Shoreline adaptation

Drawing on military disaster-response experience, said the seawall should be the council's paramount public safety concern and every funding avenue should be on the table.

Urged honesty about costs, no predetermined outcomes, consideration of nature-based solutions funded by Prop 4, and collaboration with the Pacifica Land Trust.

Aligned with Casillas; said past engagement ignored community input, asked for meetings held in affected neighborhoods, and urged decoupling SB 272 from the SSRAs.

Recommended meeting people where they are — farmers markets, Second Saturdays, beaches — with an educational component and youth involvement.

Said the city's outreach isn't robust, people learn things after they happen, and urged listening to data and to voices not normally heard.

Recalled the past seawall process choosing an overseas firm with limited seawall experience, and asked for more care and competency this time.

Said past engagement summaries seemed slanted toward predetermined solutions — performative rather than genuine listening.

Asked what the purpose of the engagement is — and whether it's open to actually changing plans if the public rejects the SSRAs.

Questioned the purpose of engagement, funding for armoring and mitigation, and whether options like moving infrastructure and nature-based solutions will be included.

Recommended door-to-door surveys, community education, and consultants presenting options evaluated by cost, lifespan, and impact.