP does a lot to reflect what we know as local jurisdiction and as scientists have advised us about the applicability of hazards in the coastal zone; there are different ways to go about it but this document is advancing 40 years in the understanding of hazards so we can make better decisions about development today.
That is uncomfortable and impactful for some people, but ignoring that does not make the hazards go away, just that they surface at less convenient junctures, whether the property is affected by the hazard and are displaced or someone comes in for a project, having spent $20,000 on the plan, and then find out that they need to go model these hazards and change the project. He stated the hazards are there and how do we confront and work with them most effectively is the question.
Councilmember Bier stated by asking the questions and bringing up the redlining of certain properties and maps, the city is showing that we care about the community that has legitimate fears now, and that is very important to her. She stated that, if we are able to even ask questions that can bring some clarity to our community, she thinks we need to do that. She stated that it all goes back to the substantial structural modifications and all the questions that go along with that.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated there are natural hazard reports, a mandatory document upon purchase City Council Regular Meeting 25 April 22, 2024
of a property, and she has seen included fire hazard zones, flood seismic zones, but not tsunami zones. She stated that is only on purchases and would not happen when people remodel. She was thinking about disclosure and first purchase of a property.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are at 10:00 p.m. and the process that they started with was go through and discuss the specific policies and the alternate modifications and get input and recommendations that staff is directed to take back to Coastal Commission, but the question for Council to start thinking about is what is the next step. He stated that there is a very large work plan of high Council priorities that staff has lined up and this is one of them.
Councilmember Bier thought it was clear by Council’s silence that we are not ready yet.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was asking, in an effort to move it along, what questions Council wants staff to have answers for the next time we reconvene or are we going to reconvene. He thought it sounds like we are still, but he does not know if he has clarity around that point. After that, it sounds like, from Councilmember Bier’s last statement, Council would like some specifics to be brought back. He stated that we should ask for those to be brought back and spend a moment doing that. He stated that, at that point, if we have given out directions to come back with these specifics, that would imply that Council is continuing down this path and perhaps we should continue down the path of the matrix so we are getting some of that work done while waiting for those specifics to come back.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was not feeling confident about it. She is personally feeling that we need to let it sit for a minute. She recounted the contentious feedback from the community and that the convention of SRAs is unusual, different, and problematic and separating people, which is not her desire. She does not know what else could be done rather than the most restrictive policy for everyone. She worries that continuing to chew at this when we have significant questions and problems with it does not feel like a good use of time; however, she did not have a proposal.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was saying there should be a next meeting. He meant what he said earlier in his first statement, i.e., he does not think comfort is an option at any point and no matter what direction they turn. He stated, if we want to keep working on it, now is the time to figure out the process by which we work on it. He stated, if we have more questions to bring back, we need to ask those questions so they can be brought back.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought that so much has gone into it. She knows we have asked a lot of questions but we have more questions.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that we will have more questions as we go through it.
She agreed that they have spent so much time and money on this and we owe it to the community to value that effort of our planning staff for the last year and a half to finish going through this and asking all their questions. She stated that we do not know where it is going to go when we are done, but that is okay, as we are honoring the process and asking questions and trying to get the community’s questions answered. She stated we could also go through it all first without the SRAs and then go back and reflect on how the SRAs help or not. She stated that staff has put in a lot of other modifications to other policies that are not just getting in to what the Coastal Commission has asked and a lot of those are better. She thinks there is something of value here that we owe to keep going through.
Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 April 22, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we imagine is a timeline or process, as she is worried about is if this is causing other work to not get done. She asked if there is a benefit to pausing.
She stated one question she had initially was what is the real deadline or timeline and what choice does Council want to make about the priority.
Planning Director Murdock thought there were a few relevant considerations. One is that we are years overdue to complete the process in terms of a timeline. There is no current deadline or timeline with the Coastal Commission in relation to this application. The General Plan consistency of the edits to the LCLUP has not been accepted for filing yet by the Coastal Commission so that clock for 90 days and potential 12-month extension has not started. He thinks that the anticipation was that city staff would get some feedback on those changes and then merge them with this bigger policy question here and then the clock would start for them.
He stated that there is flexibility in time in that sense, but longer term, looking through the end of this year and into next, we often get the criticism of doing important work entering the holiday season and that could take months off of the end of this year and beginning part of next year.
He stated the city has a robust work plan of other City Council priorities that have the potential to be affected by making this process play out. He stated that this process is taking up a lot more space in time and resources. There is also the question of knowing that we will have at least one new City Council member at the end of this year and will that person want time or will Council want to give that person time to get up to speed and will that person bring a very different policy perspective and want something extraordinarily different that will delay the process. He stated City Council is as prime in terms of its preparation and experience with this process as it will be for years to come. There is also the prospect about whenever this gets to the Coastal Commission, will there be further changes required by the Coastal Commission that then would have to come back through the local process again and how that affects the timeline. He stated that there is a best case that at end of this year this is in place if we are able to get it done or there is a worst case where it is years from now before this gets done, if action is not taken. He stated he is not able to give them a more precise timeline than that, as there are various important considerations.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would add to that consideration of the Coastal Commission staff’s workload and their willingness and attention right now, as they are focusing very much on this document in the meeting he had with Executive Director Kate Hucklebridge and her commitment to working on this now and into the summer. He stated that city staff does not know what other priorities they have on their work plan if this is waylaid or stretches out.
Councilmember Boles stated that now it has Council’s attention and momentum and may not after a pause. She would prefer that we finish going through the suggested modifications, ask our questions, and then we can decide if this is something we want to push forward or not. She thinks it is important work that we need to do to get grant funding to Congresswoman Eshoo’s point about our sea wall and the pier, in addition to SB 272 and SB 1. She stated here big concern in terms of staffing is the Housing Element. She asked if staff can give Council an idea of where they stand on that and what upcoming meetings in the next few months that will entail staff work to prepare for that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff met last week with their reviewer from the Department of Housing and Community Development to go over the comments that were in comment letter No. 2, and we are encouraged by the conversation and, for the most part, understand the steps needed to address those comments and get much closer, if not all the way, to certification or ability to be certified. He stated that, looming out there is the completion City Council Regular Meeting 27 April 22, 2024
of the phase one rezoning requirement for the sites to implement the RHNA and associated core objective development standards. Based on the confirmation from that meeting, where we think the sites lists are unlikely to change, we will be proceeding in the very near future, within the next week or so, with releasing the notice of preparation for the Environmental Impact Report. There is an immense amount of work just included in the rezoning program and working towards certification with further edits, not to mention all the other required limitation activities. He stated that it is a massive work program just associated with the Housing Element, and that is not including other notable development projects that are currently making their way through our process, and many other key city priorities like Short-Term Rental ordinance updates and others.
Councilmember Boles thought the Housing Element trumps this in terms of timing if we cannot work on things in parallel. She stated, given what Planning Director Murdock just said that, there is another year because we have not set the clock yet with the Coastal Commission, and there is more flexibility with the LCLUP.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the law provides that the Coastal Commission, upon acceptance for filing, has to take action within 90 days or for good cause can grant themselves a year extension. He stated that city staff has had very focused conversations with the Coastal Commission staff on that point and said that we do not want to end up in a situation where this gets a 12-month extension and, they have given the assurance that they can that they will not do that, as this is not a standard LCLUP amendment. This has their focus and attention as, from their perspective, hopefully a successful outcome of some balanced approach that implements this neighborhood carve out concept that has been taking shape in some form over the last couple of years and they are unlikely, barring an unforeseen circumstance, to trigger that 12-month extension. Thus, he believed we are on a short time horizon if we get something reasonably close to what we have been negotiating for the better part of the last year, and with something that deviates significantly, he does not know if the Coastal Commission could uphold their commitment on the timeline, thus, hard to predict.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated Newton’s first law of motion is objects in motion stay in motion and likewise objects at rest to stay at rest and getting an object at rest to get back into motion takes extra added energy. He proposed asking the questions now if Council has them. He stated his question is when would they be coming back for their next round of this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it sounds like he is talking about a continuance of some sort to answer the questions, come back, and discuss this again.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated she is correct.
Planning Director Murdock stated part of the answer to that depends on the questions that are asked and the amount of time it may take to research and formulate the answers.
City Manager Woodhouse added that it was clear that this discussion will be yet another special Council meeting, not on a regular Council meeting day. Thus, we will be looking at extra special meeting dates, depending on what the questions are when we feel that staff can come back prepared.
Councilmember Bier thought it was important what we did here because we were able to express how they were feeling. She does not want to throw this out either, but she knows we cannot go back to the 2020 version. She would appreciate the opportunity to go through the City Council Regular Meeting 28 April 22, 2024
document with the SRAs on one side, i.e. look at the modifications and then talk about the SRAs. She thinks we should keep looking at it but she thinks there might be a way to do it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the SRAs in this latest iteration are built in throughout the policies and the question is how would separating them out work.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the SRA exceptions that alter the baseline policies are in a small number of policies in the document. He thought it was conceivable that we would be able to pull the SRA text out and create sort of a Version A and Version B for Council to see what that would look like. He stated that, programmatically and fundamentally, we can do the work but that means the more restrictive version of policies citywide rather than a subset that has less restricted policies under certain circumstances.
Councilmember Boles did not feel that we needed to create two separate documents.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Council received the same communication with significant questions about the way that we have our environmental justice policy and she is still upset about not addressing the golf course. She stated that there are legal threats and implications in a lot of the communication they received from the community and she wants to understand how realistic those are. She feared that, if the product we put forward is not fully vetted and thought through, the likelihood of those lawsuits is greater.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested she form that into a question and give it to our City Attorney. He stated that her worry is warranted and a legitimate concern. Now that she has the worry, he asked what the question is that comes from it, give it to the City Attorney, and staff can bring it back to Council. He stated that it is either we are doing it or we are not doing it and that is why he keeps coming back to it. He stated that the idea of stopping for a while is part and parcel to that notion of not doing it. He believes her worry is legitimate but, in lieu of not pausing or stopping, take that worry, formulate a question, and have that data at the next discussion. He thought the new data set generated from these questions may lead to the conclusion we need to stop and that may be the answer, but he wants what should be in front of Council that we can then come to a consensus one way or the other. He thought there seems to be more will on Council to continue forward at any pace than to not continue at all.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought there will be some questions that no one can answer, like questions if someone has the SRAs, what will happen to the insurance, mortgages, or values of those properties. She stated that those are hard decisions to make for somebody when they do not know the answers.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked where that leaves them.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated a special meeting and asked when.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, as of now, it seems to him that, if this is going to continue, we have to find a special meeting date to start going through Chapter 6 policies specifically and more questions may come out of that. That would be the next step, meeting No. 5, and adoption of a resolution would be meeting No. 6 or later, and there will be a process of recalibrating the workload and work plan that staff is working on and the timing for Council.
That all depends on availability of meetings and when we are going to do them.
Councilmember Boles asked about the impact the Short-Term Rental discussion.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 April 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated he cannot commit to that not being delayed, as this process is intensive and it takes significant planning resources and his resources. If a study session for Short-Term Rentals is not going to be delayed, staff has to look at other impacts, whether Housing Element or other priorities that are not going to get done. He stated it is a matter of that calculus and staff resources working on this.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the time period for another special study session.
City Manager Woodhouse does not recommend trying to determine a date from the dais as there are a lot of variables. He thought, in terms of an actual action for this meeting, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was suggesting to continue this item to a date to be determined and they can look in whatever time frame Council is comfortable about.
Planning Director Murdock thought no sooner than two weeks. He thought, if we turn it around in a week, that is probably not enough time as the Council needs to digest and work through this. He stated a 2-3 week minimum is what she is trying to confirm and City Manager said there is a lot of scheduling variables that need to be determined.
Mayor Vaterlaus understood.
Councilmember Boles stated, if we are not asking all the questions at this meeting to come back with, when would staff need to have Council ask those questions.
Planning Director Murdock stated the sooner the better as some of them could trigger a lot of work to research and prepare answers. He suggested that, as soon as they can formulate them would be helpful and that might drive some of the decision making about when we can come back.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in preparation for the March 2 meeting, he knew there was a period open to the public to ask whatever questions they would like about specifically SRAs, but in general the document. He said a part of his thought process as he was reading these many emails that contained many questions was that he would love to be able to turn them all around to staff to get answers. He thought that was a way to do it and, by giving the community that week-long period to send in the questions, it would give Council a period that is reasonable to see what we can concoct between now and then.
Planning Director Murdock stated that staff is here to carry out the process that Council thinks is needed to get this to conclusion and opening up to the community has a significant new level of effort and how do they publicize this opportunity. He stated that it sounds good in concept but there are some implications of opening this up more broadly.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated we get most of the questions on the day of the meeting and it is not always feasible to answer all those questions then. She did not know how we determine the time period because the questions are not going to get answered on the day of the meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Council should limit the time period.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the questions that have been asked from the community City Council Regular Meeting 30 April 22, 2024
come in such a fashion that they are accessible to staff, and that is his set of questions going into the next meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she put forward questions to staff, but she has not synthesized the answers.
Councilmember Bier stated that is where she needs the time as there are some answers, but she asked if they had the opportunity to really look through the answers and digest them.
Councilmember Boles asked how the answers get communicated back to the community, if not through staff.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that in answers regarding including clarification definitions such as SSM he thought it would helpful if there is a document with that list on it because if Council has interest in addressing those ambiguities summarily, it would be nice to have that presented to Council in such a way that Council can hand it right back to staff and say yes please.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the questions in advance of the agenda that Councilmembers asked is made public. When staff is in the agenda questions/comments from the public that come in, that is for Council’s information to inform their discussion and questions they regurgitate to staff during deliberations so that is how those topics and questions are handled.
He stated that the idea that we did in the earlier phase was opening up questions that staff is going to directly respond to the community is a different and much larger work task.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was not suggesting opening that time period up going forward from this meeting but is suggesting that, regarding those questions that came in over the last 24 or 48 hours or last week by our community, he would like to see the analysis on that.
He did not think he had any more questions personally, but for these specific questions that keep coming in, he wants the clarity in which ways these will affect our community. He keeps hearing the discomfort and asked if it is discomfort that we do not have a document or is the discomfort he is accepting the changes for each and every community member or are there some he can accept and some he cannot.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, for her, it is all in the arena of legality and legal risk. She stated that what has come across loud and clear to her is the fear and concern from the community that the city is taking on added risk. Regarding the salient questions asked about property specific questions, she appreciated receiving those from the community. She stated that they are all making it clear, and she thinks that the vessel for these questions needs to be Council, as opposed to what we did before, which was a very general and useful process in forming March 2, of having an open process of submitting questions and, in the moment of that day, ask their questions.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded the mayor that it is 10:43 p.m. and stated she could speak generally about legality.
Councilmember Bier stated that generally is not what she needs, but as much information as they can get.
Councilmember Boles stated, in looking at Councilmember Bigstyck’s requested questions, she thinks all those legal questions are there, and she thinks we could gather the questions from the public comments. She stated that she still wants to know if they can use the County’s tsunami City Council Regular Meeting 31 April 22, 2024
maps. She would like to know what is involved in incorporating the new data when it comes out and what that process entails, what it costs, and how long it will take.
Councilmember Bier thought maybe it would be good to see all of the other strategies we can look at to protect the Fairway Park neighborhood.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what they are deciding.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it was 10:46 pm and asked if Council has direction for staff to come back with this, submit questions from Council, and items from the public should come to Council with enough time to ask the questions.
Councilmember Bier added understanding and going through the answers.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, stating they all have other jobs.
Councilmember Boles asked if the answers are able to be shared with the public.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, as mentioned by City Manager Woodhouse, those questions and answers that Council ask before the meeting and staff responses are available to the public. She stated that the public can look at those answers and see the responses from staff. They would be available at any future meeting in the same manner.
Councilmember Bier asked where Council would find them or would Council share them.
City Attorney Woodhouse stated that the responses to Council questions are here at the meeting. He stated that the other component he was hearing from Council is that there are submitted questions from the community to Councilmembers and any of those questions that are necessary to inform their deliberations, they can submit those to staff and they can work on what the responses would be and that could be published as part of the agenda packet in advance of the next meeting whenever we determine the date of the next meeting. He stated that the importance of Council doing that is that the intention is it is helping to formulate the information Council needs to deliberate and make decisions about these policies. That is the point where this process is, i.e., Council is deliberating about these policies and Council can reformulate those questions, get them to staff and staff can work on responses and, once the date is determined, publish it with the agenda packet. He stated that the motion and action would be continue to a date to be determined.
Councilmember Boles moved to continue this meeting to a date to be determined; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
NAYS: Beckmeyer
Councilmember Boles stated that they did not finish Council Communications.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 April 22, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer proposed how much longer they need to go.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has some updates and questions she has for them.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:10 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles attended the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission meeting, and the commissioners brought up the insurance market, fire insurance in particular, and whether the city has sent a letter in the past expressing their concern to the insurance commissioner and our elected officials about what is going on with insurances being cancelled.
City Manager Woodhouse does not recall if we have sent a specific letter but what we have done more specifically when this issue came up years ago is that, with homeowners that were experiencing fire insurance questions, the North County Fire Authority would help in connections with the insurance commissioner and at some of the Wildfire Preparedness Days we had representatives from the insurance commissioner there.
Councilmember Boles knows some of our elected officials are working on this and it might be helpful to send letters in support of some of the work they are doing.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in terms of weighing in and sending a letter, a Councilmember would have to request an agendized item and staff would put together a report about what the issue is and content of the letter and agendize that for Council discussion.
Councilmember Boles stated Commute.org is doing their April and May training to encourage people to use public transportation and there is a prize if you log in and register your walk. She stated that they have been wanting to come to a presentation at a Council meeting and asked about putting it on the agenda on May 13.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would support that. She remembers former Councilmember Mike O’Neill talking a lot about this and that might be a useful presentation.
Councilmember Bier added that our Age-Friendly work plan needs to be presented soon.
Councilmember Boles had a meeting with BKF Engineers about infrastructure money and shared there is a lot of money from the federal government coming down and the IRA money for infrastructure. The key is to get in line as soon as possible and after this year’s election there is a possible outcome that the money for the infrastructure plans would be cut but any projects already in the pipeline and approved for funding would remain funded so, if there is any chance Pacifica could look at that and see if there are projects we can apply for, now is the time. She also stated that BKF can provide civil engineering services and grant writing services if we hire them to do the design. In terms of grant management, a lot of infrastructure type grants need a lot of technical information in the application and that is another area that they have strong City Council Regular Meeting 33 April 22, 2024
expertise and their engineers would be able to provide that information and to be more likely to get the grant. She is sharing that information which is part of their discussion about how to build staff capacity and grants that could help us build staff capacity.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she talked to PG &E, and they had segments on transportation which they said there will be a surprise for Pacifica soon. She also helped serve the seniors on Volunteer Appreciation Day which was fun.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he got appointed to the CCAG Legislative Committee. At the City Leaders’ Summit in Sacramento, there was a press conference around “No on the California Business Roundtable”. He sat in on the ABAG Executive Committee Meeting about the $20 billion bond measure around affordable housing that will be on the ballot. They got a shoutout from Katherine Lui regarding the Measure Y.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she is going next week to talk to legislators like he did last week and she will try to get the best answers she can.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 5/13/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor