CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 October 28, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on October 28, 2024 at 6:10 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; John Mullins, Interim PW Director; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Joe Gomez, Police Sergeant; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep.
City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Arbor Day
Mayor Vaterlaus read a proclamation in honor of Arbor Day.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 28, 2024
Interim PW Director Mullins thanked Tree City Pacifica in putting this day together with Public Works staff and thanked PB&R Director Leslie for his support.
PB&R Director Leslie appreciated all the work from Public Works and Tree City Pacifica to make the planting of the trees happen at the Community Center. He invited Paul Totah and Gail Benton Shoemaker from Tree City Pacifica to say a few words about this event followed by Dr.
Darnise Williams, Superintendent of Pacifica School District, to share tree planting on local campuses.
Mr. Paul Totah stated he was speaking on behalf of Tree City Pacifica. He thanked Council and PB&R Director Leslie for their support of the upcoming Arbor Day tree planting at the Pacifica Community Center. This is their sixth annual event; planting trees is one way to mitigate climate change and it inspires our community to join together in taking communal action. He stated that they need more teams to plant a tree on Saturday and to reach out to Tree City Pacifica for volunteer assignments.
Ms. Gail Benton Shoemaker also thanked Council and mentioned when Council voted approval of the Tree Ordinance, we voted to protect trees by requiring permits for removing and trimming trees in Pacifica and the 2-to-1 replacement trees. They also look forward to Council approving an aspirational canopy goal in the urban reserve as part of the Climate Action Plan to work together to grow the urban forest; when planting trees on Arbor Day as councilmembers, they will be demonstrating how it is done, including donating trees to the school district to contribute to the urban forest and educate children about the value of trees.
Dr. Darnise Williams, Superintendent of Pacifica School District, stated that this year will be the sixth year of celebrating Arbor Day through their partnership with the City of Pacifica and Tree City Pacifica. They are honored to acknowledge the steadfast dedication of all involved in preserving and nurturing our urban forest, including the children and teachers. She found pleasure when a child took ownership for the community and sustainability. She took this opportunity, on behalf of Pacifica School District, staff, board, and students, to say thank you to Council for donating ten trees every year annually in honor of Arbor Day. She asked everyone to celebrate Arbor Day this Saturday and be reminded that he who plants a tree plants hope, and each planted tree is a symbol of hope for more sustainability and a resilient future, not only for our community, but for each and every one of our students in the Pacifica School District.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is because of trees that we have the capacity for oxygen in our lungs and it is an opportunity to give thanks. He thanked them for all the work they are doing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer Dr. Williams for her words. She stated that she has watched this process unfold at Cabrillo and thought it was exciting to see that process spread out among all in the school at their site. She stated that the art program was a big deal and she thanked her for acknowledging those things. She also thanked Tree City Pacifica.
Councilmember Bier also thanked Tree City Pacifica. She also thanked Dr. Williams for being here and being a great partner. She gets to walk out of her classroom at Oceana every day and see the little sprouts that are coming off of the trees they planted two years ago and it is beautiful.
Councilmember Boles echoed all the wonderful words. She thanked Tree City Pacifica for starting this program for collaborating with our schools, and a wonderful collaboration was with City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 28, 2024
Public Works and our PB&R Department. She has seen the kids’ faces when they are waiting to hear who won the awards, and she stated Dr. Williams’ enthusiasm is beautiful to see and she sees that it translates into her kids population. She asked if, at the Community Center, any of the proposed plantings in front of the building on Crespi would conflict with plans for an eventual new driveway and drop box.
PB&R Director Leslie stated that we looked at a variety of future projects and the selection of spaces was based on aesthetics and where we should plant them now.
Councilmember Boles heard that some of the trees at Fairmont Park that were planted not long ago are not faring well and asked if that had been investigated.
PB&R Director Leslie stated that we have heard about that as well so staff will do some further investigation on that.
Mayor Vaterlaus recalled previous proclamations and times where Council had planted a tree.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if anyone wanted to pull an item from the Consent Calendar. Seeing none, she opened public comment. Seeing none, she closed public comment.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the September 9, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Repeal and Replace Administrative Policy No. 8: Records and Information Management Program Policy, to Update References to Public Records Act and Revise Policy Section
4.15 and other Minor Edits and to Revise the Records Retention Schedule to Amend Retention Periods and other Changes Relating to Police Services Records.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution Repealing and Replacing Administrative Policy No. 8: Records and Information Management Program Policy, to update references to Public Records Act and revise Policy Section 4.15 to Confirm the City Manager is Authorized to Amend the Retention Schedules and other minor edits and to revise the Records Retention Schedule to amend Retention Periods and Make Other Changes relating to Retention of Police Services Records.
3. Pacifica Police Department Militarized Equipment Ordinance Adoption PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Waive the Second Reading of and Adopt by Title the, “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code Renewing the Military Equipment Policy.” City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 28, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, shared their working hours, preparations for the Thanksgiving distribution, Unhoused on the Coast outreach working hours, and grocery distribution at American Legion Hall, including their Thanksgiving distribution for those in Client Choice. They are enrolling for Thanksgiving and the Holiday Joy program now, with distribution on December 16, and their Pacifica Safe Parking program is evaluation is complete and they would love to present at a future meeting. She stated that, for their Thanksgiving program, they are asking for $30 gift cards for Safeway, Oceana Market, or Grocery Outlet. She also mentioned that people may drop off donations of peanut butter, canned tuna, pasta, and chicken at 1809 Palmetto Ave.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated to the public to go vote.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she will concede her time to Councilmember Bier.
Councilmember Bier appreciated all the public’s communication to Council. She thanked citizens of Climate Lobby San Mateo Youth Council for inviting her to participate in Make it Real:
Youth for Youth Climate Rally. She shared two upcoming events on Zoom: Youth Leadership Institute and Westmoor Social Justice Coalition. On November 16, San Mateo County Youth Commission and Peninsula Clean Energy and San Mateo County Office of Ed., are hosting an environmental youth leadership summit. She participated in the San Mateo County Leadership Council CORPS Class which nurtures that drive for collaboration and partnership and she appreciates the opportunity and thanked the city for it. She thanked Boo Bash for the best Halloween.
Councilmember Boles appreciated all the information and different seminars from her time at the League of California Cities conference, in addition to getting to talk to people from different cities and what they are experiencing. She stated that there were updates on new state laws, prolific around housing. She stated that there is more work for them next year on new ordinances that will be needed. She mentioned density bonus, builder’s remedy laws, a presentation from developers including Toll Brothers speaking about types of projects and housing densities, PG&E and infrastructure, and our inclusionary ordinance. She appreciated the Coastal Cities working group update. She also shared some experiences from a session she and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer attended on how to conduct better Council meetings. She attended the Council Housing Leadership Day which was a great event with non-profits, elected financing authorities, and people in the housing world. She was able to talk with our consultants about our Housing Element progress and they have been going back and forth with HCD and feel that we are close to being able to release the EIR.
Mayor Vaterlaus went to many of the same meetings. She also went to the Democrats meeting where Harbor District Commissioner George Domurat showcased an informational video about sand and sea level rise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer gave an update on the Coastal Cities annual meeting at the League of California Cities meeting. It was well-attended and cities from the bayside attended and shared their policy work with the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC). They did an interactive survey of the cities in attendance of progress with their LCP updates and reported what happened in the Coastal Commission meeting that was focused around the City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 28, 2024
neighborhood approach. There was also the legislative update about the bills that affected housing in the coast and things that are coming on the horizon for next year. She referred to what Councilmember Boles said about density and density issues in the coast specifically as they relate to the Sharp Park Specific Plan. She also looked into any information about funding because that is what makes it possible to help developers make these projects penciled.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse was at the CalCities conference and attended many of the same sessions as the councilmembers, with one session he attended related to economic development and land development. Part of the presenting staff was Kosmont, which did our economic opportunity study, and that was an informative session. He also mentioned that posted on the website is Pacifica’s citywide accomplishments list that they annually compile; it gets into details about the day-to-day work that the city does and it is a great list of accomplishments and reflects incredible work by City Council, city staff, and committees and commissioners that achieve all this work throughout the year.
City Clerk Coffey provided a reminder about the election period and provided information on the three Vote Centers and three Drop Boxes in Pacifica. She gave information on pickup frequency for the Drop Boxes and shared that ballots can be mailed through USPS as well.
Lastly, she shared that you can sign up online on smcvote.gov to track your ballot, and you can receive a notification by text, email or phone when your ballot has been received and when your ballot has been counted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. 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).
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the documents and attachments we are working with in this agenda report. He stated that the formatting and documents have always been a question. In tonight’s meeting, the October 2023 LCLUP document is the base document and Attachment B is the LCLUP redline which contains all the changes since October 2023. There is also the City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 28, 2024
summary matrix which has the following tracked changes: red tracked changes since the most recent September meeting and black tracked changes where City Council has given direction and revised accordingly. The numbers in the margins of Attachment B are the major policies we had included in the summary matrix; they connect the tracked changes document to the summary matrix.
Councilmember Boles asked what is still green in the table and to clarify what policies, if any, were not in agreement with Coastal Commission staff.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks the green can be disregarded as it was used as some of the major items they previously identified. Regarding all of the tracked changes recommendations that are in the document at this point, both City staff and Coastal Commission staff are in agreement about those with one clarification to make about one policy at this time.
Interim CD Director Kumar presented the staff report. She then asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if she would like to read into the record data about public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services like public trails and ESHA.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that this was regarding the policies where we have been communicating with Coastal Commission staff up to today about certain language in the policies, thus why it is not included in the packet. It is fairly minor in terms of amendments.
They would be adding back in the 50-foot minimum into the policy and adding language at the very end of the second bullet point in the policy (packet page 374) where ER-I-24 is in reference to public infrastructure or public access. She stated there are two items in the second bullet point and this is to the second item where it says “to provide required incidental public services for public development, such as burying cables, pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines and emergency repairs, provided that any unavoidable impact are commensurately mitigated, that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible” and adding back in “and 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 commensurately mitigated all as conclusively demonstrated by qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City and applicable resource agencies except that the 50-foot minimum shall not apply to low intensity public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services”.
City Manager Woodhouse added an editorial context to this change for Council and the public, i.e., the Coastal Commission staff was very insistent on “and no less than 50 feet in any case” remaining in the policy, but when City staff met with Coastal Commission staff, we specifically talked about low intensity recreational access and the example was the path that leads to the beach in Pedro Point right beside the creek and how it needs to be repaired and maintained and we were not in agreement that there should be a policy that would seemingly prevent us from doing that as it allows access to the beach, and they agreed with that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarity, all of the language that the Asst. City Attorney Bazzano read into the record is not what is being changed but just a parenthetical phrase.
Councilmember Boles appreciated “no less than 50 feet in any case” and asked if this text is the exact same text for ER-I-1 also.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, explaining that there is very similar language in ER-I-1 where we would be making the same revisions. She reiterated that the bullet point on packet page 357 would add back in “and no less than 50 feet in any case” and adding that language at City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 28, 2024
the end of the bullet point at the top of page 357 “except that the 50-foot minimum shall not apply to low intensity public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated Council heard from the public several times about the inclusion or exclusion of roofing underlayment plywood and it would seem to her that the plywood is weather proofing and waterproofing and underlayment. She stated that they have consistently struck that out and she would like someone to explain that to her.
Councilmember Bier referred to packet page 238, where it says, “They were informed after the meeting, they were not agreeable to add it to the list of exclusions but agree that any nonstructural repair of roof sheathing could be included in the catch all of other exclusions”.
She stated that, on packet page 239, it says “other nonstructural roof materials”.
Councilmember Boles agreed that the staff report says “other” would be added but maybe something was missed there.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that conversations with Coastal Commission staff stated plywood on a roof connecting the joists and the substructure to the roof is considered structural.
He stated that Coastal Commission staff has said they are not comfortable with excluding plywood but there is discretion in the policy for replacing some of the plywood that might be dry rotted or water damaged, etc., as nonstructural changes in a roof project. However, if you are stripping down to the framing and putting new plywood on, that is considered structural for the house and that is where Coastal Commission staff is coming from. The policy excludes plywood roof sheathing but has the discretion for nonstructural work and there is some leeway there to us as an agency in the review.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified further that the City Manager and staff spent a lot of time trying to explain to the Coastal Commission our reasoning for not including plywood as structural. She stated that the City Manager, at length, was discussing with the Coastal Commission the issue of plywood being used even for, in the city’s opinion, nonstructural issues like fixing leaks or other nonstructural concerns, i.e. health and safety concerns with the roof that leads to leaks and damage to the structure. They agreed with that and their response back was that the City does have discretion to make that determination as to whether or not that use of plywood is structural or not, and in the City’s interpretation, staff does have the ability to determine whether or not the use of plywood is structural. She stated it is not a blanket “every time you use plywood, that is a determination that is structural”. What they said is, to the City Manager’s point, there is plywood use that may not be structural and they said, if not structural, then it is an exception and we have the discretion to make that determination. She stated that was the compromise and this was a major item of discussion between city staff, City Manager and their executive director, the AG’s office, their legal counsel, as well as Coastal Commission staff.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated when she went to put on a new roof, the old roof was wooden shakes.
Underneath the wooden shakes is nothing so to put on a new roof they had to put on plywood because they had nothing underneath it. She asked if that is a structural change, as she considered it as necessary weatherproofing, saving her house from water damage.
Councilmember Boles asked if other wood or boards can be used if not structural.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciated her asking that question and she wants to come back to this point in their deliberations.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 28, 2024
Interim CD Director Kumar continued the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she could clarify if LD-I-28 and NI-H-34 were amended.
Interim CD Director Kumar responded affirmatively. She added CR-I-9 and CR-I-32 as well.
She continued the staff report.
Councilmember Boles asked if she could tell them more about protection for critical facilities as we have a follow-up letter from NCCWD saying that they thought it was important and why was the Coastal Commission or the City not amenable to that language.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was a great policy that NCCWD recommended and city staff thinks would be good. He stated that there are a couple of aspects to it, i.e., one is that there are other policies that cover this in the LCP and Coastal Commission staff commented about that also. The other is that the specifics of the policy talk about a temporary or an emergency Coastal Development Permit to be followed up on with regular, and that is a process that is generally available with the Coastal Commission. He thinks another aspect of this about water infrastructure on or near the shoreline is it is most likely going to be a permit that NCCWD has to get directly from Coastal Commission so the City’s LCLUP does not even apply in that case. While it can be referenced, the Coastal Commission does not have to factor in the city’s LCLUP. He stated, for a variety of reasons, the intent of this policy is achieved in the recommended LCLUP.
Councilmember Boles asked for the other policies that covers this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she would refer her to packet page 832 for CR-I-32 new shoreline protection structures and CR-I-9 hazard prone infrastructure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, on CR-I-32, the insertion of the phrase critical infrastructure and the corresponding definition that she and Coastal Commission staff devised.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that the revision to CR-I-32 includes revising some of the terms to incorporate that new definition of critical infrastructure.
City Attorney Kenyon further clarified, to the City Manager’s point of the intent of all of these policies, we believe that including that definition of critical infrastructure which now specifically includes the district’s facilities as well is a catchall; that definition which is the same definition that applies to our critical facilities applies to theirs as well. Just as the city is a public agency, according to the LCLUP, they have the same stature as the city in regard to critical infrastructure and should address all of their concerns generally for all of their water facilities.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, looking at the material that was submitted and what she sees here, it looks like almost all of the requests were accommodated with the exception of No.
5. She will reserve her opinions for after public comment.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was impressed to see the collaborative effort that brought agreement to the document and he thinks the City and NCCWD have been working on more proactive relationships. The City advocated for what NCCWD was asking for on one hand and it was pleasing to see their efforts towards collaboration are understood here and abroad.
Councilmember Bier is curious why the Coastal Commission staff is not agreeable.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 28, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated, as the attachment generally says, first, they feel like the intent of this is addressed in the LCLUP and the idea of adding usage of armoring in certain contexts, at this point in time, muddles the intent there.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added to what he mentioned, i.e., there are other policies that cover some of the language that has been proposed in revisions by NCCWD; at this point, to go back to make sure that everything is consistent would be a significant amount of work and this is a policy for the City, not necessarily for NCCWD. By including their infrastructure in the definition of critical facilities and critical infrastructure, the City applied those policies where those terms are included to NCCWD indirectly.
Interim CD Director Kumar completed the staff report.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked how long she thinks it will take Coastal Commission staff to get back to us after the submittal to set a date to hear this.
Interim CD Director Kumar stated that they said it would take about 2-3 months for them to review and get back to staff.
Councilmember Boles asked if setting a date might extend that further.
Asst City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would have to certify that the application is complete and then they would set it for a hearing once that is done.
City Manager Woodhouse added that indications were from Coastal Commission staff and the Executive Director that they want to move this expeditiously to the Coastal Commission for certification, hence the 2-3 month estimate.
Councilmember Boles thought it would be better to go through the policies another time, Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting. She opened the public hearing.
Kathleen Moresco, Pacifica, stated she originally was planning to suggest approving this, but after listening to the questions, she felt there are still issues that need to be addressed and she thanked them for all their work and hoped it will get through.
Adrienne Carr, North Coast County Water District, thanked staff for reaching out, meeting with Coastal Commission staff, and bringing forth policies and definitions as suggested. She acknowledged that Council received her letter regarding protection for critical facility policies and stated the aforementioned policies may cover NCCWD’s request.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated SSRAs keep coming back and he stated they encourage development on the highest risk areas. Thus, he suggested that Council reject SSRAs in this plan. He also asked about the impact on the Rockaway Quarry following Council’s decision.
Anne DeJarnatt, Pacifica, shared the importance of protection of water facilities and water supply among NCCWD, the City, and residents, and expressed appreciation towards the collaborative efforts between the City and NCCWD.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 28, 2024
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, expressed concerns about the LCLUP format, stated that the document was incomplete, and encouraged Council to push back against Coastal Commission staff.
Richard Harris, San Francisco, shared suggested policy language from two letters he sent to Council, expressed concern about a wheelchair ramp excluded from the document, and stated the LCLUP redline was incomprehensible.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, expressed concerns about overreach by the Coastal Commission and suggested Council stand up for the LCLUP approved in 2020.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her thoughts that SSRAs needed to be removed as they would undermine planning for Pacifica’s coastline and place people in a hazard zone via armoring.
Jenifer Behling, Pacifica, stated she disagreed with the LCLUP and expressed concerns about managed treat, lack of information for impacted property owners, and plans for citizens concerned about their property.
Margo Meiman, Pacifica, encouraged Council to remove SSRAs from the LCLUP and requested holding off approval until Council collaborated with NCCWD.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referenced ESHA issues about Pedro Point wetlands and information on its use as a sewage disposal site and expressed concerns about building residential there.
Stanley Lamport, Pacifica, stated he was concerned about CR-I-21, bullet point 5, regarding substantial structural modifications and the possibility of waiving rights indefinitely resulting from work done to the property.
Marianne, Pacifica, shared her concerns that the Coastal Commission was forcing the City into managed retreat and questioned the level of community engagement on the LCLUP.
Kimberly Williams, San Mateo County, stated she represents San Mateo County Chapter of SurfRider Foundation, and stated SSRAs do not coincide with the Coastal Act and opposed the inclusion of SSRAs in the LCLUP.
Alok Sonthalia, Pacifica, shared his strong support for this LCLUP policy and suggested that Council move forward on this.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Bigstyck shared some of the challenges of being a councilmember and emphasized that Council does their best and try to honor the promises they make and see them through to the best of their ability, but there is the element that they do not know what they do not know. He stated that he is grateful to know Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer spent time trying to figure out what is balanced, adding up to the point of becoming the chair of a statewide organization and trying to work with all the coastal cities to figure out what is an equitable approach for all California cities to take when they have common issues in trying to work out what is best between any given coastal city and the California Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles asked about process. She wants to talk about the SSRAs in more detail and other questions throughout the document.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it might be helpful to identify the policies or issues, if not referencing an exact policy, that Council wants to discuss. She stated she wanted to discuss CR-I-21 with specific regard to the waiver of rights. She also wanted to circle back on the issues about the map and wheelchair ramp.
Councilmember Boles added the tsunami map and the landslide maps.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she agrees with reviewing the SSRA and SSM.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to talk more about the language that NCCWD is requesting as she thinks the two policies that could cover them are for long-term armoring and they were specifically asking for short-term. She also has a few short miscellaneous questions about policies PR-I-12, PR-I-74, CR-I-9, etc. and staff said there was some suggested language which were not presented.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council start with CR-I-21 on packet page 448.
Councilmember Boles stated that these are coastal hazard risk disclosures and her understanding is that these disclosures are required for any permit and any CDPs in coastal vulnerability and tsunami evacuation zones, not just for new construction or SSMs. She asked if we can confirm that. She stated that the previous language said “Coastal Development Permit approvals of development in the coastal vulnerability zone” so that would agree with what you just said any development, but now the new one only says “new development”. She asked confirmation across all meetings on the LCLUP that we have taken out the phrase “new development” everywhere else. She stated that we have a definition of “development” and she is confused as to why new is here now and is it saying something completely different, such as these only apply to new structures.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for clarification, new development is development, and development is new development. Whether there is “new” in front of it or not, it is development.
Councilmember Boles stated that we intentionally took out “new” everywhere else in the notes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there are other areas in the LCLUP that say “new development”.
Councilmember Boles asked if we took out the definition.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her understanding is that it was included in the definition and, if it was not, we should include a definition of development signifying all development is new development. That is the intent and, if not clear, we can make those changes to make that clear. She stated that there is no distinction between “development” and “new development,” as all development is based on what is new development.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the definition says, “For purposes of this document, all development is new development.”
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Boles’ point is that, for the most part, we take out “new” and the question is should we take out the word “new” in this instance.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 28, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, as soon as we confirm the definition of “development,” we can do that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, on packet page 490, under the definition of development, the last sentence says, “In this LCP, ‘development’ is synonymous with ‘new development.’” Councilmember Boles thinks that is confusing too.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, from a legal perspective, the way this will be interpreted is that all development is considered new development. She stated, if the issue is that, in some places, it is new and in some places it is just development, she understands that and we can correct that administratively, should Council move forward to approve this LCLUP. She stated that those issues can be resolved. Staff is telling Council that the intent is that development includes new development and we will make it more clear if there are places where there is confusion.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in construction, that is a confusing term.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that is why we have a definition.
Councilmember Boles agreed for “development”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that legally development includes new development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the issue was of existing development when comparing new development to old or existing development and the multiple definitions or suggestions for those terms. She thinks the intent of removing the word “new” was to dispense with that or at least set it aside.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed that “new development” is used 39 times in the document throughout the document in the implementing and guiding policies.
Councilmember Boles stated she would still like to strike that language.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can do that if Council would like to direct staff to strike it in that position. Staff are saying is that it is not necessary because there are at a minimum 39 other places where “new” is referred to. If we strike it here, then perhaps we should strike it everywhere else. Staff can do it, but legally it has no significance because of the definition.
Councilmember Boles understands but wanted this particular policy to be clear.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks it makes it clearer that development only relates to new development and that is essentially what the intent is throughout the document. She stated that this is an important provision in the LCLUP and that language was inserted to be clear that this risk disclosure policy would only apply to new development to try to allay some of the concerns with what exactly is this risk disclosure applying to. She stated that it does not have to as it only applies to new development in any event.
Councilmember Boles stated that the previous version did not say that and the Coastal Commission approved it. She stated that her feeling is that the previous version does a lot more to protect us. Part of the language Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and many people in the City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 28, 2024
public were struggling with is the idea of signing this waiver and waiving rights to future shoreline protection and that language is in the new version and other things that gave the City more protection are missing in this new modification. In general, she does not understand why this is better.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she can elucidate what is negative.
Councilmember Boles stated item 3 says that “the permittee unconditionally waves any claim or damage of liability against the city if the permit is appealed” and item 4 also says that; but the previous version was not just about appeals, but about the permits, construction, long-term risk, “indemnifying and held harmless the cities and its officers, agents and employees with respect to the city’s approval of the development against all liability, etc., in connection with the permitted development… assume and accept the risk to themselves and their properties of injury and damage from coastal hazards in connection with a permitted development, unconditionally waive any claim or damage of liability against the city for injury and/or damage in connection with the permitted development,” etc. and she stated it was more to do with the whole development and not just permits and appeals of the permits. She thinks there is protection for us that is missing in this new policy that was there before that has been lost.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the purpose of this policy is specifically regarding permitting because it is talking about permitting in the coastal vulnerability zone and inundation zone.
Councilmember Boles stated it is about deed restrictions and the deed restrictions are about protections for the City and notification about the hazards to other people who might be buying it. She stated that they do not come into effect unless you are getting a permit, but the protections from the hazards are not just about the permit itself but about the development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that flow from the permit.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively. She asked why we directed the change in the language, as in general Council wanted to simplify it, but the question is has it done what we wanted it to do.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks it is more straightforward and more accessible than the legalese of the original language.
Councilmember Boles stated it is much shorter.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her concern is the issue of waiving rights that might exist under applicable law. The question that Councilmember Boles asked about new development answers some of that for Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer, as if it is an existing property that is preCoastal Act, it has rights and this is saying to waive those rights.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is saying waiving those rights for remodels too.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood and added that is her big concern. She gets why Coastal Commission wants it, but how is it good for Pacifica and our people.
Councilmember Boles stated, if someone with a pre-1977 house does a small remodel, not even structural, and needs a CDP, they have to waive their rights to armoring in perpetuity.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are misreading this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is correct that there is a difference in the language.
City staff and Coastal Commission staff have talked about this and in trying to find a solution to concerns raised by the public and Council about the robust language that was in the previous risk disclosure policy; we tried to find a more simple and precise risk disclosure policy and found an example in the Del Norte County and that is what this is based on. She stated, while the language change is more simplistic, we believe that the basic structure, protections, and provisions of the previous policy are included in this policy. Thus, both risk disclosures talk about requirements of risk of injury and damage from such injuries to be attached to the permittee, both policies talk about the permittee assuming all risk of injury from damages from coastal hazards in connection with a permitted development, and both talk about waiving claims or damages against the city from coastal hazards. She stated both of those provisions have an indemnity provision and Councilmember Boles is correct that there is a little bit of difference but the reality is that any challenge would be based on an appeal regardless. While that language is not in the previous policy, we are still talking about challenges to the decision, which would be via an appeal. Therefore, staff feels the indemnity provision is still sufficient. She stated that there is the waiver that is included, to some degree, in both policies, and that is there because Coastal Commission staff feels it is important that with the shoreline protection, if it needs to be removed, that the permittee is aware that is a part of the risk of proceeding with the development, i.e., they are not entitled to rely on that shoreline protection as a result of the development they are undertaking. It is there, in part, to make sure that the permittee, the public, and everybody understands what the provisions will be if the development proceeds.
Councilmember Bier asked how the Casa Mira case would affect that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the Casa Mira case is not established case law and not precedential so it does not affect anything at this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when it does become precedential, is that is a moment in time in which an amendment to the LCP will be required.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if there is a need to revise our LCP based on some appellate court decision or some other court decision that is precedential, then the City Attorney’s Office could bring that back for Council’s consideration.
City Attorney Kenyon added that does occur: if there is a change in the law that affects our General Plan or any other Specific Plan, we do come back and bring back amendments to make sure that document is consistent with existing law. At this time, this LCLUP proposed draft is consistent with existing law.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we can talk about this in terms of SSM, i.e. if it is an SSM, you are doing a waiver of rights but, if you had a small remodel project, you are also doing a waiver of rights.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks we are conflating SSMs with the risk disclosure. The risk disclosure policy is a condition that would be imposed on a Coastal Development Permit for new development in coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones. It would be imposed as part of the approvals of that project.
Councilmember Boles ask if even a small project.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 28, 2024
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed it does not matter if it is an SSM or not.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in an existing house, if you are putting in a new kitchen under 50% so it does not trigger SSM, does it trigger CR-I-21.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it would still be development that requires a Coastal Development Permit and, if you are in the coastal vulnerability zone or tsunami inundation zone, then it would require this disclosure, assuming it does require a Coastal Development Permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked what the requirement would be for the Coastal Development Permit, such as the kitchen. She stated that, if it was going to change things that drastically to put in a new kitchen, she asked if anyone would come and get a permit. She thought they would not as it was going to inhibit them from a lot of other things and they are not going to get permits.
City Manager Woodhouse referenced the difference between a building permit, Coastal Development Permit, and their triggers. He stated that typically the CDP is triggered by a change in the intensity of use; thus, a kitchen or bathroom remodel might not be that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated staff can come back to that.
Councilmember Boles thought staff could confirm what is not a private applicant, such as the City or NCCWD.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, stating it is any public agency and any public purpose which would have to be instituted by a public agency.
Councilmember Boles asked if San Francisco doing something on the golf course would not trigger anything.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no, as it would be a public agency with jurisdiction over permitting and it would be the city.
Councilmember Boles concluded that San Francisco does not count.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it could be the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles thought the last bullet point was confusing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it was the one about the public tidelands.
Councilmember Boles read, “The structure may be required to be removed or relocated and the site restored at the property owner’s expense, if it becomes unsafe for occupancy or use due to coastal hazards, including as outlined above when coastal hazards would necessitate construction of a shoreline protection structure to ensure safe occupancy of the development and/or as part of shoreline protection structure repair maintenance if the development is not permitted to obtain shoreline protection or in response to certain defined triggers.” She was not sure if she understands how shoreline protections relate to the hazard risk policy. She asked, if the hazards are increasing to which the structure needs shoreline protection structure, does the City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 28, 2024
shoreline protection structure have to be removed and/or if the shoreline protection structure in front of it needs to be maintained or repaired.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the trigger is, if it is clear that the structure cannot remain there safely, unless there is shoreline protection constructed/changed, it needs to be removed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated this risk disclosure is designed specifically with bullet point 8 to inform the recipient of the permit that, if their structure becomes unsafe to occupy or use due to coastal hazards, in the event a tsunami were to come, and that property had a permitted development for the life of the permit, and if during that life of the permit, it is determined that the structure is unsafe to occupy, that property owner would not be able to rely on the existing permit to reconstruct any time of shoreline protection. She would agree it is convoluted, but this is something that the Coastal Commission staff is requiring; if Council is more comfortable with a prior version that did not include this language, then Council can accept the prior disclosure language. If the Council is trying to make this a bit more concise and easier to read, the intent is by including this language is to disclose to the permittee, should they receive the permit, that they cannot rely on the shoreline protection for future reconstruction of development that is destroyed. She added that, in discussing this with the Coastal Commission staff, they feel that these edits are necessary to be consistent with the Coastal Act. To the extent they redlined these changes, it was because the provisions in the Del Norte were not applicable because that was a different jurisdiction with different Coastal Act consistency issues than Pacifica. She stated that every SSRA in the state that the Coastal Commission may certify in an LCLUP is specific for that jurisdiction. She stated the City tends to agree with their conclusion that this is necessary with the Coastal Act in order to defend any challenge to the LCLUP, if approved, that it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act; thus, there is a balancing. She added, that going back to the original risk disclosure we are trying to address, if that language is more acceptable, the Coastal Commission has already accepted that language as consistent with the Coastal Act.
She stated that, if we want to revise it to be more consistent with the Del Norte risk disclosure policy, these revisions to the Del Norte policy are necessary for Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles stated that the other thing that is missing, in trying to compare the two, is acknowledging public funds may not be available in the future to repair, maintain and/or continue to provide infrastructure and related services to the property, etc., and occupancy may be prohibited if such services are no longer available.
Councilmember Bier asked if we would want to include this.
Councilmember Boles thinks the language protects us better in the previous version.
Councilmember Bier asked what does it do for the people in the homes.
Councilmember Boles stated that they are both the same in terms of that. The previous version gives you more information so you know, if you are buying a house there, the City may not be able to do that. She is not sure why we deviated from this, and if there are specific things that were objected to in the previous policy, she would love to talk about that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the feedback from Council and from the community is that there are hazard disclosure policies already approved by the Coastal Commission for other agencies in the state recently, and this one was from 2023, and can staff can take a look at those and see if Coastal Commission staff would be agreeable that they are okay for Pacifica’s LCLUP. He stated that Council has two choices: the Del Norte as edited by Coastal City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 28, 2024
Commission or the previous one we looked at. He stated, in essence, they achieve the same goal. He stated that the intent of the Del Norte one is that the language is simpler and that was the direction from Council to seek that out.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks it is more streamlined, but Councilmember Boles is saying that it is also not as extensive and does not protect the City as much. She stated she was more worried about people who wanted to develop and what rights they are giving up in so doing.
She stated, with the whole issue of tsunami inundation zones, she understands from a legal point of view why it is important to include that, but it is not a major occurrence in Pacifica and the likelihood of this occurring is low. However, in case it did, that is why our legal staff wants this in here and Coastal Commission staff does as well.
City Attorney Kenyon stated staff believes that, in terms of protections for the City that are critical, both of these risk disclosure policies protect the City.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought, in recent memory, various apartment buildings could have benefited from various protections. He asked if either of these policies would have served at the function of helping us in those instances or would one serve better than the other regarding an apartment building falling into the ocean.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, generally, if these had been in place, they are helpful.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if either one.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought not necessarily. She stated that she has more information on the definition of development. She stated that there is a definition of development in the LCLUP on packet page 490. She stated that there are many exceptions or exemptions to the definition of development, and also included in the LCLUP is a discussion about the exceptions.
It says, under coastal development review, which is on packet page 276, Coastal Development Permits would be issued for development and that, pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from Coastal Development Permit requirements and these exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610 of the Public Resource Code and Sections 13252 and 13250 of the California Code of Regulations. She stated that there are a number of exemptions that would allow somebody to forego obtaining a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in terms of the example of the kitchen being remodeled, he is looking at the part that says “construction, reconstruction, demolition or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public or municipal utility,” that seems to come as close to a kitchen remodel as it might, but he does not know if that does.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks it could include a kitchen remodel, depending on how extensive it is.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to packet page 276 under the implementing policy LD-I-2.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she read from the third paragraph above, “implementing policies,” under coastal development review, which is the last paragraph on packet page 276.
She stated that it cites certain statutes in California Code of Regulations, but there is also language in our zoning code that has other layers of exemptions and qualifications on requirements for Coastal Development Permits. She stated that you have to read all of those City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 28, 2024
together to decide whether or not a project is subject to the Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Boles read “acknowledge any adverse effect to property caused by the approved development shall be fully the responsibility of the property owner, including any cost associated with abatement and/or future relocation, removal of the structures due to coastal hazards”. She stated that this is way beyond permit, as the structure may cause problems, and she asked what if it falls on someone at the beach.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that goes back to the Esplanade apartments when they were about to fall and we stopped it because of coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles understood but new language only talks about permits, not about potential liability for projects that are becoming dangerous.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what would she propose adding that language in CR-I-21.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has not thought about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought bullet 8 covers it sufficiently in the new language. She stated it is not as strong, but it has the same impact to her. She is okay with the current one.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that two councilmembers support the revised CR-I-21 in tonight’s package, based on Del Norte.
Councilmember Boles stated that they support it with that language in Item 5 that people have objected about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is still worried about that, but she does not know what else to do because it sounds like this language is required by the Coastal Commission staff and her concern is it causing people to waive rights that they would otherwise have.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano read you would be “waiving rights that makes this, under applicable law, for shoreline protection structures for the duration the permitted development is present on the property”.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if you are pre-1977, you have a right to that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is not saying you cannot go out and get it, but saying you are waiving your rights to the protection that is out there currently. She stated that is the whole point of this as you could be waiving any rights to further armoring if you need it for this development because you have acknowledged that there are risks associated with it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated for purposes of having the right.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the permittee decides, and if they do not want to waive that right, then they would not proceed with the permit application. She stated that they will be able to look at this policy and make a determination on whether or not they wish to proceed.
She thinks that is key for understanding the implications.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus states Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is in favor of the Del Norte plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively, but she still has questions.
Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Boles thought Item 8 does not cover that as it is about the structure may be requiring to be removed, but it does not talk about anything about protections from damage that the structure might cause. She still thinks, even if you use the Del Norte, she would like to include that policy.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are able to transfer one of the bullet points from the old version into the new version without there being an issue.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he cannot guarantee that it would not be an issue. Under this new language, if someone applies for a CDP and signs this disclosure language and coastal erosion happens and their patio falls off and hurts someone, they are liable for that.
This policy covers that.
Councilmember Boles stated that this policy covers that but it is not in the new Del Norte version. She stated that only covers permit appeals.
Councilmember Bigstyck read, “The permittee assumes the risks of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection.”
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it does cover it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated every issue with a permit will be appealed and that is the only way this would come into play.
Councilmember Boles stated the appeal is long gone 20 years later when the project does damage to something else.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if damage were to occur due to a coastal hazard, they would be required to remove or relocate the site at their expense if it becomes unsafe for occupancy or use due to coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles stated for their own property, but this talks about effect to any property, not necessarily their own.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the second bullet point in this recommended language is “the permittee assumes the risks of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development”. They would assume the risk and liability related to their patio falling off the bluff and injuring someone or other coastal hazard related incidents that might occur. From City staff’s perspective, we are covered on that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood.
Mayor Vaterlaus was glad the question was asked and appreciated the clarification.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we were done with CR-I-21, and Council chose the preferred City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 28, 2024
language and will move forward with it.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles added the language about armoring in bullet point 5. Regarding that particular bullet point, she asked how it relates to SSRAs because you have permitted a project that relies on the armoring and then you do a little remodel of the kitchen and all of a sudden, your project can no longer rely on the armoring.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Councilmember Boles is suggesting transitioning to SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles stated she is still talking about this particular policy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands the point Councilmember Boles is making and she thinks that is what she was questioning originally.
Councilmember Boles stated, if a hotel developer on this site uses the armoring to determine their setback and then they do a kitchen remodel or a tiny addition and now they have to waive their rights. Now, those technical studies they did that relied on the armoring cannot rely on that armoring anymore so the building needs to be set back another 50 feet. She just wants to be sure there are not unintended consequences.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks her concern is that she does not want people waiving rights they do not need to waive. She asked if bullet point 5 causes them to have to do that.
Councilmember Boles asked if that is a legal issue.
Councilmember Bier stated they are waiving rights to shoreline protection.
City Manager Woodhouse stated in SSRAs the protections can continue to be there into the future and could be renovated and be there for a long time. The individual who has signed the disclosure, if the sea wall were to go away in the future, does not have a right to new protection that is there.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is saying that they do not have any right to any protection from the armoring, whether new or old sea walls. She wonders if we need a caveat.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the protection is there for them.
Councilmember Boles stated that they may not be able to rely on it, in which case they might have to remodel their building and pull it out of hazards if they are doing a remodel.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the SSRA policies are a separate policy so you have to read all the policies together in a consistent manner. She stated, saying that this is going to completely negate the SSRAs would be inaccurate, as SSRAs are a separate policy. This is saying, if you proceed with the development in the coastal vulnerability zone and tsunami inundation zone, then you are waiving any rights that may exist to shoreline protections, which means you cannot say that we cannot remove the shoreline protection or changes cannot be made to the shoreline protection. You are waiving your rights to rely on those shoreline protections that are in place.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Fairway Park, which is in the tsunami inundation zone, relies on the current berm that belongs to San Francisco and she asked how they are protected. She asked if they waive their rights automatically; that is an issue as they are not in the SSRAs and, because they are in tsunami zone, they are now giving up their rights to protection of something we do not have control over.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it was important to understand when would this waiver come into play. It would come into play if their property is essentially destroyed. If it is destroyed, why would they want the benefit of prior shoreline protection to reconstruct that property when the property no longer exists. The City would then be allowing that property to reconstruct and she is positive that would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act according to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, if you have your property inundation zone in West Fairway and say that the Coastal Commission disallows the berm that San Francisco is currently operating and it goes away, then there is a homeowner who wants there to be a shoreline protection there, and at that point they would have to go to the Coastal Commission about that.
He asked if you want the next person to occupy the house to know that it is possible that they are not going to have a choice whether or not they get a shoreline device or do they want them not to know it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she wants the next person to know that there could be no shoreline protection. She stated she was not talking about a building that is destroyed but about in general you give up your right in general before your property is destroyed.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is an example where, at the end of the day, it is very likely the City does not have a say whether or not they have the protection. He stated that what this is saying is that they may not have this protection and please sign to acknowledge that fact.
Councilmember Bier asked if that would be a condition of the Coastal Commission anyway.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are buildings in Pacifica that were built that have given up their rights and will remove their building if something happens as they cannot rely on shoreline protection and they have these items already that were given to them by the Coastal Commission, such as the ability to build that building on Pedro Point.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed getting the CDP required them to do those things.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they built a new development and Coastal Commission in an appeal required them to do all of these exact same things. They are on their deed.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have required that before for a kitchen remodel, not something new or a 50% addition, as that is where this can affect them.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the issue is pre-1977 as that is where the right to protection exists presently. She stated this language takes away the right to protect your property.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding based on that shoreline protection that existed or exists at the time you receive that permit.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 28, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated it does not take away that protection if they choose to do development, in which case they cannot rely on it in the future if it goes away.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the Coastal Act says they have the right to protect the property pre-1977.
City Manager Woodhouse stated not new development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that any new development would trigger waiving those rights.
City Attorney Kenyon added if it is within the tsunami inundation zone or coastal hazard zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks the question is at what point is it appropriate to ask that they disclose that there is a potential hazard there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is not about disclosure, but waiving rights for possibly a little project.
City Attorney Kenyon asked how we are defining little project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated less than SSM.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it may not require a CDP if it is a small project. She thinks it is important to remember the purpose of this risk disclosure and, to a certain extent, it is about transparency. She stated Councilmember Bigstyck alluded to that when he was saying if Council as a policy decision want to provide that transparency about the associated risks with developing new development in the coastal hazard zone or the tsunami inundation zone, and would we want to advise the public about that risk sooner rather than later, given the fact that there is a strong likelihood that the CDP may be appealed and could be heard by the Coastal Commission and that obligation would be imposed in any event. She stated she hears a valid concern from Council that what about those instances where it does require a CDP but that CDP is not in fact appealed to the Coastal Commission. She does not know if that happens very often and how often would that happen.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is in Pedro Point.
City Attorney stated in those two zones. The universe of potential impacted properties is getting smaller and smaller.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and she was asking how many properties are we talking about. She wants to understand if we are talking about the entire coastal zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the coastal hazard zone and the tsunami inundation zone. She asked how many homes would be implicated.
Interim CD Director Kumar stated about 10 or 12 properties, based on the draft maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that was in the tsunami inundation zone.
Councilmember Boles assumed that is tsunami inundation, not coastal hazard.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, when you purchase a home in the tsunami zone, you get a report that tells you that your home is in a tsunami zone. There may be homes that were not previously in the tsunami zone that are now in there, but that happens with floods also; the flood zones change and you might have purchased your property and it was not in a flood zone and it is now. She stated that, in San Mateo there are a lot of those.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was advocating for the language because things change.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, with regard to this issue, when we are talking about the risk disclosure, the time when it would become most prevalent and important is only when the person is trying to rely on that shoreline protection to rebuild, not any other time. Thus, the question for Council from a policy perspective is do you want to protect those property owners from using that shoreline protection in the event their home is severely damaged due to a coastal hazard; do you want to protect those property owners with the ability to use prior shoreline protection in the event their home is severely damaged due to a coastal hazard, like a tsunami or sea level rise; and 20 or 30 years from now, when this may really come to pass, as a jurisdiction, does this Council want to re-permit that property when we do not know what the facts on the ground will be after that coastal hazard has destroyed a property. She stated that we have the Esplanade apartment buildings as an example. If this were them and they were in a coastal hazard zone or a tsunami zone and they had to sign this risk disclosure, would we want them to come back to the city and say coastal erosion occurred and destroyed my property and want to re-permit it, and we gave them a permit for that and created a new shoreline protection so they can rebuild. She asked if Council would want to do that.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated no councilmembers would want that.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is not just after disasters happened, but sometimes you see erosion and you want to slow it down. She stated that we lost the houses on Esplanade that faced the ocean. She stated that those did put down some armoring to slow it down so they could live there a little bit longer, but if they remodeled their kitchen, they would have missed out on that opportunity. She stated that it is the same for Shoreview which at risk and the property at the north, the Dollar Radio, as they put in a lot of armoring that was to slow it down and it is failing again now.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated a new kitchen is not entitled to armoring but is the rest of the house around it entitled to the armoring, i.e., is the kitchen itself the development and, since it is not an SSM, the rest of the house is entitled to the armoring if it is pre-Coastal Act.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is the development itself that we are talking about, not other areas of the house.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that the kitchen is not entitled to the protection but the house, in general, is.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that it could be.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in that case, he is comfortable with point 5.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when you say during the duration of permitted development is present on the property, with the permitted development being the kitchen.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, stating the kitchen is not entitled to protection but the rest of the pre-Coastal Act house is.
Councilmember Boles stated that you are planning a risk disclosure that goes on your property.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we had discussed that and the discussion with the Coastal Commission staff was about that exact issue and why some of the language changes were made. She stated, as part of the Implementation Plan, this would all be discussed and reviewed and worked out into details. We do not have the language yet or some of the specifics worked out, but that is an area that we can clarify as part of the implementation.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it would need to be clarified in that specific direction for some of us to feel comfortable immediately signing off on it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it says “permitted development”.
Councilmember Bier asked if we can talk about maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated yes, but asked if we are good on this.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we switched in point 5 from “permitted development” to “structure”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we had a majority of Council that indicated that they were in favor of the Del Norte version, and if that is still the case, we could move on with the majority of Council that agrees with the Del Norte policy language.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that is still the case.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is concerned about bullet point 8.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated bullet point 5 of this document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that, if permitted development is a whole house, then it is the whole house.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed and stated he was fine with a brand new house signing off on the waiver. He was also comfortable to a point that, if it is SSM and essentially new development through SSM, the waiver makes sense within the context; but if we are talking about the kitchen not precluding the rest of the house, and that will discussed in the IP, then he is comfortable with the language as is and ready to go on.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there is consensus and to move onto the SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles would like some clarification regarding on packet page 239 and asked if staff can explain how this is different in SSRAs versus the rest of the city, i.e., does it mean that existing buildings in other parts of town cannot be modified or maintained.
Councilmember Bier read, “These policies specifically allow neighborhoods of West Sharp Park and Rockaway to continue maintaining and modifying existing development while providing flexibility for new development, benefit not afforded to other areas within the coastal zone.” City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if the rest of the coastal zone cannot continue maintaining and modifying existing development.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is not the policy language, but just the staff report, generalizing the benefits.
Councilmember Boles asked for clarification on the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, when a property behind an SSRA is developing or wants to redevelop, they can count in their analysis for their project the erosion protection and sea level rise protection that the Beach Boulevard seawall provides or the revetment in Rockaway. He stated that does not mean that houses elsewhere in the coastal zone, not in the SSRAs, cannot redevelop or develop or maintain, but just the hazard impact analysis that they undertake would be different than what happens in West Sharp Park where the sea wall exists and Rockaway where the revetment exists. Because they can calculate and factor in the benefit of the sea wall there, which is currently not the case in the old LCLUP and the way coastal works, then it is a benefit to their development potential and a benefit of the economic and investment factors that are critical in West Sharp Park.
Councilmember Bier stated that was because there is already protection there.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed. He stated the specifics about what defines the SSRAs are specific to Pacifica and reliant on the fact that there is critical public infrastructure, both water and wastewater, that runs down Beach Boulevard. That helps define the SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles stated that her question was about “continue maintaining and modifying existing development”. She understands for new development and we can talk about what benefits they might offer later, but for an existing house on Beach Boulevard or in Manor, you can still modify it. She stated that, what the SSRA policies specifically help with setbacks. In terms of existing development, it does not really help you if you are doing a remodel.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if you are doing a remodel and it is substantial, it is going to be an SSM and you need to do the technical report to show what impacts sea rise, coastal erosion, etc. would have. If it is in the SSRA, when that technical analysis is performed, it can factor in sea wall as part of the conditions that impact that property.
Mayor Vaterlaus gave an example of 1567 Beach Boulevard which Coastal Commission said there was no sea wall but there is a sea wall there. If they are in the SSRAs, they are allowed the protection of that sea wall so they may not have to build back 100 feet. When you have the technical reports done, they are considering the sea wall.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Councilmember Boles was saying that the hazard mitigation or response to hazards would have more to do with setbacks than armoring.
Councilmember Boles stated that it specifically says that in one of the SSRA policies. You are looking at their foundations and flooding as a risk, but it is only helpful for setbacks. She stated that the Coastal Commission did allow 1567 Beach Blvd. to look at the armoring on that project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they did.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they could have zero houses there.
Councilmember Boles stated that was not because of the sea wall.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the setback.
Councilmember Boles stated that they determined the setback based on what the staff report said was the 40-year life of the sea wall, plus for the full hazards 35 years after the sea wall.
She stated that, in all of these instances with the SSRAs, the sea wall’s life is not for the full development life. You still have to look at it for beyond that when you are doing that analysis.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested moving to the SSRA policy on packet page 456.
City Manager Woodhouse added another point about the SSRA, i.e., in taking Beach Boulevard for an example, there are a series of homes, some of which are pre-Coastal Act, some which are not, and the SSRA policy makes equivalent the fact that everybody can rely on that protection in their redevelopment.
Councilmember Boles stated CR-I-39 talks about the setbacks on page 457 in the redline version: “The areas may rely on shoreline protection structure in the area that is existing at the time of the permit application to help demonstrate that the setbacks meet the requirements of policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-20.” She stated that there is no other benefit, in terms of the design, other than where your setback is in relation to the ocean.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to point out that CR-I-38 is important. She stated that all the policies in this particular section of the LCLUP are associated with the Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas, so it is necessary to look at all of the policies that relate to the SSRAs to understand how they all work together. She stated that one of the policies, CRI-38, talks about public infrastructure along the shoreline in SSRAs that allow public infrastructure to rely on existing shoreline protection and there is also CR-I-40 which talks about armoring in special resiliency areas. There are other policies that provide context to the SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is the only one about development and we are trying to understand how it affects new construction and existing construction. She stated, as far as she knows, the only benefit is the setback. She stated that we have not done a whole cost-benefit analysis and she thinks it is important to have it specifically clear what the benefits are and if they are worth the cost of all these mitigations and programs we will have to do.
Councilmember Bigstyck has clarity around what cost and benefit might look like, vis a vis these policies. He stated that this implies is there may be new development, but more to the point, he thinks the reason he is inclined to favor this is because it has something to do with balance. He hears people say do not take away their ability to protect their property or to develop in places where there is opportunity for the city. He also hears people saying that the sea wall means no beach so remove it. He stated that, whichever version, we need the protections that allow them the timeline to address it. After that, when he reads the policies, what he likes is that, some people might not like that it implies there will be a sea wall for a while, but there are also policies in there that require them to proactively start working on the larger issue. From a pro-property stance and a pro-environment stance, there is much to be happy about. As he reads every redline in the document and going over what that ten-year timeline looks like to get the fullness of the programs up and running, the next ten years will be updating what we are doing in practice. He thinks it strikes the right balance.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks he is talking about accountability.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated this is a balanced approach that facilitates doing the work.
Councilmember Boles stated that the work needed is the Adaptation Plan, and not the mitigation for a Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas. Those are separate. She stated that the Adaptation Plan is the hard work of looking at what we are going to do for having a vision, figuring out where it makes sense to armor and where it makes sense to do nature-based solutions, and having triggers over time. She wants to go through that policy too, but she thinks you cannot conflate the two. We need to do that work and be doing that Adaptation Plan to be eligible for funding for SB 272. She stated that they are separate policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks this specifically ties that adaptation work to protecting this area.
Councilmember Boles stated that he is conflating the area protected with these policies that allow development to rely on the armoring. She stated we are working on the sea wall. GHD has been working on that project and they are looking for funds to go to the next stage. GHD has told Council that the seawall can be approved with the 1980 Local Coastal Plan. She stated that it is not about the protection, but about whether these policies to allow more development in these hazardous areas and to allow reliance on sea walls, which is against the Coastal Act, without major mitigations are necessary and valuable. She stated that is where she is not convinced that they are.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there has been discussion about neighborhood approach. SSRAs are a specific iteration of that. The reason that all of these are being discussed is because cities were not getting their LCPs done. LCPs are old and not addressing climate change or sea level rise, and the concerns of the residents in these coastal communities is that there is going to be some policy the city is going to adopt as a requirement of the Coastal Commission that is going to harm their investment and take away. With Senate Bill 272, everybody is going to have to get their LCPs done in ten years’ time. She knows that getting this LCP updated is the best step forward for Pacifica in terms of being able to benefit from funding that is available to do the deep dive into adaptation. She stated that the Adaptation Plan we have currently and working off of that was in such contention did not include a robust extensive community discussion and that is what they need and what she was talking about in Monterey. What she does not think is beneficial to us is to stop everything we have done with this work to go do that first. She thinks both can be done and we are talking about phasing our LCPs as well. She stated we have to get caught up from 1980 and then be able to work on sections of our LCP so we are not trying to do the whole thing at one time. She is hopeful that this is going to be successful. If it is not, then we go back to what parts can the keep or modify, and that may be the approach but that is not the road we are on now. She stated, in terms of why we are even talking about SSRAs, the reason is because it will move the City forward and get us going on our plans and LCP will govern those. The other point she wanted to tie back is the Coastal Access Resilience Program. She cannot believe that is not tied to the Adaptation Plan as those are completely overlapping.
Councilmember Boles thinks they are different. She stated when we are doing the seawall and designing a public park and other access down to the ocean, those are not the basic adaptation to protect from the hazards. They are mitigations for the armoring.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer feels like some of the language that was put in September 17 City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 28, 2024
version was concerning for her as far as the duration of some of these things. She stated it feels like that is being changed or constrained, and she thinks it is because we are moving forward. She believes the way the policies are written and the way that the discussions have gone on that Coastal Commission expects the Coastal Access Resilience Program to be much more than basic mitigations written into the way the seawall project is going forward.
Councilmember Boles agreed because they say you are going to have to look at removing armoring in other areas, look at nature-based solutions, and look at purchasing vulnerable coastal property. All of those are hugely expensive things that are part of mitigation that are not necessarily part of the Adaptation Plan. She was grateful that Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was working on looking at neighborhood based policies but all the meetings she has heard from stated that the intent of those policies is to be able to look broader so you can do nature-based solutions as a first policy and that should always be the goal and that armoring is the last thing.
Her concern is that we are jumping into armoring here without having looked at those other options. She stated that Rockaway Beach has been armored and the surfers she has talked to say that they used to surf there 30 years ago and it was the best surfing in town and now they cannot because of the reflection on the armoring. She stated that the Adaptation Plan that was done before called for sand nourishment which would negate the need for armoring, rebuild coastal beaches that better draw our tourists, and improve the surfing and the environmental solutions, and yet we have not thought about what is possible there besides armoring.
Councilmember Bier did not think we are saying that there is always going to be armoring. She stated that she is curious about what the Coastal Commission would say about these policies.
Councilmember Boles stated that they might reject it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they did look at nature-based solutions.
Councilmember Bier stated we have a lot to learn and the Coastal Commission would tell them.
Councilmember Boles asked them what happens if they say no to this.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it comes back to Council to have another conversation.
Councilmember Bier stated Council does not know what would happen. When she looks at the redline, she does not feel like she is for it or against it, but just wants to know what the Coastal Commission is going to come back with.
Councilmember Boles stated that it may come back and they say no, and she hopes that we do not throw all this away. For her, she can approve this without these SSRAs as she did not think they were necessary. The hard work of the policy and the adaptation is in here otherwise.
Councilmember Bigstyck understands there is an Army Corps study of our coastline happening at some point, and he hears Councilmember Boles talking about sand nourishment in Rockaway and he asked if we would need that study to facilitate things like that going forward.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are several studies and the large one is the general investigation of the entire Pacifica coastline and, if we can get that funded at the federal level, it looks at all of the feasibility of different adaptation strategies for the coastline (scope to be defined on that) and there are two other smaller specific continuing authorities program projects currently underway with Army Corp.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated Rockaway has infrastructure that is vital there and most of our visitor-serving hotel space. It is not because he thinks they are wrong in terms of other approaches that would be better than hard armoring, but this methodology allows us to live long enough to figure out those other methodologies.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated to meanwhile protect our infrastructure that we need to protect now until we work out a plan to move the pumps and move what is underneath. She stated that we have to do this now.
Councilmember Boles stated it is fine if you are for these policies but you have to know that this is where staff is going to focus their efforts and other things are going to have to go if the Coastal Commission accepts it and if Council decides to go through without it otherwise. She stated that waiting for certification, going back and forth, and facing potential lawsuits are more time we are losing and not getting started on the hard work that we have to do.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we have an Adaptation Plan in place that was completed in 2017, which was the ticket to be able to submit an LCLUP update. She stated our Adaptation Plan has different policies and recommendations associated with it and another iteration of it must have substantial community involvement. She felt it was incumbent upon us to get the LCP completed and submitted and work on getting those grants that we cannot get until we have our LCP done. She stated that we are close, and it is not perfect, but we have to look at the entirety of the city and take in all those pieces of input, including input from outside of the city because the shoreline and coastline is for everyone.
Councilmember Bier asked what would happen if Coastal Commission says they are not doing any of those.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he can comment on process. Coastal Commission staff and the Executive Director support this document and the SSRAs and will be recommending them to the Coastal Commission. She cannot guarantee how the Coastal Commission is going to vote.
With this package of recommendations, the likelihood is that Coastal Commission staff will recommend it certified as submitted and that means, if the Coastal Commission does that, it does not have to come back to the Council for any further action. He stated that Interim CD Director Kumar outlined in her presentation that the alternative is that the Coastal Commission makes modifications and then says that this is certified as modified and sends it back to Council for approval; if no approval, then we have withdrawn their LCLUP update application, and if approved, it is a certified document.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he hears a consensus in terms of passing these on.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated there are landslide maps, tsunami maps, and some maps are not updated, and she asked if we can make that an amendment later.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, regarding maps, the Council approved a contract with ESA for $100,000 to update the maps, including the coastal hazard maps and the tsunami inundation zone map, contingent on Council’s adoption of this and submission to Coastal Commission. If this is approved, then we start the contract with ESA and once maps are updated then the LCLUP or our submittal is amended with those new maps and that benefits those applicants seeking CDPs at that time.
Councilmember Boles stated that the landslide maps are in the General Plan and we can just put them in. She asked if there was any reason we cannot add those immediately.
City Manager Woodhouse does not recall the discussion or status of that. He stated that it might qualify unless he hears otherwise as an administrative change to the final submittal.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano assumed Councilmember Boles’ position is that the landslide maps in the LCLUP need to be replaced with the ones in the General Plan.
Councilmember Boles stated yes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believes it would just be and administrative revision if we are not having ESA update those maps.
City Manager Woodhouse did not think so.
Councilmember Boles stated she has been asking for it.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are looking at a consensus around the SSRAs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a question about plywood and other small items.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if regarding SSRAs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated tangentially yes, as they relate to the maps. She stated that we heard from Richard Harris about the missing wheelchair ramp on Item 13A on Table 3-1, coastal access points in the map that relates to that is on packet page 506. She stated that there is reference to ADA access on the berm and that is true that for wheel mobility you can go down the berm, but it falls short because it does not say there is a wheelchair ramp which there is. When it was first discussed years ago, there was not but it got built in the relatively recent years as a Condition of Approval for the berm that the City and County of San Francisco was required to do that. She thought it should be reflected in here.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there was a staircase also.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated those should be reflected and updated to be accurate.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is a change we can make; instead of saying “ADA access on the berm,” it can say “access to the beach” and the star can be moved on the map further north, like the Golf Alliance recommended. He stated that falls under the administrative cleanup capacity.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is the ADA ramp and the staircase.
Councilmember Bier referred to a comment on 6.2 and that map is not here.
Councilmember Boles stated that is the map we are updating. She stated that there is a draft version that she is assuming we are submitting to the Coastal Commission on packet page 521 but it does not relate to the 6.2 and it might need a note on it.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the map on packet page 521 is supposed to be the placeholder for 6.2.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is the tsunami inundation map and Council was talking about the map on packet page 506.
Councilmember Bier stated that she was talking about the tsunami inundation map and the changes that are going to happen with that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is going to be updated when all of the maps are done.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is part of the ESA package.
Councilmember Bier added the flood maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we have SSRA consensus.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if the SSRAs are in there, she is not going to be able to vote for this document. She stated that, as others have said, these policies allow more development in harm’s way and we know the areas are already zone 5 in the FEMA maps (coastal high hazard areas). She read about 1567 Beach Boulevard from the neighbors: “Conditions are becoming increasingly more severe and more frequent over the lifetime of people living there for 30 years, overtopping, even huge rocks blown over, people walking, slammed by waves, even to the back wall of garages, flooding, moving a parked car, and the owner of 1581 said we have a moral obligation to develop safely.” Related to that, one of the findings on packet page 244 in the resolution, No. 4, “Council of Pacifica finds as follows, the public health, safety and general welfare are best served by adoption of the revised certification draft LCLUP with alternative modifications” and she does not think that is true as it is not health and safety as the best policies that we are approving with those plans. She stated that we have not analyzed the costs and benefits to know if these are things that are helping development. We are saying that we are going to be providing that analysis of the sea walls but we do not know the cost and she asked what are the costs to the City of doing these programs and what are the benefits to development and to the City’s future finances if they are there. She stated that, for new development, there is not much space. She spoke with 1567 Beach Blvd. yesterday while he made a comment supporting and he is not using these policies for his own project and he has decided that he wants to live there and he wants to live out of the hazards and he does not want to rely on the sea wall but wants to know that he is going to be safe and this project is going to last. Her concern is that these policies do by allowing reliance on sea walls that may or may not be there is we are going to get developers who are in for a quick profit who want to build as cheaply as they can and then sell and the City is stuck with projects that are not going to last as long. She thinks that, technically, that is what we are going to get. She stated it is huge amounts of staff time and asked if we have the capacity to do this.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she wants to keep waiting and waiting.
Councilmember Boles stated no, but she is saying we have not analyzed the real cost to staff and the City in doing the SSRAs. She stated that we are tying ourselves in for a certain period of time, 20-25 years, without doing our visioning and that should be what comes first. She stated developers rely on certainty and they want to know what the rules are when they are designing their project so they do not have to backtrack. She stated that we have no idea when these policies might come into being; even if the Coastal Commission approves it, we have to do public engagement and have these policies and projects in line and a timeline for them. We have to keep approving it and if we are not doing our work, if we do not do even one project, the Coastal Commission could pull it. She stated you could have a project that you are analyzing with the City and all of a sudden, you have to go back and completely redesign and redo their engineering and maybe set it back because you are partway down the process and the rules have changed. The policies could be pulled at any time, as they have a short expiration date.
She is confused because, if you are using these policies, she thinks you still have to do the risk disclosure that you cannot rely on armoring in the future. She does not understand what that means to the project in the future if something happens that you have to fix or you do a small remodel and then all of a sudden you cannot have a 100-foot setback but 150 and what does that mean to your project. She stated that we have gone down this path for so long and we never stopped and said can we approve the Coastal Commission’s modifications without that.
She did not think all this is worth the risk and money and it violates the Coastal Act. She stated that the mitigations are going to have to be substantial. She thinks we have heard that from the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, according to the Attorney General, this does not violate the Coastal Act.
Councilmember Bier stated, if it does violate the Coastal Act, then the Coastal Commission would let us know that.
Councilmember Boles stated that it violates it without all these mitigations.
Councilmember Bier asked if we could approve it without this. She asked if it is an option.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is an option and he is against it.
Councilmember Bier would like to hear the Coastal Commission’s feedback.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would as well.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break and then reconvened the meeting. She asked, if we said to put the plywood back in, what would Coastal Commission staff say back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he can only say what Coastal Commission staff has said to the City thus far. To date, Coastal Commission staff has said that plywood on roofs is a structural component and is not an exception or exemption in the SSM definition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the mayor’s research indicates plywood sheathing.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they allow underlayment.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 October 28, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if you look up underlayment, it generally refers to the different cloth and types of plastic coating that is the water proofing on a roof.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated home improvement stores showed certain widths of plywood as underlayment. She sees that as weatherproofing or waterproofing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that the other example that we had some length in a previous meeting had to do with roofs and whatever work that would need to be done to the roof to enable solar panels. She knows one of the exceptions in that section said we have to allow for the implementation of state laws, and it is encouraged to put solar panels on your roof.
She feels that a roof is a basic necessity and plywood should be included.
Councilmember Bier asked if it matters that, on packet page 238, they include the word sheathing but in our other it does not, and should it say sheathing, and does that matter. She stated that it says “other nonstructural roof materials” and not sheathing.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the staff report says staff agrees that any nonstructural repair of roof sheathing could be included in the catchall other exclusions, and he asked if she is saying she wants to call it out specifically.
Councilmember Bier stated that it says, “other nonstructural roof materials”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it was all plywood.
Councilmember Bier stated it does not say sheathing. She asked if it will be helpful for our people who need a roof to have the word “sheathing” here. She thinks so.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and we need clarity.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it sounds like Councilmember Bier is suggesting adding to Item No. V, “other nonstructural roof materials, including but not limited to sheathing”.
Councilmember Bier responded affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if the majority of the Council support that.
There was Council consensus.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the next question is how are we going to define sheathing. She stated that it has to be a nonstructural component.
Councilmember Boles stated sheathing is often structural, even on the outside of the house.
Councilmember Bier stated that they agreed to it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks they were saying that it could be considered nonstructural materials and, as indicated earlier, that would be up to the City to make that determination.
She asked if we are able to define sheathing in a way that is nonstructural.
City Manager Woodhouse read the definition of roof sheathing: “Roof sheathing, also known as City Council Regular Meeting 34 October 28, 2024
roof decking, is a layer of wood or other material that is installed on the rafters of a roof to provide support and a flat surface for the shingles and other roofing components.” He thinks, to add sheathing in there, from the Coastal Commission staff’s perspective, is the same thing as adding in plywood, roof sheathing, or sheathing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the answer we came back with is it is up to the City to determine whether or not that sheathing or that plywood is structural. What this language allows and what we were able to negotiate with the Coastal Commission staff is that the determination of if those sheathes and plywood would be structural would be within the City.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they objected to the word “plywood”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they also agreed that not all plywood would be structural and they pointed to the language that it is going to be within the City’s discretion to determine whether or not sheathing, plywood, and any facts-based determination is structural. That is some discretion and that determination will be with the City. Ultimately, if there is a question about how we are interpreting and implementing this policy, this interpretation of Council’s intent will be the law.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it says they would not add it to the list but agree that any nonstructural repair of roof sheathing could be included in the catchall other. She stated it seems like we can include it in other and, if it is the law according to the attorney, then it is the law.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, especially in light of that level of discussion around SSRAs, knowing that the Coastal Commission is going to have a robust discussion around a policy that their staff is going to recommend. He stated he will go with consensus from there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer looked at it from that same point of view, but the opposite end of it, as she looked at it thinking why are we arguing about plywood. She asked what the IP phase of this process with regard to this specific question: does it get further defined or refined, is it another opportunity that there will be consternation over this, etc.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, in terms of definition, this is the definition that would be carried forward in the Implementation Plan. To the extent that Council has edits they want to make to the SSM definition, then this would be the time. The Implementation Plan would carry that definition forward and use it in various policies that are being implemented.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed it would not further define it in a different way.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it would not, and whatever we put in the implementation policies needs to be consistent with this definition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is asking if it needs to be more specific or fleshed out.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, from her perspective, she thinks the broadness of Item No.
V is beneficial to the city. She stated that the City has the discretion to make that determination of what other nonstructural roof materials include or encompass, and she thinks that it is better to leave it broader than start adding lists of things to make it more narrow.
City Attorney Kenyon believed, legally, that, if we start adding more specificity, that will eliminate our ability to have more general discretion. She stated that there is a statutory construction City Council Regular Meeting 35 October 28, 2024
principal that, when you leave interpretation general, that gives more discretion to the governing body to determine what the intent was. When we start adding more specificity we lose that discretion because the specificity is now in that definition, and she would recommend keeping it general if we are trying to retain our discretion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she is fine with that. She stated that when she came on to the Council, her whole thing was to build a seawall and, in order to build a sea wall, we need a Local Coastal and Land Use Plan update, and she is going to make a motion.
Councilmember Boles stated she has some other questions about the NCCWD policy.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is comfortable with her making the motion and he thinks if those among Council wish to inquire more about various policies, we should have those discussions because we each represent unique perspectives.
Councilmember Boles looked at packet page 315 and there is a table at the top, “Regional Parks and Beaches in the Coastal Zone,” and it lists all of our beaches in the second section. It says Rockaway Beach is privately owned. She wanted to clarify that as she did not know if Rockaway Beach was privately owned.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked her for raising that point. That is something staff would clean up administratively following approval because, if that is incorrect, staff would be able to fix that administratively.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if you look at the section, it describes the different beaches and it does not describe Rockaway at all. She stated it seems like something is missing because she thinks that is an important one.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed and thanked her for pointing that out. She stated that staff will clarify that administratively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it says Rockaway Beach on packet page 318.
Councilmember Boles agreed that the text is there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the text is there and it adequately describes the beach and makes it clear that it is not the quarry. She stated the question for staff is to straighten out what is going on with the owner designation on packet page 315.
Councilmember Boles then referred to packet page 345. She stated it is PR-I-74 and she made a comment that the language was confusing and their answers to council questions was suggested changed language and thought staff might want to talk about that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we can clarify that language. The suggestion was “incorporate conditions of approval for development projects to require adoption of Transportation Demand Management measures for a project as authorized by a congestion management program” and the rest stays the same.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about striking that phrase that is written in.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed striking out “the congestion management program City Council Regular Meeting 36 October 28, 2024
threshold for impacts to the congestion management transportation network”.
Councilmember Boles agreed. She then referred to packet page 406, which talks about development in hazardous areas and site and design development in 100-year flood plains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risks without the need for armoring. She stated that this seems to conflict with CR-I-20 that siting and design is not required in tsunami hazard areas inundation. Previously, one of the City Attorneys suggested adding language to say, “other coastal hazards except for tsunamis” and it needed to be discussed with the Coastal Commission and she does not know if that discussion happened.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she does not have any information on what was discussed.
Councilmember Boles thought it may have been dropped. She thinks it is important because it does appear to be a conflict between policies.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if Councilmember Boles’ concern is that the NH-G-2 could be inconsistent with the siting with the CR-I-20 on packet page 448. She stated one thing to point out is that these policies address different issues; one is siting and designing for natural hazards and flood plains and is in the natural hazards chapter for siting and designing for development in flood plains and tsunami hazard zones, but CR-I-20 is siting and designing for projects in the policies for new shoreline development standards. There is a difference in where they are located and what they are meant to address because of their locations. She stated that these policies cannot be taken out of context; we have to look at the policies in the chapters they are in and consider the context in which they are set forth. Policy NH-G-2, development in hazardous areas, is talking about siting and designing for natural hazards, flood plains, and tsunami hazard zones and provides a guiding policy to that effect. Policy CR-I-20 is in the section for new shoreline development standard policies and CR-I-20 is one of the implementing policies that discusses siting and designing specific to development in coastal vulnerability zones. She stated they are not inconsistent but instead different policies addressing different issues.
Councilmember Boles stated CR-I-20 talks about the development in coastal vulnerability zones and we have clarified that it does not include tsunami zones. She stated that former Acting CD Dep. Director Cervantes confirmed that multiple times at previous meetings. She stated that we were told that siting and design was not important in tsunami zones and that is why the Coastal Commission did not include tsunami zones in this, but the other policy is talking about siting and design being important in tsunami zones.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated tsunami hazard zones.
City Attorney Kenyon stated only in relation to natural hazards, not new development.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is development in hazardous areas, which would be the same as new development.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that legally two provisions are not inconsistent because they are dealing with two different subjects.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what the two subjects are that they are dealing with.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 October 28, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated natural hazards that are related to tsunami hazard zones and the other is new shoreline development.
Councilmember Boles stated that one is development in hazardous areas and the other is not shoreline but new development anywhere in a vulnerability zone. She stated that they are both talking about new development or any development.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the way to read it is to read it in the context of the chapter for which it is written and there is not an inconsistency from a legal perspective. If Council would like to, from a policy perspective, make things consistent, that is a different issue.
Councilmember Boles asked how the policy does not apply to someone in Fairway Park in a tsunami inundation zone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what Councilmember Boles thinks is inconsistent about the two policies, i.e., why would she think that there would be an inconsistency.
Councilmember Boles stated that the second one specifically says you do not need to consider siting and design in tsunami areas in CR-I-20 and this seems to say the opposite to her.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it does not exclude that; it does not say it is only required to minimize hazards without the need for armoring. It is just saying that the site and design development in a 100-year flood plain and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risks without the need for armoring. It is a policy similar to the policies that we have in our General Plan that relate in general but are not specific. What you see in new shoreline development standards are policies in CR-I-20 in siting and design; that is specific to development in coastal vulnerability zones and it must be siting and design set back from the blufftop and/or shoreline to be safe from erosions. It is focusing on different concerns and vulnerabilities than what is being discussed is NHG-2 which is more general in talking about site and design development in 100-year flood list in tsunami zones to minimize hazard risks. That is the goal. When we are interpreting that, it is much more general in terms of how we are going to interpret it if that particular site and design is minimizing hazard risk without the need for armoring. It is a general concept and it will up to the Council at the time who is interpreting this to determine whether or not that particular development that is being developed in a 100-year flood plain and tsunami hazard zone is minimizing hazard risks without the need for armoring.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she is suggesting that the difference is that NH-G-2 is not necessarily confined to the coastal vulnerability zone, and while CR-I-20 specifically applies to the coastal vulnerability zone, NHG-2 could conceive of a circumstance in which your tsunami hazard zone is outside of your coastal vulnerability zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that would be a way to interpret it. She stated that policy NH-G-2 is much more general in the limited language versus the specificity in CR-I-20. The ability to interpret that is somewhat more limited as it is a more specific policy. It is different and is not intended to be interpreted the same as NH-G-2.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks it is hard for him to fathom that the tsunami hazard zones referred to in NH-G-2 are outside of the coastal vulnerability zone.
Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 October 28, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles understood from the City Attorney that we would not need to say that in NH-G-2. She referenced from a previous meeting the City Attorney adding the language not to NH-G-2 but to CR-I-20 to say, “other coastal hazards except for tsunamis”. This went back to the definition of coastal vulnerability zones, which also mentions tsunamis.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that was a part of the discussion around tsunami inundation versus tsunami evacuation and the idea was that we were trying to make tsunami inundation consistent across the document by excising the terminology of evacuation.
Mayor Vaterlaus added vulnerability.
Councilmember Boles stated tsunami inundation or evacuation should not apply in CR-I-20.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the definition of coastal vulnerability zone excludes tsunami inundation in evacuation zones.
Councilmember Boles stated that could be something that was added later or it may be a coastal hazard zone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, going back to the issue of whether or not CR-I-20 would conflict with NH-G-2, coastal vulnerability definition would not include the tsunami evacuation or inundation zone and so likely not the tsunami hazard zone either.
Councilmember Boles stated it is the definition of coastal hazards that includes tsunami.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that policy NH-G-2 would apply in a coastal hazard zone.
Councilmember Boles stated there is some siting that needs to be looked at in tsunami zones.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the definition of coastal hazards includes tsunami.
Councilmember Boles had a question but retracted it and said to move onto NCCWD.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was pleased with the way that our conversation went with NCCWD staff and how quickly our staff was able to set up a meeting with Coastal Commission staff to bring those points forward and get them incorporated. She thinks the concern they had about No. 5 that Coastal Commission staff did not recommend was the same issue we had about existing development and that is why they proposed that. Their worry is that, somehow, if it is water infrastructure that is newer than 1977, it would not be able to be protected or have an emergency repair to it, etc. She thinks what City Manager said earlier covers it: If they had an emergency, they would need to go directly to the Coastal Commission themselves for permitting. She thinks, if it is not codified in the policy, they would have to move their infrastructure and the particular one they were focused on was the pipe they just moved in the City Council Regular Meeting 39 October 28, 2024
SF RV Park from the shoreline. She stated that is where that is coming from regarding their concern about newer than 1977. She stated they are not worried about pre-Coastal Act infrastructure and she asked what our response is to that.
Councilmember Bier stated that there is something about the temporary structure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated they would have to go and get the permitting directly. She asked if that is only if it is on the shoreline or in general.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it seems the analogue is like emergency revetment protecting 400 Esplanade and protecting the infrastructure there and the City has to follow up with a full project. He stated that, when he reads the policy, if they are seeing risk to their infrastructure, they can apply for an emergency CDP from the Coastal Commission to protect that. Normally what Coastal Commission would do is say that now they need a full Coastal Development Permit and, in doing that, they will need to evaluate all of the alternatives, relocate the infrastructure versus permanent protection, etc., and that is a normal course for coastal CDPs and they would require that, which is in the last line. He thinks Coastal Commission staff was saying was that this was already covered in other processes and policies in the LCLUP.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we spoke about this issue first and, after back-and-forth with the Coastal Commission staff, this is when we came up with the concept of defining their facilities as critical infrastructure and critical facilities. What we were saying and why we believe that they do have the same protections as we have is because their facilities and infrastructure will be protected in the same way as ours will be. When City staff explained that to them, Coastal Commission staff said it would be fine. Their concern with this language is that it went beyond what the City had put in the rest of the document with regard to protections for critical infrastructure. In staff’s minds, since the focus of this for NCCWD was critical infrastructure and facilities, they will have the same protection as the City with regard to our critical infrastructure and our critical facilities. The Coastal Commission staff said that, if we want this in addition, we are giving NCCWD more protection than the City would receive for its own infrastructure facilities and infrastructure. The compromise was that we would get all the same protections for the District as well as the City by including both in the definition of critical facilities and critical infrastructure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they still go through that process of evaluating the least impactful final project to give them an emergency permit to take care now; but for the longer permanent fix, they have to go through the process of identifying what all the different alternatives are, as the City would also.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for that information.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated the comments that NCCWD made regarding maintaining this partnership into the Implementation Plan stage and making sure we are more intentionally aligned going into that process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she had a conversation with Dir. Carr during the break and spoke specifically about this issue. From her perspective, she thinks Dir. Carr understands the intent and she explained to her what she explained to Council earlier: This interpretation becomes the intent, and this is the legislative history for this document that is part of the record.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she appreciated them too and both NCCWD and the City Council were City Council Regular Meeting 40 October 28, 2024
glad to work together.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had an opportunity during one of the breaks to read some language that was given to Council this evening back regarding bullet point 5 on packet page 449. From her point of view, when she read the proposed language, it cemented what she was trying to articulate earlier. She stated to clarify and to add the end of bullet point 5 “not intended hereby is waiver of rights to shoreline protection from protection structures existing at the time of an application to which applicant has rights under Coastal Act 30235”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she does not know why Coastal Commission staff believes that this language is inconsistent with the Coastal Act but they do, and they think that this language which was in the Del Norte policy was specific to Del Norte. She does not know the particular facts associated with Del Norte’s SSRAs, but what they have said to City staff is that the edits that they made to the Del Norte policy, including this deletion made by Coastal Commission staff, is because it is necessary to tailor this policy along with everything else in the SSRAs to Pacifica’s particular situation. Her guess is that Coastal Commission staff will not recommend certification of our LCLUP with this language in it as they have said that they believe it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. She stated that we could put this in and make our case to the Coastal Commission, but there is a risk that they may not certify it. In the best case scenario they would delete it and say that is the one they would certify and send it back to say for City approval. She stated the worst case is that they may remand it back and say come up with a revised version or they will give us reasons why they cannot accept that version. She knows that Coastal Commission staff will not recommend certification in this former fashion. If that is the only difference that we have from Coastal Commission staff’s recommended version, they may not recommend denial of the LCLUP based on that. She understands why Council wants to put it back in there and she thinks it makes sense, but she cannot tell them how the Coastal Commission will react to that. She can say that Coastal Commission staff has said it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks what is at issue is that the way bullet point 5 is written takes away those rights and that is what is a concern. She stated that, according to 30235, preCoastal Act properties should not have their rights waived, but Coastal Commission staff are rewriting the Coastal Act with this particular language that they say is only pertinent to Pacifica.
She asked if it is because we have so much pre-Coastal Act development than other cities and they may not want it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council could direct staff to approve a version with the LCLUP with this language in it but condition that version of the LCLUP on staff having a discussion with Coastal Commission about including it. City staff did not challenge them on that and it may be error or oversight by Coastal Commission staff as she agrees that it sounds reasonable to have this language in there. If Coastal Commission staff agrees with it, we would include that, as it would be part of Council’s motion. If it is not, we could exclude it if that is part of Council’s motion or your motion may be go ahead and discuss it with Coastal Commission staff and, perhaps they will agree, but even if they do not, Council still wants staff to submit an LCLUP that contains this additional Coastal Act language.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are still building consensus before a motion is made.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is why she brought it forward.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would like Asst. City Attorney Bazzano’s creative solution City Council Regular Meeting 41 October 28, 2024
and he would advocate for it. There was Council consensus.
Councilmember Boles asked if Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer can state what exactly she was proposing to add.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated in bullet point 5, page 449, where the sentence ends “property;” and then add the words “not intended hereby is waiver of rights to shoreline protection from protection structures existing at the time of an application to which an applicant has rights under Coastal Act 30235”. It differentiates that 1977 pre-Coastal Act person from the later one.
Councilmember Boles stated she is okay putting that in but her only question is Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is specifically saying existing shoreline protection and her understanding is that part of the Coastal Act also allows new shoreline protection for pre-1977 homes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is saying any structures.
Councilmember Boles stated if you want to be consistent.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated what if we do not say anything about structures and just say “to which applicant has rights under Coastal Act 30235”.
Councilmember Boles thinks that is safer.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that is better.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks it is more likely that Coastal Commission staff will agree with that.
City Manager Woodhouse asked her to read what her last suggestion was.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, i.e., “not intended hereby is waiver of rights to shoreline protection, to which applicant has rights under the Coastal Act, Section 30235”.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it could be that Coastal Commission staff would prefer the existing at the time of applications so not new protection.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is the point of Section 30235, as it could be new protection. If they are pre-Coastal Act, conceivably it could be. She stated the concern with bullet point 5 is waiving rights that you have a right to.
City Attorney Kenyon asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano to read what 30235 says.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated Section 30235 of the Public Resource Code says, “Revetments, break waters, groins, harbor channel, sea walls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and, when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.” Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the first part of that pertains and asked what is 30253.
City Council Regular Meeting 42 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck read Section 30235 on packet page 467: “New development shall do all the following, minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic flood and fire hazard, assure stability and structural integrity and neither create or contribute significantly to erosion, geological instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs, be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the state air resources board as to each particular development, minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled, where appropriate protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wants a piece of language that says you are entitled to protection if your property is pre-Coastal Act.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it does not appear that Sections 30235 or 30253 relate to the issue that the commenter Mr. Harris is trying to resolve. Staff cannot find a provision that specifically deals with that issue because existing structure does not have a definitive definition and that concept of development preexisting 1977 comes from interpretation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is not in the code.
Councilmember Boles thinks the pre-1977 is not in the code but in Coastal Commission’s guidance policies. She stated that Section 30235 does say “shall be permitted to protect existing structures”. She stated that the whole point is the definition of the existing structures is being challenged but the Coastal Commission is not challenging the pre-1977.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that with existing structures, it is all a question of existing as of when and that is the interpretation. She stated that is the only piece of language that is in the Coastal Act that specifically relates to existing structures.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, given the discussions with the Coastal Commission staff on what is an existing structure, she does not think there is any likelihood that the Coastal Commission will accept this change.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that in essence, are we awaiting for Casa Mira to be seen through before we can incorporate what might be appropriate, vis a vis the conclusion of that.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we approve this LCLUP absent that how likely is it that they are going to give it back to us. She asked, if we have already agreed to make them waive all their rights, and then Casa Mira settles and say do not make them waive their rights anymore, how will that process work specifically with the Coastal Commission.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it would be dealt with in a different way, not dealt with through this policy. If that decision really changes the definition of existing development, the implications of that will be much broader than just this policy. She stated that it is not just this policy that would be impacted. She thinks, through a trickledown effect, there will be much bigger policies that would be impacted and this would be incorporated into all of those.
City Council Regular Meeting 43 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated amendments, a few different places, etc.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her guess is that, depending upon how that ruling came down, there would be a number of amendments that we would be including or revisions in any proposed amendment to the Council, and this would be one of many.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer then agreed that we would not put it in as this language does not support what she wanted.
Mayor Vaterlaus moved to receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP; and 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; Directing the City Manager to transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission for Certification as amended; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
Councilmember Bier wanted to make it clear that she is voting yes to push it through to Coastal Commission because she truly believes that the Coastal Commission has our best interest at heart for our coastline and for our people, but she will not going to know that if she does not hear back from them. She is looking forward to moving forward to the Coastal Adaptation and Access Program, coastal resiliency plans, and nature-based solutions moving forward.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmember Bigstyck agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked everyone for all the questions.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck
NAYS: Boles
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked them all as it was a long arduous process.
Councilmember Bier wanted to adjourn the meeting in honor of her friend, Mark Simpson, who passed away recently. He was a lifelong Pacifican and he had the biggest, brightest heart and soul of any man she has ever known. She described the hardships he faced getting housed and thanked PRC for their support and noted he is a legend.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, adding that he had his own friendship with him for at least 20 years, and he has seen his struggles over a very long time. Despite any struggles, there was so much love pouring out from him and trying to figure out the best ways to express even when it was difficult for him to express that love to himself in certain ways.
City Council Regular Meeting 44 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m. in honor of Mark Simpson.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 11/25/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor