CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 June 10, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
June 10, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on June 10, 2024 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. 00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)- Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan, et al. v. City of Pacifica, et al.
San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 20CIV05719
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting at 7:03 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; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Interim Dep. Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief (Zoom); Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Fields Svcs/Engineering); Irene Camarena, Human Resources Manager; Lucy Xie, Dep. Finance Director; Chris City Council Regular Meeting 2 June 10, 2024
Clements, Police Captain; David Harvey, Asst. Civil Engineer; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Dave Peel
Mayor Vaterlaus read a proclamation honoring the retirement of Dave Peel, Asst.
Superintendent-Plant Operation/Wastewater Div.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked him and wished him well in his future endeavors.
Councilmember Bier stated she knows our city cannot run without employees like him and she thanked him for so many years of service.
Councilmember Boles thought he came soon after the new plant in operation and it was amazing technology then and even more so now. She appreciated his service and wished him well in the future.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Mr. Dave Peel is doing an amazing job in his field of work and is grateful that we can publicly say thank you for two decades of serving this community.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked him for everything he had done over 20 years.
PW Dep. Director Sun stated that we have a special service award for Mr. Peel and thanked him for his great contributions and leadership. He stated that, in the last few years, Mr. Peel has been training their new operation staff and maintenance staff. Mr. Peel leads by example, not just in teaching technical knowledge, but sharing about hard work, dedication and public service. He wished Mr. Peel and his wife the best and he knows he will enjoy his retirement. He stated the PW Director Petersen will present the award.
PW Director Petersen stated that we are eternally grateful to Mr. Peel, who has been an amazing mentor. PW Director Petersen and HR Manager Camarena presented him with a 20- year service award.
Mr. Dave Peel appreciated all their support for the plant. They have paid attention to their work and supported them. He stated that means something because their work can be invisible.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 June 10, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if any councilmembers wanted to pull any items from consent.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he has comments on a couple of items after public comment.
There were no public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to Item No. 2 (minutes). On packet page 48, where it states “Councilmember Bigstyck referred to […] where he voted no on a property off of Montecito,” he would like to change Montecito to Paloma to accurately reflect the name he could not remember in that moment. Then on packet page 61, where it says “Councilmember Bigstyck did not mind them flushing”, he stated that “flushing” should be “fleshing”. He then has one question on Item #4.
Councilmember Boles stated she has a couple of minute corrections as well. She stated that, on packet page 22, in the middle “Councilmember Boles stated Statistician Jahung Chohu” and stated it should be revised to “Jiaheng Qiu”. On packet page 57, she made a reference to a 4- or 5-story building and it was noted as 50.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to packet page 76, Item No. 4, and he had a question for staff.
He stated it looks like the Anza Pump Station is about to be complete and asked if that means we will be done by the end of the month.
PW Director Petersen stated that we continue to have some issues with some of the electronic panel components, but we are getting very close, probably in the next couple of months.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought soon we should see completion.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved passage of the Consent Calendar with the adjustments to Item #2 made by Councilmembers Bigstyck and Boles; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for 05/01/24 through 05/31/24.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of May 2024.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the May 23, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 June 10, 2024
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist related to the December 2023 High Tide/Large Wave Events
6. Cancellation of July 22, 2024 City Council Meeting
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the July 22, 2024 regular City Council meeting.
7. Financial Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2024 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending March 31, 2024
8. Resolution to Approve a Five-Year Agreement with Badawi & Associates for Financial Audit Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year agreement with Badawi & Associates to provide financial audit services for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2024, through June 30, 2028.
9. Resolution to Reclassify a Vacant Planning Director position to a Community Development Director and Amend the Planning Director Job Specification, Title, and Salary Accordingly.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution amending the Planning Director Job Specification, title, and salary to reflect changes to the Community Development Director specification.
10. Agreement to terms with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552 for the 2024-2025 school year.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to sign the 2024-2025 contract with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552, an amount which will be included in the 2024-2025 proposed budget.
11. Amendments to Consultant Services Agreements for On-Call Planning Services, Building Division Staff Augmentation, and Related Services Between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants, Inc., and Good City Company, as well as Between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia for Housing Element Rezoning and EIR.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve the following agreement amendments:
1) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Seventh Amendment of the Consultant City Council Regular Meeting 5 June 10, 2024
Services Agreement With CSG Consultants, Inc. for Building Official, Building Inspection, Plan Review, Current Planning And Related Services” (Attachment A); 2) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Seventh Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Good City Company for Professional Planning and Related Services” (Attachment B); and,
3) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for Environmental Review and Related Services” (Attachment C).
12. Adopt Resolution Accepting Invoices from Michael Roberts Construction for emergency work on Beach Boulevard and Milagra Stormwater Outfall
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution accepting invoices (Attachment 1) from Michael Roberts Construction, Inc. for emergency repair work on Beach Boulevard and the Milagra Stormwater Outfall covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from the recent high tide/large wave event for a total cost of $269,854.
13. Consideration of (1) a Resolution Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from District 1 and One Member of the City Council from District 4, Each for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications; and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from District 1 and One Member of the City Council from District 4, Each for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Marilyn Peters, Pacifica, stated she lives in Vallemar and recently called PW to report a large limb that had fallen in the creek. She received a written response from PW Dep. Director Yip stating that, according to state law, owners abutting Calera Creek are responsible for the maintenance of these areas, and she asked what it means and shared her concerns on the issue and thoughts on the city’s process.
Margo Meiman, Pacifica, stated she was calling to address Pacifica’s all electric reach codes in light of the Berkeley decision last year, and shared her thoughts on this issue.
Samuel Weissman, Pacifica, stated he was speaking in favor of the potential gas ban and shared his thoughts on this issue.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 June 10, 2024
Taylor-Anne Vaughan, Pacifica, stated she has looked at all the cities and counties in California and not one has recognized that June is Men’s Mental Health Awareness Month and she shared her concerns on lack of addressing this issue.
Will Ampschaed, Pacifica, raised objections regarding Pride Month.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, in response to inappropriate language that was used, we need to inform the public commenters that he cannot say those kind of things and, if he persists, we can turn off his microphone.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that he is not allowed to speak in that regard in a Council meeting. If he says one more derogatory thing, his microphone will be turned off.
Mr. Ampschaed stated that, since Council has chosen to promote Pride Month, he has the right to say that he disagrees with it and shares his concerns and thoughts on this issue.
Mayor Vaterlaus then ended his comments in response to further inappropriate language.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he usually brings up Israel in his communications and he is proud of the resolution that Council passed a couple of weeks ago. He considered it an opportunity to contemplate how grateful we are to be that we can criticize our government as we see fit. He highlighted the PCT crew who have been filming Council and working with them for at least 6 months and stated we will miss them. He attended Assemblymember Marc Berman’s affordable housing town hall. He attended a meeting with representatives from GGNRA as we are working toward a proper parking lot around Mori Point. He enjoyed Coast Pride on June 1.
He thanked Councilmember Bier for arranging that event and the others who joined in riding around to celebrate love and diversity which is needed to heal people who have been abusedHe attended Sibling Cities, which our colleague in Palo Alto, Councilmember Vicki Veenker, has put together and it is predicated on Sister Cities. He stated that this has to do with finding a city in another part of the country with views that may or may not be different to start dialogue. He stated he will ask City Manager to take a survey of the other councilmembers as he would like to invite Councilmember Vicki Veenker her to talk about the Sibling Cities program and hopes, if Council is interested, perhaps signing up and finding a sibling city in the country and starting that dialogue. He watched the Planning Commission meeting and what was made clear was that, when we talk about the Capital Improvement Program, we will be discussing a small section by the Taco Bell, what will be the coastal trail, that is not quite ADA compliant. He attended the funeral for the son of Half Moon Bay Mayor Joaquin Jimenez. He stated that it was beautiful and amazing to see the entire community come out. He stated present were Councilmember Gina Papan from the City of Millbrae, Councilmember Pranita Venkatesh from the City of San Carlos, County Supervisor Ray Mueller, and Vice Mayor Emily Beach from the City of Burlingame. He attended a Peninsula Division Board Meeting that morning. Later, he hosted Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo outside the Council Chambers and stated that meant he has met with both him and Congressional Candidate Evan Low.
Councilmember Bier stated, in response to the public comment on Men’s Mental Health Month, as part of the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative, we did a blanket coverage of mental health for all and she is interested in how we can shine a little more light on men’s mental health. She referred to Councilmember Bigstyck mentioning their meeting with the GGNRA and she thought it was exciting to see the possibilities that will be coming forth for Mori Point and she thanked City Council Regular Meeting 7 June 10, 2024
the Open Space & Park Advisory Committee for listening to the community. She spent a lot of time on the Coast Pride planning events for Pacifica and Half Moon Bay and San Mateo County.
She thanked everyone on the Coast Pride planning group. She referred to the City of San Mateo’s festival and noticed ADA mats had been placed on the grass and wanted to look into that for usage on our beaches regarding our age-friendly community projects. The Age-Friendly Community Coalition had their meeting about their action plan the week before the City Council meeting and they have the fourth draft coming through. She spent two days in Half Moon Bay honoring Half Moon Bay Mayor Joaquin Jimenez, his family, and his son, and it was one of the most beautiful things she has ever seen. She thanked the Fog Fest group for working hard, and she looks forward to Fog Fest. She stated Pacificans Care is having their fundraiser on June 23 at the Pedro Point Fire House. She encouraged everyone to attend and support Pacificans Care.
Councilmember Boles had her San Mateo County Leadership training final presentations and graduations on the same day as Coast Pride. She stated this Council completely supports their LGBTQIA community and stand united against hate and in love for all people. She stated that includes our Black community and listed inventions made by them. She stated we are better when we are diverse in our communities. She thanked Planning staff for a good meeting about the PRC space and about a potential building with affordable housing for them. She met with the Pacifica Climate Committee and they discussed the Berkeley decision and some of the research being done that will be sent to staff later, as well as planning the next event, “The Nuts and Bolts of Building Electrification.” The event, taking place on July 5, would be hands-on regarding how do you do it, how do you get the money, get contractors, with people who have done it to change water heaters and stoves to induction to talk to and understand the steps. She stated that the previously mentioned Leadership Council event was their last session and a legislative day; State Senator Weiner and U.S. Representative Kevin Mullin spoke on the importance of relationships in terms of being able to do the political work. She said, wherever we can find ways to communicate on common ground can be helpful for moving our country forward. She attended the Planning Commission meeting that was focused on the Manor Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan and she was excited about those improvements to our community on the north end of town. She attended the Airport Roundtable meeting where they learned about supersonics and sonic booms. They talked about the year’s work plan and she volunteered to be on their Strategic Plan Committee.
Councilmember Bier stated she saw Director DeJarnatt in the audience from North Coast County Water District and she thanked him for attending the meeting. She mentioned that she would not be able to be at former Board President Jack Burgett’s memorial but she will be sending her love to the family. She stated that the Pacifica Resource Center still needs food as there has been changes in Second Harvest and asked that people donate rice, beans, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had a wonderful day at Coast Pride. She thought the amount of effort and energy that went into its planning was very evident. She attended on Zoom the Ocean Protection Council meeting on June 4 where they approved the sea level rise guidance unanimously. She stated that there was quite a bit of public comment and it was interesting to hear two sides of the same issue around use of the high scenario for planning.
She was not able to attend the memorial for Half Moon Bay Mayor Joaquin Jimenez’ son, and she thanked those who were there. She attended the pre-hospital JPA meeting where they need to sort out an issue with CalPERS. There was a vote to approve Tom Piccolotti, the City Manager of Daly City, as part of the management committee of the pre-hospital emergency JPA. She was then out of town and returned yesterday.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 June 10, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she went to the dedication of the new Ortega Field. She attended Coast Pride. She went to the San Mateo County Fair and attended the SF Peninsula event (previously the Convention and Visitors Bureau). She represented Coast Day and went to the Jimenez funeral, where many people, including district representatives Katrina Rill and Joan Dentler of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and State Senator Josh Becker’s offices, respectively.
She went to former Planning Director Christian Murdock’s departure event. She had a meeting with the Catalonia delegation where they discussed the statue and shared that the statue in Balaguer had also been removed. She had an interview on Pacifica’s Safe Parking Program talking about specifically her points of view on the Safe Parking Program. She also met with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo today before this meeting. She has met both Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo and Congressional Candidate Evan Low and it is interesting to get to know the people.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he has two exciting communications he wants to emphasize.
The first is about the renovated Civic Center ribbon cutting event on Thursday, June 27, and it will be an exciting day to highlight and show off the new Civic Center and all the great space it will provide for the community. The other, also related to facility construction, is in regards to the Sanchez Library outpost kiosk. The kiosk is installed, and the hardscape and ADA access is being built currently. The library was closed for about a week and reopened on Saturday.
While the ribbon cutting date is not determined for that, the project is nearing completion and it will be a very exciting way for 24/7 use of the kiosk. He was excited to announce those two communications about progress.
Mayor Vaterlaus read an initial public advisement at the beginning of any public comments regarding the guidelines for public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and other associated approvals for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project PROPOSED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council moves to adopt Resolution approving the following:
(1) Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (“Project”);
(2) Approve Project as defined and analyzed in the EIR and proceed therewith by applying to the California Coastal Commission for permits/approvals; (3) Adopt CEQA Findings and Mitigation and Monitoring Report (“MMRP”); and (4) Direct City staff to file Notice of Determination.
City Manager Woodhouse opened the staff report. He then turned it over to staff.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes opened with stating she is joined by PW Dep. Director Yip, consultant Mike Campbell with MIG, and consultant David Schrier with Cotton, Shires & Associates. They continued the staff report and then completed the staff report.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 June 10, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus opened the public hearing.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared concerns about a sinkhole in 2016 in the same area that the City proposes new hardening of the shoreline, and how many times and at what cost this must be done.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts about the process on all the different projects over a long period of time and not seeing a cohesive strategy that deals with the bluff as one bluff. He also stated concerns about losing beach access in the area.
Irene Lee, Pacifica, stated she had sent in a suggestion in written public comments submitted today, and shared her concerns about the project needing a lot of armoring at the lower part as the shotcrete could be undermined by wave action. She stated concerns about doing stuff on the vertical face, and suggested terracing.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, thanked Council and staff for the hard work they do and she echoed the sentiment that it would be nice to see in the plan money going toward long term planning and asked for clarification on the process with the Coastal Commission.
Gabe Church, Pacifica, thought it was a great proposed plan with local and federal funding, and shared some of his concerns and thoughts on the project including living in the area and seeing what happens with erosion, stating that he thinks it is a great project overall trying to protect the bluffs and slow the erosion.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that his appreciation for discussion around sea walls has expanded greatly. He knows the Coastal Commission offered one comment letter so far and he asked if staff can tell us how they responded to that comment letter and what we reasonably can expect upon approval of this project as we interact with Coastal Commission and what the collaboration or discussion might look like when it reaches the Coastal Commission.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that he can respond on the Coastal Commission permitting and would later pass it to Consultant Mike Campbell to discuss responses to their letter on the EIR.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, in terms of the Coastal Commission permitting, when we get to that stage, the biggest question in front of us is the option that is discussed in the EIR. He stated that staff will, through the Coastal Commission permitting, study the no project alternative as we have with other Coastal Commission permits, including benefit cost analysis, infrastructure within the road, utilities, etc. He stated, as we go east of Esplanade Avenue, we are going to start looking at additional structures and the erosion rates. All of that will get studied once more with the Coastal Commission permitting. Staff are unsure of what they will approve until we start the process with them. He stated that he will go over some of their comments. Some of the major items he stated he will highlight include B3 in their letter and it says “describe the long-term plans for this area after the 30-year life span of the sea wall has been exceeded, including long-term plans for adapting the infrastructure or development that the armory is proposed to protect”. He stated that this is the 30-life year span and we responded that is outside of the scope of the EIR to go beyond that.
Consultant Campbell stated that the response prepared for that was the imperative to protect coastal infrastructure with armoring arises from the imminent and ongoing thread of erosion City Council Regular Meeting 10 June 10, 2024
along the bluff. That infrastructure, including the street itself, will be continuously exposed to the erosive forces of the coastline; the erosion continues to degrade the coastal environment and jeopardize any critical elements. He stated that, on talking about the rationale as to why armoring is proposed where it is, the idea was to ensure seamless integration with the existing wall that is there on the north and to the south and essentially fill a gap between two existing portions of the sea wall. He stated that there were 14 separate comments in the letter and there are a lot of different issues they touched on, and he asked if there was one particular issue to which they would like him to respond. He asked if he has comments regarding aesthetic resources, biological resources, geology and soils, public services, recreation, and the alternative sections in the EIR.
Councilmember Bigstyck feels like, the more that the issue is fleshed out, the better. He stated that, as comments around 30-year horizons are raised and we think in terms of the long-term planning, what is generally raised in our community is a question such as regarding sewer lines in that area that this would be protecting at the end of the day. He asked if there are sewer lines there.
PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, within that context that there are roads and major city infrastructure, if we were to look in terms of long-term horizon planning and think that one day the sewer line could be better suited elsewhere, he asked if we have done any analysis in terms of something like cost or time and what that level of planning might look like.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that relocation and realignment of sewer mains are not typical projects that the city undertakes; with more typical projects, we rehabilitate them but, in terms of this area, if we had to relocate it, a preliminary estimate in cost has been done and we would need to further do that as they get further along with the Coastal Commission permitting. He believes the last time it was undertaken was for a grant application which is a very rough estimate that was done and we would need to look at that more closely.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if he was able to elucidate on that preliminary number.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that he wanted to defer to the City Attorney on whether the discussion should be focused on just the certification of the EIR or answering questions.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is a question from a Councilmember so, if it can be answered, it should be answered. She stated that they may need the Director to answer more global questions, but if he can answer, then he can go ahead, and if he cannot, then staff does not have any definitive numbers and the Councilmember is just asking if he has an estimate of what the cost would be.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the grant application showed that it was around $8 million and it included a cul de sac that was needed and realignment of sewer storm water. The cul de sac is the one part that needs to be looked at a little more closely because the cul de sac requires the property that is of the project. He stated that those costs would likely be higher.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that was the cost estimate just for the sewer line.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the cost would be if we were without a project and then need to realign Esplanade and create a cul de sac, realign all of the infrastructure within it, including the City Council Regular Meeting 11 June 10, 2024
roadway itself, taking in any properties that are necessary in order to accomplish this.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if it was $8 million.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated $8 million was on the grant application and it used the number for the apartments which was a little bit lower. It valued the apartment at $1.5 million or so.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the numbers would be substantially paid by federal and state which leaves $2 million which would be paid out of a temporary funding through ERAF. He asked if we have a sense of whether or not the federal and state governments would be willing to supplement us if we were to take that other approach.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, in terms of the exact breakdown for the funding, the state budget allocated is in the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it was almost $3 million.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they allocated $7.5 million between two projects, 400 Esplanade Project and 310-330 Esplanade Project. He stated that these funding sources are constantly changing. Staff received a letter for their CalOES HMGP grant which adjusted it because of some scoping changes before the meeting. He stated that we could adjust the funding but we do not know what 400 Esplanade is going to cost at the moment so that is why we left the city ERAF funds there. He stated that there is a potential that 400 Esplanade will cost less in which case there could be more from the state budget for this project.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when we are talking about long-term funding, if eventually this could affect Highway 1 over the long-term horizon.
PW Dep. Director Yip answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier saw there is a summary of alternatives and she asked if he could give her a simple rundown of the timeline: If we certify the EIR tonight and it goes to the Coastal Commission, there is an opportunity for them to look over the alternatives and discuss those alternatives with city staff.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, for the alternatives, they do request that city staff look at it as part of the Coastal Commission permitting process.
Councilmember Bier asked if that means it will come back to the Council after that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that no, the permitting process does not come back for Council approval.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to the 8,000 pounds of rocks and asked, if we are going to remove them, can we use them somewhere else.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the question is can we use the rock in another location, and that would be subject to Coastal Commission permitting as well. Staff can look into that and see if we can get it permitted somewhere.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to touch on the issue of the removal of the rocks as referenced in staff report. She asked if staff can give a brief explanation for the public. She asked, if we look at the pictures in the staff report, we see all the revetment there, but the proposed project should have the sheet pile and removal of the rocks.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 June 10, 2024
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there is a visual and he will point to it while he turns this question over to Consultant David Schrier who is the designer and Geotechnical Engineer on the project.
Consultant Schrier stated that, first, we had several meetings with the Coastal Commission and they are aware of the project and the design and it is not going to come as a shock. The fact that there is an alternative analysis presented is there for their benefit. He stated that we would not have gotten this far if we did not feel that they were on board with it. He stated that their staff have changed and things could change, but there was a time when we were getting positive reinforcement about this design from them. There is documented 8,000 tons of rock placed in our temporary permit, and the Coastal Commission is mandating that, as part of their sign-off on this project, that rock gets removed. He stated that the opportunity to reuse it someplace else on the coast is based on their discretion. He stated that we developed this design to address the main focus of the erosion that has occurred on the bluff and we see undermining from scour down below; the sand comes and goes and, while there may be a lot of sand on the beach now which covers the walls, there are certain times during heavy winter storms where that sand migrates out. He stated that is when we get a lot of erosion underneath and the intent of the sheet pile wall is to mitigate that undermining. On top of the sheet pile wall will be a concrete cap beam and this will all be covered during 11 months of a year; in that one month of a year when sand comes out, we will begin to see portions of the cap beam. He asked if that answered her question.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
PW Dep. Director Yip shared a diagram of how the wall looks like from packet page 356.
Councilmember Boles wanted to follow up on the riprap and asked if the 400 Esplanade Project was primarily a riprap on the beach versus a hard construction.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that he is the project manager on that project as well. The history behind that project was back in 2016, during the storms, we did some emergency placement of riprap. Cotton, Shires, and Associates has been doing studies of how the riprap is behaving and holding up against the storms, and they have been holding up a lot better than expected.
Now we have put in some applications with the Coastal Commission to get that emergency riprap permitted, and we are on the second submittal for that permit application at the moment.
Councilmember Boles asked if the project being designed adds more riprap and if there may be a chance that we can reuse what we are taking out down the beach for this later on.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we would have to see if we can add that to the application at this time as we are far along with the application process to approve the existing riprap there; with anymore we add, there are mitigation fees that are looked at whenever the riprap takes up beach space that people would normally be able to walk on. If it was private party, the Coastal Commission would request for mitigation fees; for Pacifica as a local agency, it is typical that they will request for the city to do some access improvements, which would be the second part of this project if the riprap is approved. He stated that we can look into adding the riprap at this stage, but it might delay the process to continue to add to that project at the second submittal.
Councilmember Boles stated that, besides permitting the existing riprap, she thought we were working on another project at 400 Esplanade that we are getting funding for.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 June 10, 2024
Consultant Schrier stated that one of the problems with the riprap that is in front of the 310-330 Esplanade is that it is small in size, between 1 and 2 tons; in 2016-2018, the riprap we were placing at the 400 block was 6-8 tons which is significantly different.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the second component of the 400 Esplanade Project is to do trail improvements and the ramp that is washed out and planned to use as a construction access will also get improved along with this project.
Councilmember Boles asked if it was with the permitting of the riprap.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, after the riprap is permitted, we will look into doing the trail improvements and the ramp going down to the beach will also be improved.
Councilmember Boles stated she has design questions. She stated this section shows the new armoring and tiebacks at the base of the wall, but it shows the bluff face above staying at the existing angle. She is a little confused because, on the bottom of packet page 627, the top of the bluff would be allowed to erode naturally to 40-50 degrees, which is not reflected in the plan.
Consultant Schrier stated that these are the conceptual drawings at construction condition and the gradual erosion back where the slope looks for equilibrium will take some time to occur. He stated she is correct that the cross-sections do not depict the long-term condition, but the condition immediately after construction.
Councilmember Boles asked how long we expect that erosion to take.
Consultant Schrier stated that it all depends on the weather. He stated, if we look towards the north, beyond OceanAire, they have some similar walls where they are allowing the slope to erode back and we can see that the process is occurring. He stated that it is a gradual process and not linear; it happens significantly during wetter winters. The design we came up with protects the toe and, instead of having the conveyor belt process that we have been seeing over time where the bluff fails, the material that fails is positive at the toe in a non-marine environment would then begin to buttress the toe and the slope would begin to lay back to a stable inclination ultimately, and that material gets washed away by the ocean. The intent of the sea wall toe is to protect the toe and then the upper portion of the bluff will find equilibrium over time.
Councilmember Boles stated this is her district and the last two winters have been brutal and she knows we are doing an investigation of the recent erosion but there has been erosion on top of the same system at the OceanAire complex. She did measurements at 45 degrees for what the stable point is and her calculations put that stable flow at the curb of Esplanade where the dimension is the least (about 60 feet). She asked if he would agree with that.
Consultant Schrier thought he calculated about 15-20 feet from the top of the sea wall going back 40-50 degrees, approximately a 15-20 foot area.
Councilmember Boles stated, looking at packet page 356, the top of the new revetment is just over 30 feet and the top of the bluff is at 90 so that is about a 60-foot rise.
Consultant Schrier thought the top of the sea wall elevation is at 40 feet and the top of the bluff is at 88-90, so a 60-foot wall.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 June 10, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated 60-foot rise was what she was calculating and the plan varies but the shortest dimension is 60 feet so a 45 degree angle would put that stable slope past the curb of the street.
Consultant Schrier stated she is right. A 45-degree line is 60 foot back.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we pull up the plan of the park on packet page 357, if this erosion is allowed to go, we may not have a park by the time the erosion has finished.
Consultant Schrier stated that is a possibility in the long term.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we look at where the building is at 340 Esplanade to the right, that is right at the top of where the bluff starts to drop and we can see the little dash line of the fence which is the new fence for the trail, showing right at the top of the bluff, and we have the sitting areas that are less than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. She stated that her concern is that we are going to lose this quickly if we are building all this with the bluff possibly retreating all the way to Esplanade over the course of the project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, when Councilmember Boles says the course of the project, whether she is talking about the 30-year life.
Councilmember Boles stated that we did not commit to how long the erosion would happen.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, to put context on the conversation, he believes it is the case that there will be ongoing monitoring of erosion. Putting it into in bigger perspectives, some commenters earlier asked about the plan citywide, and he stated that our Local Coastal Land Use Plan that we are working on with the Coastal Commission includes a requirement in implementation for shoreline adaptation studies of Pacifica’s coast. He stated that there will be many studies and ongoing monitoring about what is happening on our coastline over years to come. He thought no one is saying, including the Coastal Commission, that installing a park here is a permanent installation for 30 years or beyond. A major point about this project is that it is protecting public health and safety because it is protecting critical infrastructure that runs in the street. The park itself is a potentially temporal public asset that exists. If it can be enjoyed for ten years, there will be a cost-benefit analysis and, as Consultant Schrier mentioned, we cannot predict how much erosion is going to happen year by year. He stated that it could go quickly and the park may not be available and maybe there is a trail there that is still available or it could take 30 years. He stated that we are not here to predict what that timeline is going to be, but to put it in that context, this will be a detailed discussion during permitting with Coastal Commission about this improvement with the acknowledgement that these coastal amenities will change over time as our monitoring program measures erosion that occurs.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if recalling correctly, it is the first three years after the major wet season that we evaluate it and, after that, for major storm events, there is a reevaluation.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the report stated that, “after the first three years, the report will provide each third year following the last annual report for the year in addition inspection reports will be submitted immediately following either an El Nino storm event, comparable to or greater than a 20-year storm or an earthquake of magnitude of 5.5 or greater with an epicenter in San Mateo or San Francisco Counties”.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is trying to take steps toward long-term planning which is City Council Regular Meeting 15 June 10, 2024
difficult in our community. He stated that with the understanding of what is built in, i.e., the intensive study of what is going on in conjunction erosion-wise with this project, he felt it was a good first step toward being able to have that longer conversation because instead we have a much shorter conversation which is much worse.
Councilmember Boles shared that OceanAire just redid their project and move back their railing this year and the same thing happened at the RV park down the street. She stated that now the fence is overhanging the bluffs at the OceanAire bluff top. Her concern is that the fence is right at the top of the bluff and we are not allowing any erosion to happen without having to spend more money here potentially the next winter after it gets built. Her concern is that we would want to at least build some buffer there where we are not building and having to move things immediately. She did not see budget for maintenance and ongoing work for this project.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, with the certification of the EIR, we are not bound to this alignment of the trail, fence alignment or park improvements with what is shown here. This was conceptual and schematic; when we get further into the design process, we can do some additional studies and pull anything back as needed to give the buffer she is requesting.
Councilmember Boles appreciated that. She stated that, on sending this off to the Coastal Commission, they want to see what improvements we are making and there has to be some mitigations for the armoring and she is assuming this counts as some of that. As part of the permitting process, they would want to see these plans for the public amenities on the bluff.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, and stated it is likely, with the permitting process for this portion of the project, similar to the 400 Esplanade Project, in lieu of the mitigation fees, they will ask for access improvements and trail improvements, and review that as part of the permitting process.
Councilmember Boles stated that there might be still be other improvements they ask for.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it is possible.
Councilmember Bier referred to questions about different projects that came from the public and she asked if he can explain to her why we do not have a more holistic view of this part of the bluff and why we are not doing a regional planning for this area.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the projects start off conceptual and can either start off with our CIP planning. He stated that they can either start off there or projects get created through grant applications; this project got started with an HMGP grant and it got funded for the design and environmental. He stated that, in terms of how projects are being created, we look for needs in the city and then we start going after grant applications based on those needs. To get a fuller look at our entire coastline, staff is looking into that with another application. They started with an Army Corp Cap 103 study of the 380 Esplanade area in the hope that it can turn into a general investigation and that is the study of the entire coastline of Pacifica.
Councilmember Bier stated that Supervisor Mueller was also interested in doing a more regional study of the entire coastside so we can see how all these projects are going to affect everything down and she thought it might be a good idea to get in touch with his office to see what their plans are just so we can be a part of that discussion with his staff.
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Councilmember Bier for that comment. He wanted to chime in specific to this. He stated that PW Dep. Director Yip is correct regarding our inquiries and work with the Army Corp of Engineers about an investigation of the entire coastline. He stated City Council Regular Meeting 16 June 10, 2024
that is a long-term process and takes an act of Congress ten years to move through the process to just do that study. He stated, as a reminder of history on this, this is city property and we have taken the property and have control of it. He stated that it is flanked by two private properties that have soil nail walls in place and this is the consistent treatment with those two properties. He stated that it does take the regional view for the protection of critical infrastructure and public health and safety that is necessary immediately. As he mentioned earlier at the outset of this, we can do the long term adaptation planning that the Coastal Commission will require the city to do through the Local Coastal Plan and work on that over a long period of time which involves lots of economics, financial, legalities, and complex planning that takes decades.
Councilmember Bier stated that is what she was looking for, i.e., that it is sandwiched between two private properties.
Councilmember Boles referred to packet page 356. Her concern is as the bluff erodes, then we have the plane of sand and we would not have any vegetation growing on that slope.
Consultant Schrier stated that he wants to return to their previous conversation where he found his CAD drawing. He stated that, according to the drawings, the slope that would intersect the edge of the sidewalk would be a 33-degree slope and the 45-degree slope would provide a buttress of approximately 20 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk.
Councilmember Boles asked what dimension he was using for his bluff.
Consultant Schrier stated that the 60-foot bluff but it is not vertical and perhaps that was the problem. There is a bluff that is not a vertical face. It is inclined by 70 degrees.
Councilmember Boles asked if we might have 20 feet in terms of a path, etc.
Consultant Schrier stated from the top of the bluff to the top of the wall, there is about a horizontal distance of 20 feet. He asked what her other question was.
Councilmember Boles stated that as the bluff erodes and we lose the landscaping along with it, we cannot plant on that 45-degree slope.
Consultant Schrier stated he is not a biologist or a botanist and would not know.
Councilmember Boles stated she is concerned about more erosion without the plant life to hold it in. She asked to go back to talking about the budget, and she thought it would help to see the plan on packet page 354.
Councilmember Boles stated that this project poses not just protection at the three vacant lots that the city owns but at the two adjacent lots at 340 and 350 Esplanade. She wanted to understand what discussions and agreements are in place with those owners and whether we have talked about any cost sharing since the work we are doing here would help protect their buildings as well.
Consultant Schrier understood the city has had discussions regarding cost sharing with the property owners at 340 and 350 Esplanade.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there have been some conversations with those property City Council Regular Meeting 17 June 10, 2024
owners but whether we were able to negotiate anything with them is separate from this project and the certification of the EIR. He thought PW Dep. Director Yip can speak, more importantly, to the requirement for the longevity of this project that it does tie into the other sea wall. In order to have this project occur, it has to include going all the way and tying into the other sea wall for it to be feasible. There is no requirement for the property owner to contribute funding to it; in order for this to protect city property, this is the design it needs to be.
City Attorney Kenyon stated he is correct and, for clarification, she was involved with staff in 2016 when we first started discussing this with the neighboring property owners and it was her understanding that those discussions were not proving fruitful. She was asked whether or not we could impose this requirement on the property owners to share and our conclusion was that we could not legally require that. She asked staff if this entire project, including the 340 property and beyond, is required to protect those properties as part of this project and the answer was yes, as City Manager indicated. Her next analysis was that we are providing a benefit to this community and is that a gift of public funds and the answer is no it is not because we cannot produce or construct a project without constructing it as one.
Councilmember Boles asked how long we think it will take to permit and build this project.
Consultant Schrier stated that, to build the project, we are estimating that the construction season would be April 15 to October 15; for the permit, he will leave it to staff.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we have other permit applications with Coastal Commission that have taken close to two years so it is hard to say. It is based on the required application materials and how quickly city staff can answer their questions, which is the main reason for the extension of time for the application review.
Councilmember Boles stated the building at 340 Esplanade is close to the edge now and, given episodic bluff erosion, in this 2-3 year processing of permitting, as that building is potentially redtagged, that does not change the project.
Consultant Schrier stated it would not. There would be some realignment of walls, but the concept that we have this unprotected section of bluff and the idea is to mitigate that by constructing sea wall between the two existing sea walls.
Councilmember Bier stated we have to be working with Coastal Commission throughout a project and there may not have been discussions with the new staff about this, and that concerns her because she feels that she has learned that this is what we have to do from the very beginning and all the way through. She stated that, even with the GGNRA, we have to start talking to the Coastal Commission right now.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the GGNRA immediately spoke to them and started getting feedback. He stated that the point is well-taken that we need to make sure that Coastal Commissioners are our partners and we need to know what they are thinking now, not later.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer recognized that staff has changed and we have been having conversations with staff that are in place at this time.
Consultant Schrier stated the feedback letter is a recent communication.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we have been working with Coastal staff, and they might have City Council Regular Meeting 18 June 10, 2024
staff changes, but as an organization, they are aware of this project and are on record with their comments. He stated that submittal of the EIR is a requirement to them to begin the permitting process. He stated that we cannot get definitive answers and input from them until we get through this milestone.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she was going to add that, although there are new staff at the Coastal Commission, there still are existing staff as well, so there is a continuity of staff at the Coastal Commission that we have contact with.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we have received feedback from those who are there now and it is just that new eyes are going to be looking at it also.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission’s letter is on packet page 621 and staff’s responses are on page 625. She referred to page 621, project description 1 is identified as response B1 in the middle, and it says “provide a written explanation and accompanying graphic to illustrate the infrastructure and/or other development present that the armoring is supposed to protect including anticipating remaining life, date of construction, permit history, etc.” She stated that there is a bit of description but not very much of the permit history that she could find in the response. She explained that her intention in asking these questions is to make sure we have the best application we have so it does not get brought back and we are truly answering their questions. She stated, when they say accompanying graphic, the first thing that came to her mind was what we did for the BBIRP where the surveyor is the one who provides the plan that lays out all the utilities in the street so we know exactly what is in the street; that seems to her what they are asking and she asked if we can clarify if that information is somewhere.
Consultant Campbell stated that we tried to address the history of the development of the infrastructure on Esplanade Avenue and we had a lengthy discussion with Public Works staff in trying to track down subdivision maps and anything that would show when that infrastructure was originally developed. He stated that, as far as diagrams, etc., in response to their comment on the EIR, it did not seem like it was a necessary thing to add when it would not provide enough basis for additional analysis of the impacts and that is why there is no drawing put in there that satisfies that question. He stated that the best we could do was try to track down the history and describe that for them.
Councilmember Boles stated that she disagrees, especially as further down the Coastal Commission talks about the infrastructure and the need to consider managed retreat and really understand the infrastructure there in the street and value and replacement value of that. She stated surveyors locate all the infrastructure in the street and put it on a drawing and it is not impossible to do. She stated that, besides this letter from the Coastal Commission, there was a letter in the Notice of Preparation and a lot of these comments are the same and this is what concerns her that we are not paying close attention to what they are asking for and it might end up causing the city problems if we are not giving them the information they need to fully make their decision.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to mention about process here. The city is considering and submitting an EIR; there are not designs for this project yet. In considering the EIR, to submit City Council Regular Meeting 19 June 10, 2024
the project and apply to the Coastal Commission, that will begin an iterative process for the permitting and project detail discussion with the Coastal Commission. The city would not normally expend extra money on consultants and surveying for a lot of project-related details until we can get to that specific point and requirement in discussion with the Coastal Commission. He stated that they may come back and review our application but we cannot guess what they are going to require; just a comment letter on the EIR is not a requirement for the city to do that. He stated, from a process perspective, he would point that out in terms of project details.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would add on to his comments that this is common for city staff to be taking on this type of request with the Coastal Commission permitting. Staff have done so with other projects as they will request similar items, permitting history, utilities as built, etc. and we can look into it further as we get into the permitting phase.
Councilmember Boles stated the importance of this information comes up later in their EIR comment. She stated that we talked about the 30-year life span and what the long-term plans are afterwards. She stated that we have heard from public comments that we are not doing long-term planning, and this comment was in both the NOP and this letter for the Coastal Commission. She wanted to share one insight from the Coastal Cities working group that Mayor Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer attended recently, where the City of Santa Cruz was presenting their coastal projects which included some new armoring for West Cliff Drive; one of the things their Public Works or Planning official stated was, as they came to the Coastal Commission with sea wall hard armoring project on West Cliff Drive, in their input from the Coastal Commission, they were hesitant to look and approve those projects. It was helpful in their permit approvals to be able to say that they were doing longer term projects and planning. She believed it is becoming more and more important. She stated that a lot of community members do not want managed retreat but the truth is that this kind of armoring is, in her view, a tool of managed retreat but we are slowing it down so they can do longer term planning as the ocean is going to keep winning. This project is only being designed for 30 years and it takes a long time to plan and to move infrastructure and buildings and roads. She thinks that is the work we need to be starting soon. She sees Coastal Commission asking for that here and it might come up with that again in discussions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her opinion is that we are addressing that longer term planning with our request to the Army Corp for looking at that whole portion of our coastline.
She thinks that is where the detail will come in that project.
Councilmember Boles stated she does not know the full extent of the Army Corp project. She thought telling Coastal Commission in this letter that we are trying to get this Army Corp determination and are hoping to do some more long-term planning could help our permitting.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if West Cliff Drive has infrastructure underneath.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is a little different.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it makes a difference if it is just a roadway for infrastructure.
Councilmember Boles referred to Coastal Commission’s comment noted as B6 about staging and ESHA that relates to the staging area on the other side at 400 Esplanade. She stated that the first question is, has that staging area been included in the EIR and did we look at ESHA across from Manor.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 June 10, 2024
Consultant Campbell stated that we did discuss that in the EIR, and we identified that as a coastal habitat zone in that area in the south that is proposed for a staging area. The issue of habitat protection or a danger to wildlife was addressed through a mitigation measure that included pre-construction nesting bird surveys. He stated that it covers all types of birds that occur in the coastal areas in the bluffs, and that particular habitat zone could potentially include nesting birds and therefore has mitigation in the EIR that requires pre-construction survey; the preconstruction surveys would be required before anything happens there. He stated that there is some protection built into that particular area.
Councilmember Boles thought a broader question is whether this is an ESHA, and we know as they are updating the Local Coastal Plan now that the Coastal Commission considers dunes as ESHA and she is assuming that this area is officially dunes. She stated that she has seen the analysis of the birds, but the question is this potentially ESHA and has that been analyzed.
Consultant Campbell stated that the biologist on their team did review that but they did not identify that particular stretch as ESHA.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can read their response to the Coastal Commission for that particular item to clarify.
Consultant Campbell stated “south staging area is proposed because of its adjacency to the existing beach trail. Sensitive and critical habitat map contained in the certification draft, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, contains the following disclaimer. The preliminary delineation of ESHA boundaries does not include an exhaustive compilation of the habitat areas that meet the ESHA definition. Site specific biological evaluations and field observations shall be required to identify ESHA’s special status resources that may not have been included in the literature and data base review. The biological assessment prepared for the project site by MIG that was included in the city’s CDP application as appendix H, also included as appendix D in the draft EIR, stating that there are no mapped ESHAs within or nearby the study area. Given the disclaimer in the LCLUP map, precise boundaries of the ESHA designation shown near the proposed southern staging area should not necessarily be interpreted as including the actual staging area which consists of an approximately 7500 square foot area extending from the edge of Esplanade Avenue to approximately 40 feet from the edge of the bluff. This area is devoid of vegetation, although the edge and the face of the bluff are vegetative.” Councilmember Boles stated Coastal Commission will follow up if this analysis is not enough.
Consultant Campbell stated that their biologist will be working directly on the permitting for those areas so we will continue that discussion. For the purpose of the EIR, the biologist did conduct an analysis and that was the conclusion.
Councilmember Boles asked about the EIR options which includes the Coastal Commission comment too, starting on page 290. She stated that one of the comments from the Coastal Commission is that the no project alternative should include the removal of the non-permitted revetment. She thought that means all the rocks in front of these projects were put in with emergency permits but not followed up with the proper Coastal Development Permits and mitigations. She wanted to make sure to include that in the revisions.
Consultant Campbell stated for B13 that was a suggestion on behalf of the Coastal Commission and we were agreeable to it.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 June 10, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, for each “comment noted,” he understood it was taken well.
Councilmember Boles asked if it had been included in the document or not as a revision.
Consultant Campbell stated there was no revision made to the document in response to B13.
Councilmember Boles thought it sounds like the Coastal Commission wants that.
Consultant Campbell acknowledged that.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when it says “no comment,” if that means we are ready to address it when this does come before Coastal Commission.
Consultant Campbell stated, when we respond with “comment noted,” it is typically an agreement with the comment, depending on what the comment is saying. If it is something requiring some action, we will either add a revision in the final EIR or, if not, then it does not get included. In this case, that may be something that would require additional discussion, but as far as the no project alternative, that no project alternative basically describes the existing condition as being left as it is. He stated that it was our feeling that did not include removal of the previous sea wall that was there.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified for Councilmember Boles’ questions about what the Coastal Commission asks for and how the EIR consultant responded to it that the EIR consultant only has to respond to the comment to the extent that it is required to assure that the legal adequacy of the EIR document itself. It does not mean that those comments should not be addressed with the Coastal Commission but the EIR consultant and Council’s exercise at this meeting is to determine whether or not we can certify the EIR is based on whether or not the EIR is legally adequate. She stated that comment and that response to comment as it exists today does not impact the legal validity of the EIR.
Councilmember Boles understood and stated her concern is we are certifying this EIR as it is.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council is certifying the legal adequacy of the EIR, and as staff has indicated before, this is different than when we normally certify an EIR, as normally when we are certifying an EIR, we are also certifying the EIR in anticipation of approving the project and that is not what is happening at this meeting. She stated that we do not approve the project; the Coastal Commission will approve the project. Council is just certifying the legal adequacy of the EIR for purposes of submitting the project to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for clarifying as she assumed we were certifying the EIR to then approve.
City Attorney Kenyon added that we are not approving the project.
Councilmember Boles stated that we do not have any approval of the project at all, just the budget at the end.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, ultimately, the Coastal Commission is the approver. She stated we are involved as the applicant but permitting comes from the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse reminded Council that, in 2018, City Council approved and directed City Council Regular Meeting 22 June 10, 2024
the preferred alternative for this project, and that initiated Cotton, Shires, and Associates’ work and MIG’s work of the EIR development work.
Councilmember Bier stated that, on proposed action No. 2, it says “approve project as defined and analyzed in the EIR and proceed therewith by applying to the Coastal Commission”.
Councilmember Boles stated that she would contradict what was just said.
Councilmember Bier asked if staff can explain the difference between what it is saying here and what she understands.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, in the action, essentially we determined that the Council could not certify the final EIR without approving the project description as is defined and analyzed in the EIR. Essentially, when we say approve the project, we are approving the project description that is included in the EIR and was analyzed, and we are not approving the project as in approving permits for the project, as that will be done by the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles asked about the sand nourishment option, wherein the Coastal Commission questions if we gave enough information to consider that as an alternative.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is a question for the EIR consultant, which he should address.
She emphasized for Council and staff to discuss the same issue when posing questions. She stated that issue, in terms of “is that one alternative adequate for purposes of the EIR,” is what should be asked of the consultant.
Councilmember Boles thanked her. She then stated that the Coastal Commission’s comment on Alternative 3, which is note B14, says “the sand replenishment alternative notes that it is likely infeasible that sand rapidly moved from the beach under winter storm condition. While this may be the case for this alternative, that should be evaluated in more depth for the selected project as well, especially given that the proposed project would cut off sand supplied to the beach fronting the toe of the bluff and thus impact wave dynamics and subsequent bluff erosion.” She stated that the Coastal Commission is asking for more analysis of that option.
She stated the response says that sand replenishment is repetitive and limitless but she knows we have done this for the BBIRP where we estimated how many sand replenishments we would need for that so over a 50-year period of that project. She stated that it seems like we could do this for this analysis too. She thought we had beyond the initial replenishment. She stated that the analysis says that this does not meet the objectives because it does not build a sea wall but page 299 also says the sand nourishment would halt toe erosion so a sea wall may not be needed. She asked if that has been studied as we do sand nourishment. She stated that it also says the staging area and the park could not be built but the staging area is not needed if we are not doing the sand nourishment and there is no prohibition on building the park if we do the sand nourishment. That is a whole separate project that is happening at the end of the sea wall. She was concerned that we have not fully analyzed that as an option, and she knows other cities, having just heard from San Clemente, are pursuing sand nourishment as a top option now over hard armory.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the purpose for the range of reasonable alternatives is so that the body can determine whether or not the alternative that is proposed is part of the project description is the appropriate.
Councilmember Boles added the least environmentally damaging solution.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 June 10, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the appropriate question for the consultant, i.e., is that alternative, the sand nourishment, a reasonable alternative that we have appropriately analyzed. She stated that, in terms of whether or not it is the Council’s preferred alternative, that is something the Council will answer. She stated that, with all of that response or analysis that she just referred to, in terms of the project and what meets the project is based on what that project description is, which is what Interim Dep. Director Cervantes said is what the Council is approving, i.e., we are approving that project description because that is what the reasonable alternatives are geared towards analyzing and do they meet the project objectives as described in the project description. She stated that we should have the EIR consultant answer her question in terms of his analysis and whether or not he feels that the sand nourishment alternative is adequately analyzed for purposes of adequacy of the EIR.
Consultant Campbell stated that, in response to that, another thing to note is that CEQA does not require any fully detailed analysis of each of the alternatives. In this case, we have to rely on experts in the subject matter, and what we did is we went back and revised that discussion based on information provided by Cotton, Shires, and Associates who are experts in this subject and worked on this project a long time. He feels that our response was adequate. The other thing, in an alternative analysis, is that we have to address is how well it addresses the objectives of the project and, for those reasons, it did not come out as the preferred alternative.
He thought, by the terms of CEQA, we did an adequate job of responding to that comment by the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles thought, without knowing how many nourishments he is talking about, repetitive and limitless is not true over certain period of time. She did not agree with the analysis as page 299 states it would halt toe erosion, and that meets the benefits of the sea wall. She stated that the staging area is not needed because we do not have all the equipment we need to get up and down to build the sea wall and the part could be built. She did not think it has been properly analyzed.
City Manager Woodhouse added, in looking at the EIR description on packet page 299, the statement that is made is that “it is unlikely that sand nourishment would be sustainable and sand replenishment would not provide similar lateral support to the bluff that would result from using a structural approach.” He stated that, if we want to spend more time on this, he would ask Consultant Campbell to describe some of the findings regarding it not being sustainable.
Consultant Campbell thought the main reason it was found unsustainable is because there was no way of knowing how many potential trucks could occur in the future, there was no end limit to it, so it was difficult to make a finding on whether it is sustainable or not; we would probably have to assume the worst as a conservative assumption. The consultant did not have enough empirical evidence, and did not have enough studies to look at in order to make that determination, but it seemed reasonable to assume that it could go on endlessly and there was no limit to it which would make it unsustainable.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are looking at a project that totals about $14 million, of which we paid $2 million. His understanding is that each nourishment is not inexpensive; in conjunction with BBIRP, we understand that, with Mori Point, we have a groin and there is some mechanism whereby sand retention is more likely than not and it is contained within the context of that project. He stated that, when the conversation happens, he exhibited some level of skepticism over beach nourishment there. He stated that there are members of the community who have reached out in terms of natural adaptive strategies that might aid in sand retention in the long term, including for BBIRP. In terms of what we are looking at here, we are looking at $2 million to gain the city 30 years to figure out long-term planning versus indeterminant sand City Council Regular Meeting 24 June 10, 2024
nourishment to get us 30 years of long-term planning.
Councilmember Boles stated GHD did that analysis for Beach Boulevard and Mori Point does not help it completely because it is too far. She thought it is possible and thought that Coastal Commission is asking for it and that is why she brings this up, as she was not sure they will be happy with this analysis and she will leave it at that. She stated that the more important one the Coastal Commission brings up is whether the EIR needs to analyze the managed retreat option.
She stated that this was noted in their previous comment letter where it talked about retreat of infrastructure on page 623, where it specifically says “Coastal Commission staff is unable to concur with the conclusion that this option does not merit further consideration. Cost analysis of long-term bluff protection versus infrastructure move…” and from what she understands, this is mostly the cost of the sewer, according to the vulnerability assessment. She stated that we were saying that the cost of that, reconfiguring the road and the sewer was an $8 million project and this is now $14 million. She thought we need to analyze that, not necessarily that it is our choice, but that is something they require us to analyze.
City Manager Woodhouse wants to go back and put a caveat on PW Dep. Director Yip’s statement about $8 million, and that was a very limited scope for what infrastructure changes would need to occur. For managed retreat in this area, that would mean moving of streets, takings of houses, water and sewer infrastructure; while the city does not have all those costs, we know from the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project analysis that the cost impacts are enormous in doing that. That is a very long-term process, and one of the project objectives here is the emergency protection of the infrastructure and the street and access to those houses and the naturally affordable housing that exists there.
Councilmember Boles understood that it is expensive, but the Coastal Commission is asking for the analysis.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, going back to the sufficiency of this EIR as separate, is it legally sufficient separate from what an agency might comment about it. That would be a potential future conversation and topic with the Coastal Commission during permitting, and the city may need to do some more research or analysis about potential costs, but that is part of the permitting process, not the legal adequacy of the EIR certification.
Consultant Campbell stated that we discussed a few other issues and it was not just the cost of relocating the infrastructure alone: “Stability of the adjacent bluffs could be impacted by making future predictions of how much area would be subject to managed retreat and difficult. If an organized area with existing infrastructure, as well as structures across the relocation and compensation may also be prohibitive and uncertain when geomorphic stability would be achieved under a managed retreat plan and a continued erosion of the over steepened and unstable bluffs would also pose a continued risk to the public, especially on the beach under the bluffs. He stated that the timing for moving infrastructure, such as water and wastewater lines, planning for construction of a new pump station is lengthy and may require acquisition of private easements, the success of which would not be guaranteed.” Councilmember Boles asked if he thought the Coastal Commission’s comment that this option does not merit further consideration and detail is not necessary.
Consultant Campbell stated, for the sake of the EIR, he thinks that is an adequate description and adequate analysis by CEQA definition.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 June 10, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that there is a phrase on page 345 of the EIR, the managed retreat alternative considered but rejected: “Furthermore, the City of Pacifica City Council deemed managed retreat infeasible in the city’s most recent sea level rise adaptation plan for this area.” She would state that it is not true, as the adaptation plan does show managed retreat as a valid long-term option for this area, and she would like a correction to that. She stated that we have been having Local Coastal Plan discussion and in the minutes on packet page 37, Planning Director Murdock specifically says we do not have an anti-managed retreat policy. She asked if it was possible to strike that line.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we should not be getting into editing the EIR, but that question should be answered by Consultant Campbell.
Consultant Campbell stated that when we wrote that in the EIR was based on the best information we had available at the time. If that is incorrect, then a retraction would be justifiable but, at this stage in the process, he was not sure how we would do that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she did not think we can edit the EIR at this point as that document has been circulated and, for approval, we would have to go back and re-analyze whether or not, based on direction at this meeting, that it is adequate analysis for purposes of changing that conclusion that is in the EIR.
Consultant Campbell stated that, particularly in the context of alternative discussion in the EIR, as this is not making any impact statement. The question is if this analysis of this alternative adequate under CEQA, and he believes it is.
City Manager Woodhouse added that the LCLUP adopted by Council is from 2019 or so, regarding possible amendments, and that does exclude managed retreat as alternatives.
Councilmember Boles stated the statement talks about the adaptation plan, not the LCLUP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she was going to follow up on that statement, i.e., what was Councilmember Boles’ reference on why the adaptation plan or where the adaptation plan says managed retreat is a reasonable choice for this timeframe.
Councilmember Boles stated she can pull it up as it is in the adaptation strategies by area.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not believe it was for this timeframe. She thought it was a longer term consideration.
Councilmember Boles asked if Council cannot change anything on this document at this meeting, and it is voting either yes or no.
City Attorney Kenyon answered affirmatively. She stated Council could direct it back to staff to get more analysis, but she is not comfortable advising the consultants to go ahead and make edits of the EIR that have not been thoroughly analyzed. She would not think that the consultant would want to make that kind of change or edit in to the document without doing their own analysis. She stated she is not saying it cannot be done, but it cannot be done at this meeting and would have to go back, and we would have to bring this back to Council for certification at a later date.
Councilmember Boles referred to page 252, where it says, “a mitigation monitoring program City Council Regular Meeting 26 June 10, 2024
would therefore be required for the San Carlos focused General Plan update EIR”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that referring to San Carlos in the EIR is an administrative error.
The consultant can fix that as it is a typographical error and it does not require more analysis.
Councilmember Boles stated that starting on page 653 there were comment letters from a consultant from the owner of 340 Esplanade. The consultant asked to add a statement that there is a possibility that bluff erosion rates over time normalize to lower rates more consistent with historic rates. She stated she would like to know what evidence we have for that because the new Ocean Protection Council guidance stated “sea level rise when combined with extreme storms and higher tides will result in accelerated cliff and bluff erosion, coastal flooding and beach loss and immobilization of subsurface contaminant”. She said instead of normalizing, it could get worse, and she objects to that statement being added.
Consultant Campbell deferred to Consultant Schrier on the technical validity of that statement.
Consultant Schrier asked if he was being asked to comment on RJR’s letter.
Councilmember Boles stated on the change of bluff erosion rates and whether they would normalize to lower rates or whether they might get worse, as was recently stated in the Ocean Protection Council guidance.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if that was a statement that the EIR consultant makes or a comment.
Councilmember Boles stated that it was added to the errata, and it was changes to the EIR that were made and the comment was incorporated.
Consultant Campbell stated it was in the response and that MIG would refer to their technical experts when they come up with these responses.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it could get higher or lower and anything can happen.
Councilmember Boles stated that it has been worse the last two years and it will worsen with the storms we are getting, per the Ocean Protection Council. She stated that she is objecting to the normalization. She is not saying that we have to say it is going to get worse. She does not know scientifically where this information came from and how it was validated.
Councilmember Campbell stated he cannot substantiate the research as MIG typically consults with the project geologist on technical issues like that. He stated he would be happy to get back to her on that.
Councilmember Boles stated that, for the community, she has a couple of other questions that are not EIR-related. Packet page 243 says that the trail to the beach at 100 Esplanade, which is the OceanAire path, is going to have workers and small machinery using that, and she does not know if that has been studied in the EIR and if there is any specific information we have about effects to public access from using this trail for construction, people, and materials. She stated that EIR says the access would not be affected but page 243 says we would be using this for construction access.
PW Dep. Director Yip referred to packet page 617 that states “the final EIR should make it clear City Council Regular Meeting 27 June 10, 2024
and mention the existing public access trail at 100 Esplanade was added because of the future restorations/passive recreation area proposed by the project bluff top,” which is the reason that area was added to the EIR. He asked if Consultant Campbell can confirm that. He stated one portion is in the Coastal Conservancy’s response letter; he believes there was a similar response to question in A2-1, A2-2, and A2-3 from the Coastal Conservancy letter.
Councilmember Boles thought they did not address 100 Esplanade, more for the other one.
Consultant Campbell stated their response stated, “The existing 100 block access trail provides public access. It was discussed in the aesthetics. It does not impact public access to beach and trails.” He referred to the comment in A2-2 and stated those are difficult questions to answer as they are in response to two different sets of emails from a long time ago. He thought the point of the response is that the comment about the bluff access being impacted by the riprap on the beach did not make sense and was unsubstantiated. He stated that MIG said, “The project includes removal of the riprap in the immediate vicinity of the sea wall which expands from the northern most point of the 100 block to approximately the southern end of the 340 property.” The existing access trail that it is referring to is 1100 feet south of this location and he thinks is being talked about was the access trail opposite Manor Drive and he thinks it was trying to make a clarification there. He stated that, as far as he is aware, the EIR in more than one spot states that the access at the 100 block would not be impacted.
Councilmember Boles asked if the fact that workers and small machinery are going to use that path impacts it.
Consultant Campbell stated that would be the assumption.
Councilmember Boles stated that means the EIR has not assessed those impacts.
Consultant Campbell stated what the EIR is stating is that access to the public would not be impaired even if there are workers or small equipment using it.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that it is not that the consultant did not analyze it. The consultant is saying is that they did analyze and they did not find any significant impacts to public access even though there will be workers there. She stated that is a conclusion the EIR consultant has made.
Councilmember Boles stated her question was it analyzed for construction impact.
Consultant Campbell stated it was analyzed and that is why the document states what it is.
Councilmember Boles understood. She wanted to understand the impacts are to the community if we are ever closing that trail as we are using it for construction. She asked if we anticipate any closures at all on that path.
Consultant Campbell stated there are no plans to close that path during construction.
Councilmember Boles stated packet page 243 says work construction times are Monday through Friday, 7:00 - 7:00, Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 - 5:00, for 260 days. She asked if that is what we are expecting with the construction.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there are two conditions. The project is planned to start this during spring, around April, and go into winter time. He stated that there are conditions for rainy City Council Regular Meeting 28 June 10, 2024
days, depending on the type of work that can get impacted as well as the birdnesting season, which is not accounted for in the 260 days, so that could lead to a pause of work depending on those two conditions.
Councilmember Boles thought that is a relatively big impact to the community.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated we are trying to facilitate the community’s greater ability to live in that space.
Councilmember Boles hoped we give the community enough notice to have the opportunity to relocate.
Councilmember Bigstyck understood.
Councilmember Boles asked to explain the noise that we are expecting. She asked to describe the impacts in simple terms for the community and why we thought a noise barrier was needed on Esplanade but not towards the apartment buildings.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bier stated the work hours concerns her as that is every day of the week and she was surprised to see that.
PW Director Petersen stated that those are our permit hour requirements, but similar to the Civic Center job, we are not working from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, and not working every weekend.
She stated that contractors have set hours which tend to be 40 hours a week or less, and that just allows those times to be available. She stated, at the Civic Center, there have been some days where they asked if the contractor can work a little later or can they work on a Saturday; that allows that flexibility to provide to the contractor at that time. She stated that we will not be working seven days a week.
Councilmember Boles stated that, with the timeframe of 260 days and not being able to work when it is raining, she is reading into it that we are trying to do as much as we can between April and October so that might be seven days a week so we can get ahead of all the grading and major construction work before the rainy period starts.
PW Director Petersen stated that she has never seen a contractor, in her 35 years of working on capital projects, work seven days a week. What will happen is that the project will get extended out, similar to the Civic Center.
Councilmember Boles hoped we can give that good news to the community when the project starts.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 June 10, 2024
Consultant Schrier added that one of the key factors for having that flexibility is taking advantage of tides, especially at the beginning of the job when we are on the beach and we cannot work during high tides.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she figured would happen.
Councilmember Boles asked if someone can answer the question about noise.
Consultant Campbell stated, to summarize the noise impacts, the impacts will result from the construction activities and there are several pieces of equipment that will be necessary to use that do produce a lot of decibels. The analysis measured the ambient conditions out there and, given all the input on the proposed construction equipment and durations of use, modeled what the noise levels would end up being during the construction period; because they exceeded the city’s thresholds, MIG had to propose mitigation. The mitigation measures in there would reduce those levels to below the city’s thresholds. He stated, as far as the physical improvements that would happen, one of the mitigation measures is a wall, essentially a sound barrier along the western side of Esplanade Avenue to protect the residents on the eastern side of the street; those would be directly affected and the ones who could benefit from having a sound barrier on the street. MIG looked at the option for protecting the buildings that are still there on the west side of the street and there was no way to physically build any structure adjacent to those buildings, as there was no way to mitigate the sound impacts directly to those buildings there on the west side of the street. He stated that the mitigation measures that were developed were essentially to create a sound mitigation reporting system, a noise reduction plan that can be reviewed by the community, and a contact person’s name to talk to directly when the noise becomes an issue. He stated that those are the mitigations proposed.
Councilmember Boles stated that we have the width of Esplanade and it is more narrow in the other direction toward the street. She asked if he can explain technically why a sound wall to the south and residents at 350 is not possible.
Consultant Campbell stated that we looked at the ways to bring those sound levels down in those buildings and there was no way to physically attach or construct a wall, as the resulting height would have been too high. He stated that we looked at ways to make that happen and it was not feasible.
Councilmember Boles asked how it is happening on the other side along Esplanade.
Consultant Campbell stated that it is not. The sound barrier would go along the west side of the roadway, and the intent is to protect the sensitive receptors on the opposite side of the street.
He stated that we could not do the same for the building immediately adjacent on the west side of the street.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her understanding is that what is feasible is protecting the east side of the street. However, for the buildings that are adjacent to where the work would be taking place, there was not a way to mitigate the sound for those buildings on the west side of the street. She asked if she is correct.
Consultant Campbell stated that it is essentially correct.
Councilmember Boles stated that her understanding is that the sound barriers are happening somehow in parallel to Esplanade Avenue.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 June 10, 2024
Consultant Campbell stated that it is correct.
Councilmember Boles asked how they are supported if they are tall because there is no structure there.
Consultant Campbell stated that, to answer that level of technical question, he could have a conversation with their acoustic experts and get back to her on that.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to know.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if this was about the project level design of the sound walls.
Councilmember Boles states that it relates to the EIR in the noise. The consultant is saying that the noise exceeds the city’s standards and that we are providing protection for these residents but not for the other residents and she is trying to understand why because we are not meeting our requirements in the EIR for noise.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the consultant was saying that it was not feasible to protect the 340 or 350 Esplanade from project noise but it is feasible to put the sound protection along Esplanade to protect the noise from across the way and the specific project design of that sound wall has yet to be developed during the project design and implementation.
Consultant Campbell stated, regarding the design of the wall, MIG does specify that the material of the wall has to be of a certain density and there are certain specifications that we name in the EIR, but as far as what the foundations look like or how it is anchored to the ground, he would need to talk to their experts. He stated that their experts stated this is standard noise mitigation when proposing a sound barrier: It has to be of a minimum density with no gaps in it and it has to be within a certain range of materials that they can use that are acceptable for that.
Councilmember Boles understood but did not see the difference because it would be hard to install in both locations because there is nothing to attach it to. She would like to consider looking at expanding that because the residents there are even closer to the noise than the people across the street.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that that direction can be given separately to staff. She stated that the consultant is saying that, for the legal adequacy of the EIR, they have done their analysis and their analysis is that, for 340 and 350, it is not feasible. She stated that it does not mean that the city cannot consider it at a later time.
Councilmember Boles thanked her and stated that she would like the city to consider that. She stated that the EIR says to avoid generators if feasible, and she asked if we can confirm what generators would be used for. She thought it was just for lighting but wanted to confirm if there are other tools that need a power and whether the generators, for noise and particulate matter, assuming that those are diesel, were analyzed in the EIR.
Consultant Campbell stated that the generator noise and emissions were both analyzed in the EIR in the air quality analysis and in the noise analysis. He stated, as far as the use and how many, those are details that PW Dep. Director Yip can address better. The assumption was that generators would be used and they were built into the modeling for both air emissions and noise output.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 June 10, 2024
PW Dep. Director Yip stated it was cited in the EIR that we shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators if feasible. He stated that there is a mitigation to do that.
Councilmember Boles did not think there is any power at the site.
PW Dep. Director Yip referred to the terms of actual number of generators.
Consultant Campbell stated that, for the purposes of the modeling, they are being conservative and assuming that there would be generators.
Councilmember Boles stated that she would like to ask staff to try to find other ways as there is a great deal of noise. She asked, if there is no other power, perhaps the owners at 340 Esplanade might be willing, since this project is helping them, and the lack of a generator would be beneficial to their residence. She wanted to ask for those conversations to happen. She stated that the planting also talks about hand watering, but there is no water on the site and she asked who would be responsible for hand watering.
Consultant Campbell stated that the EIR re-vegetation plan is very conceptual at this point.
They did not discuss in detail about who was going to do that, but assuming it is a city project, that would be one of the city departments.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wanted to revisit the last statement that City Attorney made about the request to staff asking for further look at the sound mitigation as a separate action beyond certification of this EIR. She asked how that would be phrased.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council would ask staff and City Manager to bring back that item for future consideration.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that needs to be a part of the motion.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if there is a majority of the Council that would like this considered, then they would want staff to comment on what that would look like. She was talking to the City Manager and he said that would most likely happen during the project design. She stated what the direction could be to staff that, during project design, consider extending the sound wall and staff will consider that and bring it back during project design. She stated that the reason there would be a motion is because that direction would require a majority vote due to the amount of staff time and staff work.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Council needs a formal motion or merely consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the recommended action on packet page 239 has four enumerated items and she was trying to ascertain in terms of being able to make a motion is how to incorporate that piece. She stated that Councilmember Bigstyck was asking if it would be part of the motion or would it be a separate item.
City Attorney Kenyon stated what Council could do is make a motion to certify or not make any motion if there is no action. If Council is going to certify the EIR, we would make the motion to certify the EIR and after that motion, we would then say that we would like to direct staff to bring this back and see if there is a majority rule for that vote as well. She stated that we do not want City Council Regular Meeting 32 June 10, 2024
to tie it together to the certification of the EIR because there may be Councilmembers who do not want to provide that. She would suggest two separate motions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to approve the following: (1) Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue infrastructure Preservation Project (“Project”); (2) Approve Project as defined and analyzed in the EIR and proceed therewith by applying to the California Coastal Commission for permits/approvals; (3) Adopt CEQA Findings and Mitigation and Monitoring Report (“MMRP”); and (4) Direct city staff to file Notice of Determination; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
Councilmember Bier understood it is necessary to do long-term planning and that is the piece we need to continue to talk about. She mentioned reaching out to Supervisor Mueller because our bluffs are going to keep eroding no matter what they do. She stated that it is about how we can give ourselves enough time to do the planning that it is going to take to address this.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, when Supervisor Mueller brought that to the County Office of Emergency Preparedness, he spoke on it in real time. He has been focused on the general investigation from Army Corp and he is looking forward to incorporating both approaches toward long-term planning, with this being step 1 and a powerful tool to facilitate the long-term planning he agrees we desperately need in the long run.
Councilmember Boles encourages us to keep working with the Coastal Commission and having good dialogue to make sure we are submitting projects that they do not have concerns about and we are answering their questions. She stated that they we have gone back and forth for so long on the LCLUP and this is urgent. She told the City Attorney she is still uncomfortable with some of the language like the managed retreat and she wants the project to go ahead and submit this to the Coastal Commission. She asked, if she felt comfortable and chose to abstain, whether that would cause any problems if it is still a Council majority.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is what Council chooses to do as a majority. If a councilmember chose not to vote to certify the EIR, then we will have to see if there are three other Councilmembers who chose to certify it.
Councilmember Boles assumes that a 4-1 vote would not be seen badly in terms of not having a unified voice for moving the project forward.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the person who would see the result would be the Coastal Commission and she thought that may beg the question from the Coastal Commission of why there was a no vote. In terms of any other implications, she does not see any, as not all votes need to be unanimous.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck
ABSTAIN: Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 33 June 10, 2024
CONSIDERATION
15. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed Budget Program Options PROPOSED ACTION: Review and discuss the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed General Fund and Other Funds Budget and provide additional policy direction on the desired budget options and strategies for the upcoming budget.
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to packet page 697, one-time service enhancements, and asked if the proposed service enhancements total $947,000 roughly and if the source of funds for that is the cost savings from the investment.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated the $2 million savings are generated because we are not transferring funds from General Fund to the Debt Service Fund. The proceeds and cash balances in that service bond can pay for the debt service this year. This is only applicable to this year; normally, we would move the money to this fund. Since we do not have to do it this year, it allows us to fund some one-time projects.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the remaining $1.152 million is our adjusted surplus.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, stating that the remaining balance is, if you approve staff’s recommendations as they stand, it will fall back to the fund balance of the General Fund.
Councilmember Boles referred to the nonprofit discussion and asked if our Fog Fest and Coast Pride are officially nonprofits.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Fog Fest is working on obtaining a 501(c)(3) but now they are 501(c)(4) non-profit organization.
Councilmember Bier stated “Pride Coast” in the packet should say “Coast Pride”. She stated that we had conversations about nonprofits before, and she is happy to see a one-time allocation for Coast Pride. She stated related to that, as a nonprofit, Coast Pride brings services to our city and she wanted to make sure that people understand that they host high school groups here, older adult groups, mental health services, etc. and they are bringing services to our community.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is more than just about the parade.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Boles was pleased to see the Housing Action Fund set up and separate from the In-Lieu Fees. She asked, since it is a new fund, if we need to define what the fund can be used for officially.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated we will include the information in the budget but from her understanding and previous discussions, the prime purpose of the funds is for development for affordable housing.
Councilmember Boles stated that it will be a range of services.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, from a fiscal perspective, the purpose of the fund is to City Council Regular Meeting 34 June 10, 2024
allocate funds guided by our policy discussion and separate from the legal restricted revenues.
As far as policy discussion, we have maximum flexibility on how we want to use the funds.
Councilmember Boles is wondering if, somehow in the budget, we have to define it. She stated the Harmony1, now the Ohlone Point Project, had in-lieu housing fees but those fees were used to pay HEART and some other planning things that were not about actual building units. She thought it was important to have a clear definition of what the different funds can be used for.
City Manager Woodhouse added that Council does not need to define that now in this budget as there is something to be said for Council having flexibility about how the Housing Action Fund is used and making the decision on a case-by-case basis, if Council thinks it should be used for something or does not think it should be used for a program when that recommendation were to come forward, as opposed to the housing in-lieu fees which is a development fee which is more legally bound in its definition. He stated that having that flexibility is good and if Council wanted to take that up and specifically define it compared to the housing in-lieu funds, that would be a separate conversation that Council would need to have. Staff would need to do some research and Council can put some parameters around it, but it would be a separate conversation.
Councilmember Boles stated that she likes the idea of the flexibility as long as we know that any money coming out of that fund would come to Council.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the general guidance Council has given is that the Housing Action Fund need to be used for development of affordable housing or the steps that relate to that development. If there were any ambiguities about that, he would probably want to bring it back to Council for clarification.
Councilmember Boles understood. She then wanted to clarify that the in-lieu fees should be for actual construction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that those were more specifically defined but there is some flexibility there. He stated that some in-lieu fees can be used for the planning that is necessary for development of affordable housing.
Councilmember Boles would like to understand that more in the future. She asked Asst. City Manager Carter how much of the budget for this year is the 5% salary savings.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the salary savings with the recommended options together, because we build salary savings to all additional positions, is projected for $1.6 million.
She stated that the 5% policy recommendation was about $1.2 million.
Councilmember Boles asked if we are upping that percentage.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we are upping because all the new positions that are recommended in City Manager’s recommended budget include 25% default salary savings.
Councilmember Boles assumed it was just for this year.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed just for this year, as she assumed the positions approved on July 1 will take about three months to recruit.
Councilmember Boles stated she appreciates her creativity in all this and finding money for these new positions and her concern is what the impact is for next year and how much we are committing to. Looking at the forecast for next year, we have a projected deficit in 2026, and for City Council Regular Meeting 35 June 10, 2024
next year 2025-26, we only had a $77,000 overage. It looks like we are adding over $1 million in salaries that will roll over to next year, so we may be in trouble already for next year by approving all these this year.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated not necessarily, hence the focus on staffing review and organizational capacity, where we are trying to solve two very serious structural issues. The City is not as competitive as we should be and are lower-staffed than where we should be, thereby leading to more work for less compensation, and that is a difficult problem to solve.
When we suggested building in 5% salary savings, the reality is that we are running 10-15% in any given time throughout the year. She stated that is why, when we discussed it previously, we felt that 5% salary savings is prudent in the next few years as we are not going to solve these structural issues overnight. As far as recommendations, she stated that, if we take $0.7 million recommended on an ongoing basis, it is about 1.6% of the General Fund expenditures.
Staff is confident that in the normal scope of balancing the budget, we will be able to balance $1.6 million even if some assumptions for revenue projections are off in the wrong way. What we are adding is essentially less than 2%.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that, on reviewing the budget, it sounds like this is an ongoing problem as long as he has lived in Pacifica, and shared his concerns and thoughts on all the issues, and hopefully moving forward.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments. She stated that she is in favor of the nonprofits.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she was as well. She commended Asst. City Manager and City Manager on adjusting some of the concerns Council raised about needing more capacity in Planning. She appreciates seeing increased opportunities in Public Works and Wastewater.
She wished it could be more but it is an excellent proposal given the constraints we have.
Councilmember Bigstyck echoed both those sentiments. He felt Asst. City Manager Carter did a job well done and he appreciated that she does it in coordination and harmony with the rest of the department heads. He thanked staff all for their effort and hard work. He thanked Councilmember Bier for pointing out that the contribution to Coast Pride is not merely a charitable contribution but they also provide services to our city and he felt it was right to remunerate them, given the services they provide to our city.
Councilmember Bier thanked him and added that she can bring information about that as well for us to see exactly what those services are.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested for Coast Pride to give us a presentation.
Councilmember Bier thought that was a great idea and she thanked Asst. City Manager Carter for all her work.
Councilmember Boles stated, when we talked about Fog Fest, she was hesitant to give that much money because we have already written off a fair amount of money last year as well, but she knows it is a struggle now with the reorganization and it is an important thing for our community. She stated that, if we think it is needed, she is okay with that, as well as the other organizations. She stated that, if we consider this in the future, we might think about, if the city is involved as a sponsor, what the other benefits are or how it works with our businesses.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 June 10, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed with her hesitation and regarded this as seed money and hopefully we would not have to discuss it next year.
Councilmember Boles stated that she knows there has been great feedback from the Climate Action and Adaptation Committee about the CivicSpark fellow and wanting to keep him for another year, and she was in concerned that we are only funding him for half-time. She asked if that means he is only working for six more months or he is only paid to work part-time.
Councilmember Bigstyck pointed out it is 11:53 pm and made a motion to extend to 12:20 am.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer seconded the motion.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:20 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the design of that is from a business need and that is the recommendation that the city wants and needs to keep that going forward and it also matches the interest of the employee. He stated that, in an ideal world, we would have enough to have a permanent position that continues on, but for now, in terms of completion of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, that is the business need that is necessary and he recommends for this next year.
Councilmember Boles understood. She stated that the budget for TOTs is about $3 million and half of that is TOT. It gives her hope that staff is saying that the salary things of $1.5 million were not too hard to absorb. She knows we are not deliberating on that now but she wanted to bring that up with a possible later change. She stated that this is the first year we are getting all the Measure Y and she did not think we have gotten an update on the Measure Y Committee and she wondered if staff could tell us how that is going and what their work is with overseeing those funds.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we have a committee meeting scheduled where the members will review last year’s actuals and development of the budget.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have any input or just making sure that the goals we stated as Measure Y are being fulfilled in the budget.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the Measure Y Committee does not provide input on the budget or on policy decisions, which are Council’s prerogative, but staff will update on how the money will be used for the general services, i.e., staff will update the committee members on all the work that Council has done to date on this.
Councilmember Boles stated that she will make a motion if no one has any other questions.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if a motion is required in this instance.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no motion is required.
Councilmember Boles thanked staff and appreciated the staff time that has gone into identifying potential projects and enhancements.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 June 10, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he fully expects, as per Planning Commission’s robust conversation around that one plot of land that would inform the coastal trail by Taco Bell, if he understands it, that there will be questions asked around that, and he asked that staff be prepared to answer those questions when they arrive.
Councilmember Boles agreed.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:57 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 4 - 0 (Absent: Vaterlaus); 8/12/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor