CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 September 17, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING
September 17, 2024 (TUESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on September 17, 2024 at 4:00 PM 4:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case. 6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Community Development Dep.
Director; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
City Council Special Meeting 2 September 17, 2024
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Boles
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications is Intended To be Carried out in a Manner Fully in Conformity with the California Coastal Act; Adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications; Directing the City Manager to Transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission For Certification; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP With Alternative Modifications Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROPOSED ACTION: 1) Receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP; and 2) Approve the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications is Intended To Be Carried Out In A Manner Fully In Conformity With The California Coastal Act; Adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications; Directing the City Manager to Transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission For Certification; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP With Alternative Modifications is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Acting Community Development Dep. Director Cervantes presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles asked if Acting Dep. Director Cervantes can explain what has changed in the staff report from the last meeting.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she will go through in detail the changes from the August 12 staff report to today’s document. She stated that there are some minor changes, as the City received a letter from California Coastal Commission a few days prior to the August 12 letter; the City has had conversations with Coastal Commission staff and believe both parties have reached a mutual understanding.
Councilmember Boles assumed those have not been shown prior and will be new for today.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the items on Council’s list now are items Acting Dep.
Director Cervantes will comment on from that correspondence with Coastal Commission staff.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated some of them, yes, and some of the other items on the list are items Council has not discussed yet.
Councilmember Boles stated she has a few policies she would like to go back to and she City Council Special Meeting 3 September 17, 2024
assumed we can do that at the end after we go through the list.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that there seems to still be a lot of confusion in the community, such as regarding tsunami.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Council is taking public comment tonight.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we need to take public comment after.
Councilmember Boles stated that the public will not have a chance to know about the new policies until after Acting Dep. Director Cervantes’ presentation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested making clarifying questions after public comment.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed to make clarifying questions, take public comment, and then come back again.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we will be completing the matrix before or after public comment. He thought it was a good idea to finish working through the matrix and asking questions of staff for clarification before getting public comment and deliberating.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed the public can also hear the items we have not already gone through before they come up and ask their questions.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes continued with the matrix, i.e., packet from the August 12 meeting, summary table on packet page 379.
Council asked for the item number as several were working from an older packet.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated with Modification No. 6.57 for policy CR-I-39: For development directly inland of the public infrastructure in special shoreline resiliency areas, 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.
Therefore, it is a policy that would allow that development to use any protection provided by the existing shoreline protection into that technical reporting and into the design of the development.
She moved on to Modification No. 6.58: This is the armoring and special resiliency areas policy specifically drafted to address continued maintenance of the two existing shoreline protection structures in Rockaway area and West Sharp Park area. Repair, maintenance, enhancement redevelopment and replacement of the shoreline protection structure that is existing at the time and gives an allowance for minor extension in order to fill gaps or otherwise ensure overall shoreline protection structure is effective may be approved when required to protect public infrastructure. This policy is very important for the future of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project as it does allow for redevelopment replacement and for the minor extension in order to fill gaps. This will specifically address permitting for the Clarendon gap.
Councilmember Boles would like to look at the maps again and understand the armoring in these locations. She stated that she asked to look at the permit records for the armoring to City Council Special Meeting 4 September 17, 2024
better understand who owns what and what the maintenance conditions are. She understood that, starting at the parking lot on the south end, there was no armoring there now.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, by the parking, that is correct.
Councilmember Boles stated that it does not make sense to her if we are saying that there is development behind the armoring but there is no armoring at that line. She asked if it means we can put armoring at that line.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it does not mean that we cannot put armoring there, but the line is demonstrating where the neighborhood and ends here and where the policies for the shoreline protection could apply. She stated that it is not a map showing the existing shoreline protection structure but is aligned to identify where the special resiliency areas are.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when we look at the map, and where the tiny square is on the other side of San Marlo Way, that is pump wastewater infrastructure. She asked if she is right and asked if that is the connection between the protection area of the SSRA and that is part of our infrastructure that we want to be able to maintain and protect.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, adding that, in conversation with California Coastal Commission staff to determine where the boundaries would be, City staff tried to extend the boundary as far as possible in order to give protection to as many properties as possible. Coastal Commission staff was amenable to extending the line further north in order to protect the existing City infrastructure.
Councilmember Bier clarified that just because the line is there for the SSRAs does not mean that is where we are going to be armoring.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier thinks there is a misconception in the community that we want to add more armoring.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated adding more armory is separate from the SSRAs as the SSRAs are only applicable to existing shoreline protection.
Councilmember Boles stated that there is some provision for expanding, such as at Clarendon where there is not currently armoring.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are policies that allow the city to repair, replace, fill gaps as needed, etc. but the SSRA policies will not apply to future fills. If the city decides to create a fill in the future with more armoring, at that point those policies may apply.
They will not apply at this moment.
Councilmember Boles described the portion of the armoring owned by Nick’s and that this is not public infrastructure but private infrastructure. She asked if she is correct.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the existing shoreline south of Rockaway is owned by Nick’s.
Councilmember Boles asked if that is being maintained. She stated that the permit conditions City Council Special Meeting 5 September 17, 2024
require certain things done every year, and she questioned whether we can rely on any armoring because it’s there or whether it actually needs to be legally permitted without violations that the Coastal Commission would object to.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes understands and shared that with recent conversations with Coastal Commission staff regarding shoreline protection in this area we provided the permit and did not indicate that there were any violations on those permits. Whether there is ongoing maintenance on the sea wall in front of Nick’s would be a question for California Coastal Commission staff as it is her understanding that the permit requires monitoring reports to the California Coastal Commission and does not require monitoring reports to the City. She assumes that, if materials are being submitted to Coastal Commission staff, they would share those materials with the City, but she has not received anything in her time here. She also assumed that, if there are violations, Coastal Commission staff would reach out to City staff for support for that and the City has not received anything.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure the city is protecting itself legally. She knows that the monitoring program is required yearly for that project; for the armoring north of that, Rockaway Beach Avenue at the dead end up to the parking lot, is city property and that also required a monitoring program every five years. She thinks that some of these things might need to be sorted out before these policies come into effect. She stated that, originally, when we talked about reliance on the shoreline armoring, former Planning Director Christian Murdock said it was up to the applicant to do the engineering to verify whatever protection and whatever remaining life that the armoring would provide, and she thought last time it was said that the city is taking on that responsibility. She wants to clarify where that is and exactly what it says about that. Another question is, since we do not own that armoring at Nick’s, how could the city possibly do that as we have no control over the permit or whether it will be maintained.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that her recollection was that the conversation was that the City could provide information to applicant. It would likely be standardized information, i.e. the City could determine the remaining life of an existing sea wall that we own and have that information available for the public when development came. She stated that there is also the option that the applicants could do their own analysis of that. She stated that, for privately owned walls, such as Nick’s, it is very likely that they will have to do their own analysis because, unless Nick’s provided that information, the City is unlikely to have it and do that work.
Councilmember Boles asked how this would work in practice and how an engineer would rely on this information. She then referred to 1567 Beach Boulevard where one set of engineers determined the wall had 40 years of life and then two years later GHD did the same analysis and decided the wall had 5-20 years left. She questioned what kind of information we can give a developer and would it be useful. She asked what liability we may be taking if we are saying that something has a life and then it does not and they base their design on that.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes statedthat staff is very confident that this policy direction will allow for more development and allow some properties that may not have much development potential now be able to develop with the concept of the SSRAs. She anticipates a lot of that work will be done during the Implementation Plan. She mentioned last time that the Zoning Ordinance is our Implementation Plan and has the requirements: If you are in a landslide area, this is what you need to provide to the city in order to demonstrate that you can safely develop.
Very likely, that is the same type of language or requirements that are going to come out of adoption of an LCLUP and be updated in the Implementation Planning. If you are in these areas, these are the type of analysis documentation that you need to provide to the city in order City Council Special Meeting 6 September 17, 2024
to demonstrate that your development is safe, that your development is addressing coastal hazards. She stated she had a conversation with Coastal Commission staff today where we touched on that topic of how all of these different coastal vulnerability zones, SSRAs, tsunami inundation zones, etc. are all going to have different requirements of what staff is looking for and all of that is going to be in the Implementation Plan as we get into the level each zone of what type of requirement is the city going to have on planning applications and what review level are we going to do on planning applications. She understands that Council wants those questions answered but it is very difficult for staff to respond to those questions and give that detailed analysis when we have not confirmed the policy direction.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we are doing these SSRAs, her difficulty is that we are committing to a process, a lot of staff time, and a lot of money for the programs required after that, and we do not know if they are helpful at this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to ask a follow-up question to that for the sake of clarity between LCLUP and IP (Implementation Plan). He asked what the relationship is between a Local Coastal Land Use Plan document and the Implementation Plan. His understanding so far is that LCLUP is a policy document, meaning that it is a higher level document that does not get into some of the specifics that the IP or Implementation Plan document will get into.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the land use document is policy direction and tells the City generally what the vision is for, in this case, the coastal zone. The Implementation Plan can be multiple documents. She stated that the bulk of Pacifica’s current Implementation Plan is the Pacifica Municipal Code and the Zoning Ordinance. When the city makes revisions to the Pacifica Municipal Code, depending on the section, we have to take that to the California Coastal Commission to be certified and why we had to take our STR ordinance to be certified, why we have to take our ADU ordinance to get certified by them, because the Pacifica Municipal Code is part of our Implementation Plan. She mentioned the zoning map which is another component of their Implementation Plan. The City could also have other documents that are part of the Implementation Plan so we can have certain programs and policy documents that we would create and take to California Coastal Commission for certification and that will become part of our Implementation Plan. When you are thinking you want to develop, you go to the Pacifica Municipal Code; the General Plan is the overarching policy direction and the code is what staff is looking at to determine if you meet all the criteria. With subdivisions, we look at the subdivision map and the City’s subdivision ordinance. She stated that there are policies in the General Plan that encourage a subdivision under certain criteria but, when you are creating that subdivision, that concept for a planning application or reviewing and approving that planning application, you are looking at the code.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when you have the SSRA in policy form in the LCLUP, how does that translate into SSRA in IP.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that what will occur will that we have some overlay district on the zoning map that says you are in x, y, z zones and there will be articles in the Pacifica Municipal Code that will say, if you are in this zone, this is what applies to you.
Mayor Vaterlaus states similar to the Hillside Preservation overlay on top of the existing.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, adding that it is a perfect example. The Zoning Ordinance might say R1 and Hillside Preservation District and it means that you look at the R1 requirements but also at the Hillside Preservation District requirements.
City Council Special Meeting 7 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked what the timeline was for the IP as it seems like it would need to be in effect before these policies so we will tell people what they needed to do and has the Coastal Commission given a timeline on other things.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that they have not given them a deadline for implementing our Implementation Plan. It is in our workplan to do a comprehensive code update as we need to update their code to address the General Plan changes as well that the Council adopted in 2022. She stated that it is our workplan to generally do a comprehensive update of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
Councilmember Boles stated it would have to be done before these policies come into effect.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively. She stated that there is some language in the policy documents that say if there are any discrepancies whatever is the certified document will be the guiding document.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought the question was when we are going to adopt the zoning code updates.
Councilmember Boles added the requirements that an applicant has to fulfill as well.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that those zoning code updates would not take place until we have a certified LCLUP.
Councilmember Boles stated that, even if the LCLUP is certified, there is still a period because we have to provide these other plans.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively, stating the implementation details.
Councilmember Boles stated not just the Implementation Plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referenced the Coastal Management Plan.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding Coastal Access and Resilience Program, particularly about the SSRAs. She thought we have a few years to get that submitted before these policies can go into effect.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that you could adopt the zoning codes after the LCLUP is certified, but some of these programs will not be in place to take advantage of it like the Implementation Plan and the Coastal Access and Resilience Program.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Implementation Plan goes to Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission for approval also.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that she had one more question on CR-I-39. The public letters state in the SSRAs maps and figures may rely on the shoreline protection structure in that area that was existing at the time of the permit application to help determine that its setbacks meet the requirements of policies. She stated the question she has seen from the public is what City Council Special Meeting 8 September 17, 2024
potential protections can people count on or is it just setbacks, and does it relate to erosion or flooding or other issues and what is meant by setbacks. She stated that CR-I-39 says the SSRAs can help demonstrate that its setbacks meet the requirements of these policies. She asked what that gives an applicant. She stated that we talked before about how SSRAs may be helping with erosion and she can see how erosion relates to a setback, but she asked if that is the only benefit or are there other potential benefits and how is that defined.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the intent of the policy is to allow development to address all the coastal hazards and she believes this might be a typo.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she means an omission.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks the policy is supposed to read “permit application to help demonstrate that it meets the requirements of policy CR-I-19 and CR-I-20”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if you look at CR-I-20, it says “development in coastal vulnerability zones shall be cited and designed and set back from the blufftop and/or shoreline to be safe from erosion”. She stated that is consistent with CR-I-39.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that CR-I-39 is saying that the existing armoring and protection can be factored into that calculation of safety from the setback compliance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she reads.
Councilmember Boles asked if this is the exact language that the Coastal Commission approved.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated yes, and she recalls there was some discussion about setbacks to try to make the term consistent and they wanted the term setback.
Councilmember Boles stated that, to her, what this is saying is that, if you have your property, like 1567 Beach Boulevard, the setback needed to be 108 feet so all the policies can help you determine is how far back your building goes.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the difference is counting whether the protection is there or not. Without the protection factored in, that distance setback is going to be much different than calculating with the protection there.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thought, in part, that is one of the requirements that the policy is intended to address. She stated her understanding was the policy was intended to address all coastal hazards as well and that it would give allowances for stormwater and wave overtopping.
Councilmember Boles referred to Beach Boulevard and possibly Rockaway as FEMA high hazard zones now.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she means for flooding.
Councilmember Boles stated for flooding. Right now the FEMA maps do not include sea level rise, just flooding as it is, but these are already the highest hazard zones and FEMA also requires certain things when you build in those zones, one being that you do not put living areas below a certain data point. She stated that there is possible overlay that is going to restrict City Council Special Meeting 9 September 17, 2024
what is being built here.
Mayor Vaterlaus added place your garage below your living area so your bedrooms are not on the ground floor.
Councilmember Boles agreed, but also hazards if the waves overtop and hit your building.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to a previous question about insurance and what the insurers were looking at, circling back to FEMA.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his understanding is that fire insurance does come through FEMA at this point.
Councilmember Boles said you cannot get regular insurance if you are in these zones and it would have to go through FEMA.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is commercial uses that are going to be going up for the insurance but, if you live along Beach Boulevard, presumably you will be going to FEMA for your insurance also. He stated that, at this time, the topic is more in terms of fire than flood.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, stating that questions in the community have come up on what is the impact of these policies on the ability to get insurance. She stated that this came up when she was at Smart Coast and there was a legal panel that specifically addressed insurance concerns and financing; they stated the current state of the practice is the only thing they are looking at is the FEMA flood maps and not factoring in these kinds of policies. She stated that the general question is forward-looking and makes sense to think about it but, as a practice, it was just the FEMA requirements that were being incorporated.
Mayor Vaterlaus does not think the flood insurance is in the FEMA program. She stated the problem of FEMA flood insurance is that they let the program expire and then they have to go in and redo it again. Sometimes it takes them weeks.
Councilmember Boles stated that then they run out of money.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, stating it takes them weeks to come back and say they are going to start the FEMA flood insurance project again.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that his research was specifically in terms of how insurance is affected if there is armoring versus no armoring. He thinks the conclusions was if you are in a flood zone, you are in a flood zone and, at that point, it does not have an impact.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the armoring is not impacting the insurability or not.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is a mapped flood zone; whether or not it impacts homeowners insurance in general, he is not sure as that would ride with a different kind of insurance but, in terms of flood insurance, if it is mapped as a flood zone, it is mapped as a flood zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that is what they are factoring in.
City Council Special Meeting 10 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes continued with policy CR-I-41, on packet page 380 of the August 12 report’s summary table. She stated that this policy determines when the SSRA policies go into effect. The initial Coastal Access and Resilience Program needs to be developed and submitted for Coastal Commission review and, in accordance with Policy CR-I-5, the development of the shoreline adaptation program has been initiated, including at minimum that the city has developed a public engagement plan or plan timeline and identified funding for completion of the technical studies and planning work. She wants to clarify that this policy states the SSRA policies do not go into effect at time of certification of the document but go into effect once both actions have been taken.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the Implementation Plan is connected to the plan approvals.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the work on the Implementation Plan is not connected to this policy but, assuming that the document is certified, staff would begin work on updating the Implementation Plan.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if that was covered in the next policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes continued onto CR-I-42, which contains language which would suspend the SSRA policies. There are criteria information that the City needs to provide, as well as actions that the City needs to take and submit to California Coastal Commission that would, if the City does not meet these obligations, suspend the SSRA policies. She stated the first one would be tied to the following policy, CR-I-43, if the Coastal Access and Resilience Program is not certified by the Coastal Commission within 15 months of acceptance of the LCP amendment for filing as identified in policy CR-I-41 or any CDP applications that are required every five years to implement projects are not submitted in complete form or any projects required in the Coastal Access and Resilience Program are not developed and implemented.
She added that, per policy CR-I-5, the City is obligated to start that work and noted suspensions if the City has not completed technical studies to accomplish part of the shoreline adaptation program within six years of effective certification of the land use amendment that creates a requirement for the shoreline adaptation program or the City has not prepared a draft shoreline adaptation program within eight years of effective certification of the LUPA that created the requirements of the shoreline adaptation program or the Coastal Commission has not certified the final shoreline adaptation program within ten years of effective certification of the LUPA that created the requirements of the shoreline adaptation program. She stated that for the shoreline adaptation program, the City has six years, eight years, and ten years in miletones that we need to meet in order to keep the policies in place.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we are referring to with the CDP applications that are required every five years.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is in reference to the Coastal Access and Resilience Program and some of those projects will require Coastal Development Permits, either through the City permit jurisdiction or through the California Coastal Commission permit jurisdiction. She stated that some of those will have horizons where they will expire and the City will need to reapply.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when she first read it, it seemed inclusive, but it said any of the CDP applications that are required and that would be specific to the project.
City Council Special Meeting 11 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles referred any of the project required in the Coastal Act and Resiliency Program are not developed/implemented, and she asked if that means completed in terms of construction.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, stating that the second bullet point is saying there are some projects that are required CDPs, probably from California Coastal Commission, that will have an end date, and they will need to reapply every five years for some of them. If the California Coastal Commission gives you approval for these projects but the City fails to develop them or implement them, that is also a cause for suspension of the policy.
Councilmember Boles concluded that, even if they are under construction, they are not implemented and supposed to be finished within that period.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, later on in this policy, we will see how it talks about the determination notice Coastal Commission needs to send to the City and then the City can reply to that and, based on that exchange, with communication and collaboration back and forth, we would expect that the project is underway, been delayed for X, Y and Z reasons, or there would be reasonable explanations back to Coastal Commission and the Executive Director would agree to that and it would not be suspended.
Councilmember Boles thought there were a lot of ways for them to stop doing the program after we have spent a lot of time and money trying to do the program.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she is thinking we should put something that gives the City more opportunities for negotiation. She read that all these policies are suddenly not in effect anymore if this happens. She asked if there was a way to indicate what City Manager just said in a clearer way.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, with CR-I-42, staff had extensive conversations with Coastal Commission staff and our legal team about this language and there was back and forth a little bit on the date. She stated that, the Coastal Commission wanted certainty, they wanted a short timeline and the City wanted more flexibility in achieving the standards or milestones that were set in this policy. There already has been a significant discussion with the Coastal Commission staff about these dates, timeline, and the language itself. Staff has done a lot of work to get as much flexibility as we think was appropriate and achievable.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that part of understanding this is also from the perspective of the pressure that the Coastal Commission is under to feasibly approve and implement LCLUPs with cities up and down the state. There is that aspect which would suggest that they are going to be reasonable in their collaboration with cities to effectively implement these policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks we should mark this as “programs that are not developed/implemented” sounds final whereas projects in the process of being done should count.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the policy says “in the event that the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director determines that the city has not met one or more of the above conditions, they send a preliminary determination to the city, explaining that one or more conditions set forth above have not been met and that suspension City Council Special Meeting 12 September 17, 2024
of the policies shall occur after 15 working days unless the city submits written objection to the preliminary determination,” and there is this back-and-forth built in if the Executive Director determines that one of the conditions has not been met.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff’s thought was that, if it is adopted and in process of implementation, even though it is not fully implemented, we would be able to negotiate with the Coastal Commission to address that. She stated that was language the Coastal Commission agreed to in response to the city’s concerns about the milestones.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the Coastal Commission has put a lot of work into this policy, into the document, and very likely somewhere work into other documents up and down the coast, and the city has also put a lot of work into this document and are going to be putting a lot of work in the implementation actions; it is very likely that there will be some negotiations and ongoing conversations between staff as they continue to implement the policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there was concern that the issue of the shoreline adaptation programs that are offsetting the armoring and continuing to allow and incorporate the armoring into the plan. She stated that the concern is that the City will make a plan and then do not ever do it and the armoring is there and being maintained. She thinks that this is Coastal Commission’s way of reassuring the part of the community that is unhappy about the idea of, in any way, counting armoring and not absolutely insisting that it all be removed. She stated that this is the flexibility of where the Coastal Commission is, and it’s not staff but the Commission as well. She stated that it is an uncomfortable one for them and everyone because the overall scope of it is that this is a carveout to the Coastal Act, the first step of undermining the strength of the Coastal Act as approved by the voters. She knows, with the group she has been working with for a few years, the intent is not to undo the Coastal Act but the intent is to find a reasonable compromise between the maximum vision of restoring the coastline to an unbuilt state which is not practical. The compromise is to allow armoring in some places where it is existing and to have adaptation in other places that offset. She stated that the only way those adaptation projects get done is if they are on a schedule with a specific Implementation Plan, approvals, funding, etc. She stated it is more than a trail and it is this notion of how are we incorporating natural adaptations into our actions, not just into our general thoughts and then never doing it.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed with her comments but added that another comment that we received from the Coastal Commission’s AG office is that regarding these changes, to her point about diverting from the language of the Coastal Act, the bulk of the discussion is due to their need and the city’s need to make sure that all of these changes that we are making, especially with SSRA, is consistent with the Coastal Act so that the Coastal Commission, as well as the City, can say this diversion or exception is still consistent with the Coastal Act. That is what they are trying to balance and that is what staff has been trying to do, i.e., trying to balance the community’s interest, the Council’s interest, and the City’s interest along with the need from the Coastal Commission to stay true to the Coastal Act and make sure that whatever we do adopt, in terms of an LCLUP, is defensible.
Councilmember Boles thought it was going to be interesting to see what the Commissioners themselves say as this has all been going through staff. What she heard come out of that is that, when they are talking about neighborhood-based planning, it is a larger area and they are concerned about the word “neighborhood” because that meant built environment and they are looking at more geologic neighborhoods, like some section of coast and how the erosion and beaches. She heard from several commissioners that their goal of these region-, area-, or City Council Special Meeting 13 September 17, 2024
district-based approaches is to be able to look at nature-based solutions because you are looking at a broader scale.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is very different as there were a lot of critical comments about what we are doing here now with these policies as they include keeping armoring and even expanding armoring in these areas, but she thinks the point is that we are not going to be able to do benches and where can we remove sea walls and where can we do nature based solutions. She stated that this is where we need a vision for the whole coast, but if we are committing to this, we have to know that we are committing to something else somewhere else.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she was speaking specifically in a neighborhood south of Council Chambers. We have in place in many instances that there already are nature-based solutions in the form of buffer zones and it is interesting to hear one of the Coastal Commissioners when Coastal Commissioner Justin Cummings came and looked at it the dunes and amount of green space. What she wants to figure out as we develop these projects is incorporating that which is already existing and how are we maintaining it, how are we improving it, we are they making it something we can rely on, and is there a need for some level of drainage or something that needs improving upon, etc. She stated there may minimal work that needs to be done to enhance that, but it is where we do not have those kinds of things that we are going to be looking at. She thinks that, in this sense, it is a good compromise because otherwise the have these policies that are the same for everyone and it does not reflect the conditions on the ground. She thinks the rub is going to be what the impact is of the armoring and what is the corresponding offsetting balance in a nature-based approach. She stated that, in areas where you do not have a beach or not going to have a beach or there is a rocky outcropping, what other kinds of access are we able to implement as there will be other kinds of coastal access points that we want to implement. She thinks it is going to take that analysis of our whole coastline and agreeing on what these different segments look like. She is hoping the next round is more balanced and inclusive and give all of the community an opportunity to ask questions and have input into that. She stated, in the Local Government Working Group, they were talking about what is nature-based as in natural and what is nature-based in somewhat engineered but using natural systems, such as artificial reefs, kinds of implementations; not every project, especially in Pacifica, is going to be able to be what we did at Linda Mar Beach and we have to work as a community to figure out what that is.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks one can help the other. If we have artificial reefs outside and our sea wall, she thinks it would save our sea wall longer and provide less need for sand nourishment.
She thinks that we can combine them together.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that, regarding the artificial reef document, the authors of the premise would think it needs to be run through Army Corp of Engineers to figure out what viability looks like and, at the point in which the Army Corp is able to ascertain viability, that is when we might be able to examine funding opportunities. He stated that, looking at long periods of time and a great deal of money, he thinks it becomes more conceivable as we look at it in terms of steps and process and what it looks like to get from here to there and who our partners are along the path, and to make sure we are forming relationships with those who would be our partners. As he was hearing the initial conversation around CR-I-42, he had more interest in protecting what seems like a workable approach, but what if it is a different Executive Director after all the relationship with this one. He stated what if different Coastal Commission staff and different Coastal Commissioners have relationships with some of them at this point.
City Council Special Meeting 14 September 17, 2024
He thinks a part of the answer to that is, if we keep showing up, we keep forming relationships.
It is up to us to demonstrate that form of leadership. He stated that the nature of the document would have to be a living document, an organic document that is growing with our needs and the needs of climate change.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are done with CR-I-42.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes moved onto CR-I-43, which is policy is the end date of SSRA policy. As stated, as of January 1, 2045, no new development may rely on the SSRA policies unless the Coastal Commission certifies an LCP amendment to extend this deadline. As of January 1, 2045, development approved based on the SSRA policies that relied on the shoreline protection structures to demonstrate safety stability and adequate setbacks shall become legal non-conforming and move forward to structural modifications. Triggers will apply to the development in accordance with those policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we are talking 20 years. For her purposes, she has to give feedback that this is too short in light of how long we have been working on this process.
City Manager Woodhouse added that he specifically pushed back hard on this and suggested at least a 30-year period but they wanted the 20-year period for this.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes added that the goal of Coastal Commission staff is that by 2045, the City will have updated our adaptation program, outdated mapping, new science available, etc. and at that point, the City might be ready to do a new LCP or may be able to do some changes to this LCP that will allow them to grant this an extension to this deadline. She thinks City Manager Woodhouse is correct that they want to put an end date but she thinks it is to pressure the city as well to continue to evolve this document and to continue to improve planning in the coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks we are going to have to work on this piece, as she thinks we have to come up with something other than “development approved based on these policies that relied on shoreline protection structures... shall become legally non-conforming and moving forward a substantial structural modification to such development”. If she is reading it correctly then everything reverts to an SSM by 2045. She understands, from what staff was telling her, that we pushed back hard on this and they pushed back hard on us.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she can expand on that. She stated on January 1, 2045, there will be a shift, and starting from that day, development that took advantage of the SSR policies, designed to those policies, will become legal and non-conforming because the policies will not exist any longer. Additionally, it is saying, if that development is after January 1, 2045, does a project that is considered a substantial structure modification, they will need to comply with all the policies that are required of substantial structural modifications. She stated that it is not saying that you are automatically a substantial structural modification, it is saying development starting from that point is a substantial structural modification and we will need to start complying with all those policies. She stated those policies require the technical reporting, the siting and design, etc., for projects.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that it will be without the ability to incorporate the armoring for the 20-year period, assuming we get this done in 2025.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, unless an LCP amendment changes that in that time, City Council Special Meeting 15 September 17, 2024
depending on what happens in the intervening time and any sort of update.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if he feels like this is the hook to get the City to update our LCP more than every 42 years and counting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this would be a benefit, but there are other benefits to having your LCLUP be a living document and updating it more frequently than every 40 years.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that you do not want to have any planning land use documents, like the General Plan, Housing Element, or LCLUP to last more than 20 years. We should be reviewing the LCLUP again before 20 years.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked who says they will accept our amendment in 20 years.
Councilmember Boles stated it is hardly time to get your permit in some cases.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it is such a short time and they would not have to take our amendment.
Councilmember Bier stated that, the way we are going and how much push back we are getting with the Coastal Commission, we might not even have one to send to the Coastal Commission by then.
Councilmember Boles does see that 20 years gives them a chance to see how we are doing and if we are doing what we said we would do. She stated that Beach Boulevard is already a very hazardous zone and it will get worse. She stated that, at some point, it may not make sense and they are giving themselves a way out because the conditions will change. She stated that, working for developers, she would not want to use these policies to design her building. She mentioned a hotel on the site is designed to rely on the sea wall. The policy expires and all of a sudden, you are legal non-conforming; then you want to do a major remodel but they only designed their foundations to rely on that sea wall and now they cannot anymore because it is legal non-conforming. They may have to do major structural work to the building because they have not designed it to resist the hazards that are there without the sea wall.
City Manager Woodhouse added, by way of analogy, every development is built to today’s codes and when codes change become legally non-conforming. For example, in the future, you may need to upgrade the size of the joist you use on your deck ten years later, and you are going to have new requirements to comply with for safety.
Councilmember Boles stated that the structural stuff does not change.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to a previous STR discussion about the one-car garage built in all those houses and how they were confirming at the time and currently are not. That is a major structural item.
Councilmember Boles also wanted to ask what happens if there is a project that is in the middle of getting their permits that was relying on these policies and suddenly they expire.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is looking at it like 20 years from now. She thinks staff will have to help Council figure out a way to include priorities on this list for discussion. She stated that, even as she looks at this, she is thinking about how this comports with the projections of sea level rise that we are looking at in OPC guidance in 20 years’ time. She City Council Special Meeting 16 September 17, 2024
stated that there is not a lot predicted to be impacting us in 20 years and this is turning off the valve in 20 years.
Councilmember Boles stated that sea level rise is not that much but the storms are increasing.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that moving on to the last policy, CR-I-44, the Coastal Access and Resilience Program. This is the program directly tied to the SSRA policies. Staff has previously described it as the CIP work plan for the coastal zone so the City is able to use projects that would already be built; in the short term we have the ability to use some of the projects that the City is already expecting to implement in our current CIP. These projects shall be organized in terms expected of implementation dates within five-year increments. They are asking us to, on a five-year basis, is update that list. The types of projects that Coastal Commission is looking for is enhancement to a public recreational access facilities, removal of existing armoring, nature-based adaptation, beach nourishment, and acquisition conservation of properties subject to coastal hazards. She stated that these projects are not just to be implemented in the SSRA, but along the entire coastline. She stated the City can use some of our current projects in our CIP, including the Pacifica State Beach Trail Rehabilitation Project, the Rockaway Beach parking structure, Rockaway parking areas, Beach Boulevard Promenade Park improvements, Sharp Park priority development areas, the PDA access pedestrian improvement projects, etc. These are projects that currently are on our CIP list.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Rockaway Beach parking structure is on the CIP list.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated not in existence but there is a fund for it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is an unfunded project in the CIP and the parking in-lieu fees are for eventually saving up enough money to build a parking structure there.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the project shall be designed to be implemented in five-year increments and the City also has to identify the funding mechanisms for these projects.
What we submit to Coastal will need to be thoroughly planned out and demonstrate not only are we going to design a permit use projects, but also how we are going to construct them. The initial program shall be developed and should be submitted as an amendment to the LCP by three years from date of LCUP update certification. By five years from the date of the Coastal Commission approval, the initial Coastal Access and Resilience Program and every subsequent five years, the City shall submit a complete CDP application to the Coastal Commission or where applicable to the city itself shall approve projects with CDP. This goes back to the previous policy with that mentioned in the CDPs every five years. The program shall be monitored, evaluated, updated, and resubmitted as an amendment to the LCP at least every ten years thereafter.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have indicated how many projects. She asked they are expecting to see in a five-year period.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks, in general, they are expecting to see the City working towards improving and adding coastal access in the form of direct access to beach areas but also more access to coastal views so perhaps improvement on some of the bluffs. They have not specified we need X number of projects. As long as the City is making efforts towards planning these projects and implementing them while identifying the timelines and the benchmarks and the funding and how the city is going to be implementing these, she thinks that they want to see work going towards this. She stated that, in conversations we have had with City Council Special Meeting 17 September 17, 2024
them, they understand that in the medium to short term, some of the projects that the City is going to need to put them in this plan are going to be shorter term projects. However, the City can start planning for removal of existing shoreline protection in some areas, how the City will acquire and maintain other areas of the coastline as well, etc. They want to see the short- to long-term plan for how the City will be addressing coastal access as well as what are we going to do for the first five years, the next five years, etc.
Councilmember Boles stated that, at some point, we have to start doing major things, like buying property, doing beach nourishment, and doing nature-based solutions, to be able to keep the SSRAs. She wanted to clarify that the program and these policies and this work is only because of the SSRAs. This would not be here if we were not doing SSRAs.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she is correct, and this policy is tied directly to the SSRA and if the city were to decide not to adopt those, this requirement would go away. However, as mentioned in this policy for the effective date, policy CR-I-5, development of the shoreline adaptation program, is a requirement regardless of the SSRA.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was one that said, “enhance public pathway system seaward of private development in the Rockaway Beach area”. She asked if that area is across Nick’s parking lot.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she is correct.
Councilmember Boles asked if it would require some kind of taking of part of private property.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated not necessarily a taking but working with the property owner to create an easement.
Councilmember Boles referred to formation of GHAD (Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts) CSAs (Community Service Areas) and the area of Beach Boulevard may be creating a district so those people who live or own property there would help pay for these mitigations, even if they are not using the SSRA policies.
Asst, City Attorney Bazzano stated she is correct and that is one of the methods that has been identified for funding mechanism.
City Manager Woodhouse said it is a Community Services Area which is like an assessment district.
Councilmember Boles stated there may be costs if you live in these areas to be able to have these policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks it is going to be great news to some members of the community.
Councilmember Boles stated, if you are benefitting from it, you should have a share in the cost.
City Manager Woodhouse stated all of these funding mechanisms that they list here are funding mechanisms cities need to consider to fund their Capital Improvement Programs anyways. If we are going to do infrastructure projects, whether in the coastal area or other places in the city, we have to consider various versions of these types of funding mechanisms to be able to fund City Council Special Meeting 18 September 17, 2024
those projects.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is good to make that clear.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated this concludes the Council’s first review of all the modifications.
Councilmember Boles stated there were Coastal Commission changes from the General Plan.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, per the Coastal Commission staff letter received in August, there was a number of General Plan consistency changes that they requested. Council adopted General Plan consistency changes that were added into the LCP in October 2023 and this text is changes to that specific language. In many of the instances, the City either clarified or reverted to the original 2020 LCP language. There are some instances where it is new language; however, the intent of the policy is unchanged. She used the numbering for the Coastal Commission staff letter to keep it simple. In Item 1A, they wanted clarification, as this is language that refers to if the City were to annex land that is in our sphere of influence; the City has identified that those areas would have a land use designation of urban reserve. They were questioning of how the City was doing this if these areas were outside of our boundary and within our sphere of influence. We clarified with them that this would occur only in a future action if the City were to annex any property. We added in that first line “annexed into the City of Pacifica… in a future action” and that was sufficient to address their concerns.
Councilmember Boles asked what are we considering annexing that is in the coastal zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, south of San Pedro neighborhood, we have land that is within the coastal zone that is within the sphere of influence for Pacifica. She stated that would include portions of the Pedro Point headlands. She stated that this language does not necessarily say that the City will annex that land, but gives some guidance if the City were in a future action to annex that land.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought part of Shamrock is in the coastal zone. That is larger than 50 acres.
She stated that most of it is in the County.
Councilmember Boles thought it would great if staff can bring Council some maps.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the City is not considering annexation of anything right now, just in the future if that were to happen.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, as LAFCO representative on the dais, he thinks it is pertinent to consider a sphere of influence ramifications, but the City is not looking to annex anything this week. It seems like, of those lands that have been in conversation around the topic of annexation, they are not lands in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Boles wanted to know if some of Shamrock is in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it was good information to have, but he does not think there is anything immediate.
Councilmember Boles stated the property has been up for sale so things might change.
City Council Special Meeting 19 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is her understanding that Shamrock is east of Coast Highway.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there is not a segment that goes on the other side from when they built the tunnel.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she was correct as there is a portion that goes underneath the tunnel that is west of Coast Highway.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is a small portion.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated not 50 acres.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, if considering the whole size of Shamrock, she thinks it is 80 acres.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, for development purposes on that site, the part that is not agriculture is clearly not in the coastal zone and the part that is in the coastal zone would be regarded as agriculture which means there will not be any development on that side if it were to be annexed, and there is no reason to annex it as there are no City facilities or services we would need to provide that that piece of land.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked him for the clarification.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for Item 1B, at one point, the policy used to read, “continue to require bicycle parking facilities in a new high density residential mixed use and non-residential development”. She stated, at some point, the “high density residential and mixed use” was removed from this policy as was shown in the General Plan consistency changes. Coastal Commission staff requested that the City put “high density residential and mixed use” back into this policy and staff agrees that we should continue to require bicycle parking facilities from these multiple types of development. She stated, for Item 1C, for the General Plan, the City had removed “enhances access to the coast” and that has been removed from the General Plan. Coastal Commission staff requested that the City enter that language back and staff agrees. For Item 1D, the City had rewritten this policy for the General Plan so that it read “work with SamTrans to facilitate transit orient development to all or part of the Linda Mar Blvd., Park and Ride lot”. She understands that on revision for the General Plan, the City only has the Linda Mar Park and Ride lot that is managed by SamTrans, so the policy used to say “citywide encourage SamTrans to facilitate transit-oriented development,” and it did not make sense to require them to do something citywide when they only have one lot that they have control of. The City did rewrite this policy for the General Plan and we inserted it here; however, to address any concerns with any potential future Park and Ride lots, we added the last portion that says “and on any future Park and Ride lot that may be developed by SamTrans”. For Item 1E, this relates to the transportation demand management measures.
Coastal Commission staff requested that it be rewritten to make it easier to read; the intent of the policy is the same, but it has been rewritten to make it more reader-friendly and easier to implement. She reiterated that it is a rewritten policy but the intent remains the same.
Regarding Item 1F, for the General Plan, the City had removed the language from this policy that says “there should be parking areas throughout the coastal zone” and Coastal Commission staff requested that City enter that language back and staff agreed. Regarding Item 1G, for the General Plan, the City had removed the term “suitable” in that this policy (“allow sediment removed from…”), and Coastal Commission staff wanted staff to reinsert the term “suitable” to ensure that the soil sediment that was removed meets a certain standard. For Item 1H, the City Council Special Meeting 20 September 17, 2024
City had rewritten this policy for the General Plan as was originally written in the LCP, and this first bullet point could be interpreted as the City would discourage development on City-owned parcels when the policy is intended to discourage development and build that critical habitat species for private development. She stated that this portion of the policy was rewritten to read “the City should discourage development and/or build out critical habitat or special species status during the development review process except where allowed by policy ER-I-24” which will be discussed further. For Item 1I, Coastal Commission staff had some concerns with the terminology and the changes between some of our figures and policies and some of our background language in the LCP and, in order to address those inconsistencies, staff has added a definition to the LCP; therefore, we have a new definition for coastal view corridors and view shed which reads “an area that is identified as significant for providing public visual and access to and along the coast, including but not limited to as mapped in figure 4.4” and this was intended to have some clarification of what coastal view corridor and view shed is without having to go through the entire document to make those terminologies consistent. For Item 1J, this was an error done by staff. Coastal Commission staff had originally recommended that we delete two paragraphs at the end in Chapter 5. The redline version they saw in August 12 only deleted one of those paragraphs. Staff had previously agreed that both of those paragraphs needed to be deleted. She stated that Item 1K had some questions regarding the replacement of definitions for easement and for special status. The General Plan recreated both of the definitions for easement and special status species. Staff worked on the language with Coastal Commission staff and the new definitions for easement and for special status species that are in the LCP: Easement is “property right given by the owner of the land to the public or another party for specific limited use of the land. An easement may be acquired by the government or another party through dedication when the purchase of an entire interest in the property may be too expensive or unnecessary, usually needed for utilities or shared parking” and special status species, which meets all requirements of the Coastal Act, is “any species which is listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fishery Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under the provisions of the state and federal endangered species act, it also includes any species designated by USFWH (US Fish and Wildlife Service) as a candidate or species of concern. Species designated by CDSW as a species of special concern, species that may be considered rare or endangered pursuant to Section 15380B of the CEQA Guidelines or species identified on California Native Plant Society list 1A, 1B or 2, implying potential danger of extinction”. Especially on the special status species definition, we worked closely with Coastal Commission staff to ensure that not only is it very protective of special status species but is also consistent with the Coastal Act. She stated that is the last of the General Plan consistency changes that are different from the August 12 report to the present version.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to go back to the issue of easement. The Coastal Commission staff letter on this point talks about removing that definition entirely and holding the discussion for the Implementation Plan. She stated she is looking at packet page 281.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was an option that Coastal Commission staff gave the City, simply removing the definition of easement. Staff thought it would be better to come to a solution and continue to have the definition in the document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there would be a need to redefine it in some way.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated there was concern that the previous definition may not be applicable to property interest and might only be applicable for rights of use. The changes that were made were to ensure that the definition of easement also includes property interest.
City Council Special Meeting 21 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that is what concerns her and asked to bring up the definition.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated there are different types of easements that can be recorded on a property. There are property interest easements, usually like alleyways, or use easements that can be given. An example of a use easement would be if two single family homes shared a driveway, and one or the other may not own the actual real estate, but they have the right to use that space.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, with regard to easement in our General Plan, the Coastal Commission staff had a concern about it as it relates to the coastal zone and she wonders if there is a substantial change or redefining of the term and what is that implication for property ownership in the coastal zone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano did not think they had a concern but just wanted to know why the definition had changed and staff’s explanation was that the General Plan defines it a certain way and we are updating their LCLUP to be consistent with that definition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they were concerned that it might have some implication for access.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that they wanted to know what the rationale was for the change.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that all of these issues related to General Plan consistency.
According to the Coastal Commission AG’s office, the back and forth and compromise are all required for Coastal Act if, for whatever reason, we disagreed with their interpretation. She stated that, on this one, the City did not see an issue with using that definition of easement.
Councilmember Boles asked if there is a separate definition of a prescriptive easement.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is a legal term.
Councilmember Boles stated she is concerned because easement is in both and that is not necessarily the property rights given.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there is a definition for a prescriptive right in the document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she would like a copy of those two definitions.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was the last of the General Plan consistency changes for the letter that was received in early August.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are other policies, including the San Pedro site, ESHA, and creek buffers.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it was her understanding that Council wanted to go to public comment after this.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought we were going to go over all ESHA.
City Council Special Meeting 22 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that this policy for the August 12 report can be found on packet page 339 and on 437 for the redlines. She stated, the March 2023 Coastal Commission staff’s adjusted modifications removed 3-5 units per gross acre and instead added a low-density range. When we had discussed this specific suggested modification with Coastal Commission’s staff, there was a misunderstanding of the land use designations and both staffs agreed that the density range should be 3-5 units per gross acre. The only change to this policy from all the different changes is that we added gross developable acre and added the following definition for gross developable acre from the General Plan to the document: “an area of the site, including proposed public streets or other proposed rights of way, but excluding areas subject to physical or environmental constraints which include free corridors, floodways, and areas to be dedicated for greenways or habitat protections”. As stated in the Coastal Commission staff letter from early August, they had some concerns regarding the density and the potential development of the site and how it might impact resources on the site so we have a General Plan definition that says gross developable acre means that it excludes physical and environmental constraints and so staff thought this was an easy way to address it, using terminology that the City already has in the General Plan, and Coastal Commission staff agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated this is a new definition and asked if this will come back at some point and Council will have all the writing to look at.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, for these General Plan consistency changes that we have confirmed with Coastal, the intent is that we are going over them tonight and they will become part of the record for the resolution that Council considers for adoption tonight.
Councilmember Boles wants to hear her definition again and she would like to see it.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the definition is included in the LCP version attached to tonight’s agenda.
Councilmember Boles stated that there have been changes that were not highlighted previously.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the LCP that was attached to tonight’s agenda was a clean version and staff would be highlighting the modifications at this hearing tonight.
Councilmember Boles stated she is not comfortable approving this until she sees all language.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be clear that what Acting Dep. Director Cervantes said is that staff met with Coastal Commission staff numerous times about all of these General Plan consistencies and arrived at these agreements presented here. Staff did not get the final email confirmation until today from Coastal Commission staff on those and, in the staff report, we said we were expecting agreement from Coastal Commission staff on all these and these are going to be in the clean copy of the LCLUP that was attached to the report for the record and they would go over each of these changes at this meeting. He stated that is what these changes, with Coastal Commission staff agreement, are in the packet that Council is considering and Council can, if so desired, consider the resolution with the documents. If there are any final changes, we have to read those into the record for tonight.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks that when he read that, he did not understand the extent to City Council Special Meeting 23 September 17, 2024
which there would be corrections and changes; given the breadth, it would be helpful if Council had some of those printed out to follow along. He stated it might be pertinent to have the full view of what Council is looking at for ease of following along so Council can sign off on those changes.
City Manager Woodhouse asked, other than the specific changes that Acting Dep. Director Cervantes is explaining now for Council and public who are listening prior to public comment, what the Council is requesting regarding these.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated looking at what is on the screen where it says undeveloped San Pedro site, LD-I-21, she would like Acting Dep. Director Cervantes to direct them to packet page 103 and see the language as amended because that is what she is understanding happened, i.e., Coastal Commission sent this letter August 6, and staff evaluated what the changes were and made some changes, and the draft appended to this meeting’s packet includes those changes. She asked if she was right.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is not a redline version and it is hard to find them.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the version attached to the report includes some of the clean language that staff were anticipating Coastal staff to confirm. The reason that staff recommended Council read it into the record, is because we did not receive final confirmation on everything until this afternoon. A clean version had anticipated that there might be some confirmation, but it does not include all of the changes being verbally discussed today as we did not receive that confirmation until today.
Councilmember Boles stated that is all the more reason to give everyone time to look at it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, before we conclude this meeting, it would be helpful to staff to hear from Council the format in which Council would like to see documents in the future. Staff heard a lot of input about needing to see a clean copy of the document, which is what is prepared in here, and highlight in the presentation what these changes are in that clean document. If there is a different direction and Council is not going to be prepared to consider the resolution tonight and move on with this process and would like additional meetings, then he wants to know what Council’s direction is about how to see documents and changes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood that the changes in the document in tonight’s packet were not in the last iteration because staff had received feedback from Coastal Commission as recently as today.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the changes are in the packet as a clean version of the LCLUP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that what was received today was just the confirmation of what staff discussed and is in the presentation now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the confirmation staff received is the majority of what we do have in the clean version of the documents, but we are specifically going over each of them to be clear and transparent that many of these changes are non-substantial and we worked through with Coastal Commission staff, such as what is the normal planning language that would apply to this policy. Staff trying to discuss each of them and, if there are any we need to drill down more, we could take a break and create a redline version if that is what Council is City Council Special Meeting 24 September 17, 2024
interested in. The intent was to have the Council consider adoption of these alternate modifications for submittal to the Coastal Commission tonight.
Councilmember Boles stated that Council was still giving input. She asked if, besides the General Plan consistencies, all the comments Council has been giving on this document on the spreadsheet of suggested changes or all incorporated in this also.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles thought, with some of them, Council was still vague on and might want staff to think about some a little bit more.
City Manager Woodhouse stated part of the consideration in the deliberation tonight is for Council to say we agree with everything here but we want to push back on the Coastal Commission to suggest that the duration of the SSRAs is not 20 years but 30 years. Council would give staff that direction, and staff would advise Coastal Commission staff would not agree to that but build that into the alternate modifications and send it off to start Coastal Commission’s process to consider. He stated that the goal is an understanding of modifications to this document that staff is recommending Council agree to because Coastal Commission staff agrees to it and will make the certification process at Coastal Commission easier. Council has the prerogative to make any changes desired and staff will build those into the submittal to Coastal Commission. He stated that the goal is to get through and be able to submit this, as we are at the tenth meeting of a three-meeting process.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated this community needs to have confidence in this process and expressed concerns about changes that come at the last minute that staff cannot evaluate for Council to be able to talk about it at meetings. She stated that what ensued in the meantime is that staff had time to talk about it and staff made those changes to this document and gave Council a clean copy with those changes included, aiming for approval. However, Council cannot do that because anytime we change language in this document, our community needs to be able to see exactly what we changed, what it was before, what it is now; before we vote on moving a document forward, we are going to need that. She knows it is a longer process but it is the confidence in the document that enables it to move forward in something we incorporate into the life of Pacifica. Otherwise, changes last minute, however insubstantial they may be, leaves the lingering question that does not inspire confidence. Council is close to telling staff that list of concerns. We went through it with the General Plan where we get close and wanted to see it one more time with no more changes that come from outside of our community. She stated that is the issue as these were promulgated by Coastal Commission staff as responses to our General Plan. We have been waiting to hear what the import of them was as City staff did not know the last time we met on this topic. She thinks we need to see clearly where it is in this document. If we can do that, it would be helpful and we can post a copy of it for the community and take it up at the next meeting to vote on it. She concluded that is her opinion.
Councilmember Boles referenced ESHA buffers and substantial structural modifications as needing discussion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council will continue.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes moved on to Policy ER-I-1. From previous discussions, Coastal Commission staff suggested modifications that added language regarding minimum 100-foot buffers and, in no case, 50 feet, i.e., “the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by a minimum, City Council Special Meeting 25 September 17, 2024
necessary to avoid a taking for private development provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurable mitigated. The 100 foot buffer may also be reduced to provide a required incidental public services for public development such as burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines, and emergency repairs, provided that a buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible and in no less than 50 feet in any case provided that the creek resource impacts are avoided as much as possible”. She stated that there are also additional changes shown in the August 12 report: “unavoidable impacts commensurably mitigated, all conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”. She stated, from previous discussions, staff had concerns with the specific phrase here (“no less than 50 feet in any case”) and tried to negotiate with Coastal Commission staff to remove that, and they will not remove that. However, between permit exemptions and allowances under our existing Implementation Plan and any future Implementation Plan that does allow for minor maintenance, regardless of any creek resources and some of the other policies in the document, we think that the City may be able to complete incidental public services, be able to repair them and maintain them, even if they are within 50 feet of creeks. While this specific policy does say no less than 50 feet, there are other policies and other allowances that will allow the City to have those public services and be able to maintain them.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what assurance is there that we can get that into the IP.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it is not that we would be able to get it into the IP, but that in our existing IP, we have existing permit exclusions for certain work regardless of if it is located within 50 feet of a creek resource.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we will be updating the IP and will not be using the existing IPs so how does that pertain to this language.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the exemptions and exclusions in our existing IP are almost identical to those in the Coastal Act so it is assumed that the City will continue to be Coastal Act compliant. She stated that we have permit exclusions and exemptions consistent with the Coastal Act that will allow us to continue to do work.
Councilmember Bigstyck liked that language in their current IP is almost verbatim Coastal Act and would be included for the new IP but he was uncomfortable with assumptions.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are certain policies in our new LCP that may be more flexible than what is in our current IP. For example, our existing Article 43 that allows for exemptions and inclusions from Coastal Development Permit requirements comes directly from the Coastal Act and from Public Resource Code. She stated that we will continue to have those exclusions to an exemption to Coastal Development Permits because they are specifically outlined in the Coastal Act. There might be some additional allowances based on other policies in the document. She thinks the big picture here is that Coastal Commission staff, when we are thinking about incidental public services, are going to require us to keep a 50-foot buffer from creek resource and mitigate as much as possible. She thinks the City has other options, policies, and mechanisms in the Implementation Plan to assure that, if we do need to do work closer than 50 feet from creek resources for any stormwater maintenance, lines, emergency repair, etc., we can still do that.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked is the reason we would not reflect that IP language in the LCLUP language because it is too prescriptive.
City Council Special Meeting 26 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed, adding that we make a reference to those code sections that specifically exempt Coastal Development Permits for certain work. We had that discussion which was based on work at the Sharp Park Golf Course and certain types of work they were concerned would be triggering many of these policies. It is in the LCP where we specifically outline those code sections in the Coastal Act that are similar to what we have in the IP that would allow for that maintenance small work to continue, even in the appeal jurisdiction, even if there are certain types of coastal resources.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated we have that higher level policy saying “no less than 50 feet” but then in the Implementation Plan, it is no less than 50 except as per the Coastal Act.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we were talking earlier about setbacks they call it buffers and asked if it can say buffers where there were setbacks before. If it said buffers, she thought it would make more sense.
Councilmember Boles thinks that is about placing new development.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it was to comply with the setbacks, and setbacks for her are different from a house setback. If it said buffers, she thought it would make things clearer. She stated, if no one else agrees, it is fine.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, regarding what changed and where/how did it change, for ER-I-1 and ER-I-24 in regard to creek and ESHA buffer policies, she thought it was a loaded topic. She asked if staff can explain exactly what changed, as that was not highlighted.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she could read the previous version and read the new version. She stated that the previous version of the policy is on packet page 502 of the August 12 report. She stated that we changed the sentence structure because we were proposing that the first part of the sentence that reads “the minimum buffer may be reduced by minimum necessary to avoid a taking” would be also applicable to the incidental public services, and we combined those two sentences. Previously it read “the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by a minimum necessary 1) to avoid a taking for private development or 2) to provide required incidental public services for public development provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated, that the buffer is close to 100 feet as possible, and provided that creek resources impact are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated all as completely demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”. She stated that the new language splits the private development from the incidental public services. For private development, the buffer may be reduced to a minimum necessary to avoid a taking, as long as impacts are mitigated buffers. For the incidental public services, the 100-foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services for public development. Staff asked Coastal Commission staff to provide some examples, such as burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake or outfall lines, or emergency repairs, provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible and is no less than 50 feet in any case.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wants to see the difference between the versions.
Councilmember Boles thinks having a redline version that has what was there and what is now City Council Special Meeting 27 September 17, 2024
changed would be helpful as a final look.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we need both/
Councilmember Boles asked as well as the clean version.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated yes, you have to see what the changes were and compare to how it is now, as how it is now is what you are approving and is the final document. She stated the Council should all agree on exactly what it is we are asking for as it sounds to her that we have each asked for different things.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she asked for a redline version for tonight. She has been going by the August 12 version because it did not do her any good to read the clean copy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she needs them both side by side.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, given that Coastal Commission staff did not seem to fully get back to the City until today, it seems like we were off on their timing even if we did have them.
He would love to see a clean version and a redline version, especially of those things that have changed between the last meeting and this meeting, which specifically pertain to Coastal Commission comments that have now been addressed. He stated, when talking about the 50- foot buffer, that was a particular bone of contention with our public that, when it comes to private development, it can be less than 50 feet to preclude a taking and it applies to City property where the 50-foot buffer needs to be. He needs the public to be able to see that articulation and not just hear it. He would find it helpful to be able to look through a clean document aside from those redlines. He stated that, if there was a redline of just these changes, that would be great.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Mayor Vaterlaus wants a full redline.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated just the new changes is all she wants.
Councilmember Boles wants to see all of the input that Council has given in a redline. She stated that we have not seen what staff has typed up from Council’s comments. She wants to go back and double check those comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck trying to conceptualize how we could have a redline that specifically is all of the changes we made but his desire in this instance is to see where the changes are specifically for this which maybe is not an entire redline document, but just those handful of pages that had these changes, because we have that specific letter.
City Attorney Kenyon sees the issue for Council and the issue for staff. She thinks Council should talk about what is the format and what exactly do you want to see. She stated that staff tried to reformat this based on comments that staff received since the last meeting from Council about how it is so difficult to read a redline and see the final versions. Unfortunately, staff did not receive Coastal Commission confirmation until this afternoon and the likelihood that staff were going to be able to create a redline prior to this meeting for the public to review was not going to happen. What she is concerned about now is what staff brings back to Council is what is desired. She hears different comments without a majority consensus, and staff are going to need a majority consensus on exactly what Council wants to bring back. Staff needs clear direction on exactly what format Council wants to see these changes in and what iterations of changes Council would like to see in redline and in clean copy. She imagines that, from staff’s City Council Special Meeting 28 September 17, 2024
perspective, the easiest way is there should be one redline with changes from a specific date and then a clean version of that document. She is not clear on what is the date that Council wants all those changes to be incorporated from or the original document for the redline.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he feels fairly comfortable with the material he has in front of him to this point, but what he is not comfortable with specifically is what is directly in front of him on the monitor. It is not an issue he is having with staff, but an issue he is having with Coastal Commission staff for their bad timing, both in terms of the August 6 document and then tonight’s meeting. Within that context, if there was a public handout of what Council was seeing on the monitor now, he would be comfortable. He acknowledged that the public and the rest of Council may not be satisfied by that, but he would like to see this in document form so he can go over it, preferably before he gets to the dais, and so the public can see it. He wanted something relatively small like this, not a full document of tracked changes.
Councilmember Boles stated she wanted more tracked changes than that.
City Attorney Kenyon reiterated staff needing direction from majority of Council.
Councilmember Boles stated that we have given direction on this whole thing and wanted redlines of alternative modifications that was not in there originally since Council started going over this table. She stated staff has taken Council’s input and updated these policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought December 5 was the meeting at the Community Center regarding the introduction of the SRA concept. He thought when Council first saw the matrix was November.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure that the direction Council has given on all these policies, if they are alternatives, is it what we agreed to.
Councilmember Bier agrees with that as far as the chart goes. She needs to see all the things we have talked about in chart form, including the directions given and the changes made.
Councilmember Boles added to see it in chart form and not look at the whole document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the whole point is that we want to be as confident as we can that we are all looking and all deciding on the same thing. There is the minimalist version, the complete version, and somewhere in between. She thinks Council needs to settle on what date because 2 or 3 of them have been looking at the June version, not August, because there was not any difference between them. Council was proceeding through the policy changes and making comments and made notes on their tables. She wanted to be able go between the table, a redline version, and the clean version. She said you have to read a clean version from front to back to have a sense if it makes sense and reflects what Council said and acts the final copy that we are putting forward to our community.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, for tonight’s meeting, she went back to the chart and used the August 12 redline because she wants to see the changes. She stated that we have gone over this for so long that she just wants to see change, not what we already did. She stated that we are all talking different things.
Councilmember Boles stated just seeing all the changes is okay.
City Council Special Meeting 29 September 17, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated Councilmember Bigstyck said to put all the changes in one document.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, specifically where the August 6 letter is concerned, he would like to have had a handout.
Councilmember Bier suggested a break.
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Bier asked how we are going to take public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what discussion topics were still outstanding.
Councilmember Boles referenced substantial structural modifications.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Council came to a conclusion about format.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we are going to make that final decision before we leave this meeting and agree to it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she was not here for the August 12 meeting and Council discussed indepth the tsunami inundation zones and tsunami hazard zones. She stated that questions she got from the public related to the tsunami zones and asked how did other cities not have to deal with tsunami zones, such as Half Moon Bay.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for tonight’s presentation, she was anticipating to discuss this specific topic when we were discussing the policy related to risk disclosure. She continued with the modifications from the letter. She moved to Policy ER-I-24, the management of ESHA. One of the figure changes for this policy is that Coastal Commission staff requested that we add wetlands and City staff did not have any concern with this as ESHAs includes wetlands already so this is a clarification that this policy applies to wetlands. One of the other changes to this policy was the General Plan consistency changes had removed the second bullet point that “no new development shall be allowed within wetlands except as described in Policy ER-I-5” and that has been inserted. As discussed with Policy ER-I-1, the second sentence in the third bullet point pertaining to the buffer has been modified. Previously, it read “the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by a minimum necessary 1) to avoid a taking for private development or 2) to provide required incidental public services for public development provided by any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible and provided that ESHA resource impacts are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”. She stated that the new language, very similar to the discussion for ER-I-1, specifically related to the “no less than 50-foot buffer”. The new language reads “100-foot buffer may be reduced by minimum necessary to avoid a taking for private development provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated. The 100-foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services for public development, such as burying cables, pipes or inspection of pipes, maintenance of existing intake and outfall and emergency repairs, provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, is no less than 50 feet in any case and provided that ESHA or wetland resource impacts are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts mitigated all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”.
City Council Special Meeting 30 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there was still some kind of judgment or modification that staff can make in recommendation or in applying the taking concept. She stated that it clearly states no less than 50 feet in any case.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that no less than 50 feet in any case is only applicable to buffers needed for incidental public services. For private development, the buffer may be reduced by the minimum necessary to avoid a taking.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded it does not apply to residences and asked what does it apply to in terms of City land.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it would apply to public infrastructure in ESHA and wetlands, i.e. any storm water maintenance, facility infrastructure that City has in these areas, and emergency repairs including emergency.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in case of an emergency, if this prohibits the City from working on what is already there.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it does allow for some emergency repairs. She stated we have some allowances for emergency Coastal Development Permits and there is emergency work but also the later permitting that may be required. She stated that the next changes are to the substantial structural modification definition. Staff went back and forth with Coastal Commission staff regarding this definition. There was a bit of confusion as to how this language was applicable so staff had that clarification with Coastal Commission staff and made some modifications that are not shown in the letter. Generally, staff thinks that the new definition gives more flexibility because it does consider each individual structural component separately. Per the letter, a project that alters 20% roof framing, 20% floor framing, and 20% foundation would not be considered a 60% alteration; each of the components would be considered 20%. That example would not trigger the substantial structural modification policy as they would not be a 50% alteration of any of those individual structural components. She stated that it is slightly different than how City staff had previously been interpreting the definition, but it is more flexible to the way that it is calculated. She stated that there was also some clarification to the exclusion. The Council had directed staff to add a list of exclusions and they did remove plywood roof sheeting from the exclusion list and there was some clarification to that list to ensure that it was clear that those were nonstructural components.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked why the plywood roof sheathing.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is a structural part of the shear to protect from earthquakes, not just an underlayment for the roofing.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it could be your plywood as that is an underlayment of a roof. She thinks it covers a lot more things, as you could also use it under your siding.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that additionally, there were some modifications to the last sentence which previously read “incremental structural changes that cumulatively amount to replacement of 50% or more over time shall be considered an SSM”. The new sentence means incremental changes to floor area and individual major structural component that amounts to alteration, removal, or replacement of 50% or more over time shall be considered an SSM.
Previously staff had interpreted it to say 50% change of your entire structure, but the SSM City Council Special Meeting 31 September 17, 2024
clarifies 50% of each individual structural components. She stated that the property owner can come in and change 49% of their roof framing and 49% of their floor framing and that will still not trigger the SSM policy.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we removed the word “cumulatively” to clarify that it is not a cumulation but individual structural components.
Councilmember Boles mentioned dry rot.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated Coastal Commission staff added the term “nonstructural” to some of the inclusions to clarify that it is nonstructural work. She believes that was added to other nonstructural roofing materials, nonstructural remedial actions to address termite infestation and dry rot, and other nonstructural modifications required to comply with state and federal law and regulations such as improvements of seismic retrofit upgrade.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a good thing but we do not want to let people let their buildings rot to the point where the structure is rotting and have a free pass at replacing it. This says, if you start to see dry rot in your siding, that does not count, so fix it then and get rid of the termites and lower your soil if you do not need to before it starts affecting the structure. If you let it go too long, it will count.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the next policy that was discussed in the Coastal Commission staff letter is the coastal hazards risk disclosure policy. There were several questions on this policy from the last meeting. She stated there are approximately 620 parcels in the currently mapped coastal vulnerability zones and, in the last three years, the City has accepted 32 applications and has approved 23 Coastal Development Permits. This is data that staff researched in order to give Council more perspective of how many projects and parcels would be required to comply with risk disclosure policy.
Councilmember Boles was confirming that we are not counting tsunami inundation or evacuation zones in the coastal vulnerability zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes answered affirmatively. She stated there were some minor revisions done to this policy. One of things that we removed was the language that referred to deed restriction to make the terminology consistent with the title of the policy for risk disclosure.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is a disclosure with no restrictions if you have to put those in your property.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes answered affirmatively. At the August 12 meeting, there was discussion among Council about a list of coastal hazard conditions and certain defined triggers that would require that the development be removed and there were several questions as to who would make that determination, what did some of those triggers actually mean and she was going to turn it over to Asst. City Attorney Bazzano to explain the public trust language that they had there.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there were questions last time about the Public Trust Doctrine and why it was included here and this is the universe of triggers that could require a coastal hazard risk disclosure.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes read the change: “If land comes to be impressed with a public City Council Special Meeting 32 September 17, 2024
trust interest under the common law Public Trust Doctrine which is confirmed by the State Lands Commission or by a court of law”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is a common law public trust doctrine. That is a legal term of art, a legal theory. The Coastal Commission staff initially just wanted public trust in there, and in conversations with them, she said that was too broad and who is going to determine that. Staff collaborated and they both agreed on the limiting language of the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal term, is confirmed by the State Lands Commission as it is the State Lands Commission that has jurisdiction over public trust land and makes that determination.
The City wanted to make sure there was some vehicle or agency and for the public to understand what agency is going to make that determination.
Councilmember Boles asked if she would explain for the public what “when a property is impressed with the Public Trust” means in plain language.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it has a variety of meanings, such as any land that the State of California deems has public trust value, meaning that it is a public commodity. It is so important to the public that the agencies and the courts have jurisdiction to determine whether or not a particular entity or agency is violating the public trust. She stated that you could violate the public trust by allowing untreated water into streams. It usually comes up with dams, etc., or cities taking water from creeks, waterways, streams, rivers, etc. and that is where she is used to seeing it most used. There is also a Public Trust Doctrine with regard to state land. The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over the waters in coastal areas along with BCDC.
Councilmember Boles added the beaches.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is correct. They make a determination as to whether or not a certain activity or undertaking is violating that public trust. There is no simple definition for a public trust; it can mean whatever they interpret it to mean except that it has to relate to an issue that is of such importance, based on common law doctrine, case law, and jurisdiction prudence.
It is a legal theory that we as a city cannot make that determination and ultimately has to be made by an agency with authority to make that determination, either a court of law or the State Lands Commission, or BCDC.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in this case, with the beaches and ocean, sea level rise is moving in and what was your property may become public property over time.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed and stated that determination will not be made by the City or any individual but made by, in this case, the State Lands Commission.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there have been questions regarding the tsunami inundation zone and different policies in different LCPs. That was a question that staff did ask Coastal Commission staff specifically regarding Half Moon Bay’s policies. Half Moon Bay’s LCP contains two policies that relate to hazard risk disclosure, Policy 7-4 and Policy 7-18. She stated that Policy 7-4 was shown in August that speaks directly to tsunami inundation zones and the requirement for a risk disclosure in that area. Policy 7-18, on the other hand, is contained in the shoreline hazard section of the LCLUP and specifically requires an assumption of risk and disclosure for new development that may be subject to shoreline hazards with a fire grade of details. She stated that, additionally, it is language that predates the Coastal Commission’s public trust guiding principles and it is also language that predates some of the conversations that California Coastal Commission has had with the State Lands Commission as well. She City Council Special Meeting 33 September 17, 2024
stated that Staff were also told by Coastal Commission staff that Half Moon Bay has a very different set of coastal hazards and vulnerabilities and that is one of the reasons why their policy is different than the policies that they recommended for us. They also provided examples of more recent LCLUP policies that were certified in 2023 for two other jurisdictions that are much closer to the policy that we are seeing today for Pacifica because it does include that more comprehensive look of risk disclosure for coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles asked if Mayor Vaterlaus has seen the new tsunami map that was prepared for the last meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she did see it.
Councilmember Boles stated that is the difference between the inundation and the evacuation areas where the evacuation area was much bigger. Council approved a contract with our consultant to update these maps but do not have the official ones yet.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she read a comment about the maps.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if this is the conversation we had before in regard to the list of coastal hazards, like cliff erosion, flooding, sea rise, and tsunami. She thinks the challenge about tsunami is that science was mostly nonexistent, and that was the concern raised about including tsunami as one of our coastal hazards considering the history of impacting this area is nonexistent. She asked is this something included in a disclosure, is this listed as one of our coastal hazards, and what is the impact of having a tsunami included in our coastal hazards.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that tsunami is in the definition of coastal hazards in the glossary of the document. At the last meeting, Council directed staff to add exclusion language to the coastal vulnerability zone definition to specifically exclude tsunami inundation and tsunami evacuation zone, and the language was added to that definition. The policies of Chapter 6 clearly the policies related to technical reporting and siting designs are only applicable to coastal vulnerability zones which do not include tsunami inundation zones and tsunami evacuation zones. She stated that the coastal risk disclosure policy is applicable to Coastal Development Permit approvals in the coastal vulnerability zone or the tsunami inundation zone. In Chapter 6, the risk disclosure policy is the only policy that would be applicable to tsunami inundation zones.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she can tell her where the policy is in the document in the June staff report.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she does not have the June agenda packet in front of her, but for today’s agenda packet, it is on page 204.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we were looking at CR-I-21.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles referred to a letter from Mr. Richard Harris and the way we are concerned about the tsunami word being in the definition of coastal hazards before. There are two other policies, NH-G-2, that talks about development in hazardous areas, which says “site and design development in 100-year flood plains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risks without the need for armoring”. She asked if that conflicts with what she is saying about City Council Special Meeting 34 September 17, 2024
tsunamis not being hazard zones.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that tsunami is still in the definition of coastal hazards and we cannot remove that otherwise we will be inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Councilmember Boles stated that she said there were no siting and design or technical reports required, and this is siting and design in this policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that Chapter 6 policies are not applicable to the tsunami inundation zone and the Chapter 5 policies that are for coastal natural hazard zones. There are some policies that refer to tsunami evacuation zones but they do not refer to any tsunami inundation zones. Staff discussed that with Coastal Commission staff and this is an area we would nail down into the Implementation Plan to determine what would be needed, per policies in Chapter 5 versus the policies in Chapter 6, but all indications show that the conclusions of that discussion is that the onerous Chapter 6 policies are not applicable to the tsunami inundation zones. Coastal Commission staff confirmed dthat today.
Councilmember Boles stated that the NH-G-2 does not say tsunami inundation zone; it just says tsunami hazard zones.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that some of the policies in Chapter 5 may still be applicable to other areas and that can be said for any of those other areas. Chapter 5 talks about storm water, flooding, and natural hazards.
Councilmember Boles read NH-I-30, which is tsunami evacuation zones which includes the tsunami inundation zone but more: “For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone required the use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures about projected water levels to mitigate impacts to people in structures.” She stated that it seems like it is siting and design issues.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, when you compare the coastal vulnerability zone, especially the storm water flooding layer versus the tsunami inundation layer, those are almost identical. She stated that it makes sense because, when you have a tsunami, the land forms where water can come on land and is similar to storm water flooding as well. She stated that there is language in Chapter 5 that pertains specifically to evacuation zones and language in Chapter 6 that pertains specifically to tsunami inundation zones. However, the discussion for Chapter 6 may need to be separated slightly from the discussion of Chapter 5 as we are looking at different map areas versus the general coastal hazards.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked for the page number on the Chapter 5 policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that NH-G-2 is on packet page 170 and policy NH-I-30 is on packet page 171.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if these policies are delineated from the SSRA areas or not.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the Chapter 5 policies are specifically related to flooding and flooding areas and are different than the Chapter 6 policies which are specifically for development and what development can occur in different areas.
Councilmember Boles referred to Fairway West. That whole neighborhood is in a tsunami City Council Special Meeting 35 September 17, 2024
evacuation zone, only a little bit in a tsunami inundation zone; anything new built there will have to be lifted up over. She asked if that means a substantial structural modification in those areas would require that too.
Councilmember Bigstyck added substantial structural modification in conjunction with tsunami evacuation. The question is Fairway West, which is largely is in tsunami evacuation, and if there is an SSM, would they have to accommodate tsunami evacuation from that point in terms of their development.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she would need some additional time to analyze that but she can provide a response before the end of the meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated that. He hoped we had addressed such things with the introduction of the tsunami inundation zone and, if this is indicating that such is not the case, perhaps we should investigate where tsunami evacuation is still used and advocate for switching out inundation in such places.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmembers Bier and Boles agreed.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was the last item for the Coastal Commission staff letter.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to packet page 204 and coastal hazard risk disclosure. She stated that there was reference in the letter to the Local Government Working Groups, highlighting the importance of disclosure policies. She stated that, while true in certain instances, she thinks the concern is that this is going further because it listed all the items. She wanted to make sure that we were not being too restrictive with disclosure requirements or including too many things that have to be disclosed. That was her original question. She thinks staff answered it in terms of the concern about tsunami inundation zone versus evacuation zone. She thought in the risk disclosure with the bullet points on page 204 were the disclosures that Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was saying would be required.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding that the idea is that it provides the public clear transparent information that would be included in the risk disclosure, rather than just saying they will have to fill out a risk disclosure and waiting until the Implementation Plan or we put the risk disclosure in front of them. She stated this specifies fairly close to what is going to be in the final risk disclosure document.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the concern was that, if the language was left vague and then the risk disclosure was developed afterwards, property owners would be alarmed at seeing what would be required by the Coastal Commission through their approval process. Their thought is, in order to be transparent, to put it in our LCLUP so that people who are thinking of coming in for a CDP will know what it means in order to receive that permit. They are just disclosures, not restrictions. According to the Coastal Commission, these are their standard disclosure requirements that they would require in their review of the CDP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that we move off of disclosure and into another realm we have “unconditionally waive any claim of damage”. That is a far-reaching statement where transparency will show people up front rather than having an unfortunate discovery later, but it is also unpleasant for people to contemplate waiving all rights when they do not even have a project. She stated that the implication is that their property is condemned in some way. She City Council Special Meeting 36 September 17, 2024
is trying to get at how do we make it clear in our document exactly who this applies to and exactly when it will be implemented. It is easy to assume when you read it that, anywhere in the coastal zone, if you want to put a roof on your house, you have to waive your rights and assume all risks. She thought it was intimidating and abstract language when you are not doing it yet.
City Attorney Kenyon understands and believes she is correct that it does appear to be an overreach considering they have not submitted an application for a permit. She added that they would not need to apply this disclosure on their property unless they had received a permit as that is a condition of their permit approval. As a matter of law, any discretionary permit that the City issues, we have immunity; we are immune from liability for our permitting of development.
She stated that it could appear daunting, but the reality of it is that, as a matter of law, this is true, whenever a discretionary permit is issued.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she was saying that is true now, absent this document being adopted by Council.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, absent this document, it is true now.
Councilmember Boles stated that was a discretionary permit. Getting a permit for a roof would not normally require that now.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if it requires Coastal Commission review or City review, and it is ministerial, she is correct. She stated this would put an additional layer of exposure from their perspective. However, in reality, she thinks their ability to assert a claim against the City for permitting their development, what possible claim would exist. She stated that, usually, there is a claim if we deny it or there is a claim if we are not doing what they are asking us to do, but if we are giving them their permit, and they incur damage because of that permit, it is hard for her to imagine what that claim would be.
Mayor Vaterlaus offered that she is building onto her house and a City truck backs up into her house, but if she is in the middle of developing it, then it says that she cannot do anything about injury or damage in connection with the permitted development.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is interesting that she interprets it that way, and she is correct that it can be interpreted that way, and she had assumed it was only in connection with the permit.
Now that she reads that, with the permitted development, what the Mayor is saying is that, if a City tree damages their permitted development a few years later, have they waived their claim against the City. She does not think they have, as that is a separate action that has its own damages. She does not think this disclosure would apply to that, but she thinks we can clarify that language to make sure that is not how it is interpreted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she continues to have concerns about this part, as it is going to be a difficult aspect of the LCLUP. She stated it is a concern because, while she sees the benefit in some ways of being up front with people, she thinks we are almost discouraging people to maintain their property. She stated we want people to repair their properties, but this policy feels like an extensive overreach when you are at the front end of the process and are not in the process yet. She recognizes where Coastal Commission staff is coming from on this, as these are the risks that these are the exact policies that they require when projects are brought to them on appeal. She thinks it is efficient, from Coastal Commission’s standpoint, for it to be in our LCLUP, but she is not sure if it’s fair to Pacificans. We tried to address it by our definition of coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones. When we talked about our mapping City Council Special Meeting 37 September 17, 2024
we are going to undertake, our coastal vulnerability zone region is not defined; depending on the hazards and impact of sea rise or impact of the new science, she asked if our coastal vulnerability zone is likely to change or is that fixed.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it will change.
Councilmember Boles stated that these policies apply whether you are in the coastal zone or vulnerability or not. Being in the coastal zone, you need these disclosures, and that is her understanding.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is not what it says.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is for the inundation zones and coastal vulnerability zones.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, to the Mayor’s point about the lack of clarity about bullet 3 in terms of unconditionally wave any claim or liability against the City, if you look at the bullets previous to it, the clear intent of all of them is they are releasing the City and accepting the risk associated with any damage from coastal hazards. She stated that we can clarify that third bullet point and say “in connection with coastal hazards associated with the development,” as that is what the intent is. It is just a method to be transparent so they and future buyers of that property know that there are potentially coastal hazards. She assumes it is limited to coastal hazards, which they can clarify in bullet 3, but it limits the ability of these disclosures because they are only disclosing coastal hazards related to the permitted development. Thus, they cannot come back against the City if erosion that causes their property erode into the ocean or a tsunami that came and destroyed their home. They would not be able to use that coastal hazard as a basis for a claim against the City, but she did not think they would be able to do that in any event.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated at least one property she knows in Pacifica has all of these deed restrictions because their project was appealed to the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission put all of these deed restrictions on their property in order to allow them to build it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer acknowledged that there is that one, 620 parcels, 32 projects, and 23 CDPs. She asked if that is the universe that they are talking about in terms of this policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, for the 620 parcels, yes, under the current mapping.
The City has entered into a contract to update the mapping so that may change that number.
Over the last three years, the number of applications that have been submitted to the City versus the number that has been approved is to show metric over the last three years of potential Coastal Development Permits that may have been. If this policy had been in the books, these are the properties they would have been applicable to.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated approximately eight approved per year.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes added that the numbers over the last three years is over the entire coastal zone, not just the coastal vulnerability, so the number of CDPs approved in the coastal vulnerability zone is less.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was what she was asking as she thought it was for the coastal vulnerability zone.
City Council Special Meeting 38 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated we might see more approvals if we update our LCP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated possibly not if people do not want to waive their rights.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Mandy Sackett, Pacifica, stated she is SurfRider Foundation’s California Policy Coordinator and works on sea level rise planning statewide. She shared her disagreement with the special shoreline resiliency area concept and expressed concerns about neighborhood-scale approaches leading to unchecked armoring across the coast.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated all the hard work on this process and urged Council to remove the SSRAs from the LCLUP and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, shared his concerns about the Coastal Commission staff’s changes to the LCLUP. He emphasized problems about the exclusion of plywood roof sheathing from SSMs and the tsunami policies.
Edward Ochi, Pacifica, thanked staff and Council on all the time spent on this and expressed frustrations on the different versions and the comments received by Coastal Commission staff on the day of City Council meetings. He urged for a single and comprehensive document for everyone to review.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared Pedro Point Community Association and residents’ feedback about not changing an environmental hazard zone into a residential area that would turn into a natural disaster, which would lead to possible litigation.
Marianne, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this item and shared suggestions on a possible compromise, especially regarding armoring in Rockaway and Sharp Park areas.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, asked what would happen if SSRAs were rejected and how City staff would accept the compromises by Coastal Commission at that stage.
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, appreciated everything staff and Council has done and shared her concerns on the change of the Pedro Point wetlands zoning as well as the removal of coastal access points to beaches and trails in the LCLUP.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, shared her concern on misinformation and fear mongering, urged for a long-term plan, and asked why SSRAs were still under consideration.
Stanley Lamport, Pacifica, stated he is a land use lawyer and represents interests in Pacifica, but he is not authorized to speak on their behalf. He shared concerns about CR-I-21 about hazard risk disclosures wherein they waive rights for existing structures to protect that property.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if it was specifically SSMs that trigger CR-I-21.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated any project requiring CDP approval.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how minimal might such a project be.
City Council Special Meeting 39 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, generally, replacement is done through building permit. Reroofs do not require a Coastal Development Permit and re-roofs in the coastal zone are reviewed and approved via building permit, the same thing as replacing a window. She said adding an ADU would trigger a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that would require a CDP and deed waiver.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the expectation would be that the development is built to not need future shoreline protection per the other policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated this was specifically in the coastal hazard zone and tsunami inundation zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it would be good to get some Council direction to staff about this policy. Staff knows that this is one Coastal Commission staff thinks needs to be in the LCLUP. If Council has substantial changes to this, the way the process would roll out is that, if Council adopts alternate modifications, submit them to Coastal Commission staff, then Coastal Commission staff is unlikely to recommend to Coastal Commission to certify as submitted, and Coastal Commission will discuss and most likely include this policy in their comments, and it would come back to Council for consideration of whether to accept that or not or withdraw the LCLUP submittal.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about how many parcels are in the tsunami inundation zone that are not also in the coastal vulnerability zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is difficult information to obtain because we do not have a map with both of those together. She did a visual check and it was less than ten.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, to the City Manager’s point, this is an important point for the Coastal Commission in terms of assuring that the LCLUP is consistent with the Coastal Act.
The reason is that this provision is waiving the right to future shoreline protection because this shoreline protection should only be allowed for the duration of the permitted development. They are not entitled to future shoreline protection following the permitted development life of their existing project, should that shoreline protection not exist, not that it will not exist. They do not have any rights against the city or Coastal Commission to force us to provide that shoreline protection. She is not sure that they would have a claim against the City for not proactively providing future shoreline protection. She stated that was the purpose for including that particular waiver.
Mayor Vaterlaus agrees that, if you are in a tsunami zone and the map says 475 years was the time period for the tsunami zone, and there have not been any, and she wants to build an ADU in her backyard, and she has to waive all these rights by trying to help other people, it does not sit right with her.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if you are building in a coastal vulnerability zone, presumably that means that you are building in a place where there are serious issues. As far as the inundation zone part goes, for the purpose of the broader conversation and coming back to that specific point, we are talking about less than ten houses, and the vast majority is coastal City Council Special Meeting 40 September 17, 2024
vulnerability zone and it rides together. He stated, if you are in a coastal vulnerability zone, he thinks all those definitions around pre-coastal development that is currently entitled to those protective structures versus how small is the change you are making that would inform you waiving the right to protect your property. By putting an ADU in a known flood zone, he would invite someone for low-cost housing where they might be flooded out and he is adding on in a substantial way in such a fashion that it might trigger doing substantial development and what right does he have to a sea wall. He wants to know how small a change are we talking about that triggers a Coastal Development Permit that a house that currently has a right to protection because it is pre-Coastal Act, i.e. does installing a new kitchen mean it is no longer pre-Coastal Act development. He was following the substantial structural modification conversation to the point of 51%. If we are taking away that piece out of this conversation, and now we must waive what we currently have the right to a protection, that is where he is struggling.
Councilmember Boles stated she has a potential example. In the Pacific View Villas, that complex is about eight condos north of OceanAire that is in a coastal vulnerability zone, their cliff is eroding quite a lot now. They are applying for a Coastal Development Permit to work on some drainage and hoping to add a few more rocks which they have a right to under preCoastal Act development.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we get comments about Half Moon Bay’s. He had a good conversation with one of their councilmembers, and she reminded him of the Casa Mira litigation that is ongoing. She obviated that this conversation is within the landscape of that ongoing litigation which might change definitions once the appeals process is over. He stated that it is not about agreeing or disagreeing but about which way they might lean in their judgment.
Councilmember Boles stated that lawsuit is about defining development after 1977 and we are assuming that policy is that we can still have shoreline protection for things that were built before 1977.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the question is at what point do we say to homeowner in the coastal vulnerability zone that we will not allow them to persist if that is what they need to persist because they are too big a liability in conjunction with what nature is telling us.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested a narrower limit on this particular policy. She thinks the question asked of Dep. Director Cervantes was how many properties are in the coastal vulnerability zone and tsunami inundation zone, and the policy says “or”. She stated that means something different. She stated properties she can think of in town that are much more vulnerable than others to the naked eye today that fit, but she worries about this being too broad and applying to many properties that are not in the near term and possibly for the life of the project they are trying to do is going to be subjected to these concerns. When we say “subject to coastal hazards including, but not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion,” she stated that we know there is erosion constantly and that seems reasonable in terms of strict policies like this. However, for impacts that are going to hit and projected to be increasing in 50-75 years from now, this policy does not mention a timeline; it just says “episodic and long-term for the high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami for 75 years”.
She is concerned that this is casting a wider requirement and a wider number of properties than may be realistic. She stated that until the applications are put in, it is hard to know where the properties are. She wonders if there is any way to limit it or define in a different way because it is more about likelihood. If it just said tsunami on here, she would say no, but ocean waves, storms and coastal flooding happen all the time. She asked if someone should waive their City Council Special Meeting 41 September 17, 2024
rights because of coastal flooding.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is trying to understand the distinction that she is trying to make.
She understands Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is trying to limit the applicability of these risk disclosures and mentioning the tsunami issue and Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned that it seemed likely that, for shoreline protection in a coastal vulnerability zone, that sixth bullet point makes sense. She asked if she is trying to limit the applicability to coastal vulnerability zones and not tsunami inundation zones. She stated, if that is the will of the Council, staff can take that back to the Coastal Commission staff and see what they say, but other than that, she does not see a practical way for any more distinction to be made because that would require a factbased determination. She asked who is going to make that fact-based determination and what are they going to make that fact-based determination on. She stated that is not the purpose of a risk disclosure as it is trying to talk about potential risks. She stated that could be one suggestion, but to make it more refined than that would be difficult to craft.
Councilmember Boles referred to the shoreline protection structures, these properties now have a right if they are pre-Coastal Act, and she asked if it is the Coastal Commission’s intention to take away that right if they do a small project that needs a CDP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not think they can take away that right but you can waive it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if it is a pre-Coastal Act, that does not apply to them.
Councilmember Boles stated that the public commenter was arguing that they are waiving any right that might exist for shoreline protection type structures for the duration of the permit development as present on the property.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if you are pre-Coastal Act and you are getting a CDP for shoreline armoring, there are going to be requirements and disclosures built into that CDP that the Coastal Commission will require.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated he was correct.
Councilmember Boles asked, if you are getting a CDP for some drainage work so the erosion is not so bad and later you want to put in some rocks, can you do that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that you would be subject to this disclosure in this case.
Councilmember Boles asked if the disclosure prevents you from adding shoreline protection or modifying shoreline protection that you have.
City Manager Woodhouse thought so.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks we would need to ask that question of Coastal Commission staff. She stated that her first impression is no, as the way the bullet point is written is for the duration of the permitted development. Thus, you are permitting the development with a CDP. In the example of the storm water drainage, they may not be able to come back and request protection of the storm drainage that was permitted for the CDP, but their actual structure will still be pre-coastal. She stated that this is a question they could clarify with California Commission staff.
City Council Special Meeting 42 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in the scenario that you have a house in the coastal vulnerability zone and you put in a new kitchen, does your kitchen waive the right to shoreline protection but the house itself does not.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it depends on how extensive your kitchen is. If it is more than 51%, then it is new development and you do not have a right.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if you put in a new kitchen, it is less than 50%, but you get the CDP for it, does the kitchen not have the protection whereas the house does.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes understands the question. She explained that the way that these policies would interact, such as in his example, if you are adding a kitchen, it’s more than 51%, it is triggering the SSM definition and you would be required the Coastal Development Permit and to address all other non-conformity for the LCP on the site; that would mean that you would need to ensure that your entire development on your entire site does not rely on shoreline protection. If you put in a kitchen under 50% and you are not an SSM, that addition still needs, outside of the SSRAs, that new kitchen needs to be designed and sited to address the coastal hazards. The rest of the development does not. If we are going down the same path, that is the permitted development, and that portion of your structure would not qualify for shoreline protection structures but it should have been built to not meet them.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded if you put your kitchen on stilts, it does not need a sea wall, but the rest of your house that does still gets it. There is a point he is making by illustrating it this way.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she was not sure that is the best or correct interpretation because we do need to discuss this with the Coastal Commission. She thinks that, if nothing else, there is an ambiguity with regard to the application that we need clarity on. She would say that, if you are permitting a drainage, something small and not an SSM, that would probably not prevent you from doing shoreline protection if you are a pre-Coastal Act development. She stated, in his example, if you are remodeling your kitchen or doing something that you need the CDP for that is less than an SSM, and you have construction that could implicate shoreline protection, which she thinks a kitchen remodel would, she does not think it would apply there. She thinks, to his point, yes, they would be prohibited from future shoreline protection for that permitted development which is a kitchen but part of a house structure, and the drainage is not part of the house structure. That is an independent sort of structure, not necessarily integrally tied to the house itself. She thinks we need clarity on that from the Coastal Commission staff for a definitive answer.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks he is struggling with the notion of transparency. He is not comfortable with the discrepancies outlined in his example, but is comfortable with the real conversation of whether or not if it is a coastal vulnerability zone you should have to waive your rights and do these disclosures.
Councilmember Bier asked if he suggests removing that bullet point and seeing what the Coastal Commission says.
Councilmember Bigstyck wants to hear from Coastal what the reality is and get clarity.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked what the process for applying for a CDP. She asked if it has to go to Planning Commission and how much extra do you need versus a regular permit.
City Council Special Meeting 43 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that typically the materials that are required for a CDP are more detailed than what would be required for a building permit. A building permit is you meet building code, fire code, a set of objective standards, your proposal does not trigger any entitlements, and staff can review and approve it through the building permit. For Coastal Development Permit applications, the required materials depend on the scope of what you are proposing. Staff has a planning application checklist and usually what happens is people come to staff, say they want to do certain work on their site, and Planning staff will look at their zoning and their proposed work and say, based on those two things on your site, these are the project materials needed, and we check them off; if somebody is doing actual development, they will require plans or certain reports, and if someone needs a conditional use permit because of the type of business that they are, that is a different type of requirement. Once they get all materials, it depends on what the project is, but it usually gets routed to all the main divisions in the City and might get routed to some other agencies also for review of that application. Once staff has determined that you have a complete application meeting Municipal Code, the General Plan, and LCP policies, we take that to the Planning Commission and have a public hearing.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is going to cost that person a huge amount of money to go through with the Coastal Development Permit as it is and it may end up that people just do not come and get permits and do the work and pretend like no one ever saw it.
City Clerk Coffey reminded the mayor that it is 10:54 pm.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to midnight. The motion was not seconded.
Mayor Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bier stated that there were some things she would like clarification on from some of the public comments. One was Ms. Sackett from SurfRider who used the term unchecked armoring. She asked if there was anything we can do to check the armoring.
Councilmember Bigstyck believes that generally Coastal Commission’s impetus is to discourage armoring for the sake of the beaches being existent and, in response, he asked why Coastal Commission staff would go along with the premise of an SSRA to begin and think that it is Coastal Act compliant.
Councilmember Bier thought that was a very good question. When she was listening to the meeting the other day and talking about the neighborhood approach and she heard some of the Coastal Commissioners’ responses to that, she was not sure if they were too clear about the neighborhood approach either and is an SSRA a neighborhood approach. She stated it looks like they would rather see a regional approach, but it made her think of what the Coastal Commission will say if we turn in a document that has SSRAs.
City Council Special Meeting 44 September 17, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon referred to the initial question about unchecked armoring, and she thinks the Coastal Commission staff would say no because of the other obligations that they are putting in that Council and the public have issues with, like risk disclosure, like the bullet point 6 that says that they are only entitled to shoreline protection for the life of the permitted development. In their discussions with Coastal Commission attorneys, she thinks they are going to be saying that they need this in order to make this neighborhood approach consistent with the Coastal Act because it cannot be unchecked armoring under the Coastal Act. This is the way to create limited exceptions to allow armoring only in certain specified circumstances that are clearly laid out in the LCLUP. In addition, this risk disclosure is also making clear that you may be entitled to protection currently for the life of your development but you are not entitled to protection for armoring in perpetuity. That is the best explanation she can give them as to why she does not think the Coastal Commission would view this as unchecked armoring.
Councilmember Boles stated that having policies that have an end date, being able to see how the conditions are changing, at some point, is not going to be realistic. She referenced from the Coastal Commission meeting that the Coastal Commission is allowing seawalls. Arcata was to protect the sewage treatment plant and Santa Cruz was to protect a road, but both of those cities have done longer term planning that is showing that they are taking those out so the seawall is something interim while they are waiting for a long term plan which is more of what the Coastal Commission wanted. That is what she does not see here and why she is not sure the Coastal Commission is going to go for it.
Councilmember Bier asked if Councilmember Boles did not think the adaptation plan was that.
Councilmember Boles stated that is something we have to do anyway and that is where she thinks the mitigations we will need to do for this are going to be substantial. She would rather do the adaptation plan first and take it from there.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought she read the 2019 transmittal.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he feels like the journey from 2018 until now has come a long way toward at least discussing some of the approaches that bring us to a point where the protections we are specifically requesting for the foreseeable future are within the context of the rest of those kinds of protections being checked. He hears what she is saying but feels like balance in this community can be difficult to strike despite hearing feedback that sounds very 50/50.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the idea of submitting this LCLUP without SSRAs in it.
The 2019 submittal would have effectively been that version because there were no such things as SSRAs. She feels that the policies are all crafted with SSRAs in mind and in existence in the plan as these offsetting checks. She stated, if we took SSRAs out, it seems that the whole thing will have to be rethought, which is overly daunting. She stated that, with the idea of adaptation plan first, LCLUP second, she wonders how the implementation phase works with regard to those kinds of plans. She stated that here is our broad policy plan and Implementation Plan can be involved in that specific adaptation plan that we will be rolling into the Coastal Access Resilience Program. She asked if that is a separate thing or part of our IP.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes asked if Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is referring to the shoreline adaptation program or the coastal access plan that is tied to the SSRAs.
City Council Special Meeting 45 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was the coastal access.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes referred to Coastal Access Resilience Plan and because it is directly tied to the SSRAs, she did not think it would make sense for the City to do that effort.
She stated that the document has to go to California Coastal Commission and has to be certified so that would be part of the IP once we get to that stage.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how the other shoreline plan fits.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the shoreline adaptation plan is policy CR-I-5 which the City is obligated to do regardless of the SSRA policies. What the shoreline adaptation program calls for, within ten years of certification, is that the City needs to do technical analysis to determine existing and future conditions and create goals and actions that the City is going to take to adapt to the future conditions. She stated that we have to identify where our sandy beach areas are, establish minimum sandy beach widths, monitor beach areas, work on, beach adaptation strategies, and continue to have sandy beaches.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how far that plan goes into the future.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the planning horizon is not specified in this policy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it sounds like the antithesis of we just keep rebuilding the seawall every time. She stated that Councilmember Bigstyck has talked about is that it takes 50 years to address a wholesale moving of wastewater infrastructure. She thinks it is scope and scale that she is grappling with. We want to approve something and move it forward but we are talking about a relatively short amount of time that these policies would even be in place and we need to do this larger planning process for the future of Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles stated that all those goals and what was done in the adaptation plan for different parts of town have short term, medium term, and long term. She stated, starting to have those plans and dates gives the City projects that they can start to apply for SB 272. That is part of the extra work we need so we can start qualifying for that funding.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked her for bringing that up. She stated, if we do not have an LCLUP approved, we cannot apply for that funding and we do not have the money to do the things we need to do regardless of SSRA or not. We have been working on advocating, etc., with Army Corps for a long time, but there are funds available today through the Ocean Protection Council and through the Coastal Commission for planning grants and for implementation projects and the key to accessing that is in LCLUP. She stated that is the reality. What she is trying to do is find a path forward for the town that has 50/50. She wants them to move forward. She feels like there is a way to do that with this LCLUP. She knows it is not perfect but we are searching for perfect and we have not done anything in 44 years and what makes us think we are going to do perfect the first time out. She is concerned about not doing harm. What she is trying to say is that there are two or three areas that she has significant concerns about that she has expressed at this meeting. She does not want to make a misstep and why she keeps asking the questions over and over about the waivers, as she does not want to do harm to our citizens by putting policies in the plan that ties their hands because Council was having an urgent desire to get an LCLUP in and the downsides for our citizens end up harming them more than not doing it at all.
City Council Special Meeting 46 September 17, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse would like to focus the Council on what the next step is going to be and what is the direction to staff. He stated that there are many different avenues or options.
He wants to get some clear direction, guidance for format for what will come back, if anything is going to come back to Council, etc. There is one option to bring back a clear redlined version based on the last version of the LCLUP that Council adopted which was October 2023, the base document, showing all of the changes that have happened since then minus formatting changes which would make it convoluted. He stated that would be a clear redline version of what Council could consider submitting to the Coastal Commission. Staff then brings that back and Council can discuss final revisions and either accept them and submit or direct them to withdraw our LCLUP submittal. He does not know about timing and when we will be able to bring that back as it might not be for a couple of months, particularly if it involves further consultation with Coastal Commission staff. He knows there are various staff availability and leave and other issues built in there or Council could decide at this time to withdraw the LCLUP and direct staff to bring that resolution back. He heard other comments about revisiting an older version of the LCLUP which requires withdrawing this one and starting over with a new submittal. He is trying to get some direction about what Council wants to do with this major initiative.
Councilmember Bier appreciates the options. She wishes we were making a decision at this meeting, but she thinks our community needs an opportunity to see that document.
Mayor Vaterlaus also wanted to make a decision at this meeting. Major things keep changing.
It is difficult for Council and for the community.
Councilmember Boles thinks about all the people who came to their first meeting and how it dwindled and it is just too much. She would like to see it all and read it one more time. She would like to hear from the Coastal Commission on a few things. She wants to make sure we finish this with the five of them.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to see the SSRA policies highlighted. She is not ready to debate them at this meeting, but she thinks we need to have that discussion of what it looks like with and without.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she thinks we need to go back to October 23 with a full redline version.
City Manager Woodhouse stated there is a version of the LCLUP that Council adopted and resubmitted to Coastal. He stated that is the baseline version and all the changes we have been working on in the last year are to that document. He stated that is the cleanest way, but any kind of comprehensive tracked changes version is an immense amount of staff work. As it is now, the estimate of staff time is that, for every hour spent in Council meetings on the LCLUP, an average of about 6-8 hours is spent by staff. If we are in a six-hour meeting, that is 36 hours of staff time that goes in. He stated that it is never-ending and there is a huge list of Council priorities that are not getting done because of this process continuing. He stated that the STR conversation with Coastal Commission staff is not going to happen with this continuing on.
There are all kinds of nondiscretionary things that the Planning staff needs to process and we do not have a full time Community Development Director either. He stated that the point is that working up a clean comprehensive strikethrough version is going to take time. He stated that further discussions with Coastal Commission staff is at least a month to get a meeting on the books with Coastal Commission staff, with Council, the Executive Director, etc. We are looking at some time before we can bring this back, not to mention we have only five regular meetings City Council Special Meeting 47 September 17, 2024
before the Council reorganization meeting in the beginning of December when we have some major items that have to come before Council coming up.
Councilmember Boles suggested trying to finish this in our next meeting and start early.
City Attorney Kenyon wanted to get clarity that the direction is to move forward with the LCLUP that was adopted by Council in 2023 as the original and then all the changes since then. There was also discussion about eliminating SSRAs by two Councilmembers now; that discussion would require, most likely, a withdrawal and then a whole new process. The SSRAs are so embedded in this total document now that it is not as simple as eliminating that chapter.
Councilmember Boles stated had noted, and possibly acting Dep. Director Cervantes did also, exactly which policies.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that that is not something we can do in the timeline that City Manager Woodhouse just discussed, i.e., a couple of months.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes added that it was not as simple going in and deleting references to SSRAs because some of the other policies have been rewritten with the intent that the SSRAs would be applicable in the City. It would require going through all the policies to ensure that the intent is not to protect the SSRAs or benefit the SSRAs.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:40 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he does not have interest in pulling out the SSRAs at this time but what he does have interest in is having an articulation as to what happens, in terms of our planning efforts, if we were to remove the SSRAs. He thinks that is what is missing. He stated that there is a longer conversation around our planning documents that do not get activated if we do not have an updated LCP and he feels a sense of urgency around that. He has heard that, predominantly, we would like to pass it, although he hears the reticence towards the SSRAs. What he is not sure of are certain potential deal breakers, and he wants those clearly articulated so that, if we need to have that conversation with Coastal Commission staff before our next meeting, we can conceivably pass those.
Councilmember Boles asked if we found an answer to the question about tsunami SSM raising buildings.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated no.
Councilmember Boles thought that was an outstanding question for next time.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks, if we are coming back, we should come back with those questions ready to be answered and then we can continue the conversation from there. He City Council Special Meeting 48 September 17, 2024
thinks the premise of going through the entire matrix line by line has been completed as of tonight and he thinks we are ready to have the robust conversation in general.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated one of her concerns was substantial structural modifications.
She feels like there is a constant limiting of what the people who live in Pacifica and own property that is in the coastal zone can do. She stated that the issue is how urgently these potential hazards are coming. She stated that you cannot do this thing to your property now for something that is happening in 50 years. She heard the City Attorney say we were going to try to do something about bullet point six.
City Attorney Kenyon answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is still an issue and waivers is the biggest issue for here.
She wants to look at real estate disclosures that exist for sea level rise, as she does not know the scope of existing disclosures.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if she was asking what the disclosures that the Coastal Commission has already required.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively. She knows what they require on their own in the form of appeal and that is what they are asking us to put into our LCLUP.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would like to know what other recently approved LCLUPs say about that. She understands they probably did not have SSRAs in them, but she thinks there is a direct relationship between those two things.
Councilmember Boles would like to understand the policies that are added because of the SSRAs but that are not specific SSRA policies. She wants to know what those are.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are none. She stated that some of the policies had been rewritten in order to allow the SSRAs to ensure that there are internal consistencies.
Councilmember Boles asked like the sentence “this does not apply on the SSRAs”.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated there is that, but also some of the other policies to avoid inconsistency internally with what we are saying in some of the policies versus other policies.
She stated that it was not that staff added policies but have ensured that there are no internal inconsistencies in the policies as staff relate to the SSRAs. If the direction is to remove the SSRAs, staff would need to go back to a previous version of the policy that shows that language before they revised it to avoid inconsistencies and ensure that the SSRA policies are beneficial.
She added that it is possible but it would require Council to direct staff to do that work.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there was a way to give Council a list of the highlights, as when Acting Dep. Director Cervantes says there are no policies that are in there because the SSRAs are there, she was not sure she agreed. The Coastal Access Resilience Program that has to be done and some project has to be underway before the SSRA policies can take place did not exist prior to the SSRA.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the policy is directly tied to the SSRAs.
City Council Special Meeting 49 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was what she means.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated section 6.9 is the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area policies. All the policies in that section are specific to the SSRAs. She stated that the policy for the Coastal Access Resilience Program is in that section.
Councilmember Boles thought Acting Dep. Director Cervantes provided a list before of what policies relate to the SSRAs and that would be helpful.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. She mentioned previously the possibility of people not being able to get mortgages or insurance because we placed them in an SSRA. She stated that it is the unknowns for her about the SSRAs that concern her.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated there is specific ask from staff to talk to Coastal Commission staff about items to bring back to us and we are giving direction as to what information we need.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that those things she just said cannot be answered.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she asked those questions and they were not answered.
Councilmember Bier asked it is about storms and not just sea level rise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added erosion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated erosion is our biggest problem in her mind.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added not tsunami.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would like to clarify about format. He asked if Council was in agreement that the format that should be brought back in is the tracked changes version based on the October 2023. Council will continue to discuss about hazard disclosure policy, but what staff will include in the tracked changes version is what we have today. Council can discuss and make revisions at the next meeting to be determined. There are various different actions that Council can take at the conclusion of that.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are going to continue this meeting to a date uncertain.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we do not have to take any action.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned what we did with the General Plan, posting it with the clean and tracked changes version so the public could check it and look at it fully.
City Manager Woodhouse concluded that Council is requesting a clean version and a tracked changes version as part of the packet.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if we accept all the changes that have been made, that is the clean version.
City Council Special Meeting 50 September 17, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that was what we were planning to do as part of the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated to post it in advance of the meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon stated posted when the staff report is posted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated earlier if possible.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is another discussion with staff as we generally post the Wednesday before the City Council meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend to 11:50 p.m., as it was 11:39 p.m. now.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have until 11:45 p.m.
City Manager Woodhouse has one more question about format.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend to 11:50 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:50 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
City Manager Woodhouse stated at least one councilmember indicated a preference to see a matrix of changes and he wanted to verify whether that is a request or not.
Councilmember Bier thought no as the way we are going is good.
Councilmember Boles wants to make sure if there are certain policies that we did not agree with the Coastal Commission staff that they are still suggesting an alternative modification that those can be highlighted so we can track how many of those we have.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that that is what staff tried to show in the previously attached redline versions of the LCP. In the August 12 version, most pages will have three different sets of redlines: the General Plan consistency changes that Council adopted, the suggested modifications that Coastal staff recommended in March 2023, and all the alternative modifications.
Councilmember Boles states some of the alternative modifications were Coastal Commission staff modifications later.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed, adding any changes we made during the conversations with Coastal Commission staff, we included them as alternative modifications in green. She thinks what staff had previously discussed was having that baseline October 2023 version versus we would have for the next report would be all the changes are the same color to see the difference between the October 2023 version and the version staff is asking Council to adopt.
City Council Special Meeting 51 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Boles would still like to know where we disagree with the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse added that was a level of complication in a tracked changes version that is going to be challenging for staff to figure out.
Councilmember Boles stated it could be something highlighted in the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the Coastal Commission staff letter before this last letter and there were some recommendations that staff did not recommend accepting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we worked through all those.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that there are not any outstanding alternative modifications that staff does not agree with.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there are any points in the document where we are pushing back on Coastal Commission’s recommendation or have we reconciled all the differences.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we have agreed on everything at this time.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that we have discussed and worked out with them a resolution to what they wanted and what we wanted. It is not that we took their revisions wholesale as there has been some back and forth.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that they have reconciled.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that all those have been reconciled.
Councilmember Boles noted we did not need it in that case.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked staff for all their work.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 11/12/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor