Pacifica council accepts Phase 2A report for Beach Boulevard resiliency project as funding gap remains

Pacifica City Council on Jan. 12 accepted a Phase 2A staff report on the Beach Boulevard infrastructure resiliency project, the multiyear plan to replace aging shoreline infrastructure and reduce storm‑related closures of Beach Boulevard and access to the pier.

The staff presentation, led by Deputy Public Works Director and City Engineer Roland Yip and GHD project staff, summarized Phase 1 choices and the 35% design in Phase 2A. The plan centers on deep‑foundation steel pipe piles with a concrete cap to support an elevated promenade and parapet, a rock scour apron in front of the vertical face, and an initial beach nourishment placement. Yip said the design raises the top of the seawall to roughly 30 feet at the pier, stepping to 28–32 feet along the reach.

City staff described the project's schedule and funding needs. Yip said early planning and Phase 1 work were funded in part by California Assembly Bill 74 and disaster accounting funds (about $1.5 million total), and that the team sought multiple grants for Phase 2B environmental work and later construction. He told the council the city was not selected for a Department of Boating and Waterways shoreline erosion control grant and that a previously shortlisted federal BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) program that could have contributed roughly $50 million was canceled, creating a substantial funding gap.

“We had a department of boating and waterways shoreline erosion control grant that we applied for for fiscal year 25–26 for $2.5 million. However, our project was not selected for that grant,” Yip said. He later confirmed the project team submitted an application to a climate bond program and that decisions would be announced on a rolling basis.

Staff estimated a present‑day construction cost in the order of $80 million and said the 35% cost estimate includes an initial beach nourishment first placement of about $14 million and that operations and maintenance (replenishment) funding on the order of $30 million should be sought so nourishment can be repeated as needed.

Public commenters and several council members pressed the project team on alternatives — in particular nature‑based solutions such as reefs, groins or larger nourishment programs — and on the relative costs and likely longevity of different approaches. Jim Kramer, a Sharp Park resident active in coastal planning, urged parallel planning of non‑armoring alternatives. "Wouldn't it be prudent to simultaneously develop alternatives to hard armor for infrastructure protection, in case the armor plan proves untenable?" he said.

Staff responded that Phase 1 had evaluated alternatives and that the environmental review (an EIR anticipated for Phase 2B) will again analyze alternatives and potential impacts to adjacent shorelines. They said the Army Corps CAP‑204 study will examine dredge material and the feasibility of placement and that the Corps will study reefs, but that constructing a reef can be far costlier in this high‑wave environment. Roland Yip summarized Phase 1 estimates showing that a reef or large sand‑retention structure could cost in the $80–100 million range while the first nourishment placement appeared roughly $14 million in the 35% estimate; a retention structure might extend nourishment intervals but would not eliminate ongoing replenishment.

Staff also reviewed recent storm impacts: the city logged about $180,000 in contractor costs for three breaches during the recent winter and told the council the total cost of seawall breaches since 2016 exceeded approximately $1 million. Yip said the north wall, which lacks a deep foundation, is in the worst condition and that structural assessments have suggested vulnerable sections could be at significant risk within roughly 5–10 years absent replacement.

Council members pressed staff on timing, the feasibility of phasing (building the north wall first), drainage and pump station needs at the Clarendon gap, and whether design decisions should plan for additional vertical adjustments in the future if higher sea level rise scenarios materialize. Staff said the design incorporates 2 feet of sea level rise into the Day‑1 design event and that the EIR/permitting phases will further refine impacts and alternatives.

After public comment and council questions, Vice Mayor Wright moved and the council accepted the Phase 2A report. Staff said the acceptance advances the project into environmental documentation and the next phases of grant‑seeking and permitting.

The project has substantial outstanding funding needs and a long lead time: staff projected environmental documentation and coastal permitting might each take 24+ months, with final design and construction following, meaning major construction remains years away unless additional funding is secured.

What happens next: staff will proceed with preparing the project description for a draft EIR, pursue grant opportunities and further coordination with permitting agencies, and continue outreach on alternatives and phasing. The council accepted the report to advance that work.