CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Christine Boles
Vice Mayor Greg Wright
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
City Council Regular Meeting 1 January 12, 2026
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
January 12, 2026 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Christine Boles called the meeting to order on January 12, 2026 at 4:30 PM 4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: Two Cases. 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Boles reconvened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Christine Boles Mayor Present
Greg Wright Vice Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa 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; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Stephanie Douglas, PB&R Dep. Director; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Ryan Bianculli, Acting Police Captain; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Boles read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 2 January 12, 2026
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - HIP Housing Annual Calendar
Peggy Jensen, HIP Board Member, presented the HIP Housing Annual Calendar.
Councilmember Bier remembered the work they did together with Homes for All which was good work for our community. She felt that was important to bring people together to have important discussions about homes.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked Ms. Jensen as housing is important to all councilmembers and they appreciate people like her trying to make it happen and remember that kids are part of this. He thanked Ms. Jensen for all her hard work and he looked forward to working with her in the future.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Ms. Jensen for the calendar and asked if it is correct that HIP Housing has a new home.
Board Member Jensen stated HIP Housing moved in December and it is a hub for housing needs for San Mateo County and located across the street from San Mateo City Park. Clients have the opportunity to walk and wonderful space and rooms to be counseled.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked Ms. Jensen for the calendar and having the kids dream about the homes and wished they could be real homes for them. She thought having a place to go to every day is important and when you come home you feel safe.
Mayor Boles asked about the home share partnerships as an opportunity to educate the community if someone has a room free in their house or a senior needing help to pay their mortgage and exchanging gardening services.
Board Member Jensen stated that the HIP Housing Home Share Program is one of the premier programs provided in the nation. They look for people who have a room in their home and someone to help pay for rent and provide services to offset rent and someone to live with them.
She thinks about 350 people are involved in a home share program and there are many more people who are interested in sharing a home. The other thing that makes the HIP program so important is that there is much screening done to make sure it is a good match between the home provider and the person living with them. They provide ongoing check-ins to make sure everything is going well to make sure they have living agreements before moving even occurs.
It is a very supportive successful program. What impressed her about the home sharing program was it essentially created more homes for people at an extremely low cost and a way to help people stay in their homes that they may have had for a very long time. They are also allowed to meet each other before making a commitment.
There were no public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 12, 2026
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for Item #7 regarding 570 Crespi, there is a correction to an exhibit indicating the rezoning boundary that extends on to the City-owned parcel. The corrected exhibit has been distributed and is available for the public at the meeting.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she was speaking on No. 5, offshore oil drilling, and she thanked everyone who brought it forward and put together the letter. She shared her thoughts on our state standing firm against any new offshore oil drilling along California’s coast.
Cassandra, San Mateo County, stated she is present on behalf of Supervisor Ray Mueller in support of No. 5. She stated that Supervisors Mueller and Speier have authored a resolution in strong opposition to the federal administration’s oil and gas program which would open up California coast to offshore drilling and detailed this process and rationale involving the coast from Pacifica to Santa Cruz County line.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica regarding the impact fee report on the Consent Calendar. She shared an issue in the language with the tree ordinance that negated the two-for-one replacement. She requested that the wording be changed to remove the loophole in the language.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she is speaking on Item No. 7, and shared her concerns about the City’s sale of City land to for-profit contractors. She also agreed with the previous speakers on Item No. 5.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
Vice Mayor Wright agreed with public comment on Item No. 5 and recognized staff for the work.
Mayor Boles also supported Councilmember Beckmeyer who wanted to put this on the agenda.
She thinks the language came from CalCities Coastal Cities working group to advocate for fighting with the federal government trying to take over our coast for oil drilling. It is important to have representation at the state level and she felt it was beautifully worded. She stated that they are all trying to do the right thing in the state and there are opportunities for offshore wind and other things for clean energy that we can look at, but oil is not what we need with potential threats to our coastline, economy and environment. She is sure our legislators will be looking at this from a legal angle, but it is important to speak up and support them.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, when our legislators want to take action, having a significant number of cities echoing and leading on this issue helps bolster what they are trying to do. She also echoed Vice Mayor Wright in thanking staff for the action. She thought the Environmental Quality Committee will have something to say about it too and she was glad Mayor Boles is on that committee and looked forward to hearing about it after her first meeting.
Mayor Boles stated that she will note at this time that she will vote no on Item No. 7.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she is also voting no on Item No. 7.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Wright.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 12, 2026
CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #7)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
AGENDA ITEM #7
RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
AYES: Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
1. Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/25 through 12/31/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/25 through 12/31/25
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the November 10, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.
5. Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition
PROPOSED ACTION: Direct the Mayor to send a letter (Attachment A) opposing the proposed 11th National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
6. 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2024-2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025.”
7. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve (1) rezoning RZ-194-16 to rezone the northern portion of the project site to be developed from M-1 to C-2 and those portions of the project site to remain undeveloped to Open Space, and (2) zoning text amendment TA-116-19, to amend section 9-4.1101(b) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to add residential uses in horizontal mixed use developments as conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and Adoption of a an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize a development agreement City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 12, 2026
between Crespi Breakwater, LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022- 162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). (File No.: 2016-004, RZ-194-16, TA-116-19, DA-4-21) PROPOSED ACTION:
(1) Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving (1) Rezoning RZ-194-16 to Rezone the Northern Portion of the Project Site to be Developed from M-1 to C-2 and those Portions of the Project Site to Remain Undeveloped to Open Space, and (2) Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, to Amend Section 9-4.1101(B) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Add Residential Uses in Horizontal Mixed Use Developments as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning District”; and (2) Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and eastern 55 feet of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, shared an update on PRC’s hours and recent work programs, including the Unhoused on the Coast outreach team, 1-Day Homeless Count, and Holiday Joy Program.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she is speaking as Exec. Director of Sanchez Art Center and invited everyone to their first opening of the new year on January 16, a gallery showcase on January 31, and an artist talk on February 8.
Yomi Agunbiade, Pacifica, stated he is present on behalf of the Pacifica Resource Center, and shared information on their core services, like groceries, emergency financial assistance, homeless services, and pet services.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on federal changes in rules for funding of grant programs and emphasized the impact on HUD funding and Section 7 vouchered tenants. She encouraged those affected to reach out to the Housing Authority and advocates to follow National Alliance to End Homelessness Coalition.
Raymond Acosta, Pacifica, thanked Council and staff for their hard work, as well as all the committees and commissions and going forward in 2026, as well as HIP and PRC.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
8. Accept Update Report on Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Update Report on Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 January 12, 2026
City Manager Woodhouse, PW Dep. Director Yip, and GHD representative Aaron Holloway presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we are engaged in continuing advocacy with Congressman Liccardo who held a press conference in Pacifica regarding the Building Resilient Infrastructure Community’s grant and the importance of that program. He stated the federal environment is challenging right now. It will have to be a combination of local, regional, state, and federal funding to fund an $80 million construction project for a small City, which is the case across the country with most major infrastructure projects. Because of the significant three breaches in a row in fall and voids created, that creates an opportunity for us again in reaching out to state legislators, as well as federal, to emphasize the emergency importance of funding this critical infrastructure project which ties in to the importance to us about the shoreline adaptation planning work that we will be commencing and committed to with the Coastal Commission through our Local Coastal Land Use Plan, as well as our Coastal Access Resiliency Program. It is hard to think decades into the future and take care of those needs proactively if we cannot manage the immediate emergency situations we are confronted with.
Vice Mayor Wright asked for an estimated guess on how long we have left on the sea wall and the pier, considering how many breaches we have had, before it falls into the ocean.
Consultant Halloway stated we had to estimate that as part of the FEMA application and he recalls that, on the north side of the pier, the sea wall is in worse shape and where a lot of the failures occurred. About five years ago, the structural team did an estimated assessment of a 5- 10 year time frame on that. He added that, after every failure that happens, more of the wall is filled with slurry. A large portion of that breach has been repaired. He thought the south wall is structurally stable, and the team estimated a longer time frame for that structure, such as 10-20 years.
Vice Mayor Wright asked about the pier.
Dep. Director Yip stated that we had recently completed a structural assessment of the pier after the rail had failed. There are different portions of the pier, and certain portions are in worse condition than others. The portion that is worse is the one closer to the oceanside, the L portion of the pier. The reason we have closed it off is because there are several components in that structural assessment that are very critical failures. In terms of the use, we will need to address all of the critical components of the pier. As far as how much longer we can keep the pier open, staff and GHD cannot put a definitive number on it. We can do a structural assessment after every winter, and that is typically what they have been doing to assess damages to it, to see how long we can keep half of the pier open.
Vice Mayor Wright concluded that those are not eligible for emergency repair.
Dep. Director Yip stated we need an emergency to be declared in order to apply for emergency funds. There is one from the State that we applied for and are still waiting to hear back for that.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, on the nourishment, how long do we expect that nourishment to last.
Consultant Halloway stated that the beach nourishment is an important part for public access and trying to improve opportunities for beach access. He stated it is not vital to the protection scheme, but it does help and provides a buffer as fewer. Those structures are designed to still City Council Regular Meeting 7 January 12, 2026
provide protection if the beach goes away. He thinks the estimates are in the 3-10 years range.
He stated that a lot of it depends on the type of material we place.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there was any consideration of putting in any groins to help hold it in.
Consultant Halloway stated not now, as those were evaluated in phase 1 and some of the alternatives that were considered groins included offshore break waters and reefs, etc. He stated that those will work but they are also costly because of the amount of rock and material required in the structures.
Vice Mayor Wright assumed he was in active communication with the Coastal Commission in developing these plans.
Consultant Holloway agreed, stating that they had several meetings with them throughout this last phase.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if they gave due consideration to the redirection of the wave energy belt from the new base of the pier and from the change of the shoreline on the south end. He asked what that wave energy will do on either side.
Consultant Holloway stated that is part of the reason we want to keep the alignment as it is today on the north side of the pier. On the south side, because there is more persistent beach there, there is not as much wave reflection off the structure. By pulling that structure back, he thinks it is going to have very little effect on wave reflection south of the pier.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there was any consideration to the future of making a bigger base so 50 years from now, or if sea level rise occurs faster, we have an option to top it an extra foot.
Consultant Holloway stated that there has been thought that, ideally, if we had permission and permits to elevate the wall in the future, that we would be modifying just the concrete structure on top, not having the reef drill more piles, etc.
Dep. Director Yip referenced the sand retention/reef concepts in public comment and pointed to the alternative analysis report (Section 3.5, pages 25 and 26) on the BBIRP website for the major deliverables on phase one project. In the report, it has a cost analysis for the beach nourishment plus sand retention of $111 million with life cycle cost of $235 million. Roughly, the reef or sand retention structures can cost upwards of $80 to $100 million. In our 35% basis cost estimate, the sand nourishment first placement is only around $14 million. It costs $80 to $100 million to put something in there to protect it. As Consultant Holloway mentioned, the upper end of it is on page 26 on how long it will last. The sand nourishment can last up to ten years. If you have a retention structure, it might extend it double, but it does not prevent sand from leaving.
Vice Mayor Wright asked about axillary benefits to having a reef as opposed to not having a reef, such as capturing some of the wave energy further out before it comes in and therefore putting less pressure on the sea wall structure doing less damage to our coast.
Dep. Director Yip referred to a study we are doing with the Army Corps because we have our CAP 204 study with the Army Corps to place dredge material and sand nourishment on Beach Boulevard. In one of the studies, with installation of the sand retention structure reef, although it retains somewhat on the north end, it prevents some of it from going to the south end of the site.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 January 12, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that is or is not a temporary condition, as there is a sand river that travels down the coast perpetually.
Dep. Director Yip stated he would have to confirm with them on how, but they made it sound like it would just prevent sand from traveling. You will get more in the north but there would be less.
Mayor Boles referred to the north wall having about five years left and asked about percentage of the length and how much have we replaced.
Dep. Director Yip stated it is mainly the northern wall that has the breaches, and the main reason is because it does not have some foundation structure below it. Once the bottom of the wall gets undermined, all the soil washes out. The panels themselves have not necessarily been replaced. When it washes out, we first plug the bottom of the hole and then plug the bottom with concrete and then we fill the rest of it with slurry mix. We will not be able to reinforce because there are shoring requirements for people to go into the hole. After it is all tiered, we put asphalt on the top. That is the extent of the repairs we have done since 2016.
Mayor Boles asked how much of the length of the north wall has been repaired in this way.
Dep. Director Yip stated roughly 12 breaches ranging around 15 feet wide, 15 feet in length.
Mayor Boles referred to the timeline two years for environmental review and permitting and two years for construction drawing and permitting at the minimum, but the construction period is not included in that either. She thought, if the sea wall has five years left, it will not last.
Dep. Director Yip stated we can continue doing these spot repairs, which roughly range over $60,000 every time it breaches, but we do not know if there is going to be a big one that will require panels in the future. We talked about phasing the project because it is so large and possibly doing the north wall first as it is in worse condition.
Mayor Boles thought, in regards to funding difficulties, it might make sense at some point to look at a remediation temporary fix for the whole length of the north wall. She thought it was cheaper do to things as a larger project than piecemeal.
Mayor Boles then opened public comments.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated he has been involved in the City’s coastal planning as a resident since 2017. He shared his skeptical thoughts on the City’s vision of long-term coastal planning and asked for alternatives to hard armor for the infrastructure protection, considered additional forces threatening new wall failure, and highlighted the Clarendon Gap as a weak link.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she aligned herself with Mr. Kremer’s comments. She referred to Mr. Holloway’s noting the tension and balancing input from the community with an engineering project. She emphasized the importance of nature-based solutions and reviewing solutions for the whole of Pacifica.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, emphasized the importance of nature-based solutions and shared concerns about funding for Phase 2A. She stated we need long-term planning to address the pending failure of the seawall.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 January 12, 2026
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, referenced the concept of the living reef as a mitigation for the wave impacts. He thought it would make sense to have an analysis of the methodology and its cost and spoke in favor of nature-based solutions as well as a holistic view.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
Dep. Director Yip stated that most grants request to see some nature-based solutions but the main reason this time no new projects were awarded for the past fiscal year.
Mayor Boles asked if Consultant Holloway can talk about dunes as part of the project and explain more of the terminology.
Consultant Holloway stated nature-based shorelines are popular and are the first option for shoreline protection. The main problem is that they need space. Nature-based solutions on an open coast means using sand, cobble, and dunes to provide a buffer against coastal hazards.
He stated that sand cobbles fluctuate widely, such as the beach changes on a seasonal basis at the south end, and that is the kind of space we need for that solution which we do not have. He stated that, at the south end, we pulled the wall back and there is potential for a nature-based solution there. We can plant dunes and try to vegetate them but he is hesitant to commit to a restored dune area; if that is the primary public access and recreational area, it may not be compatible with the restored dune. He stated it is a tradeoff. He does not want to mislead anyone by using the term nature-based solutions; thus they used beach nourishment which will be the most viable. Due to wave energy, the cobble was going to need to be big and look a lot less like cobble and a lot more like boulders. If that is the shoreline, it will be hard to walk on, enter the water with boulders rolling around, etc. He stated that those were some of the tradeoffs we struggled with in considering nature-based shorelines at this location.
Mayor Boles stated that the detailed description referenced cobble on the south but they are 12- 18 inches and not walkable. She was on the cobble beach at the harbor recently restored and Coastal Commissioners went out and were proud of that but they could see the rocks that were little and they can walk on them. If that beach is going to be usable as a walking surface to the public, the sand nourishment is a critical part of that.
Consultant Holloway stated that their conclusion at this phase is coarse sand is going to be the best natural material to place there.
Mayor Boles concluded that we do not know if that sand is available as it is part of the Army Corps study. She stated that, in the budget now, we have one beach nourishment of about $14 million and, if we need it again in 3-10 years, it will be a continual cost.
Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating that the 35% cost estimate is only for one initial placement for $14 million; however, our goal is to include close to $30 million of operation maintenance to get funded for that so we can replenish the sand several rounds. He stated this $30 million is on top of the $80 million construction project.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he was going to comment from the perspective of funding and funding raising strategy. He stated that it is true that, in many grant funding requirements today, there is an emphasis on nature-based solutions. However, there is a lot of dialogue in the State about neighborhood-specific solutions that fit what that neighborhood needs. San Francisco just had a sea wall project approved. The decision is driven by the engineering needs, the infrastructure protection needs, and what the neighborhood needs. You do not design a project City Council Regular Meeting 10 January 12, 2026
based on how you think you will get funding; you design a project for what it needs and you go after that funding and figure it out. That is part of the perspective on this as well.
Mayor Boles understands that, adding that with San Francisco, they are funding it themselves.
She asked if oyster reefs or building habitat into seawalls was more favorable to the Coastal Commission and what kind of input have we gotten from the Coastal Commission regarding how to guide the design in a more favorable way.
Consultant Holloway recalls from Coastal Commission staff that it is mostly concerns about hard armoring and conflicts with Coastal Act policies. The good news is that much of that will resolve with the LCLUP as it provides an allowance for protection in certain areas and resolved what is existing development and what is not. He thinks Coastal Commission appreciates that the promenade and access to the pier are important coastal resources. They have not spent a lot of time talking about concrete materials and if there is a way to make anything more nature friendly rather than just rock and concrete.
Mayor Boles stated our community is very interested in whatever those options are. She then referred to Mr. Bigstyck asking about the offshore reef. OneShoreline is looking at taking on that project to look at the design and modeling and talking to UC Santa Cruz about doing some work and it is sounding positive that they are able to get some funding. It could be something that helps dissipate that wave energy and holds the sand in place a little longer and could be a benefit in addition to the work.
Mayor Boles and Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to Mr. Kremer’s questions for feedback.
Consultant Holloway stated pressure on the back side of the wall is important and the structural engineers are looking at what is the water level we can expect. Given the amount of overtopping that we would expect in a rainfall event and cracks on the promenade that would develop, the assumption is that it is saturated up to the surface, hence we assume the worst case, which is the best way to do it. The wall will be designed with a drainage layer behind it with some weepholes to ideally relieve that pressure.
Councilmember Bier asked how many grants have we applied for in the past year.
Dep. Director Yip stated, in terms of grant applications, there are not many available and we have only had two for this project. In terms of exploring, we have a grant consult called Townsend and we meet up with them every month to discuss grant opportunities. We have to make sure that we are going to be competitive before devoting resources to go after some of these grants.
Councilmember Bier knows how hard it is to apply for funding and she knows how hard it is to not receive that funding and she thanked them.
Vice Mayor Wright asked City Attorney Kenyon if we have any experience on what happens when the ocean takes any of our houses and does that cost us any money.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it does raise legal issues. The biggest exposure is inverse condemnation. It depends on how the overflow or topping and what was created with the event.
If it destroys a street, there is a concern and the property no longer has access and a concern that the property has been inversely condemned. There are concerns to why that may not be City Council Regular Meeting 11 January 12, 2026
the case. That is the biggest legal issue she can see now with a catastrophic event of that nature.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we have spent any money on legal fees addressing any of these kind of things or just one property.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we had two properties that eroded the land around it and have fallen into the ocean and the property owner could not afford to raise the building. She added that the City had to step in in order to save the beach and the environment, the City had it demolished. She stated that owner went into bankruptcy and we did not collect those.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we spent money on legal fees and doing the reclamation.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Wright assumed that, in the event we were to abandon doing something to protect the shoreline, it would be more expensive than the sea wall. He is in favor of doing a reef offshore to mitigate some of that wave energy coming in as a more nature-based solution. It would then allow the river of sand to continue to flow from the north down to the south. He would not mind if there were some groins to slow it down on the way to build up more sand on the beach to give us more protection from those waves in addition to the sea wall to protect us from those big storm events and buy us time to get those nature-based solutions in place at the same time. He asked if we have considered applying for funding that would include something like the reef in addition to the sea wall or do we see it as two separate things.
Dep. Director Yip stated, in terms of the analysis of the reef, there were extensive studies done in Phase1 and, in terms of the alternatives, this is not the end. We are going to have to do it again when we get into environmental documentation alternatives as part of EIRs. When we do the Coastal Commission permitting, we will have to look at our alternatives again. He stated that saying it is not part of the project now does not mean it is not going to be part of the project.
Right now, with our CAP 204 studies with the Army Corps, they are looking into reefs as they can do shoreline improvements. The dredging is a main component that has to be part of the CAP 204 but we do have additional funds that can fund shoreline improvement. The max is $15 million and we are unlikely to get a reef from the CAP 204 but they will study it; we will have additional studies and it is not going to be the end of the reef discussion yet. If we can get it funded with the grant, we will be happy to apply for it. Now, we need some momentum to get the construction funded and we lost momentum by losing the BRIC grant that is $50 million. He stated there are close to 30 structures that are directly fronting Beach Boulevard. In terms of the utilities and the cost and everything in the ground there, that was part of a no project alternative in Phase 1. The number for the life of the project can exceed close to $243 million and that is why we are proceeding with the wall as the wall is $80 million and there is a benefit cost. It is there to justify the project and that does not include property acquisition and eminent domain and legal fees as needed to acquire some of these properties.
Vice Mayor Wright thought we would lose millions in property tax revenue over ad infinitum on 30 properties. He referred to staff talking about cost benefit analysis, etc., and he is thinking about the reef as being a solution that is going to prevent us from having to spend $14 million to renourish time and time again. He asked if building a self-sustaining project once is better than repeating the same old thing again and again that is not working.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 January 12, 2026
Dep. Director Yip thought it might be helpful to see the graph from the alternative analysis, which shows we are only going to reduce the amount of the sand nourishment by 50%. If the cost of sand nourishment is $14 million, and if it costs you $80 million to do a reef, you can basically do close to 5-6 sand nourishments for that cost. If they last for ten years, you have 50- 60 years versus building the sand nourishment with the retention. You still have to do sand nourishment because the sand is still going to travel off the northern side and you still have to place sand there. There is also the wave energy in this area that is incredibly high and that was something that the Army Corps commented when they visited our site. The wave energy is incredible out there as they are crashing onto the pier and damaging the concrete structure.
Due to the wave energy, it does not make the reef as cost-effective because they may not last as well, and that is to be studied again as we approach these other phases.
Councilmember Espinosa wondered what we can do now that is not that expensive that can save us or at least repair or not get worse. She emphasized the issue is funding.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked the City Manager what we spent on doing something this year so far on the wall.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the life of the seawall is not only five years. There are breaches, we repair them, and those repaired spots are stronger. The concept that there is just five years left in the wall is a misconception about the wall. The 2016 storms and breaches tore out part of the wall and that has been repaired and we have not had any problems in that exact repair spot. Mayor Boles asked a good question about what linear footage have been bolstered up in repairs, and we can look at that and see what the percentage of it is. Since 2016, we have had to spend $7 million in breaches of the sea wall and repairs. We can continue to do that but we need to be working very actively through these phases on a large, complicated infrastructure project to get to the point of replacement of the wall, as well as all the other aspects of the project. There is no magical solution to prevent the overtopping and breaches that might happen. There are some concepts about some flooding, plastic tubings that can be put out on the beach, etc. The question is whether it is going to handle the intensity of some of the storms that we receive. He did not think there is any easy, immediate solution, but we are doing what we can do and it is working to maintain and protect until this critical project comes to fruition.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks that we are okay now and we will repair things as we go.
Mayor Boles thought we had not yet gotten money back from FEMA for some sand issues a couple of years ago and she asked if these emergencies are something we are paying out from the Disaster Fund or are we able to get reimbursement from federal or state agencies.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that most of the breaches do not fall into the emergency FEMA reimbursement. There was the one storm where we have numerous claims that are unresolved, but mostly it is paid out of the Disaster Accounting Fund.
Dep. Director Yip stated there was a question about cost per breach, and for this past winter, we had three breaches that cost roughly total $180,000 for the contractor who worked on it. These are becoming more frequent since 2016. We have had 12 breaches in 2016, but they are averaging around three a year for the past three years and most are within the last few years.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that did not include any staff regular time or overtime.
Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating it is purely the contractor.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 12, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright asked if it is typically overtime we are paying to the staff for any of those mitigation issues.
Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated we have done the work because of the conditions of the wall.
We have studied it and we know the north wall is not a true seawall and she is curious to hear more about the possibility of phasing. She thinks we need to do this project and we need to plan for the longer future. Getting this project done gives us the opportunity to plan for the longer future. Right now, there is no support for us and, with the idea of letting go 30 properties, we cannot buy them out. There has been talk about a project through the State for a buyout but it did not go anywhere. She thinks we need to be reactive when things come around that are useful and beneficial and we need to give our input to the State legislature who are working on these things from our on-the-ground experience. For her, the storm treatment built into this project is an improvement over what we have now to help get that water out. Now, our system is not ready for this and doing this project is how we get that taken care of and how we close the Clarendon Gap. She knows we have looked at quite a few alternatives and, in terms of cost benefits, this is the best one we came up with. She stated that it is discouraging to her that the funding is abysmal because we need it now as it is an emergency.
Councilmember Bier looked forward, as we move forward with the Climate Action and Resilience Plan and looking at nature-based solutions, talking about the reefs and more. We do not have the funding but that does not mean that we cannot see what we can do. The information brought to us about the reefs was interesting and helpful. She knows it costs money to do that, but she looks forward to those conversations.
Mayor Boles referred to the projections, as she is trying to understand the basis of the project design, and they mentioned two feet of sea level rise which was the intermediate OPC guidance.
Consultant Holloway stated that it depends as those are curves. He stated that the intermediate curve represents the likely range of sea level rise. He stated that with intermediate high, things are worse, and there is one above that, high, which is the worst case.
Mayor Boles asked if he was designing to the intermediate projection which starts to be a problem in about 2075.
Consultant Holloway stated the idea is that, on day one, we will have the most likely range of sea level rise over 50 years covered and, if we end up being on the higher curve, we have steps we can go through and may accept the risk of more frequent floods. We will learn a lot over the next 30 years and we can make a more informed decision in the future to adapt to higher sea level.
Mayor Boles has been hearing at the State level that they are encouraging infrastructure projects to be designed to the intermediate high and not just the intermediate. She knows there is a tradeoff between the views and the height of the wall, but in case we are at the intermediate high in 50 years, the project would not be designed for that at this point.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 12, 2026
Consultant Holloway stated it is also the combination of storm events with sea level rise. We can also look at a lesser design event and tolerate less sea level rise but, during that big event, we will have more flooding.
Mayor Boles stated, besides general sea level rise, we are seeing increased storms and increased storm intensity. Just in Pacifica, overtopping happened in the last three years because we are getting more of these storms, which is part of climate change, like a warmer ocean holding more water and bringing these increased storms. She asked if that has been included in these projections and planning or is that not defined in the data and science at the State level.
Consultant Holloway stated it is not reflected in the OPC so this is solely a sea level rise focused document. Our analysis does account for the extreme wave activity that we have observed recently. He knows there have been wave height records that have been broken in recent years and there are some very energetic storms.
Mayor Boles stated, besides the flooding, overtopping is also a hazard. She is trying to get a sense for the community of what we can expect and how much are we fixing and what hazards are still there in this area even after this is built.
Consultant Holloway agreed that we can expect splash over the wall during those big events, even if we raise it up four feet. We are trying to prevent the green water, where a whole wave comes up on the wall and carries all that debris, sand, and gravel, in addition to the flooding.
Mayor Boles stated that we are fixing the north wall s where most of our issues are, but we are seeing more flooding in the south end. If we end up doing a phased approach, she asked if there has been any analysis of whether the south wall can be increased in height.
Consultant Holloway stated that we have not looked at an interim condition where the north wall is replaced and the south wall may be improved. The main issue is that the north wall does not have a foundation.
Mayor Boles stated that the drainage north of the pier is gravity drainage out the wall the way it is now, but bigger drains that can hold more capacity. South of the wall at the Clarendon Gap, we were talking about still using the existing pipe which is sometimes below sea level. She asked what we are planning there in terms of water management now.
Consultant Holloway stated referred to the Storm Drain Master Plan that identified a need for a pump station there eventually.
Dep. Director Yip stated that the Clarendon Pump Station is a project in our Capital Improvement Program that needs funding. There is a temporary pump out there now and it is the lowest spot in the City and, during big storms, staff are pumping water out.
Mayor Boles added it has very limited capacity. She stated that sand levels vary over the course of the year and we see this more on the south wall. She stated that it seems that the levels have been higher the last couple of years. She asked what kind of height difference are included in the designs now.
Consultant Holloway has seen, in some of those extreme events, larger waves and high water levels which will put sand higher up on the beach. That is the beach’s natural way of dealing City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 12, 2026
with those events. The typical seasonal variation is big winter waves move sand off shore and small summer waves push it back on shore, but there are interesting dynamics that happen during those big events. The design would have the bottom of the wall at 20 or below and then the top of it at 28 at the south end so we would have the ability to accommodate the varying sand levels.
Mayor Boles was pleased to see stairs and asked about handicapped access.
Consultant Holloway stated, at the south end, we have a ramp built in to that central picnic beach access area but we do not have a ramp going out on the sand. That could be something we add.
Mayor Boles asked about vehicle access out to the beach and beyond the wall.
Consultant Holloway stated a lot of the armor stone can be replaced from a crane or a piece of equipment from the promenade side. If a vehicle had to get through there, we could look at sizing one of those beach access ways 12 feet instead of 6 feet which is an option.
Mayor Boles thought that might be helpful. She thinks, in the past, we used to manage the sand levels with vehicles. She does not know if that maintenance is required as part of the design.
Dep. Director Yip stated that we can coordinate with GHD on vehicle access out there and get the Coastal Development Permit to move sand around.
Mayor Boles referred to the next phase and asked about a cost estimate for the services and how much funding for their work in the environmental permitting.
Consultant Holloway stated that we have a proposal for all phases, approximately $2.5 million for each phase for the environmental.
Mayor Boles asked if we will be modeling the wall and understanding the sand and nourishment cycles in a little bit more detail as part of the next phase.
Consultant Holloway does not know how much we will get into that with the environmental document but, with permitting, we will. There will be more advanced analysis.
Mayor Boles stated that, on the north end, she wanted to make sure there was still vehicle and fire department access to 1567 Beach Boulevard (a vacant site with a current application).
Consultant Holloway stated that we made sure there is enough room there for vehicle access.
We have not reviewed it with the fire department but they are aware that it is a need there. As we finalize the line, we will have to get those dimensions and make sure they are all up to code.
Mayor Boles asked, in terms of budget, if those numbers are in today’s dollars or projected five years down the road when we would be building it.
Consultant Holloway does not think there is escalation to the construction phase.
Mayor Boles concluded that those numbers will go up. She knows there was talk about the existing south wall perhaps remaining in place and building this over it, but she sees on the current drawings that we are proposing to take it out. She thought it would be helpful to see the City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 12, 2026
existing walls with the new wall in the section dashed in. She also referenced the new Local Coastal Land Use Plan and some shoreline protection of the special shoreline resiliency areas that are for a period of 20 years. The sea wall has a longer life than that, and she asked if they have discussed this with the Coastal Commission since the LCLUP was approved.
Consultant Holloway stated that they haven’t met with Coastal Commission since then, but it is something they will work through as part of the CDP and what it will look like in the future, sea level rise, risks and what different scenarios look like.
Mayor Boles referenced the Coastal Commission, in approving the SSRA, seeing those as a way to give us time to do the long-term planning. It is not just that we are building a sea wall to protect those, but we still have to look at moving those as a longer-term plan. She thanked him for his expertise and appreciated him being here tonight.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to accept the report; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
9. 2026 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments
PROPOSED ACTION: Review the list of City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments, make any modifications for the calendar year 2026, and approve the final list.
City Clerk Sarah Coffey presented the staff report.
Mayor Boles added there was an ad hoc subcommittee formed with her and Vice Mayor Wright for the review of the Beach Boulevard hotel proposal.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Calvin Chan, Pacifica, stated he was the vice president of Pacifica’s Youth Advisory Board and Terra Nova Student Council, and is one of many youth who cares deeply about our city, its future, and our youth community. He requested a City Council liaison to the Youth Advisory Board.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, stated, following Mr. Chan’s comment, she fully supported having a youth liaison to the City Council and the positive impacts it would have.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, stated that he thoroughly echoed the last two speakers.
Mayor Boles closed public comments.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the Youth Advisory Board meetings are held every second and fourth Wednesday from 6:00 pm to 7:00 p.m. at the Community Center.
The City Council made the following changes: Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory Committee primary changed from Boles to Wright and alternate changed from Wright to Boles; City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 12, 2026
North Coast County Water District primary changed from Wright to Beckmeyer and alternate changed from Beckmeyer to Wright; Peninsula Clean Energy JPA alternate changed from Wright to Espinosa; Economic Development Committee primary changed from Espinosa and Bier to Espinosa only and alternate added for Bier; Open Space Parkland Advisory Committee primary changed from Wright to Bier; and Youth Advisory Board primary added for Bier on the 2 nd Wednesdays and Wright on the 4th Wednesdays.
AGENCY Council
Representative(s)
Council
Alternate
ABAG General Assembly Delegate WRIGHT BECKMEYER
Airport Community Roundtable BOLES BECKMEYER
C/CAG Representative BECKMEYER WRIGHT
Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory
Committee WRIGHT BOLES
Emergency Services Council SMC BOLES WRIGHT
Fog Fest Committee Liaison BIER
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) - Member Agency Committee (MAC) BIER BOLES
North County Fire Authority JPA ESPINOSA &
WRIGHT
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) BECKMEYER WRIGHT Pacifica Community Television ESPINOSA BIER
Pacific Beach Coalition BOLES ESPINOSA
Pacifica Resource Center WRIGHT BOLES
Pacifica School Volunteers BIER BECKMEYER
Peninsula Clean Energy JPA BOLES ESPINOSA
Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance
(Commute.org) BIER BECKMEYER
SMC JPA Advanced Life Support / Pre-Hospital
Emergency WRIGHT BOLES
City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 12, 2026
SMC Library JPA - Gov. Board BIER BECKMEYER
APPOINTED BY OTHER AGENCIES:
* Cal Cities Environmental Quality Policy
Committee BOLES n/a
*Cal Cities Coastal Cities Group (CCG)
Leadership Committee, North Central
Representative (through Dec. 2026)
BECKMEYER n/a
* C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
BIER &
WRIGHT n/a
* C/CAG Legislative Committee WRIGHT n/a
* C/CAG Resource Management & Climate
Protection Committee (RMCP) BECKMEYER n/a
* Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) - Regular Member Board of Directors BIER n/a
* Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) WRIGHT n/a
* Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) Budget Committee WRIGHT n/a
CITY OF PACIFICA COMMITTEES /
COMMISSIONS:
Beautification Advisory Committee ESPINOSA BECKMEYER
Climate Action & Resilience Committee TBD TBD
Economic Development Committee ESPINOSA BIER
Emergency Preparedness & Safety Comm. BOLES none appointed Library Advisory Committee BECKMEYER BOLES
Open Space Parkland Advisory Committee BIER none appointed Youth Advisory Board (YAB) BIER (2nd Wed.) &
WRIGHT (4th Wed.)
Councilmember Bier moved to accept the amended list; seconded by Vice Mayor Wright.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 12, 2026
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bier stated, as a member of Pacifica’s Council and a neighbor in the community, she acknowledged fear and uncertainty are present and our greatest responsibility is to care for one another and protect our most vulnerable neighbors. Pacifica has always been a place where people can look out for each other, where compassion matters, and where we lead with our values rather than fear. Across the country, people are marching and peacefully protesting the actions of those who hold the highest level of power. These acts of civic engagement are rooted in love, hope, and a desire for justice. In Pacifica, creating spaces for safety, love, and support matters more than anything else. Our words and our actions should help people feel grounded, welcome and protected. She encouraged our community to pause for youth and choose connection over panic and be thoughtful about what we share, how we speak and how we show up for one another. Protecting our neighbors means checking in, offering reassurance and committing to calm fact-based communication. Pacifica is strongest when we stand together in dignity and care so let us continue to be a community where everyone belongs, where peaceful expression is expected and where love guides us through uncertainty.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that Supervisor Ray Mueller is having an Open House on Thursday, January 15, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. as well as the Fog Fest check distribution on Wednesday, January 14, at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Boles referenced the Sheriff’s meeting on January 13 at 6:00 pm.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that Mary Ann Nihart passed after their last Council meeting.
She was a powerhouse for Pacifica on this dais and was a leader for this neighborhood in Sharp Park and, especially at the County level, she was a beacon and chaired C/CAG for three years.
There is a memorial on Saturday, January 31, at the Community Center auditorium.
Mayor Boles stated that, at the next meeting, we will have a proper proclamation to celebrate her.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated at our next meeting he will introduce our new Economic and Housing Development Manager Gretchen Heckman and Dep. Director of Community Development Michael Christensen.
ADJOURN
Mayor Boles adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m., in memory of Mary Ann Nihart.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 12, 2026
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 3/9/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor