CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 June 26, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING
June 26, 2024 (WEDNESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on June 26, 2024 at 6:10 PM 6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the special meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Deputy Director of Community Development; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director of Community Development (via Zoom); Sarah Coffey, City Clerk, Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Also present: Christian Murdock, Former Planning Director.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bigstyck
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications is Intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act; adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications; directing the City Manager to transmit the Revised Certification Draft City Council Special Meeting 2 June 26, 2024
LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission for certification; and finding that approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications is Intended To Be Carried Out In A Manner Fully In Conformity With The California Coastal Act; Adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications; Directing the City Manager to Transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission For Certification; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP With Alternative Modifications Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to packet page 86. He stated that what is crossed out in the red line is “sustainable community strategy (SCS)” and written in above that is SCS without “sustainable community strategy,” and he would like to see it written out fully in the document.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed and thanked him.
Councilmember Boles thanked staff as a lot of work that went into this agenda was just given to staff the previous Wednesday so to incorporate it all and be ready for this meeting has been an incredible amount of work. She thinks it is important to start by explaining to the community how we identified the changes with different colors, and documented, especially in the table.
She stated that the column that was the draft alternative modifications that was the city’s suggested recommendations to the Coastal Commission’s recommendations appear to now include the Coastal Commission ‘s recommendations. She asked staff for clarification.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the changes from the last agenda to this agenda are reflected in the summary table as tracked changes as the red text. Anything that is red is new that was not included in the May 23 agenda publication. She stated, to explain what that third column is, she needs to go back to the coordination meetings that she and Mr. Murdock had with Coastal staff. She stated that the city has the 2020 version and we received suggested modifications from 2023. The draft alternative modification that is attached is what the city intends to submit to Coastal Commission to get certified. She stated that we have gone back and forth with them regarding specific texts, specific language, but the intention was always that the city was going to submit that text as our transmittal to them with the hope that they would be able to accept that text as submitted without having additional suggested modifications before they prepared this document for hearing. If we just did our draft alternative modifications, anything that has been discussed with them that they had suggested would come as a suggested modification prior to that hearing and we are trying to avoid that and trying to submit a document that can be accepted as submitted. She stated that the reason that we did not include that specific text that came from Coastal staff is because it was draft language and not finalized language. She stated that the language seen in column three is the finalized language that Coastal staff and city staff has agreed to thus far.
Councilmember Boles stated the tracked changes on the table are red but in the book the first City Council Special Meeting 3 June 26, 2024
chapter has red text, which she thinks are General Plan, and other chapters have green text.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed, and stated that, in the redline document, redline tracked changes are General Plan consistency changes that Council approved into the document in October 2023. She stated that, what is shown as green is the language that correlates to the third column in the summary table. Because there are so many edits in that redline LCP, it was a hard way to try to distinguish new versus old in those columns and it was decided that column three which is going to correlate with the green text in the LCP without having the different text versions seen throughout the different agenda publications.
Councilmember Boles asked about the yellow highlights.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that is the specific text that Coastal Commission staff requested that the city change that relates to General Plan consistency text. In retrospect, it would have been much easier to explain that language if it was included in the summary table, but at the time, it was determined that because we had never included General Plan consistency texts in the summary table, it might be confusing to do so now. It is essentially text changes that Coastal staff requested that we look at and we agree that should be changed because it either is inconsistent with some coastal policies or coastal acts or it seems unnecessary to have it.
Councilmember Boles asked if we will be going over those changes tonight.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that there were three policies where staff did not agree with Coastal Commission staff and asked if we would receive an explanation of why.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that what Coastal Commission staff asked for is in the summary included in the staff report, and we can discuss that when we go line by line.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, with regard to the colors, she wants to be sure she understood that what is red in the table turns to green when it is in the book.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she is correct.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, in the current version of this printing and attachment of the 2020 submittal, if the original changes from Coastal staff are clearly delineated.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes asked if she meant the suggested modifications for March 2023.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the very first one.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that those are the ones underlined with black.
Councilmember Boles stated that the staff report has recommended action to approve this document as is and it says that no alternative action has been identified and she wants to clarify, if we decide the SSRA policies are not something that the majority of Council supports, she assumes there is an option that we can modify the document to take those policies out.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council has the opportunity to make modifications if the City Council Special Meeting 4 June 26, 2024
majority of the Council so desires. She stated that the alternative recommendations in the staff report are staff’s perspective on what the alternatives being proposed are, and in this case, staff are not proposing an alternative but making a recommendation that Council go forward with the resolution. She stated that the statement in the staff report does not limit the universe of actions that Council can take, just the alternative actions that staff has considered, and for this particular case, the recommendation is to proceed with the resolution.
Councilmember Boles asked staff to explain that the golf course is San Francisco’s property and how does it relate to our Local Coastal Plan and are the rules in here applicable to the golf course also.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the San Francisco Golf Course is subject to the LCP and the policies in that document do apply to that site.
Mr. Murdock stated that one clarification is a portion of the golf course site is within the Coastal Commission’s retained permit jurisdiction and the Coastal Commission will refer to the city’s Local Coastal Program policies when reviewing coastal development permits in those areas, but they are not strictly bound by them, whereas, in the portion that is in the city’s permit jurisdiction as part of the certified LCP, those policies in the city’s LCP would apply to coastal development permit actions in those areas. He stated that prior staff report packets have included a map that showed that delineation and it is in the record, give or take half, for illustrative purposes.
Councilmember Boles asked if he could describe which half.
Mr. Murdock stated that the seaward half is retained permit jurisdiction by the Coastal Commission. He clarified that retained permit jurisdiction means areas that, under the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission is obliged to retain its permit jurisdiction and these are most commonly areas below the mean high tideline but often includes former tide lands that may have been filled in, like Laguna Salada or portions of the Pedro Point neighborhood. By statute, those are areas that the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction and permit authority cannot be conveyed to a local jurisdiction through a certified LCP.
Councilmember Boles asked if CCC will refer to our policies but not necessarily bound by them so if San Francisco wants to try something else but not compatible or coordinated with ours, they can advocate for that and potentially have modifications that do not comply with ours.
Mr. Murdock thought that was a fair statement, i.e., the city’s LCP policies would be advisory to the Coastal Commission. They are important and the city can communicate intent related to certain land use actions that have effect on surrounding portions that are within the city’s permit jurisdiction but ultimately the Coastal Commission will decide Coastal Act consistency, using the Coastal Act as the primary reference and the LCP as the secondary reference.
Councilmember Bier thanked Acting Dep. Director Cervantes for her presentation. She asked if it was correct that all of the red in the draft alternative modifications have been a collaboration between city staff and Coastal Commission staff.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was correct.
Councilmember Bier thought it was good to hear that the relationship between our staff and the Coastal Commission staff is greatly improved. She looks forward to talking about CR-I-42.
City Council Special Meeting 5 June 26, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she asked this question of staff earlier, i.e., the SSRA policy says “as soon as presented” to the California Coastal Commission, and there are so many levels of what presented and accepted are. She asked for clarification.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to staff’s answer to the mayor’s question about the property of Ingrid B. Lacy School that was asked at our last meeting.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, in the response that was provided to Council, the school district site is subject to the LCP as that middle school is in the coastal zone and the project may potentially trigger a coastal development permit. She stated that this site is located outside of the coastal vulnerability zone and outside of the tsunami inundation zones so some of the policies that were discussed, like the technical reporting, citing and design policies, do not apply to that coastal development permit, if and when it comes in. She stated that one thing to clarify is that appeal jurisdiction does extend to the east inland line of Palmetto Avenue so while the school site is not within the appeal jurisdiction, if they propose any work in the right of way, that might be within the appeal jurisdiction.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the buildings themselves are not in the appeal jurisdiction, but the right of way is, such as the street, gutter, curb, sidewalk, and perhaps the semi-circular driveway that goes up in front of the school and continues on.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed. She stated that it is a coastal zone but not an appeal jurisdiction so the city retains permit jurisdiction and no ability to appeal that to the California Coastal Commission.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that the policies in the document that pertain to substantial structural modification would apply but administered by the city.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano referred to CR-I-41 on the effective date of policies, understanding that, with the SSRAs, the revised language indicates that they will only be in force and effect when two things occur: one is that the city submits to the executive director the Initial Coastal Access and Resilience Program which Acting Dep. Director Cervantes discussed earlier, and the second is that the city has initiated work on the Shoreline Adaptation Program. She stated that, once those two things occur, then the SSRAs become effective.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, in regards to that, the trigger or defining action is, as she understands it, submittal of the plan. She stated that the specific question she had was, as with our own planning documents, there is a point where a physical plan is submitted and there is the point at which it is deemed accepted. She wanted to be clear on what the difference is with regard to this specific policy change or addition since their last view of the draft.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that this was something that was discussed with Coastal Commission staff to make sure that both agencies were in the same understanding. She stated that, in the policy submitted, the city has written that program, approved by Council, and has been submitted to California Coastal Commission for their review. She stated that there is no need for that to be certified or reviewed for the SSRA policy to go into effect. She stated that the trigger for those policies to go into effect is checking off both of those items, and that would be submittal.
City Council Special Meeting 6 June 26, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would like an explanation of what those policies or plans are and how they relate to what Council and the public have seen prior to this meeting. She stated that the reason she thinks it is important because these plans in tandem represent the statement of Pacifica’s commitment to adaptation strategies being implemented and mitigation strategies in our jurisdiction.
Councilmember Bier stated, regarding process, she thought it would be helpful that we mention packet page numbers and go in order by line.
Councilmember Bigstyck added that he wants to be clear on what Chapter 6 has become.
Councilmember Boles thought one possible idea to not go completely in order but start with Chapter 6 as they are the more difficult changes and then go back to the beginning.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer liked that idea. What she would want to do was, when a policy references back to another policy, like CR-I-2 notwithstanding, she wants us to through that.
She stated that she has circled a few words in some of the updates such as words like “full” or “commensurately” which she would like to review for nuance.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks our community has spent a lot of time focusing on nuance and we would not find any hesitation by him on that point. Regarding starting with item 6, rather than beginning with 1 and going through, he asked if Councilmember Bier was good with that.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she will go to public comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked her time about the time limit.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated 3 minutes. She then opened public comments.
Lisa Volosing, Pacifica, stated, as a lawyer, her head was spinning on listening to what Council is trying to digest. She then shared her concerns and thoughts on this issue connected with the golf course.
Jeff Volosing, Pacifica, asked Council to not approve the new revised plan and to look at all the alternatives.
Richard Harris, Pacifica, shared his letter on concerns and thoughts on this issue such as the golf course and housing.
Robert Downing, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on voting no on this issue.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the changes by the Coastal Commission which he considers a negative vendetta.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, asked that Council vote no on this plan and shared his concerns on this present proposal.
Jenifer Behling, Pacifica, stated she owns an apartment in Sharp Park district and is against this LCP and shared her concerns and thoughts on this issue.
City Council Special Meeting 7 June 26, 2024
Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, stated she provides affordable housing in Sharp Park and shared her thoughts on the work done on this plan and her concerns on this issue.
Chuck Gust, Pacifica, stated he is a property rights advocate, and shared his concerns on going forward with this plan.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated this is not the time to finalize their decision, and shared his concerns and thoughts regarding the status of this issue.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she participated in all their meetings and shared her concerns on staff’s change in direction on this issue and requested they pause and work together going forward.
Angel Silver, Pacifica, stated she finds this confusing and shared her concerns and thoughts on this plan and asked them to put this on pause and work with the community.
Laura Walsh, San Francisco, stated she is the policy manager for the Surf Rider Foundation and has attended Coastal Commission meetings for five years and works on Coastal Act issues and shared her thoughts on this issue.
Suzanne Drake, Pacifica, stated it is a long process and shared her concerns on the process and requested a pause or no vote and work toward a better place.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her positive thoughts on Pacifica, and concerns regarding the present process of the plan and thoughts for a better plan.
Frank Vella, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on the present status of this plan, and asked that they not move forward and come up with a better plan.
Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated after hearing so many comments on the city’s history, she wanted to address the land acknowledgment and suggested solutions on the city’s status moving forward.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated there were a lot of comments, none of which have advocated approving this document, and shared his concerns and thoughts on it and suggested rejecting it and working for proper revisions.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked that the people on Zoom to raise their hands now if they are going to speak so we can get an accurate number.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked them to raise their hands now if they want to speak on Zoom.
Councilmember Boles asked to give more time than we did Monday as some people got cut off when they wanted to talk. She thought we could let a few people speak and then stop.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano suggested another minute for them to raise their hands on Zoom.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a 3-minute recess. She then reconvened the meeting.
Dep. City Clerk La introduced the call-in speakers.
City Council Special Meeting 8 June 26, 2024
Stanley Lamport, California, stated he is a land use lawyer who represents clients throughout the California coastal zone. He shared his concerns on what he considered an extreme plan.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated the current draft is flawed, and he shared his concerns on the issues in the plan.
Tony Sadak, Pacifica, stated he was advocating for approving the document with the SSRAs in place, and he shared his concerns on the negative comments expressed and suggestions for working out compromises.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated she wished for a public process that will build consensus for the plan and expressed her concerns regarding the negative comments and the need for more time to have more clarity.
Kimberly Williams, San Mateo County, stated she is representing the San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation and stated that she has spoken in the past, and shared their chapter’s support of the Coastal Commission’s original recommendations and oppose the resiliency areas the city created.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated we have one card from the public.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated that she agreed with the majority of the speakers in terms that this is not ready and shared her concerns and thoughts with the process and changes.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Mr. Murdock referred to what Councilmember Bier said before public comments regarding the relationship with the Coastal Commission and how that has changed and evolved with time. He stated that, in his involvement since the 2019 timeframe, working on the LCLUP through the end of his employment with the city earlier in June 2024, the relationship at the outset was not ideal as we were talking past each other, agency to agency, exchanging letters and not striving to reach understanding and that continued through 2020 until the Coastal Commission put on paper its recommendations with respect to what would be essential for Coastal Act compliance.
Since that March 2023 milestone, the trajectory of that relationship has changed immensely.
Where there was a significant chasm between agencies and staffs, now there is a closeness and that is what we have been working towards in terms reaching common understanding, compromise, and mutual goals with certification of an update to a more than 40-year-old Coastal Plan and all that comes with that. He stated that, it is with that spirit of collaboration and working towards compromise that we worked hard to try to address a number of the issues that the community expressed.
Mr. Murdock continued that one important theme we have heard throughout the series of meetings have been concerns from residents in the Fairway Park neighborhood and feeling like the city is leaving them to defend for themselves, and he thinks that is not the goal of the policies that have been developed and have evolved through the process. He stated that, specifically, efforts have been taken to revise those policies through the course of this process in response to that feedback. He stated that CR-I-16 related to additional flood protection and gets to the heart of the key hazard issue that affects that neighborhood, which is not coastal erosion but flooding and there are policies supportive for flood mitigation projects. Additionally, CR-I-40, which gets to specific mention of closing the Clarendon gap with the BBIRP project City Council Special Meeting 9 June 26, 2024
which would go a long way in their assessment of addressing that coastal hazard from flooding.
He stated that the city has taken that feedback and tried to address concerns to protect that neighborhood.
Mr. Murdock continued that other commenters suggested stopping negotiations with the Coastal Commission and each time we talk to them it gets worse. He stated that each time we talked to them, we reached greater understanding and compromise and efforts to try to reach each other’s goals in a constructive way. When thinking about things getting worse, he thought it was staff’s assessment that, over time, things will get worse systematically. If we start from 1976 and fast forward to today, there was a period of time where the Coastal Commission was much more receptive to shoreline protection. He stated that its own attorneys in litigation would argue that existing development means it is there today and that interpretation and policy position has changed and become more restrictive and less permissive in armor over time. He thinks there is a case to be made from the staff’s perspective that getting an LCLUP with this much compromise, and indicated by even representatives of Surf Rider Foundation that they have not seen such an LCLUP before, where armoring might be allowed in development to be undertaken in reliance on shoreline protection, and this is a compromise approach that has been laid out in the policies. He stated that locking that in a certified LCP would make it much more difficult for the Coastal Commission to continue to ratchet up restrictiveness on policies applicable in the coastal zone in Pacifica.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Mr. Murdock made a statement that we seem to keep reaching greater understanding. He stated that, when this document came out and he took his first glance at it, the first impact does not feel like a greater understanding. He asked to explain how it is a greater understanding than the last time we were discussing with what looked like a different document.
Mr. Murdock stated understanding means critically understanding what it will take to get a certified LCP supported by City Council as well as by the body of the Coastal Commission, not Coastal Commission staff. He stated that getting the Coastal Commission staff to support to recommend approval to the Coastal Commission is critical and we need to understand what that will take, just as Coastal Commission staff needs to understand what it will take to hopefully get the City Council to support a revised document. He stated that what it means to him is a give and take required to allow each agency to approve this document. He stated at the heart of the document is a compromise that gives us something that reflects our community’s needs with these carve-out areas and the special shoreline resiliency areas as well as the Coastal Commission’s needs to sell this as Coastal Act compliant because it is a tradeoff, narrowly tailored, and it commits the city to doing critical shoreline adaptation planning over a longer time horizon. Right now, the city gets additional time to do that. When he talks about getting to a shared understanding, that is what these changes reflect, that we are trying to meet each other’s needs as an agency so we can each get to a place of mutual agreement on a very complex subject matter.
Mr. Murdock continued on the point of the claim that we should disengage. History has proven that the Coastal Commission will get more restrictive and this is, in a sense, an opportunity to lock in today’s degree of restrictiveness to whatever extent that is perceived and, in fact, to get a first of its kind of carve out approach or neighborhood level approach for Pacifica. To the other point made by the commenter, he would agree that the City Council should engage with the legislators in Sacramento as that is the essence of the issue that the law is such that the Coastal Commission has the ability to interpret coastal protection and existing development in a particular way that he thinks Pacifica is not particularly enjoying over time. To that end, if there City Council Special Meeting 10 June 26, 2024
is a successful legislative solution, the city can avail itself of that in an amended LCP at that time to align with that more desirable legal framework. Until then, we would have a compromise approach reflective of existing law as it is today, which we have to accept for what it is.
Mr. Murdock continued on a concern from one commenter that it feels like this plan is letting Pacifica fall into the ocean and he thinks that is a characterization that he would not make in regards to this plan. What this plan does is reflect and recognize the very dynamic and often hazardous condition that exists in our coastal zone and try to acknowledge that reality and take constructive steps to address it in a reasonable way. In some places, that means supporting ongoing shoreline protection and in other places it means setting back new development to protect it from the hazard that we understand now; and in other places, to think about how the shoreline might adapt over time where opportunities are available to do so to take development out of hazard’s way in a way that is responsible and protective of life and property.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there was a lot of negativity expressed here tonight and stated for the record, in response to a public commenter, that she does not think the Coastal Commission or its staff are terrorists and she thinks they are reasonable people who are trying to find a path with us. She stated that they have a jurisdictional responsibility under the Coastal Act, and it is true that operationally over the decades they have been allowed to and have engaged in interpretation of what specific sections of the Act mean. At times, that has been reinforced by the legislature. She stated that it is a complex document. She stated that what she has experienced over the last few meetings with this project a level of the vitriol from the community that has been shocking. She thinks she has not said anything because she is so used to it now. She knows there is a sense that we are just making it up, that staff and coastal staff have been working collaboratively, and she appreciates Councilmember Bier for bringing that forward at the beginning of this meeting to discuss it. She appreciates former Planning Director Murdock for reiterating that, and she knows that some in the audience do not believe it, but she does as she has seen it. She has been in the room and on the calls, and she is attesting to the fact that there is movement. She has not been doing this work as long as some of them, and she thanks them for the work they put in to get us to the point when she got involved. She supposes that we all have an origin story where it is meaningful for us and for her, that point was at a very contentious meeting that happened at our Community Center about our adaptation strategy plan. She wants to establish that we are trying to work together with people who are trying to do the best job they can. It is important to her to also state that the approach we are referring to as carveouts, SRAs, or SSRAs did not get invented by Pacifica city staff. This happens to be the first time that it is being applied in an LCLUP update that she is aware of. She stated that things that look like it have happened before, but never with this intentionality on the part of coastal staff working with local staff. She shared that August 8 is the day where the neighborhood scale adaptation planning approach is going to be discussed at the Coastal Commission meeting by all of the Coastal Commissioners and the Local Government Working Group. When the agenda comes out, there will be a draft document that gives a good overview of what that is meant to be, not necessarily what it looks like in Pacifica’s initial attempt, and she thinks it is important for people to understand the grounding of where that comes from. There was reference to the change in the public resource code that resulted from Senate Bill 272 and our last commenter referred to that and the new guidelines that are resulting from that will be coming out at the same time. They will be receiving new sea level rise updated guidelines from the Coastal Commission, also coming out in August. She stated that it is not the final document that is required as the deadline for that is December 31 but it is timed with the Ocean Protection Council release of the most recent available science. She stated that it is all happening at the same time that our process is happening. She thinks we have the opportunity in to think about timing. She thinks we also have to think about our tone and City Council Special Meeting 11 June 26, 2024
relationship with each other and with our partners.
Councilmember Boles thought what she just said is so important and the crux of Council being able to do their work. She thought people do not understand that the Coastal Commission has a mandate to help them with sea level rise and that is SB 272. She stated that none of that is in this document yet and those are the next steps, i.e., to start brainstorming what our vision is and what different options we have. She mentioned at Monday’s meeting was NOAA staff about bringing some education about nature-based solutions. She stated that we cannot have a vision until we have more information. She stated that she has been frustrated with the staff report before Council now because it is so much new information. She feels like she has been trying to understand it and work through it. She thinks she has worked through Chapter 6 enough to at least be able to ask good questions and get more understanding for herself. She hears the frustration from everybody and it is Council’s job to help build that understanding and help educate them and help them understand what the Council is doing for their particular neighborhood and how it is affected. She thinks what we need to do now is to go through it, understand it, ask questions, and come back at another time. She stated that is the whole point of this; we have the Coastal Commission’s modifications and trying to add some language, change a few words, to make sure that they work in our community.
Councilmember Bier stated that is what we are here to do at this meeting, i.e., to understand it and talk about it thoroughly so that our community can understand. In order for everyone to understand, Council needs to get into talking about it. She thinks she finally has a grasp and it is a good idea for us to get going and talk about it so we can clearly describe it to our community and they can understand a little bit better that we are here to protect them.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed and stated that the timing is the present moment and how we process that through to a conclusion. He looks at the potential urgencies of this moment in time and he wants the tools to prevent them from falling into the ocean, sooner than later, and he wants to verify that is what these tools are and verify the correct balance.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, at the end of the last meeting on this, she was ready to go forward, with six meetings at that point, and she has been to every single sea level rise meeting there was. She stated, when she ran, she wanted a sea wall to protect the people in Pacifica, the homes, businesses, people who live here, not so it goes in the direction of managed retreat.
She stated that we have gone through it many times, and she agrees with the audience that she thought we had finished everything and went through every detail and then things get changed.
She stated that the document is not perfect and never will be. She stated that we can strive for that, but we are not as we are all human and we try our best. Everyone was all here because we care about Pacifica. She asked about process for this meeting.
Mr. Murdock stated Modification No. 6.1 starts on packet page 33 for the chart of modifications.
Councilmember Boles added packet page 245 when looking at the full document.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified how we want to move through these. He stated that there is Modification No. 6.1, the green draft alternative modifications. He asked if Council wants a quick staff explanation of that. He stated that some of them Council has already gone through but we want to make sure if there are any final changes to it. They will be clear about that, but he asked what would be the most efficient way to proceed.
Mayor Vaterlaus did not think going over every single little detail was efficient.
City Council Special Meeting 12 June 26, 2024
Councilmember Boles thinks we need to go over all the ones that have red. If anyone has a question about another one, they can be asked.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that Council did look at Modification Nos. 6.1 to 6.5 on May 23. She stated that, if everyone is comfortable, she can skip to the first red line.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer had a question about Modification No 6.2A. She stated that the crux of this, if she understands it, is where we are looking at Coastal Act policy in relationship to the terminology in our document, SSM.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was correct.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to understand why the statements about the right to protect private property may not correlate to this. She stated what is important is where the properties are sited, i.e., our vulnerabilities. She wanted to ask that staff help Council where staff see those divergences or Council will tell staff where people have concerns. She is going to put it there for this particular policy so she can come back to it and staff can help them with addressing those things. She asked why we need an SSM, why can we not live with what is in the Coastal Act the way it is, and why must it be modified. She thought it is important to establish the framework.
Mr. Murdock stated that a number of factors need to be considered with respect to development in the coastal zone. He stated that development is regulated by the Coastal Act and requires a coastal development permit, and approval of a coastal development permit requires Coastal Act consistency and consistency with a certified local coastal program where one exists. He stated that there are also other more fundamental rights and Asst. City Attorney Bazzano can speak more to a qualifying position in terms of the constitutional rights to protect property referenced and how those relate to the statutory limitations of certain rights in the coastal zone through the Coastal Act. He stated what the substantial structural modification definition was trying to do is recognize that there is something between a vacant site and existing development that may remain on the site in perpetuity. Initially, when that development is approved and has a coastal development permit, it is understood to be a certain thing, i.e. a one-story home or five-story apartment building; development evolves over time and there is a point at which that development becomes something other than the development that was initially approved. If that is new development under the Coastal Act, it needs to meet certain requirements. What this definition is trying to do is calibrate where that tipping point is, where you had enjoyment of the development that was approved consistent with the policies and requirements at that time and now it has become something so different than was what was originally approved that we consider it being something like new development and it needs to qualify and comply with different policies of today as opposed to the policies of before. He stated that is the heart of what the substantial structural modification definition is striving to do. He stated that, admittedly, this is something beyond the Coastal Act, as it is trying to interpret, implement, and give definition to a rather amorphous concept of evolving development after the initial approval. He stated this is the approach that the Coastal Commission staff endorses and believes the Coastal Commission can find it consistent with the Coastal Act. Some of the fundamental elements of this definition come from the residential planning guidance and sea level rise planning guidance about 50% thresholds. It is a pretty grounded approach in land use law, the 50% threshold that comes up in all sorts of different scenarios in the building code and other non-conformity type zoning provisions, etc. He thought there could be other parameters, but this is what the Coastal Commission staff supports and what the Coastal Commission has historically endorsed as a City Council Special Meeting 13 June 26, 2024
Coastal Act consistent approach. City staff have worked hard to try to shape that particular definition and specific exceptions that would trigger the definition to meet our community needs, taking community and Council feedback, such as accessibility, upgrades, seismic upgrades, solar panels, electrical rewiring, etc. and trying to clarify that those types of routine projects would not trigger the substantial structural modification definition and doing all staff reasonably can in negotiations with the Coastal Commission to meet our community’s needs but recognizing the reality of achieving Coastal Act consistency through this process with the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that 50% threshold has a grounding in conventional planning wisdom outside of where it is currently pertinent to our conversation in the coastal zone.
Mr. Murdock agreed, adding it is akin to the foundation of much of our government with majority rule and the majority of your structure has been modified; it is that more-than-half majoritybased approach that informs this construct for the SSM definition.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is true in the building codes. She stated that you start to remodel your house more than 50% and you have to do structural upgrades first. She stated that the codes from when you permitted something years ago have evolved. The idea is that you are putting enough money in doing enough work to it that it is time to bring it up to code.
She thinks that the Coastal Commission is looking at it the same way. She thought there was still come confusion that the substantial structural modifications apply to every property in the coastal zone, not just in coastal hazard areas, and they need to be brought into compliance.
Mr. Murdock agreed, stating that the issue is that the consequence might be more impactful such as if you are in a coastal vulnerability zone, because other policies that need to be complied with apply in the coastal vulnerability zone to address hazards as an example. He stated that this is a concept that is not limited simply to the coastal vulnerability zone.
Councilmember Boles thought it was in someone’s interest if something is hazardous and you can pull it back so it is not so hazardous then it is better for you.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer noted the concern and pain point in our community on this issue is that it is not in harm’s way. It might be, depending on how you interpret the science, depending on a timeline, but now it is not.
Councilmember Boles stated that it depends on the technical reports.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, saying that evaluations and determinations rely on technical reports maps and assessment of vulnerability.
Councilmember Boles stated technical reports are expensive but they will tell you what you specifically need for your site and can help you.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to be sure everybody understands it the same.
Councilmember Boles stated this policy is about exemptions. If there is a disaster, you do not have to do it, as it does not count as an asset there.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if we are moving to Modification No. 6.5A, packet page 35.
City Council Special Meeting 14 June 26, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated she has a question on Modification No. 6.3, packet page 34. She stated that this the city’s modification, not the Coastal Commission’s modification. She read, “However, because the coastal vulnerability zone map shows significant erosion for areas that are protected by existing shoreline protection structures, the maps highlight the protection provided by the structures.” She objected to that before because the maps do not tell how much protection you are getting, only that there is something there. She would like to suggest rephrasing to “the maps highlight the existence of potential protection provided by the structure” instead of “the maps highlight the protection provided by the structures”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the term “potential” seems to conflict with the fact that it is there.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is there but not necessarily providing protection. She stated that it is implying that the structures provide protection and they might not always.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated the point of the policy is that there is currently protection in place and we are accounting for it at that level as it is supposed.
Councilmember Boles stated that we just tore down bluff facing armoring that was causing harm to the beach below. She thought it was misleading, but she can also let it go.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated asked if there are three councilmembers that support this proposed amendment.
Councilmembers Bigstyck and Bier disagreed.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Coastal Commission staff might have further objections following their review.
Mr. Murdock stated that, in staff’s discussions with Coastal Commission staff on this point, they had proposed to delete the statement entirely and City staff argued that this was important to Council to reflect the importance of protection provided by the shoreline protection structures and we made the statement more objective whereas previously it was saying the need to maintain and keep the shoreline protection.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it sounds like there is not support for the change from a majority of the Council and we will leave it as is and move on.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated starting at Modification No. 6.5A, taken together with Modification Nos. 6.5 and 6.5B, what this policy does is eliminate some of the original language that the city has proposed and it creates the new policy shown in Modification No. 6.5b. She stated that the intent of the policy is the same but the new text that we see in Modification No.
6.5b refines it and calls out specifically Appendix B, the coastal vulnerability maps that need to be updated.
Councilmember Bier stated, for clarity, they can be mapped outside of the vulnerability zone but then they could still be in the vulnerability zone. She stated that does not make sense to her.
Mr. Murdock thought this revision is trying to address the following example: imagine the city drags its feet in the future through one or two cycles of 5-year updates to the sea level rise projections and imagine that those projections showed increasing levels of sea level rise and City Council Special Meeting 15 June 26, 2024
coastal erosion, flooding, etc. He stated that this policy would not allow the city to undercut the coastal vulnerability zone concept by failing to act for whatever reasons, including staff, budget, policy reasons, etc. He stated, imagine a project gets to Coastal Commission on appeal, and they would be able to use the best available science to say that failure to update these maps has not revealed that this area is within the vulnerability zone or subject to a hazard, and thus people treat it as though it was in the zone and the map update had been performed. He stated that is the intent behind this.
Councilmember Bier asked if the opposite could be true.
Councilmember Boles thinks that statement should be deleted.
Mr. Murdock stated that it is hard to clearly state that the opposite is true in this instance. City staff did strive to make that revision with the Coastal Commission staff and they had concerns about disagreements among experts and too many loopholes and inconsistency in the application of the policies. He stated, if we were to play devil’s advocate, to some extent you can hire an expert to say whatever you want, and he thought Coastal Commission staff’s concern is that there will be the go-to coastal engineer that, for the right price, will conclude that your property is not subject to a coastal hazard. He is not sure that is the best argument to undercut what seems like a very reasonable approach but he thinks that is one of the concerns that the Coastal Commission staff had.
Councilmember Bier stated, if we are able to close the Clarendon gap, reduce the flooding in Fairway, and change the maps, the vulnerability zones change.
Mr. Murdock thought this shifts more emphasis to the mapping process; whereas we may have historically been relying on broad city-level data to inform the regular map updates and felt like it is a reasonable approach, this puts the onus on the city or property owners at that stage to submit their expert evidence that can go through the public process and can say that their broad modeling based on the state’s data is inaccurate in this location because they have done further technical study. There is also a vetting process. He thinks there is still a reasonable way for City Council to respond to the concern; it will just be pushed up front to the mapping process rather than a project level determination.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what attaches to the last bit of the phrase “then such application shall be reviewed as though such development was located in the coastal vulnerability zone”. She stated that it will be viewed like it was, and she asked what that means for that person, that development, that project, that it would not have meant before.
Mr. Murdock stated that, if you were within a reasonable period before new best available science is there, he did not think it means much and the city has a way to rebut attempts to expand the coastal vulnerability zone. He stated that, for whatever reason, if a future City Council chooses not to update the coastal vulnerability zone maps to reflect the 2029 Ocean Protection Council sea level rise guidance, etc. He stated that this is a safeguard to ensure that the intent of this policy to identify hazardous areas is still effective. He thought the reality is that the city would be a good actor and regularly update the maps, and this last text was not likely to have much of an impact.
Councilmember Bier thought it was important to update the maps constantly.
Mr. Murdock stated, within a short period of time after the next update comes out, the map City Council Special Meeting 16 June 26, 2024
updates are going through the Coastal Commission process and there is a record to show the city is using the best available science.
Councilmember Bigstyck was reflecting between the document we have and what we would be asked to submit if we were to submit it at this time. The 44-year-old document that we were currently working under does not hold us to any particular standards whereby we need to update aside from the various amendments that we are constantly asking for. On the other hand, the latest version of this document says you have a new document and it is alive. He stated that there is something there that says that it is based on the science we currently have and to keep updating that. He likes the small blurb that potentially says to close the Clarendon gap at which point that science changes to the benefit of that neighborhood. He likes what is built in there is at some point it is expected within a five-year period there is a trigger by which it is expected on this timeline that it would update itself.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the impact to the applicant. She asked if there are certain stipulations and requirements, through the planning approval process, that would attach to their project that would not have before.
Mr. Murdock stated, as we talked about earlier and Council recognizes, it is not beneficial to act as though someone may not be in a hazardous location and not allowing them to make a fully informed decision about significant financial investments; therefore, to think it is a benefit to an owner who actually is in a hazardous location to be treated as though they are not, from his professional opinion, it is not doing them a service but doing them a disservice. To the extent that the city does not undertake a regular map update but then through some appeal mechanism, the best available science shows they are in a hazardous location, that is a safeguard from his perspective that at least it provides that factual science based disclosure of the hazards that may impact that property so that the development can be considered and designed appropriately to mitigate and minimize those hazards or to avoid them if there is an opportunity to do that.
Councilmember Bier stated it is our obligation when people are not in the vulnerability zone to make sure that everything states that they are not in the vulnerability zone.
Councilmember Boles stated that is why she kept pushing for updates on the tsunami map because that is putting a lot more people in the vulnerability zone that were there before.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes moved on to Modification No. 6.6A. She stated that the text seen on the document was deleted as an additional suggested modification and this policy used to be called sea level rise adaptation plan. What has occurred is that the sea level rise adaptation plan text has been incorporated into CR-I-5, and this policy has been turned into the guiding principles for development in the coastal areas and development in the coastal vulnerability zone. The city previously had this list of what we expect the developments to have to meet in our coastal vulnerability zone; the text aligns with other policies in this chapter and has been turned into the guidelines. She stated that the language has been turned into the guiding principles for development in the coastal vulnerability zone and the intent is still very similar to previous texts that Council has seen.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the previous text that Council had seen is still here for them to review and double check that for themselves.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed, clarifying that it is in the red line document and she can City Council Special Meeting 17 June 26, 2024
see where the crossed out text is.
Councilmember Boles read that CR-I-2B states “to avoid, where unavoidable, to minimize and commensurately mitigate to the maximum extent feasible”. She stated that she does not know what that means.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not know what it means either.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked Councilmember Boles what packet page she is on.
Councilmember Boles stated it is packet page 36 in the table, which is in page 258 in the book.
She stated that there is a word missing in the book which is on this page. She stated that she found a few inconsistencies, stating that “commensurately” is missing in the book. She stated she may feel better without that word as she does not know what that means.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would like to have an understanding if staff can recall what Coastal Commission staff’s specific comment was on why the insertion of that word.
Mr. Murdock thought what this means to Coastal Commission staff is that commensurately means “related to” or “appropriate for”. He stated that perhaps they feel like “commensurately” adds some qualification or descriptiveness to the mitigation that are commensurate or related to or appropriate for the hazard in that sentence.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this is a word that is an equivocator, so what they are saying is you can minimize and mitigate something but the extent to which you are mitigating might be different than the extent to which you are minimizing or vice versa. He stated that the suggestion here is that the minimization and mitigation are more or less on par.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that they may match the hazards so, whatever the hazard is, it should that the way you minimize and mitigate should match what the hazard is.
Councilmember Boles asked if the summary table is the primary document that Coastal Commission staff reviewed and not the book.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the summary table is the correct version.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when you look at the glossary, i.e., yellow highlighted areas, when they look at mitigate as mentioned now, it is crossed out. She asked staff to explain why that yellow part is all crossed out and there is not a different definition.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the comment regarding the mitigation and mitigation measures in the glossary was crossed out because the definitions that we have there that were incorporated from the General Plan really speak to CEQA mitigation and CEQA mitigation measures. In the document itself, we do not talk about CEQA in that term and it did not make sense to have definitions for mitigation and mitigation measures that were for CEQA purposes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed that this language came from the General Plan.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes confirmed those two definitions came from the General Plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked why Coastal Commission does not want its own definition of City Council Special Meeting 18 June 26, 2024
mitigation.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she is unsure if that is not a suggested text change.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer noted mitigation is crossed out and adaptation is added in, and she wondered if it has to do with the plan.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the shoreline adaptation program used to be the shoreline mitigation program.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it was related to that at all.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she can see the connections.
Mr. Murdock stated that is one theory. He stated that the bigger point in discussions with Coastal Commission staff is that there is concern that historically there has been too much focus on mitigation and not enough on avoidance and minimization of hazards. Coastal Commission staff do not want the default to be hazard equals mitigation and want to exhaust the ability to avoid it and then to minimize the exposure and, only as a last resort, to mitigate.
He stated that, if you think of adaptation instead of mitigation as furthering that intent, he thinks it is reflective of the approach to avoid minimize only as a last resort commensurately mitigate the hazard.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that, in discussions with Coastal Commission staff, she thinks Coastal Commission staff’s primary intent was to make this language consistent with the Coastal Act as much as possible and to balance some of the different provisions of the Coastal Act in a way that made sense. She stated that the terms they are adding is to reach that goal, i.e., to make that effort and see a document that is as consistent with the Coastal Act as possible. She thinks that is why the one-off terms that are added, so they can feel it is something they can support when they present it to their Coastal Commission.
Mr. Murdock stated that avoiding hazards is a priority and a preference expressed in the Coastal Act and only these other steps taken if there is no way to do that.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, if Council feels strongly about wordsmithing individual words, Council can do that and staff will note that; we will end up running the risk that, if Coastal Commission feels strongly about those words and their intent to be consistent with the Coastal Act, we are not going to adopt this and certify as submitted a document and they will have to open that up and discuss those.
Mr. Murdock stated an adopted as submitted approach is the strongest position in which the city’s LCP can be presented to the Coastal Commission. In effect, it shows that we are in lock step with the Coastal Commission staff and city staff’s assessment is that it minimizes the potential to some important extent that Coastal Commission is likely to then begin tinkering or second guessing that approach. He stated very often, if not in most cases, when an adopted as submitted LCP amendment is taken, there are generally no further revisions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that he is recommending that Council, in three instances, do deviate and he believes that they will still be able to have the wherewithal to make a recommendation to approve as submitted.
City Council Special Meeting 19 June 26, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the comments that were made to us were not changes that were needed for Coastal Act compliance, and she thinks the changes were made because of policies that Coastal Act wants to see or, for reasons that they think certain things should be in our Implementation Plan versus in our LCP. She stated that staff thinks we can get them to an understanding that we need certain revisions in these policies in that definition because we have discussed it. She stated that staff thinks we can reach an understanding to have those three specific items be submitted as staff is proposing.
Mr. Murdock stated it is in the Coastal Commission staff’s interest in this instance, as this being on the forefront of a new approach, to come in on a very strong position with the city. Where we have very good reasons, in those few instances, to deviate, it will be up to the Coastal Commission staff if they want to give up the strength of that approach for this adopted submitted posture to get those very few revisions. He stated that will be up to them to decide if Council supports staff’s recommendation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer acknowledged the fact that their procedures are such that, once Council decides after much communication and submit, they have already said it will be a 2-3 month minimum period. She imagined that a staff report is being written, terms are being defined and questions answered, that ultimately they go with and recommend that they approve as submitted. She stated that she wants to make it clear that there will still be a process. She stated that the issue about the ability to recommend that it be approved as submitted and she needs to set that over so that we have the ability to hash it out and understand it the best we can. If we ultimately find that we need to change it, then we will have to cross that bridge.
Councilmember Boles stated that there is not anything stopping Council, and if Council makes some changes, staff can go back to Coastal Commission staff to mention what Council is pushing for and is it acceptable. She stated that we can have another dialogue before submitting what we think they want.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that iterative process depends on if or when the Council wants to adopt the resolution to submit. If Council gets to the point of adopting this resolution to submit, we do not have an iterative process with the Coastal Commission staff.
Councilmember Boles stated that she saw the Modification No. 6.6 question further down and she is okay with the words inserted.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it makes more sense every time she reads it. She stated, if you use the word commensurate like you did when you were talking about A, you get more pay if you have more experience.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought part of the concern around the idea of carve-outs and SSRAs, and underpinning all that armoring, is that mitigation and adaptation in their coastal plan, it needs to be a real thing. She would like, if possible, at those points, to take a hard look at the language as she does not want a word here or there to end up obligating us for something bigger than we think it is, but their point of view is different.
Councilmember Boles added that we have to read in context the other points that are not in the table that tie into what is in the book.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
City Council Special Meeting 20 June 26, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated this whole section is about development in coastal vulnerability zone, including new constructions, substantial structural modifications, and hazardous areas, such as the SSRAs. She read “to assure stability and structural integrity without reliance on shoreline protection devices” to be conflictive.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added the part that was crossed out, “for the anticipated life of the development”.
Councilmember Boles stated that this policy is about development, the new development and substantial structural modifications in coastal vulnerability zones, and those coastal vulnerability zones include our proposed SSRA. She stated that the item is saying “to assure stability and structural integrity without reliance on shoreline protection devices”. She stated that is one of the points they want to make sure new development complies with.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added any development. She read “development located in coastal vulnerability zones may only be approved if such development measured over its full anticipated life is sited, designed, and conditioned to do these five things”. She stated that this was language that was in the original document.
Mr. Murdock stated that, if the concern is that it is contradictory, there is other policy language that talks about specifically development in the SSRA and being able to rely on it. He stated that there is more particular language addressing the SSRA.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in other places, there is always a “but this does not apply in the SSRAs”. She stated that, if we are approving the SSRA, that needs to be in here; otherwise, there is a conflict.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and asked, when it is referenced back to the SSRA, are we supposed to put the language “except in the SSRA”.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the last bullet point does need “except in the SSRA”.
She stated that we will add that as an alternative modification.
Mr. Murdock confirmed that a majority of the Council will support that.
Councilmember Boles referred to Modification No. 6.7, CR-I-3, and asked if Coastal Commission staff have said anything about when we need to start the monitoring shoreline change.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she is talking about the biannual shoreline survey.
Councilmember Boles stated that the second comment says that it references the city’s adaptation plan and that may need to be changed to shoreline adaptation program. She stated that she does not have a comment but it does not say when we are starting, i.e. ten years. She is hoping we start the shoreline monitoring program soon.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was a good point.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is not a specific component of the shoreline adaptation program, which is a different thing. This is a requirement that would start upon certification of the LCLUP by the Coastal Commission in the first year.
City Council Special Meeting 21 June 26, 2024
Mr. Murdock stated, where there may be an outer deadline, there is nothing to prevent the city from doing something sooner if we are able to prioritize the resource that works. He agrees with the City Manager’s interpretation that it would be from certification and effective date of the policy in the absence of any other provided timeline.
Councilmember Boles asked if it should say shoreline adaptation program instead of city’s adaptation plan.
Mr. Murdock confirmed shoreline adaptation program.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we do not need to identify those minor points. In terms of making the modification to the resolution, if Council decides to proceed at this meeting with adopted resolution, we would not need to identify specifically those typos or labeling or identification errors, as those would be non-substantive and would be cleaned up by staff. She would not track that for purposes of if and when the resolution is considered by Council.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wants to circle back to that at that time.
Councilmember Bier stated if it is cleaned up as we would like it to be cleaned up.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it was helpful to understand if this is a part of that program that we are discussing substantially view policies down the road or if this is apart from that program.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there is specific reference to CR-I-3 in the next policy. She stated that CR-I-3 is part of a package of implementation actions that need to occur to implement other policies. She stated that CR-I-4 essentially lists most of the policies of the implementation action and it says the city will implement the policies and use what we learn from these policies to inform our program. She stated that she can read Modification No. 6.78, which states, “The city shall assess implementation of the LCP coastal resiliency provisions at least every five years for such assessment shall at the minimum consider the following: the efficacy of such provision as protecting and enhancing the city’s beach and shoreline area resources, critical infrastructure and other build in natural environment features, update sea level rise projections and risks; the potential need to revise coastal resiliency measures and/or to implement new measures, including review of emergency engineering, science and technologies, funding needs and potential funding sources; the results of the city’s shoreline monitoring program, CR-I-3, shoreline adaptation program, CR-I-5, adaptation funding efforts, CR-I-6, consideration of an LCP transfer development rights program, CR-I-7, critical transportation infrastructure efforts, CR-I-8, hazard permanent infrastructure effort, CR-I-10, high water mark efforts, CR-I-11, flood ordinance and LHMP consistency efforts, CR-I-11 and CR-I-15, additional flood protection efforts, CR-I-16, groundwater monitoring effort, CR-I-17 and transportation efforts, CRI-18. The city shall use such assessment efforts to form the basis for LCP updates and changes to better address coastal hazards in a way that can protect and enhance bluff, shoreline, offshore and sandy recreational areas for the public and enjoyment while ensuring all development, including private structures and public infrastructures are safe from coastal hazards as much as possible, both now and in the future.” Mr. Murdock added all of which is to say it is a required feedback movement for periodically revisiting the various key coastal resiliency policies.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is not a particular document that we are reviewing and City Council Special Meeting 22 June 26, 2024
updating.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wonders about the reference to coastal resiliency measures and asked if that is in our previous document and/or is it defined in their glossary. She asked if those measures are contained within the plan.
Mr. Murdock stated he is trying to understand the specific meaning of this relative to her question.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it is not in the glossary.
Mr. Murdock stated that he would generally understand that term to mean any of the actions taken, whether shoreline protection, sand replenishment, offshore sand retention, structures, etc., as various measures to aid with coastal resiliency in evaluating their efficacy and whether emerging science, engineering, and technology might change the menu of options and identify options that are more effective, less impactful, etc. He thinks it is meant to be a general term, rather than a specific defined term, but we can consider a definition if that is needed.
Councilmember Bier stated she would like to understand how this came about in this section.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that Council may recall previous agenda packages included the shoreline mitigation program and it was a short paragraph that essentially said the city is going to plan for the future, take sea level rise adaptation measures, and do it within three years. She stated some Councilmembers and members of the public expressed that it was vague and City staff went to Coastal Commission staff and said we need a little bit more information of what that entails, what does the program look like, and this is the outcome of that.
She stated that there was back and forth with Coastal Commission staff to ensure that what they see today, and city staff is comfortable and believe they can meet these requirements within ten years of the certification of this document and it is similar to the requirements that the city needs to meet for sea level rise planning. This is going to inform that document.
Councilmember Boles stated it is excellent and she is excited about this Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this articulates the work that we should be doing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that point was made by Surf Rider previously in a different meeting that, regarding the notions included in the neighborhood approach, the issue at hand was in some way the implication that we were just going start natural adaptation now when there is nothing stopping anybody from doing it all the way along.
Councilmember Bigstyck added that a lot of work has gone into, not just trying to protect the neighborhoods, but ultimately trying to find a way to protect any neighborhood. He stated that this says, regardless of this policy and whether or not the community can agree on it, with that orientation in mind, we are also orientating themselves in such a fashion that we are trying to do their due diligence around the entire coastline. He hopes that, where an SSRA in one area is not available to us today, by virtue of doing the amount of work that is articulated, it will help us to better protect tomorrow.
Councilmember Boles has one question regarding “the program shall be consistent with and help support and implement the Coastal Act and resilience program developed for CR-I-44…” and asked if she is correct that the Coastal Act and resilience program is just for the SSRA.
City Council Special Meeting 23 June 26, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that program is not just for the SSRAs but it is a requirement of the SSRA.
Councilmember Boles thought those were the mitigations for the SSRA.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is a citywide plan that is required for the city to adopt and submit and then that is one of the two check items to make the SSRAs go into effect.
Mr. Murdock stated that it is related to the SSRAs but it is not geographically limited to the extent of the SSRAs, so those activities, public access enhancements, etc., can occur anywhere in Pacifica but it is happening because of the SSRA.
Councilmember Boles stated that the CR-I-44 is only required because of the SSRA.
Mr. Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that she wants to put a pin in it if the SSRAs go away, then that sentence goes away. She stated that it was not clear that CR-I-44 was the mitigations for the SRAs because it is not labeled as such. She stated that the new CR-I-44 is called coastal access and resiliency program. She does not think it says anything about the SSRAs.
Mr. Murdock stated that he thought it was not necessary at the outset even though it is discussed below in subparagraph C, “special shoreline resilience areas”. He stated that we know it is a requirement today but this is a package together; unless we were to begin pulling out specific sections that we know are related to other sections, it stands alone without particular hooks to the other policies. He stated that they are both needed to function in a way that the document is designed and structured currently.
Councilmember Boles stated that she wants to understand, if SSRAs go away, then that sentence goes away and maybe item C goes away.
Mr. Murdock thinks that is one logical consequence. He stated that there is nothing limiting the city from doing a coastal access and resilience program without the SSRAs but it is a big commitment. He said there is nothing to prevent the city from undertaking good projects in the coastal zone as part of the CIP for example without obligating itself to the CARP without being required to do so.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the funding available are specified in Senate Bill 272 and through OPC to underwrite the cost of doing these things. She stated that is the grant funding available to us when we have a certified LCP and we do not have access to it without one.
Mr. Murdock stated, to frame this SSRA discussion to offer an alternative perspective, he thinks it is reasonable to expect that the Beach Boulevard sea wall in its current form and potentially in the BBIRP form and the Rockaway Beach revetment and sea wall component, such as they are in any circumstance, will be there for a significant period of time. What we are talking about is getting coastal zone enhancements that everybody would benefit from, from a condition that is already going to be there to some extent. He stated that it seems in that sense that is a net positive for the community that they get these SSRA policies, a condition that was going to be there already, and the city is improving the coastal zone for residents and visitors in furtherance of the SSRAs.
City Council Special Meeting 24 June 26, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there are a lot of people who understand and are clear about the need for the sea wall. What we have not articulated is the adaptation and coastal resilience and access opportunities that will be spelled out in these plans. She thinks that is what everyone has been asking for on the coastal side and looking for as a balancing component of this.
Councilmember Boles stated that, even looking at the sea wall itself, we talk about commensurate mitigations and that is why we are having to do all those improvements to Beach Boulevard and the Park to offset the sea wall and the damage it causes to the coast otherwise.
She stated that we are already doing some of those things as part of a project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Boles is satisfied with the reference.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively, and she added that she loved that we are talking about triggers again and about understanding that adaptation happens not at a set time but in response to the changing coastline and changing hazards.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes began Modification No. 6.8A, packet page 43.
Councilmember Boles stated, regarding packet page 40, Item B, “evaluate phase adaptation approaches for the special shoreline resiliency area,” another point she wants to make is that it also talks about evaluating phased adaptation approaches or special shoreline resiliency areas.
She stated what she was hearing before was that building a sea wall and this is a line we are keeping forever, and that is not what it says here. She stated, at some point, that line needs to be evaluated and she thinks that is good as the hazards are going to change. She stated she was just pointing it out and does not need to change any of the text. She referred to “sandy beach areas” on Item D, regarding “specific beaches and recreational opportunities,” and she asked why Esplanade is not on that list.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks these are the priority beaches that were identified but the text does say “including but not limited,” so it is intended to be all the beaches citywide.
Mr. Murdock stated his recollection is that the Coastal Commission staff suggested these are priority examples as they already have significant wide sandy beaches whereas many parts of the Esplanade area often do not, depending on the tide. That is why south of the pier is referenced as that is where the wide sandy beach is currently and it is a priority to keep that in that condition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it is going to be tied into a study that OPC is doing now, evaluating all the beaches in California, and the health life expectancy conditions, etc.
Mr. Murdock stated that what has emerged over time with the Coastal Commission staff is a recognition that, even without shoreline protection along a particular segment of a beach, and there are certain sea level rise scenarios, that certain sandy beaches today will not be sandy beaches in the future, with or without shoreline protection. The question is if there are other ways to provide coastal access in those locations and is it better to put a focus now on areas that will persist so they are preserved and enhanced and not put resources into areas that will be under water. He stated that was a study that was referenced further with some additional scientific information.
City Council Special Meeting 25 June 26, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes referred to Modification No. 6.8A with some minor revisions to the city’s policy related to transfer of development rights and what the modification does is clarifies that this is a priority for the city to implement this ordinance that is existing and have possible sites within the coastal vulnerability zone to transfer their development rights to sites outside of the coastal vulnerability zone.
Councilmember Bier asked how you do that.
Mayor Vaterlaus added who in the coastal zone wants to transfer their development out of the coastal zone into some place that has nothing to do with the codes.
Councilmember Boles mentioned the possibility of being in a hazard area and not being able to build anyway.
Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned the house on Esplanade. She stated that they tried to move and basically do a transfer of development rights and they worked at it for a year and could not do it.
Councilmember Boles stated that they did not find anybody willing to sell and that is why you need a program if you are going to try to do it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that you cannot make someone sell it to you.
Councilmember Bigstyck had a question on packet page 43 regarding TDR and what ours currently is and what would seem a more helpful approach. He stated this policy wanted to explore ways in which the transfer of development rights ordinance could be applied. He asked if they were asking that hoping that we can crack the code or just a matter of this is a thing we must always be keeping our eye open to try to solve.
Mr. Murdock stated “improve” would be the starting point, not solve, as transfers of development rights are challenging. He stated that there is some expertise in the planning community emerging, particularly as climate change becomes more acute and wildfire danger has expanded the geographic extent of where TDRs make sense, whereas in the past, it has been thought of more narrowly, along the coastal line or in flood areas. He stated, from the standpoint of improving where we are today in Pacifica, one example in our current ordinance that he thinks falls short is the timing component. He stated that our current ordinance requires the sending site and the receiving site to be known and coordinated at the same time which he thinks is a practical challenge. An example is a coastal bluff site that is in danger and the need to find somebody who is ready to develop at the same time and come to the city’s process successfully. He stated that there is a fundamental mismatch there that he thinks some work could help to improve, whether it is banking or some other mechanism, where someone can get out now with their hazardous property and have an opportunity to realize the economic use of a synchronism point in time in the future. He stated that is one simple example of how the current ordinance could be improved and there are a growing number of resources and expertise to leverage when the city gets to that process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he was able to give him one example of how we might be able to start satisfying this makes him feel a whole lot better about what he initially read.
Mr. Murdock understood, adding that another example is potentially incentivizing with multipliers currently to a one-to-one trade but in a particularly hazardous area, the city could incentivize with a 2 or 3 times multipliers so that one unit becomes three and the economic value is much City Council Special Meeting 26 June 26, 2024
greater to the purchaser of that development right. He stated that there are a number of ways the city could improve its ordinance with that thought process.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed Council consensus with that provision.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Boles heard from some community members that the community is relying on Council to explain what everything is and they have asked a few specific questions.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there is something that she feels we should be explaining.
Councilmember Boles thought they asked how it came about and what the intention is, so staff could answer what is the intention of this policy, how much work is it for the city, etc.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we are talking about the shoreline adaptation plan CR-I-5 which begins on packet page 38. He stated that it is a long and involved and detailed work to analyze conditions, develop a new adaptation plan, etc. He stated that the good thing about all the detail in it is that the Coastal Commission has outlined the scope of work that the city staff is doing to trigger the SRA is going into effect: we would identify funding, apply for grants, put out an RFP for consultant assistance to design, conduct robust public engagement, and go through all of the aspects of creatively looking at how is Pacifica, for decades to come, to plan for adaptation and coastal resiliency. He stated that is the high-level summary of it. He stated that there is a lot of detail in the scope, but it is a very robust study. All the cities up and down the coast in California are going to have to do this or some version of it in the future and that is what the shoreline adaptation plan program is all about.
Councilmember Boles stated, for clarification, regardless of the SRAs, this is work that is required to do in our Local Coastal Plan and adaptation planning. She stated that, even if we did not have the SRAs, we would still be doing this work as this is the integral part of sea level rise planning for future changes.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we could but it would not be a requirement in the Local Coastal Plan.
Councilmember Boles asked if his understanding is it is not required if we are not doing SRAs.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is not required in our current Local Coastal Plan.
Mr. Murdock stated that some version of this will be a consequence of SB 272 and we are getting a jump on that if this is carried forward now and gets the city the added benefit of SSRA as certified by the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles stated that people are saying ten years and somebody made a comment that we were going to get something done in a year, but the year was to start something, not to have a plan ready.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that all we have to do to invoke the effectiveness of the SSRAs is to begin this process. That means scoping it out, putting it out for consultant contract or designing it, identifying funding, planning for grants, etc.
City Council Special Meeting 27 June 26, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought she read that we have to submit a plan.
City Manager Woodhouse stated no, it is just beginning the process.
Councilmember Boles thinks that is clarified a little further.
Mr. Murdock stated there are about 30 more redlined items in Chapter 6, not including several additional that are proposed for deletion that do not have remaining substantive text; there is a consideration for time and he is thinking about how Council may work through the chapters. He stated that Chapter 6 objectively has a lot of critical content and we should try to move through it efficiently but effectively and we propose, potentially for Chapters 1 through 5, to take those as exceptions; if there are any specific questions but perhaps not to work through them diligently in the hope of getting to some sort of outcome at this meeting if possible.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she is getting a little fatigued and asked if we want to save time for tonight’s meeting to complete it.
Councilmember Boles agrees that we need to be fully alert as these are complicated things.
She is okay going for another hour and a half or so but she doesn’t see them finishing.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that our normal stopping point is 11:00 and that rule applies.
He stated that we can see what feels right when we approach that hour is his suggestion.
Mr. Murdock stated that staff will do their part to key these up efficiently and, where there is a need, we can spend more time and where not, we can move forward in the interest of time.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, for Modification No. 6.10A, it is just a reference correction and the last portion of that policy. In Modification No. 6.11, that policy was deleted, as there is similar language elsewhere in this chapter that we will discuss. She stated that, for Modification No. 6.12A, the Coastal Commission staff suggested that they eliminate all the subarea policies and condense them. She stated this was one of those policies that was condensed and all the language that was in those sub-area policies is included here and we specifically added language that refers to the golf course to address the issues that we had discussed earlier related to the golf course and through that the Fairway neighborhood.
Councilmember Bigstyck read that language on the golf course: “Additional flood protection measures the city shall evaluate the need for additional flood protection measures which may include Clarendon Road and/or West Fairway Park storm water basin, pump station and/or interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee to help protect homes and businesses.” He stated that this is what was brought back for this meeting, which was explicitly that the interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee is helping to protect homes and businesses, and that is what Coastal Commission staff in collaboration recommended should be included.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has seen plans that were done by San Francisco that she thinks included these levees as they are not defined anywhere here. One was at Fairway Park and it included moving the pump station closer to Fairway Park building and building a berm there so that the golf course flooding does not go into the neighborhood and there was also a berm that separated Clarendon from the golf course because that flooding of the sea water is also affecting the golf course and stopping that transfer of water back and forth and putting another pump station in there.
City Council Special Meeting 28 June 26, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is a habitat area that is riddled throughout the golf course.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is always aware when the phrasing says “which may include,” it is a possibility. She stated we need to be clear on what the language says and she celebrated that it is in there.
Councilmember Bier thanked Councilmember Boles for bringing up the plan as the more we talk about all the different strategies that are out there to protect that neighborhood the better off they are.
Councilmember Boles emphasized building the partnerships. There was a question of how San Francisco been engaged in this, and she is not sure we have been talking to them recently officially, and we need to because these are issues that affect us and together we can solve them.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for Modification Nos. 6.12B and 12C, they are very similar and are policies that were in the sub areas and have been condensed and placed at the beginning portion of this chapter.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if this is part of something we do anyway, “evaluating the need for dewatering wells.”
Mr. Murdock stated that he is not aware of any PW activities that have done that to date.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it was new terminology to her as well.
Councilmember Boles stated that she flagged that also, and she does not know what it means in practice, as in the old version this was in a sub policy for Sharp Park in particular.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it was not Linda Mar.
Mr. Murdock stated it was reflecting the need to address saltwater intrusion into ground water as a consequence of sea level rise.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that his observation of the Coastal Commission is that it is a thing with them, even though it does not seem to particularly pertain to us.
Councilmember Boles stated that she knows of other communities down the coast as well.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if it was Santa Cruz County or Monterey County where their water district is dealing with a major issue because of how much they pumped out of their aquifer and there is total saltwater intrusion threatening their water supply.
Councilmember Boles added that Pescadero is struggling.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated Modification No. 6.13A is cleanup of the title as well as the cleanup of that first chapter, and Modification No. 6.13 in the middle of that page is another cleanup language to reflect the changes. She stated Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15 is a cleanup because the policies have been moved to the end of the chapter.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if you look at the next page which is the continuation of that City Council Special Meeting 29 June 26, 2024
policy, part of that text is not crossed out at the top of the page.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that is an error as that whole paragraph is supposed to be deleted. For Modification No. 6.17a, this is the policy that was transferred to the beginning of this chapter. She stated that it is the same for Modification No. 6.22, the policy that was deleted from the sub area policy and moved to the top of the chapter. She stated Modification No. 6.23 is a policy that was removed from the sub area portion and taken to the end of the chapter. She stated that the same thing for a number of these modifications. There are sub-area policies that were removed and replaced in other portions of the chapter. She moved to Modification No.
6.41, packet page 53 for the table and packet page 276 for the whole document. This is the technical report policies and the changes were to update the language to reflect the 2024 OPC data.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it specifically called out intermediate high which is called for with regard to certain infrastructure projects that have a very long life; the way it reads, it looks like it applies to all development and she asked if she is misreading that.
Mr. Murdock stated that the intent is for this stated projection to apply to all development and the intent was also to identify the new title of the projection that corresponds most closely to the former medium high. He stated that we can double check to make sure they have the closest correlation as staff believed it was intermediate high, but if not, we will change it to whatever corresponds to medium high.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to follow up on that as it is brand new, and she wants to make sure that what we are putting into their documents is understandable.
Councilmember Boles had a question about what intermediate high meant and how it compared to the sea level rise numbers we have in there now. She stated that it is site specific but it would be a 75-year design life, which is the minimum for residential rates and commercial, is approximately 4.9 feet of sea level rise to 2100 where the current maps assume 5.7 feet for 2100. She stated that it is still a lot of sea level rise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated this is part of evaluating the best available science as it continues to roll out. She stated that projections could go the other way and we need to be continually updating this and evaluating that and not fixing it at a point in our LCLUP and ultimately make sure they keep tying it to the site.
Mr. Murdock stated that the theme throughout the various policies are 5-year increments for the most part which is the interval of these updates at the present time.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated moving along to Modification No. 6.43, which clarifies what the safety factors are for bluff tops development and development that is in danger of some coastal hazards as well.
Mr. Murdock explained Modification No. 6.42 which talks about the SSRAs and saying within those we can consider shoreline protection in the course of reviewing development. He stated that, effectively, that is the same accepting type of language that we are going to move up in the earlier policy.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has a couple of questions on the language. She read “bluff top and/or shoreline development to be set back with sufficient distance from the bluff top City Council Special Meeting 30 June 26, 2024
edge or highest predicted waterline, accounting for wave run up, highest astronomical tide, storm surge and other relevant factors, not less than 25 feet or as determined by site specific conditions”. She stated that is an “or,” so this does not say you have to be at least 25 feet from the bluff edge and there is no minimum setback from the bluff edge.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes believes the intent was to have the 25 feet be the minimum buffer or as determined by a site-specific conditions analysis that would determine a greater buffer.
Councilmember Boles suggested “or more as determined by site specific”.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Councilmember Boles was saying 25 feet might not be the right number or it might be more.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure 25 feet is a hard minimum.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it says “at least”.
Mayor Vaterlaus added “or as determined”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks a suggestion would be that we could say “and at least 25 feet or greater or more as determined by site specific conditions”.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like that. She read, “To avoid coastal hazard risks to the maximum degree possible while ensuring stability and structural integrity in light of potential erosion and other coastal hazards where such minimum required setbacks shall be the distant necessary for all structural development, including any decks, fences, patios, arbors and other ancillary development and generally not including native landscaping, minor grading for landscape restoration purposes and other similar nonstructural development.” She was thinking about the Esplanade armoring project. Right now that design shows the fences right at the bluff edge so that would not be allowed, and some patios that were within 15 feet and that would not be allowed. She wanted to point that out, and also hearing all the comments from the golf people, there are some exceptions here, including “native landscaping, minor grading for landscaping restoration purposes and other similar nonstructural development”. She stated that this is an exception in bluff areas and why can that exception not apply at the golf course or other areas that are not bluffs.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that this policy is specifically for bluffs.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that s the specific policy does state bluff tops and/or shoreline development. She stated that the golf course is a shoreline abutting site so this is a policy that can apply. Additionally, there are other policies in Chapter 6 that will allow for minor development in shoreline areas; that includes minor things that can be removed or things that would not require coastal development permits. She stated that there are ways that work on the golf course is exempt from these policies and exempt from coastal development permits and that regular maintenance is currently exempt from coastal development permits and they will continue to do so unless the city changes its implementation plan. She also wanted to highlight as we are talking about the golf course that the clubhouse itself is outside of coastal vulnerability zones so all those policies that apply to coastal vulnerability zones do not apply to the City Council Special Meeting 31 June 26, 2024
clubhouse unless, in the future, that zone expands inland.
Councilmember Boles asked if that is true of tsunami risk.
Mr. Murdock stated that it is in the tsunami evacuation area, but the efforts we are expecting to undertake with the map updates are very likely to reduce the footprint of that.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if it is evacuation or inundation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought inundation.
Mr. Murdock stated that the tsunami evacuation area is the map we have in there now which is the maximum extent you would expect. He stated that we expect the tsunami inundation zone variation to have a smaller area of inundation and the potential exists for that to be outside of the tsunami area.
Councilmember Bier suggested creating a list that gives the golf course the bullet points of what would apply to them.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked staff if we are able to accommodate that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, regarding the various policies that pertain to the golf course in terms of regular maintenance, if we can have a call-out list that we can zero in to where those are. She wanted to come back to this inundation versus evacuation and the maps. She understands what we are saying and it may not be included once those maps are redone, but she wants to understand what our position is or how can we provide some security around this since we do not have the maps and have not identified what epic we are trying to map to.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes clarified that the policies we discussed about the technical reporting and the siting and design apply to coastal vulnerability zones and do not apply to the tsunami evacuation zone or tsunami inundation zone. The only policy that refers to coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones is the new CR-I-21, coastal hazards risk disclosures. Even if the clubhouse were to come in and require a CDP, the technical reporting, the siting and design that is triggered in a coastal vulnerability zone would not be required. She stated that it could be required that coastal hazards risk disclosure. She clarified that there are policies in Chapter 6 that pertain to development in coastal vulnerability zones and those are the policies related to the technical reports that are needed to determine the hazards and how to site and design them; CR-I-19 and CR-I-20 are the critical ones that will dictate designs in these areas and those policies are not applicable to the clubhouse because the clubhouse is outside of the coastal vulnerability zone. If the clubhouse is within the tsunami inundation zone, CRI-21, which is the coastal hazard risk disclosure, would apply to any coastal development permit there.
Councilmember Bier stated that we do not have that map, so we do not know.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier stated she is uncomfortable with that.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we know the clubhouse is outside the coastal hazard vulnerability zone.
City Council Special Meeting 32 June 26, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the part we do not know is whether or not there is a risk disclosure necessitated because of whether or not it is an inundation zone. He asked what is the difference, if any, between a deed restriction and a coastal hazard risk disclosure.
Mr. Murdock stated that, first, it is publicly owned property. In the event of this disclosure, the golf course property is not likely to transact to some other private party. He added that whether, by some measure such as sea level rise projections or other changed conditions in the future, this ends up in the coastal vulnerability zone at the clubhouse or in the tsunami inundation zone, the hazard then needs to be assessed, avoided if possible, but most likely it cannot be avoided because the building cannot readily move as a historic resource, and can the hazard be minimized or commensurately mitigated then. He stated that could be a number of other solutions. He stated that it could be that interior levee that stops the likely tsunami and provides flood protection for Fairway West. There is an analysis that would be required and should be required if it is in a hazardous location. He stated that the heightened importance of the building as a historic resource all informs the approach taken to address the hazard in that unique circumstance. He reiterated the hazard disclosure. This property is not likely to transact to a private party where the concerns from a lot of the community has been impacts the property building as this is a publicly owned piece of land and the property value is not particularly important in the traditional context, and with that aspect of the hazard disclosure that a lot of the community has been concerned about, he is not sure what difference it makes for a piece of publicly owned property such as the golf course.
Councilmember Bier stated that her concern was about the maps and West Fairway Park; the change in those maps is important for us to understand who is in and out of the tsunami inundation zones.
Mr. Murdock stated that, functionally, there is not an opportunity at this meeting to have the maps. With the City Manager’s direction and guidance on this, staff is taking early steps to get the maps updated so that will catch up. He stated that we cannot control whether it is in or out, as it is the fact of the best available science and taking steps to try to update the sites, but in or out is a matter of science and facts at this point.
Councilmember Boles thought someone may want to delay their project until the maps are out.
She stated that it does not affect you until you are doing a substantial structural modification.
Mr. Murdock agreed and added undertaking new development.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in the case of the clubhouse specifically, the question is it is not in the vulnerability area and, while there needs to be a disclosure as it may very well be in the inundation zone, there is nothing to stop them from upgrading as they need to.
Mr. Murdock thinks that is right. Under a worst-case scenario, they would then have to analyze the hazard and attempts to avoid or minimize or commensurately mitigate, all of which will have a variety of options that will allow the golf course operation and clubhouse to continue in some fashion, but may require some additional interventions to mitigate or minimize the hazard.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what additional interventions mean.
City Council Special Meeting 33 June 26, 2024
Mr. Murdock stated berm, drain, pump, deflection wall, etc.
Councilmember Bigstyck restated if we are noticing that there is a hazard and they are fine to upgrade but we need to them make these additional upgrades to make sure they are safe while upgrading.
Mr. Murdock responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated what she understands is that this whole additional hazard vulnerability zone came about in our recent update and policies pertain owing to that that expanded the area because of tsunamis. She said, with the terminology of tsunami inundation zone, she does not know how we are exactly defining that, such as only related to the map.
Mr. Murdock agreed, and stated there is a proposed definition of tsunami inundation zone which gives the example of a comparable 475-year average return period tsunami event to inform the map update which would then presumably shrink the area that is subject to that risk disclosure requirement. He stated that we are not going to get to a precise outcome. Council has given policy direction with the definition to strive to shrink the affected area to that which would be subject to a more probable tsunami event than essentially the worst case tsunami event that the Coastal Commission’s tsunami evacuation zone would have caused.
Councilmember Boles thought the technical reports were required in coastal vulnerability zones which included a tsunami zone. She stated Acting Dep. Director Cervantes said it does not, and the text only says coastal vulnerability and then CR-I-21 says coastal vulnerability and tsunami inundation. She concluded, if you are in a tsunami zone, you do not necessarily need to do these technical reports if you are doing a new building or a substantial structural modification.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for the first part, substantial structural modification is not triggered by coastal vulnerability zone but triggered by being in the coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is the expanded area she was talking about.
Councilmember Boles stated that the coastal zone is the whole coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed with her, but before it was the vulnerability zone and then it was expanded to the entire coastal zone. She stated that the implication is that the hazard we were referring to are infecting the entire coastal zone exactly the same way which it is not. She added that the SSM restrictions pertain to that definition of the coastal zone; when we are talking about the tsunami calculation, we greatly expanded it. She thinks this gets to some of the issues about what is warranted in terms of nexus and what is the basis of these expanded policies or requirements.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes clarified that policy CR-I-19 technical reports and CR-I-20 siting and design, as originally written, apply to shoreline development. She stated that the suggested modifications from Coastal Commission staff expanded it to coastal vulnerability zones, not the entire coastal zone but the areas that are mapped as having coastal hazards. She stated that the reasoning is that those coastal hazards extend beyond the shoreline development. She stated that we have the maps that show that those coastal hazards expand inland in some areas a couple of hundred feet, so it does not make sense that shoreline development needs to do technical reporting and address these coastal hazards designed to address these but the property right behind them that has the same coastal hazards does not. She stated that is why City Council Special Meeting 34 June 26, 2024
City staff agrees that it is important that all the properties within the coastal hazard zone address those coastal hazards and protect life and property. She stated that the policy that does apply to the full coastal zone, the substantial structural modification, has always applied to the entire coastal zone and there have been no modifications since the city’s 2020 version that changed the application of that policy; it has always been coastal zone wide.
Mr. Murdock stated that the consequence is the most important if your substantial structural modification occurs in the coastal vulnerability zone, in which case, you are doing additional analysis and modification of the property to avoid, minimize, or commensurately mitigate the hazards. He stated that it all gets back to using science to reflect the reality of the hazard and, at some tipping point, you are more new than you are existing and you need to comply with the new policies, including hazard related policies.
Mayor Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mr. Murdock referred to packet page 54 in the matrix, packet page 276 in the binder. Council is hitting on one of the core issues in the LCLUP update and the Coastal Act and, for better or worse, the 2020 LCLUP approved by Council took a very aggressive approach at trying to limit the effective area of hazard related policy requirements to, in turn, be very pro-development.
He stated that they saw that the Coastal Commission staff felt like that was inconsistent with the Coastal Act and, on further analysis and discussion, city staff agrees that there is a very strong basis in the Coastal Act for the Coastal Commission staff to insist on reasonable, scienceinformed hazard related policies when it comes to development. He stated that the approach here where there are mapped hazard areas of coastal vulnerability zones, informed by the best available science, provides a very strong and supportive basis for the Coastal Commission staff to recommend Coastal Act consistency related to development and substantial structural modifications that effectively make existing development turn into new development for these policy purposes. That is where staff’s recommendation is coming from because it reflects the wealth of supportive position in the Coastal Act and it reflects the best available science such as the theme carried out throughout the LCLUP.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded, if you are in the coastal zone, you change the structure by 51%, you now live in new development.
Mr. Murdock stated essentially yes, but that is most impactful if you are in the coastal vulnerability zone because you are looking at hazards which you may not have had to do previously or the hazards may have changed, becoming more significant in affecting your property; some property owners may not like that outcome, but as a matter of policy, we spent a lot of time in these meetings saying is it the right thing to allow an owner to proceed with development without acknowledging dangerous hazards. He stated that is a core governmental function, a core role for the city to protect public health, safety and welfare, and Council needs to think very carefully about whether we are doing that by ignoring known hazards that are mapped using the best available science. He asked, as much as its impactful consequence to City Council Special Meeting 35 June 26, 2024
have these policies apply, if it is the right public policy outcome to force people to confront applicable hazards. They may not be immediately applicable, but they are expected to be applicable during the anticipated life of the development; it is difficult to swallow to confront those hazards for the first time, but is it the right public policy outcome. He stated that the Coastal Act suggests it is, the Coastal Commission staff suggests it is in their interpretation and application, and the city staff’s work to this point has reflected that as well.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in terms of the conversations he has had with Coastal Commissioners, that is where their mind is at.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added it is not just an acknowledgment of the risk by the property owner that was considering undertaking the modifications but also that it is recorded against property so subsequent buyers or interested parties looking at the property understand that there were modifications that caused a deed restriction to be reported against the property and they will understand and be able to read the acknowledgment of the coastal hazard disclosure to understand the risk.
Councilmember Boles stated we give people information so they can make a financial decision.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding that they understand that they are buying the home and it had modifications done at some point, and that acknowledgment that is recorded against the property will be something that they have to adhere to as well.
Councilmember Boles stated that the acknowledgment against the property is only if there is a risk area, not everywhere in the coastal zone.
Mr. Murdock agreed, clarifying coastal vulnerability zone and non-inundation zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that everywhere in the coastal zone is new development and in the hazard zone is where you have to acknowledge the hazard.
Councilmember Boles noted you have to do the deed restrictions in tsunamis but not the technical report.
Councilmember Bier stated that we still did not talk about the difference between deed restriction and hazard.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is a good point.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes asked if there were any additional comments on Modification No. 6.43.
Councilmember Boles wanted to clarify one more time. She stated that it does not mention tsunami so the technical reports are not required and asked if staff can pull up map and the Appendix B3, the coastal vulnerability zone for Sharp Park. She asked staff what is the coastal vulnerability zone and what is the tsunami zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the tsunami evacuation zone and the tsunami inundation zone it is not mapped on the exhibit. It only has the coastal vulnerability zone map.
Councilmember Boles concluded that the clubhouse was not subject to flooding or erosion.
City Council Special Meeting 36 June 26, 2024
Mr. Murdock noted a limitation of the data in the figure that may be smoothed out and improved in the map updates.
Councilmember Boles stated, for the people concerned about the clubhouse, even if it is in the tsunami zone, it is outside the coastal hazard zone and the coastal hazard zone might get less, not more, right now with the new science. She stated that the clubhouse does not need any of these technical reports, which is her understanding.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mr. Murdock stated, to play out the scenario, this is a historic resource and it is not clear what project could be undertaken, or would likely be undertaken, that would trigger a substantial structural modification to change this historic resource. He stated that it is difficult to imagine a particular scenario that would so change the clubhouse anyway.
Councilmember Bier stated it was just information.
Councilmember Boles stated that we have had more questions about that than anything else.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, what Councilmember Boles just said, add to it, as that is one of the possibilities.
Mr. Murdock stated that is a possibility and he is just clarifying that there is a supposition that we do anything to the clubhouse and we are in this difficult situation. He does not think that is true.
If you trigger substantial structural modifications, then perhaps; is it in a coastal vulnerability zone, not currently, but it could be in the future; is it in the tsunami evacuation zone, yes, they think so; and will it be in a tsunami inundation zone, we do not think it will likely be. He stated that all these avenues lead to very low probability scenarios where the clubhouse would even be affected by these policies. He thinks it is supposing the wrong likelihood of an outcome from a policy standpoint.
Councilmember Boles stated that, for now, the fact that it is out and even if it is in the tsunami zone, the only implication is that they have to do the risk disclosure.
Mr. Murdock thought it would include a waiver of rights to future shoreline protection, potentially, but coastal erosion is not the applicable threat for at least 100 years or more.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was going to say that answers the question for a governmentowned historic resource. She stated to apply all that to what staff said before about the Coastal Commission not budging on this and SSM is the way they are interpreting, including all the deed restrictions, disclosures, waiver of liability, etc. regarding the SSM 51%.
Mr. Murdock stated that, to his knowledge, it is not in the Coastal Act. As discussed earlier in this meeting, the Coastal Commission is taking a step to provide further clarity in their role and the authority they are delegated to interpret and implement the Coastal Act, drawing some boundaries around what development can be at a point subsequent to the initial approval. He stated that, if you were the Coastal Commission and you approve a 2000-sq. ft house and understand the impacts and hazards, etc., today, and fast forward 50 years, that home now has a second story, an addition, and is a 4000-sq. ft house, that may have a different range of impacts or, at that point in time, be subject to different hazards than were considered and City Council Special Meeting 37 June 26, 2024
evaluated 50 years prior. He thought the Coastal Commission is saying at some point, if you fundamentally change the original development, you need to evaluate again the applicability of hazards and consistency with policies that reflect the best available science as it is known today. He stated that the Coastal Commission has drawn that line at 51% modification, the SSM threshold. He stated that there can be other approaches to doing that, but it is reasonable at 51% and aligned with a lot of other similar types of thresholds in related laws such as discussed in the building code. He asked, with that threshold of 51%, if we are likely to prevail on some other standards, and he did not think so but we could try. He stated that we have little success in prior efforts with the Coastal Commission, including in 2020, to take very aggressive alternative approaches. The city can spend years more trying to pursue other alternative approaches that may be assessed at a low likelihood of success. He stated that living with the 51% now, what we have done to try to address Council’s and community’s concerns is putting in reasonable exceptions and clarifications that say these things are not going to be tallied up to the 51%, such as retrofits, etc., of well-meaning requirements and codes, and minimal property improvements, for the avoidance of doubt for the community. He stated that we have had success doing that with the Coastal Commission.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, in other words, it is a deal breaker.
Mr. Murdock thinks that is right under the current law, and as commenters and others have said, pursuing a legislative agenda is a viable strategy but that is a longer term and very uncertain approach. If we want to move forward and get all the benefits of an updated LCLUP today and the near future, while Council is working the legislative front potentially, these are some things we will have to stomach and live with in the spirit of compromise and overall update process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, should the legislature prevail in changing some element of the Coastal Act that would apply to an updated document, should we update the document, would that presumably de facto amend the document or would be the first step in the process of requiring the city to apply for an amendment to the document once that legislation was changed.
Mr. Murdock agreed, stating that the particular mechanics need to be evaluated at the time. It provides a basis and opportunity for the city to amend the LCLUP to be consistent with the new law which would provide some clarity on what existing development is or what the permissible trigger is to be an SSM. He stated that we may expect more incremental changes than revolutionary changes, but anything can happen when it comes to legislating and that is part of Council’s role as legislators and politicians to push that if that is the desire of Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in the meantime, we can absolutely advocate for changes to the law that we believe are in our best interest and the best interest of the rest of the California Coast, but while we are advocating for the changes that we think make sense, it also makes sense to have a document so we can get the city’s business done while simultaneously trying to make business better as parallel tracks.
Mr. Murdock stated he would agree with that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we cannot resolve this beyond explaining it; there is not an answer to this where we can propose a word change or two that is any prayer of having an impact. She stated that she keeps going back to the basis for it and the answer that she received is because of hazardous conditions. She understands the disclosures with relationships to the hazardous condition but she still cannot get over the 51% because it is no more hazardous if it is 75% than if it is 51%. She stated that it is halting the ability of people to City Council Special Meeting 38 June 26, 2024
enjoy their property and that is a hard thing. She stated that this is part of the fuller community discussion because hearing the tradeoffs or the benefits, it is hard to hear those because they are not evident. She stated that this is why, in large part, we see hesitancy if not refusal or unwillingness to dive into the LCP. She posed the fact that Senate Bill 272 requires them to do so does not resonate well. She stated that we are not going to solve it tonight but that is something she is going to circle back with our legislative partners.
Councilmember Boles asked, thinking about a project outside the hazard zone, what will it mean to someone who wants to remodel their home, regarding substantial structural modifications.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that what the policy says is that if you trigger the substantial structural modification at 51%, you would need to address non-conformities on your entire site. She stated that, at the last meeting, Council had directed staff to insert language into that policy that would have exceptions, and we would need to correct non-conformities that were related to ESHA, coastal hazards, and coastal issues. Staff did put that language to Coastal staff and Coastal Commission staff recommended this new language that we see at the bottom of this policy. She stated that the new language recommended essentially allows properties to do substantial structural modifications. Even if you trigger that 51%, you are still required to correct non-conformities but only if they are directly related to coastal hazards. She stated that it is not an overall blanket requirement that you needed to address non-conformity associated with development standards, uses, lot sizes, parking, etc.
Councilmember Boles stated that she said coastal hazards, but it is coastal resources, which are more than coastal hazards.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed that she meant coastal resources. She stated that Council directed and proposed language in there that reflected ESHA, habitat, etc. that you would still be required; the direction was to have some sort of exception that allows existing non-conformities related to development standards to continue, similar to our existing implementation plan that is in our zoning ordinance. She stated that this language would continue to allow that. If new development comes in and you have non-conformities that are setbacks, parking, etc. you do not have to address those just because you are an SSM.
However, if you are within impacting coastal resources, that is a standard policy that you will still need to comply with.
Councilmember Boles asked about zoning.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the way the policy was written, it would still allow non-conforming uses to continue as they currently do in the implementation plan.
Councilmember Boles stated that it says “may be maintained at the discretion of the decision making body”. She asked if the decision-making body could be the Planning Commission, City Council, or staff for certain projects.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it could.
Mr. Murdock states that this relates to the coastal development permit context which currently means the Planning Director acting as a zoning administrator in limited instances. In most cases, it means the Planning Commission, and in appeal circumstances, it means City Council.
He stated that, in these instances, there would be public hearings except for the very narrow exceptions like for administrative coastal development permit for an accessory dwelling unit or City Council Special Meeting 39 June 26, 2024
an SB 9; there is still a public notification and input process, just not a public hearing process.
There is some sort of public component to consider this in all cases.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, for an SSM outside of a hazard zone, what is the test by which it is ascertained whether or not there is a coastal resource that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Murdock stated that it is a site-specific analysis: If it is proximate to wetlands, that is important and relevant and needs to be further studied for potential impacts; if the development is currently within the buffer zone and needs to have that non-conformity mitigated or minimized in some way, and potentially view impacts related to high or setbacks; and if the property is encroaching too close and obscuring public view or is too tall and obscuring a public view, that may be another potential coastal resource impact.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, when a development comes to our office and staff are looking at it, are we going through a check list to make sure that none of those resources are associated with the application.
Mr. Murdock stated looking at the site context, looking at known maps, coastal resources, considering the view context and then relating those to known non-conformities on a project.
Councilmember Boles stated we are outside of the coastal hazard zones and outside of the Coastal Commission appeal jurisdiction for the most part, so these are decisions the city would be making, not the Coastal Commission.
Mr. Murdock stated that decisions need to be reasonable and based on substantial evidence like every decision in a land use context. He stated, if reasonable analysis is done and there are no known coastal resource impacts, the non-conformity, whatever it is, could remain. He stated that parking was brought up and that could be a coastal resource impact in certain locations if a lack of off-street parking on a project impacts street parking in a high visitor area.
He stated that there are a myriad of different scenarios that need to be evaluated in a site specific context.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wants to understand a better way to articulate why there has to be a waiver of future shoreline protection.
Mr. Murdock stated that the Coastal Act indicates that development should be sited not to rely on shoreline protection and it is from that basis in the statute in the Coastal Act that policies are implementing that. The deed restriction is the mechanism of choice, along with conditions of approval in a CDP, that the Coastal Commission has utilized to effectuate that. He stated that what we do have to get some way to address this is that the site-specific analysis of these kinds of development exactions and the Nolan/Dolan doctrine as well for nexus and proportionality and there are fundamental principles effectuated in the Constitution and applicable court cases that provide some limitations but, by and large, this is based on the Coastal Act provision related to new development not relying on shoreline protection and one way of doing that is saying, if you are undertaking development, you are not going to get your shoreline protection, and the waiver of rights and deed restriction is a mechanism to accomplish that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands better than ever why this issue of what is new development and not new development is so pivotal. She agrees with him as in the act it is very clear new development cannot rely on shoreline protection; but when you revise old development or former development to now be new development, it is a conundrum.
City Council Special Meeting 40 June 26, 2024
Mr. Murdock stated to think of all these questions and conundrums through the lens of whether we have a legally superior argument that says the Coastal Commission is doing something unlawful, but he did not think, in these instances, we have identified such circumstances. He stated that we can articulate a reasonable basis for some of these questions even though we may disagree on the policy basis for it. He stated that it does not seem unreasonable in a way that would give us other options.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the 51% is consistent with other types of regulations in the building code and in other building standards that are used throughout California; 51% is a common threshold and that is probably why it is used by many as a reasonable standard. She stated that there has to be some threshold to determine when modifications become a new development and the Coastal Commission has determined 51% is that number and we do not have anything to dispute that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood. She stated that, if she is reading it the way it is intended to be read and understanding the non-conformities, she feels like this is progress.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is just a coastal resource and that eliminates a lot of other things that we could be making people have to change their houses, like the zoning.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council finished this discussion but not everything that we were going over. She stated that Council is likely not going to make a decision on this at this meeting, so we need an eighth meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that our options are to continue, adjourn to a date certain, or adjourn to a date to be determined. He stated that, if Council wants to adjourn to a date certain, the August 12 Council meeting could be an option and we will move other things off that agenda. He stated that, if Council adjourns to a date to be determined, we can try to figure out a date. He stated that he will need to reevaluate Planning staff’s work plan and the sequence of items as there will be impacts to the STR program and tree ordinance program.
Mayor Vaterlaus suggested to continue to a date certain which would be August 12.
Councilmember Boles stated that she would rather have a different date than a regular Council meeting. She thought it may be able to happen before August 12.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not see that calendar-wise for her. She stated that we will be coming back from a hiatus and she thinks we need to give it a little bit more breathing room.
Councilmember Bier asked if in August. She stated, when she heard it, she thought that gives them time to talk to our community and she felt that was some breathing room.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she thinks it is enough.
Councilmember Bier stated that was her first thought that it would give them time.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated they would be able to sustain their momentum on August 12.
Councilmember Boles thought to at least finish asking questions and going through the policies to make sure Council understands them.
City Council Special Meeting 41 June 26, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the options being discussed are August 12, attaching it to a Council meeting, and picking another date.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that continuing it to a date certain means that staff does not have to reissue a public hearing notice so there is benefit to continuing it to a date certain. She stated that Council has completed the public hearing portion of the meeting and Council does not have to reopen public comment. Council has the option to do so, but that portion of the meeting has concluded so we can just pick up where we left off here if Council desires.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he does not think Council will forego public comment.
Councilmember Boles stated that Council does not want to forego hearing notification either.
Councilmember Bigstyck clarified that just because Council has an option does not mean Council is considering that option.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Bier agreed and asked what date.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if we continue it to a date to be determined, he would not recommend trying to arrive at a date from the dais. He knows that this is former Planning Director Murdock’s last meeting on this and he thanked him very much.
Councilmember Bier stated that they are so grateful that he is here and all they have learned from him.
Mr. Murdock stated that it was his pleasure. He felt this was important which is why he made the decision to come.
City Manager Woodhouse stated a couple of other factors when considering in what timeframe to do a date to be determined is the freshness of the discussion and the practical fact that whatever time we extend this to in the future, these issues do not seem to go away in the intervening month and seem to take a lot of staff time regardless; at every meeting with Councilmembers or engagement with constituents, it continues to go and, for transparency, it is a workload impact that carries on and that is what impacts making progress on other work plan items. He stated that we mentioned in previous meetings that election season is upcoming and things are different during that time period. He stated that it is up to Council on the timeframe.
He did not think we have to decide on a specific date, but he would like to get from the Council at this time a sort of timeframe to be looking for a date and for the continued meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if we do it to a date to be determined, if there was any possibility of that being before August 12.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would have to see if that is something that Councilmembers and staff are available for.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated this is one of their most important things that we have to do.
Councilmember Bigstyck largely agrees, and he feels the conversation we just had was one of City Council Special Meeting 42 June 26, 2024
the most helpful and important we have had, and he wants to keep that energy going.
Councilmember Bier stated before the end of August.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his question is whether we can do this before August 12.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it is unlikely for her due to vacation and travels.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that his recommendation is date certain, August 12.
Councilmember Boles suggested August 13 or 14 as a separate meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the only reason we are keeping it on August 12 is because staff is available then.
Councilmember Boles stated that we can start early but we have a lot to go through. She just wants to be careful of what important Council work we are doing and not pushing that too late.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she sees it as the only thing on the agenda.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he did not know if it was feasible, given the staff’s workload, but if we were to carve out a date certain, August 12, for this, we could do a special meeting for a different item.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if we were saying to do a special meeting on August 12, just focused on this, and change the regular Council meeting to a different special Council meeting.
He stated that he is confident that he can move stuff around so that this is the only consideration or public hearing item but we will probably need some consideration items. He stated that we could try to slim down Council communications and other communications.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we can always put that at the end.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we can start the meeting early as an option for August 12.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded start early, minimal regular Council agenda, and adjust Council communications.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to continue the meeting to a date certain, August 12, 2024; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
Councilmember Boles stated that she would still like to notice the public hearing.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated staff will give a notice.
City Council Special Meeting 43 June 26, 2024
CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE CERTAIN, AUGUST 12
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:44 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 9/9/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor