CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 12, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 12, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on August 12, 2024 at 6:05 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Absent
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Deputy Director of Community Development; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director of Community Development (Zoom); Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Deputy Director (Field Services/Engineering); Katelyn Snodgrass, Asst. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 12, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Boles asked to pull Item #13 from the consent calendar.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments on Consent Calendar items excluding Item #13 and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Councilmember Boles moved to approve consent calendar, excluding Item #13; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #13)
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
1. Approval of Disbursements for 07/01/24 through 07/31/24.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of July 2024.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the June 10, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Move to adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive and Accepting Invoices from Pacific Trenchless for emergency repair work at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from June 17, 2024.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt Resolution for:
A) Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency (Attachment 1) at the Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive
B) Accepting Invoices (Attachment 2) from Pacific Trenchless for emergency repair work at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from June 17, 2024, for a total of $298,607.00.
6. Notice of Completion for the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file the Notice of City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 12, 2024
Completion for the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
7. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with NCE for design and engineering services in the amount of $183,200 in connection to the FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $201,520 which includes 10% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.
8. Approval of Full Trash Capture Design Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Schaaf & Wheeler
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing an Agreement for Consultant Services with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $168,530 for the Full Trash Capture Stormwater Treatment Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $185,383 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $16,853; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
9. Adopt a Resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Chesterworks.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution to approve the Third Amendment to the Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Chesterworks for construction management services for the Civic Center Project in the amount of $10,000 increasing the overall cost to $185,960.
10. Approval of Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2024-2025 for Polydyne, Inc. for $200,000; Trojan Technologies for $100,000, Synagro West, LLC for $180,000, and Centrisys CNP for $175,000 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2024- 2025:
1. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. In The Amount Of $200,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Supply of Polymer.
2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in The Amount Of $100,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Supply of Trojan System UV4000 Original Replacement Parts.
3. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1 for Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 2 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $180,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Biosolids Hauling and Disposal.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 12, 2024
4. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Master Agreement for Centrifuge Services with Centrisys CNP In the Amount Of $175,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Centrifuge Services; and Approving Amendment 1 to Extend Term for FY 2023-2024 Master Agreement.
11. Resolution to Approve Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with Websoft Developers Inc for the Fund 18 Sewer Collection Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS).
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution:
A. Approving a sole source Master Agreement and Task Order No.1 with Websoft Developers Inc. for the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) in the amount of $127,500; and
B. Authorizing a budget authority in the amount of $146,625.00, which include contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Contract amount; and
C. Authorizing staff to execute future change orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and
D. Authorizing the City Manager and Designated Personnel to execute all documents related to the maintenance of CMMS.
12. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the Acceptance of $95,042.68 from the State of California’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the Education, Prevention, and Enforcement of Impaired Driving Laws PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizing the acceptance of $95,042.68 from the state of California’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws.
13. Consultant Services Agreements for Mapping Update Services Between the City of Pacifica and Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Environmental Science Associates (ESA) with a total amount of $102,200 for mapping update services associated with the City’s draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP); authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and a budget amendment; and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).
Agenda Item #13 Discussion
City Manager Woodhouse gave the following summary: Throughout the LCLUP process, and with the more recent sea level rise guidelines adopted by the Ocean Protection Council, there has been discussion about updating the maps in the LCLUP process for Pacifica based on best available and recent science, which would be achieved through the contract with ESA Associates.
Councilmember Boles asked about the sea level rise analysis and date range used in the previous vulnerability assessment. She reached out to Robert Battalio at Environmental Science Associates and wanted to compare what was in the previous vulnerability assessment versus what is now in the OPC guidance, specifically looking at the tide gauge in San Francisco.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 12, 2024
She also asked whether increasing storm impacts were included in the analysis.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she had a brief conversation with ESA today and were not able to iron out any of the details regarding what would be mapped in time for this meeting, but it is anticipated that the wave run-up hazard zone maps will include any increases that are expected due to storms as well.
Councilmember Boles referred to packet page 320 for the optional tasks. She understands that the budget we are approving is for the whole scope of services but staff was still negotiating whether to do optional tasks 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, when it comes to the optional tasks, the only task that staff is determining if it is needed is optional task #8, the update of the web maps, only because the city is working on a different effort to update GIS maps as well. She stated that it depends on the timing of when this task may be needed and, if our existing work with updating GIS maps would be able to take over that task.
Councilmember Boles concluded that it will be done either way, just the question of whether ESA would do it or not.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that will be an important tool.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments, and seeing no one, closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that this is something we have needed for a long time and Council asked for. She received inquiries over the week on why we are doing this and what is the urgency. She stated that there has been questions in the past by various members of the community about the point of view of ESA and has been a problem in terms of our civic discourse. Her concern as she raised it with staff before this meeting was how this discourse going to go if we have concerns about the point of view of the firm doing the maps. She stated that the City Manager made it clear that it would add time and money to the process. She stated that we have been seeking to get OPC updates because we want to have the best available science as we move into policy decisions and use those maps for all of our work over the next five years until the next update. She would like to put it out for discussion to see what councilmembers think about it.
Councilmember Bigstyck expressed similar concerns to staff, more specifically in terms of what the timeline would look like if we sought other agencies to do the mapping. He felt encouraged that there had been no comments posed at this meeting against Item #13. Additionally, he stated this agency has a great deal of expertise. He feels okay going forward with this at this time and thinks it will give us the maps they need to feel better about that conversation with Coastal Commission should we continue to that step.
Councilmember Bier stated we have asked for the maps and need the maps and added, if we can get them done and checked, we they should move forward with this at this meeting.
Councilmember Boles heard from several people that the biggest topic of concern was about the financial economic impacts and whether those were factual numbers in the economic City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 12, 2024
analysis. She was told that ESA was paid to do a certain task and did not have the time to do the full analysis the way the community expected it. She worked with ESA professionally and noted they are doing a fantastic job. She stated she has no concerns about the agency.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked staff regarding comparability with our former maps. She stated that we have a couple of conditions and she wants to clearly understand what is going to be mapped: When the maps were done in the past, we did not have the sea wall incorporated into those maps and she asked if that would be one of the things considered in this process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that his understanding is that, in the SSRA areas, the maps would reflect the protection provided by the sea walls.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it would include the protection or impact of closing the Clarendon gap.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was one of the items of discussion and it would depend on if there is going to be Council direction. She stated that we have some flexibility to have different scenarios mapped.
City Manager Woodhouse added, given the flexibility we have within the scope of this contract and being put on the spot, he suggested that we should have that as an example because that will relate to and benefit our Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project efforts.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She asked to what degree the sea wall, bluffs, and any sort of existing dunes, trees, or such material existing at this time are incorporated into the mapping.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it would depend on what the structure is and whether ESA has data available for that. She stated that, when it comes to shoreline protection structures, there is data that they can collect for that; they might be able to collect data for other testing structures that might be along the shoreline.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it would be her desire to have this mapping process as closely mirror our reality.
Councilmember Bier added to include the berm.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed to include the berm.
Councilmember Boles stated that what she saw in ESA’s proposal is that they would do one as existing condition and then two scenarios, presumably for different time periods: If they are going to have them look at other things, they are analyzing what is existing, not the proposed project, then we have not designed a proposed project for the Clarendon gap; and if they are evaluating the existing shoreline protection in Rockaway and Beach Boulevard, how are they factoring in the design life of what is there versus what could be.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed that it is not that clear and thinks they have to put in assumptions and state what they are.
Councilmember Boles stated that her main concern is that more contingency may be needed in the budget amount.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 12, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are a lot of variables. He stated that, like most contracts, staff is comfortable with this recommended agreement amount but, through the course of the project, if staff need more money, staff will have to come back to Council for that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there is an automatic 10% contingency in the Purchasing Policy.
Councilmember Boles moved to adopt Item #13 to approve the agreement for consultant services between the City of Pacifica and ESA as noted in the staff report; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added friendly amendments with comments and suggestions from Council incorporated.
Councilmembers Boles and Bigstyck agreed.
AGENDA ITEM #13
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4-0]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Jeff Moroso, Pacifica, stated he was requesting more information about Calera Creek Park and a public hearing on the issue of who owns the park and who is responsible for maintaining it. He shared his concerns and actions and the city’s process leading to his request.
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated she was updating Council on PRC’s operating hours, grocery distribution dates, back to school program, homeless outreach work, and schedules, including their 50th anniversary at the Palm-a-Palooza fundraiser on September 21.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated that Council had a robust study session on short-term rentals in June, and requested an update on the follow-up session, sharing her concerns and thoughts on this issue.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, addressed the short-term rental licenses and shared her concerns on this issue and options until a new ordinance is ready and requested that staff communicates on the plans to Council and the public.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he supports Ms. Abbott’s comments on short-term rentals and shared his thoughts on that issue, and he also addressed the insurance problems with fire risks, including fireworks, to ensure citizens’ safety.
Peter Garenani, Pacifica, encouraged them to go forward with the STR ordinance and shared key points on STRs regarding various studies done and questioned their accuracy regarding cost/income benefits, etc., as well as comparing them to studies in San Francisco.
Victoria Sanchez De Alba, Pacifica, asked for the update on the STR ordinance. She City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 12, 2024
supported previous comments and shared her concerns on behaviors in neighboring un-hosted short-term rentals and asked that the city keep them safe.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, appreciated the city’s work with STRs and agreed with his neighbors on the issues raised, shared his concerns on the dangers to the community by code noncompliant STRs, urged staff to inspect existing STRs, and encouraged a moratorium until all applicants are inspected to prevent disasters.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, referred to comments on issues of short-term rentals and then shared details regarding an unsafe situation near their home that took place on National Night Out.
Giovanni Guadagnini, Pacifica, referred to ADA and asked about curb cuts on Avery Court in Gateway. He also referred to other areas where ADA requirements should be addressed.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated he disagreed with the management of PW Department. He shared his thoughts on this issue of management and subsequent staff turnover. He suggested addressing the issue before hiring a PW Director replacement.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if acceptable to Council, she would like to propose to move Council Communications to the end of the meeting and continue forward.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked City Manager to provide during staff communications an update regarding Calera Creek Park as well as approximate time frame for the STR follow-up session.
He referred to October when the permits are to be renewed for the STR owners and asked if there was any way to address that briefly.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bier thanked everyone who was involved in saving a pelican recently.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, at the last Council meeting, he felt inspired to express that we can establish a community firmly here despite larger issues. He explained that he received one person appreciating those comments and another not. He wished to apologize to those who were offended by his comments. His comments were intended to illustrate the greater way a lot of people were feeling around the national politics. He stated that we can focus on our community. He expressed hope in shaking hands with people of dissenting points of view and hopes that is what we can cultivate as a community.
Councilmember Boles stated that Community Emergency Response Team training (CERT) classes are starting on August 22, so we can all be better prepared when disaster does strike.
She attended the Coastal Commission meeting about updated sea level rise policy; they issued their draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance and the public comment period ends on September
23. She stated some of the key takeaways are there will be some new requirements that we will need to do in our Local Coastal Plan for SB 272; some if it is about environmental justice, outreach to at-risk communities, the sea level rise adaptation strategies, and recommended projects and defining projects a little bit more, and economic impact analysis. She stated that the takeaway for cities that are in process like Pacifica is updating our Local Coastal Plans now is not to stop. She stated that the Coastal Commission is giving staff feedback to a lot of the policies that will be required like the risk disclosure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated on September 11 in Monterey there will be a discussion of City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 12, 2024
the neighborhood approach and it will give a context of how we got to this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck shared the concept of sibling cities from Palo Alto and he would like to bring Councilmember Vicky Veenker from Palo Alto to tell us about it.
Council was amenable to the presentation.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we will schedule that at some point.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated, regarding the Calera Creek Park, that analysis has been conducted and the letter will be finalized and sent out shortly. He stated that with the STR work and timeline, since the June 24 meeting, staff has been working very diligently on the inputs received from Council and the community in that study session related to the research and policy development: Community Development staff and City Attorney’s Office have been working diligently on analysis such as restrictions on the number of permits per person, distinction between hosted and un-hosted rentals, etc. He stated that a lot of work has been conducted on the policy front and on enforcement enhancements, as well as public safety analysis of all the calls over the last six months of this calendar year and ongoing stakeholder collaboration communication and discussion with Airbnb. He stated that, in the last five weeks since that study session, a significant amount of work in preparation for bringing this item for further Council discussion and direction at the second meeting in August. He added that it depends on the LCLUP next steps. He stated that the work is being done and, in terms of timeline, the process is that staff need to come back with all the research analysis on these issues as directed by Council, receive specific policy direction that staff and the City Attorney’s Office can then build into the ordinance language that will come back at a following Council meeting for the hearing and adoption of that ordinance and the second reading or adoption of the ordinance. The ordinance does not go into effect until 30 days after adoption and, in this case, an ordinance does not go into effect in the coastal zone until approved by the Coastal Commission as an LCLUP amendment. He stated that there is a long trajectory for this implementation of the ordinance. He stated that, regarding the Civic Center, the move into the new Civic Center has incurred a significant amount of work and staff effort to make that move and staff were able to do that successfully with just one business closure day. In terms of the conference rooms, he stated that some of the committees and commissions can begin meeting in them but the audio-visual is not completed and installed in those conference rooms yet. He stated that there are growing pains in the new Civic Center, but he has seen great public response from people who have come to the center, as well as have enjoyed the parklet between the two buildings.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it sounds likely that the ordinance would not be ready before the October 31 deadline for renewal of short-term rental licenses.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is correct as the ordinance would not go into effect for 30 days and the revisions do not go into effect in the coastal zone until it runs through the Coastal Commission process. Regarding the specifics about the renewal of STRs and how changes have been made, on the ongoing enforcement side that we have been diligently working on, that is a process that will continue to bring bad actors into line or revoke permits. The effects of that cannot be implemented i.e., enforcement and eligibility related effects, until they are in effect until 30 days after adoption.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier was concerned about how Council will be able to talk about it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is not an agendized item and Council can ask brief clarifying questions but not go into deliberations or discussions.
Councilmember Bier asked how Council can talk about that.
Councilmember Boles stated perhaps it is coming up at the meeting in two weeks. She suggested that it would be great to talk more about enforcement, knowing that the ordinance will not come into effect.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked the City Attorney’s Office to be prepared to revisit the issue of a moratorium on licenses being issued as part of their STR item.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), including the Special Resiliency Area policies, and direction to staff regarding alternative modifications.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff and discuss and confirm list of alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we have Acting Director of Community Development Kumar on Zoom and she will be actively taking notes alongside Asst. Planner Snodgrass and Acting Deputy Director of Community Development Cervantes will respond to questions and guide Council through the matrix. He reiterated that, as stated in the staff report, in part because of the Coastal Commission comment letter received the night before the agenda packet publication, tonight Council is not being asked to make a decision and adopt the modifications to the LCLUP for submittal to the Coastal Commission. Tonight, Council is continuing from the June 26 meeting the discussion about main policy issues in Chapter 6 and any other items.
Staff will need to bring all of the input and the final package for Council’s consideration for adoption to a future City Council meeting and after a chance to debrief more with Coastal Commission staff to understand the comments made last week. He stated that it is a continuing study session format but staff needs deliberation from Council on these important policy matters. He then turned it over to Acting Deputy Director Cervantes.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked her for the staff report and asked to give an overview of SSRA and deed restrictions. He also stated he would like to ask questions around tsunami inundation before public comment so Council can attempt to answer some questions preemptively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood and Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated she has questions about tsunamis and a few other follow-ups.
She asked, as we go through the staff report, to confirm when something has changed from the previous staff report to this one. She referred to the concerns expressed in the Coastal Commission letter and thought it might be helpful to talk about their concerns as well.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes said, if time permits and there are questions related to topics City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 12, 2024
outside Chapter 6 that are related to the conversation in Chapter 6, those can be discussed.
Councilmember Boles thought there were questions about the technical reports in the small project exemptions and some of this is in the Implementation Plan. She asked, until we update the new Implementation Plan, are we still able to take the exemptions in the existing Implementation Plan. She also heard reference to Municipal Code Section 9-4-4303 that has exemptions to Coastal Development Permits and she asked if that still applies.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles thought it might be helpful for additional explanations on those items.
She asked if there is anything in the staff report now that addresses historical buildings.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that she can look for that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked to proceed with questions asked by Councilmember Bigstyck.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked to begin with an overview of the SSRA, then into an overview of deed restrictions mean, and lastly the tsunami inundation zone.
Councilmember Bier also requested visuals and page numbers to accompany the discussions.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added chapter and modification number being referenced.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she will do her best. She stated that SSRAs stand for Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas. Generally in the coastal zone, new development (any additions to homes, new homes, complete demos, and rebuilding) is not allowed to rely on any existing shoreline protection structures that may exist. She stated that, in Pacifica, we have two areas of the city with existing city-owned shoreline protection structures, which includes the Rockaway area, as well as the Sharp Park area. These areas are also unique because the shoreline protection structures protect homes and public infrastructure, including roads, coastal access, and utilities. All that is unique to these areas, and there is the added benefit that the structures also protect the private property next to the public infrastructure. In these two areas, city staff has been working with California Coastal Commission staff for over a year in having an exemption to the rules. The rule is that you cannot rely on existing shoreline protection structures; the SSRA is the exemption in these two specific areas when new development comes. The technical reporting and the design of the project would be allowed to rely on the protection provided by the city’s existing shoreline protection structures; that includes mostly soil and coastal erosion but could include some protections from wave overtopping, as well as flooding, etc., that can be seen in the coastal vulnerability maps. The purpose of these two areas is to allow for streamlined development and more development in these areas because existing shoreline protection structures provides some protection for these developments to have a bigger buildable area or be able to better design to mitigate some of those coastal hazards. For example, if you are thinking about flooding in some of these areas, the flooding might be a lot higher than with the protections that the shoreline structure provides. Therefore, developers may be able to elevate a few feet versus having to elevate to an extreme level or they might be able to floodproof their ground level to provide for that mitigation needed. She stated that the purpose of these two areas is to allow the properties in these areas to continue to do maintenance and repairs on their properties to be able to redevelop. There are a few City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 12, 2024
vacant sites in these areas that would be able to take advantage of these development potential opportunities now with the assumption that the shoreline protection structure can be used for the analysis and the design of these projects.
Councilmember Boles stated she understands the shoreline protection in front of Nick’s belongs to Nick’s and asked how it works if it is not city-owned armoring.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that she is not aware of the particulars of that specific section of the armoring but, in general, what we discussed with Coastal Commission staff is that this would be the boundaries for the SSRA.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked for clarification around what is generally referred to as deed restrictions, disclosures, and waivers.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the policy for coastal hazard risk disclosure in the redline version is on packet page 593. Generally, a project would need to apply for a Coastal Development Permit, and it would trigger that requirement due to an addition, a new building, new demolition remodel of a site, etc. As part of the approval for a Coastal Development Permit requirement in coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones, the property would be required to report a risk disclosure and it would be part of the approval, similar to a condition of approval on a resolution. That disclosure would contain the information as outlined in several bullet points.
Councilmember Boles wanted to confirm that any project in the coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami zones requires the permit regardless of the substantial structural modifications.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, adding that the requirement is for the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. There are different types of projects that will require a Coastal Development Permit that are not an SSM project.
Councilmember Bigstyck clarified that SSM is being substantial structural modification meeting 51% of the structure or more.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in terms of tsunami inundation zones, he appreciated that there is a map on page 667 with possible approximations. He asked how the map was brought together. He also asked how Half Moon Bay and Newport Beach purportedly are not beholden to their tsunami inundation zone but we have to be beholden to it. He asked for a general overview of tsunami inundation zones in answer to what informs this map and if we have the data to compare and contrast Half Moon Bay and Newport Beach, it would be important to get this started.
Councilmember Bier asked to see the differences between the Half Moon Bay ordinance and our own language.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated the map was created using some of our resources this summer with publicly available data. She stated, in the earlier discussion on Agenda Item #13, there was discussion on different variables to ensure that it showed the existing conditions and that is not included here. This is just the raw data that is publicly available. She stated that there are no changes to the variables here and that is why it is a draft tsunami inundation map.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 12, 2024
Staff was not able to verify if there are any variable that could be inputted into the data to make it more accurate for existing conditions and that is one reason it is still a draft. In terms of the Half Moon Bay example, their LCLUP has a similar policy to what we are proposing to do with the risk disclosure which is in Policy 7-9. Policy 7-9 states, “Infill development on existing building sites may be permitted in the tsunami inundation zone, provided that a disclosure of hazard presence and a hold harmless clause indemnifies the city from any harm caused to permitted development by tsunami inundation are recorded against the property.” She stated that the policy might be straightforward and simple to read, but when we are considering what that entails for implementation or property owner, it is a more detailed process. What staff is trying to do with our policy for risk disclosure is that it has the language we are anticipating will be in our risk disclosure that will be a template for Coastal Development Permit approvals in these two areas. There will be additional information of why is it a requirement, what type project is required, etc. The idea that because the policy spans one sentence that it is easier to implement is false, as the policy itself is similar to what we are requiring: disclosure of hazards that needs to be recorded against the property.
Councilmember Boles asked for clarification on if we do not have restrictions on development in tsunami inundation zones.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, adding that if the property is just in a tsunami inundation zone the only requirement is that you record the risk disclosure. There is no other prohibition on development or for additional technical reporting or citing or design. Those policies are only applicable to the coastal vulnerability zone map. As part of changing our risk disclosure policy, the map, Figure 2.2, is separate from the coastal vulnerability map.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it seems like the coastal vulnerability zone naturally runs with the tsunami inundation zones as displayed on the map. He asked if she has a sense if any of these tsunami inundation zones run outside of the coastal vulnerability zones.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that staff has not been able to overlay those to determine what that would look like. She stated that, on a wider scale, just from looking at the Fairway neighborhood, she knows that those two lines are not 100% lined up as there is some variable between those two.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if it is a tsunami inundation zone, but not a coastal vulnerability zone, the only requirement is that you put a disclosure that it is a tsunami inundation zone and that is the entirety of the requirement.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier asked if it would be possible in the future to get an overlay map and to see the differences side-by-side in writing so we can clearly understand the differences.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that it would be one of the products that ESA can help the city with, as well as future implementation in our own GIS. He wanted to emphasize a point that Acting Deputy Director Cervantes was saying that was important at this point when we are talking about inundation zones and comparing to Half Moon Bay. He stated, in essence, Half Moon Bay is more restrictive than ours is proposed to be because new development is not allowed in inundation zones in Half Moon Bay’s LCP. He stated that, in practice, the details of the risk disclosure are the same, but Pacifica is just putting it upfront transparently in the policy in the LCP whereas, in Half Moon Bay, you get that later on when you work with city staff and City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 12, 2024
have this covenant that you have to report. He wanted to be very clear about that comparison.
Councilmember Boles clarified there are 10 or 12 affected homes in the tsunami area in Fairway Park and more in Sharp Park, but not as many as there were in the previous map. She asked what will happen to their maps eventually as the tsunami evacuation area now is overlaid.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the tsunami evacuation zone will likely remain as a map overlay, not because it is tied to any policy but because it is important information for property owners in the city to be aware of and easily available to the public. She stated that tsunami evacuation zones are important to know and understand for preparedness, but it would not be tied to any policy.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about tsunami inundation versus the structures on the golf course and, in general, whether or not our document will disallow them from making adjustments to the physical facilities that might be pertinent going forward.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that most of the structures are there, including the clubhouse and some of the storage structures and the golf cart storage structure which the city recently issued a Coastal Development Permit for, are all outside of the coastal vulnerability zone; those structures, if there is any redevelopment of them, may need a Coastal Development Permit, but they will not trigger the policies in Chapter 6 that require the technical reporting or the citing and design. She added that there is some exempted work that is currently in the city’s Implementation Plan in the Zoning Ordinance that may allow some of that work to be exempt from a Coastal Development Permit. She stated that, as mentioned earlier, some if it includes minor grading or minor replacement, such as for lights, and there is the possibility that the work can be exempted from a Coastal Development Permit in the first place. She added that a good portion of the golf course is outside of the city’s permit jurisdiction and is within the Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, for the portion of the golf course within the city’s permit jurisdiction, she wondered about normal golf course maintenance issues. She asked if moving sand around for a sand trap would be considered grading every time they have to manipulate sand and would that be something that would have to be broached to the city.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that there is Coastal Commission permit jurisdiction and everything to the seaward side would require Coastal Commission staff to make a determination. But what is outside of that line to the east, there are some exemptions, such as if it is less than 50 cubic yards of grading, that is exempted work; if there is any work that is not impactful to resources, that is the umbrella of the exempted work. She stated that it can be done through a building permit or through no permit at all and that is generally the code sections listed in our LCLUP and the reason that it is exempted work is because it does not impact coastal resources.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it does impact resources for visitor-serving which we have as a priority. She does not know if it requires specific policy or just within the department jurisdiction, but it stuck out to her as something she wanted to talk about. She stated that her follow-up question around the tsunami is that she understands the sources of data used to create the map and she asked if there is any way to provide links to those in some way that the public can follow and have access to what staff were looking at when those were put together.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that we can post those on the city’s website.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 12, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened the public hearing.
Richard Harris, Pacifica, referred to their discussion of tsunami and vulnerability zone and his letter on August 6 that discusses this issue. He shared his thoughts on several changes that were put into effect that changed the requirements for technical reports.
Jennifer Behling, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on climate change and addressing the complex problems here and questioned the Coastal Commission’s goals. She was not in favor of passing the LCLUP until all the edits are considered and more thought was placed in addressing all the complex needs.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, suggested that we stop this LCLUP process and compare our requirements to Half Moon Bay and Newport Beach and their exemptions from development restrictions in tsunami and coastal vulnerability zones and asked if staff has talked to those cities going through the same thing.
Frank Vella, Pacifica, stated that the LCLUP is extremely flawed and shared his concerns that it is just a step towards implementing managed retreat, and questioned creating areas, such as tsunami zones, that will impact property owners, residents, finances, and insurance. He stated that we should stop the LCLUP process.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated that she agrees with the speakers. She stated that the tsunami development restriction is burdensome and shared her thoughts on it not being required. She referred to the latest Coastal Commission letter and stated it was concerning as it is taking a long time and is bringing unknowns to those who live in the beach area. She hoped we can try to do the best thing to keep our neighborhoods viable.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to the San Pedro site, which he called the field and wetland sites, and he shared his concerns about city staff believing that density is necessary to address community concerns regarding potential future development of the site. He shared his thoughts that the staff is misrepresenting the concerns of residents and experts.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to his neighborhood having a tremendous amount of coastal erosion, and he shared his thoughts that the city should take a close look at the coastal plan to figure out what we do as we need to protect the houses and shared his concerns about the need to come up with a protection solution as we do the update.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, asked why the SSRAs are still being considered, stating the community did not support it, and shared his concerns regarding some of the problems we are experiencing. He hoped that the community hears what Council is doing and Coastal Commission hears that many in the community are opposed to the SSRA.
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated she has been working on the General Plan and the LCLUP update since the first meeting at IBL in 2009. She referred to residents in Sharp Park and the city trying to decide what to do with the houses, and she stated that we can do better and that the community is objecting to the SRAs. She then shared her concerns about what the city is doing and encouraged them to use the latest available science.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated Council slowing down this process and this meeting is not for a vote on the LCLUP update and felt the city must continue a slow but steady approach.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 12, 2024
She then shared her thoughts on her interaction with community members and her concerns about some of the issues being addressed by staff.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated she was touched by what Ms. Abbott said, and she echoed concerns about continuing community engagement in this process. She stated that it is getting less clear and she shared her concerns on the issue including the SSRAs.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he does not hear much clarity coming from staff, but does hear a consistency from the public telling them not to pursue SSRAs. He shared his concerns and thoughts on the issues.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he agreed with previous speakers that the SSRAs are inappropriate and bad for Pacifica. He expressed his concerns on this issue and felt we would be better off with the Coastal Commission suggestions.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated that he disagreed with most everybody. He stated that he felt the Coastal Commission had a radical agenda and he added that the purpose of Council and staff is to fight for Pacificans to preserve property. He felt that we have to fight back against the Coastal Commission recommendations and shared his thoughts on this issue.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer closed the public hearing. She stated that we will continue the process of reviewing the Chapter 6 policies.
Councilmember Boles asked if we should follow up on a few of the questions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated there is still confusion about if there is any limitation about development in tsunami zones. She asked if staff can clarify.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the city’s LCLUP does not contain any prohibition or requirements for development in tsunami inundation zones only. The only requirement is that, if you are going to obtain a Coastal Development Permit in a tsunami inundation zone, you record a risk disclosure on the property that you are in a tsunami inundation zone.
Councilmember Boles reiterated that Half Moon Bay’s ordinance includes those risk disclosures in tsunami areas also.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, adding that their Policy 7.9 is similar to Pacifica’s Policy 7-8. She stated that Half Moon Bay has an additional requirement that our LCLUP does not have; ours does not require siting design or technical reporting for tsunami inundations.
Councilmember Boles stated that one point raised by Mr. Harris was that the definition of coastal hazard zone does mention tsunami and we might want to review that.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated packet page 636 has the definition of coastal hazards and the definition of coastal vulnerability zones. She read the definition for coastal zone:
“Coastal hazards include, but are not limited to episodic or long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, wave overtopping, coastal flooding and their interaction, all of which may be exacerbated by sea level rise.” She read the definition of a coastal vulnerability zone: “The area shown on the city’s map prepared City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 12, 2024
for Pacifica’s sea level rise vulnerability assessment incorporated herein and as may be amended from time to time based on updated best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding and other coastal hazards.” She stated that the distinction is that the policies apply to coastal vulnerability zones but do not apply to all coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles stated that, at the end of the definition of coastal vulnerability zone, it says “and other coastal hazards” and coastal hazards include tsunamis. She stated that we want to make sure there is not a loophole.
Acting Planning Director Cervantes agreed and thought the best thing the city can do is to ensure that the coastal vulnerability maps are separate from Figure 2.2, the tsunami inundation map, to ensure that those are seen separate.
Councilmember Boles stated that she said earlier that what is in the tsunami hazard map now would be staying there so the tsunami evacuation zone map would be staying on the coastal vulnerability zone map.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she may have misspoken. The tsunami evacuation zone map is not on the coastal vulnerability zones but is a separate map included in the LCP.
She stated that, when she was speaking about the evacuation zone maps staying, it is in Figure
5.3, flood zones, and the map shows the different flood zones and also has the tsunami evacuation area.
Councilmember Boles was wary of relying on a map instead of clear language. She asked if we can add text to clarify that tsunamis are not included in coastal vulnerability zones.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Acting Deputy Director Cervantes can talk about what other coastal hazards would be mapped in the coastal vulnerability zone map, as that might assist us in understanding what that last phrase refers to.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes thought we could clarify what is mapped and it would include sea level rise, erosion, flooding, wave overtopping, and storm flooding; instead of saying “and other coastal hazards,” we can limit it to what is included in the coastal vulnerability maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in the definition of coastal vulnerability zone, if you add at the end “and not inclusive of tsunami inundation or evacuation,” that would serve the point that Councilmember Boles is making, which is that the end of coastal vulnerability zone seems to harken back to the definition of coastal hazards, whereas since coastal vulnerability zone definition specifically refers to the maps it could be pointed out in that definition that tsunami inundation and/or evacuation if appropriate is not one of the elements included in the maps.
Councilmember Boles stated that is good as we need to be clear.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concurred with Councilmember Bigstyck.
Councilmember Bier added to check is that true if we add that to the end of the definition.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, as the coastal vulnerability maps do not include tsunami inundation.
Councilmember Bier stated she wanted to be clear about that.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier stated that, with the points that Mr. Harris brought up, she feels that they need to be looked at again because people still are not understanding it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she is suggesting looking at the letters that were submitted and that staff could respond to those points in the letters submitted as part of public comment.
Councilmember Bier stated the August 6 letter specifically.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that staff has responded to many of the public comments; over the course of all of the meetings, staff has responded to numerous public comments. She asked if Council is asking for something different from or in addition to what staff has already done.
Councilmember Bier asked for reiteration.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is in the packages and available for the public to review online, and she asked if Council is asking for something additional to be included.
Councilmember Boles stated that Council can specify which questions for staff to answer and asked if a response to the letter dated August 6 would be reasonable.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would ask Councilmembers to look at staff’s response to the issues that have been brought up. Attached to the packet are lengthy responses to comments and, if Council feels that there is not information that is provided, to make that specific request, when this comes back to Council, to respond more clearly or repeat the response, etc. He stated that staff needs to hear from Council what is not clear, why it is not clear, and how to specify further.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested among Council, as we read through his work and come to questions of possible legal disparity, that is the time as Council is reading the document to email staff. That is at Council’s discretion at any given point to inform that conversation that may happen leading up to the next meeting.
Councilmember Bier appreciated that.
Councilmember Boles stated there was one comment that staff answered on packet page 705:
“Pacifica’s LCLUP should exempt maintenance repair and minor additions to existing structures from CDP permit requirements. The Coastal Commission, April 2021, unanimously approved these same exemptions in Half Moon Bay.” She stated staff’s response was stated in Section
2.3: “Land use framework, coastal development review, pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from Coastal Development Permit requirements. These exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610, and Sections 13252, 253, 250 of the California Code of Regulations. These code sections provide clear language on when maintenance and repair activities do and do not require Coastal Development Permit.
Additionally, language on what does trigger a CDP or exemptions to CDP, currently exist in the city’s Implementation Plan.” She sent Mr. Harris today the Section 9-4-4303, Coastal Development Permit requirements, which has a long description of exemptions. The CDC maps do not include tsunami inundation zones. She stated that there are some answers, but it is just referring to particular code sections or documents to look at and not necessarily answering the question about the specifics. She stated that this is part of their previous Implementation Plan City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 12, 2024
that the Coastal Commission reviewed and adopted and this is current.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that, very similar to what is occurring with the LCLUP, the 1980 version is still the certified version that we are using and the same thing for our zoning ordinance which is our Implementation Plan that is certified by California Coastal Commission.
That zoning ordinance and these code sections will stay in place until a new ordinance is written and certified by California Coastal Commission. She stated that these are the exemptions that we rely on today to review projects and determine if they need a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Boles stated that, for example grading, under 6, “Repair and maintenance activities that do not bring results in addition to enlargement of expansion of the improvement for maintenance activities […] Grading of 50 cubic yards or less outside in established public or private right-of-way provided that this exemption shall not apply within environmentally sensitive habitat.” She thinks there is information here that Mr. Harris can look at and clarify if he has very specific questions about specific maintenance that is not addressed in these.
Councilmember Bigstyck has something to address briefly, i.e., this notion of the Coastal Commission “making a hard example of Pacifica” and many comments did not particularly like the SSRA notion. He thinks that, what was scheduled on August 8, was going to be a report out to Coastal Commission around the neighborhood carve-out approach that the Coastal Cities group has been working on as a general information session independent of Pacifica because this is an approach that has been worked on by Councilmembers, not just from Pacifica, but from other locales, certain Coastal Commissioners and certain Coastal Commission staff. He appreciated that we seem to be on the cutting edge of this new coastal technology, and this is something that is being worked on statewide. He stated that the point is well-taken that the community is asking if we want to be the first to try this thing and the Coastal Commission has to start somewhere. He stated that the point was well-taken by a couple of commenters that referred to the latest Coastal Commission staff letter as new demands. He acknowledged that processing nine meetings over the course of a year has been a stretch for all their dispositions, not just the community. He stated that there is a lingering question mark with every meeting of continuing this another step. When new information is brought forward and we do not get to process because it comes out the day before the staff report comes out, that further deepens that question mark. He is willing to continue the work as we have plenty of work to that we had in front of us before the latest letter, but he acknowledged that Coastal Commission staff has given our city staff more to have to process to bring Council Councilmember Boles stated that there was a question about hydrology mapping and the CoSMoS data. She asked if that is something that will be updated through ESA and their mapping. She thinks it is ground water that is raising as part of sea level rise.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believed it was Figure 4.1.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the ESA mapping does include an update to groundwater mapping using the USGS CoSMoS ground water map.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Council will resume discussion of Chapter 6 policies.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes directed attention to summary table on packet page 373 and the redline policy language starts on page 593.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we were talking about Modification No. 6.44.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 12, 2024
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, stating that this is the new policy, CR-I-20. As Council may recall from the last meeting, there was a shifting in the policy numbers, as it used to be 44 and is now 20. She stated that this policy is for siting and design of new development in coastal vulnerability zones. She stated that the alternative modifications to this policy add some specific language for setback and blufftop and shoreline. The development needs to be safe, and it provides ways like setbacks from bluff top or from shoreline areas in order to be safe. She stated that it also adds the exemption that would allow for the SSRAs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer noted the phrase “and other coastal hazards” appears in this language. She stated that previously we discussed being explicit about those hazards.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes asked if Council would like to add exemption language for tsunami inundation zones.
Councilmember Boles did not know if they can be written in one place, as we do not necessarily have to catch it everywhere it happens.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that we will have to review it ultimately to make sure it is consistently treated throughout the document, certainly in the definition. She thought it was important that we do not have this open-ended “and other coastal hazards”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the code definition of coastal hazards includes tsunamis. She stated, if Council wants to exclude tsunami inundation zones and tsunami evacuation zones, staff would have to work that into the language here to specify those.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if it is the definition of coastal vulnerability zone that excludes tsunami references, is that not enough when using the term “coastal vulnerability zone” elsewhere in the document because it is already defined in the glossary.
Councilmember Boles stated that this refers to coastal hazards which does still say tsunami.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that coastal hazards are articulated as separate from coastal vulnerability zones vis-a-vis class redefinition.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that it would be inconsistent because coastal vulnerability zones would exclude tsunamis but then it refers to coastal hazards which include tsunamis.
She suggested “other coastal hazards except for tsunamis”.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is concerned that the language might be in 20 other places in this document.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it will be. She asked if Acting Deputy Director Cervantes could speak to whether or not she thinks this is something that Coastal Commission staff will be amenable to because, generally speaking, these types of documents do make broad statements to capture as much as possible in the policies. Coastal Commission staff may feel that they do not know what coastal hazards are out there so they will just say “other coastal hazards” to capture everything.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that her recollection of conversations involving this City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 12, 2024
specific topic was that they were not as concerned with tsunamis for the other policies for technical reporting and the siting and design policy. It was not specifically discussed if tsunami hazards would be included and would be a conversation we would need to have with Coastal Commission staff. Her recollection is that the conversation revolved around the coastal hazard risk disclosure and that requirement for when it came to tsunamis.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was a different issue than anything that can be connected to permitting. She does not know if adding more language to limit it is easier or taking it out entirely is easier.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she would think about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are putting a pin in this for now with a question mark about how we are treating that language.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes asked for any other comments on Modification No. 6.44.
Councilmember Boles wanted to ask about the bonding for large projects which requires a removal and restoration plan. She asked if staff can explain what that means and what is considered a large project.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes believes the bonding for large projects is referring to removal and restoration and referring to a bond in case shoreline protection structures may need to be removed with the approval of a new project.
Councilmember Boles stated that it says “requires removal and restoration to avoid future shoreline protection” and that is why she is confused. She asked if we are removing the project itself, as she is thinking of certain projects we had to remove and ended up having to pay for instead of the owner. She is hoping that this is for that and we are getting some bond as long as projects become vulnerable and may have to be removed. She stated that this would be for new applications, not existing applications.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that this is a capital projects requirement. He stated that, if there is a project that, via Coastal Commission permit or City, is going to require to do any significant restoration or removal, like construction projects, there will be a bonding requirement for that to guarantee, through the project implementation, that the project is done at the applicant’s expense.
Councilmember Boles thought it was talking about project failure and that is why she is asking as it seems to be saying removal of the project itself.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought that was correct, as it says, “where necessary, requires removal and restoration plan which would support the idea that the bond is a restoration bond, including bonding for large project to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure”. She agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is a bond we take when the project is permitted that stays with the city for the life of the project, in case it needs to be removed.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that it is a bond for restoration of the project site if the project fails, adding not the life of the project but the construction of the project.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that it is the life of the project where it will become an issue, not the initial construction.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She added that the reason she thinks that is the interpretation of the life of the project because the part in red goes on to exempt or delineate “except, however, behind special shoreline resiliency areas, development may consider these things”. She stated, in this one text, it is both saying if you are not in the SSRA, you are subject to this, and if you are in the SSRA, it does not pertain.
Councilmember Boles was not sure it does not say pertain, but just says you can also consider these other policies.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Policy 138 is public infrastructure along the shoreline in special resiliency areas and Policy 139 is development directly inland of public infrastructure in special resiliency areas. She stated that 144 is coastal access and resiliency program.
City Manager Woodhouse would interpret it as, if there is existing protection, but in some year in the future, the property owner is acknowledging that it cannot be rebuilt, and that would need to be removed at some point in the future. They are not going to need a bond upfront now for the future but when that project to remove the structure or the revetment, etc., is going to happen.
That is a capital project in itself when it is contracted and approved, and that is when they would bond to ensure that the project happens and does not fail. In other words, to ensure that the structure is removed, the project does not fail by only being halfway removed and then the contractor goes away or the applicant goes bankrupt. He thinks that is typically how bonding works for capital projects.
Councilmember Boles asked if this is the city’s language and not Coastal Commission staff’s.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she is correct. There were some modifications to that sentence, but that is the original language from the city.
Councilmember Boles she wants to be sure we have the financial protection that we need for projects that do need to get removed at some point. She stated that we changed the language to say “anticipated life,” and her other question was do we have an approved project for less than a 75-year anticipated life or is that a minimum that is required by the Coastal Commission.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes thinks a project could be designed to have a shorter anticipated life, but the project when proposed would need to clarify that. She stated that she stated in the definition of anticipated life that the typical anticipated life for a structure is 75-100 years for residential commercial development and a minimum of 100 to 150 years for critical infrastructure. There are instances where development is proposed to have a shorter anticipated life for a variety of reasons and developers can do that.
Councilmember Boles asked the City Attorney to make sure we are getting the protection we need.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she will take a look at this provision and discuss with staff and return to Council with some explanation or clarification of the language.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated, moving on to Modification No. 6.45. This is the City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 12, 2024
coastal hazard risk disclosure and this policy would apply to Coastal Development Permit approvals for development in a coastal vulnerability zones or the tsunami inundation zones.
She stated that we have discussed the maps for what the inundation zones would look like and we can discuss the bullet points.
Councilmember Boles stated that, at the beginning, it says “Coastal Development Permit approvals of development in coastal vulnerability zones”. She stated that we talked about the definition of development before, and that was new construction or substantial structural modification. She stated that using that word “development” concerns her.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded saying that we only need Coastal Development Permit for developments and that is why the term is used there. She stated that is the only time you would be getting the Coastal Development Permit, i.e., if you have a development. She stated that new development is defined and there are a number of exceptions to the term and we have discussed some of those at this meeting.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the bullet points are the deed disclosure that would be recorded against the property. Staff anticipaties that this will be the language that will be taken directly from the policy and put into the template risk disclosure that will be recorded on properties that obtained Coastal Development Permits. She read the first bullet point:
“acknowledge the site is subject to coastal hazards, including but not limited to episodic and long- term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, coastal flooding, landslides, bluff and geologic instability, and the interaction of same, and all as impacted by sea level rise.” She stated that this mirrors the definition of coastal hazards. The second bullet point states, “assume and accept the risks to themselves and their properties of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development” and this is an acknowledgment that the property may still be subject to coastal hazards. The third bullet point states, “unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the City and its officers, agents, and employees, for injury and/or damage in connection with the permitted development” and this is the acknowledgment stating that the city is not responsible for any damage that may be caused from a coastal hazard to the development.
The fourth bullet point states, “indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the City’s approval of the development against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury and/or damage in connection with the permitted development, including in terms of the approval or issuance of the coastal permit, the interpretation and/or enforcement of coastal permit terms and conditions, or any other matter related to the coastal permit” and this is stating that the private developer is responsible for any damages caused by the development that is permitted.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that the indemnity language is usually included as a condition of approval or in the application for permit with the city in various places, so it is logically included in this acknowledgment as well.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the fifth bullet point is, “acknowledge public funds may not be available in the future to repair, maintain, and/or continue to provide infrastructure and related services to the property (e.g., roads and utilities), and that the occupancy of structures may be prohibited if such services are no longer available to serve the development, including where sewage disposal and/or water systems are rendered inoperable” and this is an acknowledgment that, in the future, coastal hazards may damage or remove roads or other utilities to the development and is needed that the development will no longer be able to be City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 12, 2024
occupied. The sixth bullet point is, “waive any rights that might exist under applicable law or shoreline protection structures for the duration the permitted development is present on the property” and this is typical California Coastal Commission policy that new development should not rely or have future shoreline protection structures. This bullet point is written so that, if the law were to change in the future, if regulations are lost under California Coastal Commission were to change in the future, related to existing development having shoreline protection structure, that would apply. It does waive the right under the applicable code at the time.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was more than an acknowledgment. It is an agreement.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively. She added that for Coastal Development Permit in these areas, the property or development is required to do the technical reporting and to do the siting and design that were talked about in CR-I-19 and CR-I-20. In theory, if these policies are applied correctly, that development should not need to rely on shoreline protection for the anticipated life of that development. It is required that it be filled to be designed to mitigate coastal hazards for that site. She stated that it is an acknowledgment that your property should already be designed to not need future shoreline protection structures and an acknowledgment that law in the future may not allow you to have shoreline protection structures.
Councilmember Boles asked if there would be an exception for the SSRAs.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that there is no exemption for the SSRAs. She stated that the next bullet point is, “be removed and the site restored in response to future hazard conditions and/or certain defined triggers identified in the LCLUP and implementing Programs and/or as identified by the terms and conditions of the CDP including when deemed unsafe, if land comes to be impressed with a public trust interest, when within 10 feet of the blufftop edge, when within 10 feet of the mean high tide line, when no longer served by necessary utilities/infrastructure when coastal hazards would necessitate construction of a shoreline protection structure to ensure safe occupancy of the development, and/or as part of shoreline protection structure repair/maintenance if the development is not permitted to obtain shoreline protection” and this is stating that there is a possibility that your development in the future may not be habitable and it may need to be removed and the site restored.
Councilmember Boles asked how it is determined that the development needs to be removed and whose responsibility is that. She stated that it mentions certain defined triggers identified in the LCLUP but we have taken out all the triggers and we have not done the implementation programs yet. She asked how we decide and who is responsible for enforcing that.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the policy itself has a few triggers: If land comes to be impressed with a public trust interest that is within ten feet of a blufftop edge, when within ten feet of some mean high tide, when no longer served by necessary utilities and infrastructure, when coastal hazards would necessitate construction of a shoreline protection structure to ensure safe occupancy of the development and/or part of protection structure repaired. It would be city staff determining when that building is no longer safe, whether because it is near a blufftop or because it is no longer being served by required electricity, water, sewer, etc. Those are unsafe conditions that would not allow individuals to live in that structure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the phrase “if land comes to be impressed with a public trust interest,” and we hear about public trust and about eastward movement of the mean high tide and the definition of private property changing when the mean high tide moves forward City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 12, 2024
eastward and it is now public trust land. She wonders if Asst. City Attorney Bazzano can elaborate on that in terms of that sentence and specifically regarding “comes to be impressed with the public trust interest,” who makes that determination and when does it happen.
Councilmember Boles added if our vulnerability maps that we are updating every five years map that level of detail. She stated that the BBIRP project mapped the public trust land, the mean high tide line defines it, but that is not done except when a project is approved and continuing.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believes the city would make that determination but likely get input from Coastal Commission staff, which is her assumption. They would be contacting city staff to explain to them that there has been changes and this is now public trust land. Then, city staff would review and take action as necessary and the action would be some type of enforcement of these provisions and acknowledgment.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was concerned about that. She stated that it seems very vague.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she does not know how this would come up, but that is why she said it is her assumption. She stated that city staff would enforce it. She stated her assumption is that we would likely be contacted by Coastal Commission staff to say this has changed, they signed this acknowledgment and what are they going to do about it.
Councilmember Boles does not see how Coastal Commission staff would be seeing how the entire coastline is changing and letting us know.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that we have a definition for public coastlands and the LCLUP. She agrees that it is likely going to be a coordinated effort between city staff and Coastal Commission staff to determine when an area has become public trust land and then foresee any requirements that come along with that. She thought that we can make efforts at the city level to identify when lands are becoming public trust land but the act of a public trust land is a function that the state, the California Coastal Commission, usually operates. She thinks we would need to work closely with them to ensure we are applying that version correctly.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it seemed to her that the public trust doctrine covers that.
Her question is do we need to put this in our LCLUP as she thinks that is redundant, considering we are not defining it or giving any sort of timeline or any kind of limitation. She reminded everyone that we are on the section about assumption of risks by private landowners and that was crossed out and changed to “coastal hazard risk disclosure,” relating to deed restriction.
She has questions about who decides when, how much notice, how is it enforced, etc. and she asked if we have any other examples to explain to our public what this means.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is not aware of any examples.
City Manager Woodhouse added that this is the first step in a multi-year, multi-phased process, which includes very rigorous adaptation planning in future years with twice annual measuring of coastal erosion and the mean tideline in public trust lands is a data point that is going to be throughout those studies. The Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission, and others monitor that. If there is erosion to the extent that the mean high tide line and public trust lands moves, the city is going to learn about it. He thinks it is in there as it is one of the triggers for this that the state is very concerned about.
Councilmember Boles stated that we are educating people that the coastline is moving and City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 12, 2024
what may have been your property 50 years ago might not be your property today or 50 years from now as the line is moving.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how a land comes to be impressed with the public trust interest.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it seems “impressed by public trust lands” is a term from erosion as sea level rise and the mean tideline moves inland.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when land is converted to beach, it has become impressed.
Councilmember Boles stated it may not be necessarily related to erosion. There could be a sea wall that does not erode, but still the mean high tideline could move in past the line of the sea wall, thereby impressing the public trust in a different way. She stated that, just thinking about updating our science every five years, we are going to need to know and how do we know that, in this section of town, this area is starting to become in the public trust. She thinks it would be interesting to know if that is something ESA checked on a rough scale.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that every five years, as the science changes, presumably as the science changes around our area, new mapping would occur.
Councilmember Boles stated that the mapping shows the hazard zone and right now, it does not show where the public trust line is.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks she is concerned that this seems to be going beyond what we understood before was limited to the substantial structural modifications which did have a specific definition. She stated that this sounds like anything you obtain a CDP for.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that they are just warning people that this is a risk as you are by the ocean and you acknowledge it.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was going back and forth between the definition of public trust land on packet page 640 and listening to what the City Manager Woodhouse was saying.
At first the definition is talking about navigable lakes, rivers, and fisheries. He thinks the City Manager’s explanation of how more specifically to our coastline it might apply, i.e. if due to blufftop erosion where you had a bluff before and now it is a beach, it just got impressed as public trust interest. He stated that makes sense. After that, it is a matter that we are asking people to acknowledge, if your bluff just became a beach, things might change for you.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that makes sense for the properties that are at the blufftop within ten feet as defined. She asked about the ones that are nowhere near the bluff edge as it seems like it is applying to them the same, if they are in the coastal vulnerability zone or tsunami inundation zone.
Councilmember Boles stated that for 2212 Beach Boulevard she was sure when we first built the sea wall, the public trust land was out further; it was a little bit closer now so, when we do a project, we have to map that. She stated that it is something that shifts over time and we are acknowledging that with sea level rise which is not very much in the next 50 years.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the crux of it was, if there is a hazard there and if it is in the hazardous zone, it is more likely to shift character than if not. He stated that he feels it suggests that, at some point, the city may not have the wherewithal to address protection when there is City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 12, 2024
such a hazard and, seeing our budget, he is inclined to believe it. He stated that, if at some point that hazard we are mapping as being present should shift to the nature of the land in relation to that property, he thinks this is suggesting that we are acknowledging that there comes a point where the nature of the land has shifted and that is a risk we are taking by setting up there.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is right. He stated that the city will verify about the definition of public trust lands and mean high tide. He stated that the mean high tide does not move beyond the bluffs and seawalls because the tide does not move beyond those. When there is erosion, the tide can move further in, and then the mean high tide moves and public trust land moves. He stated that, if you are not on the edge, on the shoreline, this trigger is not going to apply until you are.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she is concerned about because where does it say that. It says coastal vulnerability zone.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is the laundry list of triggers and some may apply to you, but that one would not.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that there is another one in the public trust land’s definition, “submerged land”. He says there is more to it than bluff erosion and that is what this definition seems to be getting at.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought submerged lands were specifically delineated in a legal context. She stated that, even when the Coastal Act was approved, there were submerged lands that were known, like in Marin in Tomales Bay area. She thinks it is important for us to be clear in understanding what this is saying and to whom it applies.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we have tried to identify who has to sign this coastal hazard risk disclosure; this section is trying to identify the universe of events that could take place that could result in the property owner having to remove the development and restore the site. The City is trying to paint a broad universe so there can be restoration if these hazards occur. She stated that submerged lands may never occur on this site but, if it does, we want to be able to say that you signed the acknowledgment that says you understood that this was a risk of developing on this property and now you need to restore the site.
Councilmember Boles stated that reading the definition more has her more concerned as it talks about submerged lands and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed and which are subject to the public trust at any time. She agreed that Laguna Salada was a lagoon and the water was further in before the berm was built. She questioned if there are other places we filled over the years. She stated that San Francisco has a ton.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed the bay has many examples.
Councilmember Boles asked if there is has ever historically been submerged lands.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she understood that it protects the city, but what does it do to our citizens. She stated that is her big concern on this one as she feels that they are coming up with every single possibility. She stated that one of the things mentioned is utilities. When you can no longer maintain the utility, you can no longer maintain the sewer lines, but somewhere else it says roads. She stated that we have examples in Pacifica of these type of things and City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 12, 2024
people live there. She asks if the City will come knocking on Shelter Cove and say if they cannot maintain the roads then they need to remove their house and restore the land. She stated that it will not happen to them because they are not subject to this, but it would happen to a future person. If they sign this waiver and acknowledgment, they are agreeing to that in advance without knowledge of when and how it is going to come to be.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is not forcing any development, but if someone wanted to come in and redevelop their property or build, then this is an acknowledgment and disclosure about what they may need to do in the future. He stated that an important point about the disclosures here is that this also achieves protections for the entire community via costly abatement that could fall to the city without such disclosures from a private property. The City has examples of that where there were not these types of disclosures and commitments made which leads to lawsuits and costly public money being spent for a private property owner that does not want to do the abatement that they should be doing.
Councilmember Bier stated that all of this is triggered by a Coastal Development Permit if they want to develop on this land. She stated that someone who is in the coastal vulnerability zone and does not have to disclose all these things unless they are looking for a Coastal Development Permit. She asked if that is correct.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, to discuss this on this case, that is potentially leading to blight and to people not maintaining their property, and she asked how we balance these things.
She asked if she can have some sense of the scope. The maps do not tell her how many homeowners or what neighborhoods; she needs some sense of scale for her to feel comfortable about what we are having people being subjected to. She needs to have a better understanding of how many potential Coastal Development Permits are going to come forward, maybe related to the map overlay.
Councilmember Bier asked for a very clear map overlay so we can see all the details. She would like to be able to see street level.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if Council was asking how many properties there are in the coastal vulnerability zones.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how many properties in the coastal vulnerability zones would be affected and required to sign this coastal hazard risk disclosure should they come forward to develop their property. She asked what the scale is.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the question would be how many development applications and CDPs have we issued in the last year in coastal vulnerability zones.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is a data point but not the one being asked for.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that would be a data point of what did occur when people came forward and went through the process of developing their property. She is talking about the future potential of being able to come forward.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if she was asking staff to predict future development activity.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 12, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated no, what she is asking staff to show her on a map and look at a better rendering of all of the people it is going to affect.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was asking for how many properties there were in the coastal vulnerability zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added properties that would be subjected to this coastal hazard risk disclosure.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is only triggered by a development application and it is any Coastal Development Permit in the coastal vulnerability zone has to sign this disclosure.
For a snapshot of how many people that is, staff would have to predict development activity and cannot do that. He stated that we can look back and say last year there were 25 CDPs issued for properties.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was asking for a list of parcels inside of the coastal vulnerability zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles added how many properties would be affected.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that City Manager was saying we do not know if people will be affected because we do not know if they are going to want to develop. Her question is, if they so choose, they are going to have to sign this, and she would like to have an understanding of how many properties that is. She stated, in Pacifica’s coastal zone as defined, where are the lines and how many are included in that zone.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, to be clear, she is asking for how many parcels there are in the coastal vulnerability zones or the inundation zones.
Councilmember Boles stated, knowing that the maps are going to be updated, those areas will be less. She stated that is where she is struggling by not having updated maps as she thinks people should know if they are in the zone or not.
City Manager Woodhouse asked Acting Deputy Director Cervantes and Asst. Planner Snodgrass how readily available the number of parcels in the coastal vulnerability zones are.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that it might take staff some time with the resources to determine that.
Councilmember Bigstyck feels like the pertinent question before them is should any given property owner in the coastal vulnerability zone have to say to somebody else at some point that these are the hazards of living here and it is not up to the city to bail you out. He stated, whether or not these are the right definitions, these are the triggers.
Councilmember Boles stated that we are just asking people to acknowledge that the risk is there by signing that and it does not affect their ability to not develop or to keep doing substantial structural modifications or anything else, but just acknowledging that risk and, if you are selling it, the next person should know.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if your risk has overcome your property, if your apartment building is falling off the bluff, it is your responsibility to deal with it, not the city’s. He stated that, at that point, it is time to remove.
Councilmember Boles added that it is their responsibility to tell a future buyer just like you have disclose anything else. She asked where all this language came from, perhaps Coastal Commission. She attended the Coastal Commission’s briefing on SB 272 and the update to sea level rise planning and they mentioned that the risk disclosure was a key thing that they are going to be asking in LCPs that apply to be able to get funding from SB 272, etc. She asked if this specific language that they are putting in LCPs all over the state or is this something that they are working on with us in particular. She asked if there is room for negotiations.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that there was a bulk of language that came from Coastal Commission and then there was some negotiation between the two staffs that came up with this final language that is published today. There was some back and forth to ensure that this language fits the needs of our city.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is how she remembers it, as there was some back and forth. She can look back at who suggested what language and what was revised.
Councilmember Boles is okay with this language, but if there is something that Council wants to ask about changing, is that possible at this point in negotiations with the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if there is something Council feels strongly about, we can ask.
He stated that the language we have here mainly has been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff and they do not have further comments. He stated city staff have reviewed it with them and the staffs are in agreement, but if there is some particular language, we will need to take that back through another iteration and see what Coastal Commission staff says about it or impose it and see what the Coastal Commission says about it when they make a decision.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she needs to have a better understanding of the magnitude of the import of this policy, i.e. the neighborhoods, the streets, and the houses. She stated that this is a lot to ask Pacificans to sign off and she hears the point about not doing it and the whole city and every citizen has to pay for something as there was no policy to say otherwise.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that these risk disclosures apply to any property in a coastal vulnerability zone, and those are mapped, that wants to do development and needs a Coastal Development Permit to do their development, and the tsunami inundation zones, as the disclosure applies to both of those. He stated that is the universe of potential property owners that this disclosure applies to. He stated that the risk impact might be more severe for someone who is right on the shoreline versus someone who is further inland in the coastal vulnerability zone but that is the potential for whom this disclosure applies. He stated that, when projects are appealed or Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over those approvals, they require this anyway; there are many CDPs that have been issued with these disclosures already in Pacifica and elsewhere.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated what he is saying is true and that it happens later on in the process of someone developing their property when they are doing a Coastal Commission appeal with additional expenses. She thinks a person on their first step in developing their property will have a difference in their willingness and understanding about these being City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 12, 2024
conditions of approval, with the notion that we put it in now and if it is appealed and ends up in appeal to the Coastal Commission it will happen anyway.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we are not suggesting doing that because Coastal Commission would require that anyway, and that is not the premise for why this is in here. He stated we are being transparent about all the requirements, benefits, and things being imposed in this modernized LCLUP. He stated that, if you are a property owner and invested $100,000 and you have gotten to the 11th hour on your project and you’re before the Coastal Commission and it gets denied, you have lost all that money. Here, we are bringing transparency and certainty to a process and that is what fuels investment in people’s financial decisions about what to do with their property.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he served on the Planning Commission when that property off of Paloma was approved and then followed it every step of the way. He stated it was heartwrenching as he had very specific reasons for not voting for it on Planning Commission and it had nothing to do with this and had everything to do with his visceral appreciation of our infrastructure and didn’t even think about what they would have to experience through Coastal Commission. He does not know what the experience of Council who heard that on appeal was, but they came to the conclusion that they are going to pass it through and then Coastal Commission staff said reduce the number of units and then stopped it. He appreciated the way Coastal Commission worked, independent of their staff. He got to observe that Coastal Commission themselves disagreed with their staff to the point of summarily executing a development project a block away. He thought that property owner would have been wellserved via disclosures that were necessary for that development. He thought this might be a tool and asset to somebody trying to develop if it is going to wind up at the Coastal Commission one way or the other.
Councilmember Boles agreed with him from the point of working and development. She stated that what developers want is certainty and knowing what the restrictions are. She watched that meeting, and the Coastal Commissioners did not feel that the hazards were properly addressed, especially the hazards of circulation. Staff said you could redesign the project but there was nothing left to approve by the time they were done.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, when a project like that comes before the city, the city says we do not want to run the risk of being sued over a taking and we are going to find a way to make it work and pass the likely scenario the development ends up with the Coastal Commission. He did not say that will happen with every project every time, but he can point to a specific example. Through this mechanism, it seems overly constrictive from one perspective, but from another perspective, it could give a sure warning.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer said it depends on how long it takes them to get through these different things and Council is on the second one.
Councilmember Boles asked if we finished reading all the bullet points.
Councilmember Bier stated that talking about hazards is what made it so hard. She stated, if she owned property in a hazard zone, it would not make her feel good but there is the reality of what we are going to be facing in the future.
Councilmember Boles stated that some of those realities are there now.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that these are the deed restrictions that the community is concerned about.
Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting until midnight; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes referred to Modification No. 6.45a for the policy regarding bluff face development, stating there were some alternative modifications added to this policy to “allow native bluff landscaping, public recreational access and other improvements and critical infrastructure to bluff places”. She then moved on to next modification of policy on substantial structure modifications. This has generally remained except for one difference in language:
“non-conformities related to non-coastal resource issues may be maintained at the discretion of the decision-making body so long as they do not lead to significant impact to coastal resources”.
She stated that sentence is to protect some non-conformities that are not related to coastal hazards so that can be development standards that are not related to coastal hazards or even uses in some instances. Currently, in our Implementation Plan in the Zoning Ordinance, we have provisions that allow for permitted non-conformities to remain under certain circumstances or even to be expanded under certain circumstances with the approval of a use permit. This sentence would allow the city to continue that practice of allowing non-conformities, as long as they are not impacting coastal resources, to remain or to have minor expansions.
Councilmember Boles stated that there might be a typo in the first sentence, i.e., “when proposed modifications to a existing structure,” and whether it is supposed to be “an” existing or “a” structure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she thinks it means “a structure” because we took away references to “existing” and “new”.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes moved on to Modification No. 6.47, Habitat Sea Level Rise Mitigation Buffers.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Coastal Commission commented on this one in regards to buffers for ESHA and creek.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that those comments were not in relation to this policy but in relation to additional policies. The reason it is included is because previously city staff had proposed a modification that “the overall buffer area shall include both sea level rise and habitat buffer” but on the May 23 meeting, staff was directed to remove that proposed alternative modification and keep the Coastal Commission’s suggested modification. She stated that the next Modification No. is 6.47A policy on Subdivision Limitations. She stated that the proposed modification is to remove the phrase “update the zoning ordinance” and replace it with “Prohibit the division of shoreline property that creates hazardous or unbuildable parcels due to erosion”. She moved on to Modification No. 6.47B, where staff is proposing to remove City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 12, 2024
an alternative modification from Coastal Commission staff. She then referred to Modification No. 6.48, Beach Nourishment policy, that has been moved to the beginning of the chapter. She then referred to Modification No. 6.49, Existing Shoreline Protection Structures, and this policy applies to existing legally permitted shoreline structures and details some language that would allow for repair and maintenance of the city’s existing shoreline protection structures. She read, “Modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Structural Modification shall be considered to be allowed without the above-mentioned considerations.” She stated that staff clarified that anything below that 50% is an exclusion in the SSM definition and is allowed.
Councilmember Boles assumed that all the red underline was Coastal Commission changes that our staff had agreed on, but she asked if there was an alternative modification that we are proposing that the Coastal Commission does not agree with Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that previously staff had not proposed any alternative modifications to the policy and the reason that the third column is all red is because now we are proposing alternative modifications.
Councilmember Boles stated she had asked a question about legally permitted shoreline protection structures, and she thought it was one thing to legally permit something but sometimes permits expire. She asked about clarification to say “current valid permits”.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes thought the legally permitted would cover that as, if the permit has expired, it is no longer legally permitted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we mean by shoreline protection structures and she understands this to be saying is “legally permitted shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained”. She stated that is already in 30235 of the Coastal Act, but what is different in this policy now is “until the development they are protecting is removed or redeveloped”.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that specific phrase is already there and there was a suggested modification from Coastal staff that added “or redevelopment pursuant to the definition of SSM”. She stated, when a development triggers that definition of SSM and triggers that 50% trigger, it is now considered new development and thus does not qualify for protection of shoreline protection structures and that would be the same as development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wondered how this would be implemented with protection of private property.
Councilmember Boles stated, if you are remodeling a house and it was not falling into the ocean, and the remodel is 50% or more of the substantial structural modification, you would have to take out that armoring that is currently there because the new development cannot rely on that. She stated, as an example, there is a house off of Palmetto, and if they wanted to do a remodel of that property and there is a rock revetment in front of it now and if they wanted to do a substantial structural modification to that house, they might be required to take out the revetment, but it would have to be evaluated as there are lots of caveats in the evaluation.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed that they may be required to remove the existing shoreline protection.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier asked if that changes if they are in an SSRA.
Councilmember Boles stated that the SSRA does not have any protection that is for a private house.
Councilmember Bier understood.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes referred to Modification No. 6.51 pertaining to New Shoreline Protection Structures. She stated that we added an alternative modification which states, “including existing public roads and sewer lines if necessary”. She stated that staff is also proposing to change the phrase “erosion” to “coastal hazard”. She then referred to Modification No. 6.52 pertaining to the Authorization Limit of Shoreline Protection Structures and there are no alternative modifications to this. She then referred to Modification No. 6.53 pertaining to internal consistency change that was made to this policy to reflect the new name for one of those policies and add the additional policy that is at the end of this chapter. She then referred to Modification No. 6.54 which is a new policy that was crafted in coordination with California Coastal Commission staff that related to Emergency Shoreline Protection Structures and the issuance of Emergency Coastal Development Permits. She stated that the city does have the ability to issue emergency Coastal Development Permits for certain types of work. The policy does compliment that and outlines some additional requirements and clarifies that a regular CDP application is needed in order to do a permitted approval of that emergency work.
Councilmember Boles assumed that is a Coastal Commission requirement now, but she thinks a lot of people do not know it because there is not enforcement of that currently.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she is correct. Currently in the city’s Implementation Plan, it lists the requirements for obtaining a Coastal Development Permit for any emergency work. She stated that, depending on the type of work that is done, sometimes applicants are unable to submit that regular application within that timeframe and there are certain communications that need to occur.
Councilmember Boles was concerned about the 60 days following construction of the temporary structure. She stated that this is getting a survey, mean high tideline, mapping utilities and all the applications they have to do. She stated that it says Planning Director can extend it with good cause but she thinks that is almost impossible.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added “including good faith efforts towards submittal of such application”. If they are waiting on technical reports, she thought that would fall into that category. She asked what staff’s thought was.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that she was correct.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what Councilmember Boles thought about that.
Councilmember Boles asked if that 60 days came from the Coastal Commission. She stated that it can take 30 days just to hire a consultant, much less do the work.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is looking at section 944307, and that is the zoning code section that describes the Coastal Development Permit process and, for Emergency Coastal Development Permits, it also specifies that 60-day period for the expiration for the permit. She stated that the code requires 30 days for submittal of an application.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Boles thought staff will spend more time talking to them to try to get extensions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like her thought is that it should be longer.
Councilmember Boles stated, if allowed, as 90 days would be helpful.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how far this deviates from the city’s normal practice when it comes to emergency or is there a normal practice in the case of emergency shoreline protection.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes asked if he means the number of days between the issuance of an Emergency Coastal Development Permit and the required regular Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that it is the same, 60 days. She stated that their current Implementation Plan and the Zoning Ordinance states that the “Emergency Coastal Development Permit is valid for 60 calendar days from the date of issuance by the director and the director may extend an emergency permit for an additional 60 days if the Coastal Development Permit application is on file but has not been processed”.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that it is already our standard practice.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has been asking how many emergency shoreline protection structures we have that have not followed through with our CDPs and she has been told we do not know. She concluded the city is the one who processes all those, not the Coastal Commission directly.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that it has been a mixture and the city has issued some Emergency Coastal Development Permits but the California Coastal Commission has issued some as well in Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles asked if that will continue to be the process. She is asking who is in charge and who is following up to make sure that a full CDP is being issued in the future. She is assuming that we are not back tracking against the ones that never did that work at this point.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated it would be the responsibility of the agency that approved the Emergency Coastal Development Permit; from her experience, the Coastal Commission enforces that more just due to the resources they have, but staff also follows up on those as well for the permits that the city issues.
Councilmember Boles referred to the previously mentioned example and the Coastal Commission had filed so many letters of violation about their armoring that they were threatening to charge daily fines. She does not know if any of that happened.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this section is related to shoreline protection structures, and he asked if the city issues the Emergency CDPs for the shoreline protection or the Coastal Commission does.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 12, 2024
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated it depends on where that structure is proposed to be located and there are some but not a lot of instances where the city may have permit jurisdiction.
City Manager woodhouse stated, if revetment on the beach, probably not, as that is Coastal.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated, if Coastal Commission is approving a permit, they would at least be notifying the city so we could start tracking that.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes believes the city gets notified on all Emergency Coastal Development Permits and eventually they do make their way through Community Development.
Councilmember Boles states she is happy to see some policies where there is more enforcement for emergency permits.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes moved on to Modification No. 6.55 pertaining to a policy related to the Sharp Park Golf Course that previously was in the sub area section and has been moved to the end of this section. This is the Sharp Park Golf Course policy that states “strongly support that the City and County of San Francisco’s ability to provide public access along the coast protects environmentally sensitive habitat area and provides flood protection”. She then referred to Modification No. 6.56.
Councilmember Boles stated that there is a whole introductory paragraph in the book that is not in the table and she thought it might be helpful to read regarding SSRAs.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated the introductory paragraph is the heading of the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area and staff provides some information as to why these two areas have been chosen and it references the two specific areas. She stated that, starting with the first policy in this section, Modification No. 6.56, which is a policy related to public infrastructure along the shoreline in SSRAs, which allows “Public infrastructure (e.g., public roads, sidewalks, parking areas, accessways, water and sewer infrastructure) on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas mapped in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 shall be consistent with all LCP provisions except that, to establish the safety and stability of the proposed development, such development may rely on a shoreline protection structure that is existing at the time of the application and/or that is proposed in the same permit application as the infrastructure itself.” As mentioned before, the SSRAs allow development to rely on the existing shoreline protection structures that are existing at the time. This specific policy is for public infrastructure which, under the definition of development, is considered development.
She moved on to Modification No. 6.57 which is essentially the same policy but it is for development directly inland of public infrastructure in the special resiliency shoreline areas.
Councilmember Boles thinks we should read these.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano read Modification No. 6.57: “Notwithstanding Policy CR-I-2, development located directly inland of the public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas mapped in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 may rely on a shoreline protection structure in that area that is existing at the time of the permit application to help demonstrate that its setbacks meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-20. In addition to meeting the requirements of Policy CR-I-21, such development shall be conditioned City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 12, 2024
to require the applicant to acknowledge that the development’s long-term safety may be based in part on shoreline protection structures located seaward of the development, which may or may not be effective, and/or be maintained, and/or be present in the future.” Councilmember Boles stated that the basic definition of where this applies has her confused.
She stated development located directly inland of the public infrastructure, and she is thinking of Sharp Park with the sea wall directly inland “on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas”. She knows our maps have a line without a backstop to the line, but immediate oceanfront to her implies just the first strip, not that far back.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that was the change when the policies all got reordered.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks it is referring to the infrastructure that is on the immediate oceanfront.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated not the shoreline protection structure but the infrastructure it is protecting.
Councilmember Boles stated development located directly inland of the public infrastructure.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is only the infrastructure on Beach Boulevard and not any further infrastructure on Palmetto.
City Manager Woodhouse stated part of one of the definitional requirements of the SSRA is that there is public infrastructure right there on the oceanfront.
Councilmember Boles stated that what this is saying is that the SSRAs stop at some point, i.e. the first street of infrastructure.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is anything that is inland from that public infrastructure line.
Councilmember Boles stated the public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront, not public infrastructure that is further back.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, clarifying there is seawall that protects public infrastructure and anything directly inland from that is in the coastal vulnerability zone is what this refers to.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it was not just limited to Beach Boulevard and it could apply to structures on the next block.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it could apply to Palmetto.
Councilmember Boles stated directly inland of the public infrastructure on the immediate City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 12, 2024
oceanfront. She does not think it would count infrastructure further back.
City Manager Woodhouse added that it is talking about everything that is inland from that public infrastructure that is on the immediate oceanfront.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the development located directly inland. She stated that it is the word “directly”.
Councilmember Bier stated it is not saying “everything inland,” but saying what is right behind it.
Councilmember Boles thought, if we got rid of “directly,” that would help.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated “directly” was added by Coastal Commission staff.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that was added in the last iteration.
City Manager Woodhouse thought they were referring to the straight line back from the seawall and public infrastructure, not angularly back as that would not be directly inland.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes believes that is where the distinction is, as there is a line and everything directly behind that line going inland.
Councilmember Boles asked for staff to explain “to help demonstrate that its setback meets the requirement”. She stated that it is not a hazard analysis necessarily but just where the building is located in relation to the oceanfront hazards. She asked what they are asking for in the analysis and what does that mean.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated, what it would mean for CR-I-19, the technical reporting, is that reporting can rely on the shoreline protection structure in that area that is existing at the time of permit application to help demonstrate that it needs the setbacks required for CR-I-20, which is the siting and design requirements.
Councilmember Boles stated that the setbacks are related to the hazards.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, stating that it is not a development standard setback.
Councilmember Boles stated that we are talking about developer certainty but acknowledge that it is based on shoreline protection structures that may or may not be effective and/or maintained and/or be present in the future. She is still not clear on how the analysis is done to know if the shoreline protection is effective. She stated that the reason she was watching the 1567 Beach Boulevard hearing and reading that staff report again. She stated, even without these policies here, there seems to be a path forward to analyze the existing shoreline protection for the project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer remembers that they had to design it and have technical reports as if the seawall was not there.
Councilmember Boles stated that there were four geotechnical reports, two by the applicant.
They analyzed the seawall and also dug to understand how the connections were there. They did all this analysis and they said that the seawall down there had a 40-year life and the city’s two other geotechnical engineers whom she assumed the applicant paid for had to sign off on it City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 12, 2024
and they agreed that the seawall had a 40-year life and his setbacks were based on that. She stated that the 40-year life was not the whole life of the building so the Coastal Commission’s presentation was to say that they accept that the seawall can protect you for 40 years but for the next 35, here is what the hazards do and, therefore, this what your setbacks need to be.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it still boils down to analysis without shoreline protection.
Councilmember Boles stated that they analyzed the seawall.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought, if the premise was that the seawall could live for 100 years, they would have been fine with the development.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are two things that bother her, one being that all four of the engineers decided that this seawall had a 40-year life in 2020 when GHD had told the city something very different. She stated that this is part of her concern about this whole policy, i.e., developers will be trying to cut corners and you can hire someone to say whatever you want to say. She asked how we know that the armoring is going to provide the protection for the life of the project. She stated that, even with the new seawall, we have all the documentation, the engineers are stamping it off, and you have the project submitted the next day, it is only being designed to last 50 years and then what happens for the next 25.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the reason he voted no on that project was because of the understanding of the sinkholes that continuously formed behind the retaining wall that sits behind them. He was also concerned about the fact that there was not a second way out of the property. He was very public about what this wall’s problems are. He voted against it for one reason, and then it went to Council where two councilmembers voted against it. He stated that, after that, if it is a different development with a different greater setback, that might meet the 75- year threshold in conjunction with the 50-year seawall. He stated that, when you get down to specific development, things change. He agreed that the engineers that looked at that were off the mark when they concluded that the seawall would protect for 40 years.
Councilmember Boles stated that her concern is that this is a gift for developers. The City is telling them that they can rely on what is here that the city has built and is maintaining. She voiced concern about developers who want to make a quick profit, who will try to build something cheaply and then sell it to some person who is less discerning.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that it could be construed as a gift to developers but it also could be construed as protecting this larger swath of our community while we figure out exactly what adaptive strategies we will need. He stated suspect developers could exist anywhere and a poorly made structure could exist anywhere.
Councilmember Boles does not see how this policy is protecting our community.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought we were talking generally about SSRA. He stated that, in general terms, the way it protects our community is that, without that protective structure, we have a lot of vulnerability in this area, not just immediately along Beach Boulevard.
Councilmember Boles stated that the presence of the seawall is a whole different topic. It is there now and we are going to try to replace it and we have been told that these policies do not help or hurt that.
City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that the topic of replacing the seawall is a different topic, but the topic of the seawall we have directly pertains.
Councilmember Boles agreed, but she thinks what this is doing has nothing to do with the seawall and whether it gets replaced or not; it has to do with letting projects rely on that armoring. She asks where the public benefits are to allowing the developer of that project to rely on the seawall.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Acting Deputy Director Cervantes, if somebody were to develop the 1567 Paloma site today, acknowledging that there is armoring there, would it be in terms of the current degradation to that part of the seawall and what they expect the life of it to be. He stated that the policy says there is armoring there so they can build, but that armoring has a life expectancy to it, given the life it has already experienced, and where does that factor in to the equation.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that one of the things she mentioned in her initial presentation is that, for all the technical reporting, it is anticipated that the assumption is that variables that will go into those technical reports will be in the Implementation Plan, either through the Zoning Ordinance or through some additional policy that will essentially allow the city to determine what the assumptions would be. Staff would consult with geotechnical engineers, our Engineering Division, California Coastal Commission staff, etc. to determine what is the remaining life of our existing seawall, what can we assume are the protections that it provides due to height, due to what we expect to be maintenance and repair, and that will be what applies to all these projects. It will not be individual developers determining what the remaining life of the seawall is, but it will be the city determining what that remaining life of the seawall is and it will be applied the same to everyone in this area.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are saying any development that happens is in conjunction with the protection we already have, and when we implement it, that is when we study what that really means. He stated that we have a policy that says there is protection and you get to develop in terms of the protection you have. When we get to the Implementation Plan, we get a little closer and say what that protection we have is then specifically described.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed.
Councilmember Bier referred to all those adaptation strategies and stated that the SSRAs allow and at least protect for a little time while we have an opportunity to plan the adaptation.
Councilmember Boles stated that it has nothing to do with protection but to allowing more development in these hazardous areas and that is her concern. She stated that we were told before that the city would not be defining this and the applicants had to do their investigations with their geotechnical engineers. She is even more worried if the city is signing off saying that the seawall has a specific remaining life and for seawall that does not belong to the City. She thinks it is dangerous legally and asked if we are giving a life of the infrastructure and the revetment or seawall, the city is making a legal promise to a developer who is relying on that information to design the project.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano hears what she is saying but she would not characterize it as a promise. She is sure there will be some analysis that staff does that is typical for any project that we review and approve. She stated that there are policies that say you are relying on it and it may or may not last the life that you expect it to last.
City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that she cannot see any developer wanting to use that.
City Manager Woodhouse added the hazard disclosure which they will sign says that protection may not be there and the city may not maintain that. In the case of the seawall, the city intends to replace that and the life will be much longer with the new one.
Councilmember Boles asked who would spend millions of dollars to rely on these policies with no promises.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the point here is to allow flexibility for property owners to determine what it is that they want to do with their property.
Councilmember Bier stated it is not necessarily developers but property owners.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it also pertains to developers. She stated that the Sharp Park Specific Plan is in this vicinity.
Councilmember Boles stated that the Sharp Park Specific Plan increased development on Palmetto which is not in the hazard area, and she did not think that applies. She stated that the owner of 1567 Palmetto is not relying on the city and is doing his own engineering and talking to the Coastal Commission and he can build some things within the setback is what he has been hearing and he does not need these policies. She stated that 2212 Beach Boulevard is set back even further and she did not think we needed these policies. She stated that her question is how are these going to be used and is it worth all the investment because the city is having to do a lot to offset them.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we are going to get the mitigations with the coastal management plan.
Councilmember Boles stated it is important to understand is about how they could be used and if it’s really an economic help to the city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciates the question and she thinks it is taking them to that next level of nuance. She stated SSRA seems like a great idea on the face and we are probing what does that really mean and what exactly does it protect. She stated that it goes back to her issue about the hazards and vulnerability zone and where the line is. She wants to say that the design life or the remaining life that she referred to would be determined in the course of establishing the implementation policies. She stated that they had a previous example that it was 40 years in 2020.
Councilmember Boles noted that the city signed off on it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated in that example they had to address the remainder of the useful life of the building without that seawall and her question is if it is really helping us.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that, in the conversations she has had with developers, they want certainties, whether that certainty is for 25 years, 50 years, etc. She thinks this allows property owners and potential developers to really make the decision to identify, if they build in this area, with the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structure, they know what they can invest and that they will have that investment for that time period. Whether the City Council Regular Meeting 42 August 12, 2024
city decides that we want a new seawall, whether we even get a new seawall permitted, that may not be guaranteed in that future time frame, but at least they know that, for this time period, that is a guarantee that the remaining wall, there is some remaining life there. That is what the city is trying to convey, the flexibility to allow people to be able to use their property for some time period, without saying right now they cannot develop, remodel, or cannot do anything to their property.
Councilmember Boles stated that no one is saying that and pointed out designing to the hazards. She stated that staff said the developer wants certainty, but we are saying at the end that the armoring they are relying on may or may not be effective, maintained, or present in the future and thus there is no certainty there if that is what they are signing off on.
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated staff is trying to make it so there is a certainty for a time period.
Councilmember Boles stated, if we say it has a 20-year remaining life but do not do the required maintenance, it may not last 20 years, hence why she is worried that we are promising something that we cannot necessarily say we will do.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks the point is that we are not promising anything and instead being very transparent about what is being offered and the benefit of being able to design a project counting on the protection. He stated that we mentioned before that the SSRA policies have an expiration date of 20 years from now unless otherwise continued or amended in a future LCLUP amendment and this is a 20-year approach to allow this benefit/option to property owners and they do not have to choose to do their analysis this way. He stated, if the owner of 1567 wants to do a minimal thing that does not rely on any seawall there, that is their choice; if they have the option to build more and get more return on their investment, create more housing in the city for the 20 , 30, 40, or 50 years, that is their choice as well. The city wants to provide options for property owners, and the concept of the SSRAs achieves that; there is no guarantee about the future or that SSRAs, 20 years from now, could be used in our LCLUP for development. The City is being very transparent about the timelines and disclosures that are required and what could happen in the future and business people make business decisions based on that.
Councilmember Boles added that, in the meantime, we have to come up with a mitigation program and start doing those projects just to have those as an option for a developer to use, whether they use them or not.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks it is important to recognize that, with the coastal access capital projects into the future and the shoreline adaptation studies, that is Pacifica’s future regardless, and this is getting something out of that as well. He cannot envision a Pacifica that does not try to do coastal access improvements, etc., or over years plan for long-term shoreline adaptation.
This is saying that we are going to do that and, in the meantime, all of these property owners, if they choose to develop, get this benefit of the SSRAs.
Councilmember Bier stated that she hears Councilmember Boles.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure we are understanding what we are getting into.
Councilmember Bier stated in the letter received from the Coastal Commission staff on August 6, there is a sentence in the second paragraph that says, “These comments are generally City Council Regular Meeting 43 August 12, 2024
supportive of the city’s draft sea level rise and coastal hazard policies, including the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area policies.” She asked why would the Coastal Commission staff be supportive of those.
Councilmember Boles wishes Coastal Commission had their meeting on the neighborhoodbased planning before we talked about this because she thinks neighborhood based planning is a really good idea. She stated that we do not want to be looking at one building and what armoring or environmental issues it might have but we want to look over a region. She thinks the basic concept is there but she stated no one has tried this particular answer which is allowing new development to rely on shoreline protection. She stated that a lot of the public comments, which is one of her major objections, is that these are already hazardous zones in these particular areas. She stated that there are areas that are hazardous, whether you are building a building or not, you are putting more people in these areas, and that is what she worries about. She referred to what the City Manager was saying about the adaptation plan being required regardless of the SSRAs.
Councilmember Bier stated, if you are a hotel owner in Rockaway Beach and you wanted to do some improvements on your hotel, would you be able to do that without the SSRA.
Councilmember Boles stated that you have to mitigate your hazards and know that your foundations are going to last. She asked if you want to build $100 million hotel and rely on a seawall that may not last for 20 years.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he feels she is very focused on new development. He stated he would like to make a statement and then make a motion. She talked about Pacifica or coastal cities in general pressuring the Coastal Commission. He stated that he watched the United States Armed Forces pressuring the Coastal Commission and then Coastal Commission telling them exactly what they thought about the United States Armed Forces not honoring monitoring. He thinks the reason why the Coastal Commission might be willing to look at strategies like this and come along with the coastal cities that are advocating for them is an acknowledgment that one size does not fit all and the way different cities are developed require that we are beholden to the Coastal Act, but we need to bend to the point that cities have to maintain themselves. He thinks that, when we are looking at our SSRAs, he hears the concern about new development, and a lot of it is going to be addressed when we get to the Implementation Program of the policies we are setting in place; but in the meantime, while he looks at the two prime new development sites, he is aware of everything that is already developed that minor maintenance might, from traditional Coastal Commission perspective, rise to a level where it is difficult to do things that the average observer would deem unsubstantial or obvious. He stated that there are things we have in policies like this where it is agreed upon that the hotel can do maintenance. It is there and protected and may not last forever and may only have 20 years left but, in that 20 years that the hotel is going to exist because there is armoring, they should be able to maintain themselves. He thinks that, when looking at these policies, his focus goes much more to what is already there and how we are working with what is already developed and then the adaptive approach is go from there; whereas, when it comes to new development, that will be in conjunction with the Implementation Plan.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:20 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Council Regular Meeting 44 August 12, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:20 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
Councilmember Bier stated that she was not disagreeing with Councilmember Boles but she wanted to understand why the Coastal Commission is in favor of this.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is comfortable saying that we are not done yet with 6.57.
She brought up a lot of very good points and maybe staff can address some of the concerns in more detail.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that would be valuable.
Councilmembers Bier and Boles agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer still believes that each time we take a deeper dive into this and ask these questions we are getting closer to that level of understanding to be able to discern approval. She stated that we cannot make that determination until we go through this process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it seems we have wrapped this up for the evening.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed for this piece of the evening, yes, and in terms of Council communications, she can personally hold hers until the future.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, on this particular item for the LCLUP, is it Council’s desire to continue the item to a date uncertain.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks so.
Councilmember Boles thinks the question is whether they want to do this at the end of the month or the short-term rental ordinance and what is possible.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested doing a special session to a time not determined either for wrapping up this or for STRs. He asks the City Manager’s input.
City Manager Woodhouse wants to hear from Council about committing to a special City Council meeting in the next couple of weeks in addition to the regular Council meeting on the 26th.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated date uncertain and staff will get back to them with polling about an additional meeting and she confirmed that Council was in agreement on that.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we need a motion.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we do, and Council can move to continue this item to a date uncertain.
City Council Regular Meeting 45 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier moved to continue the meeting to a date uncertain; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE UNCERTAIN
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 12:16 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 9/23/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor