CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 May 23, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING
May 23, 2024 (THURSDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on May 23, 2024 at 5:40 PM 5:30PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:40 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; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Stephanie 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 Boles
CONSIDERATION
1. Modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), including the Special Resiliency Area policies, and direction to staff regarding transmittal of alternative modifications to the California Coastal Commission.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission.
City Council Special Meeting 2 May 23, 2024
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is correct that the definition of a tsunami inundation zone is not a universally used term in the world of hazards.
Planning Director Murdock answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the term “tsunami inundation zone” was something city staff and coastal staff divined from other tsunami measures that are regularly used.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is a change led by city staff. City staff highlighted this concern to Coastal Commission staff that the tsunami evacuation zone maps are overly broad for the purposes for which the Coastal Commission staff is seeking to use them for deed restriction purposes; city staff was trying to strike the right balance between hazard disclosure and notification and obligations associated with developing in a hazardous area with a more realistic scenario of tsunami inundation that is likely to occur and cause property damage or potential loss of life, thus justifying the imposition of a deed restriction on a particular property.
City staff tried to keep the terms simple and distinguishable in a tsunami evacuation versus tsunami inundation zone. He stated that the intent is to narrow the area to a more probable or realistic tsunami hazard for Pacifica that would justify the disclosure and deed restriction requirements.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how to determine the right measure to use for defining the tsunami inundation zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff has tried to leverage readily available science, including from public comment some recent work the state has undertaken in the Department of Conservation California Geologic Survey. He stated that they have looked at different frequencies of events that reflect generally lower intensity earthquakes triggering lower intensity tsunamis but predicted to happen potentially more frequently, as little as 75- to 100-year type of occurrence, which reflects much more significant earthquake and thus much more significant tsunami event. It is that type of event that the tsunami evacuation zones are based on. City staff is advocating a less significant seismic event and, thus, a less significant tsunami event for this purpose, but one that may be likely to occur more frequently but still at a several hundred year type of interval.
Councilmember Boles stated Statistician Jiaheng Qiu provided Council this information and the language in the staff report is using this recommendation of 475 average return period. She was trying to find out if that has been mapped and the local statistician put the information in his GIS software and came up with a map. She knows staff has not had a chance to analyze this yet, but she asked if this is something we could bring back at our next meeting and talk to the Coastal Commission to see if there is acceptance.
Planning Director Murdock stated possibly in light of timelines. He stated that staff are confident that we could analyze that into a document in the implementation plan which will follow the LCLUP certification, provided that Council feels comfortable that it is the right policy direction to try to focus the tsunami hazard assumptions for this purpose. He stated that it may also not get us all the way there to use this readily available data. He stated that it is typically modeled on a sort of flat surface that does not reflect more localized conditions or presence of shoreline protection structures that might alter the type of tsunami inundation. He thought we need more time at the staff level to consider all of the specific assumptions, which is why staff City Council Special Meeting 3 May 23, 2024
recommendation is to further define that and utilize that in the implementation plan, if possible, but get the broad policy direction from Council at this stage to undertake that type of focus work.
Councilmember Boles asked for staff’s estimate on the implementation plan and how long that would take for us to work on and then process through the Coastal Commission.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating we would need to develop that work plan. He stated that it could certainly take several years to do it all at once. He thought these types of mapping updates are a near-term requirement and would justify a 6-12 month type of timeframe focused effort. He stated that we have to do hazard modeling updates to reflect the new sea level rise data as an example, and the two efforts could be combined in the next 6-12 month timeframe.
Councilmember Boles thought there was still concern in the community that we are showing tsunami hazard inundation maps that extend beyond the coastal zone as defined. For properties such as in Linda Mar that are not in the coastal zone but still in the tsunami hazard inundation areas, regarding property owners planning to do a large remodel that may exceed the 50% value limit, she asked if the city would be evaluating those now or in the future, and what are the policies that might trigger more work because of potential tsunamis to properties outside the coastal zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP policies would not apply to properties outside of the coastal zone. He thought she may be alluding to federal flood related triggers for property improvements that require additional mitigation of flood hazards. He is not aware that the FEMA flood mapping accounts for tsunami hazards. He would suspect that the answer is no, there is not a feedback mechanism for tsunami hazards for properties outside of the coastal zone at this time.
Councilmember Boles asked, if someone was applying for a permit now and saw these maps, we would not be analyzing tsunami.
Planning Director Murdock did not think we have any regulatory tool that would require the city to address those such as for a regular building permit project. He stated that there is a possibility that, in the hazard assessment for a project that needs a discretionary review, there could be consideration of that.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has other general questions before we go into the policies. She referred to questions about what happens when this gets certified, specifically for the Shelldance property and the quarry. She asked if he can tell us what that means, what is the history, why were they deferred certification, and what would be different once we certify.
Planning Director Murdock stated he has less knowledge of the Shelldance Nursery decision and deferred certification than what he heard from prior Coastal Commission staff regarding the quarry. He stated Coastal Commission staff indicated the quarry site was important and significant at the time of the 1980 LCLUP certification and the later implementation plan certification and the city and Coastal Commission could not reach agreement on appropriate policies to regulate potential development in that area. As a result, they left it out of the city’s certified Local Coastal Program which has the effect of Coastal Commission retaining coastal development permitting jurisdiction in those areas, the areas of deferred certification (ADC). He stated that, with certification of this LCLUP update as prepared now, the city would achieve certification of those areas and thus have coastal development permit jurisdiction.
City Council Special Meeting 4 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles thought we could be reviewing projects on our own and not necessarily go to the Coastal Commission in the future.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that it is certainly the case for the Shelldance Nursery site, although most or all that property is owned by the federal government now. For the quarry site, the city would have the first action on a CDP but it would be appealable to the Coastal Commission in that location.
Councilmember Boles concluded that it would still be in the Coastal Commission’s appeals jurisdiction.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that the bulk of the appeals jurisdiction in that location is the result of the first public road parallel to the shoreline (Highway 1).
Councilmember Boles thanked staff for sharing the letter of comments from the Coastal Commission about the General Plan amendments we sent late last year. She asked if he can tell us what he sees as the process for those and would they need to come back to Council so they become revisions as part of the total document that we are preparing to send back.
Planning Director Murdock thought the overall assessment is that those are relatively minor comments from the Coastal Commission. From a process standpoint, the action Council will be taking here would essentially supersede that prior transmittal with a newly adopted LCLUP with additional revisions. He thinks at least some of them have been addressed in additional Council discussion and direction, and he thought we will have to wait and see if those types of comments remain.
Councilmember Boles asked about us deleting the phrase “conduct tribal consultation as required by law”.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we are striving to align the General Plan and the LCLUP as closely as possible. He stated, in that case, the tribal consultation is required by law and it does not have any substantive policy effect. He was not concerned about that edit but he understood the connotation with showing a deletion of something like that.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to several phrases in the packet: “Housing Element implementation pursuing economic development initiatives, planning for city infrastructure facilities, etc., can all advance much more efficiently once an updated LCLUP is in place” (packet p. 6) and “while projects in the city’s strategic plan workplan may be able to continue under the 1980 LCLUP, successful completion of the LCLUP update and Sharp Park Specific Plan will allow for more clarity in the regulations applicable to these activities and benefit other priority projects, such as the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project” (packet p. 343).
He asked staff, should we update the LCLUP, that we will have a smoother ride renovating and rehabilitating our sea wall.
Planning Director Murdock stated yes, as staff has analyzed and believe that the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, replacement of the Beach Boulevard sea wall in short hand is supported by the 1980 LCLUP and would be supported by the new LCLUP. Staff thinks overall in terms of environmental protections and other related components to that type of project, that the new LCLUP would, on balance, be better and facilitative and provide clearer expectations for what such a project should include.
City Council Special Meeting 5 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus asked a question from public comment: “Would properties in the resiliency area be appealable?” She followed up by asking if they could appeal the fact they are part of the SRA or that they have not done 50% improvements on their property to make it appealable.
Planning Director Murdock summarized the two parts of the question: 1) If you are in an area that is mapped as a special resiliency area (SRA), do you have some opportunity to appeal your inclusion in that area or not? The answer is no. This public process is when property owners can express their support or lack thereof for SRA concept and the particular boundaries, but like other zoning type actions that the Council takes, property owners do not get to individually appeal their zoning classification. 2) Are there more site-specific related determinations on whether or not a project triggers a substantial structural modification and someone’s ability to appeal that or to submit evidence? The answer is yes, there are appeal opportunities. He clarified the SRA does not add more burdens and instead gives the benefit of relying on shoreline protection. He stated a property owner could choose not to if they want to be conservative and say that their hazard modeling without the sea wall is drastic and they want to build to that because they do not know if the sea wall is going to be there in 100 years. He stated that they have every right to do that as they are not mandated through this process to do the SRA type analysis, although that is an option and many property owners will avail themselves of that option.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated her last question is about Ingrid B. Lacey School which has already gone through more than 50% upgrades. She asked what happens with that property, i.e., are they going to be at risk of not being able to be allowed to improve their property. She stated that the bond has already been passed.
Planning Director Murdock stated there are sometimes complicated jurisdictional issues between school districts and local governments. City staff would need to do further research on that question to provide an informed answer.
Councilmember Boles stated that the one thing in general is that, if someone does a substantial structural modification over 50% and has the deed restriction, that does not prohibit them from doing other remodeling in the future; there was nothing else that would stop their project, unless the hazards, etc., change with the analysis as part of that.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was a misconception that the substantial structural modification definition prohibits projects from occurring. He stated that it may have important impacts on a project, as it requires a property owner to look at applicable hazards and determine if there are inconsistencies with the property and existing development or proposed development, if it will be inconsistent with hazard related policies or habitat protection policies, etc., in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the implementation plan. A project would need to do more analysis and possibly would be modified. In some cases, it will be importantly impacted and that is a possibility, but as indicated with the suggested individualized determination policy, there are opportunities to consider the best way to proceed with the project, even if the project is different than it is initially envisioned.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if it is true that properties appealed to the Coastal Commission have had deed restrictions applied to them.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that we have done analyses of several years of coastal development permit issuances by the North Central Coast District; all of those coastal development permits that we identified and analyzed included the deed City Council Special Meeting 6 May 23, 2024
restrictions that are described in the LCLUP. He is not aware of if the Coastal Commission process has some opportunity to do more focused analysis and determine if a hazard is likely to affect a property.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about a previous point stating “Except that an applicant shall not be required to record a deed restriction as described in this policy if a site specific geotechnical hazard analysis prepared by a qualified professional licensed by the State of California determines that the project site would not be subject to the hazard(s) identified in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Inundation Zone for the Anticipated Life of the project.” She stated that analysis would be incumbent upon the property owner to obtain. She asked if there is a process that does not require everyone to obtain the analysis for a large sum.
She asked if there was a way to identify what they want to do on their property and what needs to be evaluated in the plan.
Planning Director Murdock thought the challenge is, in the coastal vulnerability zones, that is the process now, the right balance of availability of the mapping and cost to the city. He thought, if the city tried to do that type of analysis, it would be extremely expensive and likely very timeconsuming. He stated it was probably possible to be done but it is hard to know whether that would be the right investment of doing it for every property in the city when very few will ever end up developing. That is a big policy and fiscal type of decision for the Council. He stated that updating to the best available science with the new sea level rise projections and effectuating the tsunami inundation zone will shrink the population of properties that even get to this stage because fewer properties will be in the coastal vulnerability zones to begin with. He thought that is the right policy level of citywide balance that the Council effectuate and support with the right policy decision-making in this document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that is something we undertake prior to submitting this LCLUP again to the Coastal Commission or is that something obtained or created during the Implementation Policy Phase.
Planning Director Murdock thought it is something in between. What he articulated previously and what he envisions is the advisable timeline is to continue this process and try to conclude it favorably, as soon as possible. While this is with the Coastal Commission for some number of months while we are waiting final action, we can put the effort into updating the coastal vulnerability zone maps with the new sea level rise data once the state has adopted that, engage the consultant, begin that process, and concurrently consider what can be done with the tsunami inundation zone. He suggested trying to incorporate those two things in a coastal vulnerability zone mapping update which will probably be ready sometime in early 2025, postcertification of the LCLUP, to be submitted as a several month type of minor LCLUP amendment to the Coastal Commission that then gets swept up into the new document as the best available science on the hazard mapping. He stated that limits the amount of time that someone might be adversely affected by the maps that are in there now once those no longer reflect the best available science. He thought that is the most realistic and likely timeline scenario to keep the overall process on track, to get all the other benefits of an updated LCLUP, and to catch up the hazard mapping process at the same time.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, following a visit to the West Fairway Park neighborhood, if qualified scientists could make a recommended change to how that equation around deed restrictions might pan out at the end of the day or introduce a different scientific basis by which to calculate what now we are regarding as a potentially onerous issue for the property owner.
City Council Special Meeting 7 May 23, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse provided a reminder that, for that particular neighborhood, the hazard is not coming from the sea level rise along the coast but coming from flooding through the Clarendon gap or other flooding.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this is a question that, in theory, could apply elsewhere in the city as well; the question remains in terms of process and potential outcome.
Planning Director Murdock stated, based on his understanding of the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission’s longstanding practice, what is challenging is that West Fairway Park is a low-lying area, subject to flooding, which sea level rise is likely to exacerbate through the Clarendon gap. He stated that the Coastal Commission is relying on the best available science as a matter of practice and the law says that new development cannot rely on shoreline protection of which the berm is a particular form. He thought all those factors align and suggest that something quite different than we experienced before is not likely to occur in the absence of some sort of scientific change, like reduced sea level rise projections or modification to the Beach Boulevard sea wall to close the Clarendon gap or some other type of flooding infrastructure project that would mitigate that hazard and change the technical modeling that informs the best available science.
Councilmember Boles wanted to add to the answer. She thought in many conversations we are just looking at the Local Coastal Plan and not referring to the adaptation plan with more specifics by neighborhood. She stated specifically the adaptation plan talks about policies and gives some triggers and things we would do if we start to see those things happen and become more vulnerable. She referred to information from the adaptation plan and stated that it is not all in the documents that we are looking at now and it is important that we are thinking about all this together with the series of documents we are working with. She stated that those are the next steps we do once we get them certified and then we can start looking at individual projects, what is most at risk, what adaptation we need to do.
Councilmember Bier stated that was going to be her question, i.e., when can we start talking about those strategies that are listed in the adaptation plan. She stated that the community needs to understand that we are going to be addressing these things and Council has their best interest at heart, and talking more about those strategies and creating plans for them is a way to be able to do that to create a safety barrier for those communities specifically.
Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding the point of flooding, staff mentioned previously that the LCLUP update has a number of policies that are supportive of flood hazard mitigation; with or without further work on a neighborhood level adaptation plan, there is broad policy support for those type of projects in the Capital Improvement Program or through whatever mechanism the city wants to identify and carry them out. He imagines a post-certification activity of great importance is to revisit the adaptation plan that Councilmember Boles described and improve it in a way the Coastal Commission feels is a complete, effective plan.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that this was a complicated subject and shared his concerns on this issue such as weather and asked about finally getting an agreement with Coastal Commission to conclude this project.
Richard Harris, Pacifica, stated he is with the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance and expressed his thoughts on the tsunami problem and the environmental justice point.
City Council Special Meeting 8 May 23, 2024
Rafel Cons, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the environment issue, including sea level and floods, and referred to other issues.
Frank Vella, Pacifica, referred to questions on the inundation zones, and shared his thoughts on that issue as well as the tsunami, upcoming sea level rise data and concerns that no one has clear answers on anything.
Marie Swan, Pacifica, referred to questions on the sea wall, and answers that were a bit confusing, and she shared her thoughts and asked for an answer on the process.
David Hinds, Pacifica, concurred with the later comments as he did not understand all this and added that they did not get answers. He shared concerns on Planning Director Murdock leaving and his thoughts on the process.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, shared her concerns on where they are on this now, and with Planning Director Murdock leaving, she expressed her concerns on who will be taking over the communication with the Coastal Commission, etc. and her thoughts on options going forward.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, expressed her appreciation for staff’s work on the LCLUP and grateful it is being updated, and shared her concerns and thoughts on the process of this issue.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the current LCLUP plan and shared his thoughts on the required process needed going forward.
Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated she is representing the local San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation, and shared her group’s concerns and thoughts on this issue.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck reiterated questions from public comment regarding what ultimately will inform tsunami inundation zones and finding a clear criteria. He asked what does this mean to the homeowner and would it be easier under the updated LCLUP or the 1980 to replace the sea wall. He also asked what does this look like with Planning Director Murdock leaving especially when we are at this potential apex moment.
Councilmember Bier reiterated one question of why Council listens to staff. She stated staff are experts and Council respects staff, but it does not mean Council always agrees with staff.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the first question from public comment was a broad question about what does this LCLUP update mean to a homeowner. He stated that it means a number of things, i.e., the city is trying to do its best to plan for the future by acknowledging science and facts and evolving conditions of the coastline and the earth, the world and society overall, and that is what land use plans are intended to reflect and respond to, such as the variety of conditions, ecology of a place, and what that means for what is safe, how do we support our economy, how do we provide housing for people, how do we protect the environment, all themes that are addressed by policies in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
The community that exists today is different than the community as it existed 40+ years ago when the current plan was put in place. What this means for a homeowner is that staff would update the plan and reflect all we know now and what we have learned in the last 40 years and reflect the vision for the community for the next 40 years and identify policies and steps to get to City Council Special Meeting 9 May 23, 2024
that ideal vision of what the community should be. For individual property owners, that may mean more or less restrictive policies for development but those policies, whether they are more or less restricted, are rooted in lessons learned about development along the shoreline. He thought it means something different for everybody but for everybody it means an updated plan with better information to support decisions making for the future.
He stated the next question related to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project and why we should not wait. He stated that is a multi-year project and the city is still in the midst of that, and it will be several years before permit and construction are likely to be obtained and to occur. A policy question is should we wait for that process to unfold. His opinion is no, as they can continue to pursue the project under the 1980 LCLUP and the 2040 LCLUP once certified and we will derive all the benefits of the 2040 LCLUP update if we are able to accomplish that.
He thought the 1980 LCLUP has fewer policies that address a project like the BBIRP. The 2040 LCLUP would have more policies on point related to resource protections and mitigations, overall clarifying the expectations for the city and what it needs to do to carry out the project.
He stated that more clarity and more certainty is better for development, infrastructure, etc., because it sets the expectations for the project to be undertaken. With the 1980 LCLUP, in the absence of those policies, the Coastal Commission inserts its judgment and formulation of practice and policies. The city may be worse off pursuing the project with the 1980 LCLUP even though both versions of the plan would allow the project to be undertaken.
He stated that, related to tsunami modeling, staff is trying to find touch points with the best available science. He is grateful to the member of our community that brought to light some recent statewide tsunami technical work that we can leverage off of, but there is further work to be done. He stated that he sees that work being carried out by the city engaging a technical consultant, just as it did to create the coastal vulnerability zone maps, and trying to update the model for tsunami hazards to reflect a better balanced tsunami inundation scenario for our community.
He referred to the last point about him leaving, and stated that it is very much the product of a team effort with Sr. Planner Cervantes, City Manager Woodhouse, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano, City Attorney Kenyon, and many others on the city team. This work will go on and done expertly and he will be there as a resource if and when needed as well. He is confident that this process will continue to play out in a very successful and effective way.
City Manager Woodhouse added that work and progress does not stop in organizations when key staff leave. While losing Planning Director Murdock is sad for the entire organization, with him moving on to a great promotional opportunity, Sr. Planner Cervantes and other consultant resources and expertise in the city will make this work continue. He stated that to say that something should pause because an individual in the organization is moving on to a promotional opportunity is a different perspective that is not accurate about how organizations work.
Council discussed process and decided to go down each individual item in Chapter 6, stating any comments a Councilmember may have on a particular line.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.1.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked regarding Modification No. 6.2A if the change in language is mainly for clarification.
Planning Director Murdock stated what occurred here was in the definition of substantial City Council Special Meeting 10 May 23, 2024
structural modification as Council approved it in 2020 and it included in the exemptions from the substantial structural modification reference to the Coastal Act provision mentioned at 30610(g), and the Coastal Commission staff took it out in a suggested modification. City staff explained to them that we had concerns that it is a very important statutory provision and should trump the SSM definition if someone were to need to rebuild in the event of disaster damage. They understood the point and said they would prefer to have it be a more global comment about the relationship of that statutory provision to the SSM definition. City staff agreed. It is now in this global policy position talking about how, for no purposes, should a project undertaken pursuant to that section be SSM.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked staff to address the public sentiment that, if there is going to be a huge disaster to someone’s house, it would be better to burn the entire thing down because, if it only does half the job, they would not be entitled to doing the substantial repair work.
Planning Director Murdock stated City staff addressed it with the Coastal Commission staff.
They explained that, as a matter of practice and their expert interpretation and application of this provision, they recognized what that extreme interpretation would mean or the literal interpretation; they said, in practice, realistically the way they apply that term “destroy” means “unable to inhabit”. If there is some sort of major fire damage but it stops short of bringing the whole building down, that is destroyed for the purposes of this section of the Coastal Act because one cannot occupy that building any longer as it is not able to be used for its intended purpose and is destroyed for all intents and purposes. He stated not to allow your house to burn down thinking that you need to do that to effectuate this provision. He stated that there is a reasonable application of that by the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bier reminded people that questions were asked and answered in the agenda today and she thanked them for including all those questions and answers for them.
Councilmember Boles also appreciated the questions and answers, especially for repeated questions from the public. She thought it would be helpful to read section 30610(g).
Planning Director Murdock read section 30610 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act):
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, no coastal development permit shall be required pursuant to this chapter for the following types of development and in the following areas.” Planning Director Murdock also read subdivision g: “Replacement of any structure other than a public works facility destroyed by a disaster, the replacement structure shall conform to applicable existing zoning requirements, shall be for the same use as the destroyed structure, shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10% and shall be cited in the same location on the affected property as a destroyed structure.
As used in this subdivision, disaster means any situation in which the force or forces which destroyed the structure to be replaced were beyond the control of its owner, bulk means the total anterior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure. Structure includes landscaping and any erosion control structure or device similar to that which existed prior to the occurrence of the disaster.”
Councilmember Boles concluded that they can replace what they had and even grow it by 10% under these conditions for disaster.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.2A.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wanted to make a statement about Modification No. 6.2 City Council Special Meeting 11 May 23, 2024
regarding the issue of managed retreat. She stated that, on looking at the city’s 2020 certification draft, it was clear that this statement of policy was going to be a point of contention and point of difficulty that the city and the Coastal Commission had to move past. She believes that there has been an attempt to balance both the position the city took in the 2020 draft and a far opposition that the Coastal Commission took in its response to that draft. She stated that the statement in the suggested modification is clear in the sense that it does not specifically limit, reduce, or forestall managed retreat. She stated that it is true that Pacifica was one of the early examples of a managed retreat project and it was a successful project and, in some ways, the notion of managed retreat implies destruction of personal property and it is the issue between public property, private property, and managed retreat. This is not the first place that we see a softening and modification of the language that was in the 2020 version; there are other changes as well and other protections that were put into this document, and it was our process to look at all of it in totality and decide what can we accept and decide on what is in the document. She stated that we must be forthcoming about managed retreat not being in there and recognize that this is a compromised document.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it does allow for protection in armoring.
Councilmember Boles stated that there is another item coming up shortly that also has those words. She stated one question she specifically asked staff was everywhere the adaptation plan says managed retreat for private property, it includes the word “optional” in parentheses.
She asked staff what that meant and their answer was “property owners must individually decide what adaptation measures are feasible and desirable to make informed decisions.
Some property owners will decide that the preferred adaptation measure for them is to modify or demolish development, particularly if the cost is associated with shoreline protection structures when eligible may see the economic value of the property or the owner’s financial needs. The city’s LCLUP policy has helped to establish a framework where informed decision making, in part by clearly identifying applicable coastal hazards.” She stated that is their choice and, if they have a pre-1976 structure, they can look at armoring and apply for that for their property. She stated that, when looking at some of the homes on Esplanade, they knew their homes were not going to last and they decided it was not worth making that investment on their own and they worked with the city and FEMA to get money for their properties. She stated that they may say it is not enough, but it was a choice they made, not forced on them. She reiterated that it is not something we are forcing on private property, adding if staff can confirm that.
Planning Director Murdock agreed and stated the heart of the issue from staff’s perspective is that information is powerful and people can begin to make informed choices once they are able to recognize the reality of the hazards applicable to a property. He thought another instrument that some of the community has talked about in comments is transfer of development rights. He stated that we have a lot of work to do in strengthening the city’s transfer of development rights, or TDR Ordinance, to improve the functioning, but that is something where people can also receive economic value for their property, but transferring that somewhere else outside of the hazardous location; that property it is transferred from is taken out of the potential for development for the future. It is a win-win in the sense of mitigating the hazard but also providing economic use if they can make that function in this local market place.
Councilmember Boles asked if that is something that would be further worked on in the implementation plan.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is, adding that the General Plan calls for revisiting the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance.
City Council Special Meeting 12 May 23, 2024
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.2.
Councilmember Boles had a question regarding Modification No. 6.3. She stated the maps highlight the existence of the structures, but not highlight the protection provided by the structures. She stated some of the structures provide better protection than others and some may not be permitted structures. She had an alternate suggestion to say “maps highlight the current existence of shoreline protection structures, though not the validity of permits for the amount of protection they provide”.
Planning Director Murdock thought what the statement suggested by staff indicates is more of just a policy statement, not a technical statement on the degree of protection. What it is saying in the absence of those shoreline protection structures, those areas would be subject to much greater coastal erosion hazard. It is trying to restore some of that policy message from Council in the first column by not describing it in terms of the structures to remain which is how it had been approved by Council, but trying to recognize objectively that they are providing some measure of protection to those areas that otherwise that they were remote.
Councilmember Boles stated that it sounds like we are promising something. She stated it highlights the current existence of the structures but not necessarily the amount of protection.
She said it could be construed that way with the wording.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked Councilmember Boles if she has any suggested revisions.
Councilmember Boles repeated her suggestion: “The maps highlight the current existence of shoreline protection structures, but they do not define the amount of protection they provide.” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated staff has indicated that is not intended to reference whether the permits are valid, so would she consider removing the last portion of her suggested revision.
Councilmember Boles stated yes, just to say “The maps highlight the current existence of shoreline protection structures” and leave it at that.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for clarifying as she did not understand that she was asking for a change of language but just asking the question in general.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed. She asked Planning Director Murdock if that language was amenable or does he need more time to consider that.
Planning Director Murdock thought it is a question for Council. He stated that staff was trying to reflect as much of the prior policy intent about the importance of shoreline protection and maintenance of it as we could without saying that specifically. Staff crafted the alternative modification to talk about protection provided by the structures. He stated that is a question for Council, i.e., is it important to say that or can they make it even more neutral and not sort of cloak the important protected point in the language.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that in the general investigation from the Army Corps will help the city to inform where we should actually go and, in the meantime, the protections we have are important and they are what we have to work with between now and when we get to that point that there may be a more natural adapted strategy that we can utilize to do it in a better way than we are currently. In the meantime, he thinks it feels like we need to maintain what we City Council Special Meeting 13 May 23, 2024
have because there is so much infrastructure there.
Planning Director Murdock suggested reading the whole sentence in context.
Mayor Vaterlaus read the context: “However, because the Coastal Vulnerability Map shows significant erosion, the city acknowledges that the coastal vulnerability zone maps would not be appropriate for the use of site specific erosion analysis but the maps do show important information necessary to make general planning level decisions about the vulnerability of portions of the coastal zone.”
Planning Director Murdock stated that his perspective is that, in context, there is meaning conveyed by the alternative modification as drafted that might be lost with the revision that Councilmember Boles has suggested, but that is a policy point for Council.
Mayor Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer, and Councilmember Bigstyck agreed to leave it as is.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they have majority agreement to leave it as is.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.3.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her concern about Modification No. 6.4 is that she wants to emphasize the point that cost benefit analysis was not fully comprehensive. We have had quite a lengthy discussion multiple times about the usability or comprehensiveness of the cost benefit analysis as it was done; it did not include, for example, the value of recreational assets that we know to exist in our city. She stated that the study itself was not designed to fully include all of that but was very focused on the determination of the value of a day at the beach. That was the pain point or discussion point they had in 2019 for the 2020 draft. She is asking councilmembers to look at it from that point of view and make sure we are okay with the modifications and convey that.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the last sentence conveys it.
Councilmember Boles stated it was suggested to her to add that it is also the value of beaches and their ecological element. She thought the main point was that the cost and analysis was not complete and she asked if we need to be that specific.
Councilmember Bier added that there is more value than just public recreation.
Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned the beach.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively, adding ecological the value of the beaches.
Planning Director Murdock thought this is trying to capture what the context and discussion was at that time, not necessarily what it would be today if we were describing all of the things of potential value, which might include ecological values. His recollection was that it was specifically focused on questions about the appropriate valuation of the public recreational amenities, beach versus trail versus golf course. He stated that those were very much public recreational amenities and those seem to be the biggest points of concern by the community and Council at that time in terms of adequacy of the cost benefit analysis.
City Council Special Meeting 14 May 23, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how do the ecological resources fit in the context of what Planning Director Murdock said.
Councilmember Boles thought there may be other things that are not adequate and asked if we could say “it is perceived to not be adequate and needs more work” without being specific about exactly what is missing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the reason we are being so specific is because there is a strong proclivity leaning in the Coastal Commission overall to focus on beaches only, almost to the exclusion of everything else. She understands that it is the Coastal Act and their mandate and responsibility to the voters of California in passing the Coastal Act, but she thinks this is one area that is a good example of where we have those overlapping responsibilities. She stated that the city appreciates the value of ecological resources and it also needs to proactively include and speak to resources that the Coastal Commission might not care about. She feels that they have a good grounding and the Coastal Act is clear on beaches and ESHA, but it does not speak to and is not focused on other coastal resources as the city might define them. She stated that Pacifica’s specialty in the county is recreational, such as trails, hiking, the shore, and the low-cost golf course. She thought that was why the emphasis was placed there, to bring that back to the conversation and make sure we have those points in our plan.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, if the Coastal Commission only focused on beaches and decided to do away with the berm, which is a recreational use of walking, that would also do away with the recreational use of the golf course and invade environmentally sensitive habitats that are there.
If their only concern is the beach, then they would not take into consideration those other items that are important to Pacifica.
City Manager Woodhouse added from the chapter that this is a discussion about the adaptation plan and the cost-benefit analysis that occurred in that context. He stated, if we look at the next page after the chart, it is talking about all of the recreational discussions, such as trails and golf course, and to expand the language to other things would be revising the context from the past and would not accurately represent what this context is trying to capture.
Councilmember Bigstyck recalled a previous conversation about cost-benefit analysis adequately capturing what the money value was of the resources and he thought the last sentence that was added in captures that question mark adequately.
Councilmember Boles added that the chart does include beaches also.
Councilmember Bier and Mayor Vaterlaus understood where she is coming from.
Mayor Vaterlaus read the next few modifications, which provided clarifying language and made changes to the cost-benefit analysis.
Councilmember Boles asked why staff thinks it is important to add those changes.
Planning Director Murdock stated his recollection is that, at that time, there was concern about whether the city should take the time and spend the money to prepare a revised or new costbenefit analysis. The conclusion at the time was that it was unnecessary because it was one of several pieces of information that informed the adaptation strategies that would be pursued.
Council was able to make the decision on those adaptation policies even with a less than perfect cost-benefit analysis and it was not necessary to take that time. He thought we are City Council Special Meeting 15 May 23, 2024
trying to memorialize the point that Council concluded it did not need a new cost-benefit analysis to determine that different adaptation strategies were needed, and they had enough information to conclude which adaptation strategies to pursue.
Councilmember Boles stated that this was in relation to the adaptation plan, which has also not been officially adopted. She asked if it is important to say that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it seems to her that the sentence is an important clarification because the prior sentence is talking about reassessment of the adaptation plan in the future; the subsequent sentence provides “therefore, changes to the cost benefit analysis are not necessary to inform the coastal resiliency policies,” meaning that the adaptation plan may be reassessed in the future but the cost-benefit analysis does not need to be updated. She stated, from her perspective, it helps to clarify that, while the adaptation plan may be reassessed, there is no need to update the cost-benefit analysis.
Councilmember Boles thought we might want to update the cost-benefit analysis if we are making big decisions in the future.
Councilmember Bier asked if it it is possible for us to update it moving forward.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated this does not preclude us from updating it, only that it is not necessary.
Councilmember Boles felt that, wherever we are adding something that the Coastal Commission did not ask for, it may be another point where we might have an issue with them. She does not understand the value of that clarification if we can decide to do it later or not anyway.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, and thought it sounds like some of these revisions are being suggested by staff because of the context in which those phrases or sentences are found and it is important in the context in which they are placed.
Planning Director Murdock stated, to take a broader view, he thought staff explained at the outset of this latest sequence for the LCLUP update that the Coastal Commission, following the several year process to have the application accepted for filing, ultimately furnished its minimal recommendations they felt would achieve Coastal Act compliance. He stated that they do not think that these policy-related statements about the historical context at the time or certain impressions or priorities of Council are necessary for the basic task of Coastal Act compliance.
However, this is a document of the city and Council needs to convey issues of importance and context that shapes the decisions that came out of this document. He stated that Council needs to tell a story in addition to achieving Coastal Act compliance; the Coastal Commission does not. He stated that is why staff is suggesting some of these more narrative-related sections that some key points do need to remain to tell the truth of the process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his understanding has been that staff has been making sure to relate to Coastal Commission staff where the city is in the process, including what the proposed alternative modifications to the Coastal Commission would be. He asked if it is correct that Coastal Commission staff have seen this and have not substantially disagreed.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that that is an important point. He stated what we see on the screen or on a page is the product of extensive staff-to-staff coordination where they explain more of their positions and where they were coming from with their modifications and City Council Special Meeting 16 May 23, 2024
city staff explained our reactions and proposed alternative modifications; where we needed to, we ironed out disagreements and modified the language further. His impression overall as a package that staff is presenting to Council is that we worked hard staff-to-staff to find something our respective agencies could live with and ultimately support as a total package in the document in the spirit of compromise.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he can see where some abrasive language was replaced by language that is not nearly as abrasive but still captures the spirit of what we are trying to say.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is to strike that balance between what the Coastal Commission is asking us to do, what Pacifica wants to do, and what our community has told us.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated city staff is still in communication with Coastal Commission staff and asked if we would run this by them before the final hearing.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is staff’s objective, but there are some practical challenges with that, not only scheduling challenges but internal organizational alignment challenges. Staff’s goal is to find something that is not going to elicit a negative reaction from the Coastal Commission once submitted.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is fine with the language.
Mayor Vaterlaus likes what he said about communication to our public, as these things are important for our public to know where we are and what we are going through here.
Councilmember Boles stated she is fine with that and she appreciates the Asst. City Attorney Bazzano saying that it does not preclude us from deciding we need a cost-benefit analysis later.
Mayor Vaterlaus read the next modification regarding sea level rise adaptation policies.
Councilmember Boles asked if this is saying that we cannot do any managed retreat and people in town cannot opt to do managed retreat without having to go through an LCP amendment.
Planning Director Murdock stated this is another instance where we have to read through a 2020 context and there was significant concern in the community that the Coastal Commission was pushing and the Council may have been sympathetic to and supportive of a managed retreat policy as something that was going to force on the community and take aggressive assertive government actions to force managed retreat and de-armor the coast. He stated the truth is not that in terms of what managed retreat means, but that is a way it was characterized by many in the community and there was fear that it would result in loss of property value, disinvestment, etc. He thinks Council was striving at that time to make it clear that an aggressive, robust managed retreat policy was not the intent of the LCLUP; this language is coming from that place and we try to restore and preserve some of that in this policy that the Coastal Commission had deleted. He thinks it talks about the city having a managed retreat policy for its infrastructure and major decision making and not an individual property owner’s decision to move away from the coast in some fashion if that suits his or her individual interests.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if ultimately the other policies bear out that final sentence that the city is using other sea level rise adaptation policies.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, and in this case, we recognize in many instances in the City Council Special Meeting 17 May 23, 2024
near-term shoreline protection may be a necessary adaptation policy to buy time to do more thorough infrastructure relocation, planning, funding, and construction. He stated there are many ways to interpret this but staff tried to articulate what it meant in that 2020 context from his recollection.
Councilmember Bier thought that was going to be her question too, i.e., this language does not say we are not going to plan for eventual retreat of things if necessary. She then referred to what Councilmember Boles said, i.e., is it going to negate some private property owners from deciding to move their infrastructure.
Councilmember Boles stated that was one of the questions. She stated that we have a sewer line in our RV park that needs to be moved, a retreat policy, and asked does that mean that the city would have to go through an LCP amendment to be able to do that projects. She stated that she is concerned about we are blocking ourselves from doing things that might be necessary. She added that retreat is already happening in Manor and we will need plan for it.
Planning Director Murdock stated he takes a broader view: what this is saying that there is not a managed retreat policy; there are other policies in the LCLUP that reflects where the Council came out. He stated, for example, for infrastructure, there are policies that say try not to locate critical infrastructure in hazardous areas, but elsewhere it says if we have infrastructure that we cannot relocate, we can protect it and flood proof it and try to ensure its continued preservation and functionality. It allows the city to do what the city needs to do in a particular context, but it is not saying that, in all instances we are going to pursue managed retreat, nor is it saying the city can never pursue managed retreat.
Councilmember Boles stated she reads it as saying we cannot do it if we wanted to. She understands it is not the first choice and for most of the policies in the adaptation plan, it is a long term choice, but in some areas, especially in Manor, it may be needed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, going back to the context of this section, it is about the historical context of the adaptation plan. When it comes to actual projects, an evaluation of consistency with the LCLUP and the General Plan, that is what all of the other policies are about, not this historical adaptation section.
Planning Director Murdock agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse added that all of those other policies support if a property owner proactively wanted to relocate dwellings or infrastructure.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that there is no such policy that would suggest that there is an anti-managed retreat policy that would need an LCP limit to allow people to adapt their property.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, rather than rejecting what is not here, we are pointing to what is here.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.4 and 6.5.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked regarding Modification No. 6.6 for context on why it was so desired by Coastal Commission to include an additional phrase for the anticipated life.
City Council Special Meeting 18 May 23, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated, in the certification draft from 2020, there were several terms used to describe the same intended characteristic, the amount of time that a particular development was intended to be constructed and serviceable and operational. The Coastal Commission went through and tried to unify those terms and the term they ended up with “anticipated life” and that is defined in the glossary. He stated some of these changes are needed to reflect the reliance on that anticipated life estimation in relation to application of different policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her concern on this was if there was some veiled element to a building lasting beyond its anticipated life and therefore needing to be removed. She wants to be sure that we are still not limiting in some ways the life of various structures.
Planning Director Murdock could not think of a policy where something used to occur at the end of the anticipated life. He stated that what it does is put a reasonable outer boundary on the analysis being performed to strike a right balance of substantial economic use. The terms defined in most instances for private development mean 75 to 100 years and it will be determined on a project-specific basis depending on the type of development, as more substantial or more expensive development likely will have a longer anticipated life; something like a modular development or manufactured home or mobile home park might have a shorter anticipated life, given the nature of the construction and amount of investment. He stated it was a practical instrument to apply the hazard modeling or projected encroachment on public trust land as a result of coastal erosion.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if a structure is designed for 50 years and lasts 75 years later is, but now the ocean has eroded the bluff upon which it is sitting so it cannot be armored.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is one consequence of the policies in this document. As we spent time talking about the deed restrictions, one of the key provisions is waving rights to future shoreline protection and it cuts both ways. Trying to get economic use for the property by projecting hazards and building the structure outside of that 100-year projected hazard but also recognizing nobody knows exactly how long it will be until the hazards encroach and the Coastal Act does not allow new development to have shoreline protection or to construct its own shoreline protection under the current understanding of what those terms mean for existing structure under the law. He stated buildings may be built safely for however long we think it will be there; if those circumstances do not turn out to be as long as we projected, they are still not able to have shoreline protection.
Councilmember Bier asked if that is on new development.
Councilmember Boles stated, in response to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s question, reading it in context helps. She stated that saying the projects will not have these risks for the anticipated life is part of the approval, not to say what happens at the end of the life, but just to approve it the findings must be made that it can avoid those hazards.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that he was trying to provide a more holistic response that other areas talking about coastal hazard analysis over the anticipated life will, in most cases or many cases, result in a deed restriction waving rights to future shoreline protection; there are several factors that are relevant here, the initial permitting decision, as well as the consequences of the dynamic shoreline at some point in the future after construction of the structure, and they all tie together in a related way.
City Council Special Meeting 19 May 23, 2024
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.6.
Councilmember Boles asked if Coastal Commission staff seem to be okay with Modification No.
6.7 regarding the number of required surveys per year.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they essentially wanted to double the number of required surveys by doing twice a year to reflect the seasonality of erosion and the tide. City staff said that makes technical sense but that is twice the cost and obligation for the city that we had committed to and they split the difference and have an alternating schedule.
Councilmember Boles stated that this does not preclude the city if some terrible storm happens.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we will make those evaluations as needed but this is only committing the city to do what is prescribed here.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there may be options to do the surveys cost-effectively and not have to wait a year.
Councilmember Boles did not think we were defining how we are doing this yet, as that is part of the implementation plan.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.7.
Planning Director Murdock stated regarding Modification No. 6.8 that this is one of several in the chapter with a necessary highlight. It reflects a policy where, subsequent to publication of this packet, the Coastal Commission has reached out saying they have some additional thoughts on this that they want to talk to city staff about and they need to flush those out and they will in the coming days and we will have more information prior to whatever the next LCLUP City Council meeting is, but we need Council’s feedback on what they have put forth here to inform that discussion with the Coastal Commission.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we have a sea wall where we have revetment existing and we are maintaining it and not doing any mitigation specifically related to it as it is already built and been there for a while, but now we are going to do mitigation. She stated she interprets it as a retroactive condition of approval. She thought we need to be careful here about what we are agreeing to because, in general, this whole area of the shoreline mitigation program has given her concern because of cost. She is concerned and wants to know more about that.
Planning Director Murdock stated the Coastal Commission staff’s need to talk more about these relates to the SRA approach, trying to fuse together these policies as they are now with this new concept that we are working through, agency to agency, which is the core component of this compromise we are trying to work through on certification. He shared concerns with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer about making sure it is not over reach in relation to existing shoreline protection structures, but recognizing that not all of those had particularly robust mitigation at the time that they were permitted and some of these structures are perhaps lasting longer than may have been anticipated, and with sea level rise as well, some of the impacts from the presence of those structures may be greater than anticipated. The city is figuring out what opportunities are feasible such as within the city’s financial condition to offset some of those impacts, whether by expensive and robust activities like beach nourishment or even improving City Council Special Meeting 20 May 23, 2024
other kinds of access through stairways, viewing areas, picnicking areas or a variety of activities that might help to offset some of coastal resource impacts by enhancing coastal resources in other ways that perhaps are not as costly.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the only part that is underlined is “and it shall be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as and LCP amendment” so it says that the city would need to show the Coastal Commission the plan.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated there is a process with the Coastal Commission to make sure it is sufficient and, if the city were not to effectively implement the requirements of the plan or modify the plan, then that would need to go back to the Coastal Commission. He thought it provides oversight and scrutiny from the Coastal Commission’s perspective.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are discussing the unknown that he is referencing that will be brought forward to Council at a future point.
Planning Director Murdock reiterated to focus on what is before them. He stated that staff is trying to be transparent to the extent we can that the Coastal Commission staff flagged this policy and some others that we will see as needing to be revisited most likely to reflect their best thinking about this overall SRA approach and how to balance these particular factors. He stated, if he were to speculate, they probably want to put more specificity about what that shoreline management or mitigation program needs to have in relation to SRAs because those need to have particular kinds of mitigations or offsets because it is a very unique approach to allow armoring to remain in a way that is contemplated in the SRA.
Councilmember Boles did not think any of us have a problem with going back to the Coastal Commission for certification but the SRAs are going to be part of a whole different shoreline management plan and she asked if we can keep those separate so we know if this is okay as it is with the policies hopefully without the SRAs. She asked if this is okay without the SRAs.
Planning Director Murdock thought the Coastal Commission may be asking why are these two programs that are doing a lot of the same things. He thought they are trying to figure out the right way to make the unified program that touches on citywide components and as a unique component for the SRA offset.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought Councilmember Boles hit it on the head as she thinks that the SRAs already carry their own coastal management specific related policies and articulating between what this was referring to and what that means is what they want to do.
Councilmember Boles asked when staff will be talking to the Coastal Commission and when can we get the feedback.
Planning Director Murdock thinks that part of that depends on where the Council ends up at this meeting and what the next step is, but he will say before the next step will be our goal.
Councilmember Boles stated that we will have this discussion before we move further onward in submitting.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that Council needs to understand what it would be saying it is willing to adopt and to carry it out and we will present that information before we have to make a final decision.
City Council Special Meeting 21 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break. She then reconvened the meeting and stated that they are focusing on CR-I-59, mitigating impacts of new shoreline structure.
Councilmember Boles stated this is on new shoreline protection structures, not existing shoreline protection structures, and we do not have to do anything about existing ones until we come up with a new plan.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that this is essentially the placeholder policy for shoreline protection structure mitigations until the shoreline mitigation program is prepared.
Councilmember Boles stated that it talked about proportional in lieu fees, an option if someone does not do their mitigation directly. She asked if we have a fund established for that now.
Planning Director Murdock is not aware that we have a specific fund established yet for that purpose but we could work with the Finance Department to establish an appropriate place to deposit those impact fees.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.8.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the change for Modification No. 6.9 was made in a few different instances where, as drafted by the Coastal Commission, they were referring to prior permit condition and staff felt that was too limiting and could discourage people from seeking amendments to those permits to reflect changes in circumstances. They understood the approach and seemed supportive of this revision.
Councilmember Boles asked if it is struck so it is broader, like prior and new permits.
Planning Director Murdock stated whatever the applicable permit conditions are, not limiting it to something already in existence but recognizing that those can change if an applicant seeks approval for that.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.9 and 6.10.
Councilmember Boles asked if Modification No. 6.11 was just a modification and reorganization of the document.
Sr. Planner Cervantes clarified that this was text that was taken from the sub area policies; each sub area had specific policies that essentially said the same thing and it was combined into one policy at the start of the chapter.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.11.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, regarding Modification No. 6.12, we are going to work with everybody and deal with beach nourishment wherever feasible.
Sr. Planner Cervantes clarified that this is similar to the previous policies where each sub area had policies referring to beach nourishment and the suggested modification was to condense all of those at the beginning. However, the city also had a policy under Section 6.7, new shoreline development standard policies, that also spoke about beach nourishment. We took the policy that was previously CR-I-55 and incorporated it into this new CR-I-16 to further City Council Special Meeting 22 May 23, 2024
streamline the reorganization of this chapter.
Councilmember Boles referred to evaluating a beach nourishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures. She knows currently the sea wall project we are working on is looking at sand nourishment without retention and she asked if it is saying that we have to do retention as she knows those are even harder to permit because they are beyond the public trust land and have environmental impacts.
Planning Director Murdock does not read this policy to dictate what a particular project must do, but more broadly as a shoreline-wide program and try to find these opportunities in partnership with the relevant permitting agencies to determine if beach nourishment and sand retention structures to sort of maximize the longevity of those beach nourishment efforts are feasible. He thought this is memorializing in a policy non-armoring type activities should be considered and implemented where feasible.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.12.
Councilmember Boles stated she has a question on Modification No. 6.13. She stated that Coastal Commission staff want to say the least environmentally damaging solution. She asked why we need to take that out because what they added is just the impact of sand supply which is not all of the environmental impact.
Planning Director Murdock thought what we are trying to do is narrow the required analysis for the flood proofing of infrastructure. The concern from staff was having to demonstrate that it is the least environmentally damaging alternative and is the much more comprehensive and potentially risky analysis for the city because likely other alternatives would be less environmentally damaging. We are trying to say, if they are concerned about shoreline sand supply, to focus on that, but with other types of environmental impacts it might be difficult to substantiate that the flood proofing results in the lest environmentally damaging alternative.
Councilmember Boles feels that there could be lots of other environmental issues with flood proofing infrastructure. She does not have a problem with their modification. She thought we could delete the other package and not call out sand supply.
Planning Director Murdock thought the concern is, without the alternative modification, it could force the city into much more expensive projects because we are looking at the totality of potential impacts from flood proofing where we already have infrastructure that is expensive to redesign and relocate. Most likely every analysis is going to conclude that we should be moving that infrastructure, which he thinks runs counter to the city’s near term ability to do so; he thinks we are trying to reflect that practical challenge by saying that we do our best to address issues related to local shoreline sand supply but we may not be able to deal with all of the other potential environmental issues to demonstrate it is the least environmentally impactful alternative.
Councilmember Boles does not see how much infrastructure would impact the sand supply.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it seems as though the language as proposed does not preclude us from having that conversation with Coastal Commission when the time arises but it certainly means that we can pursue emergency maintenance so we can get the job done in the interim while we seek out better ways in the long run.
City Council Special Meeting 23 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus reiterated for Modification No. 6.13 that City staff is proposing an alternative modification to clarify requirements for sand.
Councilmember Boles stated that this might be something the Coastal Commission has an issue with. She is willing to let them take a look at it if we do not think it is that important, but it does not seem like this is doing what they want us to do which is make sure we are addressing all the environmental impacts and finding the least damaging alternative. She stated that they are the final determination of any infrastructure project the city wants to do.
Planning Director Murdock stated that depends on the location of the project and whether it would be in their permitting jurisdiction or appealable to the Coastal Commission, as not all infrastructure projects would be subject to this.
Councilmember Boles assumed, if infrastructure is not within the hazard zone, it has nothing to do with sand supply.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, related to the issue of sand supply, he thought she was right that it would almost certainly require Coastal Commission approval.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Coastal Commission staff has looked at this.
Planning Director Murdock did not think they have raised specific issues with this provision.
Councilmember Boles understands that the Coastal Commission staff might come back with some other comments. She stated that, if they do, we should talk about it before they submit it as is to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck understands that there will be a conversation between our staff and theirs between now and if and when Council signs off on this. He stated that we are trying to be collaborative if they raise substantial objection to what Council says, but we are also trying to gear this in terms of what is in our community’s best interest and go from there.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.13.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Bier previously brought up the question of delineating between the SRAs and the rest of the policies, and he asked if she is comfortable going forward with Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15 at this time.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if this is where they are approving the SRA idea or discussing it in depth. He stated he had a question about CR-I-17. He thought language around “failure to submit will void the SRA until the Coastal Commission certifies it” and asked how substantial that has to be and could they not accept it and then void the SRAs if it has been past three years. He asked if staff had a response to his concern.
Planning Director Murdock acknowledged that, in discussing the polices with the Coastal Commission staff, the question of timing was very important to them. City staff will need to see what they want to talk about with respect to the policy and timing and Council will need to decide if this deal is acceptable based on the timing and expectations.
City Council Special Meeting 24 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is hard to say that we can do submit the LCLUP within three years without knowing more specifically what we are doing and then within the context of government, he is of the mind that it can be done in three years. He thinks the concern is not so much whether they can do it in three years but whether we understand what the criteria for that will be. He does not know if those could be fleshed out between now and getting it certified, or if it is more appropriately as a question for the implementation plan.
Planning Director Murdock understood, adding that those are all important components of the policy in knowing what we are expected to do. He stated that when we need come up with this variety of actions to help offset the benefits we are getting from reliance on shoreline protection.
He stated that the conversations staff had on the substance of that plan thus far has reflected varying degrees of cost and complexity over short, medium and long term horizons for the SRAs. He stated assembling the right balance of meaningful improvements over the right time horizons that are within the city’s near term and then longer term financial abilities by putting into place these various funding mechanisms would constitute that good faith effort as the essence of what is expected and not trying to shortcut our obligations for what would be substantial benefit to the city in the SRAs from reliance on shoreline protection. It is a huge beneficial impact to property owners who want to develop their property if we are able to get those policies in the LCLUP.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated the word “submitted” to her was important, as it did not say “approved”.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She appreciated the use of the word “submit,” as something submitted can take a long time for approval. She stated that, if approved, that area is outside of the city’s control where submitting is within our control.
Councilmember Boles asked about staff time and financial resources. She stated that this is an offset to the Coastal Act which says new development cannot rely on shoreline structures so for them to approve something that says new development can rely on shoreline structures, she thought they will require significant mitigations. She thought we can assume we will need to do more. She thinks we need to have a discussion on what we see as the benefits and what are the potential drawbacks of the SRAs.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he has been thinking about shoreline management plan and he would say, per his perspective, is that the details of this would be developed post-certification in the implementation plan work with Coastal Commission staff. He stated, based on conversations he has had with the Executive Director, they understand we are a governmental entity and have certain processes and procedures that we have to do with our budgeting, development, and strategic planning. Thus, this is essentially a version or subchapter of our long range CIP where we are identifying improvements that can occur over the future as we currently identify funding sources. He stated it is repackaging in a way that makes a lot of sense for a coastal city on how we plan for, develop, and manage all of our projects on the coast, thus it is like a coastal CIP with all of these amenities and improvements over time. He stated that it is a benefit to the city to approach it that way. His concern lies about making sure we can find the funds for all of those projects. He stated, if we take all the projects we are currently doing that are in the strategic plan, and carve them out and package them separately, it was almost like a shoreline management plan. He is confident we can work with coastal staff and work out a great model that would fit in nicely with our annual CIP and we can achieve that.
Councilmember Bigstyck hoped we might be eligible for state funding if we pass this. He also likes the thought of identifying a mechanism by which we can streamline the process of City Council Special Meeting 25 May 23, 2024
identification, if not implementation, with city processes that we already have existent. Our standard CIP focuses on city needs, i.e. roads, sewer lines, and city functions, versus what we can put in to augment the experience for visitors which could have the effect of bringing in tourism dollars, let alone satisfying the desire for the Coastal Commission that ultimately our beaches and shorelines are more accessible. He asked if he was following staff fairly.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he conceptualizes this in three ways, relative to the discussion from City Manager. There is a great opportunity to take credit for things we already want to do but just have to prioritize them appropriately and find the funding to carry out those projects; many projects in the CIP already would count towards it, and we get credit for what we already want to do and may get the SRAs as a result. The other part which he mentioned previously is that we have an opportunity to do something that improves our shoreline and our benefits will get great benefit and value from. The consequence is that we get a better and more enjoyable coastline and a requirement of the SRA but we get all the value beyond the SRAs for our residents and visitors. He thinks the third part, thinking about cost and feasibility, is, should we get the SRAs in the LCLUP, that is the time and opportunity to get them, and if they find later that it is too costly or undesirable for whatever reason, the city is not mandated to carry forward with the SRAs. If we do not do what we are supposed to do, SRAs may lapse or be suspended. The city is not on the hook for this by our vote to support the SRAs, but this is the only opportunity we have for the foreseeable future to get them and get the other benefits of economic development, investment, and an improved shoreline, all of which he thinks are positive outcomes that Council is likely to support.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought, with the planning efforts we have made with the Sharp Park Specific Plan specifically and the General Plan more generally, this would enable those planning efforts to come to fruition. We were at the budget meeting a few weeks ago, and it felt like, unless they start generating revenue somehow, the city may fall under its own weight. The SRA concept could enable those planning efforts. He asked, for the areas in the updated General Plan that are not Sharp Park Specific predicated, is there a downside to this LCLUP or a place where this LCLUP in the non-SRA areas runs afoul of the updated General Plan or disables planning efforts that we have currently in place as the attempted update.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there was this perception by some of the public earlier in this process and may still prevail today that some areas are being made worse off in order to get the SRAs for Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach. He could not disagree more with that contention. He stated, if we look at the policies in the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission and alternative modifications other than the SRAs, that is the baseline of a new LCLUP reflecting new science, enhanced environmental protections, and the reality of the Coastal Commission’s interpretation and application of the Coastal Act; everyone is being brought to a new baseline in the LCLUP with or without the SRAs. He stated what is different for the SRA areas in Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach is they may get this unique opportunity, because of all of the coastal resource benefits that they have, to be able to undertake more development in those areas by virtue of there being existing shoreline protections and other highly supported Coastal Act uses to get more development potential and benefit from their properties than other properties outside of the SRA. Without the SRAs, Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach would just be brought back to where everyone else is. It is not that everyone else is brought down in order to get Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park up. As to specific inconsistencies with the General Plan versus the new LCLUP, it is hard to say. He added that there are probably policies in the LCLUP that are maybe more protective of coastal resources than some of the baseline policies in the General Plan, and that is reflective of the need to address those issues in the coastal zone. There could be situations where the General Plan City Council Special Meeting 26 May 23, 2024
might allow more intensive development based on the land use designation, but coastal resource specific policies in the LCLUP may bring that back in a little bit. He thought the potential exists for that. He stated that is somewhat the case already in the 1980 LCLUP for example or projects that are appealed to the Coastal Commission. Therefore, he thought it is better to get the new LCLUP and all the other ancillary benefits that we discussed from the updated document.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in an eventuality of discrepancy, does the LCLUP prevail or would the city have to seek an amendment in one document or the other or both.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP prevails if there is a direct conflict with the General Plan. He stated staff does their best to interpret them in a way harmoniously, but the LCLUP does take precedence. There are many more conflicts now between the 1980 LCLUP and the General Plan than there would be with the new LCLUP and the 2040 General Plan which they tried their best to make it as consistent as possible.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, for harmonizing between the two documents, it will be a lot easier to harmonize between an updated LCLUP and the 2040 General Plan than it would be between the 1980 LCLUP and the 2040 General Plan.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier thought there was a lot of confusion in the community about whether the SRAs are protecting Sharp Park and Rockaway or not. She stated that there is already armoring in both Sharp Park and in Rockaway.
Councilmember Boles added that we are spending money on the armoring, replacing the armoring here and maintaining the one in Rockaway, but there are resources to these special areas that we have already prioritized.
Councilmember Bier agreed, adding that it is trying to strike a balance between what we were trying to do with the 2020 version and what we can do with what the Coastal Commission has brought back to us. She still has the question in her head, i.e., can we accept the Coastal Commission modified suggestions without the SRA. She asked what it would mean for Sharp Park and Rockaway if we pulled them out.
Planning Director Murdock stated it would result in a more equitable LCLUP for the city overall because all the same policies would apply throughout the entire city. The policy question that Council is being asking is, where we can convince the Coastal Commission that it is consistent with the Coastal Act, can we get a better deal for two of our neighborhoods that have existing shoreline protection, protecting broad public assets in a way that would facilitate more investment, more development, and more continued existence of those neighborhoods in the way that we understand them today. In order to get that, are we willing to commit resources and effort to do some of these offsetting activities, like developing this shoreline management plan, committing to carrying out projects, and finding opportunities where they may present themselves to remove armoring or adapt it to be less impactful. He stated that, from his perspective, it seems like a good deal. He understands the reaction from some in the community that wished they could get that same deal that Sharp Park and Rockaway are getting, but to get this alternative approach that uses the balancing or conflict resolution provisions in the Coastal Act, there needs to be a unique situation, an exception, that cannot be the rule in Pacifica because then it is not a special area; the reality is we have good conditions City Council Special Meeting 27 May 23, 2024
and circumstances and fact to support this approach in Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park that we have not identified nor has the Coastal Commission identified as being present in our other neighborhoods. Staff is asking Council to try to get the best deal we can for the city and these two neighborhoods specifically and that is the SRA approach as we ironed it out so far with the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse added to that the benefits of the SRAs is not just to two particular neighborhoods in the city, but a benefit overall to the entire future viability of Pacifica as a community because these are thriving economic centers that are critical to financial sustainability to this city for decades to come. The benefits accrue to the entire city from the specific geographic technical location that staff is suggesting they be approved for.
Planning Director Murdock stated that another component is that we understandably spend a lot of time talking about what do these mean for property owners, but the city has the benefit of protecting its infrastructure which would cost millions of dollars to relocate. That has the potential to exceed the city’s means in any sort of immediate or medium term to relocate these infrastructure systems that we need to move if we were not able to get support for the continued presence of the shoreline protection structures. The ostensible basis for the policy is public benefits, i.e. the infrastructure of the streets, the coastal access, and the ancillary benefit is the private property protection. That is significant and is not going to be something we can achieve without the SRAs. If we look at those coastal vulnerability zone maps, significant swaths of these neighborhoods are subject to coastal erosion and flooding and they would be able to take the benefit derived from the shoreline protection to allow developments on those properties.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about the question of equitability in contrast to the question of economic viability. It occurs to him that there are two versions that have been presented by the community, i.e., one is sticking with the 1980 LCLUP and the other is accepting the recommendations of the Coastal Commission without incorporating the SRAs. He stated that, if we were to stick with the 1980 LCLUP, that would grind our development efforts to a place where generating that economic viability seems unlikely because of how slowed that potential would become; whereas, if we were to accept the Coastal Commission recommendations independent of the special resiliency area concept, it seems the likelihood of development in these areas, specifically the Sharp Park Specific Plan, there might be a large question, namely in front of Coastal Commission, for any given development. He would think that it would substantially slow the development of our economic viability. He wants it to be equitable but he is concerned if they do not have a city with which to be equitable.
Councilmember Boles stated she was still not convinced that the SRA policies help development. She stated that these are hazardous areas, even with the new sea wall. She stated that there are ways to address hazards that are not just armoring and she is afraid this is just pushing the city into that. As Planning Director Murdock said, even the new sea wall we are designing is only for 50 years, buildings designed to last 75-100 years, and we are committing to replacing the sea wall in that same location forever and it will get more expensive, will need to get taller as the hazards increase and, at some point, it may not make sense or may not be able to be permitted if it is in the public trust land. She stated that all the SRAs could help with the erosion because with some armoring there, it is not going to erode, although there could be issues with erosions behind the wall or a different kind of construction. She stated that she has worked with 50 geotechnical engineers with different projects over time and they are the most risk averse of any profession. She stated that we are not telling them what the condition of any of this armoring is and we have to figure out on our own how this helps us, and she asked how we do that. She stated that most geotechnical engineers cannot analyze armoring without the City Council Special Meeting 28 May 23, 2024
training to evaluate sea structures and armoring, and she questioned what the cost was for a homeowner and if it is even possible. She felt those questions were important to answer as they are committing all this time and money for a policy that they do not know if it can be used.
She added that there are liabilities and there is nothing to say that we cannot design the building now that does not rely on the armoring and we just have to design to meet the coastal hazards and have different foundations that some may go deeper and to let the flood water go through.
She stated that she has not been shown that this helps the project. She stated that we can still have development here and if we get it approved, we can update the Sharp Park Specific Plan that lets them increase density and commercial without the SRAs. She thought we can still develop safely.
City Manager Woodhouse added that the Sharp Park Specific Plan approval will take a lot longer without an updated certified LCLUP.
Councilmember Boles acknowledged that they needed the updated certified LCLUP.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the BBIRP project, while it will not prevent over topping or flooding potentially, it will vastly improve that, in addition with the storm drainage that would be built into Beach Boulevard. The goal of that project is to be built to a 50-year lifetime and they know capital assets like that can often last longer than that. He thinks that is important to acknowledge, especially if the sea wall is pushed back on the south end. He mainly wanted to offer that the benefit of the SRA related to marketing and development of this property is substantial because, while something could be built here envisioned without a sea wall, it is going to vastly change the marketability of this property that would bring in the big economic interest that is needed to develop this. Having the SRA and being able to factor in the benefit of the sea wall into that analysis would be an incredible economic improvement to this property.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to a previous time when he was on the Planning Commission where he voted no on a property off of Paloma, north of the pier, because it was built as a retaining wall and not functional as a reasonable sea wall. He stated that the difference between the SRA concept and not the SRA concept when it comes to 2212 Beach Boulevard, he agreed we could engineer this piece of land as though there is not a sea wall outside their door; but the reality is there is a sea wall, and having the SRA allows us to engineer to the point where they have reasonable protection. He stated that what one could argue is the unreasonable part of having that armoring is the effect on the beach. He does not disagree with that. He is heartened that there are members of our community whom have worked in the past in Army Corps, coordinating with members of our community who are members of Surf Rider, and they are looking out for our beaches and to see our community members who might have particular insights to our topography. To see the collaborative work they are doing backstage to present alternatives to us that we could implement into the future brings him to the notion that, while we can implement the SRA, it is not to the exclusion of naturally adaptive approaches that could augment the current armoring we have, but they could work side by side to create something spectacular and much longer lasting. He stated, to the point of overtopping, he does look forward to seeing the final design of the remodel as he agrees that is a place where he does not think it is a good idea to have development. However, he also does not think it’s a good idea to short change ourselves of the infrastructure we have in place and the infrastructure we are designing into the future should it come to pass.
Planning Director Murdock shared two coastal vulnerability zone maps for West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach. He stated that the bold red line is the projected coastal erosion in the year 2100. Approximately more than half of the Rockaway Beach neighborhood and approximately a City Council Special Meeting 29 May 23, 2024
quarter of the West Sharp Park neighborhood will be subject to that type of erosion. In the case study we have on 2212 Beach Boulevard, he is thinking about that as a potential economic development priority for the city. Looking at that without an SRA concept, we are confronting the potential that there is no developable area of the site, which means we would be looking at the minimum amount of development on the site that avoids a taking from permitting standpoint.
He questions what that means, and it calls the question of what could result on this site as one example. We as the city own the largest parcel in West Sharp Park and have the greatest potential to adapt to erosion hazards in the context of development. He stated to think about what that means for other properties that are not as large and don’t have that adaptability within their property line. He stated that the SRAs do fundamentally affect the development and investment potential for these areas, including a significant amount of Palmetto Avenue for a lot of economic development focus in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that it is a big difference with and without the SRA. He stated, to the specific point of analyzing the protection provided by shoreline protection, it is feasible. He has also spoken to their consultant geotechnical engineer. While they acknowledge a specialized area practice, they are engineers that can estimate the protection provided by a shoreline protection structure and factor into this analysis. He stated that the mechanics are there to make it work, and it is largely a policy question of whether it is worth the offsets required or whether the environmental impact results are worth it from a policy standpoint, recognizing that this is a narrow area of exception along the multi-mile coastline in Pacifica, most of which does not have shoreline protection and offsets this as a narrow area of exception.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the shoreline protection for 50 years could buy us some time to get funds to move the infrastructure at some point. She stated houses that are here were not expected to last 70 years and most of the houses in Pacifica are more than 70 years old.
Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission requires them to last 75 to 100 so a geotechnical engineer would have to sign off on that. She stated that we are working on our shoreline protection and new sea wall to protect our infrastructure and she agrees that it buys us some time. She has a problem saying that we are always going to be able to hold that same line and that is part of the problem. She asked what the geotechnical engineer is signing off on if he has to say that the building is going to last 75 or 100 years and that protection will not. She stated that, even with the sea wall south of the pier, GHD did not fully analyze it. She said if we are designing a project that relies on that and we need the information, that is what she does not understand. She asked what it would cost a homeowner to hire the specialty engineer.
She stated that it is one thing for us to do it for our own project, but what does it mean to all the other property owners and businesses that have to do this on their own: what does it really cost, what’s the process, and what else is the city going to have to pay for? She stated these are projects that are going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of staff.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, but added that what is also expensive is not having growth, having to figure out how to move people out of infrastructure, and what could mitigate some of that disparity is having enough time for the state to follow through on their mandates of funding these projects under our LCLUP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to speak to the issue of what the City Manager was referring to as the coastal CIP and how the shoreline management plan becomes that, taking the projects, some of which we already have in mind or are already intending on doing, some of which would come about as a result of these mitigation measures. She stated what occurred to her was what about the rest of the town. She stated that, when we are speaking of equity, she knows they have a lot of infrastructure challenges in other parts of Pacifica as well that have City Council Special Meeting 30 May 23, 2024
nothing to do with the coastal zone. She stated that it feels like there will be a big investment in this area and she asked what that means compared to the rest of Pacifica. She asked how we think about the reason for doing it in terms of the economic viability being increased. She understands the premise but she wants to have a better grasp of how that plays out. She stated that we know this property has some significant development potential that gives the city money. Building on presently undeveloped land that was held for a long time and generates little in property tax means increasing the value of the land and the buildings which will generate property tax. She stated that those funds coming in as a result of those actions create ongoing revenue for the rest of the city as well, not just for the coastal zone. She asks what the relative costs are, and she stated this is a big cost-benefit analysis with tons of unknowns. She stated that another thing that has been eating at her all along has been what the Coastal Act currently says about this city’s ability to maintain its sea wall by virtue of it protecting public infrastructure.
She asked if there is a Coastal Act policy that says we can, and she thinks there is but it is limited and some constraints around it. She is not sure if the BBIRP design they presently have would meet the criteria. She added that, for pre-Coastal Act properties, do they not already have the ability to have shoreline protection.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what is different or better about the SRA policy in terms of those two factors. She has not done a thorough analysis on the number of properties just along this area that are pre-Coastal Act. She stated that, if we can protect it, that is great, but is there any new investment as what staff is talking about economic improvement piece, not just holding but growing, and the vision of growing the city to a place where it can be economically sustained.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that most every one of those hotels has recently upgraded, with more hotel rooms and hotels being expanded. She stated that the hotels are increasing in value and their values are improving, and as they improve their properties, it improves, so it is going to make a difference. It is economically good for Pacifica from every one of those items and for everyone who lives in Pacifica.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to address part of Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s remarks, i.e., the SRA in relationship to these properties in West Sharp Park that may be pre-Coastal Act properties. He stated one of the major benefits from staff’s perspective, recognizing that many of those lots are 30-50 feet wide, is, while they may be entitled shoreline protection under the Coastal Act, the outcome of individual properties needing to construct their own shoreline protection structures is very disruptive from a resources standpoint and from coastal resources and access standpoint. It is not an ideal outcome in the absence of some unified shoreline protection like that which exists along Beach Boulevard, which provides significant access along the shoreline. He thinks the likelihood is high that that access would no longer be present in the absence of a city-owned unified shoreline protection structure, not even to mention the cost to individual owners. He stated that there is a lot of discussion at this meeting about sensitivity to cost to property owners. He asked them to consider the immense cost of every individual property owner needing to pursue their own shoreline protection plus immense mitigation fees from the Coastal Commission. It is highly disruptive to coastal access but perhaps more coastal resource impacts than the unified approach we have now. He stated that is one of the key outcomes that would result from the SRA: avoiding that piecemeal site-by-site approach.
City Manager Woodhouse added that he would address the CIP comment Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer made and stated that he did not intend to suggest that there is a coastal CIP at the City Council Special Meeting 31 May 23, 2024
expense of a city wide CIP, but that it is a portion of the CIP. We have major capital projects all around the city, throughout the city facilities, and the CIP will always need to address those. He stated that his vision was how do you reorganize the CIP and other non-capital projects under Coastal Commission approval that the city can get credit for. He stated that it is like the budget and we balance the budget to serve all the departments and services that the city provides and we would do that same thing with the CIP for coastal related or shoreline management plan related ones and other citywide.
Councilmember Boles stated she has some of these concerns as there are other things that we need as a city in the rest of the city that we are not doing that now because we do not have money and staff capacity. There are other projects that are important and climate-related to the whole city and that is part of her fear as we are saying that we have to do this and this is going to take priority over other things because we have to maintain it to do these programs. She feels like we do not have enough information of what is needed and the Coastal Commission has not necessarily given us all the information they need either at this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in the short term, benches could be fairly low cost, whereas, in the long term, sand retention structures are proposed to be viable for grant funding, given the need of the moment in time. He stated that is something that can directly impact the viability of our beaches, let alone any of the rest of what we need for economic viability. He feels like, in the long run, that would free us up to be able to look at a traffic plan, etc.
Councilmember Boles stated that the grants are out there for some of these things that we do not have staff capacity to manage them.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, but he stated that we do not have staff capacity because we are working on this plan that we need to pass in order to have the staff capacity to put through the structures on the ocean to retain the sand to have the beaches, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the leadership portion of our responsibility and the long view for the future of this community. She realized previous councils and staff could not do as much forward planning because we did not have the funds. She stated that we do incremental upgrades but she feels the city needs a visionary push into sustainability.
Councilmember Bier agreed. She stated that it is hard to see the benefits to have the SRA and she is still struggling with that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that is part of what she has been reflecting on, i.e., that is what vision is. She does not know if staff has information about who else is working on these concepts and where they are in that process. She stated that her instinct and what she hears tells her it is coming up in different conversations but she feels that, because their LCLUP is so old and we are working so hard to get it done, that is why the SRA concept is wrapped into Pacifica now. She stated that cynical people say it is because they are weak and let them do whatever they want.
Planning Director Murdock stated he has a very different perspective. He stated that his insight is that there is not likely to be another city in this position for quite some time and he does not think there is any other city that is imminently approaching this juncture in their LCLUP update with discussion of the SRA type concept that is getting this attention and focus from the Coastal Commission that Pacifica has gotten with the significant staff-to-staff coordination and internal work and alignment that they have done as an organization to try to get behind policies that they City Council Special Meeting 32 May 23, 2024
can support as a compromise and get an LCLUP update certified. In updating the 1980 plan to modern climate change, sea level rise, and resource protection, his sense is that we will be waiting a while to know what the path looks like from another jurisdiction. He thought Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer put it well that the Council has the vision to see this community into the future even though there is uncertainty associated with that or is waiting what Pacifica needs at this time.
Councilmember Bier stated she is curious about what the Coastal Commission will say and we will not know what we are going to say about it until we transmit it to them.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, when we talk about the Coastal Commission, there are two things we are talking about: the staff whom city staff has been working with and the Coastal Commission itself as the body that makes the final decisions. Often, they do what staff recommends to them and he is confident that we will get there with this, but not always as there is a risk and they cannot control that risk. He stated that Council’s job is to do what Council thinks is best for the community with the policies, following the advice and information that staff has offered. He thought there is no realistic way to eliminate all uncertainty. He asked if Council is willing to sacrifice the potential benefits to offset the potential risks. He stated that city staff is recommending that Council proceed, based on everything staff knows and understands about this process, what the benefit would be relative to the drawbacks or risks from this process, but that is ultimately the Council’s decision.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that previous Council submitted LCLUP in 2020 and it took a long time.
She stated that for the General Plan she worked on steering committees for 20 years and they ran out of money so they could not continue with the General Plan. She compared this to the Half Moon Bay Library. When they were building the Half Moon Bay Library, all these people did not want it, and then when it got built, everyone said it was the greatest and a benefit to their community.
City Manager Woodhouse had a suggestion about process that he would like to offer. He stated that there are a number of items and Council is not voting on this amended document at this meeting. We do not have to make a decision about these two broad philosophical ones, SRAs and shoreline management plan, and we have a lot more policies to get through at this meeting and it would be great for staff to get feedback on those policies and then staff goes off and review the Coastal Commission’s staff’s latest input and bring back that whole package to Council for consideration at that time, and that is when Council makes a decision about the SRAs being in there and amending the LCLUP to submit to the Coastal Commission. He stated, if they can get through the remainder of the policies, that would be fantastic to get input on those at this meeting.
Council reviewed Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15.
Mayor Vaterlaus added that the next two pages have been deleted up to Modification No. 6.22, which is flood protection.
Councilmembers Bier, Bigstyck, and Boles did not have any comments on the deleted sections.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are reorganizing from sub area policies.
Sr. Planner Cervantes responded affirmatively.
City Council Special Meeting 33 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles noticed that there were still some sub area policies that reflected a particular neighborhood.
Planning Director Murdock stated they were essentially generalized and not particularly related to specific sea level rise triggers but the intention was to make them more generally applicable policies as a stand-in until the city could come back around and redo the adaptation plan.
Councilmember Boles stated that CR-I-22 is a sub area policy for Northwest Sharp Park. She stated that the two that were deleted were shoreline protection and beach nourishment and were more general.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22,
6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 6.27, 6.28 and 6.29.
Councilmember Bigstyck had a question on Modification No. 6.30 of how it pertains to Highway 1 and he may need a brief understanding of what is being proposed in CR-I-30. He would like some clarity around that policy.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the policy remains “coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate the need for a revetment or other appropriate shoreline protection for the Highway 1 embankment”.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that was in general because Highway 1 is the borderline for the coastal zone or does it pertain specifically to around the Linda Mar area.
Councilmember Boles stated that it pertains specifically to Rockaway Beach, the quarry, and the headlands.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is trying to understand why we have that policy given how far from any of that Highway 1 it would seem to be.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they need to take a look and would return to this item.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.38 and 6.39.
Councilmember Boles asked regarding Modification No. 6.40 if we are working on any other assessments.
Planning Director Murdock thought that policy was intended to relate to if another project in the vicinity had done that analysis and the owner could obtain permission to utilize it and not need to repeat it for a comparable project in a comparable location within a reasonable period of time.
He added that there is a similar policy for Pacifica state beach in West Linda Mar area in CR-I36. He stated it is not in the matrix because it didn’t have a suggested modification.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.40.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to verify that Modification No. 6.41 is the mechanism by which OPC is the update for best available science.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that this is reflecting that there will be future updates and they need to periodically rely on the new science as it comes up.
City Council Special Meeting 34 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck knows the new science is anticipated to be updated imminently and he wanted to point out that this is the mechanism by which the science shall be updated.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.41.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that 6.42 has a red arrow, and she read the draft alternative modifications, i.e., demonstrate that the development will avoid unavoidable, minimize impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection devices except that development behind special resiliency areas will be allowed to consider protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures when analyzing hazards.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.42.
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.43.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had a question for Asst. City Attorney Bazzano regarding Modification No. 6.44. She wondered how Asst. City Attorney Bazzano interprets where it references Coastal Act section 30235 “and any other laws”. She thought that was a vague and broad and all-encompassing statement. She stated, taken to to its logical extreme, that statement could mean the right to protect property that is guaranteed under the Constitution.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she reads that section to only be referring to any other laws that relate to what existing structure means.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.44.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Modification No. 6.45 refers to development of new properties.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we will need to clarify coastal development permit approvals; projects that would be exempt from the CDP would not be subject to this policy but many types of development would. There may be relatively minor projects that need a CDP that would be subject to this requirement.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if it is correct that it does not apply if one is in a tsunami inundation zone but not a coastal vulnerability zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is a correct technical reading.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the people in Fairway are in the tsunami zone but not in the coastal vulnerability areas.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was worth following up with Coastal Commission staff.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.45.
Councilmember Boles had an issue with Modification No. 6.46. She is trying to understand what all the different nonconformities might be. She stated that some of it is about zoning from City Council Special Meeting 35 May 23, 2024
our new General Plan and the Sharp Park Specific Plan. For example, 1112 Palmetto is zoned commercial and had a residence in it; but if they were to remodel it, they could not build another residence there because it is zoned commercial. That is something that now applies everywhere in town and we are saying we ae going to grant this exception in these SRAs but she is not sure that is such a good idea. She stated, looking at the Sharp Park Specific Plan, we are trying to redevelop that whole corridor on Palmetto. She stated there are some businesses that now do not meet the definition of what we want there. If they want to grow their business, they could do that with the exception where we might want them to think about moving instead. She stated that the Planning Director said that anybody could come and ask for a use permit so we could review that and make that decision and she thought that makes sense everywhere in the city but why would we automatically grant that exception in the SRAs.
Planning Director Murdock stated addressing non-conforming uses is difficult in land use planning. He stated that there are just as many, if not more, instances in Pacifica where existing single family residences are non-conforming in commercial areas and Council will want to be mindful and thoughtful about changing this to want to address uses in addition to other non-conformities because it could be a situation where we are forcing people out of their home into a commercial use, for example, or they choose not to undertake projects that would trigger the substantial structural modification definition as a consequence of a policy that would require them to resolve non-conforming uses. He stated that, at the end of the day, what she is saying is that the city should bring land use into alignment with our plans, but sometimes it is a difficult process and decision to be made for the greater good of resolving non-conforming uses.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, regardless of the LCP, if it is a nonconformity, would it have to come before Planning Commission anyway.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it would depend, as we have a provision on our zoning specific to addressing non-conforming uses in structures, and there are various instances where it may not need to come to the Planning Commission if it complies with limitations on expansions or relocations of non-conforming uses. In many instances, it would, such as a use permit as Councilmember Boles mentioned.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she sold a property on Palmetto that was probably built 100 years ago and it is zoned commercial but it has been residential for the last 100 years. She was told that it did not have anything to do with the structural modifications at the time, but if the property burns to the ground, it would have to be built as commercial. Currently, it is non-conforming.
Councilmember Boles stated that with the policy that we are adding it would not have to change during rebuilding.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated unless one did a substantial structural modification.
Councilmember Boles did not understand why we would not want to update things to new zoning and why would we do it everywhere else in Pacifica and not in the SRAs when the SRAs are where we want to be the most commercial visitor-serving and why make that exception.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated if it is a single family residence and there is not a developer lined up to buy it and it’s a single parcel next to something owned by someone else that is not going to be available for a developer any time soon, would we want that house to not be used in that instance or should we allow it to continue to be used since it would not otherwise be utilized any time soon.
City Council Special Meeting 36 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that is too vague for policies. She liked the idea of anywhere in Pacifica that Council and the Planning Commission get to review it and say that the zoning does not allow a house but we think they should be able to stay in this one location, but she thinks we should be able to review the policy.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked why make a change without anything substantial to the property.
Councilmember Boles asked why do it everywhere else in town then.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we are not automatically bringing them to non-conformity. That is only with structural modifications.
Councilmember Boles stated that is true here also, as it is a place where we are doing something different here than in the rest of town.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is not equitable.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is not equitable and she did not think it furthers the planning efforts we are trying to do. That is why she thinks it is better as a one-off decision than a blanket exception.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated in this area, Sharp Park, are the most non-conforming uses of properties in this area. She stated that, even around the corners, they are zoned commercial when they have been residential forever so there are non-conformities in use.
Planning Director Murdock stated that staff’s intention in drafting that unique approach in the SRAs was reflective of the unique characteristics of the Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods where there are a fair number of non-conformities. He stated, if that is the right approach from a policy standpoint, that is for the Council to decide, but when thinking about these areas and how the SRAs at large will result in greater protection for them, staff was trying to strike the right balance and try not to force those types of use changes on account of the substantial structural modifications.
Councilmember Boles and Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned Peter Loeb’s house. Councilmember Boles stated that is a huge lot and why would we say that it would stay a single-family residence when it could be developed into a mixed use building. She stated there may also be friends in other areas who are also being forced to move. She stated that she is not saying that we do not necessarily review one on one and say they want to let them continue, but she thinks a blanket exception is not necessarily matching our goals of all this planning effort we have done.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this sounds like where we are trying to protect the homeowners and their properties and do right by them, which is substantially in the spirit of the document we originally submitted in 2020.
Councilmember Boles wanted to understand this more and she would like to see a comparison of zoning in Manor, in Pedro Point, etc. and how is that fair.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his only concern is in terms of our RHNA numbers and showing that we can make use of these places we are rezoning and otherwise. Aside from that, he stated that there is so much feedback about the character of neighborhoods and how we do not City Council Special Meeting 37 May 23, 2024
want to abruptly change that. He would be willing to go along with the premise that this strikes the right balance until some developer wants to come in and spend a huge amount of money to buy up all those properties and develop into the thing that we are originally rezoning it for in premise. Until someone is willing to sell it out, he is happy to let someone live there the way they are.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we had the discretion, we could let them continue living there as they are, but there are individual houses along Palmetto that, according to our whole planning effort, could be 4- or 5-story buildings with more housing and commercial and help revive that whole neighborhood and now we are giving an exception that could not happen.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked that part of the point is to be non-discretionary and have it in a plan.
Councilmember Boles stated that we have a plan but we would be allowing an exception.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock how this works with the Sharp Park Specific Plan or are they at odds.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Councilmember Boles has a good point that this would enable substantial additional investment in modifications of structures that would continue uses that would be non-conforming with the city’s plans and it is perfectly understandable to not want that to occur. The plans over time should shape the land use into alignment with the plans and this would allow something other than that to occur within the SRAs.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what the alternative language would be and would coastal staff sign off on that alternate language if we were to implement it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that his sense is that they would not have an objection to requiring non-conforming uses to be brought into conformity within the SRA.
Councilmember Bier stated her concern is displacement.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are other instances as well where a business may be non-conforming or a single-family residence would be brought into conformity by having five multi-family units on a mixed use project. In the Sharp Park Specific Plan, we have not reduced the zoning density in any of these locations where a single-family residence is on Palmetto.
There could be a particular family displaced, but in terms of creating housing opportunities, there could be more. Other laws and requirements address displacement as well and replacement of units in the area like the Mello Act within the coastal zone. He stated that it is not as though there is no framework of protection, but it could result in replacement of that structure and the associated consequences for the family.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is only during a substantial structural modification.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is the choice to proceed or not with the major project.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we deleted that special resiliency area, it still allows, like in the rest of Pacifica, that we can make a decision to allow the existing use to stay, but then we are looking at it as site-specific as opposed to making general statements.
Planning Director Murdock stated that one version of the alternative language is starting at the City Council Special Meeting 38 May 23, 2024
underlined section, beginning with except, we would see “except that behind special resiliency areas, development shall only be required to correct existing non-conformities related to use and applicable coastal hazards on the site”.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we would add in the word “use”.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding if the goal is to minimize the amount of physical alterations that are made, another version is what Councilmember Boles is describing which is deleting the entire underlined section so all SSMs in all locations, even in the SRA areas, need to do a full rectification of existing non-conformity.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if adding that word “use,” does that imply that then it comes to Planning Commission.
Planning Director Murdock thought it likely would not, adding that staff will need to undertake work on our zoning, including the non-conforming zoning, to implement the LCLUP as part of their implementation plan. We will need to rectify the non-conforming zoning provisions to align with the LCLUP and this would be an area where we would need to make some adjustments.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there is a way to protect against displacement and yet address the non-conformities. If not, he is open to going one direction or the other, but he wants to ask questions to understand and probably err on the side of protecting.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the Mello Act, existing state law, addresses destruction or demolition of housing units occupied by low- and moderate-income individuals. In our Housing Element, we have committed to a program to begin requiring applicants for demolition permits, to provide that information on the incomes of occupants to ensure that we are complying with the Mello Act. There are unit replacement requirements for such displaced occupants within three miles of the coastal zone. He stated that there is not a guarantee that they will be on site or even in the same neighborhood, but in the general area, potentially still in the coastal zone, and it is a requirement of state law already. He is not familiar with all of them off the top of his head, but there are other laws addressing displacement of low- and moderate-income tenants with the redevelopment of existing residential property.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if they cross out that last underline. She asked if Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to say something.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her comment is not specifically related to this so she stated that we finish the thought on that, i.e., are we saying that we are going to strike the strike out or the underlying piece or are we leaving it.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he needed to understand Council reviewed Modification Nos.
6.44, 6.45, and 6.46 following feedback from Coastal Commission staff.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.45.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
City Council Special Meeting 39 May 23, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bigstyck, Boles
NAYS: Bier
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded all that, pursuant to Council rules, the meeting may only proceed past 11:00 p.m. if a majority of Councilmembers in attendance extend this meeting to a time certain and concluded that it was approved by majority vote.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are eliminating the section on Modification No. 6.46.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he has not heard consensus, as he hears concerns from Councilmembers Boles and Bier. He is trying to reconcile all that and he does not know that he has heard substantially from either Mayor or Mayor pro Tem.
Councilmember Bier asked what removing the underlined phrase did.
Planning Director Murdock stated that eliminating the underlined text would require resolving non-conforming uses so it would be more concerning from her displacement perspective.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can define other non-conformities.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are more readily understandable ones, like the setbacks, height, lot coverage, or off-street parking facilities. There is use that we spent some time talking about, i.e., residential use in a commercial zone or vice versa. He stated that there are other policies in the LCLUP, such as hazard setbacks or setbacks from sensitive resources, that might be implicated by these policies as well, and it may change where a structure could be placed on a particular site in the course of addressing the non-conformities. He stated that it is far reaching in terms of potential impacts on the condition of the property prior to the SSM and what project might be able to be permitted post-SSM.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if we take it out of the coastal zone for a minute and someone is applying for a modification to their structure, do they need to come into conformity.
Planning Director Murdock stated, generally speaking, no. He explained that our nonconforming provisions say simply that when a project is not increasing the degree of nonconformity, the Planning Director can approve it. If they would be increasing the degree of nonconformity, the Planning Director would say no, they need to follow some other process that likely triggers discretionary review such as a use permit, a variance, etc.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that same principle holds true the way this is currently written.
Planning Director Murdock suspected that not, in the event of an SSM, because it is a substantial investment in the property that, in the framework of the LCLUP, is triggering treatment essentially like a new development and needs to comply with new development standards, given the degree of modification up to 50% of structural components.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that they get a pass where anyone else would not.
City Council Special Meeting 40 May 23, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that, outside of the coastal zone, it is less restrictive and inside the coastal zone, in the event of an SSM, it is quite restrictive and burdensome.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought plain non-conformities is an overreach. She does not understand why we need to do that and she needs more understanding from staff about why we are doing that in this policy.
Councilmember Boles concludes she means everywhere in the coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that policy that relates to it, yes.
Planning Director Murdock thought this is effectuating is an approach from the Coastal Commission where significant investments or modifications triggering the 50% threshold are so significant that they should be evaluated as new development and aligned with modern, current, best practice Local Coastal Program policies, including the zoning, land use plan policies, etc., so that, over time, as developments change, evolve, and are intensified, like in the SSM, they are brought into alignment with the LCP and minimize impacts on coastal resources. He stated that is his way of formulating why this is, and there is a good argument to be made that it is burdensome. However, it is rational in the sense that no one is making you change your structure and, if it is not conforming, expand it by 49%; but if you tip a threshold, whatever that threshold is, and in this case 50%, that is so significant that it should be treated like new development and brought into modern condition to avoid those adverse impacts to coastal resources for example.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what if there are not adverse impacts to coastal resources.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it would not a non-conformity in this context.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if it’s more than 49%, it sounds to her that it does not matter if it is impacting coastal resources as it would need to be done anyway.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, as that would be a non-conformity with a provision in the LCP if it was too close to a wetland, coastal hazard zone, etc.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if he is not talking about behind an SRA. He stated that, when he said it is less onerous than mainland, he meant specifically behind the SRA. He stated that he was fixated on the underlined part.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is concerned about this particular policy of the issue of making property owners bring their properties into conformity. She understands if it is a hazard, like bringing a building on a bluff top into conformity or else risk falling off. She does not understand if it is a non-conformity because an addition is sticking out too far into the backyard.
She feels like it is over controlling this for reasons that she does not understand. She thought it may be just her fundamental frustration with the whole SSM concept in general, i.e., the whole 50% threshold, because it feels arbitrary, because it is the coast and we are going to make them. She stated she would want it for a reason related to ESHA, hazards, or something other than preference.
Planning Director Murdock understood. He stated that, if we were to step back and think about Council making zoning ordinances, those are intended to preserve public health and safety by City Council Special Meeting 41 May 23, 2024
having appropriate separations from structures and setbacks and not overly intensively building on properties, height limits, and light air. Even though we do not think of them in that way every day, that is fundamentally what they are intended to do. He stated that it is hard to understand how those relate to coastal resource impacts in a lot of instances. He can see that logical disconnect where one may feel more comfortable with that burdensome impact on a project if it is encroaching on a wetland buffer or it is too close to an erosion hazard line or something more tangible in terms of a coastal resource impact. Staff can make note of that and try to take that back that Council is willing to make that tough tradeoff if we can clearly articulate a relationship to a coastal resource impact, but maybe not arbitrarily because the setback is 4-feet instead of 5-feet and we now have to knock down the whole structure in order to find compliance because it is an SSM. He stated that we will see if we can focus it on more tangible, direct nexus to a coastal resource impact. He stated that it seems like a reasonable approach.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated those were good words, “nexus to a coastal resource”.
Councilmember Boles agreed and she appreciates staff going back to Coastal Commission to try and clarify. She stated that, from having done some of these projects in other cities that had to be brought into compliance, sometimes the setbacks are a life safety issue. She thought it might need to be a little broader.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we have no consensus on that one at all. She stated that she will make a decision that we wait and see what Coastal Commission comes back to say on that.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.46.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Modification No. 6.47 is adding more requirement.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that the concern is that, while in the current condition today, we are looking at a development, see a wetland, and we have to do the 50-foot buffer or 100-foot buffer or whatever in the wetland. He stated that the concern is for properties that may be closer to the shoreline that the sea level rise will encroach on the wetlands and force the wetlands to migrate. If there is not an additional buffer to account for that migration as a result of sea level rise, there may not be space for the wetlands to move and it will hit the development. He stated that there needs to be an additional buffer to add sea level rise plus migrated wetlands, plus buffer from future projected relocated wetland location.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are asking for more of a requirement because we do not think the Coastal Commission went far enough.
Planning Director Murdock thinks that we are trying to clarify what the buffer includes to make it more understandable.
Councilmember Boles thought going back to Coastal Commission staff’s modification may be all we need to do.
Councilmember Bigstyck did not mind them fleshing out what additional actually means and obviating it, but he wants to be clear about we they are doing with that language.
Councilmember Boles stated she is fine with what Coastal Commission staff suggested.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, at the time, staff thought it added clarity, and reading it City Council Special Meeting 42 May 23, 2024
today, he is not sure that it does and it may be okay not to make that addition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the anticipated life of the development is 75 years and today we are going to say how much sea rise is going to occur and intrude on wetland, causing the wetland to move back, and we are going to use OPC’s guidance for sea rise. She asked if that is what she is hearing.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. He stated we would apply the sea level rise projection to the property and understand there is a likelihood that the wetland would migrate on account of the sea level rise and the buffer from that potential future migrated wetland.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we initially started with new development and we changed it to be open-ended.
Councilmember Boles thought the city definition of development is new or substantial structural modifications.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, and we talked about this previously that it is hard to distinguish between what is new development and existing development and it is for purposes of coastal development permitting. It does not matter if it needs a CDP, it is development.
Thinking about what policies to apply to development, and existing development is relevant in the shoreline protection context, a limited distinction, we have tried to simplify by talking more about development rather than new development or existing development.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are going back to the CCC suggested modification.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was not suggesting one way or the other and wanted to understand what it meant. If that is what we want to do in this consensus, he would not go against that.
Councilmember Bier and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed that we should do that.
Council reviewed and amended Modification No. 6.47 to reflect the Coastal Commission staff’s original modification.
Council reviewed and approved Modification Nos. 6.48 and 6.49.
Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of Modification No. 6.50.
Councilmember Bier asked why we felt that we needed that.
Planning Director Murdock suggested looking at the suggestion in context, showing, in totality, that there are some obligations and triggers associated with certain types of modifications to existing shoreline protection structures. Staff is trying to provide the greatest flexibility to modify them without triggering those requirements if the modifications fall within an exclusion in the SSM definition.
Councilmember asked if this means we are allowing modifications to shore armoring that is not legally permitted.
Planning Director Murdock stated no, adding that he did not think there were any rights to a City Council Special Meeting 43 May 23, 2024
structure that is not permitted. He stated that it’s trying to get at the 50% replacement. If there is some exclusion like destruction from a disaster and being able to rebuild a shoreline protection structure is one simple example. It was talking about exclusions contained in the SSM definition, which is the Section 30610(g) (destroyed by disaster scenario), where some shoreline protection structure is destroyed by a disaster, wave action, or major storm, and would be able to be rebuilt in its prior form without triggering all the permitting requirements associated with the other triggers of 50% replacement.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.50.
Councilmember Boles asked regarding Modification No. 6.51 if it is just the words “coastal hazards” replacing “erosion,” otherwise it is the same policy.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that staff thought it should be broader; shoreline protection structures may be needed to protect existing structures from wave over topping or flooding and should not be limited to only erosion.
Council reviewed and approved Modification No. 6.51.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Coastal Commission staff wanted to change the time limits in Modification No. 6.52.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they added “or is redeveloped pursuant to the SSM” language whereas city staff had said “shall not justify removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to our prior assessment definition”.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked, if one building is destroyed and is not rebuilt, then they can get rid of the structural modifications there.
Planning Director Murdock asked of shoreline protection structure, yes, as the structure it is protecting is no longer required.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that could affect all the other buildings on the shoreline.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is except in the SRAs.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the SRAs, there are other public resources, infrastructure, streets, etc., that are a broader area that justify the shoreline protection structures and he did not think they are likely to see this policy implicated within the SRAs so long as the publicly owned area-wide shoreline protection remains.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated the end of the modification references special resiliency areas.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he was going to ask as we need specific language included there that references SRAs, or is it unnecessary.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this policy is not directly an SRA policy and the note that says SRA reflects the context of the time we were working on this spreadsheet with the Coastal Commission which was upon our introduction of the SRA concept and their consideration of it.
As we were exchanging comments back and forth, we indicated that we agreeable to this City Council Special Meeting 44 May 23, 2024
change, as long as the SRA policies took effect because those have unique circumstances relative to publicly owned shoreline protection. That distinguishes between shoreline protection protecting private properties and the SRAs where shoreline protection is protecting other public assets.
Councilmember Bigstyck added if this item does not need to be flagged because, subsequent to this, city and Coastal Commission staff developed the SRA policies.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that in part, they flagged it because it was contingent on the SRAs to make it an acceptable policy.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if, in the end an LCLUP was recommended without SRAs, this policy would be potentially concerning to Councilmembers.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it could be but we need to reflect back to the boarder deed restriction language where developments that are permitted under this LCLUP are going to have those waivers of rights and requirements to restore the site when the developments were moved. There will be, in the near term, a large population of properties that may have some form of shoreline protection and not have those deed restrictions that may be better off without this. In the planning horizon of this plan, that is less and less of an issue as the deed restrictions become more and more prevalent.
Council reviewed Modification No. 6.52.
Planning Director Murdock added that there are a few points in the staff report that are not in this matrix that might be beneficial to spend some time discussing to confirm that we have the right policy approach. He described them briefly in the initial presentation, but staff does want to confirm that we have the right approach.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked for a summarization of their discussion on Modification Nos.
6.44, 6.45, and 6.46.
Planning Director Murdock summarized Modification No. 6.44: confirm what “other laws” mean with Coastal Commission staff as there was concern about the broadness of that, is there a roundabout conflict where the Constitution provides some benefit to protection of property, or is there some intent behind that. He summarized Modification No. 6.45: discuss with Coastal Commission staff whether the “and” should be an “or” or if the intention is to limit those requirements to properties that are only in the coastal vulnerability zone and tsunami inundation zone. He summarized Modification No. 6.46: discuss with the Coastal Commission and try to revise to non-conformities with more direct nexus to coastal resource impacts, that zoning standard non-conformity feels arbitrary in this context, given the significant impact on development and the need to potentially drastically change the structure at great cost and it should only be done when there is a clear direct nexus to coastal resource impacts and policies.
He also summarized Modification No. 6.47: Council did not want to add the underlined text.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, when it comes to Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15, we had a robust discussion and asked if the direction that came out of it is that it is going to inform the discussion on the next potentially last round.
Planning Director Murdock stated that staff feels like we have enough to go in informed to the next conversation; we will have to learn more about what the interest is in further discussion City Council Special Meeting 45 May 23, 2024
from the Coastal Commission standpoint. He stated that the takeaway he has from those discussions of Modifications Nos. 6.14 and 6.15 was SRAs were a possibility and we need to know more about them and what the obligations will be, what the true benefits are. We will try to flush it out and see if there is a drastic realignment, based on the conversation with the Coastal Commission staff, that might be concerning to Council and might sway that further on one direction or the other in supporting or not supporting SRAs.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated staff heard Council’s deliberation and staff will bring that back to Coastal Commission staff and offer clarification that might help one way or the other.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating to help interpret any changes to these policies that they might want to introduce in light of the uncertainty from the Council on whether SRAs are the right approach or not under the circumstances.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that he has something he wants to bring forward about the staff report.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Council reviewed and approved LD-I-#: Individualized Determinations.
Councilmember Boles asked if Deed Restrictions (Policy CR-I-45 or Modification No. 6.45) was something Planning Director Murdock can review with Coastal Commission staff and see if they would accept this now. In addition, knowing that the GIS Shapefile is available, is it possible that they could approve it and we have our maps without having to do a bigger process.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was possible and we will see what can be accomplished in the potentially short time frame. He thought that is probably one of the last questions that the City Manager will want Council to consider, i.e., where do we go next and how soon might we feel ready, given some of the practical challenges and the work that needs to occur in flushing out some of these policies, hearing what the Coastal Commission has to say about the red arrow policies, etc. He then stated he will try to get through the remainder and he thought they hopefully read through some of the glossary, confirmations they noted, based on their prior feedback.
Council reviewed and approved Deed Restrictions (Policy CR-I-45 or Modification No. 6.45), clarifying wherever we talked about permit in the LCLUP, clarifying its coastal development permit so there is no interpretation that suggests it is a building permit, updates to the maps related to disabled access points and some of the other coastal access point descriptions.
Councilmember Boles stated, not related to those maps, she wanted to ask about the landslide maps because we added to new landslide maps in the General Plan and those also affect Pedro Point and she was hoping they can also include those.
Planning Director Murdock stated that we will evaluate the opportunity to do that. He asked if City Manager Woodhouse had questions for Council on the next steps.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one option which depends on staff’s analysis and discussion with Coastal Commission staff about some of the items is to proceed with the special meeting on June 4 to bring back the entire package and resolution for adoption. To finish up that special meeting would be a combination of working through the final analysis on the last items and any other items Council wants to discuss and consider the resolution for amending City Council Special Meeting 46 May 23, 2024
the LCLUP at that meeting for submittal to the Coastal Commission. If their discussion with Coastal Commission staff is more complex, they may not be able to meet the June 4 date. He stated that one aspect of the June 4 date is that they go ahead and notice the meeting tomorrow and, if we have to continue it or delay it, we will do it. He stated that is an option to be looking to wrap this up in early June and have a Council decision on the final packet. That is what he would recommend, given our other agenda load.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to add that we have published the staff reports for these LCLUP meetings a week in advance all of these meetings and try to give Council and community time to digest the information and formulate questions. He stated, given where they are in the calendar, the holiday, and the need to coordinate with Coastal Commission staff, we will not be able to publish this next staff report with follow up items a week in advance. To try to meet the aggressive schedule, and make significant progress as the City Manager outlined, Council will need to be prepared to dig in with a shorter time frame and be prepared for whatever public reaction there may be to that shortened time frame as well. In the interest of a greater process, that would be a requirement for June 4.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, ideally, the content to focus on is going to be more of these red arrow policies so it would be a smaller subset of all of these.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it would be hard to explain where staff do not have clarity on some items and we are going to notice meeting at which we might approve this.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the point of the last items is that we are still discussing this with Coastal Commission staff. He stated that it seems they all pertain to special resiliency area and it feels as though it is policy that we discussed and now staff is bringing back to them to discuss deeper so we can gain that clarity at the next meeting to the point of passing this through if Council so desires.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed but specified that the last items showed up because Coastal Commission staff asked for them.
Councilmember Boles thought they might have more to say and to add.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that our staff does not know why.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated we do not know when that meeting is going to occur.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is possible that they will not know by June 4 of what changes have occurred.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the feasibility of the June 4 meeting depends on staff having this conversation with Coastal Commission staff and getting clarification and seeing how city staff can package it together and whether the timing works. If it does, we can have that meeting and Council can discuss and see if we are ready to adopt. If we are not, we have to continue it later into June. If we are, we are able to accomplish that.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would propose, if what comes out of that meeting is substantial, staff would consult with the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem to figure out what the best approach for them all would look like.
City Council Special Meeting 47 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus proposed at this time that we attempt to have the meeting on June 4 to make the decision on this. She acknowledged consensus that we would all like to go forward on that date and hopefully by that time we will have the information back from Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated pending the discretion of the Mayor.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed pending discretion of the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, before adjournment, she wanted to revisit a comment we had earlier about the flood and tsunami zones and the map on Figure 5.3. She stated the concern being raised was that there are no good maps of the tsunami inundation zone that we are defining. A suggestion was made that, since there are not specific maps, perhaps there is a way to put in a statement about deferring it until things are defined better, that Council go ahead and define what that zone area is.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are specific maps as shared by the statistician mentioned at the beginning of the meeting and that it is something we can ask the Coastal Commission about and one that we can possibly put in.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that was the general issue. Inasmuch as staff is going to be meeting with Coastal Commission staff, this tsunami zone map/inundation zone issue seems to be a sticking point; there can be some clarity on what is the science we use and what map do we use. It feels like it is not defined enough for people’s comfort level.
Councilmember Bigstyck wondered if the Coastal Commissioners themselves might have similar questions upon arrival.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he heard at this meeting and has heard previously that the curiosity and concern related to the tsunami component of the hazard maps and deed restriction requirements that it would trigger. That is why we have tried hard to come up with some alternatives, starting with defining it differently and more narrowly; now more recently staff’s recommendation is to put policy guidance in the LCLUP to that intermediate hazard event and further define that with more time and implementation plan. He summarized if there is a way to say this does not apply until defined in the implementation plan or if we can reach consensus that this is a reasonable intermediate approach and get some interim maps along the lines of what Councilmember Boles is saying. Staff will explore those points with the Coastal Commission staff but the key policy direction is what we are looking for: do we stick with the tsunami evacuation zone maps or try to find something different. He thinks he is hearing something different.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated yes, less onerous, narrowing the area and thus the potential impact on a number of properties impacted. She would like a visual of that and what it would be on an overlay map of Pacifica, to give them that visual and have a better understanding of the impact of changing one or the other. She thought the real reason it is a point is because it was in the response to our 2020 draft that this whole issue of tsunami hazard/inundation zone or any other kind of tsunami related zone came into being in our document. It was put there by the Coastal Commission staff and it has been a reaction from our community as to what it means.
She agrees with Councilmember Bigstyck that the Commissioners may have some questions.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked staff and the public for their comments. She thanked everyone and she sees our future heading in a forward direction.
City Council Special Meeting 48 May 23, 2024
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 6/10/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor