Construction projects will be required to use appropriate erosion prevention techniques, sediment control measures, and best management practices in accordance with City specifications and the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.
• Treatment Control. Require that new development implement treatment control BMPs (or structural treatment BMPs) where the combination of site design and source control BMPs is not sufficient to protect water quality and comply with applicable water quality permits.
Stormwater treatment systems must meet the numeric sizing criteria established in the NPDES Permit, and must be operated and maintained in compliance with the NPDES Permit.
Infrastructure and Water Quality. Ensure that the design and construction of new infrastructure elements does not contribute to stream bank or hillside erosion or creek or wetland siltation, and incorporates site design and source control BMPs, construction phase BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize impacts to water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.
Green Infrastructure. Require that new development projects incorporate inclusion of low impact development drainage design into storm drain infrastructure on public and private lands, including streets, roads, storm drains, parking lots, building roofs, and other storm drain infrastructure elements.
1.f
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-13
Erosion Control. Manage erosion in the Planning Area, particularly in watershed areas, through on-site erosion control.
Construction projects will be required to use appropriate erosion prevention techniques, sediment control measures, and best management practices in accordance with City Specifications and General Conditions of Approval and the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.
Minimize Site Disturbance. Require the use of best practices during development design and construction to preserve natural resources, such as soil, trees, native plants, and permeable surfaces.
Reduce Impervious Surfaces. Enable natural drainage by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on a development site, whenever feasible.
Techniques that help accomplish this objective:
• Designing development projects to share driveways;
• Placing parking lots under buildings, whenever feasible; and • Using permeable paving materials on walkways and driveways, whenever feasible.
On-site Stormwater Management. Continue to require all small projects and detached single-family home projects, as defined under the NPDES Permit, to incorporate site design measures that facilitate groundwater recharge and natural hydrological processes, allowing stormwater to infiltrate the ground on-site and/or be collected for reuse in landscaping and designated to on-site stormwater detention facilities.
Techniques for on-site stormwater management include use of:
• “Rain gardens” or bioretention areas in yards, parks, and parking lots; • Landscaped drainage swales along roadways;
• Green roofs;
• Permeable pavers for walkways and parking areas;
• Rain barrels for harvesting runoff from rooftops;
• Tree box filters for on-street filtration;
• Parking areas that direct stormwater flow into vegetated areas; • Grading that lengthens flow paths and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak flow rate; and • Cisterns or sub-surface retention facilities that capture rainwater for use in irrigation and nonpotable uses.
Prevent Contaminated Runoff. Ensure that new parking lots and commercial development incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oil, grease, solvents, battery acid, coolant, gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants from the site.
Runoff from areas serving vehicle traffic, structures, landscaping, loading areas, repair and maintenance bays, fueling areas, vehicle/equipment wash areas, outdoor material storage areas, and waste storage areas should be prevented or minimized.
1.f
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-14
Oil and Hazardous Substance Spills. Provide protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances in relation to any development or transportation of such materials.
For any accidental spills that do occur, the City will require immediate and effective containment, and cleanup facilities and procedures.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Sanitary Sewer Discharge. Ensure that discharges of treated wastewater from the Calera Creek Wastewater Recycling Plant continue to comply with the Sanitary Sewer System Permit.
The City will manage the release of treated wastewater as part of habitat restoration along Calera Creek, and pursue the use of recycled water for irrigation and other uses.
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Coastal Act seeks to protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) from any significant disruption of their habitat values by providing strict limits on what may be allowed within these areas and ensuring that adjacent development will be compatible with habitat (Section 30240). Marine resources must also be maintained (Section 30230).
Pacifica contains some of the most natural habitat on the San Francisco Peninsula, providing for a wide variety of native plant and animal species, and natural communities. Some of these species and communities, have special legal status, having been listed under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts, or having been listed under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Concern, California Native Plant Society, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern or other regulating authority. Portions of the Coastal Zone have been noted as especiallyfor high habitat value (providing important resources to plants and wildlife) valuable because of their special nature, such asproviding important resources to plants and wildlife, use as a migration corridor, or their potential to be designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas are defined by the California Coastal Act as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” These areas are to be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources are to be allowed within those areas. Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas must be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats
Plant communities and habitats found in Pacifica are briefly described below and depicted in Figure 4-2, Vegetation. The map is illustrative and for information purposes only; site-specific biological studies are required as part of proposed development review to determine the presence and extent of plant communities and habitat. The EIR for the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update includes a more detailed description of each of these communities and habitats. The listed mapped communities and habitats here are
4.4 1.f
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-15
not intended to preclude the possibility that other communities species or habitat occur within Pacifica, nor to definitively conclude that .. Species identified with various the plant communities or habitats identified are not necessarily present as indicated, rather tThe map is a tool to help identify areas where further evaluation for biological issues may be relevant. in the Planning Area. Some of these communities are recognized as “special status communities,” or provide critical habitat for special status species.
Annual Grasslands/Prairie
Annual Ggrasslands in Pacifica occur mostGrasslands/Coastal Prairie in Pacifica occur Milagra Ridge, Sweeney Ridge, Cattle Ridge, Mori Point, Aramai Point (formerly Rockaway Headland), San Pedro Valley Park, the San Pedro Mountain hills and Pedro Point Headlands occur most and often in a mosaic with coastal scrub and are dominated by non-native annual grass species and a variety of other non-native weeds. The grasslands in Pacifica are of limited and highly disturbed nature, having been damaged through unauthorized vehicle activity that has created off-road trails on hillsides. Grasslands attract reptiles and amphibians, including several lizard species and the western rattlesnake. Annual Ggrasslands are important foraging grounds for bats and other mammals such as coyote, black-tailed deer, jackrabbits, and various rodents. Small rodents attract raptors (birds of prey) including hawks, owls, and turkey vultures. The grasslands in Pacifica are limited and highly disturbed nature, having been damaged through unauthorized vehicle activity that has created off-road trails on hillsides. In urban situations, grassland patches tend to support more disturbancetolerant animals adapted to impacted environments, such as fox squirrels, skunks, raccoons, rats, and mice.
Over the past thirty years extensive work has been accomplished to protect, preserve and restore native, perennial grasses and forbs at Pedro Point Headlands (PPH), Aramai Point, Mori Point and Milagra Ridge.
The Pedro Point Headlands restoration was supported by a grant awarded by California State Parks and Recreation Division to the Pacifica Land Trust to repair off- highway vehicle damage. Grassland and prairie are being protected in other publicly managed lands as well. Unprotected grassland/ prairie remnants continue on Harmony 1, Rockaway Rock, the Quarry, Cattle Hill, along Fassler, Esplanade, Palmetto, and Fish and Bowl.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN GRASSLAND HABITATS
Special-status species3that have the potential to occur in grassland habitats around Pacifica include the Mission blue butterfly, San Bruno elfin butterfly, Crystal Springs fountain thistle, Marin western flax, San Mateo thorn-mint, white-rayed pentachaeta, Crystal Springs lessingia, pappose tarplant, and San Francisco owl’s clover.4
3 “Special-status” plant and animal species are defined in more detail in the Special-status Species section of this chapter. Briefly, they are:
• Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and the Native Plant Protection Act as endangered, threatened, or depleted; species that are candidates or proposed for listing; or species that are designated as rare or fully protected. • Locally rare species defined by CEQA Guidelines Sections, which may include species that are designated as sensitive, declining, rare, locally endemic, or as having limited or restricted distribution by various federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and watch lists. 4 John Northmore Roberts & Associates et al., 1992; State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990.
4.4 4.5
1.f
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-16
Coastal Bluff Scrub
Coastal bluff scrub is found along the immediate coast line to the west of Highway 1,. It consists of a mosaic of open sand, native low growing shrubs and herbaceous perennials. Native species present include dwarf coyote brush, silver bush lupine, yellow bush lupine, seaside woolly sunflower, bunchgrass, buckhorn plantain, beach evening primrose, beach bur, yellow sand verbena, beach saltbush, and beach morning glory.
Other exotic species are Italian ryegrass, bull thistle, and fennel. 5 Non-native iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis)
New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides) have been virtually eradicated and replaced with appropriate natives grown and planted by volunteers.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN COASTAL BLUFF SCRUB HABITAT
Special-status species that may be found in this habitat around Pacifica are bumblebee scarab beetle, sandy beach tiger beetle, Hickman’s cinquefoil, blue coast gilia, coast yellow leptosiphon, coastal marsh milk-vetch, coastal triquetrella, compact cobwebby thistle, Franciscan thistle, Point Reyes horkelia, rose leptosiphon, San Francisco Bay spineflower, and short-leaved evax. Bank swallows, double-crested cormorants, and big freetailed bats may use cliff sides for nesting.
Northern Coastal Scrub
Northern coastal scrub habitat is found on undeveloped slopes, often in a mosaic with annual grasslands.
Northern maritime chaparral, a special-status community, is included in this category. Northern coastal scrub is dominated by either coyote brush or California sagebrush, primarily depending on slope aspect. North facing slopes support a greater diversity of shrub species and canopy cover than south facing slopes. Coastal scrub habitat, often interspersed with other habitats, provides foraging and nesting habitat for species that are attracted to edges of plant communities. These include various bird species, including hummingbirds; small mammals including skunks, rabbits, gophers, and rodents; larger predators such as fox, coyotes, mountain lions, and bobcat; and small reptiles.6
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN NORTHERN COASTAL SCRUB HABITAT Special-status animals that may use northern coastal scrub around Pacifica include merlins, dusky-footed woodrat, Mission blue butterfly, and San Bruno elfin butterflies. Special-status plants with the potential to occur include: Pacific manzanita, Presidio manzanita, San Bruno manzanita, San Francisco lessingia, Choris’ popcorn-flower, Davidson’s bush-mallow, fragrant fritillary, Kellogg’s horkelia, Montara manzanita, Oregon polemonium, pale yellow hayfield tarplant, San Francisco campion, San Francisco collinsia, and San Francisco gumplant.
Eucalyptus
This habitat type is dominated by planted Eucalyptus species, primarily blue-gum eucalyptus. Groves of eucalyptus are dense and form a closed canopy, restricting other native overstory trees to clearings.
Eucalyptus trees have allelopathic properties, releasing chemicals into the soil to reduce or inhibit growth of other plants. In addition, they produce extensive leaf and bark litter which further inhibits the growth of understory plants. Eucalyptus trees provide perching, roosting, and nesting sites for larger birds, such as crows, ravens, red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and barn owls. The migratory monarch butterfly frequently roosts in eucalyptus trees in the winter.
5 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990; ESA surveys, 2008 6 John Northmore Roberts & Associates et al., 1992
4.6 1.f
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-17
Monterey Cypress
Small patches of Monterey cypress occur throughout the Planning Area in planted stands surrounded by a mosaic of scrub and grasslands. The largest stand occurs at the north end of the Planning Area. Although the small patches of Monterey cypress found in Pacifica are unlikely to support significant wildlife populations, they complement surrounding habitats by providing nesting and roosting substrates for birds as well as shelter for other animals.
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Areas with riparian mixed hardwood habitat occur along San Pedro Creek, Rockaway Creek, Calera Creek, and Laguna Salada. Native trees that are found include red alder, various willow species, and creek dogwood.
Riparian areas also host native herbs and emergent vegetation, as well as various nonnative ivies, grasses, blackberry, and other plants.7 Riparian areas provide foraging ground for birds and small mammals, and habitat for small reptiles and amphibians.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN RIPARIAN MIXED HARDWOOD HABITAT Special-status wildlife that could be present in the riparian corridor includes tricolored blackbirds, raptors such as Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and great blue heron.
Seasonal Wetlands and Ponds
Seasonal wWetlands occur in smaller drainages and localized depressions, forming ponds or flowing water, and are underlain by saturated soils during the winter and spring. Seasonal wWetlands also occur along the banks and sediments that accumulate in creeks, Wetlands in Pacifica are found along riparian areas, drainages, along the coast, and as fresh and brackish water marshes (such as on the Sharp Park Golf Course). Vegetation and wildlife found in wetlands varies with water characteristics, inundation patterns, surrounding habitat, and level of disturbance.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN SEASONAL WETLANDS AND PONDS
The California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, Leech’s skyline diving beetle, San Francisco forktail damselfly, Tomales isopod, western pond turtle, and bristly sedge are special-status species that may be found in wetlands in and around Pacifica. The wetlands in Sharp Park are also known to support saltmarsh common yellowthroat. Seasonal wetlands and ponds at Mori Point and Sharp Park Golf Course also known to support the California red-legged frog as well as the San Francisco garter snake.
Streams
Streams are important habitat features in Pacifica as they can function as movement corridors as well as providing protective cover. Wildlife species that are associated with stream habitat include river otters, great blue heron, snowy egret, belted kingfisher, dark-eyed junco, and black phoebe. Black-tailed deer, raccoon, opossum, and grey fox may use the creeks as movement corridors. Fish species present include the prickly sculpin, the Pacific lamprey, and the threespine stickleback. 7 San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2005
4.7 4.7
4.7 1.f
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-18
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN STREAMS
The federally threatened steelhead trout use parts of San Pedro Creek for spawning, including the main portion parallel to Linda Mar Boulevard, as well as the middle and south forks in San Pedro County Park. 8 This is the only stream with a steelhead population between the Golden Gate Bridge and Half Moon Bay.
Lower Calera Creek on the Quarry site supports the federally-threatened California red-legged frog and the Endangered San Francisco garter snake.
Beach/Intertidal
Significant expanses of continuous sandy shoreline occur along the San Mateo coastline, including in Pacifica.
Beaches are dynamic systems that change with wind and waves; generally, sand is eroded from beaches in the winter and re-deposited in the summer, resulting in annual changes in beach slope and width.
Beach habitats can be divided into supratidal, intertidal, and subtidal. The supratidal beach fauna consists of sand crabs, California beach flea, amphipods, polychaete worms, flies, and isopods that feed on detritus; these species in turn are fed on by a variety of birds. The by-the-wind sailor, a jellyfish-like colony of organisms, frequently washes up on the upper beach areas. Exposed rocks or cobble, especially at the lower intertidal areas, can have attached algae, mussels, and barnacles. Intertidal areas are home to the Pacific egg cockle and spiny mole crab. The Subtidal zone is primarily inhabited by fish such as surf perch, striped bass, salmon, anchovies, sanddabs, California halibut, and the starry flounder. 9
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN BEACH/INTERTIDAL HABITAT
Some special-status species may be found in the shallow waters off of Pacifica. Harbor seals and sea lions haul out on isolated beaches and sands spits. The endangered black abalone may be present in intertidal areas attached to rocks. The threatened green sturgeon may also forage in the shallow waters off of Pacifica. Both the gray whale and southern sea otter use the nearshore waters, and the California brown pelican is also frequently observed. Pacifica State Beach in the 1970s hosted nesting Western Snowy Plovers, a Federally listed threatened species. Since 2003 volunteers have regularly surveyed and monitored the plovers and have seen only wintering plovers in declining numbers. ESHA is required on the north half of the beach where plovers roost and feed.
Dunes
Dune habitat includes areas with sandy substrates proximate to the marine environment and may range from bare to vegetated with species typical of foredune and dune scrub communities, including non-natives such as iceplant and invasive grasses. Dune form topography may or may not be evident, depending on the condition of the dune and past land use or invasions, but may be readily restored. While most dunes occur near sea level, there are several examples of perched dune systems atop bluffs in Pacifica, where aeolian forces have created the substrate and processes appropriate to support dune vegetation. All areas that meet this definition of Dunes are categorically considered ESHA.
8 San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2005
9 BLM, 1981; State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990
4.8 1.f
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-19
Figure 4-2: Vegetation
1.f
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-20
Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas are defined by the California Coastal Act as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” These areas are to be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources are to be allowed within those areas. Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas must be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
Figure 4-3 identifies potential ESHAs in the Planning Area in three general categories: wetland, stream/riparian, and other terrestrial ESHAs. These Ppotential ESHAs include all current designated critical habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species; known special status communities10; and areas designated as “other potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas”. Figure 4-3 is meant to serve as a flag for further studies to be undertaken when development is proposed. However, the map is illustrative and for information purposes only; site-specific biological studies are required as part of proposed development review to determine the presence and extent of ESHA and its required buffer zone. And oOther information than Figure 4-3 may dictate the need for such studies as well (e.g., site evaluation, other studies nearby, etc.), even if the area is not mapped as potential ESHA on Figure 4-3.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat areas are for species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. These areas contain features that are essential for the conservation of the species and may require special management and protection.
Critical habitat for the California red-legged frog has been designated in the southeast portion of the City of Pacifica, outside the Coastal Zone. This area contains both aquatic and upland areas with suitable breeding and non-breeding habitat11. A final ruling was issued in March 2010 to expand the current critical habitat from 450,288 acres to 1,804,865 acres statewide, including additional parts of the Planning Area, including on Pedro Point Headlands in the Coastal Zone (see Figure 4-3, Sensitive and Critical Habitat).
San Pedro Creek is known to support steelhead trout, a federally listed threatened species. They spawn in the main portion of the creek that runs parallel to Linda Mar Boulevard, as well as the middle and south forks in San Pedro County Park. However, conditions in parts of the creek limit its suitability for steelhead habitat, including barriers to fish passage at main stem road crossings, low base flows, mobilization and accumulation of fine sediments in the main stem, deterioration of water quality, disturbance, and exploitation.
Nearshore marine areas off of Pacifica are part of the Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that this, which includes Pacifica’s shoreline, is of high conservation value.
Special-Status Communities
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicates that there is an area of northern maritime chaparral at the south end of the Planning Area, in San Pedro Valley County Park and on Whiting Ridge and 10 A “special-status natural community” is a natural habitat community that is unique in its constituent components, restricted in distribution, supported by distinctive soil conditions, considered locally rare, potentially supporting special-status plant or wildlife species, and/or that receives regulatory recognition from municipal, county, state, and/or federal entities such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 11 San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2002
4.9 1.f
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-21
Montara Mountain. This community is fairly open chaparral, with about 50–80 percent cover, and it is dominated by Manzanita or Ceanothus species. An area of coastal bluff scrub has been identified at the north end of Pacifica. Coastal bluff scrub communities are found on steep, exposed bluffs along the ocean and are dominated by low shrubs and ground-hugging herbaceous species. It is particularly important for stabilizing sand dunes. Both bluff and northern coastal scrub habitat has been damaged by unauthorized vehicle activity and pedestrian use.
Other Potential ESHA
Areas around Mori Point and Sharp Park Golf Course are likely to qualify as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Any proposed development on land designated on the Sensitive and Critical Habitat map (Figure 4-3) as having potential to include an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area requires a site-specific evaluation by qualified biologists. The site evaluation will determine the precise location and extent of sensitive resources, if any, and establish appropriate development setbacks and standards to ensure that resources are protected.
Special-Status Species
Several species known to occur in the vicinity of the Planning Area are accorded “special-status” because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline. Some of these receive specific protections defined in federal or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “sensitive” by state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise. For purposes of this Local Coastal Land Use Plan, special-status species include:
• Plant and animal species designated as rare, threatened or endangered under the federal or state endangered species acts (ESA);
• Species that are candidates for listing under either federal or state law; • Species designated by the USFWS as species of concern or species of local concern, or by CDFG as species of special concern;
• Species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711); • Bald and golden eagles protected by the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668); and • Species such as candidate species and CNPS List 1 and 2 species that may be considered rare or endangered pursuant to Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Of particular interest are the Mission Blue Butterfly and the San Francisco garter snake, federally listed as Endangered; the California red-legged frog and the Central California Coast Steelhead trout, federally listed as Threatened; the Western snowy plover, which is federally listed as Threatened and a California Species of Special Concern; and Myrtle’s Silverspot big free-tailed bat, a California Species of Special Concern. A comprehensive list of species that are either known or presumed to be in the Planning Area based on suitable habitat is in the EIR.
1.f
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-22
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
In addition to these species, additional migratory birds, raptors, and common bat species are subject to general protections provided by state and federal regulations.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The large number of special-status plants and the severity of their population declines are reflective of the degree of habitat loss that has occurred throughout the San Francisco Peninsula. Outside of San Bruno Mountain, Pacifica encompasses the northernmost natural habitat on the peninsula. Due to extensive coastal development throughout neighboring counties, beach and bluff species have also become rare.
Of the special-status plant species listed in the EIR, 38 special-status plants have the potential to occur within the Planning Area. These species have been recorded in the vicinity and/or may be present in suitable habitat on site.
Certain trees within the city limits are also protected, including heritage trees and street trees. Heritage trees are any trees in the city that have a trunk with a circumference of 50 inches or more, at 24 inches above grade, excluding eucalyptus. The City Council may also designate any tree or grove of trees with historical, environmental, or aesthetic value as Heritage Trees. Heritage Trees generally require special permits for removal, substantial trimming, or construction within its drip-line; in some cases, a Tree Protection Plan prepared by a qualified arborist, landscape architect, or horticulturalist may be required prior to project approval. The City is in the process of updating the Heritage Tree ordinance found at Chapter 12 of Title 4 of the Municipal Code. These require special permits for removal, substantial trimming, or construction within its drip-line; in some cases, a Tree Protection Plan prepared by a qualified arborist, landscape architect, or horticulturalist may be required prior to project approval.
1.f
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-23
Figure 4-3: Sensitive & Critical Habitat
1.f
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-24
Policies
Guiding Policies
ER-G-5 Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat.
Habitat can be protected by allowing very limited or no development, by identifying habitat areas as top priorities for permanent conservation, and by managing public land to ensure species protection. Critical Habitat in the Coastal Zone is considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).
ER-G-6 Coastal Environment and Special Status Communities. Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and special status communities, particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs. Prohibit development in coastal dunes to preserve dune formations, vegetation, and wildlife habitats. Prevent overuse in dune areas by mechanisms such as restricting parking and directing pedestrian traffic through signage and sand fencing to areas capable of sustaining such use. Prohibit motor vehicles in dune areas except for emergency purposes, and prohibit motor vehicles in non-dune beach areas except for emergency and essential maintenance purposes and where previously coastal permitted.
Special status communities in the Coastal Zone are considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).
ER-G-7 Creeks and Riparian Areas as Habitat. Protect year-round and intermittent creeks and their riparian habitats.
San Pedro Creek has been designated an “impaired waterway” by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and provides critical habitat to a federally-listed threatened species, the California coast population of steelhead.
ER-G-8 Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect other potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), High Value or High Habitat Value areas, and Wildlife Movement Corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values.
ER-G-9 Open Space Conservation. and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.
Implementing Policies
Protection of Biological Resources with New Development. Protect sensitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures:
1) The City shall avoidDiscourage development and/or buildout in critical habitat of special status species during the development review process. 2) Pre-construction plant and wildlife surveys: Project applicants shall engage a qualified biologist to conduct presence/absence biological surveys for sensitive plant and
4.10 4.11
1.f
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-25
wildlife species prior to construction adjacent to or within areas identified as potential ESHAs on Figure 4-3, or as otherwise indicated and needed. special status communities and other sensitive areas identified in Figure 4-3. If special status species are identified, the qualified biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and establish no-disturbance buffers around the special status specie to avoid disturbance and direct impacts to these resources during construction. If no special status species are detected during surveys, then construction-related activities may proceed. Nesting birds, in particular, are protected by two means; they receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and nesting raptors (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) are protected under the State Fish and Game Code, §3503.5.
3) Require biological resource assessments be conducted prior to approval for any development within 300 feet of creeks, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas, such as but not limited to areas in Figure 4-3. shown on Figure 4-3 of the General Plan. Such assessment shall identify means to avoid impacts to any such resources (including through siting, design, and LCP required buffers), and means of enhancing resources and providing offsetting and commensurate mitigation for unavoidable impacts that are LCP allowable.
4) Require on-site monitoring of biological resources by a qualified biologist throughout the duration of construction activity and afterwards, should approval conditions warrant.
5) Require compensatory mitigation by means of habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement; for the loss of any critical habitat and/or special status communities.
The City will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Regional Water Quality Control Board in providing developers with the best guidance to avoid impacts to special status species and habitat areas including creeks, wetland features, woodlands, or other sensitive natural features.
Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Protect all sensitive species with defined or potential habitat by establishing specific habitat survey requirements, development limitations, and other requirements to mitigate potential impacts.
Verification of ESHA. Prior to any proposed development in an ESHA or potential ESHA, require that a habitat survey be conducted by a qualified botanist or biologist. The habitat survey will verify whether the site is an ESHA, and document the extent of the sensitive resources, document potential negative impacts to the habitat, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Verification of an ESHA shall be based on the following considerations:
• Presence of natural communities identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (determined by a state rarity ranking of S1 to S3). • Recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened or endangered under State or federal law.
4.12 4.12
4.12 1.f
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-26
• Recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species for which there is compelling evidence or rarity, such as a designation of 1B (rare or endangered in California or elsewhere) or 2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere) by the California Native Plant Society.
• Presence of coastal waterways.
• Integrity of the habitat and its connectivity to other natural areas. • Historical evidence of ESHA.
Management of ESHA. If the area qualifies as an ESHA under the California Coastal Act, the following regulations apply:
• No new development shall be allowed within primary habitat areas ESHA with the exception of resource-dependent uses (such as habitat management and restoration, scientific research and educational activities, and low-intensity public access and recreation) that can be demonstrated to have no significant adverse impact disruption of habitat values.
• Buffer areas shall be established around all sensitive resources ESHA, providing a minimum of 100 feet, and varying may be expanded as needed to account for feeding, breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements. New buildings in buffer areas shall be allowed only if there are no feasible development areas on the parcel.
The 100-foot buffer may be reduced by the minimum necessary (1) to avoid a taking (for private development), or (2) to provide required public services (for public development), provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, and no less than 50 feet in any case, and provided that ESHA resource impacts are avoided as much as possible, and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated, all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City, USFWS, and CDFW. areas on the parcel. Exceptions to such buffer requirements should be supported by a biological report demonstrating that the adjusted buffer, in combination with incorporated siting, design or other mitigation measures, will prevent impacts that significantly degrade the ESHA and will be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. Buffer adjustments should also be limited to where the entire subject legal lot is within the buffer or where it is demonstrated that development outside the buffer would have a greater impact on the ESHA. • Development shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would degrade adjacent habitat areas, taking into account drainage, vegetation, topography, and other considerations.
• Alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation, impervious surfaces, noise, light, and glare shall be minimized as much as possible.
Fencing. Any fencing or barriers located within riparian ESHAs or wildlife corridors shall permit the free passage of wildlife.
4.13 4.14
4.14 4.14
1.f
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-27
Fuel Modification. Ensure that new development is sited and designed to minimize the need for fuel modification and vegetation clearance in order to avoid or minimize the disturbance or destruction of habitat and existing hydrology while still providing for fire safety as necessitated by the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program. Prohibit new development that would require fuel modification within ESHAs.
Monitoring Requirements. Require a Restoration and Monitoring Proposal for any proposed habitat restoration or mitigation. The Proposal should describe the methods and practices to be employed, and include:
• A clear statement of the goals of the restoration or mitigation for all habitat types; • Sampling of reference habitat, with reporting of resultant data; • Designation of a qualified biologist as the Restoration or Mitigation Manager responsible for all phases of the restoration;
• A specific grading plan, if the topography must be altered; • A specific erosion control plan, if soil or other substrate will be disturbed during restoration;
• A weed eradication plan designed to eradicate existing weeds and control future invasion by exotic species;
• A planting plan based on the natural habitat type;
• An irrigation plan that describes the method and timing of watering and ensures removal of watering infrastructure by the end of the monitoring period; • An interim monitoring plan with performance goals, assessment methods, and a schedule; and
• A final monitoring plan to determine whether the restoration has been successful.
Construction during Nesting Season. If site work or construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), then pre-construction breeding bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to any site disturbance to ensure that no nests will be disturbed or destroyed during Project implementation. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction activities, then the biologist shall create a no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around passerine nests and a 500 foot buffer around raptor nests. Work-free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the breeding season or until after the qualified biologist determines the young have fledged (usually late June through mid-July).
Nests initiated during active construction would be presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer zone around such nests is not necessary. However, nests shall be flagged and construction activity shall avoid killing and/or injuring nesting birds.
Pre-Construction Bat Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for special-status and non-listed bat species will be performed by a qualified biologist if large trees (>4 ft. diameter at breast height) are to be removed or underutilized or vacant buildings are to be demolished. A no4.15
1.f
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-28
disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be created around active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes.
Protection of the Californian Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake during Construction. To minimize disturbance, require all Allowed construction activity with the potential to impact California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snake grading activity within 100 feet of identified aquatic habitat shall be conducted during the dry season (May 1 through October 15) to protect California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. A In such cases a qualified biologist shall conduct presence/absence surveys for California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake prior to construction in or adjacent to riparian areas, grasslands near ponds/wetlands, or other sensitive habitat. Any individuals identified shall be treated in consultation with USFWS. Construction shall follow accepted procedures for exclusion and avoidance of California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and their habitat. Additionally, the biologist shall supervise the installation of exclusion fencing along the boundaries of the work area, shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction workers, and shall be present during initial vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities.
Invasive Plant Species. Prohibit the use of invasive plant species (i.e., any California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)-listed species with a status of high or moderate, or identified as locally-threatening under the limited, alert, or watch status). adjacent to wetlands, riparian areas, ESHAs, or other sensitive habitat.
A list of invasive species should be developed in coordination with Sustainable San Mateo County.
Beach Grooming. Work with the State of California, GGNRA, and other partners in the management of beaches in Pacifica to ensure biological resources are not adversely affected by beach grooming. Specifically, protect beach wrack (the piles of plant and animal debris that wash ashore), which plays an important role in the beach ecosystem.
Biological Productivity. Maintain—and where feasible, restore—the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, and lakes in order to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and to protect human health.
Techniques may include:
• Minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharge;
• Controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow;
• Encouraging wastewater reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats; and
• Minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Regulations and Incentives to Preserve Habitat. Ensure that sensitive or critical habitat is protected, maintained, enhanced, or restored.
Possible techniques include:
• Zoning for very low density and clustered development where appropriate;
4.16 1.f
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-29
• Requiring the preparation of a habitat survey in certain areas; and • Identifying appropriate “sending sites” in the City’s Transfer of Development Rights program.
Protection through Land Acquisition or Conservation Easements. Explore opportunities for public acquisition of land or conservation easements on parcels not currently designated for Conservation that have significant habitat value.
Public Land Management. Coordinate with GGNRA, State and County Parks, and the City and County of San Francisco to ensure that public open space lands are managed to optimize habitat protection for special status species while also providing for public access and other goals.
Key issues include maintaining viable habitat for the Mission Blue butterfly on Milagra and Sweeney ridges; for the California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake populations associated with Mori Point and Laguna Salada; and supporting migrating Western snowy plover at Pacifica State Beach.
Management of Public Coastal Access. Determinations for new access points to ensure regular public access should be made on a site-specific basis by considering:
• The capacity of the access way to sustain use;
• The intensity of access that can be sustained;
• The fragility of the natural resources in the accessing, and • The proximity of the access to adjacent residential uses.
Innovative access management techniques, include but are not limited to, agreements with private organizations that would minimize management costs and the use of volunteer programs.
POLICIES FOR SPECIFIC SITES
Northern Coastal Bluffs. Maintain the Planned Development zoning district for the private, developable land on the northern coastal bluffs to allow for the consideration of development standards that consider the potential environmental and scenic resources on the site.
Allowable density should be consistent with the Residential/Open Space/Agriculture designation. Where coastal bluff scrub vegetation is present, further analysis will be required prior to any development. Work with public agencies and others to facilitate permanent conservation of scenic resources in this area.
1.f
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-30
Bowl Site. Establish appropriate zoning for the “Bowl” site along the east side of Palmetto Avenue in Fairmont West for Planned Development to ensure site planning that clusters development, avoiding potential flooding or geotechnical hazards and protecting open space resources, and taking all other coastal resources site constraints into consideration.
Allowable density should be consistent with the Medium Density Residential designation.
4.4 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING
Several provisions of the Coastal Act aim to ensure that resource use activities may continue and thrive.
Sections 30234 and 30234.5 promote the preservation and enhancement of facilities for fishing and recreational boating. Sections 30241, 30241.5, and 30242 call for prime agricultural land to be preserved to the greatest extent, including ensuring that its viability is not compromised by adjacent development. Section 30243 states that timberlands should be protected. Pacifica’s Coastal Zone does not currently support any of these resource uses.
Agriculture
While agricultural operations are not predominant, aApproximately 360 acres in the City of Pacifica Planning Area currently have agriculture-related uses, mainly as horse boarding, but there are no agricultural uses within the Coastal Zone. No land in the Coastal Zone is classified as farmland by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Forestry
Portions of Pacifica‘s Coastal Zone are forested, including Eucalyptus, Riparian Mixed Hardwood, and Monterey Cypress, as shown on Figure 4-2, Vegetation.
The City defines logging operations as any removal, destruction or harvesting of 20 or more trees within one year from any parcel or contiguous parcel in the same ownership, and prohibits logging operations unless one of the following conditions is met:
• Operations have received Planning Commission and/or City Council approval; • Operations are necessary immediately for the safety of life or property, as determined by the Director of Public Works; or
• Operations occur on city-owned property and are necessary to maintain public health and safety.
Fishing and Recreational Boating
Pacifica does not currently have a marina or other facilities to support fishing or recreational boating.
Previous studies have concluded that land adjacent to Rockaway Beach at the Quarry site does not provide a feasible location for a marina to be developed. Pacifica’s beaches are popular for surfing and related water sports. This is important for the City’s identity and economy, and is discussed in Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation.
4.17 1.f
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-31
Policies
Guiding Policies
ER-G-10 Preserve Agricultural Open Space. Promote the preservation of agricultural open space in the Planning Area.
ER-G-11 Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.
Implementing Policies
Continuation of Agricultural and Related Uses. Where agricultural and related uses exist, allow compatible uses to continue.
Recreational Uses. Promote recreational uses, such as horse boarding and trail riding, which retain open space character while contributing to a visitor-based economy.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
With Section 30244, the Coastal Act reinforces other State Law to ensure that mitigation is required where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources. Pacifica has a rich history with regional and statewide significance, as it was home to several Native American villages as well as the site of the discovery of the San Francisco Bay. The Sanchez Adobe Historical Site along San Pedro Creek features physical evidence of several significant periods in California history.
Historic Context
Native Americans had an extensive presence in the Planning Area. When Europeans arrived, the area was home was to persons who spoke Ramaytush dialect speaking of the San Francisco Bay Costanoan/Ohlone language, and living in and around two villages: Pruristac, in San Pedro Valley, and Timiigtac, in Calera Valley.
The village at Timigtac is the Ramaytush Ohlone people’s ancestral village of origin within the territorial boundaries of the Aramai, an independent tribe of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples. In 1769, an expedition led by Gaspar de Portola, governor of the Spanish territory covering California, discovered San Francisco Bay from a point on Pacifica’s Sweeney Ridge, and camped in San Pedro Valley. Not long after, Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores in present-day San Francisco) was established, and in 1786 the Mission
1.f
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-32
developed an outpost in San Pedro Valley, alongside Pruristac. The Costanoan village was wiped outsignificantly affected by disease in 1791.12
Mexican independence from Spain was followed by a “secularization” program, and in 1839 the San Pedro mission outpost and its rancho, covering the majority of the Planning Area, was granted to Francisco Sanchez, who built the adobe house that stands today as the oldest structure in San Mateo County. Following his death, the land was divided and the area developed slowly.
In 1905 construction began on the Ocean Shore Railway, which was to connect San Francisco with Santa Cruz. The line was never completed, but operated as far south as Half Moon Bay until 1921, supporting a string of stops in present-day Pacifica including Tobin, Salada Beach, and Rockaway Beach. The communities surrounding the railway stops, including Edgemar, Sharp Park, Pacific Manor, Vallemar, Rockaway Beach, and San Pedro Terrace-by-the-Sea,grew slowly until the building boom following World War II. Pacifica incorporated as a City in 1957, as the union of these incorporated neighborhoods.
Native American Cultural Resources
Five Native American archaeological resources have been found and recorded in Pacifica, all classified as habitation sites. Two additional resources contain both Native American and historic-era archaeological value.
The Sanchez Adobe’sThe Sanchez Adobe, operated by the San Mateo County Historical Association as a historical site, ’s State Historical Landmark and Point of Historical Interest is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and operated by the San Mateo County Historical Association as an historical site. The Sanchez Adobe Park, site of the Pruristac village and the San Pedro mission outpost, or asistencia San Pedro y San Pablo of the Mission San Franciso de Asis (Missin Dolores), also is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The San Mateo County Historical Association recently dedicated in summer of 2021 a new building in Sanchez Adobe Park featuring the history and lifeways of the local Aramai-Ohlone who lived in the village of Pruristac. The facility is specifically designed to accommodate tours of school groups.
The Planning Area is rich with the types of environments where Native American cultural resources have been found: permanent and intermittent streams, productive coastal environments, and sheltered locations for permanent habitations, as well as ridgelines, terraces, spurs and saddles. The Planning Area also includes a significant amount of alluvial soil, which in some cases is overlaid by artificial fill, increasing the probability for buried archaeological deposits. There is considered to be a high likelihood that unrecorded Native American cultural resources are present.
Contemporary Native American Resources
As part of the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan update process, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a record search of the sacred lands file in 20092020. The search failed to indicate the did not indicate the presence of additional Native American cultural resources within the Planning Area. The NAHC response listed six tribes that may have historic ties to the Planning Area, and letters of inquiry were sent to the six tribal representatives; however, no responses were received. 12 California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), 2009
1.f
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-33
Policies
Guiding Policies
ER-G-12 Historic and Cultural Sites. Conserve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Pacifica’s identity and character and increase public awareness and appreciation for them.
ER-G-13 Ensure Mitigation. Require mitigation for any new development that would adversely affect historic, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources.
Implementing Policies
Resource Impact Mitigation. Ensure that new development analyzes and avoids potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources by:
• Conducting tribal consultations as required by law;
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historic or archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures as a condition of project approval—such as avoidance, preservation in place, and excavation,—to reduce or avoid impacts.
In the event that historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that may be used as guidelines.
Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.
Development on archaeologically sensitive sites requires on-site monitoring by appropriate Native American consultant(s) and a qualified archaeologist of all grading, excavation, and site preparation activities that involve earth-moving operations.
4.6 SCENIC AND VISUAL QUALITIES
The Coastal Act provides a framework for protecting scenic views and enhancing the visual quality of the “visually degraded areas,” by siting and designing development to protect views, protecting natural landforms, and other means (Section 30251). Section 30253 identifies the need to protect “special communities or neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”
1.f
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-34
Hillside Preservation
To protect important views from public areas and the sensitive terrain of hillside areas, the City has special development regulations for the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), which requires submission of development plans, grading plans, and other documentation. Hillside development also receives special consideration in the Design Guidelines, which are used to evaluate proposed projects. The key issues for hillside development are slope stability, grading, and visual impact.
Prominent ridgelines are identified based on their visual importance or scenic quality. Owners must focus development on suitable portions of their property off the ridges, to protect the scenic quality of ridgelines, except where ridgelines are the only buildable portions of the property. Prominent ridgelines are shown on Figure 4-4.
Coastal Development
The sensitive natural and visual resources of hillsides also apply to the undeveloped coastal bluffs and promontories, including the Northern Coastal Bluffs, the Quarry site uplands, and Rockaway Headlands.
Developed coastal areas also require special attention, not only because of their natural features but also for their potential as visitor destinations. The City’s Coastal Zone Combining District (CZ) ensures that the goals and policies of the California Coastal Act are followed. These goals include the protection and enhancement of the coastal environment, including its visual resources. Coastal development is also among the special issues treated by Pacifica’s Design Guidelines.
Three promontories dominate Pacifica's Coastal Zone and visually represent the coastal character of Pacifica.
These landforms—Pedro Point Headlands, Rockaway Headlands, and Mori Point (including the Quarry site uplands)—are shown on Figure 4-4. While much of this area has been permanently preserved, development may occur on the Rockaway Headlands or the Quarry site.
Views to the ocean and along the panoramic coastline are an integral part of Pacifica’s character, and a part that must be preserved for the future. Of primary importance are views of the ocean, landforms, and special coastal communities from public roadways, trails, and vista points. Important coastal view corridors are identified on Figure 4-4.
Scenic Routes
The State and County have identified Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road in Pacifica as eligible for scenic highway designation. Local scenic roadway designation requires a corridor study, a program to enhance the scenic qualities, and adoption of the scenic roadway designation and its protection plan. Such a plan may be prepared in the future. For the purpose of this Plan, what is important is that the scenic qualities of these roadways are preserved and enhanced.
Viewsheds
Highway 1 plays an important role in defining the image of Pacifica, creating a visual narrative for the traveler from one end of the City to the other. Sharp Park Road also represents an important visual summary of Pacifica, drawing travelers from the ridgeline at Skyline Boulevard to the coast, with views out to the Ocean and over the Sharp Park neighborhood and Golf Course. Several specific viewsheds from Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are shown on Figure 4-4. Other defining views include the view over the West Sharp Park district and Pacifica Pier from Highway 1; views toward Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge from Highway 1; and the view to the ocean from Grace McCarthy Vista Point on Sharp Park Road.
1.f
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-35
Roadway Enhancements
In addition to viewsheds from these roads, the character of the roadways themselves shapes visitors’ and residents’ experience of Pacifica. The appearance of the Coast Highway right-of-way in central Pacifica can be improved as part of roadway beautification projects in partnership with CalransCaltransthe Calera Parkway project. Other future improvements to the visual character of the Highway can include new and improved pedestrian over-crossings, and multi-use trails leading to the Devil’s Slide area. On Sharp Park Road, completion of bicycle improvements will improve the character of this roadway and make its scenic quality available to cyclists.
Development Character in the Highway 1 Corridor
Future development along Highway 1 will also influence the scenic qualities of the corridor.. Development can create a strong presence along the Highway, and harmonious transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. All new commercial development requires site development review, assisted by the Design Guidelines. As part of updating thetThe Guidelines will, the City should provide direction on how buildings should relate to Highway 1., at different segments of the Highway.
Gateways
Pacifica is introduced to southbound travelers with the experience of coming over the hill and seeing the expansive coastal vista. Northbound travelers come through the Devil’s Slide Tunnel, wind around the forested Pedro Point Headlands, and arrive at the active intersection with Linda Mar Boulevard. Skyline Boulevard acts as a coherent eastern boundary for the City, as it travels along the crest of the ridge with mature trees along its edges. From Skyline, Pacifica is entered via Sharp Park Road, Manor Drive, and Hickey Boulevard. While the “gateways” into Pacifica are strong, entry points from the east can be made stronger, and all entries treated with a consistent signage theme. Gateway locations are shown on Figure 4-4.
1.f
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-36
Figure 4-4: Visual Resources
1.f
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-37
Policies
Guiding Policies
ER-G-14 Hillsides and Prominent Ridgelines. Maintain development standards that ensure that new development does not detract from the visual qualities (e.g.,shape, form) of Pacifica’s hillsides and visually prominent ridgelines.
ER-G-15 Scenic and Visual Amenities of the Coastal Zone. Protect the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities in the Coastal Zone by protecting landforms, vegetation, special communities, and important viewsheds.
ER-G-16 Views from Scenic Routes. Ensure that designated viewsheds from Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are preserved and enhanced. These views are an essential part of Pacifica’s identity.
ER-G-17 Gateways. Create strong entrances and preserve the quality of the viewshedalong viewshed along primary travel routes, in particular along the coast.
Implementing Policies
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
Minimize Visual Impacts of Hillside Development. Require new development to employ innovative site planning, engineering and design techniques that:
• Seek first to avoid impacts to scenic resources onhillside landforms through site planning and design;
• Minimize grading and conform with natural landforms to the greatest extent possible; • Design structures so that they follow contours and limit their downslope exposure; and
• Use landscaping to screen and integrate buildings with the natural environment.
Protection of Ridgelines. Protect visually prominent ridgelines from residential and commercial development.
Local access roads and trails may be allowed on visually prominent ridgelines provided they follow contours, minimize grading, and are unobtrusive in their design.
Hillside Preservation District Requirements. Continue to implement the requirements of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), including submission of siting and grading plans.
Update the HPD to ensure that all steep slopes are covered and that sites on other terrain are not included.
Design Review. Continue to use Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed projects in Planned Development, Hillside Development, and Special districts.
1.f
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-38
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Landforms. Ensure that negative visual impacts resulting from new development in the Coastal Zone are minimized inn areas characterized by bluffs and landforms. Strategies to implement this policy include:
• Prohibiting development on slopes in excess of 35 percent and highly visible tops of prominent landforms;
• Requiring blufftop development to minimize impacts on the view from the ocean and beach below by implementing an appropriate setback from the bluff edge based on existing and projected height and location of the bluff edge from the beach; • Requiring that development be clustered and contoured into the existing slope; and • Requiring that new development be scaled and designed to be subordinate to landforms in the Coastal Zone.
Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Vegetation. Continue to require that disturbance to vegetation be minimized in new development and that graded areas be promptly replanted with native vegetation.
Headlands Special Area. In the zoning ordinancecode, update the Headlands Special Area for Aramai Pointthe Rockaway Headlands, to specify low-intensity visitor-serving uses such as hikers' huts and kiosks. A view restaurant may be appropriate if access can be created without harming biological or scenic resources.
Rockaway Quarry Site. Development on the Quarry site should be prioritized in the “flats” and should connect with the adjacent Rockaway Beach district. Development in areas of the Quarry site that would impact the visual qualities of surrounding hillsides or ridgelines should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible.
Trail Design on Coastal Headlands and Bluffs. Develop new trails on Pedro Point Headlands, the Rockaway HeadlandsAramai Point, the Quarry site uplands, and the Northern Coastal Bluffs in such a way that native vegetation is protected by limiting pedestrians to designated trails and preventing access by motorized vehicles.
Underground Utilities. Continue to require underground utilities in all new development.
New developments should include undergrounding For existing developed areas within scenic corridors, prioritize the relocation (e.g., undergrounding) of existing abovegroundoverhead utilities along each project frontage. Within scenic corridors, place lines underground or located there so they do not break the view line of a roadway vista.
This policy applies Citywide so they do not break the viewline of a roadway vista.
1.f
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-39
SCENIC ROUTES
Roadway Enhancements. Coordinate with Caltrans in an effort to ensure that future changes to the Coast Highway will also upgrade the appearance of the right-of-way.
Improvements should include landscaping and roadway design, as well as trails and visually-appealing pedestrian over-crossings.
Scenic Corridor Plans. Seek grant funding to develop local scenic corridor plans for Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road.
Parallel Trails for Non-Motorized Travel. Improve walking, riding, and biking trails along roadways with the State scenic highway designation.
Other Scenic Trails. Improve pedestrian routes along corridors that provide access to locations of significant scenic quality, recreation, historic and cultural importance in Pacifica.
Vehicle Access Points. Maintain and improve existing scenic turnouts, public parking areas, access to regional parks, beaches and other recreation areas.
Roadway Design. Ensure that any proposed new roads or modification to existing roads which traverse scenic areas minimize visual impacts to views from scenic routes.
Where possible, the physical form of structures, grading and alignment should be integrated into the natural setting. Views to and from ridges should be protected.
High-Quality Design at Key Points. Ensure that new development directly adjacent to Highway 1 in West and East Sharp Park helps to create a strong image of Pacifica's cultural and civic core, and that new development in the Rockaway Quarry site has a visual quality that enhances the natural setting and draws travelers in from the highway.
Highway Frontage Design Guidelines. Update the Design Guidelines to provide direction on how new buildings should relate to Highway 1, both in its freeway and highway configuration.
Gateway Signage. Create unified gateway signage, for entrances along Highway 1, Sharp Park Road, Manor Drive, and Hickey Boulevard.
1.f
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-40
This page intentionally left blank.
1.f
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 5 NATURAL HAZARDS
Ensuring the safety of community members, through protection from hazards, is an essential service of public agencies and a critical priority for maintaining community health. The purpose of the Natural Hazards chapter is to establish goals and policies to mitigate the potential impacts from natural and man-made hazards that pose a threat to public health, and safety, and coastal resources.
5.1 1.f
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-2
5.1 COASTAL ACT FRAMEWORK
The Coastal Act seeks to ensure that new development minimizes risks to life and property, does not create unstable site conditions, does not create or contribute significantly to erosion, and does not require new protective devices along the shoreline (Section 30253). The same Coastal Act policy also states that new development must not require new protective devices to be built along the shoreline, reinforcing the requirement of Section 30235 that construction that alters the natural shoreline may only be permitted in specific cases, and when designed to mitigate adverse impacts on the local shoreline and sand supply.
Meanwhile, Sections 30212 and 30214 specify that public access to the shoreline is to be consistent with public safety, including with regard to geologic site characteristics. Policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act which are most relevant to the subject matter of this chapter include, but are not limited to, the policies listed below. Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, available in Appendix A, is incorporated into this chapter.
Coastal Act Policies
Article 2: Public Access
• Section 30212 New development projects
• Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent Article 4: Marine Environment
• Section 30235 Construction altering natural shoreline • Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Article 6: Development
• Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
• Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
5.2 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The Planning Area lies within the geologically complex region of California known as the Coast Range geomorphic province. Much of the Coast Range province is composed of marine sedimentary deposits and volcanic rocks that form northwest trending mountain ridges and valleys, running subparallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone. West of the San Andreas Fault lies the Salinian Block, a granitic core that extends from the southern end of the province to north of the Farallon Islands.
Coastal Bluffs
Pacifica’s Coastal Zone prominently features coastal bluffs. A bluff is a high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water. A coastal bluff is a bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many coastal bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term “coastal bluff” refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the sea. The term “sea cliff” refers to the lower, near vertical portion of a coastal bluff. For purposes of establishing jurisdictional and permit boundaries coastal bluffs include, (1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and (2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified as an Appealable Area.
5.2 1.f
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-3
The Bluff Edge is the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep bluff face, the bluff line or edge is defined as that point nearest the bluff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the bluff. In a case where there is a step-like feature at the top of the bluff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Bluff edges typically retreat landward due to coastal erosion, landslides, development of gullies, or by grading (cut). In areas where the bluff top or bluff face has been cut or notched by grading, the bluff edge is the landward most position of either the current or historic bluff edge. In areas where fill has been placed near or over the historic bluff edge, the original natural bluff edge, even if buried beneath fill, shall be taken to be the bluff edge.
Seismic Hazards
Earthquakes can cause surface rupture from faulting or seismically induced effects, such as ground shaking and landslides. The challenge is to minimize earthquake related hazards, liquefaction:
• Mminimize Eearthquake Rrelated Hhazards, lLiquefaction, and landslideslLandslides. The San Andreas Fault, which traverses the northeast corner of Pacifica, is active and capable of causing a large earthquake. Areas located on or immediately adjacent to the mapped fault traces must be investigated prior to any development to ensure that fault rupture hazards be avoided or minimized.
Areas located within the alluvial valleys could have a high potential for liquefaction. Site-specific geotechnical investigations can confirm the presence of liquefiable materials and provide foundation design criteria to mitigate the potentially damaging effects of liquefaction.
The Planning Area also includes slopes that are susceptible to landslides, especially areas with greater than 50 percent inclines. Geotechnical engineering can typically overcome the challenges of development on steep terrain through drainage improvements, anchoring foundations in deeper materials, re-grading slopes, and other methods.
• Minimize Hazards Related to Winter Storms and Coastal Erosion. Much of Pacifica’s coastline is subject to severe coastal erosion. Short term erosion hazards are generally mitigated through best management practices and use of soft stabilization techniques. In areas that are experiencing active coastal erosion, the most effective mitigation is to relocate development. With sea level rise, there is potential for more serious long-term coastal erosion, which could be a critical challenge within the Planning Area.
Modern seismic activity within the Coast Range continues to be associated with movement along the San Andreas system of faults. Regionally, this fault system is the boundary between large sections, or plates, of the earth’s crust known as the North American Plate and Pacific Plate. The Bay Area is considered an area of high seismic activity, with an estimated 63 72 percent probability of an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or higher occurring in the region over the next 30 years.1
The San Andreas Fault is the principal strike-slip boundary between the Pacific plate to the west and the North American plate to the east. Its main trace trends northwest through the Santa Cruz Mountains and the 1 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG07). Fact Sheet 2008-30272016-2030, Forecasting California’s EarthquakesEarthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043 s – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?,http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf. 2008.2008.Accessed at https://pubs.usgs. gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
1.f
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-4
eastern side of the San Francisco Peninsula. Between Pacifica and San Mateo, Crystal Springs Reservoir and San Andreas Lake clearly mark the rupture zone.
The Hayward Fault trends to the northwest within the East Bay, extending from San Pablo Bay in Richmond, 60 miles south to San Jose. Although large earthquakes on the Hayward Fault have been rare since 1868, there is a 33 percent chance a large earthquake could occur on the Hayward fault by 20432over the planning period.
The Calaveras Fault, located in the eastern San Francisco Bay region, trends along the eastern side of the East Bay Hills, west of San Ramon Valley, down into the western Diablo Range, and eventually joining the San Andreas Fault Zone south of Hollister. The Calaveras Fault has been the source of numerous moderate magnitude earthquakes but the probability of a large earthquake is much lower (26 percent by 2043) than on the San Andreas or Hayward faults3.
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is the surface displacement of the earth’s surface due to the movement along a fault associated with an earthquake. Ground displacement is generally experienced on or within the immediate vicinity of the mapped fault trace. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 established the requirement to regulate development within Earthquake Fault zones associated with active faults. Development is feasible but requires detailed geologic and seismic evaluations by certified professionals prior to approval of a building permit.
An Alquist-Priolo fault hazard zone associated with the San Andreas Fault grazes the northeast corner of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone, as shown in Figure 5-1., applying to a small amount of housing in the Fairmont West neighborhood. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex, there are approximately 952 single-family homes, 399 multiple-family units, 200 acres, and six miles of road within the Alquist-Priolo Study Zone.
Ground Shaking
Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking. The strongest ground shaking anticipated to occur in Pacifica would come from the San Andreas Fault, and could cause strong to very violent ground shaking.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated soil temporarily loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water pressure, especially during earthquakeinduced cyclic loading. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, lowplasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Four kinds of ground failure commonly result from liquefaction: lateral spread, flow failure, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction and associated failures could damage foundations, roads, underground cables and pipelines, and disrupt utility service. The depth to groundwater influences the potential for liquefaction, in that sediments need to be saturated to have a potential for liquefaction.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
1.f
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-5
In the Coastal Zone, areas surrounding some of the alluvial drainages (i.e., San Pedro Creek Valley and Sanchez Creek Valley) contain some areas of very high liquefaction potential. Medium liquefaction potential exists in many low-lying neighborhoods, including West Edgemar-Pacific Manor, West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach and Quarry, and parts of Pedro Point.4 The Liquefaction and Fault Lines map (Figure 5-1) shows more detail.
4 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Susceptibility http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/liquefac.html. 2003.
1.f
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-6
Figure 5-1: Liquefaction and Fault Lines
1.f
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-7
Other HazardsTsunami and Seiche
A tsunami is a wave generated by abrupt movement of the seabed, which can occur as an earthquake or after a significant landslide. By contrast, seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed body of water. Within Pacifica, only Laguna Salada might be subject to seiche, but the potential for significant risk is low.
Dam Failure
There are no dams within or above Pacifica, and therefore the city is not at risk from a seismically induced dam failure. However, a seismic event may cause water tanks located in the hills above populated areas to burst and inundate areas below.
Slope Failure and Erosion
Slope Failure
Slope failures, commonly referred to as landslides, include many phenomena that involve the downslope displacement and movement of material, and can be triggered by either static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. The geology, structure, and amount of groundwater in the slope affect slope failure potential, as do external processes (i.e., climate, topography, slope geometry, and human activity). Slope failure may occur on slopes of 15 percent or less; however, the probability is greater on steeper slopes that exhibit old landslide features such as scarps, slanted vegetation, and transverse ridges. Landslide-susceptible areas are characterized by steep slopes and downslope creep of surface materials, and are more common in zones of active faulting.
Figure 5-2 shows three slope failure threat categories: Mostly Landslides, Few Landslides, and Not Landslide Prone.5 Mostly Landslide areas consist of mapped landslides, intervening areas typically narrower than 1,500 feet, and narrow borders around landslides; defined by how groups of mapped landslides are clustered. Areas mapped as Few Landslides contain few, if any, large mapped landslides, but locally contain scattered small landslides and questionably identified larger landslides; defined in most of the region by excluding groups of mapped landslides. Steep slopes on Mori Point, Rockaway Headlands, and San Pedro Mountain are identified as likely sites of slope failures, as are small portions of areas in or near development in the Pedro Point and Fairmont neighborhoods. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 45 acres of residential property and 37 acres of infrastructure are located in areas classified as mostly landslide area in the Planning Area. This includes 15 acres of residential property in the Coastal Zone.
SLOPE FAILURE IN THE COASTAL ZONE
The coastline of San Mateo County includes steep upland areas that are susceptible to slope failures. Most notably, the large coastal slide known as Devil’s Slide is located at the southern end of the Planning Area.
Devil’s Slide has a long history of slope failures and rock slides that occasionally caused closures of Highway 1 before the highway was rerouted through the Devils Slide tunnels. 5 United States Geological Survey (USGS), Open File Report 97-745, San Francisco Bay Landslide Folio, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-745/. 1997.
1.f
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-8
SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence—the sinking of a portion of the ground surface—can occur from immediate settlement, consolidation, shrinkage of expansive soil, and liquefaction. Subsidence can also be caused by earthquakes or the excess extraction of groundwater.
Portions of Pacifica are underlain by relatively clean, poorly consolidated granular material, such as sand. In places tThere are perched layers of groundwater in places, potentially creating the conditions for liquefaction.
Also, where materials are poorly consolidated, there may be ground subsidence or other forms of ground failure. Because the conditions at any particular site control the potential for any type of ground failure, only specific geotechnical investigations, including subsurface testing, can provide a basis for assessing such hazards.
Soil Erosion
Erosion is the wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical weathering; mass wasting; and the action of waves, wind, and underground water. Excessive soil erosion can eventually lead to damage of building foundations and roadways. The parts of the Planning Area where soils are most susceptible to erosion caused by wind or rainfall include the northern slope of Mori Point; upper Sharp Park; and along San Pedro Creek in San Pedro Valley County Park.
Pacifica’s Coastal Zone includes areas that the USGS has determined to have critical erosion hazards and unstable segments where the sedimentary rocks are susceptible to failure from heavy wave action. A study of the winter storms of 1997–1998 showed that sea cliffs in the Planning Area were particularly impacted and that a number of homes were impacted as a result.6 Bluff erosion is commonplace along much of the Pacifica coastline. In 2009-10, erosion on the northern coast of Pacifica resulted in the evacuation and demolition of three apartment buildings on the 300 block of Esplanade Avenue. Further severe weather in 2015 led to the City-mandated demolition of these buildings in 2016 to prevent their collapse onto the beach below7. The property owner demolished a 12-unit apartment building at 330 Esplanade Avenue and City demolished two 20-unit apartment buildings in common ownership at 310 and 320 Esplanade Avenue. Coastline segments that have experienced significant coastal erosion are shown in Figure 5-2. Short-term erosion hazards are generally mitigated through best management practices and use of soft stabilization techniques. With sea level rise, there is potential for more serious long-term coastal erosion, which could be a critical challenge within the Planning Area. Policies supporting coastal resilience against sea level rise impacts are provided in Chapter 6, Coastal Resilience.
Within the Coastal Zone, the City requires new development to be set back from coastal bluffs enough to accommodate a 100-year event, whether caused by seismic, geotechnical, or storm conditions (unless this limitation makes a property undevelopable). Areas determined by the study to be unsuitable for development shall be set aside for permanent environmental protection as part of any development. 6 United States Geological Survey (USGS). Coastal Erosion Along the U.S. West Coast During the 1997–98 El Niño:Expectations and Observations, http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/lidar/AGU_fall98/, 2005.
7 The property owner demolished a 12-unit apartment building at 330 Esplanade Avenue and City demolished two 20-unit apartment buildings in common ownership at 310 and 320 Esplanade Avenue.
1.f
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-9
Similarly, a site stability survey is required for any new development proposed on or adjacent to coastal bluffs or the coastline. New development that would require the use of seawalls or other shoreline alterations for protection either now or in the future shall not be permitted unless this would make the property undevelopable. New coastline alteration is permitted only where necessary to protect existing development or public resources, and must minimize adverse impacts to natural coastal processes.
1.f
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-10
Figure 5-2: Slope Failure and Shoreline Protection Structures
1.f
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-11
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROGRAMS
In the early 1990s, the City of Pacifica, the California Coastal Conservancy, and the Pacifica Land Trust collaborated to improve steelhead trout habitat and preserve the sandy beach at Pacifica/Linda Mar State Beach, with the removal of vulnerable structures along the shore. The stabilization methods were used to expand and enhance the tidally influenced wetlands at the mouth of San Pedro Creek and restore more than 1900 feet of eroding creek banks. This restoration both enhanced steelhead trout habitat and achieved 100- year flood protection for the nearby community.
To address the remaining flood threat to homes and businesses, the City also removed the most vulnerable structures. In 2002, the City partnered with the Pacifica Land Trust and the California Coastal Conservancy to purchase two homes and their surrounding acreage and delivered 4,000 cubic yards of sand to rebuild dunes and restore four acres of beach and the nearby estuary.
In addition, the City is continuing to maintain and improve the existing seawall and revetment originally constructed in 1962 at Rockaway Beach. Repairs in the past have consisted of retrieval of displaced rip-rap, importation of additional rip-rap, and repair of the revetment. Other revetments are placed along the beaches of the Planning Area and a seawall has been constructed at Beach Boulevard between Clarendon Road and the northern terminus of Beach Boulevard. Existing shoreline protection structures are shown on the Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion map (Figure 5-2). Policies addressing future shoreline protection and sea level rise adaptation are provided in Chapter 6, Coastal Resilience.
In fall 2020, the City of Pacifica initiated the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, an infrastructure protection and improvement project that aims replace the current seawall and outdated infrastructure while building climate resilience into the most vulnerable segment of the City of Pacifica’s shoreline.
The project is considered critical to the public health and safety of the citizens and visitors in and around the historic West Sharp Park neighborhood and serves to create a multi-benefit solution to protect public infrastructure, recreational activities, numerous homes, businesses, and the community at large, from further impacts due to continued coastal erosion.
Increased Coastal Erosion from Potential Sea Level Rise The potential for increased coastal erosion from sea level rise has serious implications for Pacifica. Areas of the Sharp Park Golf Course, the Rockaway Beach district, and the West Linda Mar and West Sharp Park neighborhoods could be inundated. Meanwhile, coastal erosion processes that have caused damage along the high bluffs of Pacifica’s northern neighborhoods would likely increase in magnitude.
Sea level rise resulting from global climate change is projected to cause more extensive erosion of beaches, dunes, bluffs and cliffs. The 2009 Pacific Institute study of the impacts of sea level rise on the California Coast developed erosion models for dune and cliff/ bluff backshore environments. Mean lateral erosion of dunes is estimated at 115 to 116 meters by 2025, 119 meters to 128 meters by 2050. Bluffs, meanwhile, are projected to have eroded by 8 meters to 9 meters by 2025, with geology, wave exposure, and bluff toe elevation all playing important roles in producing variation8 . These models indicate that there could be new risks
8 Heberger, M., H. Cooley, P. Herrera, P.H. Gleick, E. Moore of Pacific Institute. The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. A paper from the California Climate Change Center. May 2009.
1.f
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-12
of erosion along the length of Pacifica’s coastline in areas that are not currently exposed to wave action erosion, which could impact all of the coastal neighborhoods and coastal habitats.
Policy Framework
Enforcement of the State’s latest building code, as required by law, will provide a base level of mitigation from ground shaking. The City also has a Coastal Zoning Combining District and coastal development regulations in its Zoning Ordinance. These regulations should be updated following adoption of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, to complete the update of the Local Coastal Program and to reflect updates in State law, to better avoid or mitigate seismic and geologic hazards.
Policies
Guiding Policies
NH-G-1 Reduce Risk. Protect coastal resources, and mMinimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic, and seismic, and coastal hazards.
Implementing Policies
NH-I-1 Hillside Preservation. Update the Hillside Preservation District on the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations.
NH-I-2NH-I-1The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4 of the 2040 General Plan) should be used as a guide.
NH-I-3NH-I-2Transfer of Development Rights. Amend the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to reflect the following changes:
• Incorporate use of the TDR as described in Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-7. • Apply receiving status to sites designated for Mixed Use development in addition to the residential land use categories.
The TDR Program provides a mechanism to relocate potential development from areas where environmental or land use impacts could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development.
NH-I-4NH-I-3Fault Zone. New development shall be sited and designed to minimize risks from seismic events. Buildings for human occupancy shall avoid surface traces of active faults, consistent with theContinue to review projects located in identified fault zones subject to the AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act and other relevant state laws. (See the Liquefaction and Fault Zones map, Figure 5-1).
NH-I-5NH-I-4Development in Hazardous Areas. Prohibit development in areas of Mostly Landslides or High or Very High liquefaction risk as shown on the Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion Map
5.3 1.f
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-13
(Figure 5-2), or on slopes steeper than 35 percent, unless detailed site investigations ensure that risks can be reduced to acceptable levels and that the structure will be protected for its design life.
NH-I-6NH-I-5Real Estate Disclosure. Require real estate transactions, development approval processes, and property titles to declare known or suspected seismic or geologic hazards on a property, including Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and areas suspected of high or very high risk of liquefaction, subsidence, or landslide.
NH-I-7NH-I-6Code Enforcement. Continue to maintain and enforce appropriate building standards to ensure that new development is designed to meet current safety standards associated with seismic activity.
NH-I-8NH-I-7Seismic Rehabilitation Flagging. Identify and catalogue structures that may be subject to serious structural damage in the event of a major earthquake, and provide information to property owners on ways to pay for rehabilitation or retrofit of existing buildings to minimize the potential for damage from an earthquake.
NH-I-9NH-I-8Restrictions on Mitigation Measures. Prohibit development which would require mitigation measures for potential geotechnical hazards if those measures could adversely affect surrounding property, including the use of public rights-of-way or adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare.
NH-I-10NH-I-9 Erosion Prevention. Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by revegetation or other acceptable methods Hillside Erosion Prevention. Require erosion prevention of hillside areas to maintain slope stability by revegetation. Other slope stability methods may be acceptable, consistent with this LCP.
NH-I-11NH-I-10 Geotechnical Studies. Within the Coastal Zone and hillside areas, continue to require geotechnical site investigation for proposed development on sites located in any of the following areas, prior to allowing site development:
• On slopes greater than 15 percent.
• In areas showing evidence of landslides or landslide potential. • In areas showing evidence of ground shaking or earth movement. • Within 50 300 feet of a coastal bluff edge in Coastal Vulnerability Zones. • Within sand dune areas.
Geotechnical studies shall identify any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and a statement of the site’s suitability for the proposed development and whether or not it will be safe from geologic hazard for its expected anticipated life. The study shall identify net developable areas, if any, based on landslide or ground shaking potential and/or erosion risk. Impacts from the development, such as those resulting from increased water runoff, shall also be determined. Such studies must be signed
5.4 5.5
5.5 1.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-14
by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and are subject to review and approval by City staff. As detailed in CR-I-43, further technical reports may be required for applicable projects.
NH-I-12NH-I-11 Maintain Restrictions on Hazardous Areas. Continue enforcing the existing Coastal Zone Combing District and Hillside Preservation District regulations that restrict development in hazardous areas where access is impractical and areas prone to hillside and coastal erosion, landslides, seismic shaking, tsunami inundation, or flooding.
NH-I-13NH-I-12 Soil Study. Require any geotechnical studies to include study of expansive and creeping soils, as well as analysis of erosion, seismic, tsunami, and other geotechnical hazards, and to make recommendations to mitigate these hazards, as warranted.
NH-I-14NH-I-13 Grading and Drainage Plans. Continue to require a grading and drainage plan for proposed development requiring a coastal development permit and/or a grading permit. The Plan should demonstrate how the project will maintain natural surface drainage and existing vegetation to the greatest extent feasible, by minimizing alteration of natural topography and removal of existing trees and vegetation; stabilizing cut-and-fill surfaces with native vegetation; restricting the movement of heavy equipment and machinery; and other means.
Prohibit development-related grading and vegetation clearance on slopes steeper than 35 percent. Driveways and utilities may be allowed in the case that there is no less environmentally damaging alternative for providing access to the building site.
NH-I-15NH-I-14 Bluff Drainage and Erosion. The City will pursue feasible funding mechanisms to investigate areas that may be significantly contributing to groundwater flows to the bluffs and determine whether improving drainage and/or reducing irrigation could reduce bluff erosion. Measures to improve drainage and reduce over-watering shall be communicated to the public and property owners as part of existing water conservation outreach programs, and included as conditions on new development where applicable.
NH-I-16NH-I-15 Water Tank Rupture. Work with the NCCWD to determine areas potentially affected by flooding from ruptured water tanks in the event of a seismic event and inform property owners.
NH-I-17NH-I-16 Geologic Hazard Abatement District. Amend the Municipal Code to include provisions for formation of a geologic hazards abatement district for coastal bluffs and hillside areas at risk of landslides in Pacifica to enable cooperative efforts among property owners for protection of coastal bluffs from erosion and improvement and maintenance of drainage and protective infrastructure.
The Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) is a potentially useful tool to effectively abate a landslide hazard that crosses property boundaries. It is a mechanism that responds to the physical realities of landslides, and allows property owners to cooperate in solving a common problem. It removes much of the stigma of legal liabilities among adjacent landowners and allows them to cooperate rather than litigate. It also provides for a cost-effective solution, requiring only one geotechnical engineering firm and one plan to solve the problems of several landowners. The City may require the establishment of GHADs as a condition for new development proposed in areas of known bluff erosion or geologic hazard, such as areas identified in Figure 5-
1.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-15
2 as "mostly landslides." The City may consider identifying where GHADs are appropriate or necessary.
The City will undertake the following actions to facilitate formation of GHADs:
Identify where GHADs are appropriate or necessary;
Advance funds for preparation of a Plan of Control for each proposed GHAD by a Certified Engineering Geologist describing the GHAD's boundaries, the geologic hazards affecting the GHAD, and a plan for the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of the hazards, with costs to be reimbursed by the GHADs; Establish a public education and outreach program to inform property owners of the benefits and responsibilities of participating in a GHAD; and
• Provide ongoing support of GHADs, with funding provided by the districts.
The establishment of a GHAD would not allow development that is otherwise restricted on the basis of hazard risk, bluff erosion or geologic instability.
NH-I-18NH-I-17 New Development in Coastal Zone. Continue to enforce provisions of the California Coastal Act requiring new development within the Coastal Zone to:
• Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, or fire hazard; • Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic 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;
• Not accelerate the need for a shoreline structure or increase the likelihood of a future seawall beyond the existing development’s expected life; and • Not violate required coastal resource setback provisions.
Small improvement projects are exempt, including improvements that would increase height, bulk or floor area by less than ten percent.
NH-I-19NH-I-18 Accessory Structures in Coastal Zone. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require new accessory structures within the Coastal Zone to be constructed so they can be easily relocated should they become threatened by erosion.
This policy does not apply to accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are not considered accessory structures as characterized in the City’s Zoning Regulations. ADUs are habitable structures, required to be constructed/installed on permanent foundations, and which are not readily relocated in the same manner as a shed or similar accessory structure.
POLICIES FOR SPECIFIC SITES
NH-I-20NH-I-19 Esplanade. Establish appropriate zoning for privately-owned, undeveloped land on the west side of Esplanade Avenue to ensure minimal development consistent with the
5.6 5.6
1.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-16
General Plan classification. New development shall preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way and shall be sited and designed to ensure that any proposed development could withstand erosion resulting from a 100-year seismic or storm event and in accordance with CR-I-44 and preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way.
NH-I-21NH-I-20 Pedro Point Upper Slopes. Maintain zoning for the upper slopes of Pedro Point to ensure that any new development is at a density appropriate to the steep slopes.
5.3 FLOODING
Under Section 30236, flood protection devices that alter rivers or streams must use the best mitigation measures, and are limited to necessary water supply projects or flood control projects where no other method is feasible, and where necessary to protect public safety or existing development. New development is expected to minimize risks to life and property in high flood hazard areas, under Section 30253.
Flooding has been an ongoing issue for low-lying areas of Pacifica, and likely will continue to be a challenge in the future, including possible inundation from a tsunami wave. Strategies to minimize flooding impacts will include limiting development in flood-prone areas and incorporating Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines and suggested mitigation activities into the City’s plans and procedures for managing flood hazards.
Flood Zones
Flood hazards mapped by FEMA to support the development of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) generally identify areas of greater flood risk (100 and 500 year events) in the lower reaches of the main stream channels, and the risk of coastal flooding along the shoreline, although they do not account for climate change or sea level rise, and thus should be reviewed in conjunction with Appendix B (“Coastal Zone Vulnerability Maps”). Flood zones based on the FIRMs are shown in Figure 5-3. The FIRMs represent the best available maps of flood hazard areas in Pacifica. Additional maps of flood hazard areas prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources are not available for the city. The City’s annex to the Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) includes additional information on past flooding events and actions to mitigate flooding risk in Pacifica.
Areas of flood risk include:
• Broad flood inundation in several parts of Sharp Park Golf Course and the Rockaway Beach district. • More narrowly confined flood hazards along the creeks; limiting potential flooding in these areas. For example, along Milagra Creek mapped flood hazards are typically within the active channel.
Coastal Flooding
Pacifica can also experience flooding from coastal sources, which occurs as some combination of high tides, large wind-driven waves, storm surge, and/or tsunami waves. Areas with the potential for coastal flooding are the low-lying areas along the coast, including the Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada area and Pacifica State Beach.
5.7 1.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-17
The only section of coastline protected by levees is the Sharp Park Golf Course area. However, drainage from Sanchez Creek and Laguna Salada to the ocean can be insufficient to prevent lowland flooding during high tide/high flow events. A seawall/revetment structure protects the area north of the Sharp Park Golf Course, generally along Beach Boulevard, including the Pacifica Pier. This structure has required maintenance to repair areas where beach erosion has undermined it. Policies addressing increased coastal flooding from potential sea level rise are provided in Chapter 6, Coastal Resilience.
1.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-18
Figure 5-3: Flood Zones
1.f
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-19
TSUNAMI
A tsunami can occur after a significant earthquake beneath the ocean. Coastal flooding, potentially severe damage, and threats to human health and safety can result from a tsunami. Recorded tsunami run-up magnitude is generally lower at Pacifica than other locations from San Francisco to Monterey, likely due to offshore bathymetry and shoreline alterations along the city. Tsunami hazards are generally coincident with the coastal flooding zones: at the Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada area, Lower Calera Creek, portions of Rockaway Beach, and the residential and commercial area at Linda Mar near the mouth of San Pedro Creek.
Tsunamis can reach Pacifica from several sources, including ‘far-field’ sources throughout the Pacific Ocean, a substantial earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone in northern California north to Vancouver Island, movement along local fault lines such as the Seal Cove Fault or San Gregorio Fault, and local coastal landslides. Travel times, the degree of warning, and the magnitude of the wave will vary depending on the source and initial strength of the tsunami-generating event. Earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone are likely the most hazardous to Pacifica because of the potential for very large wave generation, and a relatively short travel time (on the order of one to three hours). However, smaller events along local faults could result in a wave that reaches Pacifica with essentially no warning time, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the existing tsunami warning system.
According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are approximately 900 existing dwelling units within Pacifica’s tsunami run-up area.
San Mateo County has an established emergency proposal for tsunamis. As part of this program, the City has installed a tsunami warning system, consisting of three solar powered alarm towers. One is located in the Sharp Park neighborhood, the second is located in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood, and the third tower stands at Pacifica State Beach. This system links into a San Mateo County alert system that can reach email and cell phones.
Policies
Guiding Policies
NH-G-2 Development in Hazardous Areas. Site and design Protect development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risk without the need for armoring (e.g. flood damage prevention programs).
Implementing Policies
NH-I-22NH-I-21 Floodplain Management. Continue to manage floodplains through zoning, development requirements, and ordinances, and take other actions as required by FEMA, in order to remain a participant of the National Flood Insurance Program.
NH-I-23NH-I-22 Flood Map Review. Periodically review maps prepared by FEMA and the State Department of Water Resources to identify changes in mapping of areas subject to flooding and amend the General Plan, Municipal Code, or LCP as warranted.
5.8 1.f
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-20
NH-I-24NH-I-23 NDPES Enforcement. Enforce NPDES permits, as well as the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, to mitigate potential flooding risks by slowing the release of stormwater from development sites into drainage channels.
NH-I-25NH-I-24 Flood Hazard Reduction. Continue to comply with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Municipal Code.
NH-I-26NH-I-25 Flood Insurance. Inform households and businesses located in flood-prone areas about opportunities to purchase federal flood insurance.
NH-I-27NH-I-26 Flood Control Maintenance. Regularly maintain flood control structures, including, but not limited to drainage channels, pipes, and culverts, and stream beds. Routine maintenance of streambeds shall conform to the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Section 30236.
NH-I-28NH-I-27 Flood Control Structures. Require flood control devices that alter rivers and streams to incorporate the best mitigation measures whenever feasible, and only permit them where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible, and where such protection is both necessary for public safety, including for water supply, and or to protect existing development, or where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
NH-I-29NH-I-28 Storm Drainage Impact Assessment. Require developers to provide an assessment of a project’s potential impacts on the local storm drainage system as part of the development review process.
If development is found to have a negative impact on storm drainage, require applicable and effective mitigation measures, such as the creation of permanent or temporary detention or retention basins, provision of additional landscaped areas and green roofs, installation of pump stations, and the use of permeable paving in driveways, walkways and parking areas.
NH-I-30NH-I-29 No Adverse Impact Approach. Update the Flood Hazard Reduction regulations to establish a “No Adverse Impact” standard to floodplain and coastal development.
In essence, NAI floodplain management takes place when the actions of one property owner are not allowed to adversely affect the rights of other property owners. No building permits should be issued for projects that increase the potential for flooding or erosion on and off site, degrade water quality, or increase potential public service costs for things such as emergency personnel and stormwater management, unless such projects are designed and completed in such a way that they will not:
• pose a threat to public safety; and
• substantially increase flood or storm damage risk to public or private property.
NH-I-31NH-I-30 Tsunami Evacuation Zone. For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone, require use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures.
NH-I-32NH-I-31 Critical Facilities Location. Site critical public facilities including hospital and healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and fire stations, and emergency
5.9 5.10
5.11 1.f
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-21
communications facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone, and 100-year flood plains, and other portions of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone over the anticipated life of the development.
5.4 FIRE HAZARDS
New development is expected to minimize risks to life and property in high fire hazard areas (Section 30253).
Fire hazards in Pacifica include both urban and wildland fires. Urban fires involve the uncontrolled burning of built structures due to human-made causes; wildland fires affect grassland, forest, and brush (and the structures on them), and can result from either human or natural causes. Pacifica has a substantial risk of wildland fires, with many areas of high and very high threat within the Planning Area. The City’s main challenges regarding these hazards are:
• Actively Managing the Urban-Wildland Interface. Pacifica’s residents enjoy close contact with open ridges and woodlands. This brings with it the risk of proximity to wildland fires. Preparedness is essential, and the North County Fire Authority’s fire prevention activities, especially its Vegetation Management Program, are important.
• Maintaining and Enhancing Evacuation Routes. It is critical that road capacity exists for local residents, workers, and visitors to evacuate in case of an environmental disaster, including fire.
Urban Fires
Urban fires are fires that begin in a building in urban centers. They are typically localized but have the potential to spread to an adjoining building. The risk of urban fires is highest where single-family homes, multi-family residences, and business facilities are clustered close together, increasing the possibility of rapid spread to an adjoining building. The risk to life and property can be reduced by adopting and funding adequate levels of fire protection and ensuring new buildings are built to include fire resistive features which conform to modern fire and building codes.
Wildland Fires
Wildland fires are fires that start in a wooded or undeveloped area. Their potential for damage is dependent on the extent and type of vegetation, known as surface fuels, as well as weather and wind conditions.
Wildland fires occur infrequently but typically cause more damage than urban fires.
About two-thirds of Pacifica is undeveloped, and nearly half is protected open space. This undeveloped land is mainly on the rugged ridges that form the City’s western edge and descend down to the ocean between Pacifica’s valley communities. Coastal scrub is the predominant vegetation type, interspersed with annual grassland. Significant areas of eucalyptus forest and mixed woodland are present in eastern Sharp Park and on Cattle Hill and San Pedro Mountain. In California, most wildfire damage occurs in wildland urban interface areas, where homes and woodland vegetation are directly adjacent. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has designated Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) throughout the state based on factors such as fuel, slope, and weather to indicate varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate,
5.12 1.f
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-22
high, and very high). FHSZ maps evaluate physical conditions that create a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period. CAL FIRE also has developed maps of fire threat, or a measure of fuel conditions and fire potential in the ecosystem that represent the relative likelihood of “damaging” or difficult to control wildfire occurring for a given area, available at their website9.
CAL FIRE also designates land as either a Federal, State, or Local Responsibility Area (FRA, SRA, and LRA, respectively), based on population density, land use, and land ownership. Portions of the Planning Area within the SOI are designated State Responsibility Areas (SRA), where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires, while the NCFA has primary responsibility for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) within the City limit.
Lands in Pacifica owned by the federal government and the County, including GGNRA lands are designated as a State Responsibility Area (SRAFRA) within the Pacifica LRA.
Some areas shown on Figure 5-4 along the southwestern perimeter within the Sphere of Influence are designated as Very High FHSZs. Most of this land in the Very High FHSZ is an urban reserve or park or other designations where extremely low densities of residential development may be permitted. Land adjacent to these areas that is within city limits is low- and very-low density residential development. To address this risk, the City cooperates with CAL FIRE and the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) through cooperative fire protection agreements.
CAL FIRE tracks the deadliest, largest, and most destructive wildfires that have occurred in the state, with the lists last updated in late March 2021. San Mateo County is not included in any of these lists. However, according to the San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP), it is likely that the risk of wildfires will continue to occur in San Mateo County. Wildfires are influenced by both weather and human activities. Based on its history of past events, San Mateo County has a high chance of a wildfire in any given year.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) maps areas of significant fire hazards in the state. These areas are identified based on weather, terrain, fuels (e.g., type of ground vegetation), and other factors. According to the CDF:
• A Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is designated for much of Pedro Point Headlands, directly adjacent to the Pedro Point neighborhood.
• Pedro Point Headlands has large areas considered to have “high” or “very high” threat of fire. • Mori Point is classified with a mix of “high” and “moderate” risk areas. • Nearly all of the urbanized parts of the Planning Area are classified as having a “moderate threat” level for fire.
Figure 5-4, Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services, shows these locations. 9 https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10315/firethreat_19_ada. pdf
1.f
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-23
The CDF also designates land as either a State or Local Responsibility Area (SRA and LRA), based on population density, land use, and land ownership. The City of Pacifica is an LRA while the small areas of the Planning Area outside City limits are in an SRA. Lands in Pacifica owned by the federal government and the County are designated as a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) within the Pacifica LRA.
Fire and Emergency Services
The cities of Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica are contributing members of the North County Fire Authority (NCFA), a Joint Powers Authority established in 2003. The Fire Authority provides both emergency response and non-emergency public safety services to the three cities and their 185,000 residents in its service area.
Two of the Authority’s 10 stations are in Pacifica. Fire Station 71, at 616 Edgemar Avenue, serves the north end of Pacifica, while Fire Station 72, at 1100 Linda Mar Boulevard, serves the south end. Neither is located in the Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-24
Figure 5-4: Fire Hazards
1.f
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-25
Fire and Emergency Response
NCFA has established the following service ratio and response time standards:
• Service ratio standard: one responder per 1,500 population. • Response time standards for fire service: Four-minute travel time to 90 percent of calls for fire service, and eight-minute travel time for all apparatus on-scene for fire calls for service. • Response time standard for Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Under seven-minute travel time (6:59) for first response to 90 percent of calls.
Pacifica’s long and narrow geography and its reliance on Highway 1 as the single north-south access route makes the City a challenge for fire response. A 2008 study determined that the Vallemar, West and East Fairway Park, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway neighborhoods in central Pacifica are beyond four-minute travel distance from northern San Mateo County fire stations, corresponding with the standard response time for first-due fire apparatus. The full assignment response time standard cannot be met in Pacifica from Vallemar south.10
NCFA’s EMS standard is for 90 percent of calls to be reached in less than seven minutes. This standard is met for 97 percent of calls in the North Zone, including approximately 93 percent of calls in Pacifica.
The NCFA Fire Authority needs additional facilities to meet its fire response standards for Vallemar and areas to the south. A third, mid-point station in Pacifica with a truck and engine company has been discussed for some time. The area that currently does not meet first-response time standards has a low density of development, and so it has fewer persons and structures threatened by fire. A new station would be needed if the central part of Pacifica were to experience significant new development, for example at the Quarry site.
Pacifica has an ISO rating of 4. The City’s rating is unlikely to be affected by population growth, but population growth will increase existing deficiencies in service delivery.
Fire Prevention
The NCFA’s Fire Services Prevention Bureau manages code enforcement, plan review and construction inspection, fire investigations, and public education. A key part of the Bureau’s code enforcement activities is the annual safety inspection of every commercial business and multi-family residential property in its service area. The Fire Authority also conducts a Vegetation Management Program, promoting compliance with vegetation standards to reduce the threat of fire in the urban/wildland interface.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The regional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two several mitigation strategies for wildland fires in Pacifica, including update of its Emergency Operations Plan; pursuing opportunities to preserve and protect critical transportation infrastructure; and developing and delivering business programs and public outreach programs to promote resiliency and community preparedness. : review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and 10 Emergency Services Consulting, 2008.
1.f
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-26
access by emergency responders, and develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework to manage the wildland-urban interface consistent with best practices.
State Requirements
In 2005, the California Building Code was amended to require that all new buildings located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone in SRAs, or any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in LRAs, must use building materials approved for use in wildland/urban interface areas. The code now specifies certain roof coverings, fire resistive wall and ceiling-floor assemblies, wall finish materials, hardware, insulation, and other building materials for use in high fire hazard areas. Also in 2005, Public Resources Code (PRC) 4291 was amended to expand the defensible space clearance requirement around buildings from 30 feet to 100 feet, in any SRA.
Building owners must minimize potential fuel around structures, to minimize the risk of loss, and to improve firefighter safety.
Policies
Guiding Policy
NH-G-3 Fire Prevention. Protect Pacifica residents and businesses from potential wildland fire hazards.
Implementing Policies
NH-I-33NH-I-32 Response Time. Support efforts by North County Fire Authority to meet its response time standards throughout the City.
This effort may include construction of a third fire station in the central part of Pacifica, near the police station or the Quarry site. The City could provide land or shared facilities.
NH-I-34NH-I-33 Adequate Peak Load Water Supply. Work with the North Coast County Water District to maintain adequate water supply for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by the North County Fire Authority.
NH-I-35NH-I-34 Water Storage Locations. In evaluating sites for new water storage facilities, place a priority on locations least subject to impacts from seismic activity and landslides.
NH-I-36NH-I-35 Development Review. Review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation, access by emergency responders, and vegetation clearances that don’t impact ESHAs or wetlands or their associated buffers, unless undertaken consistent with the City’s ESHA and wetlands policies.
NH-I-37NH-I-36 Plan Review in Fire-Prone Areas. Continue to request North County Fire Authority participation in plan review of new buildings in potentially fire-prone areas.
5.13 1.f
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-27
NH-I-38NH-I-37 Fire Prevention Inspections. Continue to require a fire prevention inspection of every permitted business and multi-family development covered by the North County Fire Authority.
NH-I-39NH-I-38 Fire Prevention Education. Continue educating the public about local fire hazard prevention programs. Work cooperatively with the North County Fire Authority to promote public awareness of fire safety and emergency life support.
NH-I-40NH-I-39 Vegetation Management. Promote and support the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards, if consistent with the LCP.
NH-I-41NH-I-40 Multi-Jurisdictional Approach. Participate in State or regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory frame-work to manage the wildland-urban interface, including implementation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
NH-I-42NH-I-41 Rockaway Quarry Service. Ensure that any new development at the Rockaway Quarry site is adequately served by public infrastructure, including fire and police services.
5.14 1.f
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-28
This page intentionally left blank.
1.f
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6 COASTAL RESILIENCE
The purpose of this chapter is to provide policies which protect existing development from the hazard of sea level rise and which guide the design of new development to respond to sea level rise during the economic anticipated life of the project. Topics covered in this element include sea level rise projections, transfer of development rights (TDR), repair and replacement of existing shoreline protection structures (e.g., sea walls), and establishment of appropriate site design measures for new development.
Protection of property rights is an important theme in this chapter. Balancing appropriate protection of property and coastal resources along the dynamic coastline is an important theme in this chapter.
6.1 1.f
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-2
6.1 COASTAL ACT FRAMEWORK
Sea level rise increases the risk of flooding, coastal erosion, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies, which, if left unmanaged, have the potential to threaten many of the resources that are integral to the California coast, including coastal development, coastal access and recreation, habitats (e.g., wetlands, coastal bluffs, dunes, and beaches), coastal agricultural lands, water quality and supply, cultural resources, community character, and scenic quality. Policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act which are most relevant to Pacifica’s plan to manage coastal resiliency through the increasing risks posed by sea level rise include, but are not limited to, the policies listed below. Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, available in Appendix A, is incorporated into this chapter.
Coastal Act Policies
Article 2: Public Access
• Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access • Section 30212 New development projects
• Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent Article 4: Marine Environment
• Section 30235 Construction altering natural shoreline • Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Article 6: Development
• Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
• Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
This chapter will expand upon the relevant Coastal Act policies with additional legal considerations. In 2015, Governor Brown put into effect two regulatory requirements regarding climate change adaptation planning. The first, Senate Bill 379, requires local agencies to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in long range planning documents. The second, Governor’s Executive Order No. B-30-15, directed state agencies to factor climate change into planning decisions. This order has been promulgated by the California Coastal Commission to include climate adaptation in Local Coastal Programs (LCP).
The purpose of this chapter is to address the above-mentioned regulatory requirements regarding climate change and to provide policy guidance to minimize the risk to persons and property posed by potential sea level rise. These policies recognize that sea level rise projections are continually evolving and the effectiveness of hybrid adaptation strategies is not well known. Therefore, the policies focus on protecting beaches and the natural shoreline while also allowing for protection and armoring of the shoreline for specific limited circumstances as provided for within the Coastal Act and reassessment of the adaptation plan in the future. The policies do not include managed retreat as an adaptation strategy unless and until a future Local Coastal Land Use Plan amendment and public input process culminates in supporting the strategy.
6.2 1.f
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-3
6.2 SEA LEVEL RISE KEY FINDINGS
Climate change is happening now. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing and will continue to cause global warming and resultant climate change. For the coastal setting, the primary exposure will be an increase in sea level rise1 due to thermal expansion of the ocean’s waters and melting of ice sheets. Based on state level studies regarding sea level rise, seven key findings have been determined (CalNRA/OPC 2018):
• Scientific understanding of sea level rise is advancing at a rapid pace. Projections of future sea level rise have been adjusted to address improved understanding of sea level rise contributors and will continue to adjust as scientific understanding increases. • The direction of sea level change is clear. Coastal California is already experiencing the early impacts of a rising sea level.
• The rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets is increasing. These ice sheets will soon become the primary contributor to global sea level rise, overtaking the contributions from ocean thermal expansion and melting mountain glaciers and ice caps. • New scientific evidence has highlighted the potential for extreme sea level rise. If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, key glaciological processes could cross thresholds that lead to rapidly accelerating and effectively irreversible ice loss. • Probabilities of specific sea level increases can inform decisions. A probabilistic approach to sea level rise projections, combined with a clear articulation of the implications of uncertainty and the decision support needs of affected stakeholders, is the most appropriate approach for use in a policy setting.
• Current policy decisions are shaping our coastal future. Before 2050, differences in sea level rise projections under different emissions scenarios are minor but they diverge significantly past that point. After 2050, sea level rise projections increasingly depend on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Waiting for scientific certainty is neither a safe nor prudent option. High confidence in projections of sea level rise over the next three decades can inform preparedness efforts, adaptation actions and hazard mitigation undertaken today, and prevent much greater losses than will occur if action is not taken.
As further discussed below, impacts of sea level rise along Pacifica’s coastline would be significant. High tides and larger storms will challenge and change Pacifica’s existing shoreline, including portions of the shoreline with shoreline protection structures. Impacts to Pacifica’s shoreline could affect existing coastal developments, coastal habitats, coastal access and recreation. The policies in this chapter will guide Pacifica in how to prepare for the challenges associated with sea level rise and to reduce risks to people and property.
1 Sea level rise is the worldwide average rise in mean sea level.
1.f
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-4
6.3 PREPARATION OF POLICIES
The City of Pacifica received a Local Assistance Grant from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and California Coastal Conservancy. The grant provided funding to the City of Pacifica to hire a consultant to conduct technical analyses for the CCC-recommended multi-step process to develop sea level rise and adaptation policies this LCLUP. The CCC-recommended steps included:
Step 1. Determine a range of sea level rise projections relevant to the LCP Planning Area/segment.
Step 2. Identify potential physical sea level rise impacts in the LCP Planning Area/segment.
Step 3. Assess potential risks from sea level rise to coastal resources and development in the LCP Planning Area/segment.
Step 4. Identify adaptation measures and LCP policy options.
Step 5. Draft an updated or new LCP for certification with the CCC.
Step 6. Implement the LCP and monitor and re-evaluate strategies as needed.
Steps 1 through 3 were completed through the preparation of the Vulnerability Assessment. Step 4 was completed through the preparation of the Adaptation Plan. Steps 1 through 4 are further discussed below.
Step 5 was completed by CCC certification of this LCLUP. Step 6 will be ongoing throughout the implementation of this LCLUP.
Council Goals
In March 2018, the City Council unanimously adopted the following goals to help guide the direction of the planning effort for development of the Coastal Resiliency Policies. The goals included:
1. Bolster efficacy of public safety efforts. Evacuations of bluff top homes have been necessary to protect the health, safety, and wellness of residents. The Adaptation Plan will assist the City to protect human life, property, and critical infrastructure in response to a catastrophic event.
2. Respond to climate change. The Adaptation Plan will allow Pacifica to prepare for sea level rise and climate change impacts by identifying policies that enhance the Coastal Zone’s adaptive capacity.
3. Preserve Existing Neighborhoods and Promote Environmental Justice and Local Economic Vitality. Pacifica’s Coastal Zone includes:
• 12% of the City’s population.
• The majority of older, and therefore more affordable, housing stock. • Five of six hotels (80% of the rooms) that generate transient occupancy tax revenues for City operations and bring visitors who patronize businesses.
1.f
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-5
• More than half of commercial businesses, which provide vitality to the community and tax revenue for City operations.
• Public facilities that include City Hall, North Coast County Water District, Ingrid B. Lacy Middle School, the Pacifica Pier, drainage outfalls, waste water pumping stations, sewer force mains, and the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. • Significant historical and public recreational assets including beaches, coastal trails, the Beach Boulevard promenade, parks and Sharp Park Golf Course.
The loss or disruption of these assets could have far reaching impacts and affect everyone in Pacifica, not just those living or doing business in the Coastal Zone. The Adaptation Plan will allow the City to create policies that will protect these areas from the impacts of sea level rise, erosion, and coastal flooding. Consistent with the Coastal Act, the Adaptation Plan shall protect existing homes, businesses, and infrastructure in Pacifica.
4. Preserve and enhance coastal access. Beach and bluff access to the coastline is a crucial element of Pacifica’s coastal character and is valued by the community. The Adaptation Plan will allow the city to identify where bluff erosion, sedimentation, and sea level rise may threaten coastal access.
Vulnerability Assessment
In 2018, the City prepared a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment2 which focused on determining the potential exposure of assets to flooding and erosion hazard under six sea level rise scenarios selected for study. Because future projections of sea level rise along California’s coastline are uncertain (due to uncertainty associated with modeling and the trajectory of global emissions), it was recommended to consider a range of projections to understand the consequences of various decisions, determine the tolerance for risk associated with those decisions, and to inform adaptation strategies necessary to prepare for change in the face of uncertainty. The sea level rise scenarios include no sea level rise (existing conditions) as well as state-recommended scenarios listed in Table 6-1.
TABLE 6-1. PROPOSED FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE (SLR) AMOUNTS FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS WITH ASSOCIATED PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE (CALNRA & OPC 2017) Year Low (17% chance) Med-High (0.5% chance) Extreme (n/a) 2050 1 ft. 2 ft. -
2100 3 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. *
* SLR of 6 ft. at 2075 was considered in place of 10 ft. at 2100 to assess potential impacts under the Extreme scenario. This was recommended by ESA because of the lack of erosion and flooding data for 10 ft. of SLR.
The current best available science was identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. Consistent with the San Mateo County Vulnerability Assessment3, existing and future coastal flooding was evaluated using the Our Coast, Our Future (OCOF; produced by US Geological Survey) mapping products, while future coastal erosion was evaluated using the Pacific Institute (PI) erosion maps. 2 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, prepared by ESA. June 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67369.96&BlobID=14459. 3 County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, prepared by County of San Mateo et. al. Final Report, March 2018.
1.f
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-6
Our Coast, Our Future
Our Coast Our Future (Ballard et al. 2016) is a collaborative project that provides online maps and tools to help users understand, visualize and anticipate vulnerabilities to sea level rise and storms. The project maps 40 different sea level rise and storm scenarios that were developed by the US Geological Survey (USGS) using their Coastal Storm Modeling System1 (CoSMoS 2.0, North-central California (outer coast)).
Various OCOF mapping products were used to evaluate existing and future coastal flooding hazards due to sea level rise (for regular tidal inundation) and storm flooding (considering a 100-year coastal event).
The OCOF/CoSMoS modeling used for the Vulnerability Assessment does not incorporate the long-term erosion of shorelines and bluffs and thus the flood layers may underestimate flood exposure. The modeling does however use recent (2013) topography that includes existing features such as the elevation of the Beach Boulevard seawall and the Sharp Park Golf Course levee. While potential erosion is not included in the OCOF maps, flooding shown beyond these built features essentially represents conditions for the ongoing maintenance of these elements at their current location and elevation. 4 Pacific Institute Study
In 2009, Philip William and Associates, Ltd. (PWA, now ESA) was funded by the Ocean Protection Council to provide the technical hazards analysis supporting the Pacific Institute report on the “Impacts of Sea Level Rise to the California Coast” (PWA 2009; Pacific Institute 2009). In the course of this work, PWA projected future coastal flooding hazards for the entire state based on a review of existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard maps and projected future coastal erosion hazard areas for the northern and central California coastline, ending at Santa Barbara. These hazard areas were used in the Pacific Institute study, which evaluated potential socio-economic impacts of sea level rise. In order to maintain consistency with the Sea Change SMC study, ESA used the coastal erosion hazard maps in this Vulnerability Assessment to identify potential impacts to Pacifica. The erosion hazard zones produced for this study do not consider the effects of coastal armoring structures, but rather depict the potential extent of erosion in the case that armoring fails or is not maintained. It is important to understand the potential risk that coastal erosion poses to assets without assuming any given adaptation strategy, and the Pacific Institute erosion maps are the best available resource to do so in Pacifica.
The Vulnerability Assessment tabulated asset exposures within seven coastal sub-areas5to facilitate more focused development of adaptation strategies and policies. The subareas used in this assessment, and carried forward throughout this chapter are consistent with the seven subareas used in the other chapters of this LCLUP. The one exception is the West Sharp Park neighborhood. It was decided that the analysis should combine the portion of the West Sharp Park neighborhood along the public sea wall and retaining wall with the Sharp Park Golf Course, West Fairway Park and Mori Point subarea. This decision was made because this entire stretch of shoreline is publicly owned and fully government owned shoreline may have different policy or funding considerations. An additional subarea identified in this planning effort is the West Linda Mar neighborhood, which is not in the Coastal Zone, but will be affected by sea level rise coastal hazards. Figure 6-1 shows the subareas referenced in this Chapter. 4 Erosion modeling was not included in the OCOF mapping data for the Pacifica area at the time of preparation of the Vulnerability Assessment. 5 Eight subareas were analyzed under the Vulnerability Assessment. However, one of those subareas is a portion of West Linda Mar and is outside of the Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6 -7
<<INSERT FIGURE 6-1>>>
1.f
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-8
Based on the best available hazard data from OCOF and PI, the potential hazards for land within the City were identified and evaluated in the Vulnerability Assessment (ESA 2018a). Dominant coastal hazards in Pacifica include the following:
• long-term shoreline erosion
• storm-event coastal erosion of bluffs and beaches
• coastal flooding associated with major wave events
• rising groundwater levels in Linda Mar
• flooding from Laguna Salada and San Pedro Creek
Maps were developed for each subarea depicting the anticipated areas needing protection under the most extreme sea level rise projections. These Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps are included as Appendix B to the LCP and relate to administration of Coastal Resilience Policies CR-I-1, CR-I-2, CR-I-7, CR-I-43, and other policies in this chapter.
The following public and private assets were determined to experience some form of existing or future risk and related vulnerability to sea level rise (e.g., coastal erosion and/or flooding):
• Property (public land and structures, private land and structures including homes, hotels, businesses, etc.)
• Public roads (local and regional)
• Drinking water system
• Wastewater pipes, mains and pump stations
• Stormwater pipes and pump stations
• Parks, trails, and coastal public access
• Beach and wetland habitats
• Other utilities (e.g. communications, electricity, gas) During preparation of the Vulnerability Assessment, the City heard concerns from the public that the PI data used to project coastal erosion did not consider the effects of existing shoreline protection (i.e., coastal armoring) structures. As a result, commenters expressed that the projected area for erosion shown in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps (Appendix B of the LCP) was more extreme than practical due to the protections provided by the existing shoreline protection structures and, therefore, the Maps were inappropriate for purposes of assessing actual vulnerability. However, because the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps show significant erosion for areas that are protected by existing shoreline protection structures, the Maps highlight the protection provided by the structures. importance of the existing structures and the vital need for them to be maintained to protect those vulnerable areas. The City acknowledges that the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps would not be appropriate for the use of site-specific erosion analyses, but the Maps do show important information necessary to make general planning-level decisions about the vulnerability of portions of the Coastal Zone. Revising the Maps to show the anticipated erosion associated with sea level rise with existing shoreline protection structures in place would result in a smaller projected area of vulnerability, but would not fully show what areas are in fact being protected by the shoreline protection structures and the value of the assets they protect would not be accurately captured.
6.3 1.f
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-9
The findings of the Vulnerability Assessment were used to inform which adaptation strategies may be appropriate to consider in each subarea and provide the background information for the subsequent study, the Adaptation Plan, which is discussed below. The Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps utilized the best available data at the time of preparation. The erosion scenario does not account for existing shoreline protection structures. This information is continually evolving and the maps reflect a long planning horizon recognizing typical design life of structures. Updated models and site-specific analysis could identify that the respective Coastal Vulnerability Zones may have shifted to include more or less area. Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps are not detailed to the parcel-scale and should not be used for real estate, financing, or insurance transactions, or other uses such as navigation, permitting, or regulatory uses. To confirm vulnerability potential, further studies should be performed for Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Coastal Vulnerability projections were sourced from publicly available data and existing models not created by the City of Pacifica.
Adaptation Plan
Following the above-mentioned Vulnerability Assessment, but also in 2018, the City prepared a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan6. The Adaptation Plan was prepared using information identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. The purpose of the Adaptation Plan was to be a background document that analyzed various adaptation strategies for each subarea, including the costs and benefits of each adaptation strategy, to inform future decisions on adaptation policies. The cost-benefit analysis section of the Adaptation Plan was not adopted or approved by the City of Pacifica. The purpose of the costbenefit analysis was to provide information regarding various sea level rise scenarios and adaptation options and was not intended to prescribe specific adaptation policies. The cost-benefit analysis was perceived to require additional work to adequately analyze the value of public recreational amenities.
The cost-benefit analysis shall not be used for any future purpose by the City of Pacifica or its planning processes, including implementation of the Local Coastal Program, public infrastructure investment, permitting or other regulatory purposes.
The Adaptation Plan modeled selected feasible adaptation strategies for each subarea. The plan identified environmental triggers for when an adaptation strategy would need to be implemented and the cost-benefit analysis of implementation. The cost-benefit analysis considered costs related to • Engineering
• Flooding and erosion
• Transient occupancy, sales, and property tax receipts • Property transactions
The estimated costs were then compared to the estimated benefits of the increased recreational value of expanded beach areas. The comparison was made using an economic methodology that detailed its assumptions as well as the limitations of the analysis and gaps in available data. The cost-benefit analysis was conducted using engineering unit cost estimates for adaptation measures and asset replacement, scheduling (and costing) of adaptation measures through time using a shoreline evolution model and flooding thresholds, and conducting a geographic information system (GIS) exposure analysis 6 Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, prepared by ESA. September 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58348.79&BlobID=14632. This footnote is for informational purposes only and does not constitute incorporation of the Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan into this LCLUP.
6.4 6.4
1.f
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-10
for the alternative adaptation strategies considered in each sub-area. The Table 6-2 7 below provides a
summary of the methods and data sources used for the cost-benefit analysis.
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF METHODS AND DATA SOURCES FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Estimate Valuation Method Source
Residential Land Market Update County Parcel Data
San Mateo County,
Zillow
Commercial Land Market Update County Parcel Data
San Mateo County,
Zillow
Publicly Owned Land,
Land Trusts Acquisition Cost Apply acreage metric Various Publicly Owned Buildings Appraisals City of Pacifica
Demolition Costs Removal Costs Apply sq. ft. metric ESA Linda Mar Beach Non-Market Valuation
Day Use Value X
Attendance City of Pacifica
Other Beaches Non-Market Valuation
Day Use Value X
Attendance Pacifica CRSMP
Trails None
Estimate Length of Trails
Lost City of Pacifica
Golf Course Market and Non-Market
See Appendix B of
Adaptation Plan Various
Water Pipes Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric NCCWD Communication Conduits Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric Comcast Wastewater Pipes Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Wastewater Mains/Pumps Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Roads Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Stormwater Pipes/Pumps Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Source: ESA 2018b; Table 15, Page 69
During preparation of the Adaptation Plan, the City heard concerns from the public that the cost-benefit analysis did not include consideration of some assets, which undervalued the assets needing protection.
Examples provided by the public included the recreational values of Sharp Park Golf Course and coastal trails. The Adaptation Plan provides a detailed description of what assets were considered in the costbenefit analysis and which items were either not included or discussed only at a qualitative value and the reasoning for such actions. An analysis of the recreational value of the Sharp Park Golf Course in the Adaptation Plan concludes that the recreational value of the Golf Course is approximately even with the operation costs for the golf course. For this reason and other factors provided in the Adaptation Plan, and with the recommendation from a qualified economic consultant, the loss of the Sharp Park Golf Course was only evaluated as a loss of public property.
Other public comments related to the valuation assigned to trails. Pacifica has a number of coastal hiking trails which are popular with various user types. However, no reliable source to quantify trail use could be found for inclusion in the Adaptation Plan. The Adaptation Plan recognizes that a recreational value for the trails was not provided, but also assumed that trails are an asset that can naturally be relocated. The cost-benefit analysis does qualitatively value the estimated loss of trails by acknowledging the loss of trails in linear feet for each alternative. 7 Table 6-2 is a replication of Table 15 (page 69) from the ESA 2018b.
1.f
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-11
Additionally, the City also heard concerns from the public regarding the recreational beach value used in the cost-benefit analysis. Commenters were concerned that the $40/day per person-visit value was an unsupported value and the analysis overestimated beach attendance. Concerns were that an overestimated value would set a standard for future mitigation costs for maintaining current shoreline protection structures and would create an imbalance on the analysis in favor of managed retreat. The cost-benefit analysis in the Adaptation Plan was prepared to support and inform the comparison of various adaptation strategies. The cost-benefit analysis is not intended to establish a standardized statewide beach recreation value. As fully discussed in the Adaptation Plan, the City did address concerns that the $40/day per person-visit value was too high for Pacifica’s beaches and that the number of people using the beach was very small, lower than the estimates used in the Adaptation Plan.
In response, a sensitivity analysis was applied using a lower day-use value ($10/day per person-visit)8. In summary, significantly lowering the value of a beach day, or significantly lowering attendance, did not change the rank ordering of the alternatives in economic terms, except at Rockaway Beach, where a higher attendance estimate would justify beach nourishment, which would also help protect the hotels, restaurants and other businesses there.
The findings of the Adaptation Plan are just one of the considerations that were used to develop the Coastal Resilience policies below and, as discussed, the Coastal Resilience policies focus on protection and armoring of the shoreline for specific limited circumstances as provided for within the Coastal Act and reassessment of the Adaptation Plan in the future. Therefore, changes to the cost-benefit analysis are not necessary to inform the Coastal Resiliency policies. in a manner to discourage managed retreat as suggested by some public commenters detailed below would be unnecessary since the Coastal Resilience policies do not include managed retreat as an adaptation strategy. As noted earlier in this section, the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the Adaptation Plan shall not be used for any future purpose by the City of Pacifica or its planning processes.
The Adaptation Plan was prepared to inform City decision making about a variety of sea level rise adaptation policies, but does not include or dictate the ultimate policies selected by the City. Although managed retreat alternatives are analyzed in the Adaptation Plan in accordance with the City’s grant agreement with the CCC, these analyses do not, in themselves, equate to a managed retreat policy. The City uses other sea level rise adaptation policy in this LCP and any future changes to policy will require an amendment to this LCP. To the contrary, the City has rejected managed retreat as a sea level rise adaptation policy in this LCP and managed retreat could only become the policy of the City subsequent to a future amendment to the LCP.
As mentioned above, there are many unknowns associated with sea level rise. The science and modeling of sea level rise projections are inherently uncertain. The rate of sea level rise is highly dependent on whether global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase or whether global emissions will be reduced. The rate of sea level rise could be higher, or lower, than current projections. The Vulnerability Assessment and the Adaptation Plan are the background documents that were prepared to inform the development of the Coastal Resilience policies contained in the LCP. The background documents were prepared based on the best available science and available data at the time of preparation. As discussed 8 Note that the effect of lowering the beach value by 75% yields the same result as lowering attendance by 75% or reducing both attendance and unit value by 50%.
6.4 6.4
6.4 6.4
1.f
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-12
in the policies, updates to these background documents may be appropriate as future best available science progresses, which may warrant the consideration of new or revised Coastal Resilience policies.
6.4 GENERAL POLICIES
Based on the results of the Adaptation Plan, consideration given to the Coastal Act, stakeholder input9, and Council goals, the below Coastal Resilience policies were developed and selected for inclusion in the LCP.
Guiding Policies
CR-G-1 Key Coastal Act Policies. The City of Pacifica adopts the following key policies derived from the Coastal Act to address coastal resilience:
PRC 30235. Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, 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.
PRC 30253. New development shall: (1) minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard; and (2) assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic 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; and,
The Coastal Resilience policies adopted herein are intended to achieve and are consistent with these key policies, subject to periodic updates as resource and development monitoring and program implementation may dictate.
CR-G-2 Sea Level Rise and Best Available Science. Planning and development reviews shall use, as applicable, the best available science about projected sea level rise and other climate change-related environmental changes when addressing coastal erosion, bluff failure, flooding, and other coastal hazards.
9 Public comments were received throughout the process of preparing the Coastal Resilience policies. Comments and responses to those comments were published after public review of each of the deliverables. Please see https://CityofPacifica.org/sealevelrise for more information.
1.f
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-13
Implementing Policies
CR-I-1 Vulnerability Identification and Mapping. The City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones shall be mapped based on the best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. Mapping shall be updated as necessary to guide implementation of the LCP’s Coastal Resilience policies. Notwithstanding the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps, site-specific hazard mapping and assessment may be required as part of the individual development review process for properties within the City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones.
6.5 COASTAL RESILIENCE POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-2 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. The City shall implement its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan10 as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies. Adaptation alternatives evaluated in the Adaptation Plan that are not specifically expressed in these Coastal Resilience policies shall not be implemented without an amendment to the LCP, public notice, and opportunity for public input. The City shall monitor implementation and, consistent with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-4, update the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan to strengthen public safety, preserve existing neighborhoods, assure local economic vitality, respond to climate change, promote environmental justice, implement the Coastal Act, and protect the public trust.
Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones may be approved consistent with the subarea policies in Section 6.6 if the following findings can be made:
a. The proposed development is sited and designed to avoid, and where unavoidable, to minimize coastal hazards and impacts to coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the Adaptation Plan; b. All project impacts on coastal resources are avoided, and where unavoidable, minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-5) or consistent with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-59.
c. The project will not pose unacceptable risks to life or property for the anticipated life of the development or otherwise create a nuisance; and d. The project will not encroach on public trust lands for the anticipated life of the development; and
10 Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, prepared by ESA. September 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58348.79&BlobID=14632. This footnote is for informational purposes only and does not constitute incorporation of the Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan into this LCLUP.
6.5 6.6
6.6 6.6
6.6 1.f
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-14
e. The project is designed to assure stability and structural integrity absent the need for shoreline protective devices for the anticipated life of the development.
CR-I-3 Monitoring Shoreline Change. The City shall implement a monitoring program for sea level rise, beach width, bluff offset, flooding and storm damage, and other potential measures or triggers for guiding implementation of the Coastal Resilience policies. The monitoring program shall include yearly biannual (minimum following winter and summer) shoreline and bluff edge surveys and also establish thresholds for reassessing the City’s Adaptation Plan.
The City, in coordination with Coastal Commission staff, shall create an alternating schedule to do half of the applicable area each year.
CR-I-4 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Update. The City shall reassess its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies every five years or sooner as required by the shoreline monitoring program (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3). The reassessment shall consider the following:
• Efficacy of Adaptation Plan and implemented measures. • Updated sea level rise projections and risks.
• Potential need to revise adaptation measures or implement new measures, including review of emerging engineering, science, and technologies. • Funding needs and potential funding sources.
The draft findings of the City’s reassessment shall be disseminated to the public for review and comment prior to being finalized.
CR-I-5 Shoreline Mitigation Program. Within three years of certification of the LCP Land Use Plan update, the City shall adopt a Shoreline Mitigation Program to address the coastal resource impacts of existing and future shoreline protection projects in the City, and it shall be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as an LCP amendment.
Special emphasis shall be placed on maintaining beaches and public access to and along the shoreline. The program will update the public access inventory of the LCP as necessary, include a coastal resource inventory and identify priority improvements for maintaining and enhancing coastal shoreline resources, particularly public access and recreation. The program will include enforceable measures to achieve proportional mitigation of resource impacts identified in shoreline protection projects, including consideration of beach widths, sediment management plan actions, and monitoring.
The program will identify potential funding sources for implementation of identified improvements. The program will include provisions for monitoring implementation and program updates as necessary. Until the adoption of a Shoreline Mitigation Program by the City and subsequent certification by the Coastal Commission, coastal resource impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with CR-I-59.
6.6 6.7
6.7 6.8
6.8 1.f
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-15
CR-I-6 Adaptation Funding. The City will pursue feasible grant funding sources or new funding mechanisms, such as the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHADs) as supported by NH-I-16, or securing FEMA and other federal or state adaptation and hazard mitigation funds, to finance adaptation strategies for public infrastructure.
CR-I-7 Transfer of Development Rights. Use the City’s transfer of development rights (TDR) ordinance to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones (sending sites) to receiving sites outside of Coastal Vulnerability zones. Identify areas where densities and heights may be increased using TDR credits, including to facilitate affordable housing.
CR-I-8 Critical Transportation Infrastructure. The City will pursue opportunities to preserve, protect, or relocate critical local transportation infrastructure, or provide alternative access, to mitigate against isolation and economic loss, and to ensure public safety, while avoiding (and where unavoidable minimizing and mitigating) impacts to coastal resources, including public access and recreation, to the maximum extent feasible, and being consistent with prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
CR-I-9 Hazard Prone Infrastructure. The City will preserve, protect, or relocate hazard prone infrastructure to maintain critical services and protect coastal resources, including if required by prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Preservation/protection in situ with shoreline armoring shall be required to meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-10 Business Outreach. The City’s Economic Development Division shall provide nonfinancial assistance to businesses in evaluating options to promote business resiliency.
CR-I-11 High Water Program. The City will research and evaluate feasible new funding mechanisms to implement a program to record high water marks where feasible following high-water events.
CR-I-12 Flood Ordinance Consistency. The City will review and amend as necessary the flood damage prevention ordinance to assure consistency with the updated policies and ordinances of the LCP.
CR-I-13 LHMP Alignment. The City will coordinate its departments and programs to align the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the LCP to ensure proactive, coordinated and streamlined adaptation efforts and response to future coastal hazards. The City shall leverage FEMA funding opportunities for hazard mitigation and other related funding mechanisms to implement the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies.
6.9 6.10
1.f
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-16
CR-I-14 Regional Sediment Management. Participate in regional approaches to protecting, enhancing and restoring coastal beaches and watersheds through the California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, with a goal of minimizing coastal erosion.
CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures shall be avoided except that existing shoreline protection structures may be maintained or new shoreline protection structures constructed to protect existing structures in danger from erosion if found to be the least environmentally-damaging alternative, impacts to beach, public access and recreation, and other coastal resources are fully mitigated consistent with CR-I-5 and CR-I-59, and compliant with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act . Allow shoreline protection structures for the public road and sewer line existing structures if necessary and consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, other LCP policies, and the Coastal Act. New development on blufftops shall comply will all LCP setback policies, including CR-I-44.
CR-I-16 Beach Nourishment. Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment In coordination with the California Coastal Commission and other permitting agencies (e.g. State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) the City shall evaluate a beach nourishment program, in conjunction with sand retention structures (see artificial headlands concept in the Adaptation Plan) as described in CR-I-55, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average, consistent with other LCP policies and the Coastal Act. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time. The beach nourishment program will need to be evaluated to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and will include measures to protect water quality and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and mitigate) potential adverse coastal resource impacts, including biological resource impacts, from deposition of material, including measures such as sand compatibility specifications, restrictions on volume of deposition, timing or seasonal restrictions, and identification of environmentally preferred locations for deposits.
6.6 SUB-AREA POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
The following policies and programs implement the near-term sea level rise adaptation priorities for each sub-area in Pacifica, and identify mid- and long-term adaptation measures, subject to feasibility and monitoring concerns. These priorities were developed based on existing conditions and existing/near term vulnerabilities for each sub-area, as well as the City’s adopted goals for sea level rise adaptation.
6.11 6.12
1.f
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-17
As required in Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3, the City shall monitor erosion, flooding, and sea level rise amount into the future to identify triggers for future adaptation measures beyond initial actions required due to existing conditions. Where applicable, the titles of the policies in this subsection detail when the policy should be implemented. For example, CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure) should be implemented when 0 to 1 foot of sea level rise or a 260-foot bluff offset is experienced. The bluff offset is measured distance between the edge of the bluffs and the asset (e.g., infrastructure, development). These triggers do not account for regulatory permitting, approvals, or financing; therefore planning should be done in advance of the triggers.
Generally, for all lands within the Coastal Vulnerability 2050 Pacific Institute erosion hazard zones 11 ,
utilities, roadways and other public infrastructure should be floodproofed unless other adaptation alternatives are implemented and performing well, and only if consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies. The City should incentivize risk reduction (e.g, floodproofing, etc.) that property owners can invest in, with grant funding or code updates. In addition, the City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue floodproofing infrastructure that may be currently exposed to coastal erosion and flooding to reduce the consequences of under-performance of protection measures, only if such floodproofing infrastructure is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies, consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies (CR-I-61).
The City’s overall approach to address for new development is to minimize or avoid current and projected future coastal hazards is through siting and design of new development to be out of harm’s way and to limit shoreline armoring as much as possible, including to help preserve and protect the City’s shoreline and beaches. At the same time, managed retreat is not included in any of the nearterm policies. Managed retreat would be reconsidered if feasibility and monitoring warranted, as detailed in Coastal Resilience Policies CR-I-3 and CR-I-4.
SPECIAL RESILIENCY AREAS
The Special Resiliency Areas (SRA) include the existing shoreline protection structures in the Rockaway and West Sharp Park sub-areas. These areas have existing development patterns with significant amounts of Pre-Coastal development, a mix of public streets and infrastructure, land use prioritized by the Coastal Act, and significant unified public coastal access, all protected by broad existing shoreline protection, that warrant a unique policy approach. The purpose of modifying policy applicable to this area is to allow ongoing economic use and vitality of property, provision of public services, operation of visitor-serving uses, and protection of robust coastal access for all persons including persons with disabilities within a Special Resiliency Area (SRA). The two SRA locations are identified in Figure 6-2 and 6-3
Implementing Policies
11 Maps available at http://esanw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5163d0c3a03043baba59eb273cce3139
6.13 6.13
6.13 6.13
6.14 1.f
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-18
CR-I-17 Shoreline Management Plan. The City will establish a funding source for visitor amenity improvements. Funding sources may include, but not be limited to, grants, fees, assessments, taxes, and any other lawful public or private funding source. The City will create a funding and implementation plan with specific projects to improve visitor amenities in the Special Resiliency Areas. Creation of this plan will include community outreach and input. The plan will be updated every 5 years and will identify specific short-, medium-, and long-term projects to mitigate coastal resource impacts from ongoing reliance on shoreline protection within Special Resiliency Areas. In general, the implementation plan will fund a variety of projects identifying and carrying out shoreline protection removal opportunities, implementing nature-based solutions to adapt existing shoreline protection devices, maintenance or alteration of existing shoreline protection devices to expand public coastal access including but not limited to trails and beach access, acquiring and conserving undeveloped coastal properties, and enhancing visitor amenities. Specific amenity improvements may be constructed anywhere within mapped Special Resiliency Areas although shoreline protection device removal may occur anywhere within the City of Pacifica.
FAIRMONT WEST
The Fairmont West sub-area includes 0.6 miles of shoreline at the northern most portion of the City of Pacifica that includes open space west of and residential development east of Palmetto Ave and Westline Drive. The most seaward assets in this sub-area are the north end of Palmetto Avenue and Westline Drive which are beyond 300 feet from the current bluff edge, and the Dollaradio station (100 Palmetto Avenue), both of which were constructed prior to the Coastal Act. A rock revetment was constructed along the bluff toe in front of Dollaradio in 2010.
The roadway and utilities in Fairmont West are at risk after one to two feet of sea level rise. Some beach width may exist for access and other coastal resources, but given the high bluffs here, there is not adequate vertical access to the beach. Due to the undeveloped conditions of the bluffs in this sub-area, adaptation efforts are not required immediately. Beach nourishment, while a lower priority for this subarea compared to other more developed sub-areas in the City, could take place at a later date with a larger volume of sand. CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design.
Implementing Policies
6.15 1.f
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-19
CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure). Shoreline protection structures shall be avoided except that the existing shoreline protection structures may be maintained or new shoreline protection structures constructed to protect existing structures in danger from erosion if found to be the least environmentally-damaging alternative, impacts are fully mitigated consistent with CR-I-5, and compliant with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Allow shoreline protection structures for the public road and sewer line existing structures if necessary and consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, other LCP policies, and the Coastal Act. New development on blufftops shall comply will all LCP setback policies, including CR-I-44.
CR-I-16 Beach Nourishment (2 feet SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure).
Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (see artificial headlands concept in the Adaptation Plan) as described in CR-I55, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
CR-I-17 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to private landowners to voluntarily transfer development potential as supported by CR-I-7.
WEST EDGEMAR AND PACIFIC MANOR
The West Edgemar and Pacific Manor sub-area includes all land west of Highway 1, south of Dollaradio Station to and including the San Francisco RV Resort. The sub-area includes 0.8 miles of coastline that consists of rip rap and a few short (100-400 feet) stretches of sandy beach. The backshore is characterized by tall bluffs (60-120 feet) with development on or near the edge of bluff. Approximately 80 percent of the backshore is currently armored in this sub-area, which highlights the erosion hazards posed to bluff top property and infrastructure.
Built assets and property are at risk from bluff erosion where unarmored now. Much of the armored areas may be overwhelmed by waves with as little as one foot of sea level rise, due to scour and structure sloughing, increased wave loads and overtopping of the structure. Beaches tend to exist in pockets, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. Beach access is limited in West Edgemar and Pacific Manor.
6.16 6.17
1.f
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-20
Implementing Policies
CR-I-18 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 220-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure or development). Maintain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures to protect existing public infrastructure structures, including between Bill Drake Way and Manor Drive. Allow private property owners to maintain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures if allowed pursuant to Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, and if consistent with prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act, and require mitigation of beach, public access and recreation and other coastal resource impacts, consistent with CR-I-5 or CR-I-59, as necessary.
CR-I-19 Beach Nourishment (0-1 foot SLR or 220-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure or development). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept) as described in CR-I-55, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
NORTHWEST SHARP PARK
The Northwest Sharp Park sub-area includes land west of Highway 1 and between the SF RV Resort and Bella Vista Ave. This sub-area is the northern portion of the West Sharp Park sub-area for the remaining chapters of the LCP. For this chapter, the West Sharp Park sub-area from the LCP was divided along the parcel boundaries between Shoreview Avenue and Paloma Avenue for two reasons. First, the backshore armoring infrastructure changes at this location from private to public. North of the divide, private homes are armored by rock revetments and gunnite covering the bluff face. South of the divide, a public walkway and Beach Boulevard runs along the bluff top which is protected by a seawall and fronting rock revetment. Secondly, flooding at the Sharp Park Golf Course (SPGC) affects residences surrounding the course. Any shoreline management strategies taken for SPGC will have implications for the neighborhood north of and adjacent to the golf course. Thus, the southern portion of West Sharp Park sub-area was combined with the Sharp Park sub-area in order to more clearly discuss existing conditions, evaluate vulnerability and develop adaptation strategies that account for this flooding linkage.
Northwest Sharp Park sub-area includes approximately 2,800 feet of shoreline from the south end of the San Francisco RV Resort to the north end of the Beach Boulevard seawall. The shoreline is almost entirely covered with rock or rubble; the beach is currently very narrow at the north end and disappears in front of the armored homes along Shoreview Avenue. The backshore is about 90 percent armored in this sub-area, owing to gaps in rubble along the northern bluffs.
6.18 6.19
1.f
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-21
The backshore of Northwest Sharp Park is armored but may be overwhelmed by waves with as little as one foot of sea level rise, due to existing scour and shoreline protection structure sloughing, increased wave loads and overtopping of the shoreline protection structure. Beaches tend to exist ephemerally in pockets, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. Existing property and infrastructure are at risk from coastal erosion so actions should be taken soon. As directed by CR-I-5, the City will prepare a public access improvement plan as part of the Shoreline Mitigation Program . Due to the potential lead time of establishing a sand source, beach nourishment planning should begin immediately. CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-20 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Private land owners may maintain, expand, or construct new shoreline protection structures to protect existing structures in danger from erosion, consistent with CR-I-2 and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
CR-I-21 Beach Nourishment (0-2 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept), to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
CR-I-22 Flood Protection (1 feet SLR). Enable property owners to modify development structures (e.g., elevate a residence) to manage impacts of wave run-up and overtopping of bluff face provided such modifications are consistent with the LCP and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
SHARP PARK, WEST FAIRWAY PARK AND MORI POINT
The Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point sub-area (Figure 14 and Figure 15, Appendix B-4) includes land west of Highway 1 and contains the Palmetto Ave business district, Beach Boulevard Promenade, Fishing Pier, multiple City-owned parcels and landmarks, the Sharp Park Golf Course (SPGC), West Sharp Park and West Fairway Park neighborhoods and Mori Point. In order to represent the
6.20 6.21
6.22 1.f
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-22
flooding connectivity of the lower Sharp Park neighborhood with the SPGC, the “West Sharp Park” subarea was split in two (as described for Northwest Sharp Park above).
The shoreline in this sub-area is comprised of rip rap at the north end along the Beach Boulevard seawall, coarse grained sand from the pier to Mori Point, and exposed wave-cut platforms in bedrock around Mori Point. At the north end of this sub-area, the backshore consists of the Beach Boulevard seawall and fronting rock revetment that extend south of the Pacifica Pier and terminates north of Clarendon Avenue. The seawall protects the pedestrian walkway, road and residential properties from its northern terminus to Montecito Avenue. South of Montecito Avenue there is open space and parking between the seawall/walkway and development that includes City owned and private parcels. The beach is mostly absent along northern Beach Boulevard (north of the pier), and emerges south of the Pacifica Fishing Pier and widens with distance south. Beyond the south end of the seawall, the City currently manages a sand berm to limit wave run-up and overtopping at the end of Clarendon Ave.
South of Clarendon, the backshore consists of an earthen berm levee that spans south to the headlands of Mori Point. The levee was built in the 1980s to protect the Sharp Park Golf Course. The fronting beach is approximately 200 feet wide with sparse vegetation along the back of beach. Approximately 1,150 feet of the northern portion of the levee are covered with rock, while the southern approximately 250 feet are armored by a revetment where the drainage outfall is located.
Most of this area is armored. The northern section between the Pier and Paloma Avenue is subject to frequent wave overtopping and damage to homes has occurred. Beaches are narrow and ephemeral, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. South of the Pier, the beach tends to be more persistent and wider, and there is usually an accessible beach in the vicinity of the end of Clarendon Road, with reliable vertical and lateral beach access. South of Clarendon Road to Mori Point, the beach persists although wave run-up can reach the levee and there is some armoring.
This sub-area is exposed to flooding due to rainfall runoff which cannot flow directly to the ocean. The Clarendon Road area is exposed to flooding now, and certain parts of the West Fairway neighborhood may be exposed to flooding if sea level and ground water levels rise over 3 feet. Due to the potential lead time of establishing a sand source, beach nourishment planning should begin immediately. Policy CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design Flood protection is already needed for homes and businesses along Clarendon Road during rain events and will need to be improved around Sharp Park Golf Course to manage flooding of Laguna Salada regardless of the condition of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm. The City and County of San Francisco is expected to maintain the Sharp Park Golf Course berm which protects the Sharp Park and West Fairway Park neighborhoods from the coastal flooding source, but existing pumping facilities in Sharp Park Golf Course are not designed to mitigate flooding in and around the course during significant rainfall events (i.e., a portable pump station is currently used to manage rainfall runoff flooding along Clarendon Road).
The priority recommendations for flood protection surrounding Sharp Park Golf Course are therefore based on the rainfall (fluvial) flood source, but would also be effective during a major coastal storm if the Sharp Park Golf Course berm is overtopped or breached. Flooding due to wave run-up landward of Beach Boulevard seawalls is already an issue. Monitoring of the existing seawalls against the higher sea
1.f
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-23
levels expected in the future will be necessary (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3). Results of the monitoring will be considered during the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Update to determine if additional flood protection adaptation measures are necessary.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-23 Sharp Park Golf Course. Strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s ability to provide public access along the coast, protect Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area, and provide flood protection. maintenance of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm and armoring, consistent with the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission, including adaptation planning for the course, and protecting public access.
The City of Pacifica shall strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s ongoing maintenance of the berm even if Coastal Commission termination of authorization is trigged by the conditions of approval, or require construction of flood protection improvements by the City and County of San Francisco.
CR-I-24 Shoreline Protection Structures (0 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct shoreline protection structures to protect existing public infrastructure structures if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57. Extend the Beach Boulevard seawall to the Sharp Park Golf Course berm if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-25 Structure Elevation (0-2 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct shoreline protection structures if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, and with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act to limit wave overtopping unless beach nourishment strategies are effective in reducing wave run-up on the backshore. Elevate development structures if consistent with Policy CR-I-61, and with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act as necessary to mitigate flood damage, consistent with height limitations,.
Elevations of wave run-up and associated development thresholds shall be determined via a site-specific study.
CR-I-26 Beach Nourishment (0-1 feet SLR). Pursue beach nourishment and sand retention structures to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and provide beach resources. Encourage the City and County of San Francisco to nourish the beach fronting the Sharp Park Golf Course berm to maintain beach widths.
CR-I-27 Flood Protection (0 foot SLR). Evaluate and construct appropriate flood protection measures, which may include a Clarendon Road stormwater basin, pump station, and/or interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee, to protect homes and businesses from existing fluvial storm flood hazard zone.
6.23 6.24
6.25 6.26
6.27 1.f
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-24
CR-I-28 Flood Protection (3 feet SLR). Evaluate the future need to construct a West Fairway Park stormwater basin, pump station, and interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee to protect western homes from future coastal/fluvial flood hazard zone.
ROCKAWAY BEACH, QUARRY AND HEADLANDS
This sub-area includes the vacant quarry site, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway Headlands. Of the 1,800 feet of shoreline at Rockaway Beach, 1,000 feet are backed by armoring structures. South of the armored development, a small creek daylights from under the highway and flows onto the wider public beach. There are two beach access points in this sub-area: one at the parking lot just south of Calera Creek mouth, and the other at Rockaway Beach.
The armoring near the end of Rockaway Beach Avenue is overtopped by waves under present conditions, with occasional damages caused to nearby structures. Hence, this area has very little capacity and will have a noticeably degraded condition with as little as one foot of sea level rise. There is no beach in this area, with waves crashing directly into the shoreline protection structures. The shore becomes more accessible with distance northward but will also be more limited with as little as 1 foot of sea level rise. The south end of Rockaway Beach is unarmored, has a persistent beach and the backshore is estimated to be impacted with about 2 feet of sea level rise.
Due to the cove configuration of Rockaway Beach, it is a great candidate for beach nourishment. Policies recommend that Rockaway Beach be used as a pilot project for beach nourishment in Pacifica. In the pilot project, the City will go through the overall process for beach nourishment and identify available sources in the region and corresponding sediment characteristics and costs, evaluate the performance of the nourishment and enable the City to reevaluate nourishment along northern Pacifica and perform a more thorough assessment for a larger-scale nourishment project.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-29 Shoreline Protection Structure Shoreline Protection Structures (0 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures along the north cove for public safety and hazard reduction if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-30 Shoreline Protection (2-3 feet SLR, or when backshore toe is 100 feet from Highway 1).
Coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate the need for a revetment or other appropriate shoreline protection for the Highway 1 embankment.
CR-I-31 Public Access (0 feet SLR). Plan and provide for enhanced public access, consistent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5).
CR-I-32 Beach Nourishment/Public Access (0 feet SLR). Plan and implement beach nourishment for Rockaway Beach. Monitor and measure performance and any reduction of shoreline
6.28 6.30
6.29 6.32
6.31 1.f
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-25
protection structure maintenance needs. Establish mechanisms through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) to receive and use beach impact mitigation funds from other sub-areas of the City.
CR-I-33 Development Setbacks (ongoing). Implement new development shoreline setbacks consistent with CR-I-44.
CR-I-34 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to the private landowners of the Rockaway Headlands to voluntarily transfer development potential as supported by CR-I-7.
PACIFICA STATE BEACH & WEST LINDA MAR
This sub-area spans from the northeast end of Pacifica State Beach to the mouth of San Pedro Creek and includes land west of Highway 1 North. The beach is currently 100 to 250 feet wide. The backshore is mostly comprised of low vegetated dunes habitat in the middle and north portions, while a low seawall fronts the northern pump station and parking lot at the southwest end of the sub-area. The backshore in this sub-area is approximately 15 percent armored.
Adaptation policies for Pacifica State Beach and West Linda Mar are presented together because actions taken at Pacifica State Beach influence coastal hazard exposure to West Linda Mar. Much of the Pacifica State Beach sub-area has a persistent, relatively wide beach with bulkheads in the south transitioning to dune fields in the north. Hence, this shore and roadway can likely withstand at least 2 feet of sea level rise. However, the West Linda Mar sub-area east of Highway 1 has a low elevation and is subject to flooding from high creek flows and rising groundwater associated with sea level rise. Due to the existing beach widths at Pacifica State Beach and existing coastal armoring, armoring actions are not a near - term priority. However, conditions of existing armoring at the Anza stormwater pump station should be monitored to ensure protection in the near term. Nourishment of Pacifica State Beach should be initiated using the shoreline-backshore offset for the main parking lot. Beach nourishment projects should include dune restoration to maintain ecology, protect the sewer force main that is buried in the existing dune field north of the main parking lot/Anza pump station as well as provide flooding protection of Highway 1 and West Linda Mar. Pump stations at Pacifica State Beach are vulnerable to wave run-up and require floodproofing in place. The West Linda Mar neighborhood is also vulnerable to flooding from San Pedro Creek based on existing FEMA hazard maps and will become more vulnerable as sea level rise increases the flood levels in the creek via its ocean boundary condition. The West Linda Mar neighborhood was constructed in a former lagoon and experiences high groundwater issues in the lowest areas, which is evident by existing wetlands around the skate park and homes furthest west.
Groundwater in low areas near the ocean are directly influenced by the sea level, and thus groundwater issues will increase with sea level rise.
6.32 1.f
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-26
Implementing Policies
CR-I-35 Shoreline Protection (2 ft SLR or 100 foot offset from shoreline to infrastructure).
Evaluate beach conditions and consider future shoreline protection to protect existing parking structures and the existing Linda Mar stormwater and wastewater pump station structures as necessary.
CR-I-36 Highway One Protection. Coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate options for protecting Highway 1, if necessary.
CR-I-37 Beach Nourishment (2 ft SLR or 100 foot offset from shoreline to infrastructure).
Evaluate beach conditions and implement beach nourishment as necessary to maintain a 100-foot buffer seaward of the sewer force main and/or Highway 1. Repeat nourishments as needed.
CR-I-38 Flood Protection (0 feet SLR). Analyze need for floodwall along commercial property to manage flooding from San Pedro Creek under existing conditions with sea level rise allowance. Future flood studies that include climate-driven changes in precipitation should inform any floodwall design. Floodproof Anza pump station (stormwater) to mitigate existing coastal storm flooding vulnerabilities to wave run-up.
CR-I-39 Flood Protection (2 feet SLR or 100-foot offset from shoreline to infrastructure).
Floodproof the Linda Mar pump stations (sewer and stormwater) to mitigate future coastal storm flooding vulnerabilities to wave run-up as necessary.
CR-I-40 Groundwater Management (0-2 feet SLR). Begin groundwater monitoring to determine needs for dewatering wells in the lowest portions of the West Linda Mar neighborhood.
PEDRO POINT AND SHELTER COVE
The Pedro Point and Shelter Cove sub-area is the southernmost in Pacifica. The backshore is low adjacent to the creek with a few homes built seaward of the former Ocean Shore Railroad berm, two of which have boat ramps into the ocean. Most of these homes have been fortified with timber sea walls West of the beach homes, the previous railway berm and road to Shelter Cove rises to a bluff. A wooden seawall is built in front of the northernmost homes in the Shelter Cove community.
Potential bluff erosion may reach the most seaward bluff top homes at Pedro Point by about 2050 with 1 to 2 feet of sea level rise. Private property is mostly armored along the water (boat docks/homes) but requires upgrades by property owners, while bluff top properties have limited ability to prevent bluff toe erosion due to parcel limits. Private property is vulnerable to bluff erosion, but implementing bluff toe armoring would be complicated due to land ownership.
6.33 6.34
6.35 6.36
6.37 1.f
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-27
Implementing Policies
CR-I-41 Shoreline Protection Structure Upgrades. Allow maintenance of existing or new shoreline protection structures to reduce hazards and resource impacts if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57. Mitigate impacts consistent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5), or CR-I-59, as necessary.
CR-I-42 Flood Protection (0-1 feet SLR). Allow private property owners to raise homes and other development structures above wave run-up hazards if consistent with Policy CR-I-61, consistent with height limitations.
6.7 NEW SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-43 Technical Reports. Development proposed on the shoreline in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall include coastal engineering, geomorphology and other relevant technical reports unless on-site hazards already identified in a recent Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map or assessment approved within the last five years are adequate for evaluating and ensuring compliance with the LCP, including through use of permit conditions to address any uncertainty. Reports shall
• be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or other suitably qualified professional; • use the best available science;
• consider the impacts from the med-high projection (CalNRA & OPC 2018; or similar precautionary projections as reflected in future updated statewide guidance) of sea-level rise for the anticipated duration life of the proposed development;
• demonstrate that the development will avoid (or if unavoidable, minimize) impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection devices, except that in Special Resiliency Areas development will be allowed to consider protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures when analyzing hazards to the maximum extent feasible; and
• demonstrate that the factor of safety for blufftop development will be greater than or equal to 1.5 for static conditions and greater than or equal to 1.1 for seismic conditions; and
• evaluate the foreseeable effects that the development will have on coastal resources over time and mitigate the impacts where they are unavoidable.
Reports may be waived for temporary events, temporary development structures or other minor, short-term development where it is clear there will be no significant hazard risks over the project’s life.
6.38 6.39
6.40 6.41
6.42 6.43
1.f
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-28
CR-I-44 Siting and Design. New development on vacant shoreline property in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall be sited and designed to be safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development, as demonstrated by site-specific analyses and/or technical reports. Permit approvals shall prohibit shoreline protection structures for the authorized development, require the property owner to record an acknowledgement that the development does not qualify as an existing structure entitled to construction of a shoreline protection structure under Coastal Act Section 30235, and any other laws, that and a waiver of any rights to such protection structures that might exist, and that, where necessary, requires a removal and restoration plan, including bonding for large projects, to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure. However, in Special Resiliency Areas, new development shall be allowed to be sited and designed with use of the existing shoreline protection structure.
CR-I-45 Assumption of Risk by Private Landowners. Permit approvals of development on the shoreline in Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Evacuation Inundation Zones shall require the applicant to: record a deed restriction requiring the owner to assume liability and indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless, including any injury and/or damage from coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development; unconditionally waive any claim of damage from coastal hazards against the City; waive rights to future shoreline armoring; acknowledge the development may need to be removed and the site restored in response to future hazard conditions; and to assume all responsibility for any adverse effects to property caused by the permitted project and/or need for removal or relocation make other acknowledgments relating to the risks of development on the property.
CR-I-46 MHTL and Avoidance of Public Trust Lands. Applications for low-lying development adjacent to coastal waters shall include a Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) survey of the development site prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor based on field data collected within 12 months of the application submittal (may be based on City monitoring survey data if collected by a licensed professional land surveyor). The survey shall be conducted in consultation with and approved by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff. Development shall be sited to avoid public trust lands for the approved duration of the project, unless otherwise authorized by the California State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission. The City shall conduct new MHTL surveys every ten years or within one year of a new tidal datum epoch (an epoch is a 19- year tidal cycle used to calculate datums), seismic event in the project area greater than
5.5 magnitude, or significant relative rise in annual local mean sea level records.
CR-I-47 Bluff Face Development. Shoreline protection structures, grading, and landform alteration on bluff faces are prohibited, except for the following:
6.44 6.45
1.f
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-29
• Public access structures where no feasible alternative means of public access exists; and
• Shoreline protection structures if otherwise allowed by the LCP and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Such shoreline protection structures shall be designed and constructed to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize effects on erosion of the bluff face, and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and to mitigate) coastal resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
CR-I-48 Minor Development in Shoreline Areas. Minor and/or ancillary development, including public trails, benches, gazebos, patios, etc., may be located seaward of a bluff or shoreline setback line provided that development is otherwise consistent with the LCP, does not create a hazard, does not use a foundation that can serve as a bluff retaining device, such as caissons, or that requires landform alteration, and that the development is removed or relocated by the landowner when threatened or in the event that portions of the development fall to the bluffs, beach or ocean.
CR-I-49 Substantial Structural Modifications to Existing Structures. When a proposed physical improvement modifications to an existing structure would constitute a Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM), as defined, the portion of the project constituting a SESM such proposed development shall correct any existing legal nonconformities and shall be undertaken consistent with the LCP and, if applicable, the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies CR-I-43 and CR-I-44. Any portion of the existing structure that remains and which is determined to be legally nonconforming with an LCP standard, including bluff setbacks or other hazard criteria, shall not be modified to increase the degree of nonconformity. This policy shall not apply to Special Resiliency Areas.
CR-I-50 Protection of Private Property in Hazardous Areas. Where full adherence with all LCP policies, including for setbacks and other Coastal Resilience and Natural Hazard avoidance measures, would preclude a reasonable economic use of the property as a whole, the City may allow the minimum economic use and/or development of the property necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. There is no taking that needs to be avoided if the proposed development constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise prohibited pursuant to other background principles of property law (e.g., public trust doctrine). If development is allowed pursuant to this policy, it must be consistent with all LCP policies to the maximum extent feasible.
CR-I-51 Habitat Sea Level Rise Migration Buffers. An additional sea level rise buffer area shall be added to required new development habitat buffers if necessary to allow for the migration of wetlands and other coastal habitats caused by sea level rise over the anticipated duration (i.e., economic life) of the development. The overall buffer area shall include both the sea level rise and habitat buffer. Habitats include all wetlands,
6.46 6.47
1.f
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-30
riparian, intertidal/shoreline and terrestrial environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) as defined by the Coastal Act. The sea level rise projection considered shall be determined for the type of development from CalNRA and OPC (2018) guidance or the latest update based on the type of development and current State guidance. Except for temporary uses, as described below, uses and development within sea level rise buffer areas shall be limited to minor passive recreational uses, with fencing, de-siltation or erosion control facilities, or other improvements deemed necessary to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper (upland) half of the buffer area. Water quality features such as drainage swales required to support new development shall not be constructed in wetland buffers. Temporary uses may also be placed in the sea level rise buffer area until such time as sea level rise causes the wetlands or other coastal habitat to migrate to within 100 feet of the temporary uses, at which time, they shall be removed. All habitat and buffers identified shall be permanently conserved or protected through a deed restriction, open space easement, or other suitable device.
CR-I-52 Stormwater and Dry Weather Flows. New development shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non-erosive manner to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff and erosion. Runoff shall be directed inland to the storm drain system or to an existing outfall, when feasible. If no storm drain system or existing outfall is present, blufftop runoff shall not be channelized or directed over bluffs and/or to the beach or the ocean.
CR-I-53 Subdivision Limitations. Update the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the division of shoreline property that creates hazardous or unbuildable parcels due to erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development. Only allow new lots to be created if they can be developed without ever requiring shoreline protection for the development.
6.8 SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURE STANDARD POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-54 Soft Shoreline Protection. Encourage the use of soft or natural shoreline protection methods, such as dune restoration and beach/sand nourishment as alternatives to hard shoreline protection structures, such as revetments or sea walls. Soft shoreline protection devices shall be fully evaluated for coastal resource impacts, and shall only be approved if found consistent with the LCP and Coastal Act policies related to shoreline protection. Consider combining beach replenishment with groin construction to maintain beaches and protect development (see subarea policies).
1.f
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-31
CR-I-55 Beach Nourishment. In coordination with the California Coastal Commission and other permitting agencies (e.g., State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the City shall evaluate a beach nourishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations, consistent with sub-area policies and the Coastal Act. The beach nourishment program will need to be evaluated to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and will include measures to protect water quality and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and mitigate) potential adverse coastal resource impacts, including biological resource impacts, from deposition of material, including measures such as sand compatibility specifications, restrictions on volume of deposition, timing or seasonal restrictions, and identification of environmentally preferred locations for deposits. The City will also consider developing an opportunistic sand program and evaluate how replenishment options may need to change over time with sea level rise.
CR-I-56 Existing Shoreline Protection Structures. Except as may be otherwise provided in the LCP sub-area policies, legally permitted shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained, as supported by Section 30235 of the Coastal Act, subject to all coastal development permit requirements (including those associated with the construction of the structure and/or prior repair and maintenance episodes) until the development they are protecting is removed or redeveloped pursuant to the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) or no longer requires shoreline protection structures, at which time the shoreline protection structure shall be reevaluated for consistency with the LCP, and removed if no longer necessary and/or allowed, and the area restored.
Activities considered “repair and maintenance” shall not result in any enlargement or extension of modification to the shoreline protection structure, or any replacement of materials in excess of 50%, or any seaward encroachment or impairment of public trust resources, and shall provide mitigation for any new coastal resource impacts not previously or otherwise mitigated, including through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) and/or Policy CR-I-59. Other modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification shall be considered to be an existing shoreline protection structure. This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification. Modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Structural Modification shall be considered to be allowed without the above mentioned considerations.
CR-I-57 New Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, deep piers and caissons, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall only be
6.48 6.49
6.50 6.51
1.f
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-32
permitted if consistent Section 30235 of the Coastal Act and with the LCP’s sub-area policies, and only when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion coastal hazards, when there is no less environmentally damaging feasible alternative and when designed to avoid, and where unavoidable, minimize eliminate or mitigate to the maximum extent feasible adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply and other coastal resources, where unavoidable coastal resource impacts are required to be commensurately mitigated.
CR-I-58 Authorization Limits of Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures shall only be authorized until the time when the existingstructure protected by such shoreline protection structure: 1) is/are no longer present, or2or 2) no longer require(s) armoring, or 3) is redeveloped pursuant to the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM). This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.
CR-I-59 Mitigating Impacts of New Shoreline Protection Structures. New or reconstructed shoreline protection structures shall be sited and designed to avoid sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible. Adverse coastal resource impacts shall be avoided, and where unavoidable shall be minimized and fully mitigated, including impacts on sand supply, beach area, public access (vertical access to the shore and horizontal access along the shore and blufftop) and recreational use (surfing, fishing, hiking, etc.), public trust lands and values, ecological function, water quality, shoreline aesthetics, and cultural resources. At a minimum, new shoreline protection structures shall:
• blend with the natural environment;
• avoid significant habitat areas;
• minimize encroachment/footprint;
• protect, and where feasible, provide public access; and • control erosion from surface and groundwater flows.
Mitigation options shall include consideration of providing equivalent new public access, recreation, habitat or other coastal resources in the vicinity of the project, or if such options are not feasible, proportional in-lieu fees that consider and reflect, to the maximum extent practicable, the full value of impacted and/or lost resources for the authorization period of the project. Any fees shall be deposited in an interest-bearing account held by the City of Pacifica for use within the City Limits for mitigation of the specific impact identified in the project approval. This policy may be met through compliance with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) CR-I-60 Monitoring Plan for New Shoreline Protection Structures. Proposals for new, redeveloped/augmented or repaired shoreline protection structures shall include a monitoring plan that evaluates the condition of the shoreline protection structure,
6.51 6.52
1.f
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 6-33
conditions at the site and surrounding area, and whether the shoreline protection structure is still needed for protection. The plan shall require an inspection at least every five years to identify:
• Any structural damage and need for repair;
• Environmental impacts, including excessive scour, impacts to shoreline processes and beach width (at the project site and the broader area and/or littoral cell as feasible), and impacts to public access and the availability of public trust lands for public use; and
• The status of the existing structure being protected. • The monitoring plan shall also be updated to at a minimum include any specific requirements associated with coastal permit approval.
At least every 15 years the landowner shall submit a new Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) survey of the subject property based on field data collected within 12 months of the date submitted. Surveys shall comply with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-46.
6.9 COASTAL FLOODING AND OTHER HAZARD STANDARD POLICIES Implementing Policies
CR-I-61 Flood Risk Reduction. The City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue, floodproofing of infrastructure and other development in danger from projected flooding by 2050. Allow and facilitate (if feasible) private owners to floodproof development structures, consistent with other LCP policies.
1.f
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APOLICIES IN CHAPTER 3 OF
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
ACT
This appendix provides each policy of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended. These policies form the parameters for planning in the Coastal Zone, and are binding in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. In some cases, policies are not relevant to the specific setting of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. This is noted in italics following the policy in question.
The six chapters of this LCLUP each begin with a section called “Coastal Act Framework,” where Coastal Act policies that are most applicable to the subject of the chapter are summarized. However, additional policies from this appendix may also apply.
1.f
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-2
ARTICLE 1: GENERAL
Section 30200 Policies as standards; resolution of policy conflicts (a)Consistent with the coastal zone values cited in Section 30001 and the basic goals set forth in Section 30001.5, and except as may be otherwise specifically provided in this division, the policies of this chapter shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs, as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500), and, the permissibility of proposed developments subject to the provisions of this division are determined. All public agencies carrying out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone that could have a direct impact on resources within the coastal zone shall consider the effect of such actions on coastal zone resources in order to assure that these policies are achieved. (b) Where the commission or any local government in implementing the provisions of this division identifies a conflict between the policies of this chapter, Section 30007.5 shall be utilized to resolve the conflict and the resolution of such conflicts shall be supported by appropriate findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of identified policy conflicts.
ARTICLE 2: PUBLIC ACCESS
Section 30210 Access; recreational opportunities; posting In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access
Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include:
(1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610. (2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure.
1.f
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-3
(3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure. (4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure. (5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach.
As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
Section 30212.5 Public facilities; distribution
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities; encouragement and provision; overnight room rentals
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.
Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
The commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.
Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
1.f
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-4
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. (c) In carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commission and any other responsible public agency shall consider and encourage the utilization of innovative access management techniques, including, but not limited to, agreements with private organizations which would minimize management costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs.
ARTICLE 3: RECREATION
Section 30220 Protection of certain water-oriented activities Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.
Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.
Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
Section 30222.5 Oceanfront lands; aquaculture facilities; priority Oceanfront land that is suitable for coastal dependent aquaculture shall be protected for that use, and proposals for aquaculture facilities located on those sites shall be given priority, except over other coastal dependent developments or uses.
No oceanfront land has been identified as suitable for aquaculture in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30223 Upland areas
Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible.
Section 30224 Recreational boating use; encouragement; facilities Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water-dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating
1.f
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-5
support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land.
ARTICLE 4: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Section 30230 Marine resources; maintenance
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.
Section 30231 Biological productivity; water quality
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Section 30232 Oil and hazardous substance spills
Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur.
Section 30233 Diking, filling or dredging; continued movement of sediment and nutrients (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(l) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
1.f
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-6
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for these purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division.
For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay" means that not less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be developed or improved, where the improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities. (d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on watercourses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients that would otherwise be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for these purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement, and sensitivity of the placement area.
Section 30234 Commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities Facilities serving the commercial fishing and recreational boating industries shall be protected and, where feasible, upgraded. Existing commercial fishing and recreational boating harbor space shall not be reduced unless the demand for those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been provided.
Proposed recreational boating facilities shall, where feasible, be designed and located in such a fashion as not to interfere with the needs of the commercial fishing industry.
No commercial fishing or recreational boating facilities exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30234.5 Economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing The economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing activities shall be recognized and protected.
Section 30235 Construction altering natural shoreline
Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, 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
1.f
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-7
mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fishkills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.
Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (l) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
ARTICLE 5: LAND RESOURCES
Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
Section 30241 Prime agricultural land; maintenance in agricultural production The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas’ agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through all of the following:
(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses or where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development.
(c) By permitting the conversion of agricultural land surrounded by urban uses where the conversion of the land would be consistent with Section 30250.
(d) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (e) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (f) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b), and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.
No prime agricultural land exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-8
Section 30241.5 Agricultural land; determination of viability of uses; economic feasibility evaluation (a) If the viability of existing agricultural uses is an issue pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30241 as to any local coastal program or amendment to any certified local coastal program submitted for review and approval under this division, the determination of "viability" shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of an economic feasibility evaluation containing at least both of the following elements:
(1) An analysis of the gross revenue from the agricultural products grown in the area for the five years immediately preceding the date of the filing of a proposed local coastal program or an amendment to any local coastal program.
(2) An analysis of the operational expenses, excluding the cost of land, associated with the production of the agricultural products grown in the area for the five years immediately preceding the date of the filing of a proposed local coastal program or an amendment to any local coastal program.
For purposes of this subdivision, "area" means a geographic area of sufficient size to provide an accurate evaluation of the economic feasibility of agricultural uses for those lands included in the local coastal program or in the proposed amendment to a certified local coastal program. (b) The economic feasibility evaluation required by subdivision (a) shall be submitted to the commission, by the local government, as part of its submittal of a local coastal program or an amendment to any local coastal program. If the local government determines that it does not have the staff with the necessary expertise to conduct the economic feasibility evaluation, the evaluation may be conducted under agreement with the local government by a consultant selected jointly by local government and the executive director of the commission.
No prime agricultural land exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30242 Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (l) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
Section 30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.
No timberlands exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30244 Archaeological or paleontological resources Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
1.f
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-9
ARTICLE 6: DEVELOPMENT
Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.
(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
Section 30252 Maintenance and enhancement of public access The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic 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.
1.f
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-10
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Board as to each particular development.
(d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.
Section 30254 Public works facilities
New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division; provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic twolane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.
Section 30254.5 Terms or conditions on sewage treatment plant development; prohibition Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the commission may not impose any term or condition on the development of any sewage treatment plant which is applicable to any future development that the commission finds can be accommodated by that plant consistent with this division. Nothing in this section modifies the provisions and requirements of Sections 30254 and 30412.
Section 30255 Priority of coastal-dependent developments Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline.
Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland.
When appropriate, coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.
ARTICLE 7: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Section 30260 Location or expansion
Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
No coastal-dependent industry exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-11
Section 30261 Tanker facilities; use and design
Multicompany use of existing and new tanker facilities shall be encouraged to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, except where to do so would result in increased tanker operations and associated onshore development incompatible with the land use and environmental goals for the area. New tanker terminals outside of existing terminal areas shall be situated as to avoid risk to environmentally sensitive areas and shall use a monobuoy system, unless an alternative type of system can be shown to be environmentally preferable for a specific site. Tanker facilities shall be designed to (1) minimize the total volume of oil spilled, (2) minimize the risk of collision from movement of other vessels, (3) have ready access to the most effective feasible containment and recovery equipment for oil spills, and (4) have onshore deballasting facilities to receive any fouled ballast water from tankers where operationally or legally required.
No tanker facilities exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone. Tanker facility development would be incompatible with land use and environmental goals for the area.
Section 30262 Oil and gas development
a) Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260, if the following conditions are met:
(1) The development is performed safely and consistent with the geologic conditions of the well site. (2) New or expanded facilities related to that development are consolidated, to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, unless consolidation will have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce the number of producing wells, support facilities, or sites required to produce the reservoir economically and with minimal environmental impacts. (3) Environmentally safe and feasible subsea completions are used when drilling platforms or islands would substantially degrade coastal visual qualities unless use of those structures will result in substantially less environmental risks.
(4) Platforms or islands will not be sited where a substantial hazard to vessel traffic might result from the facility or related operations, as determined in consultation with the United States Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.
(5) The development will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazards unless it is determined that adequate measures will be undertaken to prevent damage from such subsidence. (6) With respect to new facilities, all oilfield brines are reinjected into oil-producing zones unless the Division of Oil and Gas, Geothermal Resources of the Department of Conservation determines to do so would adversely affect production of the reservoirs and unless injection into other subsurface zones will reduce environmental risks. Exceptions to reinjections will be granted consistent with the Ocean Waters Discharge Plan of the State Water Resources Control Board and where adequate provision is made for the elimination of petroleum odors and water quality problems. (7)(A) All oil produced offshore California shall be transported onshore by pipeline only. The pipelines used to transport this oil shall utilize the best achievable technology to ensure maximum protection of public health and safety and of the integrity and productivity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
1.f
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-12
(B) Once oil produced offshore California is onshore, it shall be transported to processing and refining facilities by pipeline.
(C) The following guidelines shall be used when applying subparagraphs (A) and (B):
(i) "Best achievable technology," means the technology that provides the greatest degree of protection taking into consideration both of the following:
(I) Processes that are being developed, or could feasibly be developed, anywhere in the world, given overall reasonable expenditures on research and development.
(II) Processes that are currently in use anywhere in the world. This clause is not intended to create any conflicting or duplicative regulation of pipelines, including those governing the transportation of oil produced from onshore reserves.
(ii) "Oil" refers to crude oil before it is refined into products, including gasoline, bunker fuel, lubricants, and asphalt. Crude oil that is upgraded in quality through residue reduction or other means shall be transported as provided in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(iii) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply only to new or expanded oil extraction operations. "New extraction operations" means production of offshore oil from leases that did not exist or had never produced oil, as of January 1, 2003, or from platforms, drilling island, subsea completions, or onshore drilling sites, that did not exist as of January 1, 2003. "Expanded oil extraction" means an increase in the geographic extent of existing leases or units, including lease boundary adjustments, or an increase in the number of well heads, on or after January 1, 2003.
(iv) For new or expanded oil extraction operations subject to clause (iii), if the crude oil is so highly viscous that pipelining is determined to be an infeasible mode of transportation, or where there is no feasible access to a pipeline, shipment of crude oil may be permitted over land by other modes of transportation, including trains or trucks, which meet all applicable rules and regulations, excluding any waterborne mode of transport. (8) If a state of emergency is declared by the Governor for an emergency that disrupts the transportation of oil by pipeline, oil may be transported by a waterborne vessel, if authorized by permit, in the same manner as required by emergency permits that are issued pursuant to Section 30624. (9) In addition to all other measures that will maximize the protection of marine habitat and environmental quality, when an offshore well is abandoned, the best achievable technology shall be used. b) Where appropriate, monitoring programs to record land surface and near-shore ocean floor movements shall be initiated in locations of new large-scale fluid extraction on land or near shore before operations begin and shall continue until surface conditions have stabilized. Costs of monitoring and mitigation programs shall be borne by liquid and gas extraction operators.
c) Nothing in this section shall affect the activities of any state agency that is responsible for regulating the extraction, production, or transport of oil and gas.
No known oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-13
Section 30263 Refineries or petrochemical facilities
(a) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities not otherwise consistent with the provisions of this division shall be permitted if (1) alternative locations are not feasible or are more environmentally damaging; (2) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; (3) it is found that not permitting such development would adversely affect the public welfare; (4) the facility is not located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas; and (5) the facility is sited so as to provide a sufficient buffer area to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property.
(b) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall minimize the need for once-through cooling by using air cooling to the maximum extent feasible and by using treated waste waters from inplant processes where feasible.
Section 30264 Thermal electric generating plants
Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, except subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 30413, new or expanded thermal electric generating plants may be constructed in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has been determined by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to have greater relative merit pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516.1 than available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant's service area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516.
Section 30265 Legislative findings and declarations; offshore oil transportation The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Transportation studies have concluded that pipeline transport of oil is generally both economically feasible and environmentally preferable to other forms of crude oil transport. (b) Oil companies have proposed to build a pipeline to transport offshore crude oil from central California to southern California refineries, and to transport offshore oil to out-of-state refiners. (c) California refineries would need to be retrofitted if California offshore crude oil were to be used directly as a major feedstock. Refinery modifications may delay achievement of air quality goals in the southern California air basin and other regions of the state.
(d) The County of Santa Barbara has issued an Oil Transportation Plan which assesses the environmental and economic differences among various methods for transporting crude oil from offshore California to refineries.
(e) The Governor should help coordinate decisions concerning the transport and refining of offshore oil in a manner that considers state and local studies undertaken to date, that fully addresses the concerns of all affected regions, and that promotes the greatest benefits to the people of the state.
No known offshore oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-14
Section 30265.5 Governor or designee; coordination of activities concerning offshore oil transport and refining; duties
(a) The Governor, or the Governor's designee, shall coordinate activities concerning the transport and refining of offshore oil. Coordination efforts shall consider public health risks, the ability to achieve shortand long-term air emission reduction goals, the potential for reducing California's vulnerability and dependence on oil imports, economic development and jobs, and other factors deemed important by the Governor, or the Governor's designees.
(b) The Governor, or the Governor's designee, shall work with state and local agencies, and the public, to facilitate the transport and refining of offshore oil in a manner which will promote the greatest public health and environmental and economic benefits to the people of the State. (c) The Governor, or the Governor's designee, shall consult with any individual or organization having knowledge in this area, including, but not limited to, representatives from the following:
(1) State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (2) State Air Resources Board
(3) California Coastal Commission
(4) Department of Fish and Game
(5) State Lands Commission
(6) Public Utilities Commission
(7) Santa Barbara County
(8) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (9) Southern California Association of Governments
(10) South Coast Air Quality Management Districts
(11) Oil industry
(12) Public interest groups
(13) United States Department of the Interior
(14) United States Department of Energy
(15) United States Environmental Protection Agency
(16) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(17) United States Coast Guard
1.f
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-15
(d) This act is not intended, and shall not be construed, to decrease, duplicate, or supersede the jurisdiction, authority, or responsibilities of any local government, or any state agency or commission, to discharge its responsibilities concerning the transportation and refining of oil. (Added by Ch. 1398, Stats. 1984.) No known offshore oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-16
This page intentionally left blank.
1.f
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
B COASTAL VULNERABILITY
ZONE MAPS
This chapter provides maps which define areas identified in the Vulnerability Assessment as having the potential for erosion and/or coastal flooding under the PHGLXPhigh sea level rise scenario for year 2100.
1.f
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[B-
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
)DLUPRQW:HVW
1
Disclaimer: 7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.f
Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
Appendix B-2
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
:HVW(GJHPDUDQG3DFLILF0DQRU
1RUWKZHVW6KDUS3DUN
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.f
Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
Appendix B-3
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
6KDUS3DUN:HVW)DLUZD\3DUN
DQG0RUL3RLQW
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.f
Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[%
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
5RFNDZD\%HDFK4XDUU\DQG+HDGODQGV
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
PDSVXWLOL]HGWKHEHVWDYDLODEOHGDWDDWWKHWLPHRISUHSDUDWLRQ7KH HURVLRQVFHQDULRGRHVQRWDFFRXQWIRUH[LVWLQJVKRUHOLQHSURWHFWLRQVWUXFWXUHV7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVFRQWLQXDOO\HYROYLQJ DQGWKHPDSV UHIOHFWDORQJSODQQLQJKRUL]RQ UHFRJQL]LQJW\SLFDOGHVLJQOLIHRI VWUXFWXUHV8SGDWHGPRGHOVDQG VLWH VSHFLILFDQDO\VLVPD\LGHQWLI\WKDWWKHUHVSHFWLYH&9=VPD\KDYHVKLIWHGWRLQFOXGHPRUHRUOHVVDUHD&9=PDSVDUH QRWGHWDLOHGWRWKHSDUFHOVFDOHDQG VKRXOGQRWEHXVHGIRU UHDOHVWDWHILQDQFLQJRULQVXUDQFHWUDQVDFWLRQVRURWKHU XVHV VXFK DV QDYLJDWLRQ SHUPLWWLQJ RU UHJXODWRU\ XVHV7R FRQILUP YXOQHUDELOLW\ SRWHQWLDOIXUWKHU VWXGLHV VKRXOG EH SHUIRUPHGIRU&9=V&9=SURMHFWLRQVZHUHVRXUFHGIURPSXEOLFO\DYDLODEOHGDWDDQGH[LVWLQJPRGHOVQRWFUHDWHGE\WKH &LW\RI3DFLILFD
1.f
Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[%
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
3DFLILFD6WDWH%HDFK
:HVW/LQGD0DU
3HGUR3RLQWDQG6KHOWHU&RYH
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
PDSVXWLOL]HGWKHEHVWDYDLODEOHGDWDDWWKHWLPHRISUHSDUDWLRQ7KH HURVLRQVFHQDULRGRHVQRWDFFRXQWIRUH[LVWLQJVKRUHOLQHSURWHFWLRQVWUXFWXUHV7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVFRQWLQXDOO\HYROYLQJ DQGWKHPDSV UHIOHFWDORQJSODQQLQJKRUL]RQ UHFRJQL]LQJW\SLFDOGHVLJQOLIHRI VWUXFWXUHV8SGDWHGPRGHOVDQG VLWH VSHFLILFDQDO\VLVPD\LGHQWLI\WKDWWKHUHVSHFWLYH&9=VPD\KDYHVKLIWHGWRLQFOXGHPRUHRUOHVVDUHD&9=PDSVDUH QRWGHWDLOHGWRWKHSDUFHOVFDOHDQG VKRXOGQRWEHXVHGIRU UHDOHVWDWHILQDQFLQJRULQVXUDQFHWUDQVDFWLRQVRURWKHU XVHV VXFK DV QDYLJDWLRQ SHUPLWWLQJ RU UHJXODWRU\ XVHV7R FRQILUP YXOQHUDELOLW\ SRWHQWLDOIXUWKHU VWXGLHV VKRXOG EH SHUIRUPHGIRU&9=V&9=SURMHFWLRQVZHUHVRXUFHGIURPSXEOLFO\DYDLODEOHGDWDDQGH[LVWLQJPRGHOVQRWFUHDWHGE\WKH &LW\RI3DFLILFD
1.f
Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
REFERENCES
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Respective hotels; City of Pacifica; hotels.com; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2008.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2010.
ABAG Projections, 2010.
Plan Bay Area Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, 2012.
San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2008.
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA Annual Survey-FY 2007-08.
January 2009. Accessed at http://www.bawsca.org,2009.
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). CIP and Bond Projects Status Report February 20, 2008.
Accessed at http://www.nccwd.com, February 2008
NCCWD. Website http://www.nccwd.com, accessed May 2009.
RWQCB, 2006.
PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Pacifica General Plan, 1980
California Coastal Commission, “Some Facts About Public Prescriptive Rights,” accessed July 2013 at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf.
San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2008.
National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/statistics.htm, accessed 2009.
California Park & Recreation Society. Market Research to Support CRPS Building the Brand Initiative. March 2009.
1.f
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 R-2
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. “Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets” Report 616. Washington, DC: 2008.
Dowling Associates, 2010.
City of Pacifica Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, 2009.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,National Wetlands Inventory, 2011; FEMA, 2008; ESA, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004.
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Annual Report, 2007-08. August 29, 2008.
John Northmore Roberts & Associates et al., 1992; State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990; ESA surveys, 2008.
John Northmore Roberts & Associates et al., 1992.
San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2002.
San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2005.
California Dept of Fish & Game, 1988, 2003; California Dept of Forestry, 2005; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, 2011; FEMA, 2008; ESA, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2005.
BLM, 1981; State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2008; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005; National Park Service, 2005; California Dept of Forestry, 2005; California Natural Diversity Database, 2009; California Native Plant Society, 2008; California Dept of Fish & Game, 2008; FEMA, 2008; ESA, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), 202009.
US Geological Survey, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
1.f
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
REFERENCES
R-3
NATURAL HAZARDS
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG07).
Fact Sheet 2016-20302008-3027. Forecasting California’s Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Regions 2014-2043s – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf. 2008. Accessed at https://pubs.usgs. gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Susceptibility http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/liquefac.html. 2003.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003; US Geological Survey, 2008; ESA.2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Open File Report 97-745, San Francisco Bay Landslide Folio, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-745/. 1997.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). Coastal Erosion Along the U.S. West Coast During the 1997–98 El Niño: Expectations and Observations, http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/lidar/AGU_fall98/, 2005.
Heberger. M.H. Cooley, P. H. Gleick, E. Moore of Pacifica Institute. The impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. A paper from the California Climate Change Center. May 2009.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire). https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10315/firethreat_19_ada. Pdf Emergency Services Consulting, 2008.
COASTAL RESILIENCE
California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2015. Sea-level Rise Policy Guidance Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea-level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits.
Unanimously Adopted August 12, 2015.
California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2018. Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea-level Rise in Local Coastal Programs. March 2018, Revised.
California Natural Resources Agency (CalNRA) and California Ocean Protection Council (OPC), 2018. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update. Adopted March 2018.
City of Pacifica. 1994. City of Pacifica Implementation Plan codified in Articles 43 and 44, Chapter 4, Title 9 Planning and Zoning. Amended November 8, 2017. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=16544. Accessed on January 11, 2018.
1.f
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 R-4
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2018a. Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Prepared for the City of Pacifica January 2018, Revised June 2018.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) 2018b. Final Draft Sea-level Rise Adaptation Plan. Prepared for the City of Pacifica. September 2018.
1.f
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
REFERENCES
R-5
This page intentionally left blank.
1.f
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GLOSSARY
Acronyms
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
BART: Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAWSCA: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BMP: Best Management Practices
CCWRP: Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
CDF: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game
CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database
CRLF: California Red-Legged Frog
CRSMP: Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
ESHA: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FESA: Federal Endangered Species Act
GGNRA: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
HPD: Hillside Preservation District
LHMP: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID: Low Impact Development
NCCWD: North Coast County Water District
NCFA: North County Fire Authority
1.f
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-2
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RWQCB: State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board PG&E: Pacific Gas & Electric
SamTrans: San Mateo County Transit District
SESM: Substantial Exterior Structural Modification
SFGS: San Francisco Garter Snake
SFPUC: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMCWPPP: San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program TDR: Transfer of Development Rights
USGS: United States Geological Survey
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Definitions
Anticipated Life: The period over which a development is expected to be usable, with normal repairs and maintenance, for the purpose for which it was designed, typically a minimum of 75-100 years for residential and commercial development and a minimum of 100-150 years for critical infrastructure.
Aquaculture: A form of agriculture as defined in Section 17 of the Fish and Game Code. Aquaculture products are agricultural products, and aquaculture facilities and land uses shall be treated as agricultural facilities and land uses in all planning and permit-issuing decisions governed by this division.
Beach: The expanse of sand, gravel, cobble or other loose material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the place where there is distinguishable change in physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. The seaward limit of a beach (unless specified otherwise) is the mean low water line. The inland extent of the beach shall be determined as follows:
1) From a distinct linear feature (e.g., a seawall, road, or bluff,etc.); 2) From the inland edge of the further inland beach berm as determined from historical surveys, aerial photographs, and other records or geological evidence; or 3) Where a beach berm does not exist, from the further point separating the dynamic portion of the beach from the inland area as distinguished by vegetation, debris or other geological or historical evidence.
7.1 7.2
1.f
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GLOSSARY
G-3
Best Available Science: The most recent peer-reviewed and locally-relevant science reasonably validated by qualified experts in the scientific community, and as may be recommended by the State of California or other authoritative coastal management entity (e.g. NOAA).
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, operation and maintenance procedures, structural treatment devices, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the conveyance of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff.
Biodiversity: A term used to quantitatively or qualitatively describe the species richness and abundance of plants and animals within an ecosystem.
Bluff: A high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water.
Bluff/Cliff Edge: The upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff face, the bluff line or edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge.
Bluff Face: The portion of a bluff between the bluff edge and the toe of the bluff.
Buffer: A buffer is a development setback designed to minimize the disturbance that development may cause in sensitive environments, or to protect development from nuisances or hazards.
Building Footprint: The full horizontal extent of a structure and all attached structures, above or below grade.
Cliff: A high, very steep, perpendicular, or overhanging face of rock.
Coastal Access: The ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or in land coastal recreation areas and trails.
Coastal Bluff: A bluff, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion or the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified in Public Resources Code Section 30603(a)(1) or (a)(2)..
Coastal Development Permit (CDP): A permit for any development within the coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600 of the California Coastal Act.
Coastal-Dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea in order to function.
Coastal Hazards: Include but are not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, wave overtopping, coastal flooding, and their interaction, all of which may be exacerbated by sea level rise.
7.3 7.4
1.f
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-4
Coastal-Related Development: Any use that is dependent on a coastal-dependent development or use.
Coastal Vulnerability Zone: The areas shown on the City’s maps prepared for the Pacifica SLR Vulnerability Assessment (1/12/2018), incorporated herein, and as may be amended from time-to-time based on updated best available science about projected sea-level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards.
Critical Habitat Areas: Areas containing features essential for the conservation of species listed under the FESA, and which may require special management and protection outside that which is already provided by FESA. Critical Habitat Areas are designated by the USFWS.
Cumulative Effects: The incremental effects of an individual project shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Design Life. The design life of a structure is the period of time during which it can still safely meet the demand of its users.
Development: On land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511).
As used in this section, "structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line. In this LCP, ‘development’ is synonymous with ‘new development.’ Dune: Ridges or mounds of loose, wind-blown material usually sand. A dune structure often has a back and foredune area. Stable dunes are often colonized by vegetation.
Easement: A right given by the owner of land to another party for specific limited use of the land. An easement may be acquired by a government through dedication when the purchase of an entire interest in the property may be too expensive or unnecessary; usually needed for utilities or shared parking.grant of one or more of the property rights by the property owner to and/or for the use by the public, a corporation or another person or entity.
Economic Life (also called “design life” and “expected life”): Period over which a development is expected to be usable, with normal repairs and maintenance, for the purpose for which it was designed.
Energy Facility: Any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy.
7.5 1.f
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GLOSSARY
G-5
Erosion: The wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical weathering; mass wasting; and the actions of waves, wind, and underground water.The process by which material is removed from the earth’s surface (including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, and transportation), most commonly by wind or water.
Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policiesEnvironmental Justice refers to the fair treatment of all people – regardless of race, income, and religion – when implementing policies that affect housing and the environment. The federal and State government have policies that require agencies to identify and avoid placing a disproportionately large number of minority and low-income populations in certain geographical locations.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA): Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development (California Public Resources Code Section 30107.5).
Estuary: A coastal water body, usually semi-enclosed by land, having open, partially obstructed, or intermittent exchange with the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater from the land.
Existing Structure: A structure that has any of the following characteristics:
i) lawfully constructed prior to the certification date of the LCLUP; or ii) permitted for construction prior to the certification date of the LCLUP, and all permits remained in full force and effect prior to the date of construction; or iii) authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.”
..
Fault Rupture: The displacement of the earth’s surface due to the movement along a fault associated with an earthquake.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Fluvial: Produced by the action of a stream.
Fill: Earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area.
Fuel Modification: A fire control strategy that thins vegetative cover within a buffer area surrounding development in order to interrupt continuous paths of fuel and provide defensible space to allow for firefighting operations in case of wildland fire.
7.6 7.7
1.f
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-6
Groundwater: Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation usually found in porous rock strata and soils.
Habitat: The natural environment of a locality, including the physical and biological environment, in which a plant or animal lives.
Headland: A high, steep-faced projection extending into the sea, usually marking an area of fairly stable and rigid landform.
Hillside Preservation District (HPD): A district that overlays Pacifica’s base zoning and covers most of the city’s ridges and open spaces. The HPD is intended to ensure that development of highly sensitive slopes does not endanger the public or harm the environmental or scenic values of the site, and to encourage highquality site planning and design that enhances the beauty of the landscape. The District creates more stringent lot coverage limits, based on the average natural slope of the site, and requires submission of development plans, grading plans, and other documentation.
Hydric Soil: A type of soil with characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation and chemically reducing conditions such as occurs under anaerobic conditions.
Hydrology: The dynamic processes of the water within an environment including the sources, timing, amount, and direction of water movement.
Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments. These plants are also called hydrophytes. In wetlands, hydrophytic species occur where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually found in saturated or submerged soil.
Landslide: Also known as slope failure, a landslide involves the downslope displacement and movement of material, and can be triggered by either static (gravity) or dynamic (seismic) forces.
Land Divisions: Land divisions include subdivisions (through parcel map, tract map, grant deed, or any other method), lot line adjustments, redivisions, mergers, and certificates of compliance.
Littoral Cell: A region that encompasses most features affecting sediment transport. The boundaries of the cell are usually delineated by river drainage areas, promontory headlands, or submarine canyons on the periphery, the continental shelf-continental slope boundary on the seaward side and by inland ridges and river inlets on the landward side. Sediment within these cells generally travel seaward by river drainage, southward (downcoast) by longshore currents, and are eventually lost to the continental slope area or submarine canyon.
Liquefaction: The transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state, in which saturated soil temporary loses strength due to the buildup of excess pore water pressure, especially during earthquake-induced cyclic loading.
Low Impact Development (LID): An approach to development that seeks to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible, employing principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and creating functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource rather than as a waste product.Site planning and development features that reduce impermeable sur1.f Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GLOSSARY
G-7
face areas and increase infiltration, such as use of permeable paving, vegetated swales, and water retention facilities.
Marine System: Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and coastline exposed to waves and currents of the open ocean shoreward to (1) extreme high water of spring tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergent vegetation, trees, or shrubs; or (3) the seaward limit of the Estuarine System, other than vegetation. Salinities exceed 30parts per thousand.
Mitigation: A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant measures are identified.
As defined in Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, mitigation includes:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Mitigation Measures:Mitigation Measures: Action taken to avoid, minimize, or eliminate environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by repairing or providing substitute resources or environments. Measures imposed on a project consistent with Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act to avoid, minimize, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the environment or for purposes of consistency with Coastal Act requirements.
Monitoring: The systematic collection of physical, biological, or economic data or a combination of these data in order to make decisions regarding project operation or to evaluate project performance. Monitoring is typically required for beach nourishment projects and habitat restoration projects.
Net Developable Area. The total area of land available for development, not necessarily the total area of a property itself. It does not include open space, drainage land, regional roads and land used for other public facilities.
New Development: Development, as defined in Section 30106 of the California Coastal Act, where no existing development occurs. New Development does not include the remodeling or improvement of an existing structure, as defined, and also does not include any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.”.
7.8 1.f
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-8
Non-conforming Use: A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.
Non-conforming Structure: An existing structure that is legally nonconforming with an LCP standard.
Permit: Any license, certificate, approval, or other entitlement for use granted or denied by any public agency.
Prescriptive Rights: Prescriptive rights refer to public rights that are acquired over private lands through continuous use over the length of a “prescriptive period” of at least five years. This right of access is considered an “implied dedication” of a public easement, and can occur with or without the explicit consent of the property owner.
Public Trust Lands: All lands subject to the Common Law Public Trust for commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and other public purposes. Public Trust lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed, and which were subject to the Public Trust at any time.
Public works: The following developments are considered public works:
1. All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water, sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities.
2. All public transportation facilities, including streets, roads, highways, public parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, airports, railroads, and mass transit facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and other related facilities.
3. All publicly financed recreational facilities, all projects of the State Coastal Conservancy, and any development by a special district.
4. All community college facilities.
Qualified Biologist: A person who has earned a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in biology or a related field from an accredited college or university and has demonstrated field experience evaluating land use impacts on marine or wildlife species and their habitats. Biologists who conduct wetland delineations shall have completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "Reg IV" wetland delineation training, or the equivalent, and shall have the demonstrated ability to independently conduct wetland delineations.
Riparian: Consists of trees, shrubs, or herbs that occur along watercourses or water bodies. The vegetation is adapted to flooding and soil saturation during at least a portion of its growing season.
Riprap: A protective layer or facing of rock, concrete blocks or quarry stone, placed to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment or bluff.
Sea: The Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific Ocean, excluding non-estuarine rivers, streams,
1.f
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GLOSSARY
G-9
tributaries, creeks, and flood control and drainage channels. “Sea” does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing directly or indirectly into such area.
Sea Cliff: A vertical or very steep cliff or slope produced by wave action, situated at the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave-cut platform, and marking the inner limit of beach erosion.
Seawall: A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action. It is usually a vertical wood or concrete wall as opposed to a sloped revetment.
Sediment: Grains of soil, sand, or rock that have been transported from one location and deposited at another.
Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: Those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. "Sensitive coastal resource areas" include the following: (a) Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan;(b) Areas possessing significant recreational value; (c) Highly scenic areas; (d) Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer; (e) Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas; (f) Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income persons; and(g) Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access.
Seiche: A standing wave in an enclosed body of water that may be caused by tidal action or a seismic event.
Shore: Narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach.
Shore Protection: Structures or sand placed at or on the shore to reduce or eliminate upland damage from wave action or flooding during storms.
Shoreline: Intersection of the ocean or sea with land; the line delineating the shoreline on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean low water line from the time the chart was prepared. Seaward of the base of coastal bluffs and/or at or near the sandy beach/ocean elevation, including as depicted in Appendix B (“Coastal Zone Vulnerability Maps”) and denoted as “wave run-up,” “storm flood area,” and “flood prone area.”
Shoreline Armoring: Protective structures such as vertical seawalls, revetments, riprap, revetments, and bulkheads built parallel to the shoreline for the purposes of protecting a structure or other upland property.
Special Status Species: Plant and animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts; species that are candidates for listing under federal or state law; species designated as USFWS species of concern or species of local concern; species designated by CDFG as species of special concern; species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald Eagle Protection Act; and species that may be considered rare or endangered pursuant to Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Any species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species
7.9 1.f
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-10
Act. It also includes any species designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “candidate” or “species of concern” or species identified on California Native Plant Society’s Lists 1A, 1B, or 2, implying potential danger of extinction.
Storm Surge: A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also includes the rise in level due to atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due to wind stress.
Stream: A topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. A creek is a subset of a stream that tends to have low water flow.
Structure: Anything construed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground, or is attached to a building or other structure having a fixed location on the ground.
Submerged Lands: Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which lie below the line of mean low tide.
Subsidence: The sinking of a portion of the ground surface that may occur from immediate settlement, shrinkage of expansive soil, liquefaction, earthquakes, or excess extraction of groundwater.
Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM): Any physical improvement which modifies an existing structure, as defined, to achieve in any of the following ways:
i) a seaward encroachment of the structure; or
ii) alteration, removal or replacement of 50 percent or more of the linear length of the exterior walls or other major structural components (including but not limited to floor, roof, and foundation structures), whether or not the floor area or building footprint is expanded; or iii) an addition that includes new floor area at or below the first story equal to 50 percent or more of the structure’s total existing floor area; or
ivii) an increase of the existing building footprint equal to 50 percent or more; but excluding any of the following:
i) removal, replacement, or maintenance of nonstructural exterior components of exterior walls such as decorative plywood roof sheathing, underlayment, siding, shingles, and roofing materials and windows, and other exterior waterproofing/weatherproofing materials and replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610 of the Public Resources Code. ii) development on any site which is protected from coastal erosion by an existing, permitted shoreline protection structure; iii) replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610 of the Public Resources Code;
7.10 1.f
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GLOSSARY
G-11
iv) the demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure; or
v) the reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of any shoreline protection structure; provided, however, that the reconstructed, repaired, or maintained shoreline protection structure is not seaward of the location of the former structure, and that such modifications do not increase the height or length of the former shoreline protection structure by more than 10 percent.
Changes to exterior walls, floor area, height, length, or building footprint shall be measured cumulatively from those existing at the site on the date of certification of the LCLUP. The cost of improvements shall not be used as a basis in application of this definition or any policy relying thereupon unless expressly stated in the policy. Incremental changes that cumulatively amount to replacement of 50 percent or more over time shall also be considered a SSM.
Temporary Event: An activity or use that constitutes development as defined in Section 30106 of the California Coastal Act, but which is or will be of limited duration and involves the placement of non-permanent structures; and/or involves the use of sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets, or parking areas which are otherwise open and available for general public use.
Tidelands: Lands which are located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water body from all sources (point and non-point) and still maintain water quality standards. Under Clean Water Act section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all water bodies that do not meet water quality standards after application of technology-based controls. TMDL also refers to the written, quantitative analysis and plan for attaining and maintaining water quality standards in all seasons for a specific water body and pollutant.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): A mechanism to relocate potential residential development from areas where environmental or land use impacts could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development, in order to preserve significant open space resources. Owners of environmentally sensitive sites may transfer residential development rights to other sites where higher-density development can be supported, or from one part of a site to another.
Tsunami: A wave generated by abrupt movement of the seabed, which can result from an earthquake or a significant landslide.
Watershed: The geographical area drained by a river and its connecting tributaries into a common source. A watershed may, and often does, cover a very large geographical region.The total area above a given point on a watercourse which contributes water to the flow of the watercourse; the entire region drained by a watercourse.
Wave Run-up: The distance or extent that water from a breaking wave will extend up a beach or structure.
1.f
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-12
Wetland: The Coastal Act defines wetland as land which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, mudflats, and fens. The California Code of Regulations further defines wetland as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate.
Wildlife Movement Corridor: Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by barriers such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or areas of human disturbance or development, allowing wildlife to access additional areas with food, water, and other resources.
1.f
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 1-1
Paci ca and the Paci ca
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
City Limits
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; County of
San Mateo, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTEMLA VE
FRANCISCO BLVD
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
DVLB HCAEB
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
CLARENDON RD
1 92
35 1
1 280
Paci ca
380
101
101
280
101
280
80 101
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly
City
Half
Moon
Bay
Hillsborough
Paci ca Millbrae
San
Bruno
South San Francisco
Montara
Emery
S A N F R A N C I S C O
S A N
M A T E O
San
Francisco
Bay
Paci c
Ocean
Paci ca Planning Area
County Lines
Urbanized Area
Freeways
Highways
Major Arterials
BART
Caltrain
1.f
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Pac i c
O cea n
P A OTTE MLA VE
SHOREVIEW AVE
SALADA AVE
SANTA ROSA AVE
MONTECITO AVE
CLARENDON RD
P A OTTE MLA VE
CARMEL AVE
PALOMA AVE
PACIFIC AVE
SAN JOSE AVE
SANTA MARIA AVE
GRAND AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE
DANMANN
HALLING WAY
SHELTER COVE
STANLEY AVE
KENT RD
OLYMPIAN WAY
STERLING AVE
LIVINGSTON AVE
ROCKAWAY BEACH
DONDEE ST
OLD COUNTY RD
SAN MARLO WAY
2 1
1 2
3 4
6 5
7 Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 2-2:
Existing Land Use
in the Coastal Zone
Single-family Resdiential
Multi-family Residential
Mobile Homes
Commerical
Auto Services
Hotels, Motels
O ce
Mixed Use
Utilities
Industrial
Schools
Church
Other Public or Community Uses
Other Open Space
Parks & Accessible
Open Space
Beach
Agriculture
Vacant/Undeveloped
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
City Limits
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci
ca, 2019; County of San Mateo,
2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Visitor Accommodations
1 San Francisco RV Resort
2 America’s Best Value Inn
Paci
ca
3 Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
4 Sea Breeze Motel
5 Paci
ca Motor Inn
6 Holiday Inn Express
& Suites Paci
ca
7 Paci
ca Beach Hotel
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
Paci ca Pier
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTE MLA VE
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
ESPLANADE AVE
DVLB HCAEB
DVLB OCSI CNARF
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MONTEREY RD
FRANCISCO BLVD
1.f
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GAT EWAY DR
FIRECREST AVE
INVERNESS DR
MONTEREY RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
SKYLINE BLVD
GLENCOURT
MONTEREY RD
VEA OTTEMLAP
EDGEMAR DR
MILLER AVE
AVALON DR
OCEANA BLVD
PALOMA AVE
TALBOT AVE
BRADFORD WAY
SHARP PARK RD
MOANA WAY
LUNDY WAY
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
REINA DEL MAR AVE
ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE
TERRANOVA BLVD
EVERGLADES DR
ODDSTAD BLVD
CRESPI DR
LERIDA WAY
CRESPI DR
SEVILLE DR
MANZANITA D
A
R
LICANTE
LIN
DR
DA MAR BLVD
ROSITA RD
ROSITA RD
ADOBE RD
PERALTA RD
DE SOLO
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER AVE
PARK LINCOLN GRAND AVE
WESTBOROUGH
KING DR
SKYLINE BLVD
MILAGRA DR
HICKEY BLVD
ESPLANADE AVE
MANOR DR
ROBERTS RD
SHARP PA RK RD
SEASIDE DR
CLARENDON RD
P a c c
O c e a n
D e vi l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 2-3:
Land Use Diagram
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Planning Area
City Limits
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
Urban Reserve (Unincorporated)
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Zone
ESPLANADE AVE VEA OTTEMLAP
DVLB HCAEB
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MONTEREY RD
PALMETTO AVE
SHOREVIEW AVE
SALADA AVE
LINDA
SANTA ROSA AVE
MONTECITO AVE
CLARENDON RD
VEA OTTEMLAP
CARMEL AVE
PALOMA AVE
PACIFIC AVE
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN JOSE AVE
SANTA MARIA AVE
GRAND AVE
DANMANN
HALLING WAY
SHELTER COVE
STANLEY AVE
KENT RD
OLYMPIAN WAY
STERLING AVE
LIVINGSTON AVE
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
SAN PEDRO AVE
Note: Senior or a
ordable housing may be
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Office Commercial
Service Commercial
Visitor-Serving Commercial
1.f
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) West Edgemar,
Paci c Manor
Fairmont
West
West
Sharp
Park
Sharp Park GC,
West Fairway Park,
and Mori Point
Pedro Point
and
Shelter Cove
Rockaway Beach,
Quarry, and
Headlands
Paci ca
State
Beach
F
Northern
Coastal
Blu s
Bowl Site
Paci
c
Manor
Industrial
Northern
Palmetto
Promenade and Beach
Boulevard Property
Palmetto Ave
Eureka Square and
Mixed Use Center
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach
Rockaway
Headlands
Undeveloped
San Pedro
Avenue Site
Pedro Point
Shopping Center
Shamrock
Ranch
Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Figure 2-4:
Sub-Areas &
Speci c Sites
Subarea
Speci c Sites
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTEMLA VE
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
DVLB HCAEB
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Key to Area Maps
1.f
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
Bowl
Manor
Shopping
Center
Industrial
Northern
Palmetto
Beach
Boulevard
Property
Palmetto
Ave
Eureka Square
and Mixed
Use Center
Fish
Undercrossing
Fairmont
West Park
Ingrid B.
Lacy
Middle
School
City
Hall
Promenade
Sharp
Park
Golf
Course
Overcrossing
Overcrossing
San
Francisco
RV Park
Pier Talbot Rd Trail
Coastal Trail
West Edgemar,
West
Sharp
Park
Fairmont
West
Lands End
Apts.
12 10
11 9
4 5
2 1
7 VEA OTTEMLAP
BEACH BLVD
PALMETTO AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
FRANCISCO BLVD
7 8
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Service Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Park
Conservation
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
top/View)
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Existing Trail
Proposed Trail
On-street trail
Subareas
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-5:
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
3 6
8 1.f
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Sharp Park
Golf Course,
West Fairway Park
& Mori Point
Rockaway Beach,
Quarry, &
Headlands
State
Beach
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach Rockaway
Headlands
Water Recycling
Plant
Flats
Pad
Proposed
Overcrossing
Undercrossing
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
SEASIDE DR
Mor i Po i n t
( G GNR A )
Sh a r p Pa r k
& Golf Cour s e
Sharp
Park
Beach
12 14
13 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 7
8 0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Service Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Park
Conservation
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
top/View)
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Existing Trail Proposed
Trail
On-street trail
Existing Trailhead
Subareas
Speci c Sites
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-6:
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
15 16
1.f
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) State Beach
Pedro
Point
& Shelter
Cove
Pedro Point Trail
Coastal Trail
Undeveloped
San Pedro Ave Site
Pedro Point
Shopping
Center
Shamrock
Ranch
GRAND AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE
Devil’s Slide Trail
DEVIL’S SLIDE TUNNEL
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
State Beach
25 21
22 23
24 26
27 Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Retail Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
Urban Reserve
Transportation Corridor
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Existing Trail
Proposed Trail
On-street trail
Existing Trailhead
Proposed Trailhead
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
View Corridor
20 Subareas
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-7:
outh
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Visitor-Serving Commercial
16 1.f
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
GAT EWAY DR
FIRECREST AVE
INVERNESS DR
MONTEREY RD MANOR DR
SKYLINE BLVD
GLENCOURT
MONTEREY RD
EDGEMAR DR
MILLER AVE
AVALON DR
OCEANA BLVD
PALOMA AVE
TALBOT AVE
BRADFORD WAY
SHARP PARK RD
MOANA WAY
LUNDY WAY RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
REINA DEL MAR AVE
ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE
TERRANOVA BLVD
EVERGLADES DR
ODDSTAD BLVD
CRESPI DR
LERIDA WAY
CRESPI DR
SEVILLE DR
MANZANITA D
A
R
LICANTE
LIN
DR
DA MAR BLVD
ROSITA RD
ROSI
ADOBE RD
TA RD
PERALTA RD
DE SOLO
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER AVE
PARK LINCOLN
WESTBOROUGH
KING DR
SKYLINE BLVD
MILAGRA DR
HICKEY BLVD
MANOR DR
ROBERTS RD
SHARP PA RK RD
CLARENDON RD
Pa c
O c e a n
De v i l ’ s S l i de T u nn e l
Pier
Sh a r p Pa r k
G o l f C o u r s e
Mo r i P o in t
( G G N R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
23 25 24 26
27 22
21 20
19 18
17 13
14 7
5 2
1 1
3 Figure 3-1:
Coastal Access
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Coastal Access Points
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Regional Open Space
Neighborhood &
District Parks
Golf Course
Beach
Conservation
Partial Conservation
with Development
School
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
on GGNRA land
Pursue small public park and trail
Improve public access and
Maintain public parking as part
of redevelopment of City-owned
Beach Boulevard property
Ensure public access
Provide public trail to overlook
point as part of development
or land conservation
Provide additional signage and amenities
at Crespi Drive parking lot in relation to
proposed extension of Baquiano Trail
Improve new segment of Coastal Trail
along former railroad berm
Trail and access improvements expected under
land steward management; new trails should
provide coastal views from Pedro Peak
PALMETTO AVE
ALMETTO A P VE FAIRWAY DR
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
3 4
9 8
7 6
12 11
10 14 15
16 Ensure public access to beach
in 400-block of Esplanade Avenue
if feasible
and restore blu conditions
Play elds
1.f
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) P
acc
Ocean
D e vi l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 3-2:
Parks and Open Space
System
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Park Opportunity Site
RegionalOpenSpace
District, Neighborhood,
& Pocket Parks
Special Facilities
Schoolelds
Priorities for Conservation
Golf Course
Beach
OtherProtected OpenSpace
PartialConservation
with Development
Urban Reserve
Visitor Serving Commercial
LowIntensity Visitor-
Serving Commercial
Visitor Parking Lot
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
P
PALMETTO AVE
VE A OTTE MLAP
FAIR
WAY DR
GRAND AVE
SEASIDE
DR
Pier
Sharp Park
Go lfC ourse
MoriPoint (GG N R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State Beach
Northern Coastal
Ingrid B. Lacy
Middle School
Rockaway
Quarry
Site
Fairmont
West Park
Sharp Park Beach Promenade
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN PEDRO AVE
BEACH BLVD
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019: San Mateo
1.f
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
MilagraRidge Trail
PiertoRidge Trail
SharpPark Trail
Mori RidgeTrail
BaquianoTrail Trail
San Pedro Valley Trail
PedroPo ni t Trail
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
De v il’s Slide T rail
HarryDean Trail
Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 3-3:
Trail System
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Existing Trails
Existing On-Street
Trail Routes
Proposed Trails or
Trail Improvements
Proposed On-Street
Trail Routes
Coastal Trail
Existing Trailheads
Trailheads to be
Improved
Visitor Parking Lot
Existing SR 1 Crossing
Proposed SR 1 Crossing
Regional Open Space
Neighborhood, District
and Pocket Parks
Golf Course
Beach
Other Protected Open Space
Partial Conservation
with Development
School Play elds
100
Contour
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2008; San Mateo
County, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTE MLA EV
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
SAN JOSE AVE Paci ca
Pier
Sha rp Pa r k G ol f C ou r s e
Mor i Poi n t (G GN R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
BLVD
Fa r allon View
1.f
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Paci c
O cean
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 3-4:
BicycleNetwork
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Existing Class I
Proposed Class I
Existing ClassII
Proposed Class II
Existing Class III
Proposed Class III
Class III to be upgraded
to Class II
Class I to be upgraded
Bicycle Lockers
Bicycle Parking
Changing Room w/Water
Changing Room w/oWater
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
Pedestrian/Bicycle Underpass
Existing Link
PotentialLinkto UnpavedTrail
Coastal Zone
Parks/Open Space
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2009;
SanMateoCounty, 2009;Dyett&Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
OLD COASTHWY
P A OTTE MLA EV
FRANCISCO
BRADFORD
FAIR
WAY DR SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD
SAN PEDRO
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
1.f
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Pac
i c
Ocean
GATEWAY
DR
PALMETTO AVE
MONTEREY RD
EVA OTTE MLAP
OCEANA BLVD
PA
L
O
MA
AVE
TA
L
B
OT
AVE
DVLB OCSI CNARF
CLARENDON RD BRADFORD WAY SHARPPA RK
R
D
M
O
A
N
A
WAY
LUNDY WAY
FAIR
WAY DR RIDG
E
WAY DR
SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD ROCKAWAY BEACH
AVE
FASSLER AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE GRAND AVE
MILAG
RA
D
R
ESPLANADE AVE
MANOR
DR
ROBERTS RD
Manor Dri
ve
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned imp
r
o
vements)
R
E
I
N
A
D
E
L
MA
R
AVE
CRESPI
DR
LINDA MAR
BLVD
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 3-5:
RoadwayNetwork
and Planned
Improvements
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Freeway
MultiLane Highway
TwoLane Highway
Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Unimproved RightofWay
Planned Improvement
PotentialFuture Street
Pedestrian Priority Zone
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2019;
San Mateo County,2019;Dyett& Bhatia,
2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
1.f
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
112
110
14 16
16 16
14 294
110
112
19 16
140
140
112
16 14
14 110
294
118 112
P
P
16 110
49 49
19 49
19 19
Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Pac
O cean
D e vi l’ s S l i d e T u nne l
Figure 3-6:
Transit Routes
and Facilities
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 SamTrans to BART
SamTrans to Caltrain
Local Service
Park and Ride Lot
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2019; San
Mateo County, 2019; Dyett& Bhatia,2019.
118
GATEWAY
DR
OLD COASTHWY
MONTEREY RD
E AV TO TE LM PA
OCSI CNARF
BRADFORD SHARPPARK
R
D
FAIR
WAY DR SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER
AVE
SAN PEDROGRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
Sharp Park Golf Cour s e
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA) CRESPI DR
SamTrans OnDemand
Service Area
1.f
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) NORTH
GLOBE
BIG
INCH
MILAGR A
CREEK
UNNAMED
SANCHEZ
CREEK
CALER A
CREEK
QUARRY
SAN PEDRO
CREEK
Milagra Creek
S anchez Cr eek
Cal e r a Creek
Roc kaway Creek
San P edro Cree k
Pac i c
O cea n
D e vil’s
Sl i d e T u n n e l
Figure 4-1:
Hydrology
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Creeks
Water Treatment Facility
Stream Restoration Projects
Coastal Zone Protected Open Space
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2009;
City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Watersheds
Sharp Par k Golf Cours e
Paci ca
Pier
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pedro Poin t
Headland s
(GGNRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Treatment
Facility
Laguna
Salada
Horse
Stable
Pond
OLD COAST HWY
AP ML ET OT VA E
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR FRANCISCO BLVD
1.f
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 0 1/4 1/2
1 MILES
2 Pac i c
O c e a n
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 4-2: Vegetation
Annual Grassland
Coastal Blu Scrub
Eucalyptus
Northern Coastal Scrub
Monterey Cypress
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Beach/Intertidal
Urban
Creeks
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: California Dept of Fish & Game,
1988, 2003; California Dept of Forestry,
2009; USDA Forest Service, 2017;
FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2009; City of
Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlan d s
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
N o r ther
n C oastal Scru b
Norther
n Coastal Scru b
Ann u a l Grassl a n d
A nn ua
l Grass la n d
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Beach/Intertidal
Eucalyptus
Monterey
Cyprus
Coastal
Blu Scrub
Beach/
Intertidal
Beach/Intertidal
Urban
Urban
Urban
Ann u a l
Grassl a n d
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Norther
n Coastal Scru b
Beach/Intertidal
Coastal
Blu Scrub
P A OTTEMLA EV
DVLB OCSICNARF
CLARENDON RD
FAIRWAY DR
SAN PEDRO
ESPLANADE AVE
1.f
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Pa
c
O ce a n D e vil’ s S l i d e T u nne l
Figure 4-3:
Potential
Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat
Areas
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
SOURCE: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2019;
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2019;
National Park Service, 2009; USDA Forest
Service, 2017; California Natural Diversity
Database, 2019; California Native Plant
Society, 2019; California Dept of Fish &
Game, 2019
; FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2008;
City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County,
2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Critical Habitat
Steelhead
California Red-Legged Frog
Pier
Sharp Pa r k
Golf Cour s e
Mori Poi n t
(GGNR A )
Ped ro Poi n t
Headlan d s
(GG NR A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
E AVTOTELMPA
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE
DR
San Pedro Creek
Potential ESHA
Note: The preliminary delineation of ESHA boundaries does not include an exhaustive compilation of the habitat areas that meet the ESHA definition. Site-specific biological evaluations and field observations shall be required to identify ESHAs and other special status resources that may not have been included in the literature and database review.
1.f
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
200
300
400
100
Mori Point
Rockaway
Headlands
Pedro Point
Headlands
Pacific
Ocean
D evil’s Slid e T u n n el
Figure 4-4:
Visual Resources
0 1/2 1 1/4
MILES
2 Source: US Geological Survey, 2009; City of
Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
Gateways
Prominent Landforms
Coastal View Corridors
Scenic Routes
Prominent Ridges
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Pacifica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Rockaway
State Beach
PALMETTO AVE
PALMETTO AVE
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
Manor Dr
Palmetto Ave
Paloma Ave
Salada Ave
Clarendon Rd
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Shelter Cove/Shoreside Dr
Rockaway Beach
1.f
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
300
200
100
100
Pac i c
O c e a n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 5-1:
Liquefaction and
Fault Lines
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
San Andreas Fault
Alquist-Priolo Zone
100 foot contour interval
400 foot contour interval
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Liquifaction Potential
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments,
2003; US Geological Survey, 2019; ESA. 2009; City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019. 100
400
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
EVA OTTE MLAP
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
FRANCISCO BLVD
1.f
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400 500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600
500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000 900
800
500 600
700
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500 400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 1100
300
200
300
200
300
400
600 500
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
900
1220
200
300
300
400
Pa c c
O ce a n
De v i l ’ s S l i de T u nn e l
Figure 5-2:
Slope Failure and Shoreline
Protection Structures
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Mostly Landslides
Few Landslides
Not Landslide Prone
Seawall
Riprap, Other Revetments
500 foot Contours
100 foot Contours
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
DFIRM, 2017; US Geological Survey, 1997; ESA, 2009; City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia,
2019.
Shoreline Protective Structures
Note:
Pier
Sharp Pa r k
Golf Cour s e
Mori Poi n t
(GGNR A )
P e d ro Po i n t
Headlan d s
( G G N R A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
EV ALMETTO A P
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN PEDRO AVE
1.f
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 8-16
Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
G ol f Course
San Pedro Valley County Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge (GGNRA)
FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
ODDSTAD BLVD
GRAND AVE
ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE
REINA DEL MAR AVE
CRESPI DR
CRESPI DR
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
PALOMA AVE
CLARENDON RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MI LAGR ADR
MONTEREY RD
IVERNESS DR
NELSON AVE
PA ML ETTO AVE
ADOBE DR
BEACH BLVD
HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
P e n i n s u l a Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
Devil' s Slide Tunnel
PERALTA RD
ROSITA RD
EVE RGLAD ES DR
M ANZA NI T A DR
LERI D A WAY
R OBERTSRD
SHAR P P A RK R D
BRADFORD WAY
ESPLANADE AV E
E DGEMAR A VE
GAT EWAYDR
FIRECREST AVE
OCEANA BLVD
SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE
MOANAW AY
Water
Recycling
Plant
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Source: National Flood Hazard Layer for San Mateo
County, FEMA, 2019; Tsunami Hazard Area for
San Mateo County, Department of
Conservation, State of California, 2021; City
of Pacifica, 2020; San Mateo County, 2020;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
Flood Zones
Planning Area
City Limits
0.2% Annual Chance
Flood Zone
1% Annual Chance
Flood Zone
1% Annual Chance
Coastal Flood Zone
Tsunami Evacuation Area
Historic
Figure 5-3: Flood Zones
& Clubhouse
1.f
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
G ol f Course
San Pedro Valley
County Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge (GGNRA)
FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD
GRAND AVE
ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE
CRESPI DR
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
PALOMA AVE
CLARENDON RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MI LAGR ADR
MONTEREY RD
IVERNESS DR
NELSON AVE
PALMETTO AVE
ADOBE DR
BEACH BLVD
HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Peninsula
Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
Devil' s Slide Tunnel
PERALTA RD
ROSITA RD
EVE RGLAD ES DR
M ANZA NI T A DR
LERI D A WAY
R OBERTSRD
SHAR P P A RK R
BR
D
ADFORD WAY
ESPLANADE AV E
E DGEMAR A VE
GAT EWAYDR
FIRECREST AVE
OCEANA BLVD
SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE
MOANA WAY
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
LINDA M AR BLVD
ODDSTAD BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
C R E SPIDR
REINA DEL MAR AVE
Police
Station
Fire
Station
#72
Fire Station # 71
LRA
FRA
SRA
FRA
FRA
LRA
FRA
LRA
LRA
SRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in State Responsibility Area
Very High
High
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, 2020; City of Pacifica, 2019; San
Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Public Safety Facilities
Fire Protection
Responsibility Area
City Limits
Planning Area
Local (LRA)
State (SRA)
Federal (FRA)
LRA
SRA
FRA
The City will update this
figure as new recommended
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
maps are adopted by the City.
Historic
Figure 5-4:
Fire Hazards and
Emergency Services
& Clubhouse
1.f
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) :HVW/LQGD0DU
3HGUR3RLQWDQG
6KHOWHU&RYH
6KDUS3DUN:HVW)DLUZD\3DUNDQG0RUL3RLQW
)DLUPRQW:HVW
5RFNDZD\%HDFK4XDUU\DQG+HDGODQGV
1RUWKZHVW6KDUS3DUN
:HVW(GJHPDU3DFLILF0DQRU
3DFLILFD6WDWH%HDFK
3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B3URMHFW$UHDP[GMUM
6285&(
&LW\RI3DFLILFD
/HJHQG
3DFLILFD&LW\/LPLWV6XEDUHDV
0LOHV
)LJXUH6-
Coastal Resilience6XEDUHDV
1 /RFDWLRQ0DS
1.f
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 1
This assortment of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is provided to assist the public in understanding information about the LCLUP. This FAQ is provided as a courtesy to the public and is not intended to provide legal advice nor is it intended to be relied upon as the process for any specific project. The FAQ may be updated periodically with new information from time to time.
Basic Facts
What percentage of residents, homes, and
businesses would be affected by the LCLUP
Update?
Generally speaking, the LCLUP affects all of Pacifica’s residents and anyone that comes into Pacifica to work or visit. The Coastal Zone makes up about 15% of the land within the City of Pacifica. Nearly half of the land in the Coastal Zone is preserved as open space. Within the Coastal Zone, residential use makes up 21% of land. In addition, six out of the City’s seven hotels are located in the Coastal Zone. Much of the City’s public facilities and critical infrastructure, including the Sharp Park Library, Council Chambers, Civic Center, Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and several sewer and stormwater pump stations and transmission pipelines, are located within the Coastal Zone.
Why does the 1980 LCLUP not meet the
City’s current needs? Why not just amend it
on an as needed basis? Why do we need a
brand new LCLUP?
The 1980 LCLUP is no longer adequate to meet the City’s various needs for a modern, comprehensive land use plan for the Coastal Zone (roughly 15 percent of Pacifica’s land area and a significant proportion of key facilities, infrastructure, and tax base). The 1980 LCLUP fails to prioritize the City’s housing needs, economic development objectives, environmental protection priorities, and other key community needs and also does not effectively address coastal erosion, sea level rise, and natural hazards that are becoming more severe due to climate change. The 1980 LCLUP also does not contain the required elements in Senate Bill (SB) 272 that requires LCLUPs throughout California to be updated to include a plan to address sea level rise no later than January 1, 2034.
In the over 40 years since the 1980 LCLUP was adopted, many of its goals have been carried out, including a zoning code with regulations to protect slopes and preserve open space, and the revitalization of the Rockaway Beach area. Many issues facing Pacifica are enduring but the legal environment governing land use, environmental preservation, housing, climate change adaptation and resiliency, and other planning issues have changed. New priorities have emerged with a new generation of Pacifica residents and stakeholders.
Can staff identify the undeveloped properties? Undeveloped properties can be found in Figure 4-1 of the 2040 General Plan.
How do the policies protect Pacifica? The policies in the 2020 LCLUP provide for greater environmental protection and clearer regulations for development. The 2020 LCLUP also includes the City’s first policies related to sea level rise adaptation that begin the City’s long-term efforts to confront the
1.g
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 2
Basic Facts
challenges of sea level rise. These will provide clarity to property owners and other stakeholders as to how their properties may develop in light of sea level rise.
What is the 'modification' of the LCLUP in
response to exactly?
The City’s ongoing efforts on the LCLUP Update related primarily to responding to the California Coastal Commission as the City continues its efforts to obtain Coastal Commission certification of the 2020 LCLUP. The City is currently considering whether to request alternative modifications to those Suggested Modifications proposed by California Coastal Commission staff in March 2023, which can be found here:
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2023/3
Involvement of other public agencies
How involved is State & Federal government
in this issue?
The California Coastal Commission is a state agency and the City has been engaging extensively with them. Other state agencies have been indirectly involved in the LCLUP Update process, which includes the Ocean Protection Council, the agency that publishes the official sea level rise projections for the State of California.
Is San Francisco involved? The City and County of San Francisco owns land within the City of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone; however, they do not have any decision-making authority related to the City’s LCLUP Update.
Role and Authority of CCC
Is there a better way (e.g., City wide
referendum) to protect the freedom and
choice of Pacificans, rather than giving power
to a small unelected group (CCC) to create
rules that impact an entire town?
Under state law, California Coastal Commission certification is required for an LCLUP to take effect. A referendum of Pacifica voters cannot replace California Coastal Commission certification. The City is continuing its efforts to explore policy approaches in the LCLUP that are acceptable to the Pacifica Council that may also be acceptable to the California Coastal Commission.
Who are the Coastal Commission? And
where do you get minutes and their policy.
And why are non-elected people making
rules in our community? (No accountability).
Information about the Coastal Commission, the Commissioners, and their meetings can be found here: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/. The Coastal Commission is comprised of 12 voting members, appointed equally (four each) by the Governor, the Senate Rules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly. A number of Coastal Commissioners are elected representatives of jurisdictions throughout the state, such as city councilmembers or county supervisors, although no process exists in state law to directly elect Coastal Commissioners.
How can an unelected Coastal Commission
make rules that infringe on our private
1.g
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 3
Role and Authority of CCC
property rights? We have a right to protect
our properties. Managed retreat is stealing
the peoples’ land isn't it? What right do
strangers have to think they can take
property owned and maintained by families
for years? Is there more concern for the
Coastal Commission ideology than for
families and people who live in and visit our
city?
The California Coastal Act grants authority to the Coastal Commission to carry out the purpose and intent of the Act, including adopting regulations for its administration.
Does the CCC recognize coastal protections? Yes, the Coastal Act allows shoreline protection structures such as seawalls and rock revetment. Public Resources Code section 30235 provides that shoreline protection structures “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.” The interpretation of “existing structures” by the California Coastal Commission has changed over time, and the agency currently interprets the term to mean those structures in existence on the effective date of the Coastal Act (January 1, 1977).
How can the City and Planning Department
help us to prevent CCC from overreaching
their powers and changing the law the way
they see fit because this problem will not
only affect those near the sea but the
neighboring homes once the seawalls fall.
Planning Director Christian Murdock said at the
last meeting that the City does not have to follow
CEQA guidelines, and it is the responsibility of the
CCC – is that true?
Yes, for purposes of adoption of Local Coastal Program amendments by the City of Pacifica (this includes the LCLUP). See California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15265 (“Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs”) which provides that “CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal Act … by: (1) Any local government, as defined in Section 30109 of the Public Resources Code, necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program …” Section 15265 further provides that “CEQA shall apply to the certification of a local coastal program … by the California Coastal Commission.” The California Coastal Commission will perform environmental review pursuant to its certified CEQA-equivalent regulatory program.
Will the LCLUP Update be acceptable to the
Coastal Commission?
Staff has worked with the Coastal Commission staff and both staffs have discussed policies that are likely to be supported by the Coastal Commission. While the Coastal Commission Will this be accurate with the Coastal is made up of individuals, similar to Pacifica’s City Council, and they have discretion on how Commission?
1.g
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 4
Role and Authority of CCC
How likely is the Coastal Commission to
accept City Policies? Is it flexible and what
exactly does it want?
they vote, staff is confident and is working towards a document that is consistent with the Coastal Act and should be acceptable to the Commission.
How did the Coastal Commission’s position
change from 2020 to now?
The Coastal Commission staff submitted several comment letters during the course of the City’s LCLUP Update process leading up to City Council approval in February 2020.
However, it was not until 2023 that the Coastal Commission staff released its official set of suggested modifications, which can be found here:
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2023/3, on the City’s LCLUP Update that it believed would be required to find the plan in compliance with the Coastal Act.
Coastal Commission should recognize
existing armoring and how can the City bring
CCC to that view?
The California Coastal Commission does recognize existing shoreline protection structures that have valid permits. However, the key issue for Pacifica is how to gain Coastal Commission recognition of existing armoring (i.e., shoreline protection structures) that serve an area wide function, that protect public streets and infrastructure, and that will be required over the long-term to protect public health and safety in Pacifica. City and Coastal Commission staffs have been working closely on potential policies to be included in the LCLUP Update, known as Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs), that would address this issue in the West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods.
What is CCC's timeline? The Coastal Commission is bound by statutory timelines to act on the City’s LCLUP Update once accepted for filing. These timelines are generally 90 days for action, unless the Coastal Commission grants itself a 12-month extension.
Why are the bullets on page 6 of the staff
report ranked, and why are they ranked in
that manner?
In the December 5, 2023 staff report, under the Coastal Resources Enhancements section, the list of bullet points is ordered from highest to lowest priority under the Coastal Act and the policy direction of the California Coastal Commission staff.
Why does the Coastal Commission deny the
existence of coastal armoring on its map of
Pacifica?
The armoring reflected in CCC maps of Pacifica include only permitted armoring. It is the case that some of existing armoring along the coast was never permitted by the CCC or was authorized with permits previously which have expired and owners have not yet removed it or obtained new permits.
Role of the City
The city as a whole will have to bear the
burden for few coastal properties; why?
The Coastal Zone is an important component of the City of Pacifica. Approximately 15% of the City’s land area is in the Coastal Zone, as well as # out of # hotels, and numerous key City facilities and infrastructure including the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP),
1.g
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 5
Role of the City
Civic Center, Council Chambers, Sharp Park Library, and numerous sewer and stormwater pump stations and transmission pipes. The entire City relies on these facilities and infrastructure. Therefore, it is important for the entire community to be involved in creating the long-term policy approach for the Coastal Zone that is described in the LCLUP Update.
Why is the City giving in to the CCC? The City is not giving in to the CCC. Adoption of an updated LCLUP is in the City’s best interests for a number of reasons. The 1980 LCLUP is not adequate to continue guiding the City’s actions in the Coastal Zone on a long-term basis. Many objectives of the 1980 LCLUP have been accomplished, such as protection of key beach and open space areas and formalization of public coastal access, while its assessments of some coastal neighborhoods are no longer reflective of the challenges and needs of those areas. The City Council has recognized since at least 2009 that an update was needed to accomplish changing prioritizes ad effectively address climate change and sea level rise (SLR). State law, as enacted in late 2023 with Senate Bill (SB) 272, now requires LCLUPs throughout California to be updated to include a plan to address SLR. The 2020 LCLUP has largely addressed these requirements already. Further delay of the LCLUP Update will only constrain Pacifica’s timeline for adoption by the SB 272 deadline in the future, and would deprive Pacifica of as much as a decade of the various benefits to LCLUP adoption that have been previously discussed if adoption were to occur closer to the deadline.
While it is important for the City to vigorously pursue policies in its LCLUP that best serve the City’s interests, it is also important to recognize that the Coastal Act affords the CCC significant substantive and procedural authorities with power equivalent to the City in the LCLUP process. Therefore, it is important for both agencies to reach agreement on the content of the LCLUP in order for certification to be achieved, and insisting on policies in the City’s LCLUP that the CCC will reject will not advance the City closer to CCC certification of an LCLUP update. City staff is working closely with CCC staff to seek areas of compromise to move the plan forward.
Why would City Council sacrifice almost the
entire coast of Pacifica for two carved out areas?
Please see response above. Additionally, the West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach areas contain higher densities and prevalence of existing development, including high proportions of pre-Coastal Act development, concentrations of essential Coastal Actsupported land uses, presence of critical public rights-of-way and infrastructure, and existence of broad shoreline protection benefiting multiple public and private landowners,
1.g
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 6
Implementation of 2020 LCLUP
What will the implementation process look
like?
Similar to how the 1980 LCLUP was implemented, the 2020 LCLUP will be implemented in stages through a variety of public and private actions. An immediate step following LCLUP certification will be City work to update the Implementation Plan (IP) of the City’s Local Coastal Program, which includes the zoning regulations, zoning map, and other City policies and programs to implement the LCLUP. City Council approval of the IP followed by Coastal Commission certification will be required. Private party implementation generally will occur as private development projects are proposed.
Additionally, if the 2020 LCLUP contains Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies, some implementation programs will require a proactive approach, such as the Visitor Amenity Improvements and potentially Beach Nourishment programs.
How will city apply new obligations in admin
of the LCLUP?
How will the city keep up?
Will it be forever? The 2020 LCLUP is intended to provide the policy approach for the City’s coastal zone until the year 2040. The City should begin work on the next iteration of the LCLUP prior to 2040.
The City Council also retains discretion to amend the LCLUP at any time, subject to followWhat is the timeline? on certification by the Coastal Commission.
Role of the City
which complicated potential future removal. Further, as described in the case studies document prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting, the CCC’s most restrictive policies are de facto in effect in much of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone already due to the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction. Therefore, one sensible approach is to update the LCLUP to derive other benefits for the City, such as the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies that would significantly benefit development potential in the West Sharp park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods.
The Coastal Commission hasn’t even voted to
accept the CCC staff’s revisions. Why is City Staff
rushing to accept this raw deal?
The LCLUP Update process has been ongoing for nearly 15 years. The process has not been rushed, and key policies are being thoroughly considered as part of a robust public process that involves the community and decision makers. The City Council will have the ultimate discretion whether to accept Coastal Commission’s final modification to achieve a certified LCLUP..
1.g
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 7
2020 LCLUP Not Certified
What happens if we don’t get approval from the
CCC?
If the CCC were not to approve the City’s 2020 LCLUP, the 1980 LCLUP would remain in place as the certified document. However, the 1980 LCLUP no longer serves the City well to guide public and private activities in the Coastal Zone.
The City will have six months from any future Coastal Commission certification to locally adopt any changes implemented by the Coastal Commission. If the City did not approve the LCLUP as certified by the Coastal Commission, the certification would become null and void after six months and the 1980 LCLUP would remain in the place as the certified document.
What happens if the city does not make the
changes the CCC requested? It is understood
they would default to the 1980 plan, but don’t
really understand the implications of that.
What is Plan B if the CCC does not approve the
SRAs? Will the City then accept the CCC proposed
modifications?
Currently, staff is confident that the coordination between the City and CCC will result in the SRAs being certified by the CCC if City Council decides to include them in the LCLUP.
While confident, the City staff cannot be certain unless and until a CCC certification hearing to consider the SRA policies occurs. There may be additional modifications that are proposed to the SRAs and the City Council will have the ultimate discretion whether to accept Coastal Commission’s final modification to achieve a certified LCLUP As noted in an answer above, the City Council retains ultimate discretion whether to accept the CCC’s suggested modifications. However, only through mutual agreement between the City and CCC can new policies take effect in an updated LCLUP. Failure to reach agreement will result in the 1980 LCLUP remaining in effect which City staff believes is not in the City’s best interests.
Effects on Property
Commerce centers are prioritized [but]
residential is not so much. Would the RV
park/mobile home park also be protected? Is
space between these also visitor serving?
Does the 100 year plan affect temporary
structures?
The Coastal Act supports protection of existing structures. The Coastal Commission currently interprets “existing structures” to mean those in existence on the effective date of the Coastal Act (January 1, 1977). Structures constructed after January 1, 1977, are likely to encounter significant difficulty obtaining Coastal Commission approval of shoreline protection structures. The same is true for structures that may have expanded or redeveloped in excess of the 50% threshold currently used by the Coastal Commission to determine when an “existing structure” shall be considered new development for purposes of shoreline protection structures. Permitting of existing structures is within the
1.g
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 8
Effects on Property
Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction and not an issue the City can address within its own jurisdiction.
What the City can strive to do is include policies in the LCLUP that are as supportive as possible of shoreline protection structures under circumstances that are also agreeable to the Coastal Commission. Similarly, the City can also pursue policies in the LCLUP that address circumstances not accounted for in the Coastal Act, such as publicly-owned shoreline protection structures that are providing protection to public infrastructure, behind which private property with post-Coastal Act development would also receive benefit from that protection. The City is exploring ways to accomplish this, which is the purpose of the Special Resiliency Area, or SRA, policies.
Who can I talk with about my property and
how these policies affect me and my future
and property? If this, then this type of
discussion.
You can contact City of Pacifica Planning Department staff to discuss. Business hours and contact information are available on the Planning Department webpage. An appointment is recommended.
Homes in coastal areas will be flooded.
Certain beloved landmarks exist in these
areas, like old restaurants. How will we
protect these landmarks?
The 2020 LCLUP identifies different types of flooding hazards, including storm-induced flooding and coastal flooding. Many historical landmarks will be considered “existing structures” for purposes of shoreline protection structures, which can be one way of minimizing risks from coastal flooding hazards. Whether a permit for shoreline protection can be approved is a property- and fact-specific inquiry and in general, individual property owners are responsible to pursue construction of shoreline protection structures when eligible and desired. In the SRAs, these landmarks will have the protection of existing shoreline protections structures and will be allowed to adapt, if necessary.
How will this impact our home or business?
Looks like the SRAs are good for the two
vulnerable areas included, but what about all
the other neighborhoods?
The case studies that will be presented in the staff report for the March 2, 2024, community meeting explain a number of common scenarios. The ability to construct shoreline protection structures depends on the specific facts applicable to a given property. The Special Resiliency Areas, or SRAs, are one example of how a compromise approach with the Coastal Commission could result in additional protections for parts of Pacifica.
Why is the rest of Pacifica’s coastal
development still subject to managed retreat
regulations?
There are no managed retreat policies proposed in the LCLUP Update. Rather, the update would modernize the City’s 40+ year old 1980 LCLUP to reflect the applicable legal and regulatory environment applicable today. This includes but is not limited to development regulations and policies that recognize the significant hazards present in Pacifica’s Coastal
1.g
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 9
Effects on Property
Zone. In some cases, the presence of significant hazards will affect the development potential of property. But it is the case that the Coastal Act limits the authorization for shoreline protection structures to “existing development,” as that term is interpreted and applied by the Coastal Commission, which is a matter beyond the City’s jurisdiction or control.
Will I lose my investment (my home/property
or ability to sell) if so, when, because I live in
West Fairway Park but outside the SRA?
There are no provisions in the 2020 LCLUP that propose to take property from private property owners or to force any individual property owner to sell a property. However, it is important to note that a variety of hazards affect property in the Coastal Zone, including but not limited to flooding and coastal erosion hazards. The 2020 LCLUP makes a major advancement over the 1980 LCLUP to identify and map those hazards so that appropriate policies to minimize the risks to development can be implemented. Within the Special Resiliency Areas, or SRAs, reliance on existing shoreline protection structures is one important way that hazard mitigation can be accomplished when considering development on sites within the SRAs.
How will homeowners be compensated for
their losses? How does the city plan to pay
for all the law suits that will result if the CCC
plan is accepted by City Council?
The potential impact of the LCLUP is dependent on the specific circumstances of each property, including the location, size, and specific site conditions, all of which determine the specific policies that would apply. Generally, policies within the LCLUP encourage existing homes to look at other adaptative measures to protect the homes aside from shoreline protection structures. Thus, any potential allegations of losses would need to be Who will compensate us for the lost value of analyzed on a site-specific basis. our properties and businesses? If the City
decides to move forward with the CCC
changes to the LCLUP, this is a taking, unless
we are going to be compensation. I pay
current market rate property taxes, is the
City going to pay me the current market rate
value of my property to leave Sharp Park? Is
the City and County expecting us to pay
current market rate property taxes when our
properties are losing value due to redlined
maps found on the internet? How will you
address the concerns of lenders and insurers
1.g
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 10
Effects on Property
who are already looking to pull out of Sharp
Park?
What conditions can you add to the LCLUP to
provide a more equitable treatment of
private citizens that have an investment in
coastal property? These are our homes, and
we should be allowed to protect them, as
there is no infringement on the public good.
If protection is denied, is that considered a
“taking” of private property and should we
be compensated?
What do you expect to happen to properties
and property value in Pacifica if CCC staff’s
recommendation are accepted? Won’t this
cause blight throughout the Pacifica?
The City alternative modifications and SRA policies are an attempt to increase investment and development potential in two densely developed neighborhoods in Pacifica – Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park. Implementation of CCC suggested modifications related to existing structures may require property owners to take on additional, unanticipated costs triggered by otherwise typical projects such as additions on properties throughout the City. The potential increase in cost could lead to disinvestment in these properties due to property owners choosing not to significantly improve property in order to avoid triggering the SSM definition. Reduced investment in turn could lead to deteriorated housing and blighted conditions. The SRA policies would reduce this potential for disinvestment and blight in the areas where the SRA policies would apply, and provide a clear framework for ongoing investment and development in the SRA areas which will enhance these highly-visible and frequently visited neighborhoods.
If we live on the ocean, what are the
alternatives? What if we can’t afford these
alternatives?
There are proactive and reactive ways that policies in the 2020 LCLUP could affect an individual property owner such as one living directly along the shoreline. A proactive way is proposal of new development or an alteration to existing development. The case studies prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting explain a variety of scenarios that may be applicable to such a property.
A reactive way that the 2020 LCLUP policies could affect a shoreline property is coastal hazard damage. The Coastal Zone is a highly dynamic area subject to various hazards. The 2020 LCLUP makes a major advancement beyond the 1980 LCLUP to identify these hazards
1.g
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 11
Effects on Property
and put in place policies to minimize the risks from these hazards. The case studies also assess scenarios where a property is damaged by hazards and how that property may repair or rebuild depending on the nature of the damage.
In general, properties will only be required to implement adaptation measures when development is proposed triggering the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) criteria or when a property is damaged and the repairs meet the threshold for an SSM. The City is not proposing exact stringent adaptation measures and instead would allow for each property to adapt depending on the specifically applicable coastal hazards. If the private development project triggers the SSM criteria, the adaptation measures required would be part of the cost of development. In certain cases, if Special Resiliency Area or SRA policies are put in place, some properties that are repeatedly and significantly damaged by coastal hazards may not be allowed to repair to the pre-damage condition.
How has the City of Pacifica considered and
addressed the inconsistency in how parts of
the coast will be able to develop and the
inequality that it will create between
neighborhoods?
As explained elsewhere, the City’s 1980 LCLUP is more than 40 years old and does not reflect the current state of the law and the Coastal Commission’s interpretation and application of the law as it pertains to coastal planning issues. It is not possible at this time to obtain the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies for the entirety of Pacifica. However, successfully enacting these policies will enhance development potential in two critical neighborhoods in Pacifica that are home to significant public access and recreation resources, public infrastructure and facilities, and commercial and economic tax base for Pacifica. Applying the SRA policies to these areas would be beneficial to Pacifica overall.
Effects on Property – Commercial
How do the Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs)
affect commerce?
In general, the SRAs would provide greater development potential for properties in the SRA than would otherwise be available outside the SRAs. This would facilitate greater commerce in the SRAs. See the case studies prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting for more information the SRAs.
How do we protect business important to the
economy and homeowner rights?
In an attempt to provide maximum development potential and economic use of properties in existing neighborhoods, City staff is proposing an alternative modification to incorporate the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies.
What financial resources do we have if we
remove commercial zoning?
The LCLUP does not propose to remove commercial zoning. However, in some cases, the LCLUP proposes to expand mixed use commercial and residential land uses.
1.g
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 12
Erosion
Are there cost effective plans to hold back
erosion now rather than fighting it down the
line when it may be too late?
The City is currently working on several shoreline protection projects, including the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP), 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project, and the 400 Esplanade Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project.
Additionally, individual property owners may qualify to construct shoreline protection structures to protect their property. There are also non-structural shoreline protection techniques identified in the 2020 LCLUP that the City intends to explore, contingent on funding and technical feasibility.
What tools do we have to protect the bluff?
Who is exploring the technologies, what have
other cities done to successfully protect bluff
top erosion?
The City’s Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning Process, which informed the LCLUP Update process, relied on technical advice from expert coastal engineers. The City’s experts explored a range of technical solutions that could provide shoreline protection other than traditional seawall techniques, and the 2020 LCLUP encourages incorporation of these methods contingent on funding and technical feasibility.
Sand Retention
Sand Retention – Are natural resources being
replenished? Public communications on how to
know who and what are making resource
decisions.
The City currently does not have a sand retention or replenishment program. There are policies in the 2020 LCLUP that support sand replenishment efforts contingent upon funding and technical feasibility. Any such efforts will require a public process for permitting, in which the community can provide additional input. Undertaking any such replenishment activities will require close coordination between the City of Pacifica and the Coastal Commission.
Coastline
Moving coastline back = what does that do to
current zoning?
Long-term adaptation planning is a complex task. It may involve changes in allowable density and intensity of certain land uses over time. In general, the 2020 LCLUP does not propose major land use or zoning changes along the shoreline and overall supports continuing land use consistent with the development pattern in Pacifica for the near-and medium-terms.
1.g
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 13
Substantial Structural Modifications
Are roof replacements considered an SSM? No, the SSM definition does not include nonstructural elements such as shingle replacements. See the case studies in the staff report prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting for more information. The Plan Pacifica webpage also includes a detailed explanation of LCLUP policies that would govern roof replacements.
Does 50% replacement policy include floors
and roofs?
Clarify the 50% rule, is it cumulative? What type
of repairs qualify. Deferred maintenance count, if
you do a repair and find lots of damage
additionally to the repair will this be triggered? If
a tree falls on my house, can I rebuild? Is it
discretionary and if so who makes that
determination. Selling a house, does an
inspection show major issues, affect a potential
sale and if needed can you go over the 50%?
The Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition states that incremental changes are cumulative, which means that the definition could be triggered with one project or a number of smaller projects that add up to 50%. SSM does not prohibit projects that surpass the 50% threshold, instead it means that once the threshold is met there are a number of other policies that are triggered, such as CR-I-43 Technical Reports and CR-I-44 Siting and Design. These policies may require modifications to an existing structure to mitigate hazards and such work may be beyond the scope of the initial project intended to be undertaken. In the Special Resiliency Areas, a project triggering the SSM definition will be required to correct nonconformities related to hazards and coastal resources only.
See the case studies in the staff report prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting for more information on application of the SSM to various development and hazard damage scenarios.
The application of cumulative SSM modifications will be based on available permit records, the availability of which will vary by property. In the event a property already exceeds the SSM threshold, further action by the property owner will not be automatically triggered.
However, any further structural modifications to the property could trigger the requirements of the SSM definition and associated policies.
How is the 50% threshold met? The
definition is unclear.
What is the definition of 'incremental' in the
SRA's? Most of the 50% could already be
filled for properties depending on definition.
Is it cumulative since 1977? Cumulative per
owner? Per property?
Who is making decision on percentage of
project fixes and how is that determined?
City of Pacifica Planning Department staff will be implementing the Substantial Structural Modification regulations and making determinations based on available permit records, which will vary by property.
Why must property owners waive their rights
to protection from coastal armoring in the
SRA’s if they are granted a permit for an
SSM?
The Coastal Act only authorizes shoreline protection structures for existing development.
The Coastal Commission has interpreted that significant modifications to property, such as that in the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition, effectively makes existing development into new development and thus, ineligible for shoreline protection structures. The deed restriction to waive rights to future shoreline protection is the CCC’s preferred method to effectuate the referenced Coastal Act provision. In any case, authorization to construct shoreline protection structures is outside the City’s permit
1.g
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 14
Substantial Structural Modifications
jurisdiction and the City must follow the CCC’s approach on this subject. However, no property owner is obligated to undertake an SSM and can choose to retain “existing structure” status if desired (unless improvements are required to ensure minimum habitability under the California Building Code or to eliminate nuisance conditions under the Pacifica Municipal Code).
Why does the CCC’s version of SSM modify
Pacifica’s definition to line out almost all of
the Exclusions taken directly from Sec. 30212
of the Coastal Act?
The CCC’s suggested modifications to the SSM definition are consistent with their recent practice and planning guidance on this subject.
Deed Restrictions
Deed Restrictions/Disclosures – do these come
into play?
The LCLUP would require approvals for development in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Evacuation Zones to require a deed restriction stating that the owner assumes liability and indemnifies and holds the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless, including any injury and/or damage from coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development; unconditionally waives any claim of damage from coastal hazards against the City; waives rights to future shoreline armoring; acknowledges the development may need to be removed and the site restored in response to future hazard conditions; and assumes all responsibility for any adverse effects to property caused by the permitted project and/or need for removal or relocation.
City staff is proposing an alternative modification that would change the disclosures requirements from the Tsunami Evacuation Zone to the Tsunami Inundation Zone, which generally will be a lesser area of Pacifica where tsunami inundation is more likely to occur, thus making the deed restriction requirements more closely related to the presence of an actual hazard.
CCC staff wants development restrictions to
apply to tsunami evacuation areas. These areas
extend far beyond just the coastal area, such as
the Linda Mar Shopping Center and surrounding
neighborhoods. What are these restrictions and
for what purpose?
1.g
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 15
Definitions
Further definitions of LCLUP terms compared
to CCC.
The CCC suggested modifications make changes to many of the definitions in the City’s LCLUP to ensure they are consistent with the Coastal Act. Please refer to Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modification and Alternative Modifications. “Non conformity” definition. The City’s LCLUP has a definition for Non-Conforming Use and Non-conforming Structures.
There are no suggested modifications to these definitions. City of Pacifica Planning Department staff would be responsible for making determinations on the presence of any nonconformities on a property. Nonconformities are assessed based on the condition of a specific property relative to existing regulations that are in effect at time of the determination.
Non-conforming Use: “A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.”
Non-conforming Structure: “An existing structure that is legally nonconforming with an LCP standard.”
What does a nonconformity mean?
What constitutes nonconforming and who
deems this as nonconforming?
What is the baseline date for any structures
in the context of nonconforming?
What is clear for what is existing vs a new
development?
While there is no definition of “existing” in the Coastal Act, California Coastal Commission has interpreted “existing structures” to mean those structures in existence on the effective date of the Coastal Act (January 1, 1977). It is also possible that alterations to a structure in excess of the thresholds in the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition could result in a structure being treated substantially similar to a new development, including for purposes of qualifying for shoreline protection structures. The alternative modifications proposed by City staff to implement Special Resiliency Area or SRA policies would minimize the effect of the SSM definition on many properties in the SSM and expand development potential beyond that which would otherwise apply outside the SRA.
How is the City redefining the meaning of
“existing development”?
The City and Coastal Commission disagree on a reasonable interpretation of the term “existing structure.” To address this issue, the City staff proposes an alternative modification that would not include a local definition of “existing development” or “existing structure” in the LCLUP and which instead would rely on how those terms are more broadly interpreted under the law. At present that would mean an interpretation consistent with the Coastal Commission’s preferred position, which is structures in What is the definition of “existing”? existence on the effective date of the Coastal Act (January 1, 1977) and which have not
1.g
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 16
General SRAs
What are the SRAs and how were they
chosen?
The SRAs are “Special Resiliency Areas” which are areas that have existing development with significant amounts of pre-Coastal Act development, a mix of public streets and infrastructure, land uses prioritized by the Coastal Act, and significant unified public coastal access. Planning staff created the criteria and identified the areas that meet that criteria in close coordination with Coastal Commission staff.
What is the process to determine SRAs?
SRA? How will it affect those not in the SRA
zone?
Areas outside of the SRA will be subject to generally applicable policies in the LCLUP.
Is the Sharp Park Specific Plan motivating the
SRA?
No, the Sharp Park Specific Plan was approved in 2022 as part of the General Plan Update process, before the concept of Special Resiliency Areas or SRAs had been developed. The SRAs would benefit implementation of the Sharp Park Specific Plan, however, by allowing development to occur in reliance on the existing Beach Boulevard shoreline protection structures.
Why is the quarry not included in the SRA to
be used as mitigation?
The SRAs do not identify any specific mitigation measures or areas for mitigation. The Visitor Amenity Improvement policy outlines the overall approach and states that the implementation plan will be created with public input and updated every 5 years. It is possible that Visitor Amenity Improvements could occur in the Rockaway Quarry area either on City property or in cooperation with the private property owner.
If there is an existing seawall in an area, is it
considered an SRA?
Not automatically, as there are several criteria for an area to be considered a SRA.
What precedents are there from SRAs? The SRA policies would be a novel approach to implement LCLUP policies that balance statewide priorities in the Coastal Act with unique local conditions in this way. The City is not aware of any precedential value and expansion of SRAs to other locations in Pacifica would require further coordination with the Coastal Commission and a subsequent LCLUP amendment.
Definitions
undergone a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM). However, by choosing not to define the term in the LCLUP, the City enables an evolving definition of “existing structures” that may emerge from ongoing litigation against the Coastal Commission on this subject, as well as any subsequent clarifications made by the California Legislature in state law.
1.g
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 17
General SRAs
Will the SRA line continue to move or is it
static?
If certified by the California Coastal Commission, the SRA boundaries will be part of the LCLUP. If the boundary were to be changed, it would require an LCLUP amendment certified by the CCC. While staff has not identified a justification for a SRA boundary change at this time, a boundary change is possible if conditions change and agreement can be reached with the CCC.
How often are these areas re-evaluated
(zones/SRAs)?
Have any communities implemented SRAs? Currently, there are no other jurisdictions that have received certification of an LCLUP with this concept. However, ‘carve-outs’ to reflect unique local conditions is a concept that has also been called ‘neighborhood planning’ by the California Coastal Commission and is being explored in various jurisdictions throughout California.
Have any other cities developed in SRA, like
Santa Cruz, Capitola or Monterey?
Does SRA have CCC’s blessing? The SRA concept originated from the CCC’s work with local governments across the state.
While there is growing support for the concept, the policy specifics have not yet been certified by the CCC for any jurisdiction and California and the City of Pacifica has the potential to be the first. Acceptance of the specific approach being contemplated in Pacifica will not be known until the certification hearing at the CCC – however, City staff has been working in close coordination with CCC staff to craft policies they believe will be acceptable to the CCC.
What does it mean to live in an SRA vs a nonSRA, who is getting more protection? The case studies prepared in the staff report for the March 2, 2024, community meeting include additional information on the differences between SRA and non-SRA areas.
If the Pacifica City Council were to approve the
new SRA areas (a compromise with City Staff and
CCC) - when would this take effect? We are not
experiencing Sea Level rise at this time. Does this
happen immediately upon approval of the
revised LCLUP or at a later date? Months, 1 year,
5 years, 20 years, 50 years? What would be the
triggering event? And how much notice will
property owners have of this effective date and
how will they be notified? (ie: replacing a roof
means putting a deed restriction on my property
giving up my shoreline protections)
If the City Council approved the Special Resiliency Areas (SRA), they would become effective once the LCLUP document is certified by the California Coastal Commission and subsequent adoption by City Council.
The triggering event for LCLUP policies that affect private property will generally be an event that requires a coastal development permit (CDP), such as an addition or new development. These policies do not have effect for properties automatically upon adoption. As explained in the case studies prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting, re-roof projects and other routine property maintenance will not trigger a requirement for a deed restriction to waive rights to future shoreline protection structures.
Why is staff proposing Special Resiliency Areas
(SRAs) to protect two small areas of Pacifica
when Section 30235 of the Coastal Act already
The purpose of the SRA policies is to allow ongoing economic use and vitality of property, provision of public services, operation of visitor-serving uses, and protection of broad coastal access. The SRAs would continue to rely on existing shoreline protection, while also
1.g
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 18
General SRAs
provides these protections to existing
development?
requiring implementation of adaptation measures to be incorporated into development.
The main focus of the SRA policies is future development and protection of existing development.
How does the “Alternative Adaption
Strategies/SRA” concept actually further “longterm adaptation planning and coastal resource protection” and/or a balanced approach, when it
essentially is presented by the City of Pacifica
staff as a plan to continue armoring into
perpetuity?
The SRAs focus on already developed area of the City. By providing additional protection and flexibility to these areas, it allows other areas of the City to be protected and/or conserved.
SRA Policy #1 – Development Protected with Existing Shoreline Protection Will policy #1 allow development? Yes, the intent of SRA Policy #1 is to streamline development and allow development in the SRA to rely on the existing shoreline protection when designing the project. Note, however, that specific language is still under development between City and CCC staffs, and the language referenced in this question is one example of the way the SRA policies may be implemented.
Coastal Hazards Induced Damages
What will homeowners do if they have to
abandon property due to hazard/access?
Decisions to abandon property will remain up to individual property owners and will not be dictated by any policies in the LCLUP. A property subject to the coastal hazards induced damages policy may be allowed to redevelop subject to meeting all generally applicable LCLUP policies, which would not include reliance on existing shoreline protection structures, except for properties covered by the SRAs.
Property owners would remain individually financially responsible for their properties.
Where will funding come from, how, and
what's the plan to get it?
2 events within 1 year. Is that a red tag? A repetitive coastal hazard damage policy is no longer part of the SRA policies. CCC staff indicated during recent staff-to-staff discussions an interest in potentially applying a repetitive coastal hazard damage policy to certain high-risk areas of Pacifica, to be determined at a later date (separate from ongoing discussions of SRA policies), if deemed necessary by the CCC during the certification hearing process as a further offset for the
1.g
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 19
SRA Policy #4 – Shoreline Management Plan
What are the specifics on the coastal
resource enhancements?
At this time there are no specifics. As stated in the policy language, the City implementation plan associated with this policy will include a community outreach process that will allow the community to provide input on what the specific visitor amenity improvements will be. The creation of the implementation plan will occur postcertification.
The policy states that the implementation plan will be updated every 5 years. Every 5 years the City will have to go through a process of inventorying the projects achieved and create the plan for the next 5 years. Frequently updating the plan will ensure that the City’s vision and need for coastal resource mitigation is up-to-date. Frequent updates to the implementation plan will also allow the City to identify possible funding gaps for future projects.
What are plausible examples of “substantial”
trade-offs/offsetting benefits that might
garner approval by the CCC to approve the
proposed Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs).
Trails, picnic areas and bathroom
enhancements are standard improvements
and should not be construed as “substantial”.
How would these “substantial”
enhancements be funded?
How does a 5 year implementation work?
Where is the money best spent in relation to
improvements for the particular areas that have
potential impacts? Which area is chosen over
others?
What's the relationship between maintaining
seawall and amenities?
Currently, there is no relationship. The Shoreline Management Plan policy states that an Implementation Plan will be created post-certification of the LCLUP and that the Implementation Plan must contain a variety of projects to offset the allowance for development that relies on existing shoreline protection structures. Factors affecting Coastal Hazards Induced Damages
SRA policies. The repetitive coastal hazard damage policy would essentially require development to be modified or removed after a third coastal hazard damage event that has resulted in a cumulative total of 25% of the pre-damage appraised value or repairs that trigger the SSM definition (essentially the same as presented in Meeting #2 on this topic).
City staff needs to further explore the specific locations CCC staff has in mind for application of such a policy, but in the interest of full disclosure to the public and Council and the timing of LCLUP Meeting #3, City staff has included discussion of this policy concept for City Council consideration.
1.g
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 20
SRA Policy #4 – Shoreline Management Plan
maintenance of shoreline protection structures such as seawalls are separate from and independent of the visitor amenities improvements. However, failure to fulfill the requirements of the Visitor Amenity Improvement Policy could result in suspension of the development allowance within the SRA until compliance is achieved.
Coastal Vulnerability Zone
What is the Coastal Vulnerability Zone and
what does it mean for each neighborhood?
In 2018, the City prepared a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment to identify areas that would be affected by projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding and other coastal hazards.
These maps are based on technical analysis of the presence of applicable hazards. Some of the 2020 LCLUP policies affect properties in these area because the City has identified a hazard and thus addressing the hazard will be necessary in the course of development reviews.
What triggers are there when a property sells
in a hazardous coastal zone?
The City does not currently have and has no plan to establish any sort of notification or requirement for selling properties within the Coastal Vulnerability Zone. The 2020 LCLUP policies will only be implemented if and when development is proposed, or if a property incurs significant hazard damage.
Pacifica’s 2020 LCLUP draft protected the
SHORELINE from NEW development. CCC
staff's changes make those same restrictions
apply to EXISTING development in coastal
vulnerability areas and tsunami evacuation
areas (basically, everything west of Highway
1, according to city maps). What is the legal
and legislative authorization to make these
demands on Pacifica homeowners?
While the CCC suggested modifications expand the areas that many of policies apply to, none of the policies are implemented until development is proposed and would be applied to new development or substantial structural modifications (SSMs).
Residential Development
How are residential spaces going to be
affordable?
Housing affordability is a major regional and statewide issue that is not directly at issue in the LCLUP. However, the LCLUP does affect the conditions under which development can occur, including residential development. The LCLUP contains policies that could increase the cost of development on certain sites such as through required hazard mitigations and
1.g
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 21
public infrastructure and access requirements. However, the LCLUP also includes policies to support higher-density mixed use housing which may increase the potential for more affordable housing options to be constructed.
If more housing is added, how will it be
protected from sea rise?
In most cases, new development will need to be designed to be located outside of projected sea level rise for the life of the development. Within the Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs), new development may be allowed to rely on existing shoreline protection structures that mitigate hazards such as sea level rise.
How does RHNA numbers affect SRA policies? There is no relationship between the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies. However, the SRA policies may increase the potential for housing of various types to be developed which would count toward the City’s RHNA progress.
Can I rebuild my home in the coastal area in the
event of fire, earthquake, or other natural
disaster? What are the restrictions and why do
they apply?
In general, rebuilding in the event of a property destroyed by a disaster is authorized under the Coastal Act. Please refer to Case Study #8 and #9 prepared for the March 2, 2024, community meeting for more detail.
Shoreline Protection Structures
What is/are negative impact(s) of existing
sea level / coastal protections?
Shoreline protection structures can result in reduced size or elimination of sandy beaches depending on design of the structure and coastal conditions in the area.
Construction of new shoreline protection projects can result in construction-phase impacts such as reduced water quality, underwater noise, risk of spills, and placement of fill in waters.
These factors are evaluated during the environmental review process associated with any potential shoreline protection structure project that may be proposed.
Are there negative impacts of expanding or
improving coastal protections? / What are
the impacts of beach protection?
What is the full cost of the seawall?
The costs of a shoreline protection structure depends on a number of factors, including the linear length and design. The City conducted a cost analysis of different shoreline protection types associated with the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP). Costs for the public and Council selected hybrid option (~$80M not including operation and maintenance costs) developed at that time are available on the City website under Appendix A of the May 2021 Updated Alternative Analysis Report located under the Phase 1 Document Library at https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/public-works/engineering/capitalimprovement-projects/beach-boulevard-infrastructure-resiliency-project. GHD (the City’s
1.g
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 22
Shoreline Protection Structures
engineering consultant) is currently working on an updated cost for the hybrid option that will be forthcoming.
Will new revetment happen? A number of factors will determine whether any particular shoreline protection structure will be constructed, including the ability to obtain required permits and the availability of Is there a future for the seawall or not? sufficient funding for construction.
If the community is more interested in
more seawall infrastructure, are we better
off with the new plan or the old plan?
The SRAs policies do not contain any requirements for hard armoring or seawalls and thus there is no cost. The SRA boundaries are determined by a number of criteria, including whether an area contains an existing shoreline protection structure; however, the SRAs do not contain any policies related to existing or new shoreline protection structures. The main source of support for shoreline protection structures is the Coastal Act itself, which neither the 1980 LCLUP nor 2020 LCLUP can modify. As stated above, the City is working on the BBIRP and the City will move forward with BBIRP project in either case.
Seawall – No real mention of future sea
protection. Maintain current infrastructure
only. Pier is the only mandate with N/S
section of seawall. Does the new SRA
protect the entire seawall or just the pier?
How does this affect the Quarry, and does
this affect revetment plans? How would
this affect the future of the Quarry?
The 2040 LCLUP, if certified by the Coastal Commission, would add the Rockaway Quarry site into the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), enabling the City of Pacifica to grant coastal development permits for development in the Rockaway Quarry. Currently, the Rockaway Quarry site is in an Area of Deferred Certification and is not a part of Pacifica’s certified LCP. Certification of the LCLUP would not directly affect any plans for shoreline protection structures at any location in the City of Pacifica as those determinations are made at a project level through the coastal development permit process.
Why are we only repairing one section?
The City is currently designing or in the permit review process for several shoreline protection structures, including the Beach Blvd. Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP), the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project, and the 400 block of Esplanade Project. There are several factors that determine which sections and locations of the coastline the City prioritizes for new or replacement shoreline protection structures, including risk to public infrastructure and other public structures.
1984 seawall constructed: how long will it
last before next solution comes?
The City is currently working on the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP). The LCLUP and BBIRIP project are not dependent on one another. Additional information on the BBIRP can be found here:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/public-works/engineering/capitalimprovement-projects/beach-boulevard-infrastructure-resiliency-project
1.g
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 23
Shoreline Protection Structures
How does the plan propose to protect
private property that in the past has had
permission to maintain its revetment and
was tasked to maintain it?
Shoreline protection structure permitting decisions are ultimately within the jurisdiction fo the Coastal Commission and the City cannot control these decisions. It can, however, seek policies in the LCLUP that may be helpful to shoreline protection where appropriate, which can inform the CCC’s decision making. Policy CR-I-56 in the LCLUP applies to existing shoreline protection structures. The Coastal Act Section 30235 allows repair and maintenance of legally permitted shoreline protection structures.
The LCLUP policies require that when development is proposed on private property that the new buildings are designed to avoid coastal hazards. Development usually refers to adding or replacing structures, but it doesn't cover routine maintenance like fixing a roof.
Our beach homes have existed for about
100 years coming to be with the Ocean
Shore Railroad. We have maintained our
sea wall protection for all this time. How
can the CCC tell us to stop and endanger
ourselves and houses for an indeterminate
year for sea rise?
Can the BBIRP sea wall be built without a
Coastal Commission-certified LCLUP? Does the
Coastal Commission have to approve the BBIRP
sea wall in order for it to be built? Can the sea
wall be built if we still have the 1980 LCP?
Yes, the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project can be built without the LCLUP certification because the project requires that the City obtain a permit from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The project will be reviewed under the CCC regulations (i.e.
Coastal Act) and policies.
Has the city considered using Mello Roos
bond assessments to the properties along
the coastline that benefit the most from
coastline protection?
The City has performed initial research on various funding mechanisms for infrastructure projects along the shoreline. As with all potential funding sources, there are pro’s and con’s of a Mello Roos funding approach. The City would undertake a public process to discuss new funding mechanisms that could include direct costs for property owners.
What will happen to an existing, previously
approve shoreline protection after an SSM
is triggered, and it is no longer authorized?
Outside of the SRAs, if project meets the definitions of an SSM, the development is required to be designed to withstand coastal hazards and would no longer require armoring. The policies in the LCLUP call for removal of the existing shoreline protection structure.
Future Funding
The sea level rise will lead to property values
going down, the assessments should account
for that, how does the town plan for less
future tax revenue?
A variety of factors, including impacts on the City’s tax base, must be evaluated as part of the long-term sea level rise adaptation planning process.
1.g
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 24
Future Funding
Is the city protecting future tax revenue using
SRAs?
The Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park neighborhoods both contain visitor-serving retail and lodging that are important to the City’s tax revenues. The SRAs will enable ongoing operation, improvement, and redevelopment of properties within the SRAs which should have a positive effect on City tax revenues over the long-term.
What are the estimated costs to move critical
infrastructure in coastal areas? Who pays for
that? Where will this infrastructure go?
Relocation of infrastructure is technical and legally complex, and can include significant costs. Any project proposing relocation of infrastructure would need thorough review and approval of funding by the City Council.
Who pays the cost of removing coastal armoring? The cost of removing armoring would be the responsibility of the property owner. If the property is privately owned, then private property owners would be financially responsible for removal. If the property is publicly owned, then the City or other public agency that owns the property would be responsible.
If the City adopts the SRA approach, how likely is
it that Pacifica will qualify for grant funding for
armoring, given the widespread emphasis on
nature-based solutions for coastal resiliency
projects?
It is not possible to generalize a response to this question. Every grant has its own requirements to qualify and must be evaluated individually.
Infrastructure
When coastal flooding may happen, what is
the plan for the huge amount of
infrastructure like sewers that will need
moving? Who/how will the town pay?
Addressing long-term City infrastructure needs is part of the iterative sea level rise adaptation planning process the City will undertake following certification of the LCLUP.
The City’s approach in the near- and medium-terms are to protect existing infrastructure until sufficient study can occur and long-term options be considered by the City Council.
Where does the underground infrastructure
of Beach Blvd fit into the LCLUP?
What happens to Manor infrastructure?
Critical infrastructure in the SRAs impacts all
of Pacifica: what are we doing to make our
infrastructure resilient and insulated from
coastal hazards?
Has the City undertaken any long-range
planning to move infrastructure?
As explained elsewhere, relocation of infrastructure is technically and legally complex, and involves significant costs. The LCLUP Update would enable ongoing protection of
1.g
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 25
Infrastructure
infrastructure to enable the City to undertake study of long-term infrastructure relocation where appropriate and feasible.
Other
By changing the definition of wetlands in the
coastal zones to only meet one parameter,
dozens of homes adjacent to these areas
would be affected by the new buffer zone
definitions. What does this mean to
homeowner?
The definition change is needed to be consistent with the state law including the Coastal Act. The one-parameter wetland test has been in state law for many years. The new requirements will only affect homes if/when development is proposed. Please see Case Study #5 for additional details.
Protection of infrastructure is the fundamental purpose of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP). The LCLUP Update would support the BBIRP project. Protection of infrastructure in other parts of Pacifica would require separate projects, and two projects are currently underway along Esplanade Avenue in the vicinity of Manor Drive.
Where does the underground infrastructure
of Beach Blvd fit into the LCLUP?
What happens to Manor infrastructure?
Critical infrastructure in the SRAs impacts all
of Pacifica: what are we doing to make our
infrastructure resilient and insulated from
coastal hazards?
Why did the CCC recommend removing
'Protection of property rights is an important
theme in this chapter.' from Ch.6 pg.156 of
our LCLUP Draft? Is it to implement the
apparent lack of prioritization of property
rights in the State of California Sea Level Rise
Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update?
Discussion with CCC staff revealed they felt the statement as drafted placed too much emphasis on protection of property rights without sufficient mention of other important considerations. Further discussions with CCC staff have resulted in mentioning property rights as one of several important considerations as an acceptable alternative modification that the City could propose.
Why was ‘Evaluating the feasibility of beach
nourishment with sand retention structures,
as described in CR-I-55, to reduce shoreline
protection maintenance and maintain 100’
wide beaches’ deleted from Ch. 6 pg. 173? Is
the possibility of considering Beach
The specific CCC suggested modification was done to reorganize the document to be more straightforward. Policy CR-I-16 contains the Beach Nourishment policy language.
1.g
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 26
Other
Nourishment and Sand Retention Structures
retained anywhere else in the Draft?
How would Pacifica benefit by locking into
potentially economically destructive
‘precautionary’ policies now, when future
engineering and scientific advancements
could provide much better solutions than are
currently available?
Many policies in the LCP address short- and medium-term effects. If/when advances in engineering and solutions are economically feasible for the City to incorporate into City work plans or City regulations for private development, amendments to the LCP can be processed. A key principle in the LCLUP Update is to periodically update the document with the best availability science, potentially as often as every 5-10 years.
How will the City of Pacifica comply with SB
272 (Allen) that requires local governments
to develop plans for sea level rise, if the draft
LCLUP isn’t approved?
The 2020 LCLUP has largely address the requirements of SB 272 already. Further delay of the LCLUP Update will only constrain Pacifica’s timeline for adoption by the SB 272 deadline in the future, and would deprive Pacifica of as much as a decade of the various benefits to LCLUP adoption that have been previously discussed if adoption were to occur closer to the deadline.
Is there a comprehensive and holistic view of
the entire Pacifica coastline / coastal zone
that is being proposed by City staff that
would justify the proposed SRAs?
The 2020 LCLUP is intended to be the long-term plan for the entire coast in Pacifica. The SRA would allow critical areas of Pacifica to continue to develop with the protection of existing shoreline structures, while other areas of the coast can be conserved for open space and, perhaps not be armored in the future. The SRAs, along with the City Alternative Modification, provide a balanced approached to the entire coastline.
What policies in the draft LCLUP protect and
preserve coastal resources against hazards of
falling debris and toxic materials littering the
shoreline, that also impact public safety?
How are structures that are already
uninhabitable (such as 1112 Palmetto Ave
and 189 Kent Road) and/or at the
bluff/hillside edges (i.e., Recology of the
Coast Recycle Yard and adjacent properties)
going to be addressed within the LCLUP
without a policy for planned removal?
Generally applicable Pacifica Municipal Code provisions addressing property maintenance and public nuisances govern these sorts of issues.
These properties will need to handled on a case-by-case basis, and the City has important authorities to address building habitability and safety through the California Building Code.
A) Will council write the CCC to demand the
rock revetment removal order be canceled?
The 2020 LCLUP is a policy document and does not contain any specific details on future plans for infrastructure improvement or changes. These questions are too technical and
1.g
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 27
Other
B) What is Council’s plan to defend Palmetto,
Hwy 1, the southern storm drain outfall and
W Avalon homes? Who pays?
C) When will city alert 8 homes on W Avalon
their homes and backyards will front an
erosion hole and erode themselves if
unprotected?.
D) What is the property tax loss if the Resort
and W Avalon homes are destroyed?
E) Has NCCWD been notified to plan
relocation of their lines? What is relocation
cost?
F) Where will the sewer line be relocated?
Far enough east to avoid another move?
G) What other infrastructure is in the area
subject to resort erosion? Cost to move?
H) If Palmetto and Hwy 1 have to be moved,
where would either go? Onto Oceana? What
is cost for relocation, condemnation of
existing businesses, city office and homes?
project specific and would require further project specific level analysis to properly address. General response can be found in other responses related to infrastructure and property values above.
Facilities of concern are but not limited to:
Linda Mar beach pump stations, Lighthouse
pump station, quarry sewer plant, storm
pump station south end golf course, pump
station south sharp park, council chambers
pump, potential library, IBL school.
A) How will these facilities be defended?
B) If moved, where? East of Hwy 1 to avoid
frequent moves? What streets and
homes/businesses will be impacted or
1.g
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica LCLUP Update FAQs, Page 28
Other
condemned with the relocation? Cost?
Timetable?
Request for discussion on specific CCC
Suggested Modifications
Please refer to Attachment C of the March 2, 2024 report, which contains a brief discussion and/or justification on all CCC Suggested Modification and City Alternative Modifications.
Next steps & Information
How will I get information and get answers? Materials about the LCLUP can be found on the Plan Pacifica page.
You can also contact Planning staff at [email protected] to ask questions about the LCLUP Update process.
What are the timelines/next steps? Revised Meeting #4 is anticipated for late-March/early-April 2024.
The meeting is anticipated to entail City Council discussion and potential approval of a comment letter to be submitted to California Coastal Commission.
When is the next meeting?
What is the best thing to do? The Community Engagement process is intended to allow the City Council decide what is the best course of action for the City of Pacifica as a whole, based on public input from the community and technical support from City staff.
1.g
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Month XX, 2024
Stephanie Rexing
North Central Coast District Manager
California Coastal Commission
455 Market St., Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5260
Subj: City of Pacifica Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan Proposed Alternative Modifications
Dear Stephanie:
In 2020, the City of Pacifica approved and submitted for certification the Certification Draft LCLUP. In 2022, the CCC accepted the City’s Certification Draft LCLUP for filling and, on December 16, 2022, CCC took action to extend the statutory deadline for action to December 22, 2023. On October 9, 2023, the City Council directed staff to incorporate 2040 General Plan consistency revisions into the existing Certification Draft LCLUP to form the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP, which was transmitted to the CCC for certification at the end of 2023. During this time, City and CCC staff have worked closely in an attempt to achieve both local and State coastal goals.
With this letter, I am submitting a list of alternative modifications (“Alternative Modifications”) for review and certification by the CCC. The Alternative Modifications include revisions to the CCC staff suggested modifications proposed in the March 8, 2023 staff report, and reflect the product our extensive staff-to-staff coordination efforts in 2023 and 2024, as well as guidance and direction from the City Council following a robust public engagement process.
Importantly, the Alternative Modifications include a new section to be included in Chapter 6. The new section is titled “Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs)” and includes policies that are applicable to the mapped areas in new Figures 6-2 and 6-3. The SRA policies are intended to continue to allow development in the West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods of Pacifica in a pattern and manner consistent with current conditions and include policies that require the City to provide additional public benefits in order to achieve Coastal Act consistency. A full list of all Alternative Modifications can be found in Attachment 2
CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Vaterlaus
MAYOR PRO TEM
Sue Beckmeyer
COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Tygarjas Bigstyck
Scenic Pacifica Christine Boles
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
1.h
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment H DRAFT Letter - Revised Certification Alternative Mods Request (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)