CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Terra Nova High School - Theater
1450 Terra Nova Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Study Session 1 March 02, 2024
March 02, 2024 (SATURDAY)
9:30 AM
www.cityofpacifica.org
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:
The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/85882378783 • Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• For Special Meetings, Public Comments are Limited to Items on the Posted Agenda Only. • Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/85882378783 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 858 8237 8783 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.
Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:
BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, March 1 by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Meeting Date in the Subject Line • Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, March 1 will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.
AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.
City Council Study Session 2 March 02, 2024
9:30 AM - OPEN SESSION
1A. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
1B. READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
2.INTRODUCTIONS AND MEETING OVERVIEW
3. STAFF PRESENTATION ON LCLUP UPDATE PROCESS
1. Study session to respond to community and City Council questions regarding the California Coastal Commission staff’s March 2023 suggested modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and the City’s potential alternative modifications, including the Special Resiliency Area policies.
Consider and provide direction on the potential alternative modifications.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff, hold a question and answer session for staff to respond to community questions, and provide direction on potential alternative modifications to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
4. CASE STUDIES
5. FAQ RESPONSES
6. LIVE Q&A FOR PUBLIC
7. LUNCH BREAK
8. STAFF PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATIONS
9. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND Q&A TO STAFF
10. COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENT AND 2ND Q&A FOR PUBLIC
11. STAFF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS
12. CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DIRECTION
ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this City Council Study Session 3 March 02, 2024
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.
The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);
HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at the Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive.
View on the Internet:
Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:
Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 540 Crespi Drive
Council meetings:
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Laphonza Butler, SD-G10 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/2/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Study session to respond to community and City Council questions regarding the California Coastal Commission staff’s March 2023 suggested modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and the City’s potential alternative modifications, including the Special Resiliency Area policies. Consider and provide direction on the potential alternative modifications.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive a presentation from staff, hold a question and answer session for staff to respond to community questions, and provide direction on potential alternative modifications to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP, Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION:
The California Coastal Act requires every city along the coast to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP), which consists of two parts: a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and an Implementation Plan (IP). The LCLUP must be consistent with the Coastal Act. The LCLUP must specify the intended uses of land within the Coastal Zone, and serves as a policy framework for future actions, such as development review and City infrastructure projects. The LCLUP must balance statewide interests for the Coastal Zone as expressed in the Coastal Act with local land use priorities. The LCLUP also guides the contents of the IP, which consists of the zoning ordinance, zoning map, and other policies and programs to implement the LCLUP.
While the LCLUP is separate from the General Plan, much of the descriptive text and policies overlap between both documents due to their similar purposes of specifying land uses, establishing goals and policies, and providing a policy framework for future actions. There are many benefits to having an updated LCLUP, including updated maps, modernized policies to guide development, enhanced environmental protections, strengthened economic development and housing policies, and consistency with the City’s 2040 General Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study session is intended to: (1) provide a clear understanding of the implications of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff’s March 2023 suggested modifications; (2) identify ways to potentially alter those modifications; and (3) receive feedback and submit a proposal of alternative modifications to the CCC. This report and attachments contain a considerable amount of information on the LCLUP Update process, CCC suggested modifications, draft alternative modifications prepared by City staff for consideration, and background information 1 Packet Pg. 4
Pacifica City Council 2
March 02, 2024
the Community Engagement Plan utilized throughout this process. In order to better explain the potential impacts of the CCC staff’s March 2023 suggested modification, staff has prepared case studies (Attachment B) that demonstrate how common scenarios would be implemented under the different policy documents (City’s existing 1980 LCLUP, the new LCLUP as modified by CCC Suggested Modifications, and new LCLUP as further modified by City alternative modifications). The report contains all the proposed City alternative modifications: Attachment C is a Summary Table, similar to the table attached in previous LCLUP reports, that contains the original 2020 LCLUP, CCC Suggested Modification, and the proposed City alternative modification, as well as a brief summary and/or explanation as to why the City is or is not proposing an alternative modification. The text changes can also be seen in a fuller context in Attachment F City’s Draft Certification LCLUP with CCC suggested modification and alternative modifications. Staff has also provided answers to the questions submitted by the public from the December 5th, 2024 study session and the more recent question submission opportunity.
The study session will allow staff to explain in greater detail many of the public and Council questions. Both the public and Council will have the opportunity to ask additional questions at this meeting. The study session will also give Council the opportunity to begin discussion on the City alternative modifications.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In February 2020, City Council approved the Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“2020 LCLUP”), and directed the City Manager to transmit it to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for certification. Additional background information, including the 2020 LCLUP document (also known as the “Certification Draft LCLUP”), are available on the Project Documents page of the Plan Pacifica website1.
Staff submitted the 2020 LCLUP to the CCC in June 2020. Between the years of 2020-2022, City and CCC staffs exchanged several rounds of information in response to CCC staff requests. The information requested by CCC staff was required to address that agency’s administrative filing requirements before the City’s application could advance to a point where CCC staff could provide formal substantive comments on policy provisions related to certification. In August 2022, the CCC finally accepted the 2020 LCLUP for filing. On December 16, 2022, the CCC took action to extend the deadline by one year, as authorized by Public Resources Code section 30517. The CCC’s action extended the deadline to December 22, 2023.
In late February 2023, the City received notice the CCC would consider the City’s Certification Draft LCLUP at the March 8, 2023, CCC meeting. The CCC staff report for the item included CCC staff’s final recommendation, which included many suggested modifications to the City’s submittal (“CCC Suggested Modifications”) 2. The City requested a continuance of the March 8th hearing date to allow an opportunity to review and consider the CCC staff’s recommendations.
Since March, City staff has met multiple times with CCC staff to gain a better understanding of the suggested modifications in order to develop a comprehensive analysis and explore potential revisions for future City Council consideration. On October 9, 2023, the Council approved the revision of the existing Certification Draft LCLUP to incorporate the 2040 General Plan and transmitting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to the CCC to, in part, allow more time to analyze and respond to the March 8, 2023 CCC staff suggested modifications and eliminating the December 22, 2023 deadline.
1. Community Engagement Plan
1 Available at https://www.planpacifica.org/project-docs. 2 Available at https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/dl/DpPxoDE8q3, with City-added numbering for identification.
1 Packet Pg. 5
Pacifica City Council 3
March 02, 2024
On October 9, 2023, the City Council also approved a three-meeting community engagement plan to update the public on where the LCLUP update process stood, and to discuss where it should go next. Additional information on the City’s work to update the LCLUP component of the City’s LCP, which started in 2009, is available in the City Council agenda reports for the City Council meetings on October 9, 2023 (Agenda Item No. 10), November 13, 2023 (Agenda Item No. 1), and December 5, 2023 (Agenda Item No. 1).
Following the December 5 community meeting that the Council had approved in the initial threemeeting community engagement plan (Meeting #2), on January 8, 2024, the Council directed a revision to the community engagement plan to include a revised Meeting #3 format and purpose, effectively creating a four-meeting community engagement plan (“Revised Community Engagement Plan”), with the possibility of a fifth meeting depending on the outcome of the third and fourth meetings. The Revised Community Engagement Plan is outlined below:
• Meeting #1: City Council Study Session
o Purpose: Study session to present and discuss the CCC staff suggested modifications from March 8, 2023.
o Timing: November 13, 2023
• Meeting #2: Community Roundtable Discussions
o Purpose: Provide a staff presentation followed by a community roundtable discussion of potential alternative modifications to those presented by CCC staff for the March 8, 2023 CCC meeting, based on discussions between City and CCC staffs that started in June 2023.
o Facilitation: Due to the complexity of the subject matter discussed at this community meeting, a professional facilitation service facilitated the roundtable conversations. City staff notetakers supplemented the facilitators to ensure comprehensive collection of community input.
o Timing: December 5, 2023
• Revised Meeting #3: Question and Answer Study Session o Purpose: Study session to respond to community and City Council questions.
Provide opportunity for public submission of questions to be answered in advance of the meeting, with an additional question-and-answer opportunity for the public at the meeting. City Council discussion and direction on all potential alternative modifications recommended by City staff.
o Timing: March 2, 2024
• Revised Meeting #4: City Council Consideration of a Comment Letter to CCC o Purpose: City Council consideration item to discuss a potential comment letter from the City requesting revisions to the CCC staff's March 2023 suggested modifications. Transmittal of this comment letter would need to be sufficiently in advance of a CCC certification hearing on the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to allow time for CCC staff to analyze the City’s requests and publish a staff recommendation. Staff recommends transmitting the comment letter at least two months, but ideally three months, prior to a desired CCC certification hearing. o Timing: Currently anticipated in late-March/early-April 2024 (previously anticipated mid- to late-January 2024)
This community engagement process is intended to conclude the comprehensive LCLUP update process that started nearly 15 years ago. It involves concluding the LCLUP update 1 Packet Pg. 6
Pacifica City Council 4
March 02, 2024
process based on the structure and policy emphasis approved by the City Council in the 2020 LCLUP, with consideration of potential modifications to certain policies as an alternative to the CCC staff’s suggested modifications from March 2023. This process is not a reconsideration of the structure and policy emphasis that was approved in the 2020 LCLUP (and continued in the Revised LCLUP). The purpose of this process is to bring the Council and community to a point where a decision is made on whether to submit a comment letter to the CCC in response to CCC staff’s comments from March 2023. This is a necessary step to conclude the comprehensive LCLUP update process that was started in 2009 and most recently approved by City Council in February 2020 and revised to incorporate conforming General Plan amendments in October 2023. Consideration of a comment letter to propose alternative modifications to the CCC that may be acceptable to the CCC and the City Council is the best and most expedient way for the City to seek CCC certification of the Revised LCLUP in a form that the City Council may be likely to adopt following CCC action.
2. Prior Meeting Summaries
Meeting #1 Summary: Discussion of California Coastal Commission Staff’s Suggested Modifications (March 2023)
The November 13, 2023 study session staff report contains a summary of key suggested modifications, as well as attachments including a summary table with all CCC Suggested Modifications, the City’s 2020 LCLUP text (the meeting was conducted before City transmittal of the Revised LCLUP to the CCC), and a brief summary of each modification. Staff presented the key suggested modifications to provide additional information and context, responded to Council questions, and also provided information about other suggested modifications not included in the initial summary of key suggested modifications (meeting video).
The design of Meeting #1 was intended to provide information to aid understanding of the CCC Suggested Modifications and their relevance to Pacifica.
Meeting #2 Summary: Potential Alternative Modifications The December 5, 2023 study session staff report introduced key potential alternative modifications identified by staff as a way to resolve one of the major points of disagreement between the City and CCC: how to regulate development within existing densely developed neighborhoods near the shoreline, especially those located behind existing shoreline protection (e.g., seawalls). Staff had identified resolution of this issue as essential to addressing near- and mid-term adaptation challenges and progress towards LCLUP certification.
The alternative modifications identified by staff in relation to this issue were termed “Special Resiliency Areas,” or SRAs, which would consist of a subset of Pacifica wherein development would be authorized in reliance on existing shoreline protection subject to specific requirements.
Both City and CCC staff focused SRA discussions on the Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park coastal neighborhoods which would be most significantly impacted if the CCC Suggested Modifications were to take effect citywide. Reasons for focusing on these two neighborhoods include, but are not limited to:
(1) the density and prevalence of existing development including high proportions of preCoastal Act development; (2) concentration of essential Coastal Act-supported land uses; (3) presence of critical public rights-of-way and infrastructure; and, (4) existence of broad shoreline protection benefitting multiple public and private 1 Packet Pg. 7
Pacifica City Council 5
March 02, 2024
landowners which complicates potential future removal.
Meeting #2 was structured to provide an initial informational presentation on the SRA concept and then to allow in-depth community member discussions in small groups to provide reactions to the concept. Main takeaways from Meeting #2 included an overall community expression of a lack of understanding of the key aspects of the SRA concept, potential concern about some of the requirements of the SRA concept, and a need to better understand how individual properties would be affected by the SRA concept if implemented. A summary of community feedback from Meeting #2 is included as Attachment A3.
3. Revised Meeting #3: Question and Answer Study Session Both the Council and community have indicated at Meeting #1 and Meeting #2 the need for more information and a better understanding about the status of the LCLUP Update overall, and more specifically about what potential alternative modifications staff is recommending and the reasons for and implications of these potential alternative modifications. The goal of Meeting #3 is to provide this information in a comprehensive fashion while answering specific Council and community questions. To achieve this goal, the remainder of the staff report will focus on the following elements:
• The context of the LCLUP Update
• Case studies demonstrating application of LCLUP policies under various scenarios • Answers to questions received from the community
A. Context of the LCLUP Update
The City’s LCLUP currently in effect was last comprehensively updated in 1980 (“1980 LCLUP”). The City’s effort to update the LCLUP started in 2009, concurrent with an update to the General Plan. The City Council adopted the 2020 LCLUP in February 2020 and has worked since then to achieve CCC certification. The City Council adopted the General Plan Update in July 2022. However, within the Coastal Zone, provisions of the General Plan that are in conflict with the 1980 LCLUP are not yet effective and will only take effect upon certification of those corresponding provisions within the 2020 LCLUP.
Certification of the 2020 LCLUP is necessary before it may take effect. In other words, both the City and CCC must agree on the contents of the LCLUP, which will require achieving a shared vision and compromising on areas of disagreement. Until certification is achieved, the City will continue to operate under the 1980 LCLUP.
Through staff’s recent work on the LCLUP Update including the recent community engagement process, a key question has emerged that staff believes captures community sentiment:
Is it in the City’s best interest to update the LCLUP at this time? Staff’s assessment is that 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 3 At the December 5, 2023 study session, participants were asked by table facilitators to indicate if they agreed with statements made by other participants. Based on the notes gathered from each table it was unclear if a vote was taken on certain items, which has resulted in some summary notes showing “?”.
Staff has counted feedback from those items one vote in the total votes for each category. 1 Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 6
March 02, 2024
reflective of the challenges and needs of those areas. Moreover, the 1980 LCLUP does not do enough to help Pacifica plan for the future. The plan is over 40 years old, and as explained in this staff report and elsewhere, there are many benefits to having an updated LCLUP focused on the next 20+ years. These include updated maps reflecting conditions in Pacifica, modernized policies to guide development, enhanced environmental protections, strengthened economic development and housing policies, and consistency with the City’s 2040 General Plan. Importantly, the 1980 LCLUP does not effectively identify climate change and sea level rise (SLR) as major issues that need to be addressed.
There is a pressing need to update the LCLUP at this time. Indeed, the City Council has recognized since at least 2009 that an update was needed, and started the process at that time.
Yet, despite 15 years with various starts and stops in the process, the update is not yet completed. As more time passes, the need for an update continues to grow, and the problems the LCLUP seeks to address will only become more complex.
Recent community planning efforts have identified the need for action by the City on numerous fronts, including the following:
• The General Plan Update identified a community desire for in-fill, mixed-use development, preservation of open spaces, enhancement of parks and other community facilities, and improved planning to address hazard mitigation and evacuation from wildfires and other events, among other priorities. • The Housing Element Update demonstrated the need to plan for more than 2,000 housing units, while undertaking other supporting actions to accelerate housing approvals and provide services for the neediest members of our community. • The Economic Opportunities Study identified ways for the City to strengthen its fiscal position so it can continue to provide high-quality services, infrastructure, and facilities to meet community needs.
The priorities identified above cannot meaningfully move forward in the Coastal Zone while limited by the 1980 LCLUP. An updated LCLUP is needed to address these emerging community priorities while also addressing issues that are all the more pressing in the Coastal Zone such as climate change and SLR adaptation. While significant City staff resources continue to be absorbed by the LCLUP Update process, work on those other community priorities cannot proceed effectively. Housing Element implementation, pursuing economic development initiatives, planning for City infrastructure and facilities, etc., can all advance much more efficiently once an updated LCLUP is in place. Completion of the LCLUP Update is also needed before staff can focus on pursuing CCC certification of the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which combined with redevelopment of 2212 Beach Boulevard (a major economic opportunity site for the City) will provide a major boost to the Palmetto Avenue commercial corridor and enhance the City as a visitor destination.
There is an urgency to act and complete the LCLUP Update process. Over time, inconsistencies with the 2040 General Plan will become increasingly difficult to manage. This will be especially so in the realm of development review, which will affect not only private development but also City efforts to pursue economic development initiatives and major facilities improvements important to the community, including but not limited to a new library in Sharp Park.
There is understandably much community concern, especially among property owners, about the effect the LCLUP Update may have on their properties. Many property owners are concerned that the LCLUP Update will unduly restrict development of their properties.
However, for much of the Coastal Zone, the most restrictive versions of these policies are 1 Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 7
March 02, 2024
already in effect. Areas within 300 feet of the mean high tide line or the first public road parallel to the shoreline, whichever is greater, are in an area known as the “Appeal Jurisdiction,” meaning City-issued coastal development permits are subject to appeal to the CCC. This encompasses much of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone and the vast majority of the areas that would be subject to policies addressing SLR, coastal erosion, and other coastal hazards. These permits frequently are appealed to the CCC, meaning that agency takes final action on many projects in Pacifica. In the absence of a certified LCLUP regulating development with policies that take into account currently known hazards (SLR and coastal erosion among them), the CCC is free to impose its highly restrictive versions of policies regulating development in hazard areas. A certified LCLUP Update, potentially with policies such as those intended for the SRAs, would likely help ease the most restrictive policies the CCC would otherwise seek to impose on development.
Lastly, an update to Pacifica’s LCLUP to account for SLR is inevitable. 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. Plans to address SLR must (1) Use of the best available science;
(2) Include a vulnerability assessment that includes efforts to ensure equity for at-risk communities;
(3) Include SLR adaptation strategies and recommended projects; (4) Identify lead planning and implementation agencies; and (5) Identify a timeline for updates, as needed, based on conditions and projections and as determined by the local government in agreement with the CCC.
These updates are required no later than January 1, 2034. 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.
Based on this context, staff’s assessment is that completion of the LCLUP Update as expeditiously as possible and consistent with the 2040 General Plan is in the City’s best interest.
B. Case Studies
The LCLUP Update process involves significant policy, technical, and legal complexity. As a result, the Council and community have both understandably expressed a desire for better explanations of the plan’s contents and descriptions of how those contents would affect individual properties and Pacifica more broadly. In order to help the Council and community better understand these issues, staff has prepared a series of case studies describing specific scenarios that could result from application of different potential policies in the Coastal Zone (Attachment B). Each case study includes an analysis of the scenario under the City’s 1980 LCLUP, the City’s 2020 LCLUP with CCC suggested modifications, and the City staff’s alternative modifications to be considered by City Council. Under the City’s 2020 LCLUP with CCC suggested modifications, the case studies discuss how the policies affect the Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) area and the area outside the CVZ. Under the staff-identified alternative modifications, the analysis includes how the policies would be implemented in the Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs) and outside the SRAs. The case studies include the following scenarios:
• Case Study #1: Basic residential maintenance, including a reroof, new windows, and/or new siding;
1 Packet Pg. 10
Pacifica City Council 8
March 02, 2024
• Case Study #2: Residential addition that does not meet the definition of Substantial Structural Modification (SSM);
• Case Study #3: Residential addition that meets the definition of SSM or new development;
• Case Study #4: Development on parcels with no sensitive environmental resources, such as habitat or animal species;
• Case Study #5: Development on parcels with or adjacent to sensitive environmental resources, such as habitat, animals, and/or creeks;
• Case Study #6: New and/or substantial replacement of shoreline protection structures; • Case Study #7: New and/or replacement of City infrastructure or services, such as a new pump station or bike lanes;
• Case Study #8: Residential rebuild after substantial structural damage caused by a noncoastal hazard, such as fire or earthquake; and
• Case Study #9: Residential rebuild after substantial structural damage caused by a repetitive coastal hazard, such as wave overtopping.
The analysis shows that the approval process and requirements for some of these scenarios differs by project type, scale, and location between the three comparison LCLUPs. Notably, however, Case Study #1 involving basic residential maintenance, including a reroof, new windows, and/or new siding, the analysis demonstrates that basic maintenance will continue to be allowed with a building permit.
Beyond Case Study #1, the case studies demonstrate potentially drastic differences between application of the policies in the various comparison LCLUPs. However, these differences may not be what they seem at first review, and do not necessarily reflect differences in policy preferences between the City and CCC that are subject to discussion and compromise. In key instances the differences stem in part from deviations between the policies outlined in the 1980 LCLUP and the current requirements of the Coastal Act, including the CCC’s interpretations of the Coastal Act. Thus, these differences result to some extent from the age of the 1980 LCLUP itself, and how the legal and policy context has changed over four decades, rather than active disagreements between the City and CCC over policies that are subject to negotiation. The reality is that much has changed in the more than 40 years since the 1980 LCLUP was certified, including our understanding of coastal hazards and reasonable actions to mitigate them, and many updates are needed to bring the City’s LCLUP into compliance with the Coastal Act and associated CCC interpretations.
Similarly, some changes are needed with certain provisions of the City’s 2020 LCLUP as it was submitted to the CCC. For instance, that document contained policies related to technical analysis of hazards, designed to determine areas that may be developed without reliance on shoreline protection (a Coastal Act requirement), that applied only to properties with direct shoreline frontage. The CCC suggested modifications expand these policies to be applied to the CVZ, which consists of areas mapped with known coastal hazards. While this will affect properties beyond the immediate shoreline, the CCC’s approach in the suggested modifications is more closely in line with Coastal Act requirements than the City’s initial approach.
Importantly, the potential alternative modifications to be considered would include the SRAs, which would allow the West Sharp Park and Rockway Beach neighborhoods flexibility to deviate from the most restrictive hazard analysis policies resulting from the LCLUP Update and generally would increase the development potential of properties in those neighborhoods.
These two neighborhoods have existing shoreline protection structures that provide coastal hazards protections for private and public development, and individual property owners cannot control the presence of the shoreline protection structures in those areas which are likely to remain present over the long-term given their primary purposes to protect public infrastructure. 1 Packet Pg. 11
Pacifica City Council 9
March 02, 2024
The case studies demonstrate that the City’s alternative modifications would allow development in the SRAs to use the existing shoreline protection structures in their analysis and design, potentially demonstrating less risk from certain coastal hazards and greater ability to site and design development to address coastal hazards.
Revisions to Special Resiliency Areas Policies
The SRA concept originated from the CCC’s work with local governments across the state. In order to achieve certification of the LCLUP, City staff and CCC staff have discussed the application of this key policy framework for Pacifica. The purpose of the SRA policies is to ensure 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 requiring implementation of adaptation measures to be incorporated into development.
At the Community Roundtable Discussions during Meeting #2 on December 5, 2023, staff presented the SRA policies and associated maps to the community for the first time. While many community members expressed confusion on the concept, the City also received community feedback on the SRAs that was supportive, and other feedback that will allow for better description and implementation of the SRA policies. Additionally, City staff also met with CCC staff to further discuss adjustments to the SRA and exhibits that will allow the CCC to certify the LCLUP. During the discussion, CCC staff provide more insight that has been incorporated into the City’s alternative modifications in this report, as demonstrated in Attachments C, D (map), and E (map). The CCC staff suggestions included eliminating the proposed separate policies and instead incorporating the language to the existing policies, removing the waiver allowances from the SRA policies (and incorporating them into the Zoning Ordinance instead), renaming the “Visitor Amenity Improvements” policy to “Shoreline Management Plan,” and making the SRA linear along the length of shoreline protection devices.
Staff has identified in the case studies where the SRA policies would provide benefits to properties located there.
Overall, staff believes the revisions will make the SRA policies simpler to understand and easier to implement. One way staff has done this is to incorporate the SRA provisions into the existing policies, instead of creating new policies as previously proposed. This will help to demonstrate more directly where the SRA provisions would allow a deviation from a generally applicable policy. Additionally, the map figures have been updated to include just the existing shoreline protection structures in the West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods. This will allow City staff to identify the areas protected by the SRA/existing shoreline protection structures more easily. Importantly, the underlying focus of the SRA policies would remain unchanged: to allow properties in the SRA areas to demonstrate reliance on existing shoreline protection structures when siting and designing development, a major difference between the generally applicable policies for other areas outside the SRAs. As demonstrated in the case studies, this is a major benefit for these properties as it will allow development to include the protections from coastal hazards that the existing shoreline protection structures provide. While development will still need to conduct technical reporting and analysis, the shoreline protection structures provide additional protections from coastal hazards and will thus allow more flexibility with siting and design, as the coastal hazards will be minimized compared to if the technical reporting was required to assume there was no existing shoreline protection structures. The SRAs also allow the City to continue to prioritize coastal access, visitor amenities, and City infrastructure in these areas.
The revised SRA language is incorporated into Chapter 6 of the LCP document and included in the Summary Table, as Modification Number 6.14, 6.15, 6.42, 6.44, and 6.46. 1 Packet Pg. 12
Pacifica City Council 10 March 02, 2024
Alternative Modifications
The SRA policies described above are among the most significant potential alternative modifications the City Council will consider. However, a number of other potential alternative modifications warrant discussion even though staff’s assessment is that a majority of the CCC suggested modifications are minor in nature and could be accepted as-is. The City staff’s alternative modifications range from minor to address typographical errors to clarifying text, to more significant modifications that affect application and implementation of policies that are more substantial in nature. All of the City staff’s proposed alternative modifications can be found in Attachments C and F.
Attachment F contains three rounds of revisions from the City’s 2020 LCLUP. The first is redline edits that were approved by City Council in October 2023 to incorporate changes that were made when the City adopted the 2040 General Plan. Then there is black text that is strikethrough or underlined, which indicates the CCC staff suggested modifications that were published for the March 8, 2023 CCC hearing. The third set of revisions are in green, these are the City staff proposed alternative modifications that coordinate with the Summary Table, Attachment C.
C. Frequently Asked Questions
During the December 5th Community Roundtable Discussion, staff received several questions related to the LCLUP and SRAs. Additionally, the City had an open period, from February 2nd to February 16th, where the public could submit questions online, by email, by phone, or in-person.
Responses to submitted questions can be found in Attachment G.
4. Future Meetings
This meeting is the third of four community engagement meetings planned to determine the City’s next steps in the LCLUP Update process. The next meeting, Revised Meeting #4, is planned as a City Council consideration item to discuss and approve submission of a comment letter from the City to the CCC requesting revisions to the CCC Suggested Modifications. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for late-March/early-April 2024. Revised Meeting #4 will consider whether to send a comment letter to the CCC addressing the full range of alternative modifications the City Council could consider requesting, as discussed above and provided in Attachment H. As stated above, on January 8, 2024, City Council approved a modification to the Community Engagement Plan to include a fourth meeting, with the possibility of a fifth meeting depending on the outcome of the third and fourth meetings. Any future changes to the Community Engagement Plan will be discussed at Meeting #4.
As staff noted during the November 13, 2023 study session, many of the other CCC suggested modifications not highlighted during the study session are minor in nature, either deleting or adding a word or phrase. However, staff values public input identifying any suggested modifications proposed by CCC staff with thoughts on how the City may propose alternative modifications. Any public comments received on alternative modifications will be considered by staff and presented to the City Council during Revised Meeting #3.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
No alternative action has been identified.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update is consistent with the following item(s) in the Counciladopted Strategic Plan and Priority Work Plan for FY 2023-24:
1 Packet Pg. 13
Pacifica City Council 11 March 02, 2024
• Goal 4: Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation. o Strategy C: Update Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan and improve communications and collaboration with the California Coastal Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact from this item.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (PDF)
Attachment B Case Studies (PDF)
Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (PDF)
Attachment D Rockaway Beach Map(PDF)
Attachment E West Sharp Park Map (PDF)
Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (PDF)
Attachment G LCLUP FAQs (DOCX)
Attachment H DRAFT Letter - Revised Certification Alternative Mods Request (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 14
Compiled by Community Boards Page 1 of 24 www.communityboards.org Pacifica LCLUP Community Roundtable
Grouped Notes
Dec. 5th, 2023
What are your biggest concerns about the new policies or development near the shoreline? 1 Planning, expectations and strategies. 11 89
Item Table Vote
Recognizing existing shoreline reinforcement is already a requirement for the CCC and they were just sued to do it. The City isn’t getting anything. 2 9 CR-I-50 same as (ID# 6) above – City isn’t getting in its negotiations. 2 2 The Cr50 already has permission today. 2 ?
Giving up way too much. 2 3
Multiple jurisdictions / one coast. 2 3
The proposed policies violate the Coastal Act. 3 7
The City cannot build a new regulatory process and keep up with a 5-year plan. 3 9 Mitigation for existing structures should be “protect until lasts,” other proposed policies violate the Coastal Act.
3 9
Hazards and geotechnical studies not being required by the City. 3 7 City changing zoning and land use designations without conducting hazard studies or waiving applicable requirements. 3 5
The City is implementing unrealistic expectations and strategies. 3 8 Removing height of building and off-street parking restrictions. 7 ? Many problems within the City and we cannot do all of them at once. 10 ? Concerns with lack of science. 11 ?
Not thinking long-term. 12 ?
Carvouts strategy. 12 ?
Increased population. 14 ?
Create a plan that is feasible to roll out. 14 ?
Too much for self/business/family to sell property to city? State? Too much to handle! Overstepping.
14 ?
Policies do not address transition. 14 ?
Building on the best parts we have and not holding onto static. 14 ? Adapt to the future. 14 ?
Some mitigation but not enough. 14 ?
Maintain a level of cohesiveness to neighborhood. 14 ?
Hard to be objective with changes. 14 ?
Important to preserve the unique character of neighborhoods, including commercial areas. 15 6 Bad compromises. 16 ?
The LCP is unworkable. OF ?
Inclusion of State beach/riprap plan – mean high tide. OF ? “Glitches” in the process with major policy change is damaging public trust. 3 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 2 of 24 www.communityboards.org No confidence vote. 5 2
2 Fiscal. 12 49
Item Table Vote
Taxes and costs. 3 9
Possibility of funding. 4 4
LCLUP policies or triggers will turn the area west of Route 1 into a commerce desert, a zone of no commercial value. Revenue will decline.
5 7
Loss of ability to insure, get mortgage, and repair damage. 6 ? Financial concerns to develop a new process. 9 ?
We will throw a lot of money at development/improvements but will eventually be for nothing and everything will eventually be in the ocean.
10 ?
Financing; taxes protect the area. 11 ?
Real estate values plummet. 12 ?
Cost/sustainability. 12 ?
If city makes changes how they are funded. 12 ?
Grant funding without certification from CCC. 14 ?
Mechanisms/project solutions with economic value. 14 ?
Economic value decreases as danger/hazard increases. 14 ? Speculative problems due to available funding and what funding avails. 14 ? Recreational value. 14 ?
Esplanade: Nobody wants to buy; Part of sale includes need to build seawall into property; Price of maintaining seawall exceeds that of property; Eyesore to community and surrounding areas also at risk.
14 ?
Budget one of the main concerns. 14 ?
Owners have to pay for disrepair. 14 ?
There's a tension between Pacifica's economic needs for incoming business and tax revenue and the protection of the coast.
15 9
Risk in funding. 16 ?
Inconsistency in the value of the property. 16 ?
Leaves P-Town ineligible for state/fed funding. OF ?
People lose homes / property values & taxes go up. OF 2 3 Loss of property, damage, and disasters. 9 34
Item Table Vote
Effects of damage from a tsunami vs. sea level rise. 2 3 Managed retreat, property is being taken. 3 3
Water will still be destructive even with a wall. 4 ?
Managed retreat. 4 8
Loss of ability to insure, get mortgage, and repair damage. 6 ? Damage to home or business vs expansion of home or business. 6 ? Impact of infrastructure loss. 7 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 3 of 24 www.communityboards.org The City is not doing anything to protect from flooding and other natural disasters. 10 ? Too much talk, not enough action. For example, flooding in Sharp Park, berms are not repaired which equates to excessive flooding.
10 ?
Concerns with language. Afraid we are just covering up managed retreat. 11 ? No other city talks about managed retreat. 11 ?
Residential and commercial areas transitioning to hazard areas. 14 ? Oceanfront property will turn into abandoned houses and be gone. 14 ? Accumulate more abandoned properties. 14 ?
Beach Blvd: Nature and beauty but waves hit house up to ceiling; Need to escape due to waves/ocean; Damage to the house; Desire for 6 ft fence; Permissions from CCC to protect property; Protections costing more than property; City has to help the public who suffers damaged they eat; Regular repairs (costly); 2017 strong waves blast through yards, fences, house walls, etc.; Crack in sidewalk = liability? Continue to repeat the same thing without change.
14 ?
Coastal weather/storms causing damage to residents. 14 ? Impact of flooding coming down range. 14 ?
Seawater intrusion (and other water sources). 14 ?
Higher elevation of properties to get out of danger. 14 ? Prevent neighborhoods from becoming blighted. 14 ?
Beaches go away. OF ?
Address flooding of golf course. OF ?
Concern for how Lind Mar beach (South end) is impacted and Shelter Cove. OF ? 4 Understanding and transparency. 7 41
Item Table Vote
Lack of transparency. 3 8
Feel that they had little understanding of: what the city had submitted in its LCLUP; what the CCC had asked the city to change; and what the city was planning to retain or change. 8 7 City knows of the action needed to take but nothing has happened. 10 ? Interpretations are different from now than they were before other staff were in place. 10 ? Gap between the new regulations and resident’s needs. 13 ? New information doesn’t reflect the concerns of the residents of Pacifica. 13 ? Feel cornered into making decisions. 13 ?
Information given was too much and residents couldn’t buy in. 13 ? Information presented didn’t feel like residents had choices. 13 ? How land use will be applied (high rise and mid-rise). 14 ? How to transition from options. 14 ?
Mechanism(s) for homeowners who want to relinquish property in hazard zone. 14 ? Not enough info, unclear. 16 ?
Trust for info, truth of agreement in an understandable way. 16 ? 1980 plan vs new. 16 ?
Lack of clarity & language. 16 ?
Messaging is inconsistent. 16 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 4 of 24 www.communityboards.org Uncertainty regarding policies – need clarity and examples. OF ? Surprised! Brand new thing! OF ?
Inconsistent with Draft LCP 6.6 & tonight’s version - different lines / Mori Point is missing in tonight’s version & lines cut off golf course & Mori Point & Inconsistent with accepted LCP’s statewide.
OF 3
More and early information on SRA and SSM. Need more time to digest and understand. OF 6 5 CCC. 7 15
Item Table Vote
The CCC is trying to control our homes. 2 ?
Trust factor of the Coastal Commission. 2 3
Coastal Commission is not on board and does not have the City's best interest in mind. The Commission's intention is to drive property values down and increase blight. 10 ? CCC has no oversight, they need oversight! 10 ?
CCC is overreaching! 10 ?
Coastal commission has “one size fits all”. 11 ?
CWM mentioned CoP is not the final say and CCC and State are. 12 ? CCC may not approve. 12 ?
Coastal Commission overreaching authority. 13 ?
CCC overreaching their authority. 13 ?
Coastal Commission = statewide guidance. 14 ?
Overreach of Coastal Commission (CCC). OF 1
Community is more invested in the coast more than CCC. 13 ? 6 SRAs. 8 21
Item Table Vote
Tradeoffs for SRAs are vague and misrepresented. 3 9
SRA's will lead to two classes of resident, in SRA or not. Let's have all or none. It's unequal protection.
5 1
Protections for both SRA and non-SRA areas. 7 ?
SRAs get greater protection. 7 ?
SRAs purpose is to take Coastal Commission out of the equation. 7 ? New process with developing, responsibility to establish the new system within resiliency areas.
9 ?
Development in the SRA’s will be scrutinized. 10 ?
Coastal Zone includes many different areas (that are not the same) and are being lumped together as one. 10 ?
Deed restrictions as part of the SSM in SRAs is a problem. 10 ? SRA is suspect/”City made up”- need more thought before State. 12 ? SRA is a new term. 12 ?
Areas will become vices/traps. 14 ?
Different zones will be problematic. 16 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 5 of 24 www.communityboards.org 7 Seawalls, berms, and revetments. 8 13
Item Table Vote
SP and Rockaway have current revetments. 1 ?
The maintenance of the berm between the SF and Pacifica jurisdictions. 2 3 Repair of berms washing out. 2 ?
Seawalls should not be incorporated into long-range planning. 3 ? Maintaining seawall and clarity of owning property. 9 ? Too much talk, not enough action. For example, flooding in Sharp Park, berms are not repaired which equates to excessive flooding.
10 ?
CCC does not allow armament aka seawalls. 10 ?
Can’t make improvements without seawall to address sea level rise. 11 ? Foster City just updated their seawall; not talking about managed retreat. 11 ? Waiving rights to seawall. 16 ?
SRA carveout of West Sharp Park allows for over building of seawall – concern for cost. OF ? 8 Development. 8 19
Item Table Vote
Analyzing development as if there is no protection. 2 9 Don’t want new development to have additional dev regulations (trigger shoreline hardening). 9 ? Restrictions on properties within Tsunami evacuation zones and Earthquake zones will impact our development potential.
10 ?
Old sewer plant, new development, want to see something done to the site, but it might not be investable.
11 ?
Can’t build on sand. 12 ?
Deed restrictions, waving rights to shoreline protection. 13 ? No amount of shoreline protection in the Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, SRA areas makes new development in those areas make sense - it's hard to save anything, the ocean is coming. 15 3 Requirement to Remove Development. OF ?
Should not develop if can’t protect properties. OF 1
9 Timeline. 6 24
Item Table Vote
10 year plan for coastal plan. 40 years overdue due to CCC and City going back and forth. 1 ? Timeline, community members have provided input for the last 11 years. 3 9 Must be certified prior to June 2024 to be eligible for SB 270. 3 9 The City has not provided the community enough time to review the proposed policies. 3 ? How the LCLUP will impact the BBIRP project. Need to look longer down the line rather than short term solutions.
7 ?
Special accommodations need further analyzing/time to review for specific areas and study each area carefully.
10 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 6 of 24 www.communityboards.org Concerns with the lack of time. More meeting time necessary. 11 ? Running out of time and things are worsening (i.e. seawall). 14 ? 10 Insurance. 6 17
Item Table Vote
Flood insurance being dropped. 2 3
Loss of ability to insure, get mortgage, and repair damage. 6 ? Property insurance is a huge concern. 10 ?
Already issues obtaining insurance. 11 ?
Insurance companies will track and degrade property and no longer give out loans. 11 ? Concerns with insuring FogFest. 11 ?
Insurance coverage in the future. 13 ?
Negative Impacts to Insurance & Mortgage (from Requirements). OF 8 11 Access to the beachside and coast. 2 7
Item Table Vote
Beach access and financial components, detrimental for future vitality of the City. 1 ? Access to the coast. 14 ?
See coastal access preserved. 14 ?
Access to the beachside. 14 ?
Question of no beach access at Sharp Park vs. Rockaway. 14 ? Move because unsafe for family or no longer accessible? 14 ? People’s access to coast and understanding land as available. 14 ? 12 Impacts on housing. 5 10
Item Table Vote
Potentially impacts the city’s ability to meet states housing guidelines. 6 ? How the LCLUP aligns with Pacifica’s housing element. Conflict between the two? 7 ? LCLUP will prevent the required housing to be built. 7 ? Potential loss of housing. 11 ?
Housing at risk. 14 ?
Have to prioritize the housing locations out of the coastal hazard zones. 14 ? Impact to housing / housing crisis. OF 4
13 Infrastructure. 5 11
Item Table Vote
New implementation; pipeline and infrastructure protection (i.e. SP Pipeline). 9 ? Pumps need to be operational and automatic. 11 ?
Beach armoring is not sustainable. 12 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 7 of 24 www.communityboards.org Infrastructure to support zoning. 14 ?
Levy provisions. 14 ?
Mindset to allow levy backwards (if there’s no other way). 14 ? Important to maintain existing shoreline protections and infrastructure. 15 5 14 Conservation. 3 14
Item Table Vote
Back to natural habitat between highway and ocean. 2 ?
Preserve natural resources, ecology, and open space. 3 9 Coastal resource = high priority. 14 ?
Ensure people aware of natural resources and value. 14 ? Preserving Pacifica and conservation attitude. 14 ?
Conservation and how it’s dealt with in policies. 14 ?
15 Sea level rise. 3 14
Item Table Vote
Sea level rise. 12 ?
Flexibility for wave to crash but sea level rise, especially at Rockaway. 14 ? Acknowledge reality of what’s happening with ocean. 14 ? Waves getting to façade at Moonraker’s and Nick’s. 14 ? Any existing future new commercial development in anticipated sea level rise areas, especially infrastructure, at-risk and not justifiable.
15 9
Sea level rise from the front and groundwater coming from the back. 14 ? 16 Loss of control by property owner. 4 7
Item Table Vote
Overall loss of control by property owner. 6 ?
Loss of ability to insure, get mortgage, and repair damage. 6 ? Property restricted to improvements. 11 ?
Moving property owners to other locations. 14 ?
Support (lack of) for existing & new homes & businesses. OF 3 17 SSMs. 2 4
Item Table Vote
Strongly believe that replacing a roof is an SSM per modification no. 7.10. 10 ? Written SSM is not consistent with staff's interpretation. 10 ? SSM – what is clear for the 25%. 16 ?
Rebuilding/remodel 25%. 16 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 8 of 24 www.communityboards.org What are you hopeful for or like the most about the new policies? 1 City stances and supports. 4 13
Item Table Vote
Hopeful that the City doesn’t constantly commit itself to sand replenishment. 2 ? City stand by the original submission. 13 ?
Wants City to fight for residents’ rights. 13 ?
City to taken in account all Pacifica residents’ concerns not just the coastal area. 13 ? City to look at all aspects of the city as a whole. 13 ? Upfront decisions of what to be done. 14 ?
Effective and lasting plans/change. 14 ?
Promising and financially viable for city to work with specific locations. 14 ? Collaboration with different agencies: Less impact and cost to everyone involved. 14 ? City’s flexibility with zoning. 14 ?
Keep closer to the present, in-effect 1980 LCP. OF ?
Elements that were innovative (but they are too tied to onerous requirements / restrictions). OF 0 Striking a workable balance between competing interests. OF 2 2 Property owners. 8 18
Item Table Vote
Not there yet – control of care of own homes. 2 ?
Property owners keep whole. 3 ?
People are making an educated risk with no protection for the future when buying on the coastline.
4 ?
Does not impact owners outside of coastal defined areas. 6 3 Any control that is further given to property owner. 6 ? Hopeful that we won’t lose our property or investments. 8 ? Hopeful the ultimate plan will be a net revenue positive one and not include more taxes and fees for remodeling.
8 ?
Hope to get remodels done. 11 ?
Not degrading properties but improving/addressing them. 14 ? Hopeful existing homeowners can protect and maintain their properties and neighborhoods.
Trust homeowners to make the right decisions.
OF 5
No one will lose their house. OF ?
Removes overly restrictive CCC policies on home remodeling and repair. OF ? 3 Protections. 6 13
Item Table Vote
Gives protection to the city against law suits. 6 ?
Use new technology to protect the bluff and prevent erosion. 7 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 9 of 24 www.communityboards.org City is looking to protect the bluff and infrastructure and should not listen to Coastal Commission to manage retreat.
7 ?
Hopeful to not give away all protection. 11 ?
Maintain production with Sharp Park. 11 ?
Need to preserve beach access. 12 ?
Modified zoning for hazard areas to keep safe properties and value. 14 ? Public amenities / fresh approaches for ocean protection. OF 6 4 Communication. 5 7
Item Table Vote
The City has really done well to increase communication compared to previous administrations.
1 ?
SRAs are currently the negotiation topic between City and CCC. The summary report spreadsheet has good information, clarification of language was good to see. Disappointing to see CCC’s decision to remove sections altogether. City has done a good job trying to counter the removal of certain items.
1 ?
Agrees that the planning commission has worked tirelessly on behalf of the residents—it is just not clear how.
8 ?
Glad to be having the conversation proactively. 11 ?
Good on the City for getting everyone here together to have this conversation. 11 ? To see different options/costs/tips. 12 ?
Plan’s clarity. OF ?
5 Work with the CCC and finalize the LCLUP. 5 6
Item Table Vote
Quickly compromise with the CCC. 3 ?
The LCLUP can finally get signed off by Coastal Commission. 7 ? Get on the same page as Coastal Commission on what armored vs unarmored is. 7 ? Hopeful we create an agreement with CCC and we can move forward. 8 ? Moving Forward and new adaptation soon. 9 ?
Coastal Commission has done a lot of good work in the past. 13 ? 6 SRAs. 4 12
Item Table Vote
SRAs are a good idea. 7 ?
SRAs = alternate means of arranging property. 14 ?
The SRA policy proposals by the City seem like a good strategic approach to giving the city latitude to protect those areas.
15 8
SRA’s are very novel & creative. OF ?
SRA proposal is a start – though current (first draft has repeats) – to enabling shoreline protection for low-lying districts.
OF ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 10 of 24 www.communityboards.org 7 Development. 3 13
Item Table Vote
Encouragement for development with right approach. 9 ?
Option for different lands of development to keep property viable 14 ? Both new and existing development 14 ?
Can develop a vibrant downtown. OF 9
Develop / build a single family home in W. Sharp Park. OF ? 8 Seawall. 2 2
Item Table Vote
City commit to rebuilding sea wall. 2 ?
Keep the sea wall. OF ?
9 Infrastructure. 2 2
Item Table Vote
Maintain infrastructure versus seawall. 2 ?
Hopeful to have technology and resources to solve these problems. 11 ? 10 Adapt to sea level rise and addresses other climate concerns. 1 2 Item Table Vote
Long-term plans adapt to sea level rise. 3 ?
City addresses other climate concerns. 3 ?
11 Policies fit with the Coastal Act. 1 2
Item Table Vote
Policies fit with the Coastal Act. 3 ?
City complies with the Coastal Act and stops focusing on specialized areas. 3 ? 12 Planning for the future. 2 8
Item Table Vote
We are hopeful that the town is planning for the future. 5 7 Get ahead of all restrictions. 7 ?
13 Housing. 1 2
Item Table Vote
Higher density, smaller housing development for lower income. 7 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 11 of 24 www.communityboards.org Incentivize for smaller housing/more affordable housing. 7 ? 14 Land use. 1 2
Item Table Vote
Opportunities to use different recreational areas 14 ?
Land use re: Sharp Park Golf Area complicated: Land/neighborhood behind prone to flooding. 14 ? 15 Financial support. 1 1
Item Table Vote
Outside financial support and competition with funding if stalled. 9 ? 16 Smart Coast California. 1 1
Item Table Vote
Smart Coast California – get involved. 11 ?
What suggested changes or improvements do you have?
1 Simplified information and clarifications. 10 49
Item Table Vote
Have maps be 1 solid image as simple as possible. Not everyone is an engineer. 1 ? QR code for public information an FAQ. 1 ?
The meeting should have addressed the LCLUP policies in the excel, not the SRAs. 3 ? Council needs to lay it out in layman's terms. What are they proposing. Seems that the plan is hidden. Who pays? Will responsibility be specific for each property? 5 7
Please provide a legend for all the different acronyms, it is very confusing if this is not your day job.
8 ?
Plan needs to specify triggers and clarification. 9 ?
Easier version to look over. 9 ?
Simpler/Summarized version for review. 9 ?
Clarification on how the CCC would address short to mid-term protection in addition to long term.
9 ?
Define interior remodeling, reroofing, and other minor structural changes to clarify that they are not SSMs 10 ?
See scenarios specific to the City to see impact in understandable terms. 11 ? We need more clear, simple case study examples comparing how things would work under the existing 1980 policy, and how they would work under the new/proposed policy. 15 9 Presentation at beginning of tonight's meeting was too dense and confusing, we needed a more digestible introduction to the situation and an opportunity to ask clarifying questions.
We need more opportunities to learn about the policy proposals (and the current 1980 policy 15 9
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 12 of 24 www.communityboards.org differences) in ways designed to be understandable to a fifth grader. No code citations or acronyms please.
Terminology needs to be clear. 16 ?
Clarity in communication. 16 ?
Each proposal and policy needs to clearly describe negative impacts and possible consequences.
OF 10
Simplify language so most everyone can understand the proposed policies. OF ? Changes re: SRD’s: 1. Boundary line of the Sharp Park SRD should be same as boundaries of the Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, Mori Point Coastal Vulnerability Zone described / delineated in Certifcation Draft LCP Sec. 6.6 and Appendix B-3.
OF ?
2 More community involvement. 7 14
Item Table Vote
More community involvement. 11 ?
CCC – Most in the group feel they have little to no transparency. Want member to attend these meetings to answer questions.
1 ?
More meetings to discuss LCLUP as a whole. 3 ?
Get together people from at-risk coastlines to discuss. 4 ? We need more time to review, discuss, assess, and have more development of this document, and more time for public input.
10 ?
More time/community involvement. 11 ?
More meetings with real life scenarios. 11 ?
More time and discussion for deeper discussion. 11 ?
More public input so that everyone has a chance to attend the meetings. 11 ? Form neighborhood committees to address LCLUP. 13 ?
Want more representation for the people of Pacifica. 13 ? More open discussions with decision makers. 13 ?
Would like open house for the residents to meet with city commissions and committee members, so residents can become more involved and obtain more information. 13 ?
Managed retreat: Utilize community support; Prioritized managed retreat. 14 ? 3 Explore more mitigation and alternative protections. 7 15 Item Table Vote
Glad we have communication, but seems like City has its mind made up. Still would want to explore more mitigation and sand retention. 1 ?
Implement nature-based solutions for hazards in other neighborhoods and redirect hazards to undeveloped areas (ex. the quarry, Sharp Park golf course, vacant lot in Pedro Point, etc.) 3 ? Protect existing development over new development. 3 ?
Minimize the amount of new development that requires hardening. 3 ? Beach nourishment. 9 ?
Would stilts be a potential strategy to implement? 9 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 13 of 24 www.communityboards.org Protect the golf course. 11 ?
Protect the pump system. 11 ?
In order for this to work, systems need to be built up and protected. 11 ? Look at alternative nature based solutions. 12 ?
Minimize impacts like trucking through neighborhoods. 14 ? Consider all mitigation actions e.g. offshore elements (jetties?), managed vs. unmanaged retreat, sea wall, beach nourishment.
OF ?
Design buildings to resist floods (FEMA) and tsunamis. OF 2 Additional nature forward solutions – Livable Natural Eco Design. OF ? 4 Property. 6 16
Item Table Vote
Take out language stating that property owner or business may not be able to continue to defend property.
6 ?
Be able to do repairs without triggering the % clause. 6 ? Give same protections to home owners as trails and public amenities. 6 ? Create HOA’s or Special Assessment Districts for area’s of higher risk. 6 ? Plan to address strategies to beach protection (erosion). 9 ? Special protections should apply to the high at risk properties that abut the coast. 10 ? Protect the neighborhoods and beaches. 11 ?
Make it feasible and affordable to protect own homes. 14 ? Eliminate the accumulation of percentile limits for maintaining or improving one’s home and property.
OF 6
Remove requirement to deed restrict properties. OF ?
Remove deed restrictions (can’t get a loan!). OF ?
5 Work with outside sources. 6 17
Item Table Vote
The Secretary of National Resources should come and talk with us so as to guide policy. 5 5 Work with Smart Coast. 10 ?
Take ideas from other countries and regions to develop better ideas. 11 ? Get opinions of engineers and lawyers. 11 ?
See presentation to the same community group from Smart Coast. 11 ? Contact SMART coast CA to fight the CCC decisions. 13 ? Would like to City obtain the services of SMART Coast CA to fight the CCC. 13 ? Reach out to widen options. 14 ?
Use CCC expertise to see what does/doesn’t work: That’s why they only fund projects that are viable.
14 ?
What are other communities doing? Can we have a brainstorm + learning session where we explore what we can do to protect and preserve our community? 15 4
6 Greater transparency. 6 10
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 14 of 24 www.communityboards.org Item Table Vote
Community want more transparency about CCC’s decisions and policy principles, and how staff interacts with CCC.
1 ?
In summary from Table 1, Community wants more communication from CCC and transparency about their decisions they made about reports. Better interaction and participation in community meetings.
1 ?
More information needs to be shared with the community. 3 ? Would like to hear from the CCC and what they are proposing. 4 ? They want a plan. 4 ?
Put every communication about dealing with the Coastal Commission and the response process online so we can see it.
5 2
Disclosures/waivers of risk. 14 ?
Conversation between local and CC should be published for transparency, specifics, uncensored.
16 ?
Transparency. 16 ?
7 SRAs. 3 10
Item Table Vote
SRAs should target further than 100 years. 3 ?
SRAs as a carve-out with the process of creating the LCLUP is not engaging. 3 ? Provide a cost-analysis and timeline of the SRAs. 3 ?
The 50% SRA guideline seems subjective. Can we have a more tangible measure, like $. 5 5 Put everyone or no one in an SRA. 5 1
The COP should stick to the current LCLUP and not the SRA carve outs. 8 ? 8 Seawall. 4 13
Item Table Vote
Provide the full cost of the Sharp Park seawall. 3 ?
Verify that the berm stays in place and any gaps between the berm and the seawall in West Sharp Park and ensure it's closed.
10 ?
Protect the seawall. 11 ?
Rebuild and/or maintain an optional seawall along Beach Blvd and Sharp Park Golf Course. OF 9 Jetties, not sea wall. OF ?
9 Financial. 3 5
Item Table Vote
We should review all problems and consider the most cost-effective options to prioritize when tackling each problem.
10 ?
Study each area and verify where money is best spent when evaluating potential improvements.
10 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 15 of 24 www.communityboards.org Charge more for leisure travel to Pacifica / more revenues. 12 ? Looking back at cost-benefit analysis and our long-term future. 14 ? Consider more commercial/office spaces to fund schools/roads. 14 ? 10 Get it done. 3 4
Item Table Vote
Get it done. 4 ?
The City needs to take action on the known improvements such as the flooding in West Sharp Park.
10 ?
City needs to work more and faster to engage! 14 ?
Consider community impact the longer it takes to make a decision. 14 ? 11 Don't give up and hold firm. 2 2
Item Table Vote
Do not give up what we don’t have to give up. 8 ?
Wants City to hold firm on their original submission. 13 ? 12 Communication. 2 2
Item Table Vote
Communication with private entities (insurance) if the LCWP would trigger without notice to homeowners.
9 ?
Encourage more communication/discussion with CCC. 14 ?
13 Flexibility. 2 9
Item Table Vote
Flexibility to be resilient, especially creating relationship with CCC. 14 ? All proposals need flexibility of mechanisms to adapt to changing forecasts, technology, conditions, and solutions.
OF 8
14 Uncategorized. 7 28
Item Table Vote
Cumulative Permits. 1 ?
We like open space. 1 ?
Identify SB 379 sites. 3 ?
Make changes to the Coastal Act vs. changes to the LCLUP (though everyone at the table agreed that was not particularly likely to happen). 8 ? Truck in the sand as done in Carmel. 11 ?
Form assessment districts in coast area. 13 ?
Don’t want to ward off ocean but to prioritize working with the CCC. 14 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 16 of 24 www.communityboards.org Update capital plan since many projects behind schedule and may impact or be impacted by LCLUP.u
14 ?
Make affordable housing more affordable. 14 ?
No person should be forced to waive their liability or protections rights, or city services. OF 15 Eliminate requirement to remove development & coastal protections. OF 2 Need check-in points at certain intervals for projected sea level rise. OF ? Improvement: Next meeting of City Council should be scheduled no sooner than March 15. OF ? What questions do you have or what other information would be helpful for you about the new policies or the LCLUP update overall?
1 Specificity of plans. 14 43
Item Table Vote
Specific plan for all construction, budget, and specific stages. 7 ? How will I get information and get answers? 1 ?
Fast response from city staff? 2 ?
Will we get the process done by June? 2 ?
Who’s in charge? 2 ?
What are the specifics on the coastal resource enhancements? 3 ? Can staff identify the undeveloped properties? 3 ?
Why are the bullets on page 6 of the staff report ranked, and why are they ranked in that manner? 3 ?
Are we hiring real professionals? 4 ?
How involved is State & Federal government in this issue? 4 ? 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. 8 ? What happens if we don’t get approval from the CCC? 8 ? What will the implementation process look like? 9 ?
How will city apply new obligations in admin of the LCLUP? 9 ? How will we dovetail what the City will do and what CCC is asking for? 10 ? How does this tie into the local people? 11 ?
What is the best thing to do? 11 ?
If no changes to LCLUP-CoP denys, what happens next? 12 ? How does a 5 year implementation work? 12 ?
What percentage of residents would be affected? 13 ?
What small steps can we take now for bigger picture? 14 ? What about abandoning plans that don’t work out? 14 ?
How will the city keep up? 16 ?
How will it be in the future? 16 ?
Will it be forever? 16 ?
What is the timeline? 16 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 17 of 24 www.communityboards.org Is there a better way (e.g. City wide referendum) to protect the freedom and choice of Pacificans, then giving power to a small unelected group (CCC) to create rules that impact an entire town?
OF 15
If models / forecasts are not accurate, is there flexibility (e.g. storm-driven sea level rise protection metrics)? OF ?
What are the timelines/next steps? OF ?
2 Effects on property. 10 49
Item Table Vote
Need to understand how these policies will affect their property. 1 ? 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 wall this tigered? If a tree falls on my house, can you 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%?
1 ?
Deed Restrictions/Disclosures – do these come into play? 1 ? Commerce centers are prioritized by residential is not so much. Would the RV park/mobil home park also be protected? Is space between these also visitor serving? Does the 100 year plan affect temporary structures?
1 ?
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.
1 ?
What hidden traps are present for homeowners? Please enumerate them. 5 7 Homes in coastal areas will be flooded. Certain beloved landmarks exist in these areas, like old restaurants. How will we protect these landmarks?
5 7
The city as a whole will have to bear the burden for few coastal properties; why? 5 5 Who is making decision on percentage of project fixes and how is that determined? 6 ? Are there cost effective plans to hold back erosion now rather than fighting it down the line when it may be too late?
7 ?
What tools do we have to protect the bluff? 7 ?
Who is exploring the technologies, what have other cities done to successfully protect bluff top erosion?
7 ?
Will policy #1 allow development? 7 ?
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? 8 ?
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?
8 ?
What is the coastal vulnerability zone and what does it mean for each neighborhood? 8 ? Are roof replacements considered an SSM? 10 ?
When will action happen to protect/develop infrastructure to prevent natural disasters? 10 ? Need to know the city's stance on managed retreat 11 ?
How are residential spaces going to be affordable? 12 ? If more housing is added, how will it be protected from sea rise? 12 ? What will homeowners do if they have to abandon property due to hazard/access? 14 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 18 of 24 www.communityboards.org What triggers are there when a property sells in a hazardous coastal zone? 14 ? What is/are negative impact(s) of existing sea level / coastal protections? OF 9 Are there negative impacts of expanding or improving coastal protections? / What are the impacts of beach protection?
OF ?
3 Funding and costs. 9 32
Item Table Vote
Will we get extra funding for meeting a deadline from the CCC? 2 ? Need extra funding? 2 ?
What is the full cost of the seawall? 3 ?
What is the full cost of the hard armoring in the SRAs? 3 ? What is the full cost of relocating the sewer pump once it is ready to be replaced? 3 ? Where will the money come from, and over how many years? 3 ? Where will funding come from, how, and what's the plan to get it? 4 4 If we live on the ocean, what are the alternatives? What if they can’t afford these alternatives? 4 ? 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? 5 7 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? 5 7
Is the city protecting future tax revenue using SRAs? 7 ? How will COP assist in home owners’ financial assistance if needed (if CCC requires managed retreat, etc)? 8 ?
What happens to the city budget when people are paying less property taxes due to the SRA? 11 ? Where do beach parking fees go? 12 ?
For OSV spaces, who pays for dumping, etc.? 12 ?
Core element = how are these getting funded (seawall, departures, infrastructure)? 14 ? Why offer all policies if we can’t afford them? 14 ?
4 SRAs. 9 15
Item Table Vote
What are the SRA and how were they chosen? 1 ?
SRA? How will It effect those not in the SRA zone? 2 ?
Is the Sharp Park Specific Plan motivating the SRA? 3 ? Why is the quarry not included in the SRA to be used as mitigation? 3 ? What is the process to determine SRAs? 7 ?
If there is an existing seawall in an area, is it considered an SRA? 7 ? What precedents are there from SRAs? 7 ?
What technology was explored with the Coastal Commission? 7 ? Will the SRA line continue to move or is it static? 8 ? How often are these areas re-evaluated (zones/SRAs)? 8 ? Have any communities implemented SRAs? 10 ?
Have any other cities developed in SRA, like Santa Cruz, Capitola or Monterey? 11 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 19 of 24 www.communityboards.org Does SRA have CCC blessing? 12 ?
How does RHENA numbers affect SRA policies? 12 ?
SRAs = subzoning? Any other subzoning changes? Confirm them? Confirming no changes if none.
14 ?
5 CCC. 9 21
Item Table Vote
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). 1 ? Is staff able to get any concessions from CCC related to any of these topics? 1 ? How is staff input being reviewed by the CCC and how to share with community? 1 ? Does the CC recognize coastal protections? 2 3
Christian 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?
3 ?
How amenable would the CCC be with the City’s proposal? 4 ? How likely is the Coastal Commission to accept City Policies? Is it flexible and what exactly does it want?
5 6
How did the Coastal Commission’s position change from 2020 to now? 7 ? Coastal Commission should recognize existing armoring and how can the City bring CCC to that view?
7 ?
How many CCC members have actually toured the town and seen the community? 8 ? When will the discussion for CCC draft redlines happen? 12 ? What is CCC's timeline? 12 ?
Will this be in agreement with the Coastal Commission? 16 ? Will this be accurate with the Coastal Commission? 16 ? 6 Definitions. 7 24
Item Table Vote
“Non conformity” definition. 2 3
What does a nonconformity mean? 2 3
How is the 50% threshold met? The definition is unclear. 2 ? Does 50% replacement policy include floors and roofs? 2 3 How is the City redefining the meaning of “existing development”? 3 ? 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?
5 7
What does it mean to live in an SRA vs a non-SRA, who is getting more protection? 7 ? What constitutes nonconforming and who deems this as nonconforming? 10 ? What is the baseline date for any structures in the context of nonconforming? 10 ? What is clear for what is existing vs a new development? 16 ? What is the definition of “existing”? 16 ?
Further definitions of LCLUP terms compared to CCC. OF ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 20 of 24 www.communityboards.org 7 Maps and locations. 7 12
Item Table Vote
The hazard area is bigger than expected. Please show a complete map of all hazard areas, just to see the full scale. Red/Blue lines. 1 ?
SP and Rockway carved out specifically, why were other areas not included that are in the coastal areas?
1 ?
Where does the underground infrastructure of Beach Blvd fit into the LCLUP? 4 ? Where do people stand in West Sharp Park area? 8 ?
Where is the money best spent in relation to improvements for the particular areas that have potential impacts? Which area is chosen over others?
10 ?
Is SF involved? 12 ?
Are there pictures of other neighborhoods similar to Pacifica that have implemented these changes? Computer renderings?
14 ?
List of implications for different areas. OF ?
What is end state? E.g. What would Rockaway look like in 2100 under the proposed policy? (best estimate) OF 3
More details about land outside of SRA. OF ?
8 Seawall and revetments. 6 11
Item Table Vote
Will new revetment happen? 1 ?
If the community is more interested in more seawall infrastructure, are we better off with new plan or the old plan?
1 ?
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? Protected.
1 ?
How does this affect the Quarry, and does this affect revetment plans? How would this affect the future of the Quarry?
1 ?
Why are we only repairing one section? 2 ?
Seawall or no seawall? 4 3
What's the relationship between maintaining seawall and amenities? 9 ? 1984 seawall constructed: how long will it last before next solution comes? 14 ? Is there a future for the seawall or not? 16 ?
9 Communication. 4 7
Item Table Vote
Has staff talked to banks? 1 ?
Sand Retention – Is natural resources being replenished? Public communications on how to know who and what are making resources decisions.
1 ?
What can staff do to inform public? 1 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 21 of 24 www.communityboards.org 2 events within 1 year. Is that a red tag? 1 ?
When is the next meeting? 2 ?
Why haven’t we already spoken to Smart Coast California? 11 ? When’s the next meeting? 16 ?
10 Information about the coastline. 6 6
Item Table Vote
Citizens haven’t received enough info about the state of the coastline. 4 ? What is the adaption process for other coastal communities? 9 ? What are the rest of the Coastal Zone requirements? 11 ? Is this happening in all coastal area? 12 ?
How was the future coastline determined? 13 ?
Moving coastline back = what does that do to current zoning? 14 ? 11 Simplified information. 4 14
Item Table Vote
Presentation gave good info, but was too technical. More basic information would be helpful. 1 ? The materials seem either too general or too technical: Is there a middle ground for language? 5 6 What is the 'modification' of the LCLUP in response to exactly? 5 4 Felt slammed with regulations. Can we get explanations that are simple and more pedestrian? 13 ? Need clearer examples. OF ?
Understand the whole picture than just individual points. OF ? 12 Commerce. 3 3
Item Table Vote
How do these area effect commerce? 1 ?
How do we protect business important to the economy and homeowner rights? 6 ? What financial resources do we have if we remove commercial zoning? 14 ? 13 Insurance. 3 3
Item Table Vote
How does this affect home insurance coverage? If policy is cancelled, what is the recourse? Non-insurable home’s value affects property tax and city revenue. 1 ? How does this impact ability to get flood insurance? 2 ? What happens/will happen to my insurance, will I be canceled because my property is located in the restricted zone?
10 ?
14 Infrastructure. 3 11
Item Table Vote
1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 22 of 24 www.communityboards.org What happens to Manor infrastructure? 11 ?
Critical infrastructure in the SRAs impacts all of Pacifica: what are we doing to make our infrastructure resilient and insulated from coastal hazards? 15 9
Structural changes? 16 ?
15 Bidding. 1 3
Item Table Vote
Does the City really get 3 bids for RFPs? 11 ?
Does the City just take the lowest bid? 11 ?
How can the City see a closed BID and have a say in who is selected? 11 ? 16 Reasoning. 2 2
Item Table Vote
Why does the 1980 LCLUP not meet current needs? Why not just amend it on an as needed basis? Why do we need a brand new LCLUP?
10 ?
How do the policies protect Pacifica? 14 ?
How do you feel about Policy #4/Visitor Amenity Improvements? Is it worth the costs to undertake visitor amenity improvements that could benefit residents and visitors in return for the benefits of the SRA policies to allow ongoing development in the area? 1 Uncategorized. 3 5
Item Table Vote
Policy #4 is worth the cost because the protection protects lots of people and their existing homes as well as future opportunities for the city to make money. 7 ?
Irrelevant. 3 ?
Not fair mitigation if the City is using manmade visitor amenities while destroying naturebased coastal resources. 3 ?
Only incorporated to cater to the visitor serving components required by the CCC. 3 ? We need visitor enhancements to bring people to the city (and more retail vs. hotels).
However, there is an inherent tension between seawall repair which the residents want to protect homes and businesses and visitor amenities, as sea walls tend to cause the beaches to retreat, leaving little for visitors to see/do.
8 ?
1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 23 of 24 www.communityboards.org Category Legend
X Category Name X X Category number
(OF = Overflow Room)
tables mentioned at
Number of different
Total votes from all
mentions (?=1)
1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Compiled by Community Boards Page 24 of 24 www.communityboards.org Locations of Attendees
Location Number Counted
Back of Valley 3
Beach Blvd/San Jose 1
Beach Park 1
Cabrillo 1
Crespi 2
East Sharp Park 3
Edgemar 2
Edgemore 1
El Granada 1
Esplanade 2
Fairmont 1
Fairway Park 3
Golf Course / Haight 1
Greenway 1
Half-Moon Bay 1
Linda Mar 8
Lower Manor 1
Manor 9
off Hickey Blvd 1
Outside Pacifica 1
Pacific Manor 2
Pacifica 1
Pacifica Park Prairie 1
Pacifica Pedro Park 1
Pacifica Pier 1
Pacifica Roberts Road 2
Palo Alto 1
Park Pacifica 6
Pedro Point 8
Rockaway 2
San Carlos 1
Santa Rosa/Palmetto 1
Sharp Park 3
Shoreview 1
Sun Valley 2
Vallemar 9
West Fairmont 2
West Fairway Park 4
West Sharp Park 12
Westview 1
1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A December 5th 2023 Report (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 1 Case Study Comparison: 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) vs. California Coastal Commission (CCC) Staff Suggested Modifications vs. City Staff Potential Alternative Modifications Table of Contents
Introduction to Case Studies:......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Key Terms:...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Case Study #1: Basic Residential Maintenance (reroof, new windows, new siding, non-structural)............................................................................ 3 Case Study #2: Residential Addition (non-Substantial Structural Modification)........................................................................................................... 5 Case Study #3: Residential Addition (Substantial Structural Modification)/New Development................................................................................. 10 Case Study #4: Development on a Parcel with No Sensitive Environmental Resources............................................................................................. 16 Case Study #5: Development on a Parcel with or adjacent to Sensitive Environmental Resources (habitat, animal species, creeks, etc.)............... 18 Case Study #6: New/Replacement Shoreline Protection Structures (including seawalls) .......................................................................................... 22 Case Study #7: New/Replacement of City Infrastructure or Service (pump station, bike lanes, etc.) ........................................................................ 25 Case Study #8: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (noncoastal hazards, such as fire, earthquake, etc.)................................................. 28 Case Study #9: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (repetitive coastal hazard damage, including tsunami)............................................ 32
1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 2 Introduction to Case Studies:
Coastal planning issues, including the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Update process, are inherently complex. The complexity is increased when trying to understand nuanced variations between different versions of LCLUP policies that could ultimately be implemented in Pacifica.
The factual circumstances applicable to every property is unique, requiring a detailed site-specific analysis to determine the likely outcomes of applying various policies. These case studies will not and cannot cover every possible application of the policies under consideration to the areas identified in the case studies, let alone all the properties within the Coastal Zone in Pacifica. However, in the interest of providing the most understandable explanations possible for the community and decision makers, the City has prepared the following series of nine case studies describing how different versions of LCLUP policies currently under consideration could affect property in Pacifica. These case studies describe common development scenarios and include discussions of key policy subjects such as the definition of “Substantial Structural Modification” (SSM), the Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ), and policies associated with these and other aspects of development in the Coastal Zone in Pacifica.
The policy comparisons in this document include the City’s existing 1980 LCLUP which the California Coastal Commission (CCC) certified more than 40 years ago, along with the CCC staff’s Suggested Modifications to the Council-approved 2020 LCLUP, and a set of alternative modifications the City staff has prepared for consideration of submission to the CCC in order to modify the CCC staff’s Suggested Modifications.
Readers will notice the case studies do not include the 2020 LCLUP version as adopted by Council in February 2020. It is clear that CCC certification of this version of the LCLUP is not viable, as evidenced by the extensive Suggested Modifications prepared by the CCC staff for the postponed March 2023 CCC certification hearing. Therefore, further analysis in these case studies of the 2020 LCLUP version as adopted by City Council would not be productive to the ongoing discussion of a compromise approach with the CCC to ultimately obtain certification of an LCLUP Update agreeable to both the CCC and the Pacifica City Council.
Key Terms:
Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ): The areas shown on the City’s maps prepared for the Pacifica sea level rise (SLR) Vulnerability Assessment (1/12/2018),attached to these case studies, 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.
Non-Coastal Vulnerability Zone: The areas outside of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone, as shown on the City’s maps prepared for the Pacifica SLR Vulnerability Assessment (1/12/2018), attached to these case studies.
Non-Special Resiliency Area: The areas within the City’s Coastal Zone but outside of those shown in shown in Attachments D and E of the March 2, 2024 City Council Report.
Special Resiliency Area (SRA): The areas within the City’s Coastal Zone shown in Attachments D and E of the March 2, 2024 City Council Report.
1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 3 Case Study #1: Basic Residential Maintenance (reroof, new windows, new siding, non-structural) Quick Take: All versions of the LCLUP allow like-for like property maintenance. The City Alternative Modifications version would include a specific clarification that re-roof projects are permissible and exempt from the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition.
A property owner wanting to perform routine maintenance would need to obtain a building permit from the City of Pacifica. Provided the proposal truly includes like-for-like replacement, the City would issue the building permit. The City may require information in the building permit application to ensure it can document the extent of the routine maintenance for purposes of administering the SSM threshold in the future. In the event the SSM threshold is exceeded in the future, City staff would advise on options for the property owner to consider, including not proceeding with the project (not an option if the maintenance is legally required), or processing a coastal development permit (CDP) and complying with applicable LCLUP policies that could include altering the development to mitigate exposure to applicable coastal hazards (for properties located in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone, or CVZ – see Case Study #3). 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications Building permit for like-for-like
replacement.1
Reroofs, window and siding replacement,
and similar routine property maintenance
that are like-for-like can be approved
through the building permit process.
If reroofs, window or siding replacement,
or similar routine property maintenance is
not like-for-like, additional requirements
may apply. Such projects would be
evaluated under provisions applicable to
additions. Please refer to the analysis in
Case Study #2 and #3, below.
Coastal Vulnerability Zones/Non-Coastal
Vulnerability Zones/Coastal Zone Wide: Building
permit for like-for-like replacement. Routine
maintenance activities that include work that is
not like-for-like replacement will be evaluated
under provisions applicable to additions (see Case
Study #2 and #3, below).
Reroofs, window and siding replacement, and
similar routine property maintenance of existing
structures are allowed with a building permit. If
during the reroof it is discovered that a
rafter/joist/stud or two need to be replaced, and it
does not total to a 50% replacement, then the
impactful components of the Substantial
Structural Modification (SSM) definition would not
be triggered. The City will need to document it in
some way to measure the incremental changes
over time so that these replacements, along with
Special Resiliency Area/Coastal
Vulnerability Zone/Non-Coastal
Vulnerability Zone/Coastal Zone Wide:
Building permit for like-for-like
replacement. Routine maintenance
activities that include work that is not likefor-like replacement will be evaluated under provisions applicable to additions
(see Case Study #2 and #3, below).
It is important to note, however, that a
property owner would never be required
to undertake a project that exceeded the
50% threshold in the SSM definition unless
doing so was necessary to comply with
habitability requirements in the California
Building Code, or other applicable
property maintenance requirements in the
1 Like-for-like means that the replacement is similar in materials and colors. Like-for-like does not include changes in design, structural characteristics, or function.
1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 4 any others subject to SSM over time, are
accounted for properly.
There is a possibility that a property owner who
has not done regular maintenance on their
building could discover extensive damage that
prompts replacement of structural components
(such as need to replace portions of exterior walls
or large portions of the structural roof
components). This could trigger the SSM
threshold and the impactful policies that are
described below would apply. This underscores
the importance of regular property maintenance.
It is important to note, however, that a property
owner would never be required to undertake a
project that exceeded the 50% threshold in the
SSM definition unless doing so was necessary to
comply with habitability requirements in the
California Building Code, or other applicable
property maintenance requirements in the
Pacifica Municipal Code such abatement of
nuisance conditions.
Note that City staff is pursuing some clarifications
to the SSM definition from CCC staff to confirm
that routine reroofs of all sorts are intended to be
authorized under the SSM definition without
counting towards the 50% cumulative structural
replacement threshold.
Pacifica Municipal Code such abatement
of nuisance conditions.
1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 5 Case Study #2: Residential Addition (non-Substantial Structural Modification) Quick Take: On the face of it, the 1980 LCLUP may seem to be the most permissive in terms of development potential, having the fewest specific policies requiring analysis and mitigation of various hazards, environmental resources, etc. However, in reality the CCC Suggested Modifications are de facto in effect within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction for coastal development permits appealed to CCC (which is often the case in Pacifica). Therefore, the CCC Suggested Modifications should be considered to be already in effect for much of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone even without CCC certification of an LCLUP Update.
A property owner pursuing an addition that would not meet the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) would need to apply for a building permit. Under all three LCLUP versions, many types of additions require approval of a coastal development permit (CDP) prior to issuance of a building permit, although some types of projects will be exempt from CDP review. A project that requires a CDP will be required to design to be safe from potential hazards without reliance on existing shoreline protection if located in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone, or CVZ (CCC Suggested Modification version), while a City Alternative Modification would allow development to consider an existing shoreline protection device within the Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs). The anticipated life of the development assumed for purpose of the coastal hazard analysis would differ between the CCC Suggested Modifications and City Alternative Modifications versions, with the City Alternative Modifications version resulting in slightly shorter anticipated life assumptions in some cases. In general, a shorter anticipated life assumption could result in more developable area remaining on a property after a coastal hazard analysis. Both the CCC Suggested Modifications and City Alternative Modifications versions would require waivers of rights to future shoreline protection and other liability and risk assumptions to be recorded on the property.
The 1980 LCLUP requires a hazard analysis similar to the other two versions, but does not require waivers of rights to future shoreline protection or other liability and risk assumptions to be recorded on the property. However, the CCC Suggested Modifications are de facto in effect within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction for coastal development permits appealed to CCC (which is often the case in Pacifica). The areas within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction are those closest to the shoreline and typically have the greatest exposure to coastal hazards. Therefore, these provisions that may be most concerning to property owners are already potentially in effect, even without certification of an LCLUP Update.
1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 6 Case Study #2: Residential Addition (non-Substantial Structural Modification) 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications Outside of the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction2,
additions to single-family residences no
larger than two stories, built on lots zoned for
single-family residences as a principal
permitted use and which meet all zoning
standards, can usually be permitted with a
building permit only. Additions to other
types of structures generally require approval
of a coastal development permit, or CDP (a
discretionary permit subject to a public
hearing) before a building permit may be
approved. .
In the Appeal Jurisdiction, additions of less
than 10% increase in height, floor area, or
bulk can generally be permitted without a
CDP. A CDP is typically required for additions
that involve a 10% or greater increase in
height, floor area, or bulk.
Coastal Vulnerability Zones:
CR-I-43 Development will be required to
demonstrate, with technical reports, that it
can avoid coastal hazards for the anticipated
life4 without reliance on shoreline protection
structures, regardless of whether they exist
or not.
CR-I-44 Development will need to be
designed to be safe from coastal hazards for
at least 100 years, without shoreline
protection structures.
CR-I-45 Development will also need to waive
rights to future shoreline protection
structure/armoring and assume all
responsibility for future damage.
Development proposed in the Coastal
Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) will need to conduct
technical reporting and analysis that
demonstrates that the project is safe and
Special Resiliency Areas:
CR-I-43 Development will be required to
demonstrate, with technical reports, that it
can avoid coastal hazards for the anticipated
life with reliance on shoreline protection
structures.
CR-I-44 Development will need to be
designed to be safe from coastal hazards for
at least 100 years, and may consider
shoreline protection structures within the
SRAs. Based on the CCC’s Suggested
Modification to define “anticipated life,”5
staff has proposed an alternative
modification in CR-I-44 to align the timeline
for analysis required in this policy with the
timeline in Policy CR-I-43.
Staff is not proposing changes to CR-I-45..
Development proposed in the CVZ will need
to conduct technical reporting and analysis
2 California Coastal Commission (CCC) Appeal Jurisdiction means the area within which a coastal development permit (CDP) may be appealed to the CCC pursuant to the California Coastal Act, Section 30603, and generally includes (1)Developments approved by the City between the sea and the first through public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance; or (2) Developments approved by the City that are located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, stream or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff; or (3) Developments approved by the City that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area; or (4) Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major energy facility. 4 The term “anticipated life” is defined in the glossary as “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.”
5 A CCC Suggested Modification would revise the period of analysis in Policy CR-I-43 from the “anticipated duration” to the “anticipated life” of proposed development. Another CCC Suggested Modification established a new definition for “anticipated life,” as noted in Footnote 4, above. Thus, City staff believes a revision to Policy CR-I-44 is necessary and appropriate to establish a uniform period for hazard analysis related to the anticipated life of development.
1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 7 Case Study #2: Residential Addition (non-Substantial Structural Modification) Projects undergoing building permit or CDP
review must comply with current
development standards, including setbacks
and height. This can also include hazards
analysis which the 1980 LCLUP requires to
analyze a 100-year geotechnical hazard event
(e.g., coastal erosion, landslide, earthquake).
Additionally, development in the Appeal
Jurisdiction can be appealed to the California
Coastal Commission (CCC).
Projects that are appealed to the CCC and/or
are located in an area not within Pacifica’s
Certified LCP area3such that they require CCC
approval, are required to demonstrate
compliance with the Coastal Act and CCC
policy guidance. This includes analysis of the
safety of the development for the anticipated
life of the development, with the assumption
that any existing shoreline protection
structures are not present, as well as the
waiver of rights to future shoreline
protection structures (e.g., seawalls).
designed to address coastal hazards for at
least 100 years. The technical reporting and
analysis will need to assume that there is no
shoreline protection structure, whether one
is currently existing or not. This application
requirement could add cost and time to
project review periods. Additionally, projects
will need to be designed to address any
identified coastal hazards. In this scenario,
there is a possibility that a project may not be
able to design to avoid or mitigate the
identified coastal hazards for at least 100
years. For example, a small lot that is
vulnerable to bluff erosion may not have an
option to build elsewhere on the site to avoid
the bluff erosion.
Development will need to waive rights to
future shoreline protection
structure/armoring and assume all
responsibility for future damages.
that demonstrates that the project is safe
and designed to address coastal hazards for
the anticipated life of the development;
however, the technical reporting and analysis
will be allowed to include the existing
shoreline protection structure, which is a
major benefit for property in the SRA which
otherwise would need to perform analysis as
though shoreline protection was not present.
While projects will still be required to
conduct technical reports, the design of the
project will be allowed to include the
assumed protection provided by the existing
shoreline protection structures.
Development will need to waive rights to
future shoreline protection
structure/armoring and assume all
responsibility for future damages.
Non-Coastal Vulnerability Zones:
Requirements for a CDP would be generally
consistent with those in the 1980 LCLUP, and
the hazard-specific analysis required in the
CVZ typically would not be required for a
project. Development would need to comply
with applicable development regulations (i.e.,
zoning) at the time of approval.
Non-Special Resiliency Areas: Outside of the
Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs), the analysis
under CCC suggested modifications apply
depending on if the site is in the CVZ or
outside of the CVZ, except that City staff is
proposing an alternative modification to CR-I45, which would require development in an identified Tsunami Inundation Zone to record
a deed restriction, instead of development in
3 Currently, portions of the lower Pedro Point neighborhood including Pedro Point Shopping Center, Linda Mar State Beach, Rockaway Quarry, and Shelldance Nursery.
1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 8 Case Study #2: Residential Addition (non-Substantial Structural Modification) the Tsunami Evacuation Zone. This would
narrow the applicability of this coastal-hazard
related provision to a smaller area of Pacifica
and tailor this requirement to the area
actually projected to be subject to the most
likely hazard scenario6.
6 The Tsunami Evacuation Zone is a broad area identified as having potential for tsunami inundation in an extreme tsunami event, and is generally used for evacuation planning purposes. It does not typically represent an area of likely inundation based on the most probably tsunami hazard event.
1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 9 Figure 1: Comparison of 1980 LCLUP Geotechnical Hazard Map (left) and a Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) Map from 2020 LCLUP, Appendix B-1 “Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map: Fairmont West”
• 1980 LCLUP map is outdated, does not
include the full range of applicable
coastal hazards, and is difficult to read.
• As an example, 1980 LCLUP map omits
significant coastal hazard presence in
Fairmont West neighborhood.
• 2020 LCLUP CVZ Map uses best
available science to identify various
coastal hazards.
• Utilizing the 2020 LCLUP map will allow
effective screening out of further
hazard analysis in areas where no
coastal hazard is likely to be present,
whereas 1980 LCLUP map’s
incompleteness requires site-specific
analysis in many cases to confirm
presence of applicable hazards,
increasing processing time and cost for
applicants.
Case Study Legend
CCC Appeal Jurisdiction
(approximate boundary
for illustrative purposes
only)
1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 10 Case Study #3: Residential Addition (Substantial Structural Modification)/New Development Quick Take: Development potential varies significantly between the CCC Suggested Modifications Version and City Alternative Modifications version due to SRA policies. The SRA policies recommended by City staff would allow the protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures to be considered for development proposed in areas subject to the SRA policies.
As described in Case Study #2, above, the 1980 LCLUP requires a hazard analysis similar to the other two versions, but does not require waivers of rights to future shoreline protection or other liability and risk assumptions to be recorded on a property. However, the CCC Suggested Modifications are de facto in effect within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction for coastal development permits appealed to CCC (which is often the case in Pacifica). The areas within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction are those closest to the shoreline and typically have the greatest exposure to coastal hazards. Therefore, these provisions that may be most concerning to property owners are already potentially in effect, even without certification of an LCLUP Update.
A property owner pursuing an addition that would meet the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) or that would be new development on the property would need to apply for a coastal development permit (CDP) prior to obtaining approval of a building permit. A project that consists of an SSM or new development will be required to design to be safe from potential hazards without reliance on existing shoreline protection for the anticipated life of the development (generally 75-100 years) if located in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone, or CVZ (CCC Suggested Modification version), including modifications to existing development to mitigate applicable hazards. This could mean taking on a greater project scope of work than initially intended with the addition. A City Alternative Modification would allow development to consider an existing shoreline protection structure for property subject to the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies, which would effectively eliminate the coastal erosion hazard for development proposed in areas subject to the SRA policies, in many cases significantly expanding development potential and minimizing or eliminating the requirement for retroactive modifications to existing structures to address hazards.
The anticipated life of the development assumed for purpose of the coastal hazard analysis would differ between the CCC Suggested Modifications and City Alternative Modifications versions, with the City Alternative Modifications version resulting in slightly shorter anticipated life assumptions in some cases (75-100 years rather than 100 years or more in all cases under the other versions of the LCLUP).
Both the CCC Suggested Modifications and City Alternative Modifications versions would require waivers of rights to future shoreline protection and other liability and risk assumptions to be recorded on the property.
While the requirements to modify existing structures and record deed restrictions related to waivers of rights to future shoreline protection structures and assumption of liability are not in effect in the 1980 LCLUP, they are de facto in effect within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction for coastal development permits appealed to CCC (which is often the case in Pacifica) even without certification of an LCLUP Update.
1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 11 Case Study #3: Residential Addition (Substantial Structural Modification)/New Development An owner of property located within the West Sharp Park neighborhood and within the CVZ must assess applicable hazards under all versions of the LCLUP for an addition that triggers the SSM definition. The CCC Suggested Modifications require the property owner to assess the applicable hazards with the assumption that the shoreline protection structure does not exist. Under the City Alternative Modifications version, property owners covered by the SRA would be allowed to assess the applicable hazards and include the benefits of the existing shoreline protection structures. By conducting an analysis with the shoreline protections structures, some of the hazards, such as coastal erosion, are eliminated or reduced. The SRA policies could take properties from no development potential due to coastal erosion hazard, to having development potential.
1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications See the discussion under “1980 LCLUP” in
Case Study #2, above. The 1980 LCLUP does
not contain a definition for “Substantial
Structural Modification” and does not
establish different criteria for these types of
projects. This has enabled the City to permit
major alterations/expansions to existing
structures without considering them to be
“new development” subject to more
restrictive policies. Within the 1980 LCLUP,
the primary distinction is the 10% threshold
for height, floor area, or bulk, as well as
presence inside or outside of the CCC Appeal
Jurisdiction.
Coastal Vulnerability Zones:
CR-I-43 Development will be required to
demonstrate, with technical reports, that it
can avoid coastal hazards for the anticipated
life7 without the reliance of shoreline
protection structures, regardless of whether
they exist or not.
CR-I-44 Development will need to be
designed to be safe from coastal hazards for
at least 100 years, without shoreline
protection structures.
CR-I-45 Development will also need to waive
rights to future shoreline protection
structure/armoring and assume all
responsibility for future damage.
CR-I-49 Development will need to correct
existing legal nonconformities.
LD-I-2 Land Divisions are prohibited in the
CVZ, unless they are for the conservation of
land or if the new parcels can be developed
consistent with the LCP.
Special Resiliency Areas:
CR-I-43 Development will be required to
demonstrate, with technical reports, that it
can avoid coastal hazards for the anticipated
life with reliance of shoreline protection
structures.
CR-I-44 Development will need to be
designed to be safe from coastal hazards for
100 years, and may consider shoreline
protection structures within the SRAs. Based
on the CCC’s Suggested Modification to
define “anticipated life,” staff has proposed
an alternative modification in CR-I-44 to align
the timeline for analysis required in this
policy with the timeline in Policy CR-I-43 (i.e.,
the anticipated life of a proposed
development).
CR-I-45 Development will also need to waive
rights to future shoreline protection
structure/armoring and assume all
responsibility for future damage.
7 See footnote above with definition of “anticipated life.”
1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 12 Case Study #3: Residential Addition (Substantial Structural Modification)/New Development See the discussion under “CCC Suggested
Modifications, Coastal Vulnerability Zones” in
Case Study #2, above. Development
proposed in the CVZ will need to conduct
technical reporting and analysis that
demonstrates that the project is safe and
designed to address coastal hazards for at
least 100 years. The project, because it
exceeds the threshold in the SSM definition,
will also need to be designed to address any
identified coastal hazards and cannot rely on
existing or future shoreline protection
structures. The development would not be
allowed to subdivide existing parcels unless
the new parcels are intended for
conservation of land. Additions will also need
to correct any existing legal nonconformities8
on the site. Due to the definitions in the LCP
of Nonconforming use and structure9, CR-I-49
would require that any use that is
inconsistent with the LCP must be ceased.
While this policy does not mean that zoning
nonconformities, like parking, need to be
corrected, it does mean that technical reports
may demonstrate that existing portions of a
single-family residence are not designed to be
safe from coastal hazards for at least 100
years and would be considered legal
CR-I-49 Development will only need to
correct existing legal nonconformities that
are directly related to coastal hazards.
Staff is not proposing changes to CR-I-45 or
LD-I-2.
See the discussion under “City Alternative
Modifications, Special Resiliency Areas” in
Case Study #2, above. Development
proposed in the Special Resiliency Areas
(SRAs) will need to conduct technical
reporting and analysis that demonstrates that
the project is safe and designed to address
coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the
development, similar to the conditions under
the CCC suggested modification. However,
the technical reporting and analysis will be
able to include the protections provided by
the existing shoreline protection structure,
which is a major benefit for property in the
SRA which otherwise would need to perform
analysis as though shoreline protection was
not present. It is likely that under this
scenario, the analysis will show less risk of
certain types of coastal hazards and it will
result in less criteria for each development
project. Other nonconformities, per the LCP,
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 the Pacifica Municipal Code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.
9 Non-conforming Structures: An existing structure that is legally nonconforming with an LCP standard.
1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 13 Case Study #3: Residential Addition (Substantial Structural Modification)/New Development nonconforming. These legal nonconformities
would need to be ‘corrected’ by making
modifications to conform with other LCP
policies. Other LCP policies that may need to
be “corrected” include policies related to
allowable uses and design.
In this scenario, there is a possibility that a
project may not be able to design to avoid or
mitigate the identified coastal hazards for at
least 100 years. For example, a small lot that
is vulnerable to bluff erosion may not have an
option to build elsewhere on the site to avoid
the bluff erosion.
including uses and substandard lots may
remain.
Non-Coastal Vulnerability Zones: CR-I-43, CRI-44, CR-I-45, and CR-I-49 do not apply.
LD-I-2 Land Division are allowed unless the
property contains or abuts an ESHA.
Development proposed outside the CVZ will
not be required to do additional technical
reporting, design to avoid or mitigate, or
record a deed restriction (except for
properties within the Tsunami Evacuation
Zones) to address coastal hazards.
Non-Special Resiliency Areas: Outside of the
SRAs, the analysis under CCC suggested
modifications apply depending on if the site
is in the CVZ or outside of the CVZ.
1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 14 Figure 2: Excerpt from 2020 LCLUP, Appendix B-3 “Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map: Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, and Mori Point” • Property within the CVZ (in this example,
storm flooding hazard) must assess
applicable hazards and modify existing
and proposed development to mitigate
the hazard.
• Both CCC Suggested Modifications and
City Alternative Modifications versions
support flood mitigation, meaning
development can be approved.
• 1980 LCLUP does not specifically require
retroactive modifications to existing
development if an SSM were to occur,
although the new development
proposed would need to mitigate
applicable hazards.
• However, the CCC Suggested
Modifications (including policies
requiring all on-site development to be
modified to mitigate hazards) are de
facto in effect in the CCC Appeal
Jurisdiction for projects that are
appealed to the CCC (which happens
frequently in Pacifica).
• Properties located outside the CVZ do
not need to modify existing
development to mitigate hazards even if
an SSM is proposed.
Case Study Legend
CCC Appeal Jurisdiction
(approximate boundary for
illustrative purposes only)
1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 15 Figure 3: Excerpt from 2020 LCLUP, Appendix B-3 “Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map: Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, and Mori Point” • Property within the CVZ (in this example,
coastal erosion hazard) must assess
applicable hazards and modify existing and
proposed development to mitigate the
hazard.
• CCC Suggested Modifications version would
not allow consideration of existing shoreline
protection in hazard analysis and
development siting.
• City Alternative Modification version would
include SRA policies that allow
consideration of existing shoreline
protection. The SRA policies could take
properties from no development potential
due to coastal erosion hazard, to having
development potential.
• 1980 LCLUP generally requires development
not to rely on existing shoreline protection.
In addition, the CCC Suggested
Modifications (including that existing
shoreline protection cannot be considered)
are de facto in effect in the CCC Appeal
Jurisdiction for projects that are appealed to
the CCC (which happens frequently in
Pacifica).
Case Study Legend
CCC Appeal Jurisdiction
(approximate boundary for
illustrative purposes only)
1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 16 Case Study #4: Development on a Parcel with No Sensitive Environmental Resources Quick Take: All of the LCLUP versions allow development to occur on these sites without specific additional requirements. Development would be reviewed and authorized consistent with standard requirements depending on the nature of the proposed project (see Case Study #2 and #3).
The owner of a property without sensitive environmental resources on the site or in proximity can proceed to obtain a building permit, if the development qualifies for an exemption from further permitting due to its minor nature, or otherwise must pursue approval of a coastal development permit (CDP) prior to issuance of a building permit. A project requiring a CDP must comply with applicable LCLUP policies including those related to hazards analysis and setbacks. Both the CCC Suggested Modifications and City Alternative Modifications versions include updated maps that allow more quickly ruling out properties from requiring site-specific analysis in most cases, reducing processing time and costs for applicants, whereas the 1980 LCLUP has no such maps, thus requiring a site-specific analysis for each project. 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications See the discussion under “1980 LCLUP” in
Case Study #2, above. The primary
distinction is the 10% threshold for height,
floor area, or bulk, as well as presence inside
or outside of the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction.
Additionally, due to the age and lack of detail
in the 1980 LCLUP, properties that do not
contain or abut sensitive environmental
resources are often required to conduct sitespecific analysis because they cannot be ruled out.
Coastal Vulnerability Zones (same as above):
See the discussion under “CCC Suggested
Modifications, Coastal Vulnerability Zones” in
Case Study #2 and #3, above.
Special Resiliency Areas: See the discussion
under “City Alternative Modification, Special
Resiliency Areas” in Case Study #2 and #3,
above.
Non-Coastal Vulnerability Zones:
See the discussion under “CCC Suggested
Modifications, Non-Coastal Vulnerability
Zones” in Case Study #2 and #3, above.
Non-Special Resiliency Areas:
See the discussion under “City Alternative
Modification, Non-Special Resiliency Areas”
in Case Study #2 and #3, above.
1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 17 Figure 4: 2020 LCLUP, Figure 4-3, “Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas” The 2020 LCLUP contains many updated maps and figures
based on current legal requirements, contemporary best
practices, and the best available science, to guide decision making. This includes Figure 4-3 “Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.”
Use of updated maps such as this will enable the City to determine when more in-depth analysis is required, rather than requiring site-specific technical analysis for every project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 18 Case Study #5: Development on a Parcel with or adjacent to Sensitive Environmental Resources (habitat, animal species, creeks, etc.)
Quick Take: All LCLUP versions include specific provisions to protect sensitive environmental resources. These provisions affect development proposed on sites with sensitive environmental resources as well as sites within certain prescribed distances even if those sites themselves do not contain sensitive environmental resources.
A property owner wanting to undertake a major addition or construct a new home on an undeveloped lot will need to evaluate the presence of sensitive environmental resources on the site or within a certain distance of the property. The 1980 LCLUP contains the fewest provisions for environmental protections, and is the least specific in terms of requirements for development and mapping locations of likely sensitive environmental resources. This can lead to additional cost and uncertainty for development proponents who will need to prepare site-specific biological assessments in most cases. Both the CCC Suggested Modifications version and City Alternative Modifications version would include more specific policies and maps that increase certainty for project proponents. However, the CCC Suggested Modifications version would include the most restrictive buffer requirements from sensitive environmental resources. The City Alternative Modifications version would allow some additional flexibility for minimum buffer requirements if based on a qualified biologist’s opinion. 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications See the discussion under “1980 LCLUP” in
Case Study #2, above. The primary
distinction is the 10% threshold for height,
floor area, or bulk, as well as presence inside
or outside of the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction,
which can determine whether a coastal
development permit (CDP) is required.
In cases when a CDP is required, the 1980
LCLUP contains limited provisions for specific
habitat protection, notably “Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas” or ESHA, as that
term is defined in the Coastal Act. Additional
analysis is required when development is
proposed within 100 feet of ESHA. However,
the 1980 LCLUP does not contain updated
maps indicating likely locations of sensitive
environmental resources, requiring siteCoastal Vulnerability Zones:
LD-I-2 Development will not be allowed to
subdivide unless the resulting parcel is set
aside for conservation, or the resulting parcel
can accommodate development consistent
with the LCP (e.g., no adverse impacts on
sensitive environmental resources).
In the Coastal Vulnerability Zones (CVZ),
Development would need to comply with the
above analysis. Development may be allowed
to subdivide if the resulting parcels are set
aside for conservation, or the development
complies will all other LCP policies.
Special Resiliency Areas: No change from
CCC Suggested Modifications.
Non-Coastal Vulnerability Zones: See
Coastal Zone Wide analysis, below.
Non-Special Resiliency Areas: No change
from CCC Suggested Modifications.
1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 19 Case Study #5: Development on a Parcel with or adjacent to Sensitive Environmental Resources (habitat, animal species, creeks, etc.)
specific analysis for any project that requires
a coastal development permit (CDP), which
can add time and cost for applicants.
Additionally, the City does not have permit
authorization under State and Federal law to
authorize impacts to special status species,
and so coordination may be needed with the
appropriate State or Federal agency to
review a permit and provide other permitting
approvals as required. Additionally, if the
project has any impacts to the special status
species, the impacts must be mitigated to
satisfaction of the City and the appropriate
State and/or Federal agency.
Coastal Zone Wide:
ER-G-6 Prohibits development on coastal
dunes.
ER-I-21 The City’s Certification Draft requires
new development within 300’ of creeks,
wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas to
provide a biological resource assessment. The
CCC suggested modification clarifies that the
assessment shall identify ways to avoid
and/or mitigate impacts.
ER-I-24 The City’s Certification Draft requires
buffer areas around ESHAs. The CCC
suggested modification adds clarifying
language to the requirements of the buffer
and states that the buffer may not be
reduced to less than 50’.
Development on parcels that contain or abut
sensitive habitat, such as dunes, creeks, or
rivers, will need to comply with all the above
requirements, in “CCC Suggested
Modifications” in Case Study #2 and #3,
depending on if they are within the CVZ or
not. However, additional policies from
Chapter 4 will apply regardless of whether a
parcel is within the CVZ or not. Development
within 300 feet of an ESHA will need to
provide a biological resources assessment
that analyzes ways for the development to
avoid impacts. One of the best ways to avoid
impacts is to create a buffer area which
protects ESHA from the development and
Coastal Zone Wide:
Staff is not proposing changes to ER-G-6 and
ER-I-21 as they are applicable as stated in the
CCC suggested Modification analysis.
ER-I-24 Alternative modification removes the
“no less than 50’” portion of the policy.
A City Alternative Modification would remove
the requirement that the buffer cannot be
reduced to less than 50 feet. This will allow
development to provide a biological
resources assessment and provide the best
way(s) for the ESHA to be avoided and/or
mitigated, in the opinion of the qualified
biologist. The biological resources assessment
will need to be reviewed and approved by the
City, USFWS, and CDFW. This will provide
flexibility for development that abuts ESHA
which will allow for other protective
measures, such as fencing, and a further
reduced buffer depending on the type and
quality of the ESHA, based on the qualified
biologist’s opinion.
1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 20 Case Study #5: Development on a Parcel with or adjacent to Sensitive Environmental Resources (habitat, animal species, creeks, etc.)
users of the development. The buffer will
typically be 100 feet or more, but no less
than a minimum of 50 feet.
In smaller or odd shaped lots, the
requirement of a 50-foot buffer may
significantly limit the ability to develop.
Additionally, the 50-foot requirement does
not consider alternative methods to protect
ESHA or the quality of the ESHA.
1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 21 Figure 5: Excerpt from 2020 LCLUP, Figure 4-3 “Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas” • Development within 300 feet of ESHA will require
biological resources assessment.
• Development will typically require 100-foot buffer
from ESHA, but not less than 50 feet (CCC Suggested
Modification).
• City Alternative Modification would allow buffers less than 50 feet in some cases, informed by qualified
biologist’s opinion.
• Buffers could have major impacts on development
potential in many areas in Pacifica, including the Pedro Point neighborhood as demonstrated in this figure.
1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 22 10 CCC interprets “existing development” as development built prior to 1977. This interpretation may be amended by the courts pending legal challenges. 11 CDPs for shoreline protection structures would also be appealable to the CCC, even if located within the City’s permit jurisdiction.
Case Study #6: New/Replacement Shoreline Protection Structures (including seawalls) Quick Take: All LCLUP versions allow shoreline protection structures to protect existing development, currently defined by the CCC as development in existence prior to July 1, 1977, and that has not undergone a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM). The CCC Suggested Modifications (to which no City Alternative Modifications are proposed) would provide greater clarity on the requirements to obtain approval of shoreline protection structures that reflect the current state of the law, which has changed since certification of the 1980 LCLUP.
A property owner seeking approval of a shoreline protection structure would need to demonstrate that the property is “existing development10,” and that the property has not undergone an SSM. The determination of whether an SSM has occurred will be made by City and/or CCC staff based on available permit history possessed by the City and CCC. A property that is not existing development or that has undergone an SSM will be unlikely to obtain CCC approval of a CDP for a shoreline protection structure, although some exceptions exist in the Coastal Act. Certain requirements will apply to any approval for a shoreline protection structure, such as but not limited to agreeing to remove the shoreline protection structure if the development it protects is ever removed or if an SSM occurs. 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications The 1980 LCLUP allows for new and the
replacement of shoreline protection
structures to protect existing structures.
However, the coastal development permit
(CDP) required for shoreline protection
structures is issued by California Coastal
Commission (CCC) due to the location of such
projects being within the CCC’s retained
permit jurisdiction (areas below mean high
tide)11.
In order to receive CDP approval, shoreline
protection structures must be compliant with
the Coastal Act. While not defined in the
Coastal Act, the CCC has interpreted “existing
structures” to mean only those in existence
prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act
(January 1, 1977). The CCC also applies a
Coastal Vulnerability Zones/Coastal Zone
Wide:
CR-I-15 New shoreline protection structures
may be constructed to protect existing
structures. Shoreline protection structures
are allowed for the protection of public road
and sewer lines. Requires compliance with
CR-I-56 and CR-I-59.
CR-I-54 encourage soft shoreline protection,
such as dune and sand restoration.
CR-I-56 Existing shoreline protection
structures may be repaired and maintained.,
no more than 50%.
CR-I-57 New shoreline protection structures
shall only be constructed if consistent with
the LCP.
CR-I-58 New shoreline protections structures
shall only be allowed until the structure they
Special Resiliency Areas: No change from
CCC Suggested Modification.
1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 23 Case Study #6: New/Replacement Shoreline Protection Structures (including seawalls) definition comparable to the Substantial
Structural Modification (SSM) definition
contained in the 2020 LCLUP (with CCC
Suggested Modifications) that results in
consideration of existing development as
“new development” if a 50% threshold for
structural replacement has occurred.
Therefore, development constructed prior to
1977 that has undergone certain major
renovations or expansion may be ineligible
for shoreline protection based on CCC’s
interpretation of the Coastal Act.
protect is no longer present, no longer
requires armoring, or the structures is
redeveloped per the Substantial Structural
Modification (SSM) definition and
requirements.
The approach to shoreline protection in the
2020 LCLUP is generally consistent with the
1980 LCLUP. The 2020 LCLUP requires new
or reconstructed shoreline protection
structures to be compliant with the LCP and
Coastal Act. Among other requirements, that
entails the shoreline protection structure
being intended to protect existing structures
(see description of “existing structures” in the
1980 LCLUP discussion). The 2020 LCLUP also
encourages “soft” shoreline, such as dune
restoration and beach/sand nourishment,
protection over “hard” armoring with the aim
of reducing some of the adverse impacts of
conventional shoreline protection structures,
which often include reduction or elimination
of sandy beaches fronting the structures. The
2020 LCLUP also contains policies that allow
for repair and maintenance and require the
shoreline protection structure to be removed
if the existing structure it is protecting is
removed or no longer requires armoring.
The CCC suggested modifications add
language that limits the repair and
maintenance to no more than 50%
replacement of materials, and also states that
1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 24 Case Study #6: New/Replacement Shoreline Protection Structures (including seawalls) if a development protected by an existing
shoreline protection structure is
redeveloped, then the existing shoreline
protection structure must be removed.
Non-Coastal Vulnerability Zones: Not
applicable due to all areas requiring shoreline
protection structures being located in the
CVZ.
Non-Special Resiliency Areas/Coastal Zone
Wide: No change from CCC Suggested
Modification.
1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 25 Case Study #7: New/Replacement of City Infrastructure or Service (pump station, bike lanes, etc.) Quick Take: On the face of it, the 1980 LCLUP is most permissive in allowing the siting of new/replacement infrastructure and services in the Coastal Zone. However, in reality, the CCC Suggested Modifications are de facto in effect within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction for coastal development permits appealed to CCC (which is often the case in Pacifica). Therefore, the CCC Suggested Modifications should be considered to be already in effect for much of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone which in turn presents a highly restrictive environment for City infrastructure planning and maintenance.
Specifically, the CCC Suggested Modifications would restrict the capacity and location of critical infrastructure in a way that could severely hamper the City’s ability to serve the needs of the entire Pacifica community. The CCC Suggested Modifications version would impose strict limitations on the construction and siting of critical infrastructure by 1) limiting infrastructure to only the capacity needed for development allowed in the LCLUP (which does not reflect the citywide function of such infrastructure in Pacifica) and 2) requiring critical infrastructure be sited in locations that will not require shoreline protection structures for 100-150 years (which will severely limit the ability to locate critical infrastructure within the Coastal Zone in Pacifica).
The City Alternative Modification version would remove the limit on infrastructure capacity to only development authorized in the LCLUP and would include SRA policies that allow new/replacement infrastructure to be installed under SRA policies while taking into account the protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures, negating the need for 100-150 year hazard avoidance. 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications See the discussion under “1980 LCLUP” in
Case Study #3, #4, and #5, above, depending
on location of new/replacement City
infrastructure or service.
Projects that are appealed to the CCC and/or
are located in an area not within Pacifica’s
Certified LCP area such that they require CCC
approval, are required to demonstrate
compliance with the Coastal Act and CCC
policy guidance. This includes analysis of the
safety of the development for the anticipated
life of the development, with the assumption
that any existing shoreline protection
structures are not present, as well as the
Coastal Vulnerability Zones/Non-Coastal
Vulnerability Zone/Coastal Zone Wide: LD-I27 Requires studies to support public works facilities in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones
(CVZ).
LD-I-37 Public Service Development shall be
limited to levels sufficient to accommodate
LCP consistent development.
CR-I-8 City Draft – The City will pursue
opportunities to preserve, protect and
relocate critical transportation infrastructure.
CCC mods require Coastal Act compliance.
See the discussion under “CCC Suggested
Modifications” in Case Study #3, #4 and #5,
above, depending on location of
Special Resiliency Areas/Non-Special
Resiliency Area/Coastal Zone Wide: See the
discussion under “City Alternative
Modification” in Case Study #3, #4 and #5,
above, depending on location of
new/replacement City infrastructure or
services. Importantly, new City infrastructure
could be installed within SRAs to support
existing and new development, without the
otherwise applicable 100-150 year hazard
setback requirement in CR-I-43 and CR-I-44.
Additionally, a City Alternative Modification
would revise the CCC suggested modification
that relates to public services for new
development, which removes the language
1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 26 Case Study #7: New/Replacement of City Infrastructure or Service (pump station, bike lanes, etc.) waiver of rights to future shoreline
protection structures (e.g., seawalls).
new/replacement City infrastructure or
service.
Additionally, the City may be limited in
building new or upgrading infrastructure due
to a CCC suggested modification that states
public services shall be limited to levels
sufficient to accommodate LCP consistent
development. While the LCP encourages
increasing visitor-serving amenities, the CCC
suggested modification does not account for
the infrastructures with the CVZ that serves
areas outside the Coastal Zone.
that states new or upgraded infrastructure
shall be limited to levels sufficient to
accommodate LCP consistent development
so that the City’s infrastructure can
accommodate citywide development, and
instead encourages new or expanded public
services facilities to avoid locating in the CVZ
areas (Policy LD-I-37). If public services
facilities must be located in the CVZ, then the
facility must comply with the LCP and Coastal
Act, as described in Case Studies #3, #4, and
#5.
1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 27 Figure 6: Excerpt from 2020 LCLUP, Appendix B-3 “Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map: Rockaway Beach, Quarry, and Headlands” • CCC Suggested Modifications version would
require infrastructure to be setback beyond
the indicated coastal erosion hazard line on
this figure (a 100-year hazard line)
potentially up to a 150-year coastal erosion
hazard line, complicating infrastructure
installation and design, and would not allow
consideration of existing shoreline
protection in hazard analysis and
infrastructure siting.
• City Alternative Modification version would
include SRA policies that allow
consideration of existing shoreline
protection. The SRA policies would allow
critical infrastructure to be installed where
needed, including consistent with the City’s
existing system designs.
• Would possibly enable
replacement/upgrade of existing Rockaway
Beach Sewer Pump Station without a major
and hugely costly system redesign.
1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 28 Case Study #8: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (noncoastal hazards, such as fire, earthquake, etc.) Quick Take: Allowances to rebuild after hazard damage depend in part on the extent of the damage. The Coastal Act provides robust support to rebuild property largely as it existed prior to being destroyed by a disaster. Repairing/restoring a property from hazard damage less than destruction is generally regulated consistent with standard development review policies, which vary between the 1980 LCLUP and CCC Suggested Modifications versions. The 1980 LCLUP contains provisions that require removal of zoning nonconformities in the event of significant property damage to a lawful nonconforming property. This could include eliminating nonconforming property line setbacks, for example.
Notably, a hazard damage repair/complete rebuild under the CCC Suggested Modifications version could trigger a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) which has potentially significant implications for property located in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ). These implications include having to analyze potential hazards affecting the site and possibly modifying the development to reduce the risk from applicable hazards. This could result in modifying the development to address coastal hazards even if a coastal hazard was not the cause of the property damage. The City Alternative Modification version would restore the reference to the Coastal Act rebuilding authorization in the event of property destruction from a disaster.
A property owner that experiences noncoastal hazard damage would need to determine the extent of the damage (partial structural damage or complete loss/destruction) and determine if the property is located within the CVZ. Under the CCC Suggested Modifications version, a property located in the CVZ that needs to undertake an SSM to restore the property would need to apply policies for that type of development (see Case Study #3), which could include having to modify the structure to ensure it is located outside of applicable coastal hazard areas for the anticipated life of the development. The City Alternative Modification to restore the reference to the Coastal Act provision authorizing the rebuilding of development in the event of destruction from a disaster would minimize the impact of the CCC Suggested Modifications.
The 1980 LCLUP would generally not require these types of analyses although zoning nonconformities may need to be eliminated during repair/rebuild of the property. However, as noted above in several case studies including Case Study #2 and #3, the CCC Suggested Modifications are de facto in effect within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction for coastal development permits appealed to CCC (which is often the case in Pacifica). The areas within the CCC Appeal Jurisdiction are those closest to the shoreline and typically have the greatest exposure to coastal hazards.
1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 29 Case Study #8: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (noncoastal hazards, such as fire, earthquake, etc.) 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Modifications City Alternative Modifications The Coastal Act contains a provision12 that
authorizes the replacement of any structure,
other than a public works facility, destroyed
by a disaster. As used in this provision, the
term "disaster" means any situation in which
the force or forces which destroyed the
structure to be replaced were beyond the
control of its owner. The replacement
structure shall conform to applicable existing
zoning requirements, shall be for the same
use as the destroyed structure, shall not
exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk
of the destroyed structure by more than 10
percent, and shall be sited in the same
location on the affected property as the
destroyed structure. Therefore, there is
already significant support in the Coastal Act
to rebuild development that is destroyed by a
disaster.
However, the above Coastal Act provision
does not clearly address situations where a
disaster significantly damages but does not
destroy a structure. In such cases, standard
provisions in the 1980 LCLUP would apply. In
most cases, restoration of the structure to its
pre-disaster condition would be allowable
provided the structure meets current zoning
requirements. If it does not, then provisions
in the zoning ordinance related to
Coastal Zone Wide: There are no CCC
suggested modifications that would alter or
modify the requirements to repair a structure
to its pre-damage form factor after
noncoastal hazard damage, such as a fire or
earthquake. However, a CCC Suggested
Modification deletes, among other provisions
originally approved by the City Council, the
reference in the Substantial Structural
Modification (SSM) definition to the rebuild
authorization in Public Resources Code
section 30610(g) when existing development
is destroyed. This deletion adds ambiguity to
the potential for development to rebuild
consistent with Public Resources Code
section 30610(g) when a total loss occurs.
In light of the deletion of the reference to
Public Resources Code section 30610(g) in
the SSM definition, the ability to repair
(partial damage) or rebuild (total loss)
depends on the extent of the damage,
specifically whether the repair/replacement
triggers the SSM definition, and whether the
affected property is located inside or outside
of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ).
Depending on the circumstances, the above
analysis in Case Study #2 through #5 would
apply.
Coastal Zone Wide:
In light of the potential significance of the
SSM definition as proposed by CCC staff in
the suggested modifications, City staff
recommends an alternative modification that
would explicitly reference the Coastal Act
authority to rebuild in the event of a disaster
that destroys a structure as provided in Public
Resources Code section 30610(g) in the SSM
definition. Staff does not believe the LCLUP
should limit the ability to rebuild in the event
of a disaster of the sort described in Public
Resources Code section 30610(g).
Properties that are partially damaged by a
noncoastal hazard would be subject to other
generally applicable requirements for
additions described in Case Study #1 through
#3, above.
12 Public Resources Code section 30610(g).
1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 30 Case Study #8: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (noncoastal hazards, such as fire, earthquake, etc.) nonconformities would apply. In general, a
structure that is damaged by 50 percent or
more of its market value, as determined by a
certified appraiser hired by the property
owners, may be restored only if made to
conform to all the applicable regulations of
the zoning district in which such structure is
located.
13 In some cases, it may be possible
to obtain approval of a use permit and site
development permit to restore the structure
to its nonconforming condition, and the City
may impose any performance standards
deemed appropriate pursuant to subsection
(5) of subsection (b) of Pacifica Municipal
Code section 9-4.3002.
A project seeking to restore development
and expand beyond the pre-disaster
characteristics of the structure may require a
coastal development permit (CDP) and be
subject to ordinary provisions regulating
development as described above in Case
Studies #2 through 5. For a project appealed
to the CCC, the CCC may impose
requirements described above in Case
Studies #2 through 6 related to substantial
modifications that render a project “new
development” as it relates to coastal hazard
analysis and eligibility for shoreline
protection structures.
13 Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.3002(c)(1)(iv).
1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 31 Figure 7: Excerpt from 2020 LCLUP, Appendix B-3 “Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map: Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, and Mori Point” • Ability to rebuild/repair property after
hazard damage varies by location
within the CVZ.
• Rebuild/repair in the CVZ is most
restrictive if an SSM would occur.
• CCC Suggested Modifications do not
currently allow Coastal Act authority
for complete rebuild if property
destroyed by disaster. City
Alternative Modification would
restore this reference, benefitting
property rebuilds in event of
destruction from disaster.
• For development located within CCC
Appeal Jurisdiction, CCC Suggested
Modifications already de facto in
effect for projects appealed to CCC.
• Rebuild/repair outside CVZ subject to
standard development policies,
including SSM projects.
Case Study Legend
CCC Appeal Jurisdiction
(approximate boundary
for illustrative purposes
only)
1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 32 Case Study #9: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (repetitive coastal hazard damage, including tsunami)
Quick Take: See Case Study #8, above. The City Alternative Modifications no longer include a provision addressing repetitive coastal hazard damage. However, CCC staff is exploring the potential to apply a repetitive coastal hazard policy to some areas of Pacifica that are at highest risk from coastal hazards. City staff is seeking greater detail on potential locations for application of this policy. 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Mods City Alternative Modifications As discussed in Case Study #8, above, the
Coastal Act contains a provision that
authorizes the replacement of any structure,
other than a public works facility, destroyed
by a disaster. For this purpose, term
“disaster” means any situation in which the
force or forces which destroyed the structure
to be replaced were beyond the control of its
owner. The replacement structure shall
conform to applicable existing zoning
requirements, shall be for the same use as
the destroyed structure, shall not exceed
either the floor area, height, or bulk of the
destroyed structure by more than 10 percent,
and shall be sited in the same location on the
affected property as the destroyed structure.
However, as also discussed in Case Study #8,
the above Coastal Act provision does not
clearly address situations where a disaster
significantly damages but does not destroy a
structure. In such cases, standard provisions
in the 1980 LCLUP would apply. In most
cases, restoration of the structure to its predisaster condition would be allowable provided the structure meets current zoning
requirements.
Coastal Zone Wide: There are no CCC
suggested modifications that would alter or
modify the requirements to rebuild after
repetitive coastal hazard damage, such as
wave overtopping or coastal flooding.
Depending on the extent of the damage (i.e.,
whether the replacement triggers the
Substantial Structural Modification (SSM)
definition or not), and the locations (inside or
out of Coastal Vulnerability Zones (CVZ)), as
described in the discussion under “CCC
Suggested Modifications” in Case Study #2 or
#3 above would apply.
Note also as described in Case Study #8,
above, a CCC Suggested Modification deleted
reference to Public Resources Code section
30610(g) in the SSM definition which would
authorize rebuilding of development
destroyed by a disaster. A City Alternative
Modification would restore this reference.
Coastal Zone Wide:
Restoration of property damage from coastal
hazards does not differ from restoration from
damage caused by noncoastal hazards. As
described in Case Study #8, above, City staff
recommends an alternative modification that
would explicitly reference in the SSM
definition the Coastal Act authority to rebuild
in the event of a disaster that destroys a
structure as provided in Public Resources
Code section 30610(g). Staff does not believe
the LCLUP should limit the ability to rebuild in
the event of a disaster of the sort described
in Public Resources Code section 30610(g).
Properties that are partially damaged by a
hazard would be subject to other generally
applicable requirements for additions
described in Case Study #1 through #3,
above.
Note that while a repetitive coastal hazard
damage policy is no longer intended to be a
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 highrisk areas of Pacifica, to be determined at a
1.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update Case Studies, Page 33 Case Study #9: Residential Rebuild After Substantial Damage (repetitive coastal hazard damage, including tsunami)
Quick Take: See Case Study #8, above. The City Alternative Modifications no longer include a provision addressing repetitive coastal hazard damage. However, CCC staff is exploring the potential to apply a repetitive coastal hazard policy to some areas of Pacifica that are at highest risk from coastal hazards. City staff is seeking greater detail on potential locations for application of this policy. 1980 LCLUP CCC Suggested Mods City Alternative Modifications See Case Study #8 for discussion of other
considerations that may affect restoration of
a structure damaged by a coastal hazard.
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 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.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B Case Studies (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 2 2.1 Parks and
Open Space
Sandy beach areas; including properties that are fully on beaches or coastal dunes or bluffs;
N/A CCC suggested modification adds new text
2 2.2 Coastal
Development
Review
These exemptions are generally set forth in
Section 30610 of the PRC and Sections 13252,
13252, and 13250 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR)
These exemptions are generally set forth in Section
30610 of the PRC and Sections 13252, 13253, and
13250 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
N/A CCC suggested modification addresses a typo
with the code sections
2 2.3 LD-I-2 Designed to minimize impacts to public access, recreation, and coastal resources.
Designed to minimize impacts to public access,
recreation, and other coastal resources.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds the word
“other”
2 2.3 LD-I-2: Land
Divisions in
the Coastal
Zone
N/A Prohibited on properties that are within Coastal
Vulnerability Zones, unless the resulting parcels are
set aside for conservation, or unless the resulting
parcels can be developed consistent with the LCP.
N/A CCC suggested modification restates Coastal
Act prohibition on intensifying land
use/subdividing land in hazard areas.
2 2.4 LD-I-3:
Coastal
Development
Permit
Findings
N/A In advance of updating the Implementation Plan for
conformance with the policies of this 2023 Land
Use Plan, the policies of the Land Use Plan shall
provide the standard of review for any proposed
new development, including where these policies
are more protective of ESHA and other coastal
resources and maximizing public access as
consistent with the Coastal Act.
N/A CCC suggested modification resolves potential
conflicts during transition period following
LCLUP certification until General Plan and
zoning (Implementation Plan, or IP) is updated.
2 2.5 Central
Pacifica
Coastal Zone
Any development of the Quarry site will require
detailed evaluation of biological resources to
ensure that sensitive habitat and wetlands are
protected; the likely footprint of development
could be much smaller than the area designated.
Any development of the Quarry site will require
detailed evaluation of biological resources to
ensure that sensitive habitat and wetlands are
protected; and should be sited and designed to
minimize coastal hazard risks in accordance with
policies in Chapter 5 and 6 of the LUP. The likely
footprint of development could be much smaller
than the area designated.
N/A CCC suggested modification restates coastal
development requirements related to hazards
and refers to the relevant Chapters 5 and 6 of
the LCLUP.
2 2.6 LD-I-14:
Promenade
Area and
Beach
Boulevard
Property
Enhance the Promenade area as a local
community and tourist destination.
Enhance the Promenade area as a local community
and tourist destination, while also ensuring that it
adequately responds to and addresses coastal
hazard considerations consistent with the LCP.
Enhance the Promenade area as a local community
and tourist destination, while also ensuring that it
adequately responds to and addresses coastal
hazard considerations consistent with the LCP.
Non-permanent improvements shall not require
additional analysis.
CCC suggested modification clarifies the policy
related to the Beach Boulevard Promenade.
City staff is generally in support of the
suggested modification; however, City staff is
proposing an alternative modification to clarify
that non-permanent improvements, such as
bench and trash receptacles, do not require
additional analysis. This will help to streamline
any such improvements in the future.
2 2.6 LD-I-14:
Promenade
Area and
Beach
Boulevard
Property
The preferred use is a hotel if market conditions
allow, but other appropriate uses will include a
conventional commercial/residential mixed-use
project with cafes, restaurants, retail, and upperlevel housing. The mix of uses for any non-hotel project shall emphasize uses that are of interest to
visitors and that generate revenues for the City.
Appropriate uses could include a hotel or
conventional commercial/residential mixed-use
project with cafes, restaurants, retail, and upperlevel housing, if such uses are deemed appropriate considering coastal hazards and the required
protections for coastal resources. The mix of uses
for any proposal shall emphasize uses that are of
N/A CCC suggested modification eliminates hotel as
preferred use, but continues to allow a hotel on
the site
1.c
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification interest to visitors and that generate revenues for
the City.
2 2.7 LD-I-16:
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Enable the responsible development and
environmental conservation of the Quarry Site.
Enable the responsible development and
environmental conservation of the Quarry Site,
considering the potential coastal hazard constraints
(including but not limited to bluff erosion, slope
stability, and flooding), as well as the biological
constraints (specific to sensitive species,
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and
wetlands) and coastal resource protection more
broadly.
N/A CCC suggested modification restates coastal
development requirements related to hazards
and biological resources protections.
2 2.7 LD-I-16:
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Allowable development should provide City
revenues substantial public open space, and
commercial uses and public spaces attractive to
both visitors and local residents.
Allowable development should provide community
benefits, including substantial public open space,
and commercial uses and public spaces attractive
to both visitors and local residents.
N/A CCC suggested modification revised City
revenues to community benefits.
2 2.8 LD-I-20:
Undeveloped
San Pedro
Avenue Site
Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning
district to allow small-scale visitor-oriented
commercial uses as a stand-alone project without
any residential development, or small-scale visitororiented commercial uses with residential development at a density range of three to five
units per gross acre. Housing may be clustered,
and uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally.
Residential uses may be constructed attached to
or detached from commercial uses, provided the
overall site contains both commercial and
residential uses.
Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning
district to allow small-scale visitor-oriented
commercial uses as a stand-alone project without
any residential development, or small-scale visitororiented commercial uses with some low density residential development. Housing may be
clustered, and uses may be mixed vertically or
horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed
attached to or detached from commercial uses,
provided the overall site contains both commercial
and residential uses.
Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning
district to allow small-scale visitor-oriented
commercial uses as a stand-alone project without
any residential development, or small-scale visitororiented commercial uses with some low density residential development at a density range of the
lower third of the CRMU density range. Housing may
be clustered, and uses may be mixed vertically or
horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed
attached to or detached from commercial uses,
provided the overall site contains both commercial
and residential uses.
CCC suggested modification increases the
density allowances. After clarification from CCC
staff, that was not the intent of the revision.
City staff is proposing an alternative
modification that achieves the same previously
approved lower density range by using
different terms that are preferrable to the CCC
staff.
2.8 LD-I-20:
Undeveloped
San Pedro
Avenue Site
Development must include public coastal access
and must provide public open space.
Development must include public coastal access,
provide public open space, and consider all
biological constraints.
N/A CCC suggested modification clarifies
requirements for development of this site.
2 2.9 LD-I-26:
Enhanced
Visitor Node
Create a visitor-oriented commercial and
hospitality node at Rockaway Beach and on
developable portions of the Rockaway Quarry site
which contains distinctive design, uses, and
recreational opportunities.
Taking all site constraints into account, create a
visitor-oriented commercial and hospitality node at
Rockaway Beach and on developable portions of
the Rockaway Quarry site which contains distinctive
design, uses, and recreational opportunities.
N/A CCC suggested modification restates coastal
development requirements related to
considering site constraints such as coastal
hazards.
2 2.10 Development
Capacity and
Projections
As noted above, the Quarry site’s development
capacity may be further reduced by site-specific
analyses of geotechnical and biological.
As noted above, the Quarry site’s development
capacity may be further reduced by site-specific
analyses of geotechnical and biological constraints.
N/A CCC suggested modification fixes a typo.
2 2.11 LD-I-27:
Public
Service
Priorities
Ensure that needs generated by development or
uses permitted over the planning period are
adequately served by existing and planned public
works facilities.
Ensure that needs generated by development or
uses permitted over the planning period are
adequately served by existing and planned public
works facilities, and plan for the maintenance,
operation, expansion and improvement to public
facilities considering threats from coastal hazards.
Support studies that evaluate the condition of
critical facilities, especially public works
infrastructure that has been identified as
N/A CCC suggested modification requires analysis of
alternatives for potential retrofit or relocation
but does not mandate relocation.
1.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification vulnerable to hazards. Studies shall include
alternatives analyses for potential retrofit,
improvements, relocation, or other considerations.
2 2.12 LD-I-37:
Public
Services for
New
Development
s
N/A Public Services for New Development.
Development shall only be approved if it can be
shown that it can be accommodated by adequate
and sustainable public services (including in terms
of water, sewer, and circulation) without any
significant impacts to coastal resources. Public
service development shall be limited to levels that
are sufficient to accommodate LCP consistent
development, including at buildout, and shall not
be allowed if it would be growth inducing past that
threshold.
Public Services for New Development. Avoid locating
new or expanded public service facilities in the
Coastal Vulnerability Zone. If no feasible alternative
exists and a new or expanded public service facility
must be located within the Coastal Vulnerability
Zone, development shall be consistent with this LCP
and the Coastal Act.
CCC suggested modification may impact
infrastructure within the Coastal Zone that
serves areas outside the Coastal Zone. City staff
alternative modification allows new or
expanded public services within the CVZ only if
no other location can be accommodated.
Additionally, new or expanded public services
within the CVZ must design in compliance with
other LCP policies, such as designing for
adaptation, and the Coastal Act.
3 3.1 Coastal
Access Points
Maintain public parking as part of redevelopment
of City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property.
Maintain public parking as part of redevelopment
of City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property and
maintain lateral access along Beach Boulevard to
the Pier.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds requirement
for lateral access, which is a requirement under
the Coastal Act
3 3.2 Coastal
Access Points
N/A Conduct a prescriptive rights study. N/A CCC suggested modification requires additional study
3 3.2 Coastal
Access Points
N/A Conduct a prescriptive rights study. N/A CCC suggested modification requires additional study
3 3.3 PR-I-8:
Temporary
Events
N/A Only temporary events meeting all the above
criteria shall require coastal development permit
review, however, the Planning Director may also
exclude from permit requirements temporary
events meeting all the above criteria when:
• The fee is for preferred seating only and more
than 75% of the provided seating capacity is
available free of charge for general public use; or,
• The event is held on sandy beach area in a
remote location with minimal demand for publicv
use, and there is no potential for adverse effect on
sensitive coastal resources; or
• The event is less than one day in duration; or
• The event has previously received a coastal
development permit and will be held in the same
location, at a similar season, and for the same
duration, with operating and environmental
conditions essentially the same as those associated
with the previously-approved event.
The Planning Director (or the Coastal Commission’s
Executive Director if the Planning Director’s
determination is challenged) may determine that a
Only temporary events meeting all the above criteria
shall require coastal development permit review,
however, the Planning Director may also exclude
from permit requirements temporary events
meeting all the above criteria when:
• The fee is for preferred seating only and more than
75% of the provided seating capacity is available free
of charge for general public use; or,
• The event is held on sandy beach area in a remote
location with minimal demand for publicv use, and
there is no potential for adverse effect on sensitive
coastal resources; or
• The event is only one day in duration; or
• The event has previously received a coastal
development permit and will be held in the same
location, at a similar season, and for the same
duration, with operating and environmental
conditions essentially the same as those associated
with the previously-approved event.
The Planning Director (or the Coastal Commission’s
Executive Director if the Planning Director’s
determination is challenged) may determine that a
CCC suggested modification allows for
streamlined approval of temporary events
under certain circumstances. Generally, City
staff supports the approach. However, City staff
is proposing an alternative modification to
address typos and punctuation and clarify the
duration of events allowed under this criteria.
1.c
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification temporary event, even an event that might
otherwise not require a coastal development
permit per this section above, shall require a
coastal development permit if he/she determines
that unique or changing circumstances exist
relative to the particular temporary event that have
the potential for significant adverse impacts on
coastal resources. Such circumstances may include,
but shall not be limited to, the following:
• The event, either individually or together with
other temporary events scheduled before or after
the particular event, precludes the general public
from use of a public recreational area for a
significant period of time; or
• The event and its associated activities or access
requirements will either directly or indirectly
impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas,
rare or endangered species, significant scenic
resources (including as mapped on the LCP Land
Use Plan maps or as determined during project
review), or other coastal resources; or
• The event is scheduled between Memorial Day
weekend and Labor Day and would restrict public
use of roadways or parking areas or otherwise
significantly impact public use or access to coastal
waters; or
• The event has historically required a coastal
development permit to address and monitor
associated impacts to coastal resources.Temporary
events located solely within the Coastal
Commission’s original coastal development permit
jurisdiction area require review and determination
of coastal development permit requirement or
temporary event exemption from the Coastal
Commission
temporary event, even an event that might
otherwise not require a coastal development permit
per this section above, shall require a coastal
development permit if it is determined that unique
or changing circumstances exist relative to the
particular temporary event that have the potential
for significant adverse impacts on coastal resources.
Such circumstances may include, but shall not be
limited to, the following:
• The event, either individually or together with
other temporary events scheduled before or after
the particular event, precludes the general public
from use of a public recreational area for a
significant period of time; or
• The event and its associated activities or access
requirements will either directly or indirectly impact
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, rare or
endangered species, significant scenic resources
(including as mapped on the LCP Land Use Plan
maps or as determined during project review), or
other coastal resources; or
• The event is scheduled between Memorial Day
weekend and Labor Day and would restrict public
use of roadways or parking areas or otherwise
significantly impact public use or access to coastal
waters; or
• The event has historically required a coastal
development permit to address and monitor
associated impacts to coastal resources. Temporary
events located solely within the Coastal
Commission’s original coastal development permit
jurisdiction area require review and determination
of coastal development permit requirement or
temporary event exemption from the Coastal
Commission.
3 3.4 PR-I-12:
Coastal
Access Point
South of San
Francisco RV
Park
Lateral access along the bluffs should be provided
from this coastal access point to City- and Coastal
Commission-required public access at San
Francisco RV Park to the north, and to properties
to the south upon future redevelopment.
Lateral access along the bluffs as well as vertical
trail improvements should be provided from this
coastal access point to City- and Coastal
Commission-required public access at San Francisco
RV Park to the north, and to properties to the south
upon future redevelopment.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds language to
include vertical trail improvements.
3 3.5 PR-I-24:
Sharp Park
Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp
Park Golf Course consistent with redeveloping
source protection, natural hazard, and coastal
vulnerability policies, and support development of
additional recreational uses in upland portions of
Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp
Park Golf Course consistent with redeveloping
source protection, natural hazard, and coastal
vulnerability policies, existing CDP terms and
conditions, and support development of additional
Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp
Park Golf Course consistent with redeveloping
source protection, natural hazard, and coastal
vulnerability policies, existing CDP terms and
conditions, and support development of additional
City staff alternative modification would delete
the word “existing,” which clarifies that a CDP
must be obtained and can be modified through
the appropriate approval process over time.
1.c
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification the Park located outside the Coastal Zone east of
Highway 1.
recreational uses in upland portions of the Park
located outside the Coastal Zone east of Highway 1.
recreational uses in upland portions of the Park
located outside the Coastal Zone east of Highway 1.
3 3.6 PR-G-11:
Trail System
Expansion
Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a
connected trail network with communitywide links
to open space and recreation facilities, as shown
on Figure 3-3.
Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a
connected trail network with communitywide links
to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on
Figure 3-3, and to enhance and augment California
Coastal Trail connections and connectivity.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds the California
Coastal Trail to the policy.
3 3.7 PR-I-57:
Roadway
Retrofits
Roadway retrofits will require additional analysis. Roadway retrofits will require additional analysis, such as coastal hazard concerns in areas within the
Coastal Zone.
PR-I-57: Bicycle Roadway Retrofits
Roadway retrofits to create complete streets will
require additional analysis., such as coastal hazard
concerns in areas within the Coastal Zone.
consistent with this LCP.
CCC suggested modification adds language that
roadway retrofits need to analyze coastal
hazards. The City alternative modification
clarifies that the policy only applies to roadway
retrofits that do not increase capacity and are
intended to create complete streets.
3 3.8 PR-I-60:
Roadway
Abandonmen
t/Vacation
and Public
Access
Do not abandon, vacate, or render unusable any
City-owned right-of-way, unless necessary for
reasons of public safety or environmental
conservation. Whenever public roadways are
proposed to be abandoned, assess the value of
maintaining public pedestrian and/or bicycle
access, especially where coastal access can be
maintained or improved. Abandonment/vacation
of any public right-of-way that may negatively
affect coastal resources or public access to the sea
will require a coastal development permit. Any
public right-of-way that cannot be maintained in a
condition suitable for public use shall be offered to
another public agency or private association that
agrees to maintain the right-of-way for public use.
Do not abandon, vacate, or render unusable any
City-owned roadways and/or rights-of-way, unless
necessary for reasons of public safety or
environmental conservation. Whenever public
roadways and/or rights-of-way are proposed to be
abandoned, assess the value of maintaining public
pedestrian and/or bicycle access, especially where
coastal access can be maintained or improved.
Abandonment/vacation of any public roadways
and/or rights-of-way requires a coastal
development permit, which shall only be approved
if coastal resources can be protected in as good or
better conditions as exist at the time of permit
evaluation, and subject to terms and conditions to
ensure the public’s interests are maintained moving
forward.
Do not abandon, vacate, or render unusable any
City-owned roadways and/or rights-of-way, unless
necessary for reasons of public safety or
environmental conservation. Whenever public
roadways and/or rights-of-way are proposed to be
abandoned, assess the value of maintaining public
pedestrian and/or bicycle access, especially where
coastal access can be maintained or improved.
Abandonment/vacation of any public roadways
and/or rights-of-way may require a coastal
development permit, which shall only be approved if
coastal resources can be protected in as good or
better conditions as exist at the time of permit
evaluation, and subject to terms and conditions to
ensure the public’s interests are maintained moving
forward.
CCC suggested modification adds City-owned
roadways, in addition to public rights-of-way.
City staff’s alternative modification indicates a
CDP may be required (as opposed to requiring
it in all instances). It is possible certain
vacations may be exempt from CDP
requirements.
4 4.1 Surface
Water
Some of the watersheds drain directly into the
ocean, while other feed one of five.
Some of the watersheds drain directly into the
ocean, while other feed one of five creeks.
Some of the watersheds drain directly into the
ocean, while other feed one of five creeks.
The City’s General Plan consistency changes
eliminated this sentence and the suggested
modification is no longer applicable.
4 4.2 Wetlands N/A Importantly, wetlands in the coastal zone only need meet one parameter (i.e., hydrology, hydric soils, or
hydrophytic species) to be considered a wetland, as
differentiated from three parameter delineations
which require all three to be present (e.g., ACOE
delineations).
Importantly, wetlands in the coastal zone only need
to meet one parameter (i.e., hydrology, hydric soils,
or hydrophytic species) to be considered a wetland,
as differentiated from three parameter delineations
which require all three to be present (e.g., U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers delineations).
CCC suggested modification clarifies the
language; however, City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to address typos and
expand an acronym.
4 4.3 ER-I-1: Creek
Protection
and
Restoration.
Requiring a minimum of 100 feet setbacks from
the top of creek banks, or from the outer edge of
riparian vegetation, where it exists, for
development proposed adjacent to creeks, in
keeping with City regulations and Best
Management Practices. 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, shall prevent impacts
that significantly degrade the creek. Buffer
adjustments should also be limited to where the
Requiring a minimum of 100 feet setbacks from the
top of creek banks, or from the outer edge of
riparian vegetation, where it exists, whichever is
further, for development proposed adjacent to
creeks, in keeping with City regulations and Best
Management Practices. 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 creek resource impacts are avoided
Requiring a minimum of 100 feet setbacks from the
top of creek banks, or from the outer edge of
riparian vegetation, where it exists, whichever is
further, for development proposed adjacent to
creeks, in keeping with City regulations and Best
Management Practices. 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 creek resource impacts are avoided as
CCC suggested modification amends the text to
clarify exceptions; however, the statement “no
less than 50 feet in any case” is too prescriptive
and does not consider the quality of habitat or
design alternatives. City staff proposes to
eliminate the statement and the buffer will be
decided on a case-by-case basis as informed by
a qualified biologist.
1.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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 creek.
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.
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.
4 4.3 ER-I-1: Creek
Protection
and
Restoration.
N/A Permitted uses within buffer zones are limited to
uses dependent on the resources within these
areas and their buffer zones (i.e. habitat
management and restoration, scientific research
and educational activities, and low-intensity public
access and recreation). Temporary disruption (e.g.
less than six months) for the construction,
alteration, repair, and maintenance of existing or
newly permitted facilities or structures is allowed if
there are no feasible alternatives, the disruption
area is restored to its pre- disruption state or better within one year from the initial point of impact and
there is no significant ground disturbance.
Permitted uses within buffer zones are limited to
uses dependent on the resources within these areas
and their buffer zones (i.e., habitat management
and restoration, scientific research and educational
activities, and low-intensity public access and
recreation), except where reduced buffer is required
to avoid a taking or essential for the provision of
public services. Temporary disruption, as
determined by a qualified biologist in consideration
of on-site specific biological resources, for the
construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of
existing or newly permitted facilities or structures is allowed if there are no feasible alternatives, the
disruption area is restored to its pre- disruption
state or better within one year from the initial point
of impact and there is no significant ground
disturbance.
CCC suggested modification added language to
Policy ER-I-2 that specified allowed uses within
a designated buffer area. City staff is generally
in support of the suggested modification;
however, City staff is proposing an alternative
modification to clarify that takings avoidance is
a relevant factor for consideration, as is
provision of public services. City staff is also
clarifying that temporary disruptions may be
permissible if reviewed and recommended by a
qualified biologist.
4 4.4 Plant
Communities
and Wildlife
Habitats
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 species and habitats here are
not intended to preclude the possibility that other
species or habitat occur within Pacifica. Species
identified with various plant communities or
habitats are not necessarily present in the
Planning Area. Some of these communities are
recognized as “special status communities,” or
provide critical habitat for special status species.
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 mapped communities and habitats are
not intended to preclude the possibility that other
communities or habitat occur within Pacifica, nor to
definitively conclude that the plant communities or
habitats identified are present as indicated, rather
the map is a tool to help identify areas where
further evaluation for biological issue may be
relevant.
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 mapped communities and habitats are
not intended to preclude the possibility that other
communities or habitat occur within Pacifica, nor to
definitively conclude that the plant communities or
habitats identified are present as indicated, rather
The map is a tool to help identify areas
where further evaluation for biological issues may
be relevant.
CCC suggested modification clarifies the
language; however, City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to address typos.
Additionally, some of the City’s General Plan
consistency changes eliminated portions of this
text.
4 4.5 Annual
Grasslands
Annual Grasslands Grasslands N/A The City’s General Plan consistency changes eliminated the term “annual” from the header
and the suggested modification is no longer
applicable.
4 4.6 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,
depending on slope aspect.
Northern coastal scrub habitat is found on
undeveloped slopes, often in a mosaic with
grasslands. Northern maritime chaparral, a specialstatus community, is included in this category.
Northern coastal scrub dominated by either coyote
brush or California sagebrush, primarily depending
on slope aspect.
N/A CCC suggested modification removes the term
“annual” and generalizes language.
4 4.7 Seasonal
Wetlands
and Ponds
Seasonal Wetlands and Ponds Wetlands and Ponds N/A CCC suggested modification generalizes language
1.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 4 4.7 Seasonal
Wetlands
and Ponds
Seasonal Wetlands occur in smaller drainages and
localized depressions, forming ponds or flowing
water, and are underlain by saturated soils during
the winter and spring. Seasonal wetlands 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.
Wetlands occur in smaller drainages and localized
depressions, forming ponds or flowing water.
Wetlands also occur along in creeks, 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.
Wetlands occur in smaller drainages and localized
depressions, forming ponds or flowing water.
Wetlands also occur along in creeks, 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.
CCC suggested modification clarifies the
language; however, City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to address typos.
4 4.7 SpecialStatus
Species
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 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 support the California red-legged frog
as well as the San Francisco garter snake.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN 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.
N/A Generalizes language
4 4.8 N/A N/A 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 ice plant 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds a new habitat
category.
4 4.9 Potential
Environment
ally Sensitive
Habitat Areas
(ESHAs)
Figure 4-3 identifies potential ESHAs in the
Planning Area. Potential ESHAs include all
designated critical habitat for Endangered or
Threatened Species; special status communities10;
and areas designated as “other potential
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas”.
Figure 4-3 identifies potential ESHAs in the Planning
Area in three general categories: wetland,
stream/riparian, and other terrestrial ESHAs. These
potential ESHAs include all current designated
critical habitat for Endangered or Threatened
Species; known special status communities; 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.
Figure 4-3 identifies potential ESHAs in the Planning
Area in three general categories: wetland,
stream/riparian, and other terrestrial ESHAs. These
potential ESHAs include all current designated
critical habitat for Endangered or Threatened
Species; known special status communities; 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.
CCC suggested modification clarifies the
language; however, City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to address typos.
1.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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 other 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.
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.
4 4.10 ER-G-6:
Coastal
Environment
and Special
Species
Status
Communities
Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes,
coastal bluffs, and special status communities,
particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern
bluffs.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds new and
clarifying language.
4 4.11 ER-G-7:
Creeks and
Riparian
Areas as
Habitat
Protect year-round creeks and
their riparian habitats.
Protect year-round and intermittent creeks and
their riparian habitats.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
4 4.12 ER-I-21:
Protection of
Biological
Resources
with New
Development
2) Pre-construction plant and wildlife surveys:
Project applicants shall engage a qualified biologist
to conduct presence/absence biological surveys
for sensitive plant and wildlife species prior to
construction adjacent to or within identified
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.
2) Pre-construction plant and wildlife surveys:
Project applicants shall engage a qualified biologist
to conduct presence/absence biological surveys for
sensitive plant and wildlife species prior to
construction adjacent to or within areas identified
as potential ESHAs on Figure 4-3, or as otherwise
indicated and needed. 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
1.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 4 4.12 ER-I-21:
Protection of
Biological
Resources
with New
Development
3) Require biological resource assessments be
conducted prior to approval for any development
within 300 feet of creeks, wetlands, or other
sensitive habitat areas shown on Figure 4-3 of the
General Plan.
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 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.
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. 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.
CCC suggested modification clarifies the
requirements; however, City staff is proposing
an alternative modification to include the
reference to Figure 4-3 of the LCLUP.
4 4.12 ER-I-21:
Protection of
Biological
Resources
with New
Development
4) Require on-site monitoring of biological
resources by a qualified biologist throughout the
duration of construction activity.
4) Require on-site monitoring of biological
resources by a qualified biologist throughout the
duration of construction activity and afterwards,
should approval conditions warrant.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
4 4.13 ER-I-23:
Verification
of ESHA
N/A Historical evidence of ESHA N/A CCC suggested modification adds new subpolicy under Verification of ESHA. 4 4.14 ER-I-24:
Management
of ESHA
No new development shall be allowed within
primary habitat areas with the
exception of resource-dependent uses
that can be demonstrated to have no significant
adverse impact.
No new development shall be allowed within 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 disruption
of habitat values.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
4 4.14 ER-I-24:
Management
of ESHA
• Buffer areas shall be established around all
sensitive resources, providing a minimum of 100
feet, and varying as needed to account for
feeding, breeding, nesting, and other habitat
requirements. 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.
• Buffer areas shall be established around all ESHA,
providing a minimum of 100 feet, and may be
expanded as needed to account for feeding,
breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements.
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.
• Buffer areas shall be established around all ESHA,
providing a minimum of 100 feet, and may be
expanded as needed to account for feeding,
breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements.
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.
CCC suggested modification amends the text to
clarify exceptions; however, the statement “no
less than 50 feet in any case” is too prescriptive
and does not consider the quality of habitat or
design alternatives. City staff proposes to
eliminate the statement and the buffer will be
decided on a case-by-case basis as informed by
a qualified biologist.
4 4.14 ER-I-24:
Management
of ESHA
• Alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation,
impervious surfaces, noise, light, and glare shall be
minimized.
• Alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation,
impervious surfaces, noise, light, and glare shall be
minimized as much as possible.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends text to
clarify exceptions.
4 4.15 ER-I-28:
Construction
during
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
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
N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text related
to nesting during construction.
1.c
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification Nesting
Season
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.
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).
4 4.16 ER-I-30:
Protection of
the California
Red-Legged
Frog and San
Francisco
Garter Snake
To minimize disturbance, require all grading
activity within 100 feet of 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 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.
Allowed construction activity with the potential to
impact California red-legged frogs and San
Francisco garter snake shall be conducted during
the dry season (May 1 through October 15) to
protect California red-legged frog and San Francisco
garter snake. 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
4 4.17 ER-I-39: 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.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
1.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 5 5.1 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.
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, safety, and coastal resources.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
5 5.2 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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text in an introductory paragraph.
5 5.3 NH-G-1:
Reduce Risk
Minimize risks of property damage and personal
injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
Protect coastal resources, and minimize risks of
property damage and personal injury posed by
geologic, seismic and coastal hazards.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
5 5.4 NH-I-9:
Erosion
Prevention
Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by
revegetation or other acceptable methods.
Deleted NH-I-9: 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.
CCC suggested modification deleted the entire
policy related to hillside erosion prevention.
City staff alternative modification clarifies that
the policy is intended for hillside erosion, and
not bluff erosion.
5 5.5 NH-I-10:
Geotechnical
Studies
• Within 50 feet of a bluff. • Within 300 feet of a bluff edge in Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends policy to
include Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
5 5.5 NH-I-10:
Geotechnical
Studies
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 life.
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 anticipated life.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends the text to
be consistent with new definitions.
5 5.6 NH-I-17: New
Development
in Coastal
Zone
• Not accelerate the need for a shoreline structure
or increase the likelihood of a future seawall
beyond the existing development’s expected life;
N/A N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text related to new development.
5 5.6 NH-I-17: New
Development
in Coastal
Zone
Small improvement projects are exempt, including
improvements that would increase height, bulk or
floor area by less than ten percent.
N/A N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text related to small improvements to align with the
Substantial Structural Modification definition.
5 5.7 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. Flood
zones based on the FIRMs are shown in Figure 5-3.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
1.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 5 5.8 NH-G-2:
Development
in Hazardous
Areas
Protect development in 100-year floodplains and
tsunami hazard zones with flood damage
prevention programs.
Site and design development in 100-year
floodplains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize
hazard risk without the need for armoring (e.g.
flood damage prevention programs).
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
5 5.9 NH-I-24:
Flood Hazard
Reduction
Flood Hazard Reduction. Continue to comply with
the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the
Municipal Code.
Deleted N/A City staff is not proposing an alternative
modification; however, once the City’s Flood
Prevention Ordinance is certified by CCC an LCP
amendment can be processed to include the
policy in the LCLUP.
5 5.10 NH-I- 26:
Flood Control
Maintenance
Regularly maintain flood control structures,
including, but not limited to drainage channels,
pipes, culverts, and stream beds.
Regularly maintain flood control structures,
including, but not limited to drainage channels,
pipes, and culverts.
Regularly maintain flood control structures,
including, but not limited to drainage channels,
pipes, and culverts.
Routine maintenance of streambeds shall conform
to the Coastal Act, including but not limited to
Section 30236.
CCC suggested modification removed
streambeds from the policy. Significant areas of
Pacifica are serviced by creeks as critical
stormwater infrastructure that require regular
maintenance. City staff alternative modification
clarifies that all routine maintenance in
streambeds will conform to the Coastal Act.
5 5.11 NH-I-27:
Flood Control
Structures
Require flood control devices that alter streams to
incorporate best mitigation measures whenever
feasible, and only permit them where no other
method for protecting existing structures in the
flood plain is feasible, where such
protection is necessary for public safety, or to
protect existing development.
Require flood control devices that alter rivers and
streams to incorporate the best mitigation
measures feasible, and only permit them where no
other method for protecting existing structures in
the flood plain is feasible, where such protection is
both necessary for public safety, including for water
supply, and to protect existing development, or
where the primary function is the improvement of
fish and wildlife
habitat.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends policy text
to include rivers, water supply, and mention of
fish and wildlife habitat.
5 5.12 NH-I-31:
Critical
Facilities
Location
Site critical public facilities including hospital and
healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police
and fire stations, and emergency communications
facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone,
and 100-year flood plains.
Site critical public facilities including hospital and
healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and
fire stations, and emergency communications
facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone,
100-year flood plains, and other portions of the
Coastal Vulnerability Zone over the anticipated life
of the development.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends policy text
to include Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
5.13 NH-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.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends policy text
to expand considerations of ESHA buffers
5 5.14 NH-I-39:
Vegetation
Management
Promote and support the North County Fire
Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to
reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards.
Promote and support the North County Fire
Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to
reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards, if
consistent with the LCP.
Promote and support the North County Fire
Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to
reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards, if
consistent with the LCP.
CCC suggested modification amends policy to
require LCP consistency; however, City staff is
proposing an alternative modification to
address a grammatical error.
1.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.1 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 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.
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 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.
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
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. Balancing
appropriate protection of property and coastal
resources along the dynamic coastline is an
important theme in this chapter.
CCC suggested modification deletes
introductory text. City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to add language
related to balancing City priorities.
6 6.2 Coastal Act
Policies
Therefore, the policies focus on protection and
armoring of the shoreline 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.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification clarifies language
to be consistent with the Coastal Act.
6 6.3 Vulnerability
Assessment -
Pacific
Institute
Study
However, because the Coastal Vulnerability Zone
Maps show significant erosion for areas that are
protected by existing shoreline protection
structures, the Maps highlight the importance of
the existing structures and the vital need for them
to be maintained to protect those vulnerable
areas.
Deleted 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.
CCC suggested modification deletes
introductory text. City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to add language
related to the existing shoreline protections in
the City.
6 6.4 Adaptation
Plan
The cost-benefit analysis section of the Adaptation
Plan was not adopted or approved by the City of
Pacifica. The purpose of the cost benefit 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 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.
Deleted The cost-benefit analysis section of the Adaptation Plan was not adopted or approved by the City of
Pacifica. The purpose of the cost benefit 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.
CCC suggested modification deletes
introductory text. City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to add language
related to the cost-benefit analysis.
6 6.4 Adaptation
Plan
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 and
reassessment of the Adaptation Plan in the future.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
1.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.4 Adaptation
Plan
Therefore, changes to the cost-benefit analysis 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.
Deleted Therefore, changes to the cost-benefit analysis are not necessary to inform the Coastal Resiliency
policies.
CCC suggested modification deletes
introductory text. City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to add language
related to the cost-benefit analysis.
6 6.4 Adaptation
Plan
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. 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.
Deleted 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 policies in
this LCP and any future changes to these policies will
require an amendment to this LCP.
CCC suggested modification deletes
introductory text. City staff is proposing an
alternative modification to add language
related to the Adaptation Plan and potential
future changes.
6 6.5 CR-I-1:
Vulnerability
Identification
and Mapping
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.
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 zone.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends policy to
include Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
6 6.6 CR-I-2: Sea
Level Rise
Adaptation
Plan
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text
6 6.6 CR-I-2: Sea
Level Rise
Adaptation
Plan
b. All project impacts on coastal resources are
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.
b. All project impacts on coastal resources are
avoided, and where unavoidable, minimized and
mitigated to the maximum extent consistent with
Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-59.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends policy to
prioritize avoidance of coastal resource impacts
6 6.6 CR-I-2: Sea
Level Rise
Adaptation
Plan
c. The project will not pose unacceptable risks to
life or property or otherwise create a nuisance;
and
c. The project will not pose unacceptable risks to
life or property for the anticipated life of the
development or otherwise create a nuisance;
N/A Clarification to align with proposed added
definition of "anticipated life"
6 6.6 CR-I-2: Sea
Level Rise
Adaptation
Plan
d. The project will not encroach on public trust
lands.
d. The project will not encroach on public trust
lands for the anticipated life of the development;
and
N/A Clarification to align with proposed added
definition of "anticipated life"
1.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.6 CR-I-2: Sea
Level Rise
Adaptation
Plan
N/A e. The project is designed to assure stability and
structural integrity absent the need for shoreline
protective devices.
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.
CCC suggested modification is an addition of a
Coastal Act provision. City staff alternative
modification clarifies that the policy relates to
the anticipated life of the development
consistent with other policies in the LCP.
6 6.7 CR-I-3:
Monitoring
Shoreline
Change
The monitoring program shall include yearly
(minimum) shoreline and bluff edge surveys and
also establish thresholds for reassessing the City’s
Adaptation Plan.
The monitoring program shall include biannual
(minimum following winter and summer) shoreline
and bluff edge surveys and also establish thresholds
for reassessing the City’s Adaptation Plan.
The monitoring program shall include 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 perform
half of the required surveys each year.
CCC suggested modification would require the
City to conduct additional monitoring. The new
requirement may be too burdensome on City
resources. City staff proposes an alternative
modification that would allow the City to
alternate the areas that are surveyed and
timing in order to realistically meet the
requirements of this policy. The schedule
would be created in coordination with CCC staff
in order to provide the most valuable and
efficient data.
6 6.8 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.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification requires LCP
amendment to incorporate shoreline mitigation
program
6 6.8 CR-I-5:
Shoreline
Mitigation
Program
Until the adoption of a Shoreline Mitigation
Program, coastal resource impacts shall be
mitigated in accordance with CR-I-59.
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.
N/A CCC suggested modification requires LCP
amendment to incorporate shoreline mitigation
program
6 6.9 CR-I-8:
Critical
Transportatio
n
Infrastructur
e
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.
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.
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.
City staff alternative modification would delete
the word “prior,” which clarifies that a permit
must be obtained and can be modified through
the appropriate approval process over time.
6 6.10 CR-I-9:
Hazard Prone
Infrastructur
e
The City will preserve, protect, or relocate hazard
prone infrastructure to maintain critical services.
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.
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.
City staff alternative modification would delete
the word “prior,” which clarifies that a permit
must be obtained and can be modified through
the appropriate approval process over time.
1.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.11 CR-I-15:
Shoreline
Protection
Structures
N/A 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.12 CR-I-16:
Beach
Nourishment
N/A Beach Nourishment. Evaluate the feasibility of
using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand
retention structures (see artificial headlands
concept in the Adaptation Plan) as described in CRI-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. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse
impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
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 requirements
and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width
on average, consistent with other LCP 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.
CCC suggested modification was an attempt to
organize the document by taking several
policies in the subarea sections related to
Beach Nourishment and putting them in
Section 6.5 Coastal Resiliency Policies to apply
to the entire Coastal Zone. However, City staff
proposes an alternative modification that is
more inclusive of all the language that is
included in the 2020 Revised Certification Draft
related to Beach Nourishment by deleting CR-I55 and incorporating the language into CR-1-
16. 1.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.13 Sub-area
Policies and
Programs
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.13 Sub-area
Policies and
Programs
Generally, for all lands within the 2050 Pacific
Institute erosion hazard zone11, utilities, roadways
and other public infrastructure should be
floodproofed unless other adaptation alternatives
are implemented and performing well.
Generally, for land within the Coastal Vulnerability
zones, 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends text to use
Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
6 6.13 Sub-area
Policies and
Programs
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 (CR-I61).
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 underperformance of protection measures, only if such floodproofing infrastructure is the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative and
consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies (CR-I61).
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 underperformance of protection measures, only if such floodproofing infrastructure is designed to eliminate
or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand
supply, consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies
(CR-I-61).
CCC suggested modification amends text to
related to floodproofing infrastructure. City
staff is proposing an alternative modification to
clarify requirements for sand supply.
6 6.13 Sub-area
Policies and
Programs
The City’s overall approach for new development
is to minimize or avoid current and projected
future coastal hazards through siting and design.
At the same time, managed retreat is not included
in any of the near-term policies. Managed retreat
would be reconsidered if feasibility and
monitoring warranted, as detailed in Coastal
Resilience Policies CR-I-3 and CR-I-4.
The City’s overall approach to address 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification deletes
introductory language specific to managed
retreat. Since the text is not policy language,
staff is not proposing an alternative
modification.
6 6.14 Special
Resiliency
Areas
N/A N/A The Special Resiliency Areas (SRA) include the
existing shoreline protection structures in the
Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park sub-areas.
These areas have existing development patterns
with significant amounts of Pre-Coastal Act
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 policies applicable to this area is to
allow ongoing economic use and vitality of property,
provision of public services, operation of visitorserving uses, and protection of robust coastal access In order to address many of the CCC suggested
modification’s impacts on Pacifica’s existing
developed neighborhoods, City staff is
proposing an alternative modification that
would create two Special Resiliency Areas
(SRAs), which would allow those areas greater
flexibility in permitting requirements and
design.
1.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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.
6 6.15 CR-I-17
Shoreline
Management
Plan
N/A N/A 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 sources. The City will create a
funding and implementation plan with specific
projects to improve visitor amenities in the Special
Resiliency Areas or elsewhere in Pacifica. 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 and shoreline
protection device removal may occur anywhere
within the City of Pacifica.
In order to address many of the CCC suggested
modification’s impacts on Pacifica’s existing
developed neighborhoods, City staff is
proposing an alternative modification that
would create two SRAs, which would allow
those areas greater flexibility in permitting
requirements and design.
6 6.16 CR-I-15:
Shoreline
Protection
Structures (0-
1foot SLR or
260 foot
offset from
bluff toe to
infrastructur
e)
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
1.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.17 CR-I-16:
Beach
Nourishment
(2 feet SLR or
260-foot
offset from
bluff toe to
infrastructur
e).
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-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. Repeat as
necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and
monitor effectiveness over time.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.18 CR-I-18:
Shoreline
Protection
Structures (0-
1 foot SLR or
220-foot
offset from
bluff toe to
infrastructur
e or
development )
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.19 CR-I-19:
Beach
Nourishment
(0-1 foot SLR
or 220-foot
offset from
bluff toe to
infrastructur
e or
development )
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.20 CR-I-20:
Shoreline
Protection
Structures (0-
1 feet SLR or
70-foot
offset from
bluff toe to
development
or
Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 feet SLR or
70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or
infrastructure). Private landowners 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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
1.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification infrastructur
e).
6 6.21 CR-I-21:
Beach
Nourishment
(0-2 feet SLR
or 70-foot
offset from
bluff toe to
development
or
infrastructur
e).
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.22 CR-I-22:
Flood
Protection (1
feet SLR)
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.
Flood Protection. Enable property owners to
modify development structures 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.
Flood Protection. Enable property owners to modify
development structures 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.
City staff alternative modification would delete
the word “prior,” which clarifies that a permit
must be obtained and can be modified through
the appropriate approval process over time.
6 6.23 CR-I-23:
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Sharp Park Golf Course. Strongly support the City
and County of San Francisco’s 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.
Deleted Sharp Park Golf Course. Strongly support City and County of San Francisco’s ability to provide public
access along the coast, protect ESHA, and provide
flood protection.
CCC suggested modification deleted the entire
policy related to the Sharp Park Golf Course.
City staff is proposing an alternative
modification that would keep a policy related
to the Sharp Park Golf Course but would focus
on public access and resource enhancements.
6 6.24 CR-I-24:
Shoreline
Protection
Structures (0
feet SLR)
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
1.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.25 CR-I-25:
Structure
Elevation (0-
2 feet SLR)
Structure Elevation (0-2 feet SLR). Maintain
existing or construct shoreline protection
structures if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and
CR-I-57 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 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.
Structure Elevation. 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, determined via a site-specific study.
Structure Elevation. 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,
determined via a site-specific study.
City staff alternative modification would delete
the word “prior,” which clarifies that a permit
must be obtained and can be modified through
the appropriate approval process over time.
6 6.26 CR-I-26:
Beach
Nourishment
(0-1 feet SLR)
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.27 CR-I-27:
Flood
Protection (0
foot SLR)
(0 foot SLR) Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
6 6.28 CR-I-28:
Flood
Protection (3
feet SLR).
(3 feet SLR) Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
6 6.29 CR-I-29:
Shoreline
Protection
Structure
Shoreline
Protection
Structures (0
feet SLR).
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.30 CR-I-30:
Shoreline
Protection
(2-3 feet SLR,
or when
backshore
toe is 100
feet from
Highway 1).
(2-3 feet SLR, or when backshore toe is 100 feet
from Highway 1)
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
6 6.31 CR-I-31:
Public Access
(0 feet SLR).
(0 feet SLR) Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
1.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.32 CR-I-32:
Beach
Nourishment
/Public
Access (0
feet SLR).
Beach Nourishment/Public Access (0 feet SLR).
Plan and implement beach nourishment for
Rockaway Beach. Monitor and measure
performance and any reduction of shoreline
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.33 CR-I-35:
Shoreline
Protection (2
ft SLR or 100
foot offset
from
shoreline to
infrastructur
e).
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.34 CR-I-37:
Beach
Nourishment
(2 ft SLR or
100 foot
offset from
shoreline to
infrastructur
e).
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.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.35 CR-I-38:
Flood
Protection (0
feet SLR).
(0 feet SLR) Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
6 6.36 CR-I-39:
Flood
Protection (2
feet SLR or
100-foot
offset from
shoreline to
infrastructur
e).
(2 feet SLR or 100-foot offset from shoreline to
infrastructure)
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
6 6.37 CR-I-40:
Groundwater
Management
(0-2 feet
SLR).
(0-2 feet SLR) Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
1.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.38 CR-I-41:
Shoreline
Protection
Structure
Upgrades.
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 CRI-59, as necessary.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification reorganizes the
document.
6 6.38 CR-I-42:
Flood
Protection
(0-1 feet
SLR).
(0-1 feet SLR) Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification generalize policy and reorganized the document.
6 6.40 CR-I-43:
Technical
Reports.
Development proposed on the shoreline 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.
Development proposed 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends the text to
make the policy applicable to Coastal
Vulnerability Zones, instead of shoreline
properties.
6 6.41 CR-I-43:
Technical
Reports.
• consider the impacts from the med-high
projection (CalNRA & OPC 2018) of sea-level rise
for the anticipated duration of the proposed
development;
• 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 life of the proposed development;
N/A CCC suggested modification amends the text to
reflect that best available science may change
over time.
6 6.42 CR-I-43:
Technical
Reports.
• demonstrate that the development will avoid (or
if unavoidable, minimize) impacts from coastal
hazards to the maximum extent feasible; and
• 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;
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;
CCC suggested modification reflects language
from the Sea Level Rise adopted policy
guidance. City staff is generally in support of
the modification; however, staff is proposing an
alternative modification to address the Special
Resiliency Areas. The alternative modification
will give the SRA the ability to use the existing
shoreline protections structures when
analyzing coastal hazards impacts.
6 6.43 CR-I-43:
Technical
Reports.
N/A • 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
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language related to safety requirements.
6 6.44 CR-I-44:
Siting and
Design.
New development on vacant shoreline property
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. Permit
approvals shall prohibit shoreline protection
structures for the authorized development,
New development 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
New development 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 the anticipated life of
the development 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
CCC suggested modification amends the policy
to be applicable to the Coastal Vulnerability
Zone and reflects current CCC conditions of
approval. City staff is generally in support of the
modification; however, staff is proposing an
alternative modification to address the Special
Resiliency Areas. The alternative modification
will give the SRA the ability to use the existing
shoreline protections structures when siting
and designing development.
1.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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 a waiver of
any rights to such protection structures and where
necessary require a removal and restoration plan,
including bonding for large projects, to avoid
future shoreline protection structures or project
failure.
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 waive 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.
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 waive 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 in reliance on and in consideration of
protection provided by existing shoreline protection
structures.
Additionally, staff is proposing an alternative
modification to change the year time period to
“anticipated life.” A CCC suggested
modification added a definition for anticipated
life, staff is proposing this alternative
modification to be consistent throughout the
document.
6 6.45 CR-I-45:
Assumption
of Risk by
Private
Landowners.
Permit approvals of development on the shoreline
shall require the applicant to record a deed
restriction requiring the owner to assume liability
and indemnify and hold the City harmless and
make other acknowledgments relating to the risks
of development on the property.
Permit approvals of development in Coastal
Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Evacuation 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 of development.
Permit approvals of development in Coastal
Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami 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 of development.
CCC suggested modification amends the policy
to be applicable to the Coastal Vulnerability
Zone and Tsunami Evacuation Zone and reflects
current CCC conditions of approval. City staff is
generally in support of the modification;
however, City staff proposes to change
“Evacuation” to “Inundation” zone. The use of
Tsunami Evacuation Zones for this purpose is
overly broad and not closely enough related to
actual tsunami hazard conditions. City staff’s
alternative modification will ensure a
requirement more closely aligned with actual
hazard conditions.
6 6.46 CR-I-49:
Substantial
Modification
s to Existing
Structures.
Substantial Modifications to Existing Structures.
When a proposed physical improvement to an
existing structure would constitute a Substantial
Exterior Structural Modification (SESM), as
defined, the portion of the project constituting a
SESM 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.
Substantial Structural Modifications. When
proposed modifications to an existing structure
constitute a Substantial Structural Modification
(SSM), as defined, such proposed development
shall correct any existing legal nonconformities and
shall be undertaken consistent with the LCP and the
Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies CRI-43 and CR-I-44.
Substantial Structural Modifications. When
proposed modifications to an existing structure
constitute a Substantial Structural Modification
(SSM), as defined, such proposed development shall
correct any existing legal nonconformities and shall
be undertaken consistent with the LCP and the
Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies CR-I43 and CR-I-44. Except that in Special Resiliency Areas, development shall only be required to correct
existing nonconformities related to applicable
coastal hazards on the site.
CCC suggested modification requires projects
that meet the SSM definition to correct any
existing legal nonconformities, in order to the
entire site to be compliant with the LCP and
Coastal Act. Staff is generally in support;
however, staff is proposing an alternative
modification to address the Special Resiliency
Areas. The alternative modification will give the
SRA the ability to correct only existing
nonconformities associated with coastal
hazards present on the site, rather than a
broader range of potential LCLUP or zoning
nonconformities.
6 6.47 CR-I-51:
Habitat Sea
Level Rise
Migration
Buffers.
A sea level rise buffer area shall be added to
require 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. Habitats include all wetlands,
An additional sea level rise buffer area shall be
added to required habitat buffers if necessary to
allow for the migration of wetlands and other
coastal habitats caused by sea level rise over the
anticipated life of the development. Habitats
include all wetlands, riparian, intertidal/shoreline
A sea level rise buffer area shall be added to
required habitat buffers if necessary to allow for the
migration of wetlands and other coastal habitats
caused by sea level rise over the anticipated life of
the development. The overall buffer area shall
include both the sea level rise and habitat buffer.
CCC suggested modification would require an
additional seal level rise buffer. Staff is
generally in support of the modification;
however, staff is proposing an alternative
modification to clarify that a buffer area should
include all the buffer requirements.
1.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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.
and terrestrial environmentally sensitive habitat
areas (ESHAs) as defined by the Coastal Act. The
sea level rise projection considered shall be
determined based on the type of development and
current State guidance.
Habitats include all wetlands, 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 based on the type of
development and current State guidance.
6 6.48 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. The beach nourishment program 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.
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.
Delete and incorporated into CR-I-1 CCC suggested modification clarified that beach nourishment needs to be in compliance with
the Coastal Act. City staff proposes an
alternative modification that would delete CR-I55 and incorporate the language into CR-I-16. 6 6.49 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 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. Activities
considered “repair and maintenance” shall not
result in any enlargement or extension of the
shoreline protection structure, 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.
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,
removed if no longer necessary and/or allowed,
and the area restored. Activities considered “repair
and maintenance” shall not result in any
enlargement or 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification revises the policy
to align with other provisions in the LCP,
Coastal Act, and CCC policy. Staff is not
proposing alternative modification.
1.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 6 6.50 CR-I-56:
Existing
Shoreline
Protection
Structures
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.
Deleted 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.
CCC suggested modification deletes text related
to modifications to existing structures. City staff
is proposing an alternative modification to
clarify that maintenance and modification of
existing shoreline protection structures is
allowed.
6 6.51 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 be permitted consistent Section
30235 of the Coastal Act and with the LCP’s subarea policies only when required to serve coastaldependent uses or protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, when
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts
on local shoreline sand supply.
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 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, when there is no less environmentally
damaging feasible alternative and when designed
to avoid, and where unavoidable, minimize 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.
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 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 coastal
hazards erosion, when there is no less
environmentally damaging feasible alternative and
when designed to avoid, and where unavoidable,
minimize 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
CCC suggested modification amends the policy
to address alternative evaluation and
minimizing coastal resource impacts. City staff
is generally in support; however, City staff is
proposing an alternative modification that
would replace the word “erosion” with “coastal
hazards” in order to be more inclusive of the
variety of coastal hazards affecting the
coastline and in recognition of the deleted subarea policies. 6 6.52 CR-I-58:
Authorization
Limits of
Shoreline
Protection
Structures
Shoreline protection structures shall only be
authorized until the time when the existing
structure protected by such shoreline protection
structure: 1) is/are no longer present, or 2) no
longer require(s) armoring. 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.
Shoreline protection structures shall only be
authorized until the time when the structure
protected by such shoreline protection structure: 1)
is/are no longer present, 2) no longer require(s)
armoring, or 3) is redeveloped pursuant to the
definition of a Substantial Structural Modification
(SSM).
N/A CCC suggested modification amends the policy
related to time limits on shoreline protection
structures. Staff is generally in support of the
modification, if alternative modifications to
other policies related to the Special Resiliency
Areas (SRAs) remain.
Gloss
ary
7.1 Anticipated
Life
N/A 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds new text from
CCC's adopted guidance for residential
development and critical infrastructure.
1.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification Gloss
ary
7.2 Beach The expanse of sand, gravel, cobble or other loose material that extends landward from the 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 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification amends the text to
be consistent with Coastal Act.
Gloss
ary
7.3 Bluff A high bank or bold headland with a broad,
precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face
overlooking a plain or body of water.
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text to
eliminate redundancy.
Gloss
ary
7.4 Coastal
Hazards
N/A Include but are not limited to episodic and longterm 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.
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language.
Gloss
ary
7.5 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
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
N/A CCC suggested modification adds new text to
clarify terms used in document and be
consistent with the Coastal Act.
1.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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.
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.’
Gloss
ary
7.6 Environment
al Justice
The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures,
and incomes with respect to the development,
adoption, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies
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 policies
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 policies
The City’s General Plan consistency changes
eliminated this sentence and the suggested
modification is no longer applicable.
Gloss
ary
7.7 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.”
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text to be consistent with CCC guidance.
Gloss
ary
7.8 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.”
Deleted N/A CCC suggested modification deletes text to be consistent with CCC guidance.
Gloss
ary
7.9 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 pre- pared.
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.”
N/A CCC suggested modification adds clarifying
language to be consistent with CCC guidance
1.c
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification Gloss
ary
7.10 Substantial
Exterior
Structural
Modification
(SESM)
Substantial Exterior Structural Modification
(SESM): Any physical improvement which modifies
an existing structure, as defined, to achieve any of
the following:
i) a seaward encroachment of the structure; or
ii) removal or replacement of 50 percent or more
of the linear length of the exterior walls, 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
iv) 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 components of exterior walls such
as siding, shingles, and roofing materials and
windows;
ii) development on any site which is protected
from coastal erosion by an existing, permitted
shore- line protection structure;
iii) replacement of any structure pursuant to the
provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610 of
the Public Resources Code;
iv) the demolition and reconstruction of a singlefamily 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.
Substantial Structural Modifications (SSM): Any
physical improvement which modifies an existing
structure in any of the following ways:
i) 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
ii) an addition that includes new floor area equal to
50 percent or more of the structure’s total existing
floor area; or
iii) an increase of the existing building footprint
equal to 50 percent or more;
but excluding removal, replacement, or
maintenance of nonstructural exterior components
such as decorative siding, shingles, and windows.
Incremental changes that cumulatively amount to
replacement of 50 percent of more over time shall
also be considered a SSM.
Substantial Structural Modifications (SSM): Any
physical improvement which modifies an existing
structure in any of the following ways:
i) 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
ii) an addition that includes new floor area equal to
50 percent or more of the structure’s total existing
floor area; or
iii) an increase of the existing building footprint
equal to 50 percent or more;
but excluding removal, replacement, or
maintenance of nonstructural exterior components,
such as decorative plywood roof sheathing,
underlayment, siding, shingles and other roof
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.
Incremental changes that cumulatively amount to
replacement of 50 percent of more over time shall
also be considered a SSM.
CCC suggested modification deletes text to be
consistent with CCC guidance. Staff is generally
in support of the modification; however, staff is
proposing an alternative modification to clarify
that nonstructural elements and waterproofing
materials are not part of the SSM definition.
Additionally, staff is proposing an alternative
modification that would introduce the language
related to subdivision (g) of Section 30610 of
the Public Resources Code.
1.c
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Chapter Modific
ation
Number
Policy Number
and/or Subject
Addressed
City's Certification Draft CCC Suggested Modification Draft Alternative Modification Brief Summary/Justification 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.
1.c
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment C Summary Table with CCC Suggested Modifications and Alternative Modifications (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
1.d
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment D Rockaway Beach Map (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
1.e
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment E West Sharp Park Map (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 v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
g
Lan
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
to 30 d
develo
Densi
SAN PEDRO AVE
Note:
City of Pacifica
Local Coastal
Land Use Plan
March 2024
REVISED
CERTIFICATION
DRAFT
1.f
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) Pacifica City Council
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor Pro Tem
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Christine Boles
Planning Commissioners
Samantha Hauser, Chair
David Leal, Vice Chair
Lauren Berman
Daniella Devine
Alex Ferguson
James Godwin
Greg Wright
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Christian Murdock, Planning Director
1.f
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) May 2013
CityofPacifica
Local Coastal
Land UsePlan
October 2023
Prepared for
City of Pacifica
by
DKS Associates
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
ESA
1.f
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) This page intentionally left blank.
1.f
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan .............................................1-2
1.2 Planning Context........................................................................................1-4
1.3 Local Coastal Land Use Plan Requirements ..............................................1-4
1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations .............................................1-5
1.5 Guide to Using This Document...................................................................1-6
1.6 Plan Administration ....................................................................................1-8 2 Land Use and Development ................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Coastal Act Framework ..............................................................................2-2
2.2 Current Land Use Pattern...........................................................................2-3
2.3 Land Use Framework .................................................................................2-6
2.4 Coastal Development Priorities ................................................................ 2-14
2.5 Development Capacity and Adequacy of Public Services......................... 2-29 3 Public Access and Recreation.............................................................. 3-1
3.1 Coastal Act Framework ..............................................................................3-2
3.2 Coastal Access...........................................................................................3-2
3.3 Open Space and Recreation .................................................................... 3-12
3.4 Trail System ............................................................................................. 3-20
3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network ............................................................... 3-25
3.6 Roadway Network and Planned Improvements ........................................ 3-30
3.7 Public Transportation................................................................................ 3-38
3.8 Parking..................................................................................................... 3-42
3.9 Environmental Justice .............................................................................. 3-44 4 Environmental and Scenic Resources................................................. 4-1
4.1 Coastal Act Framework ..............................................................................4-2
4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................4-3
4.3 Biological Resources................................................................................ 4-12
4.4 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing.............................................................. 4-26
1.f
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 ii
4.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................... 4-28
4.6 Scenic and Visual Qualities ...................................................................... 4-30 5 Natural Hazards.................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Coastal Act Framework ..............................................................................5-2
5.2 Seismic and Geologic Hazards...................................................................5-2
5.3 Flooding ................................................................................................... 5-13
5.4 Fire Hazards............................................................................................. 5-18 6 Coastal Resilience………………………………………………………… 6-1
6.1 Coastal Act Framework ..............................................................................6-2
6.2 Sea Level Rise Key Findings......................................................................6-3
6.3 Preparation of Policies................................................................................6-4
6.4 General Policies ....................................................................................... 6-12
6.5 Coastal Resilience Policies ...................................................................... 6-13
6.6 Sub-Area Policies and Programs.............................................................. 6-15
6.7 New Shoreline Development Standard Policies........................................ 6-25
6.8 Shoreline Protection Structure Standard Policies ..................................... 6-28
6.9 Coastal Flooding and Other Hazard Standard Policies............................. 6-30 A Policies in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.......................... A-1 B Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps ........................................................B-1 References .....................................................................................................................R-1 Glossary ..................................................................................................................... G-1
1.f
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Pacifica and the Pacifica Coastal Zone....................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1: Current Land Use Distribution in the Coastal Zone............................................. 2-4 Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use in the Coastal Zone...................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3: Land Use Diagram .......................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-4: Sub-Areas and Specific Sites....................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-5: Pacifica Coastal Zone, North..................................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-6: Pacifica Coastal Zone, Central .................................................................................. 2-21 Figure 2-7: Pacifica Coastal Zone, South...................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 3-1: Coastal Access................................................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-2: Parks and Open Space System................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-3: Trail System.................................................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-4: Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................... 3-27 Figure 3-5: Roadway Network and Planned Improvements.................................................... 3-32 Figure 3-6: Transit Routes and Facilities ...................................................................................... 3-39 Figure 4-1: Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-2: Vegetation....................................................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-3: Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas............................................... 4-20 Figure 4-4: Visual Resources........................................................................................................... 4-32 Figure 5-1: Liquefaction and Fault Lines......................................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-2: Slope Failure and Shoreline Protection Structures................................................. 5-8 Figure 5-3: Flood Zones................................................................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-4: Fire Hazards................................................................................................................... 5-20 Figure 6-1: Coastal Resilience Subareas......................................................................................... 6-7
1.f
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Correspondence Between Coastal Zone Chapters and General Plan Elements........................................................................................... 1-7 Table 2-1: Land Use Classifications and Density and Intensity Standards .......................... 2-12 Table 2-2: Residential Development Capacity in the Coastal Zone Under the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.................................................................. 2-31 Table 2-3: Non-Residential Development Capacity in the Coastal Zone Under the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.................................................................. 2-32 Table 3-1: Coastal Access Points.................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-2: Regional Parks and Beaches in the Coastal Zone ................................................. 3-13 Table 3-3: Mode Priorities by Roadway Type ........................................................................... 3-31 Table 3-4: Definition of Multi-modal Level of Service Indicators.......................................... 3-33 Table 3-5: Beach Visitor Parking ................................................................................................... 3-42 Table 6-1: Proposed Future Sea Level Rise (SLR) Amounts for Various Scenarios with Associated Probability of Occurrence ........................... 6-5 Table 6-2: Summary of Methods and Data Sources for Economic Analysis....................... 6-10
1.f
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 1 INTRODUCTION
The Pacifica 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) is a policy document for the long-range development of the portion of the City of Pacifica within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone includes all land west of State Route 1, as well as Shelldance Nursery and some land south of City limits (see Figure 1-1, City of Pacifica and Coastal Zone). The LCLUP is an essential component of the City’s Local Coastal Program as required by the California Coastal Act. The LCLUP has been developed in tandem with the General Plan, which provides the direction for the future growth of the City, and articulates a vision of what Pacifica aspires to be.
1.f
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 1-2
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
The California Coastal Act requires every city and county lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP consists of two parts: a local Local coastal Coastal land Land use Use plan Plan (LCLUP)or plans, which specify specifies the intended uses of land within the Coastal Zone; and, an implementation plan comprised of the zoning ordinances; zoning district maps; and other actions which taken together implement the local coastal land use plan and Coastal Act provisions.
These provisions seek to ensure that public access to and along the shoreline is maintained; that water quality, marine life, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas are protected; and that coastal visual resources and special communities are preserved. The Coastal Act establishes calls for certain land use prioritiesuses within the Coastal Zone to have priority over other uses: recreation and visitor-serving uses, fishing, boating, and other coastal-dependent uses, and public works and industrial facilities needed to support priority uses. Other resource-based uses are also prioritized by the Coastal Act.
The Coastal Act is implemented through a partnership between the California Coastal Commission and local counties and cities, including Pacifica. By certifying an LCP, the Coastal Commission grants authority to the local jurisdiction to issue coastal development permits that are required for nearly all types of development1in the Coastal Zone. The LCLUP is the first and primary element of the City’s LCP. The LCLUP is consistent with the Coastal Act and will serve as the standard of review for the City to update its zoning code and any other implementing tools needed in the Coastal Zone, and apply to the Coastal Commission for recertification of the LCP.
The City of Pacifica’s previous LCLUP was certified in March 1980, and included two areas of deferred certification: Shelldance Nursery and the Quarry Site. The Coastal Commission retained permit-issuing authority in these deferred certification areas during the term of the prior LCLUP. The City has obtained certification of the Shelldance Nursery and Quarry Site in this LCLUP. The City’s certified Implementation Plan dates to June 1994.
Why Update Now?
The City of Pacifica last comprehensively updated its General Plan and LCLUP in 1980. In the nearly more than 40 years since then, many of its goals have been carried out, including a zoning codeZoning Ordinance 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 has changed. New priorities have emerged with a new generation of Pacifica residents and stakeholders. The General Plan and LCLUP update will providehas provided for a comprehensive assessment of current conditions, and it allows today’s residents to express a vision for the future.
1 See Glossary for Coastal Act definition of “development.”
1.f
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-3
Figure 1-1: Pacifica and the Pacifica Coastal Zone
1.f
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 1-4
1.2 PLANNING CONTEXT
Regional Location
Pacifica is within the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, and at its northern end is just 10 miles from downtown San Francisco. The cities of Daly City, South San Francisco, and San Bruno border the City on the north and east, and include urban development up to the City’s borders. Much of the land to the southeast and south is preserved as units of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, State and County parks, and the San Francisco watershed, and rural and agricultural land is prevalent to the south. The Pacific Ocean borders Pacifica to the west. Access to Pacifica is primarily via State RouteHighway 1 (SR 1, or Coast Highway) and State Route 35 (SR 35, or Skyline Boulevard).
Historic Development
Pacifica remained a mainly agricultural and undeveloped area untilPacifica’s earliest development occurred with the construction of the Ocean Shore Railroad in 1905, stimulated developmentsubdivided and developed a series of small, coastside communities, including Edgemar, Salada Beach, Brighton Beach, Vallemar, Sharp Park, Pedro PointRockaway Beach, and Rockaway BeachTobin (San Pedro Terrace-by-theSea). These communitiesneighborhoods, together with Pacific Manor, Westview, Fairway Park, and Linda Mar incorporated in 1957 as the City of Pacifica. The City grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, and most of its current housing-56 percent as of 2020-was built during those decades. Growth slowed in the 1970s, and then slowed further in the following decades, owing to the scarcity of developable land and infrastructure constraints. About 540 housing units have been built over the last 20 years, along with a limited amount of commercial development.
The Coastal Zone
Land within Pacifica west of State Route 1, as well as the Shelldance Nursery property located east of SR 1 and some additional land east of SR 1 south of City limits, is part of the Coastal Zone, subject to Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the policies of the California Coastal Act. Pacifica’s Coastal Zone comprises approximately 1,286 acres of land, or about 15 percent of the Planning Area. It includes a high proportion of the City’s commercial land and visitor destinations. The Pacifica Planning Area boundary, Coastal Zone boundary, and City limits are shown in Figure 1-1.
Pacifica's Coastal ZoneThese coastal sub-areas represent geographical areas with varied types of development, contains a wide variety of land uses, including public recreation areas, distinct residential neighborhoods, visitor-serving and neighborhood commercial development, and highly sensitive wildlife and vegetative habitats. The varied types of development of each coastal sub-area and the geographic relationships between them are an inherent and vital part of the character of the City. The General Plan and LCLUP strive to designate land uses and intensities suitable to the unique circumstances of each coastal area, adequately meet the needs of the City's residents and visitors, and be consistent with State Coastal Act policies. Chapter 2 provides detailed area maps and summary descriptions of seven identified sub-areas in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone.
1.f
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-5
1.3 LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Local Coastal Programs
The California Coastal Act of 1976 gave the California Coastal Commission broad authority to ensure that development along the coastline would protect and enhance coastal resources. The Commission carries out this responsibility in partnership with local governments, through the development and certification of LCPs.
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 30000 et seq. establish the State’s coastal management policies and the procedures for preparation, approval, and certification of LCPs.
In 2015, Governor Brown put into effect two regulatory requirements regarding climate change. These include Senate Bill 379, which requires local agencies to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in long range planning documents; and Governor’s Executive Order No B-30-15, which directs state agencies to factor climate change into planning decisions. This order has been promulgated by the Coastal Commission to include climate adaptation into LCPs.
In 2016, Governor Brown also signed into law Assembly Bill 2616 (AB 2616), amending the Coastal Act to give the Coastal Commission authority to specifically consider environmental justice when making permit decisions. This legislation also cross-references existing nondiscrimination and civil rights law in the Government Code and requires the Governor to appoint an environmental justice Commissioner.
Local Coastal Land Use Plan
To meet the requirements of State law, the LCLUP must comply with the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (Section 30512.2 of the PRC), and also be “sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions.” (Section 30108.5 of the PRC). During all phases of the LCLUP’s development, the public as well as affected agencies must be provided with extensive opportunities to participate (Section 30503 of the PRC). In the case of the Pacifica General Plan and LCLUP update, the planning process, including public participation, is detailed in Section 1.1 of the General Plan.
Implementation Plan
The implementation component of the LCP comprises the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other implementing actions within the Coastal Zonewhich taken together implement the local coastal land use plan and Coastal Act provisions. These are typically referred to together as the Implementation Plan (IP).
The LCLUP and IP work in tandem to implement Coastal Act provisions.
1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND REGULATIONS
The Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the General Plan
The General Plan and LCLUP updates have been conducted in tandem. While they are two separate documents, much of the descriptive text and many of the policies are overlapping. Policies that are included in both the General Plan and the LCLUP are marked with a in the General Plan.
1.f
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 1-6
Much of the background text is also the same in both documents. Detailed discussion of Coastal Act requirements and goals is included only in the LCLUP, while issues that are not relevant to Coastal Act requirements and goals are covered only in the General Plan. The term “Planning Area” is used to refer to the General Plan’s Planning Area, while the term “Coastal Zone” is used to refer to the area subject to the LCLUP. Each plan has a different organizational structure, to match its purpose. Plan organization is covered in Section 1.5. One environmental impact report (EIR) describes the expected environmental impacts of both plans.
Plan Bay Area
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) have adopted the “Plan Bay Area in 2013.” which serves as the SCS for the region. An update, Plan Bay Area 2040, was adopted in 2017 and forecasts transportation needs through the year 2040. Plan Bay Area 2050 will focus on four key issues—the economy, the environment, housing and transportation—and will identify a path to make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021.
This Plan will be the San Francisco Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan, and will satisfy the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) requirement established by Senate Bill 375, which will demonstrate how the region will meet greenhouse gas emission targets. The effort is focused on bringing together transportation, land use, and housing policies at the regional scale to support greenhouse gas emissions reduction while ensuring mobility. Regional priorities for transportation investments will influence Pacifica’s future circulation system.
Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan
A consortium of State and federal agencies, including the California Department of Natural Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers, is organizing a series of Regional Sediment Management (RSM) plans. The primary focus is on facilitating the movement of excess clean sand to areas experiencing high levels of erosion. Goals include restoring and preserving beaches; sustaining recreation; enhancing public safety; and restoring coastal habitats. The San Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal RSM Plan is currently being developed for the coastline between the Golden Gate and Pedro Point Headlands. The Plan’s purpose is to assist communities by providing information for decision-makers and offering recommendations specific to the coastlines of San Francisco, Daly City and Pacifica. The Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan may provide a vehicle for enacting RSM recommendations.
1.5 GUIDE TO USING THIS DOCUMENT
Plan Organization
This section describes the organization of the Pacifica 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the structure of guiding and implementing policies. The LCLUP is organized to follow the topical sections of the Coastal Act policies, and is organized as follows:
1.f
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-7
1. Introduction. This chapter summarizes the key themes and initiatives of the Plan. It covers the Plan’s purpose, process, planning context, State requirements, relationships to other plans, plan organization (here), and requirements for administration of the Plan.
2. Land Use and Development. This chapter describes the existing land use pattern and provides the physical framework for land use and development in the Coastal Zone. It enumerates development demand and capacity, and provides detailed descriptions of land use issues by sub-area. It describes how the land use plan and related policies support development prioritized under the Coastal Act.
3. Public Access and Recreation. This chapter includes policies, programs, and standards to ensure that public access to the coast is provided according to the policies of the Coastal Act, serving as the public access component of the Plan. It identifies future street and traffic improvements, and addresses walking, biking, transit, and parking to enable a multi-modal circulation system in the Coastal Zone. This chapter also contains policies relating to regional open spaces and beaches, the trail system, and parks and recreation, as they pertain to Coastal Act policies to ensure the public has adequate access to coastal recreation opportunities.
4. Environmental and Scenic Resources. This chapter includes policies relating to hydrology and water quality, biological resources, agriculture and coastal sediment, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and historic and archaeological resources and conservation. It also addresses water supply, sewerage, solid waste management, and recycling, as well as stormwater management and sustainable site planning. It also includes urban design policies to improve the city’s visual quality and livability, including its neighborhoods, mixed-use areas, hillside and coastal areas, and scenic routes. Policies are presented in terms of their satisfaction of Coastal Act provisions.
5. Natural Hazards. This chapter addresses the hazards posed by seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, impacts of accelerated sea level rise, and wildland fires, and provides detailed policies that respond to Coastal Act provisions for minimizing adverse impacts.
6. Coastal Resilience. This chapter addresses the unique challenges of adapting to climate change, especially sea level rise (SLR). It provides policies to allow for protection of existing development and to design new development in a manner adaptable to the changing coastline.
Table 1-1 shows how the chapters in the LCLUP related to General Plan Elements.
TABLE 1-1: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN COASTAL ZONE CHAPTERS AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS LCLUP Chapter Related General Plan Elements
Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Land Use and Development Chapter 4: Land Use Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation Chapter 5: Circulation Chapter 6: Open Space & Community Facilities
Chapter 4: Environmental and Scenic Resources Chapter 7: Conservation Chapter 3: Community Design
Chapter 5: Natural Hazards Chapter 8: Safety
Chapter 3: Community Design
Chapter 6: Coastal Resilience Chapter 8: Safety
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Policy Structure
Each chapter of the Plan includes background information to establish the context for policies in the chapter.
This background information is followed by two sets of policies, which together articulate a vision for Pacifica’s Coastal Zone that the Plan seeks to achieve:
1.f
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 1-8
• Guiding Policies are the City’s statements of its goals and philosophiesy. • Implementing Policies represent commitments to specific actions. They may refer to existing programs or call for establishment of new ones.
Policies provide guidance for development review, infrastructure planning, community facilities and services, and protection for the city’s resources, by establishing planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review. Explanatory material or commentary in italics accompanies some policies to provide further clarification of their application to particular sites or situations. The use of “should” or “would” indicates that a statement is strongly recommended but not mandatory; details will need to be resolved in LCP implementation. The use of “shall” or “must” indicates that a statement is mandatory.
Where the same topic is addressed in more than one chapter, sections and policies are cross-referenced.
Maps, Diagrams and Land Use Classifications
The maps and diagrams in the LCLUP illustrate a number of policies relating to land use, coastal access, circulation, environmental and scenic resources, and hazards. These maps and diagrams, and in particular the Land Use Diagram in Chapter 2, are important parts of the plan that contain information not presented anywhere else. All maps, diagrams, and figures are adopted parts of the Plan; however, their use is subject to any disclaimers or limitations set forth on the maps or elsewhere in this LCLUP.
The maps and diagrams included in the LCLUP reflect the best available information at a programmatic, or city-wide, level2. Maps and diagrams including biological resources such as special status species, wetlands, and streams, indicate areas where the presence of these resources are most likely to occur. However, additional information regarding such resources will become available through site-specific review of proposed projects, through future map/diagram updates, and through other means. Thus, protection of resources is not limited to those areas that are mapped in this document, and site-specific analyses shall be utilized wherever possible to ensure maximum protection of resources.
Appendix, Glossary and List of Acronyms
Appendix A presents the coastal resources planning and management policies that comprise Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act, or Section 30200 et seq. of the Public Resources Code. The policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act are hereby incorporated by reference into the LCLUP. Chapter 3 organizes these policies in six topical areas, which guide the organization of the LCLUP chapters: Public Access, Recreation, Marine Environment, Land Resources, Development, and Industrial Development.
The Plan concludes with a glossary to define important terms and concepts, and a list of acronyms that may appear in the preceding chapters.
2 The Vulnerability Zone Maps included in Appendix B will need to be updated to reflect new information regarding shoreline protection structures.
1.f
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-9
1.6 PLAN ADMINISTRATION
Amendments to the Plan and Periodic Review
The LCLUP is less flexible than a General Plan in that its amendment, even after certification, requires the approval of the Coastal Commission as well as the City. An exception exists for minor amendments and de minimis amendments if approved by the Coastal Commission’s executive director. Any such approval must be reported to the Coastal Commission for concurrence in order to be considered approved and certified.
Although Pacifica's LCLUP and General Plan are integrated, the coastal policies are clearly identified in order to facilitate the amendment process should that be desired in the future. The Coastal Commission periodically reviews certified LCPs to ensure that coastal resources are being effectively protected (Section 30519.5 of the PRC).
1.f
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 2 LAND USE AND
DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of this chapter is to describe existing and planned land use in the Coastal Zone and present the policy framework that will guide the City on development decisions. The chapter includes the Land Use Diagram, land use classifications, standards for density and intensity, and limitations on development. The land use framework for each sub-area is then provided in greater detail. Guiding and implementing policies aim to define the Coastal Zone’s physical development and reinforce the community’s vision while supporting Coastal Act goals.
1.f
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-2
2.1 COASTAL ACT FRAMEWORK
The California Coastal Act establishes certain priorities for the location and type of new development along the coast. These may be summarized in three broader categories: concentration of development; prioritization of coastal-dependent, visitor and recreation uses; and provision of public access and services. 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 by reference into this chapter.
Coastal Act Policies
Article 2: Public Access
• Section 30211 Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. • Section 30212 New development, shoreline access.
• Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities; encouragement and provision; overnight room rentals
Article 3: Recreation
• Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development • Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes • Section 30223 Protect upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses Article 4: Marine Environment
• Section 30235 Shoreline protection devices permitted when necessary to serve coastal-dependent uses or protect existing structures or beaches
Article 5: Land Resources
• Section 30240 Development in environmentally sensitive habitat areas Article 6: Development
• Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
• Section 30251 Protection, preservation, and enhancement of scenic and visual quality of coastal areas • Section 30252 Maintenance and enhancement of public access • Section 30253 Requirements for new development
• Section 30254 Public works facilities
• Section 30254.5 Terms or conditions on sewage treatment plant development; prohibition • Section 30255 Priority of coastal-dependent developments Article 7: Industrial Development
• Section 30260 Encouragement for coastal-dependent industrial facilities to locate or expand
1.f
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-3
2.2 CURRENT LAND USE PATTERN
Background
Before visitation by the Portola expedition in 1769, Pacifica was home to the Costanoans, now known as the Ohlone, who were stewards of the land for thousands of years. Pacifica remained primarily agricultural until after the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906. Land speculators, stimulated by the construction of the Ocean Shore Railroad in 1905, subdivided and developed a series of small coastside communities including Edgemar, Vallemar, and the areas now known as Sharp Park, Pedro Point, and Rockaway Beach. These communities, together with Pacific Manor, Westview, Fairway Park, and Linda Mar incorporated in 1957 as the City of Pacifica. The city grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, and most of its current housing was built during those decades, primarily east of Highway 1. Growth slowed in the 1970s, and then slowed further in the following decades, owing to the scarcity of developable land and infrastructure constraints. The Pacifica Coastal Zone is described in more detail by land use type in the paragraphs that follow.
Current Land Use Pattern
Parks and Open Space
The Coastal Zone covers 998 acres, not including road rights-of-way. Nearly half (479 acres) of this land is preserved as open space. This includes Mori Point, the Northern Coastal Bluffs, and Pedro Point Headlands, current and likely future parts of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Sharp Park Golf Course; and Pacifica State and Sharp Park Beaches.
Residential
Residential use makes up 21 percent of the Coastal Zone and 69 percent of developed land1in the Coastal Zone, covering 206 acres. Most residential land in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone (70 percent) contains single-family housing, but multi-family housing is the most prevalent housing unit type (57 percent of all housing units) in the Coastal Zone. Multi-family units are interspersed among single-family houses and commercial uses in the West Sharp Park neighborhood and concentrated along the coast in the West Edgemar-Pacific Manor neighborhood. The Coastal Zone also includes Pacifica’s only mobile homes and most of the City’s mixed use development, which account for 2 and 1 percent of housing units in the Coastal Zone, respectively.
Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use
The Coastal Zone includes 41 acres of commercial uses. Commercial land is located at Pacific Manor and Pedro Point shopping centers, and in commercial districts at Rockaway Beach, Palmetto Avenue, and Francisco Boulevard. Pacifica has a small amount of mixed-use development, mostly along Palmetto Avenue in West Sharp Park, in Rockaway Beach, and in Pedro Point. Overall, West Sharp Park has the greatest mix of uses throughout the neighborhood. Hotels, along with most visitor-serving commercial uses, are primarily in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood. The Coastal Zone also has a small amount of industrial land (13 acres) located along Palmetto north of the West Sharp Park commercial area.
Public and Institutional Uses
Public, community, and institutional uses occupy 39 acres of land in the Coastal Zone, including Ingrid B. Lacy Middle School; the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant; City Hall; the Sharp Park branch library; and other public administrative buildings.
1 Developed land includes all land uses except for Open Space, Agriculture, or Vacant/Undeveloped.
1.f
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-4
Agriculture and Recreation
There are approximately nine acres of land with agricultural-related uses in the Coastal Zone, outside city limits, at Shamrock Ranch along Highway 1.
Undeveloped and Vacant Land
Vacant or undeveloped land covers 206 acres or 20 percent of land in the Coastal Zone. About 29 acres of this land is outside City limits. Undeveloped land is present along the Northern Coastal Bluffs, the Rockaway Quarry site, Rockaway Headlands, and Pedro Point Headlands. Smaller vacant “infill” lots are scattered in neighborhoods. Given environmental factors such as slope and sensitive species, there are constraints on the development potential of many of these sites.
Figure 2-2 maps the Coastal Zone land use pattern, while Figure 2-1 charts the relative distribution of land by land use in the Coastal Zone.
Figure 2-1: Current Land Use Distribution in the Coastal Zone Open Space
48%
Public/
Community/
Institutional 4%
Residential Uses
21%
Commercial
and Mixed
Use 4%
Industrial Uses
1%
Agriculture,
Undeveloped,
or Vacant 22%
1.f
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-5
Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use in the Coastal Zone
1.f
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-6
2.3 LAND USE FRAMEWORK
The Land Use Diagram, (Figure 2-3) illustrates the community’s vision for land use in 2040. It reflects the Coastal Act priorities presented in Chapter 1, as well as the planning themes laid out in the General Plan. The land use classifications depicted indicate the use and form of development. New development will be guided by Plan policies and programs for hillside and open space preservation; and in infill housing, commercial, and mixed use development.
Land Use Diagram
The Land Use Diagram is a graphic representation of planned land use classifications; it will be used in conjunction with policies established in the Plan to review and approve, modify or deny proposed development projects. The Land Use Diagram includes a legend that shows land use categories whose densities and allowable uses are specified in the Land Use Classifications section.
Land Use Classifications
Land use classifications establish allowed uses, maximum density and intensity, and the type and character of development that is expected. Details on development standards are established in the Implementation Plan through the zoning ordinance, and more than one zoning district may be consistent with a General Plan/LCLUP land use classification.
According to State law, the General Plan must establish standards of population density and building intensity for each land use classification. The General Plan and LCLUP stipulate residential densities in housing units per gross acre; population density can be obtained by applying average persons per housing unit2to the housing unit densities. For nonresidential uses, the Plan specifies a maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site area (Floor Area Ratio or FAR). Recommended density and intensity standards do not imply that development projects must be approved at the maximum intensity specified for each use. Zoning regulations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce development potential within the stated ranges. Table 2-1 shows gross density standards for residential categories and FAR standards for the other uses.
Residential
Pacifica’s five residential classifications provide for a range of densities, consistent with neighborhood character and planned land use.
TRANSITIONAL OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL
In the Transitional Open Space Residential (TOSR) designation, residential and recreation uses are allowed at a gross density of up to one unit per 10 acres (or 0.1 units per gross acre). Existing legal lots less than 10 acres in area shall be allowed to develop one dwelling unit consistent with all other applicable zoning and development standards. The density assumed for buildout calculations is 0.08 units per gross acre.
OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL
In the Open Space/Agriculture/Residential (OSAR) classification, residential, agriculture, and recreation uses are allowed at a gross density of up to one unit per five acres (or 0.2 units per gross acre). Farm worker housing may be permitted on sites zoned for agricultural uses, consistent with State law, and shall not be included in density calculations for a site. The allowable density on a site will be determined by slope, geology, soils, access, 2 Based on 2013-2017 American Community Survey data, the number of persons per total housing units is 2.77.
1.f
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-7
availability of utilities, public safety, and open space values. The density assumed for buildout calculations is
0.15 units per gross acre.
VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) classification provides for development of 0.2 to 2.0 units per gross acre (or 0.5 to 5.0 acres per dwelling unit). Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted.
The density assumed for buildout calculations is 1.5 units per gross acre.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Low Density Residential (LDR) designation provides for is intended for single-family housing development ranging from three to nine dwelling units per gross acre. Single-family residential is the primary use intended for LDR areas. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Clusters of small-lot development as well as standard subdivisions will be allowed. Buildout is calculated at 6.5 units per gross acre.
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation is intended for a mix of housing types, including smalllot single-family, attached single-family, apartments, duplexes, townhomes and in mobile home parks at a density range of 10 to 15 units per gross acre. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Buildout is calculated at 12.5 units per gross acre.
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The High Density Residential (HDR) designation is intended for multi-family apartments, stacked flats, condominiums and townhomes in multi-story buildings located near shopping areas and transit. The density range will be 16 to 21 dwelling units per gross acre. , except that. sSites of 0.5 acres or more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. For lawful nonconforming sites less than 5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density shall be 10 to 15 units per gross acres. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Buildout is calculated at 25 units per gross acre.
Mixed Use
The Plan provides three mixed use classifications to create areas where housing and active commercial uses may be integrated. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are allowed as-of-right in all mixed use areas within the Coastal Zone, except hotels in the Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation.
COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE
The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) designation is intended for sites in the Coastal Zone with residential mixed use development potential, including mixed use with housing and retail, and/or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses such as retail, vacation rental, or time-share units. Residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations attached to or detached from commercial uses on the same site (horizontal mixed use). Hotels are not permitted.
Coastal access and public open space must also be provided, and environmental resources must be evaluated and protected. Sites may be developed up to an overall density of up to 15 units per gross acre, with clustering and sensitive site planning. Site-specific policies may further define residential densities. Non-residential development may have an FAR up to 0.5 FAR. The total FAR (residential and non-residential) cannot exceed
1.0. Buildout is calculated at 15 units per gross acre and 0.10 FAR of non-residential use.
1.f
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-8
MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD
In the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) classification, new development may include multi-family housing and building with ground-floor retail, restaurant or service uses and housing or offices. Residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations on the same site (horizontal mixed use). Public or community uses and hotels may be permitted at appropriate locations. The MUN classification allows a density range of 16 to 26 units per gross acre and nonresidential development with an FAR up to 1.0. on sites that are 5,000 square feet of area or greater. Sites of
0.5 acres or more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. For lawful non-conforming sites less than 5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density shall be 10 to 15 units per gross acres and nonresidential development FAR up to 0.5. The total FAR (residential and non-residential) cannot exceed 2.0. on sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater, and cannot exceed 1.0 on sites with less than 5,000 square feet of area. Buildout is calculated based on a 0.25 FAR for non-residential uses and 25 residential units per gross acre.
MIXED USE CENTER
The Mixed Use Center (MUC) classification is intended for high-density mixed use development, including public or community uses and hotels. Allowable uses include ground-floor retail, restaurant or personal service uses and housing or offices on upper levels.. on upper levels. Ground floor commercial uses must be constructed along the street frontage but are not required on the interior of a site. Residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations on the same site (horizontal mixed use). The MUC classification permits housing at a density range of 30 to 50 units per gross acre and a 2.5 FAR of non-residential development, provided the overall FAR does not exceed
2.5. For lawful non-conforming sites less than 5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density shall be 16 to 26 units per gross acres and a non-residential development FAR up to 0.5. Buildout is calculated at an FAR of
0.35 for non-residential uses and 2532 units per gross acre for housing.
1.f
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-9
Figure 2-3 Land Use Diagram
1.f
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-10
Commercial Uses
The General Plan and LCLUP establish five commercial classifications to accommodate a variety of potential commercial activities. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are allowed as-of-right in all commercial areas within the Coastal Zone.
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
The Retail Commercial (RC) classification is intended for retail, restaurant, and service uses, typically in singleor two-story buildings within shopping centers or on sites in the Highway 1 corridor. New development will be pedestrian-oriented. Offices may be located above the ground floor. The maximum FAR is 1.0. Buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.25.
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
The Office/Commercial (OC) classification permits offices as well as retail and service uses, typically in single- or two-story buildings. The maximum FAR is 1.5; buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
The Service Commercial (SC) classification is for industrial and heavy commercial uses, such as auto repair, equipment rental, storage, and materials salvage. The maximum FAR is 0.6; buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.25.
VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
The Visitor-Serving Commercial (VC) designation is intended to foster and protect areas that attract and cater to visitors, including hotels or a visitor attraction, such as an interpretive center or conference center, restaurants, retail and services, commercial recreation, or other compatible uses. Larger sites, with developable areas of two acres or larger, shall require a hotel, lower-cost overnight accommodation, or visitor attraction as part of new development. The maximum FAR is 3.0. Buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.
LOW-INTENSITY VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
The Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial (LIVC) district allows uses that create public access to the coastal setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions: campgrounds, rustic lodging, concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites, and similar uses. Existing permitted businesses that do not conform to the description of LIVC may remain until voluntarily redeveloped by the property owner or abandonment of the use has occurred pursuant to the nonconforming use zoning provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code (cessation of the use for 12 months, under current zoning provisions). In these areas, the designation indicates the long-term goal of transition to recreation-oriented land uses. Development may occur at up to 0.20 FAR, but must have an overall very low-intensity character on sites of more than one acre. Buildout is assumed at 0.05 FAR, recognizing the large land areas and minimal building expected to support recreational uses.
Public and Community Uses
Designations for public uses such as schools, civic buildings, utilities, and public parking areas are designated on the Land Use Diagram, and summarized below. Public park land is covered separately in the following section.
PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC
The Public and Semi-Public (PSP) designation indicates public or private schools, libraries, police and fire stations, and other civic and community uses. In the case that public facilities are converted or sold for new
1.f
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-11
uses, Plan land use classifications shall be updated. If a public school is discontinued, any proposed new use should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The maximum FAR in this district is 1.0. Buildout is assumed at 0.35 FAR.
BEACH AND COMMUTER PARKING
The Beach and Commuter Parking (BCP) designation applies to areas where the priority use is public parking to serve beach visitors and/or transit users. Sites are located adjacent to Pacifica State Beach and at Crespi Drive and Highway 1. Beach parking at the City’s Beach Boulevard property serving Pacifica Pier and Sharp Park should be conserved as part of development of that site.
UTILITIES
The Utilities (U) designation indicates the location of water tanks, communications facilities including wireless communications facilities, and other utilities serving the City. The maximum FAR in this district is 1.0.
Parks and Open Space
Pacifica is defined in large part by its open space system, with extensive land preserved as public open space, or designated for conservation. These categories are detailed below.
PARK
The Park (P) designation is applied to public land either now developed for active recreation use or intended for future recreation development. The designation applies to City parks as well as to park or open space areas whose primary character is undeveloped and natural, or that is managed for use by residents of the larger region and beyond. The City does not have permitting authority on lands owned by other public agencies.
CONSERVATION
The Conservation (C) district takes the place of the Greenbelt district from the previous General Plan. It applies to publicly- or privately-owned open areas not intended for development. Non-structural development, such as trails and viewing areas, is allowed. These areas may include:
• Watershed lands;
• Sandy beach areas, including properties that are fully on beaches or coastal dunes or bluffs; • Land which is physically unsuitable for development due to geotechnical hazards, excessive steepness, wetlands, ESHA, or other environmental constraints, or lies within stream channels; • Areas to remain undeveloped as a result of density transfer or clustered development, or covered by open space, recreational or scenic easements;
• Open areas providing a physical and visual buffer between developed or open areas; and • Open space required as mitigation for environmental impacts.
Urban Reserve
The Urban Reserve (UR) designation is created to apply to private lands outside of City limits but within the Planning Area. The City does not have permitting authority in this area. The Pacifica General Plan and LCLUP intends for agriculture and residential development with a minimum site area of 105 acres per dwelling unit to be the predominant uses on land designated Urban Reserve. Existing legal lots less than 10 acres in area shall
2.1 1.f
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-12
be allowed to develop one dwelling unit maximum, consistent with all other applicable zoning and development standards.
Sites within the Urban Reserve land use designation that are annexed into the City of Pacifica should receive a land use designation consistent with the applicable density prior to annexation. Actual density may be limited by the physical conditions of a site such as geological hazards, access, and potential habitat. For sites larger than 50 acres, the City should work with San Mateo County to ensure that subdivision and development be considered in the context of a Plan Update.
TABLE 2-1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Land Use1
Residential Density
(units per gross acre): Range2
Non-Residential Intensity
(FAR): Maximum3
Residential
TOSR Transitional Open Space Residential Up to 0.1
OSAR Open Space/Agriculture/Residential Up to 0.2
VLDR Very Low Density Residential 0.2 to 2
LDR Low Density Residential 3 to 9
MDR Medium Density Residential 10 to 15
HDR High Density Residential 16 to 21
304
Mixed Use
CRMU Coastal Residential Mixed Use Up10 to 15 0.5
MUN Mixed Use Neighborhood 16 to 26
304
1.0 MUC Mixed Use Center 30 to 50 2.5
Commercial
RC Retail Commercial 1.0
OC Office/Commercial 1.5
SC Service Commercial 0.6
VC Visitor-Serving Commercial 3.0
LIVC
Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving
Commercial 0.2
Public and Community Uses
PSP Public and Semi-Public 1.0
U Utilities 1.0
BCP Beach and Commuter Parking
Parks and Open Space and Urban Reserve
P Park
C Conservation
UR Urban Reserve Up to 0.2 0.1
Notes:
1. Though the density for Urban Reserve is shown, n ono development is projected in these areas.
2. Density ranges are rounded to the nearest whole number, except where less than 1 unit per acre. Senior or affordable housing may be developed at up to 1.5 times the maximum with the Density Bonus program.
3. For mixed use designations, the following maximum total FAR, including both residential and non-residential uses, is established:
CRMU: 1.0 FAR maximum; MUN: 2.0 FAR maximum; MUC: 2.5 FAR maximum.
4. Sites of 0.5 acres or more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
Source: City of Pacifica, Dyett & Bhatia, 20212019.
1.f
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-13
Coastal Development Review
The LCLUP aims to ensure that the goals of the California Coastal Act are furthered by land use actions and policies that affect land within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Commission.
The City’s zoning code features a Coastal Zone (CZ) Combining District, with development regulations based on Coastal Act goals. These include the provision of public access to the shoreline and recreational opportunities, the protection and enhancement of the coastal environment, and the prioritization of coastaldependent and visitor-serving uses. The Coastal Zone requirements supplement the underlying zoning regulations on all property subject to the LCLUP. and new development must obtain a coastal development permit on all property subject to the LCLUP.
Pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from coastal development permit requirements. These exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610 of the PRC and Sections 13252, 132523, and 13250 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Policies
Implementing Policies
LD-I-1 Zoning Consistency. Update the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map and apply zoning to all land within the City, consistent with General Plan and LCLUP policies and land use designations.
LD-I-2 Land Divisions in the Coastal Zone. Continue to require coastal development permits for all land divisions within the Coastal Zone. Land divisions in the Coastal Zone shall be:
• Designed to minimize impacts to public access, recreation, and other coastal resources. • Designed to minimize site disturbance, landform alteration, and the removal of native vegetation for development or fire safety.
• Prohibited on properties that include any areas that are within or adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) unless the resulting parcels can be developed without building or requiring vegetation clearance in the ESHA or ESHA buffer, or are set aside for conservation., or unless the resulting parcels can be developed consistent with policies protecting sensitive habitats including but not limited to a prohibition on building or requiring vegetation clearance in the ESHA or ESHA buffer.
• Prohibited on properties that are within Coastal Vulnerability Zones, unless the resulting parcels are set aside for conservation, or unless the resulting parcels can be developed consistent with the LCP.
• Permitted only in areas with adequate public services to serve development on the resulting parcels.
• Any land division that would result in a parcel that could not be developed in accordance with the policies of this LCLUP is not allowed.
2.2 2.3
2.3 1.f
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-14
LD-I-3 Coastal Development Permit Findings. For all development that requires a coastal development permit, continue to require written findings that it is consistent with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
If there is a conflict between a provision of this LCP and a provision of the General Plan, or any other Cityadopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both the LCP and such other plan, resolution or ordinance, the LCP shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision. In advance of updating the Implementation Plan for conformance with the policies of this 2023 Land Use Plan, the policies of the Land Use Plan shall provide the standard of review for any proposed new development, including where these policies are more protective of ESHA and other coastal resources and maximize public access as consistent with the Coastal Act.
LD-I-4 Coordinate with the County to protect the Urban Reserve. Coordinate with the County to ensure that new development in unincorporated areas occurs at a maximum density of 10 five acres per unit, and request that subdivision of 50 acres or more is subject to master planning and annexation as a condition of any urban development.
A General Plan amendment also will be required, and a LCLUP amendment will be required for land within the Coastal Zone.
2.4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
Concentrated Development
The Coastal Act seeks to concentrate new development along the coast in already-developed areas and areas where it will not adversely affect coastal resources (Section 30250). Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan reinforces the clear distinctions between areas of preserved open space (nearly 50 percent of the Planning Area) and established neighborhoods. It seeks to ensure that sensitive coastal open spaces on the Northern Coastal Bluffs and Pedro Point Headlands are preserved and enhanced, while promoting new development in and directly adjacent to the Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park districts, and make these areas more commercially vibrant and transit-supportive, as described in Section 30252. These efforts are clearly defined in policies of this section as well as policies for each sub-area detailed in Section 3.3.
Coastal-Dependent, Visitor-Serving and Recreational Development Section 30255 of the Coastal Act states that “coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline.” Lower-cost visitor and recreation facilities (Section 30213); recreational uses and development (Section 30221); and coastal-dependent industry (Section 30260) are specifically called out. Section 30222 provides that “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.” San Francisco and San Mateo Counties are major tourist destinations, attracting domestic as well as international travelers. The nine-county Bay Area region accounts for almost 30 percent of the visitor-generated tax receipts in California. Located along scenic Highway 1, south of San Francisco, Pacifica enjoys exposure to a number of visitors to the County’s coast, State parks, and other attractions. Pacifica itself has a wealth of public park land and amenities along the coastline, including Pacifica State Beach and the Pacifica Pier at Sharp Park Beach.
2.4 1.f
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-15
The current demand for hotel rooms in Pacifica is served by six moderately-priced hotels with a total of 282 rooms. A majority of these hotels are clustered around Rockaway Beach. Pacifica is also home to the San Francisco RV Park. These accommodations are shown on the Existing Land Use map, Figure 2-2. The General Plan provides a tourism-related economic development strategy that will help Pacifica to better leverage its coastal location and other physical and cultural amenities, and a land use plan that emphasizes visitor-oriented commercial development.
In the Visitor-Serving Commercial (VC) designation, for larger sites (with developable areas of two acres or larger), a hotel, lower-cost overnight accommodation, or visitor attraction is a required part of new development. Development on large sites may also include restaurants, retail and services, commercial recreation, or other compatible uses. New inns, resorts, or other overnight lodging should enliven the Rockaway Beach district and provide a basis for integration with any new development which may ultimately be approved on the Quarry site. Such uses can enhance the public’s enjoyment of the coastal setting.
The extensive public lands in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone and the recreation opportunities they afford are protected with Park and Conservation designations. The LIVC district allows uses that create public access to the natural setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions. Low-intensity visitor-serving development along northern Palmetto would add new ways of enjoying the coast. Potential uses with a low development impact and which are readily relocated to adapt to evolving coastal conditions, such as rustic lodging or “hikers' huts,” could occur on the Rockaway Headlands and enrich the recreational appeal of both Pacifica State Beach and Rockaway Beach for visitors.
Energy Facilities and Coastal Dependent Industries
Pacifica does not currently contain any coastal-dependent industry or energy facilities, and the Plan does not accommodate the new development of these uses. The types of industries that are the subject of Coastal Act policies—tanker facilities, oil and gas development, refineries, and thermal electric generating plants—are not foreseen to be feasible or appropriate. However, in keeping with the Coastal Act, new coastal-dependent industries may be permitted in the Coastal Zone under specific conditions, as outlined in the policies below.
Sub-Areas and Specific Sites
Pacifica's Coastal Zone extends from the eastern edge of Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean. The Coastal Zone features a wide variety of land uses, including public recreation areas, distinct residential neighborhoods, visitorserving and neighborhood commercial development, and sensitive wildlife habitats. The varied types of development of each coastal sub-area and the geographic relationships between them are an inherent and vital part of the character of the City. The LCLUP strives to designate land uses and intensities suitable to the unique circumstances of each coastal area, adequately meet the needs of the City's residents and visitors, and be consistent with State Coastal Act policies.
Figure 2-4 shows seven sub-areas. Sub-areas may be referred to as neighborhoods at times. The “sub-area” designation is not intended to correspond with any jurisdictional boundaries, but to help readers understand the way the LCLUP affects Pacifica’s distinct geographic areas. Figure 2-4 also identifies specific sites that are the subject of Plan policies. This chapter contains land use policies for specific sites. In many cases, site-specific policies touch on a range of issues, including biological resources and natural hazards.
Figure 2-4 also serves as a key map for the three maps that follow, showing these sub-areas and specific sites at a larger scale. These maps show LCLUP land use at the parcel level, as well as coastal access points; park
1.f
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-16
opportunity sites; coastal view corridors; trails and proposed trail improvements. The sub-area maps and the sub-area descriptions below are intended to demonstrate how various aspects of the Plan—including land use, parks and recreation facilities, coastal access, and environmental resources and hazards—work together in the more localized context. The maps do not show different information than is contained in other LCLUP maps.
1.f
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-17
Figure 2-4: Sub-Areas and Specific Sites
1.f
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-18
Northern Pacifica Coastal Zone
Figure 2-5 covers the Coastal Zone north of Sharp Park, including Fairmont West; West Edgemar-Pacific Manor; and West Sharp Park. This area includes Palmetto Avenue, the Pacifica Pier and Promenade, the Pacific Manor shopping area, and the northern coastal bluffs.
FAIRMONT WEST
Fairmont West is a small residential area in northwestern Pacifica between Highway 1 and the Pacific Ocean, extending from Daly City along the Northern Coastal Bluffs. It is separated from inland neighborhoods by the highway and a significant grade change. Fairmont West is composed mainly of single-family houses, with a condominium development and a neighborhood park. Palmetto Avenue is Fairmont West’s principal roadway, and provides open views of the Pacific Ocean. The National Park Service owns approximately 14 acres of land on the northern coastal bluffs along the west side of Palmetto Avenue as part of the GGNRA.
Given the extraordinary natural and scenic value, the interest of public access, and the potential erosion hazards, undeveloped land on the northern coastal bluffs is designated Open Space/Agriculture/Residential, and identified as a priority for permanent conservation. Sensitive, clustered development could occur on the east side of Palmetto.
GGNRA plans to continue to manage its land along the northern coastal bluffs as a “natural zone” emphasizing protection of habitat and natural coastal processes. No formal beach access exists or is planned. Undeveloped land west of Palmetto Avenue contains areas of Coastal bluff scrub, which is considered a special status community of high value, important for stabilizing sand dunes. The entire bluff-top area is currently undeveloped and offers an open, highly scenic view of the entire length of Pacifica's coastline.
WEST EDGEMAR-PACIFIC MANOR
West Edgemar-Pacific Manor is an established coastal neighborhood extending from north of the Oceanaire Apartments (formerly Land’s End Apartments) to south of the San Francisco RV Park between Highway 1 and the ocean. The area is centered on the Pacific Manor shopping center. Multi-family development accounts for over 90 percent of the area’s approximately 870 housing units. West Edgemar-Pacific Manor’s residential areas have the highest density in Pacifica.
As envisioned by the Plan, redevelopment and/or shopping center improvements will enhance the area’s walkability, help integrate the commercial center with its coastal setting, and improve the area’s visual appeal.
The City-owned bluff-top land along the west side of Esplanade Avenue may present an opportunity to develop a small park, if this can be done without aggravating slope instability. Esplanade Avenue is also identified as a future bluff-top coastal access point, which may be achieved by redesigning the Esplanade right-of-way to enhance views and pedestrian access. Progressive coastal erosion has led to demolition of residential structures in the 300- and 500-blocks of Esplanade Avenue, and remains an important factor when considering future development potential of sites located along the bluff-top.
WEST SHARP PARK
Sharp Park is one of Pacifica’s original beach communities. Its western and eastern portions are divided by Highway 1. The northern half of West Sharp Park includes some of Pacifica’s only industrial and service commercial uses. The southern half of the neighborhood has a mixture of single-family and multi-family housing, with retail commercial uses prevailing along Palmetto Avenue, and commercial and civic buildings along Francisco Boulevard. A majority of the neighborhood’s approximately 900 housing units are in multifamily buildings. West Sharp Park includes many of Pacifica's community facilities, including a branch of the
1.f
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-19
San Mateo County Library, the Pacifica Resource Center, City Hall, and Council Chambers. The neighborhood features the Pacifica Pier and Beach Boulevard Promenade, and public parking for the Pier, Promenade, and Sharp Park Beach.
The Plan envisions the area along northern Palmetto west of Palmetto Avenue transitioning to Low-Intensity Visitor Serving Commercial uses over time. The transition is necessary to account for progressive coastal erosion which has advanced into many bluff-top sites along Palmetto Avenue in this area. Coastal erosion is an important factor to consider when reviewing future development of sites located along the bluff-top.
Southern Palmetto Avenue will grow into a higher-density mixed use corridor, supported by higher-intensity development on Francisco Boulevard, and with an enhanced connection to the coast achieved with redevelopment of the Beach Boulevard property. The Beach Boulevard Promenade and park, together with the Pier and Sharp Park Beach, provide extensive recreation opportunities, and are tremendous assets for both the neighborhood and the City. The maintenance of park facilities, the pier, and public parking at this location is a high priority. Views to and along the ocean are essential to the neighborhood's character and must be maintained.
1.f
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-20
Figure 2-5: Pacifica Coastal Zone, North
1.f
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-21
Central Pacifica Coastal Zone
Figure 2-6 shows the central section of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. The map includes Sharp Park Golf Course, the West Fairway Park neighborhood, Mori Point, the Rockaway Quarry, Rockaway Beach, the Rockaway Headlands, and the Shelldance Nursery.
SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE, WEST FAIRWAY PARK, AND MORI POINT The central stretch of Pacifica’s coast includes Sharp Park Golf Course, Mori Point, and the small single-family subdivision of West Fairway Park. Sharp Park Municipal Golf Course is part of a land bequest made to the City and County of San Francisco early in the 20th Century on the condition that the land be used for public park or recreation. Laguna Salada and its marsh, located on the western side of the golf course, provide habitat for the San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog. West Fairway Park is a small single-family residential subdivision. On the south, the neighborhood meets the base of undeveloped Mori Point, managed as part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
The Plan designates Sharp Park Golf Course and Mori Point as regional park land. Current characteristics may be maintained, and environmental restoration will be a priority. The West Fairway Park neighborhood's existing land use is reinforced by the Plan’s land use designations.
Sharp Park Beach is open to the public between the Pier and Mori Point, while Sharp Park Golf Course provides a unique recreational asset. Mori Point is a spectacular section of the GGNRA. The General Plan proposes trail improvements and critical new trail segments that would link the coastal trails with the inland ridges. This segment of the Pacifica coastline includes view corridors from Highway 1 into Sharp Park Golf Course and toward Mori Point and Mori Ridge that will be preserved.
ROCKAWAY BEACH, QUARRY, AND HEADLANDS
Rockaway Beach is a small, pedestrian-oriented area with shops, restaurants, and lodging and a small beach, with parking and other amenities. The vacant Quarry site occupies about 94 acres west of Highway 1 and south of Mori Point. About 30 acres of the site are on slopes of 35 percent or steeper. The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant, at the north end of the former quarry, releases treated wastewater into Calera Creek, which has a naturalized channel, a restored riparian corridor, and a paved walking and cycling path. The Headlands is a rocky promontory separating Rockaway Beach and Pacifica State Beach, and is crossed by a scenic trail.
1.f
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-22
Figure 2-6: Pacifica Coastal Zone, Central
1.f
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-23
The Quarry site is Pacifica's most visible potential development site. Prior to any future development, the property owner must complete reclamation of the former quarry pursuant to the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica Municipal Code.
Approximately half of the site, including the upland areas and the Calera Creek riparian corridor, is designated for Conservation. This area will remain open space, with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The Flats and the Pad overlooking Rockaway Beach are designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial development, supporting such potential uses as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail uses integrated with the Rockaway Beach district. Redevelopment of the Quarry site could expand this visitor-oriented area. Any development of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of biological resources to ensure that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; and should be sited and designed to minimize coastal hazard risks in accordance with policies in Chapter 5 and 6 of the LUP. Tthe likely footprint of development could be much smaller than the area designated. While housing may be proposed as part of a plan for the site, Ordinance No. 391 provides that rezoning to allow residential uses may occur only if approved by a residential uses are only authorized after a vote of the electorate. Figure 4-4 of the 2040 General Plan indicates removal of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay from the Flats portion of the site, which would also require approval by a vote of the electorate. Development in the Quarry Flats should include new public open space. The existing Rockaway Beach district also offers opportunities for infill and redevelopment, subject to an appropriate assessment of potential coastal hazards and vulnerabilities. The Plan envisions the Rockaway Beach district growing into a more distinct and high-profile visitor destination, with strong links to the natural setting of beaches, headlands, and ridges.
The Plan proposes new coastal trail segments, and new trails would link the coastal trails with the inland ridges.
Improvements to Highway 1 should ease travel, accommodate vehicles as well as bikes and pedestrians, and improve access into the Rockaway Beach district. Coastal views from Highway 1 toward Mori Point, Cattle Hill, and the Rockaway Headlands are important in establishing the identity of this area and Pacifica as a whole.
The United States Geological Survey established the place name “Aramai Point” for the Rockaway Headlands in 2021 in recognition of the indigenous peoples that occupied the area prior to European settlement.
Southern Pacifica Coastal Zone
Figure 2-7 shows the southern part of the Coastal Zone, including Pacifica State Beach, Shelter Cove, and the Pedro Point neighborhood, as well as Pedro Point Headlands.
PACIFICA STATE BEACH
Pacifica State Beach, also known as Linda Mar Beach, is a long sandy beach on a small bay formed by the Rockaway Headlands and Pedro Point. Pacifica State Beach is an outstanding recreational asset for the City and attracts over one million visitors annually from the region and beyond for its surfing, beach environment and scenery in close proximity to San Francisco. Recent restoration work and improvements to parking and access have helped to ensure that the beach will remain a popular natural environment for years to come. Views from Highway 1 toward the crescent sweep of Pacifica State Beach, the Headlands, and Pedro Point are a defining element for Pacifica, and will be preserved across the protected park land.
Pacifica State Beach supports primarily wintering and/or migrating Western snowy plovers, a federally threatened bird species. The beach must continue to be managed to ensure that recreational use does not interfere with the species' habitat requirements. Steelhead trout from the Central California Coast Ecologically Significant Unit are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Steelhead are known to
2.5 1.f
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-24
spawn in several parts of San Pedro Creek, and the City will continue to support the preservation of viable steelhead migration.
PEDRO POINT AND SHELTER COVE
The Pedro Point neighborhood sits on the slope of the promontory that marks Pacifica’s southern boundary.
The neighborhood is characterized by single-family houses climbing up the slope, with some commercial development, including a small shopping center, on the flat land near the beach. The neighborhood is separated from the coastline by the berm of the former Ocean Shore Railroad. Pedro Point abuts City-, County-, and State-owned land at the Point’s higher elevations. This land is within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s legislative boundary, and could be included in the park in the future. The western tip of Pedro Point descends to Shelter Cove, where another cluster of houses exists on a single 17-acre parcel. Land access to Shelter Cove has been limited to steep pedestrian trails since the former roadway to the area washed out in the 1980s.years ago.
The Plan reinforces existing land use patterns for all developed parts of the sub-area. There is potential for Pedro Point shopping center and adjacent parcels to accommodate some new retail development, which could provide local convenience shopping as well as visitor-oriented businesses. The Plan retains flexibility for any future development on the vacant site west of the shopping center, which could have residential and smallscale commercial and visitor-oriented uses. Development of the site will require detailed evaluation of coastal hazards/vulnerabilities and biological resources to ensure that any sensitive habitat and wetlands that may exist on the site are protected; thus, the footprint of development could be smaller than the area designated. Future development should include a small park and access to the berm and the beach beyond. Completion of the Devils Slide Tunnel project has provided the opportunity to create a new trailhead and trails through open space land on the headlands.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
San Pedro Mountain and Pedro Point Headlands define the southern boundary of Pacifica’s Sphere of Influence, which includes the undeveloped 73-acre, 986-lot Tobin Park subdivision (located outside the Coastal Zone). The Plan designates existing public open space in the Sphere of Influence as Park, and designates all other land as Urban Reserve. The Urban Reserve area is intended to remain largely undeveloped.
1.f
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-25
Figure 2-7: Pacifica Coastal Zone, South
1.f
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-26
POLICIES
Guiding Policies
LD-G-1 Coastal Development. Ensure that development maximizes beach and coastal open space access and is orientated as much as possible to each that access reflects the surroundings of the particular coastal environment in use, design, and intensity.
Policies related to coastal access are provided in Chapter 3.
LD-G-2 Concentrated Development. Focus new development in or directly adjacent to alreadydeveloped areas, where it can be served by existing public services and where it will not have significant impacts on coastal or other resources.
LD-G-3 Future Residential Development. Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony with the surrounding natural setting.
LD-G-4 Higher-Density Housing. Locate higher-density housing outside of Coastal Vulnerability Zones and in accessible places close to community shopping areas and transportation.
LD-G-5 Commercial Area Revitalization. Facilitate the revitalization of shopping areas and the creation of distinct commercial districts in Pacifica, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.
LD-G-6 Compact Mixed Use Development. Facilitate compact mixed use development on sites with good access to transit. consistent with the Land Use Diagram. Mixed use development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or personal service businesses.
LD-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, wetlands, riparian corridors, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.
LD-G-8 Changes in Density or Intensity of Land Use in Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Do not increase the density or intensity of land use designations beyond those indicated in the LCLUP for sites located within Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
Policies related to Natural Hazards are provided in Chapter 5 and policies related to Coastal Resilience are provided in Chapter 6.
1.f
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-27
Implementing Policies
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
See Chapter 3 for policies concerning public access and recreation, Chapter 4 for policies that concern environmental and resource protection, Chapter 5 for protection from natural hazards, and Chapter 6 for policies concerning sea level rise adaptation.
LD-I-5 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. Protect lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities in the Coastal Zone. These include major, free recreational attractions such as Pacifica Pier and Pacifica State Beach; the public golf course at Sharp Park; the San Francisco RV Park; California Coastal Trail and other trails, and numerous beaches accessible at no cost.
LD-I-6 Oceanfront Land for Recreational Use. ProtectPrioritize use of land adjacent to Sharp Park and Pacifica State Beaches for low-intensity recreational use. Allowable uses should include those with a low development impact and which are readily relocated to adapt to evolving coastal conditions, such as recreation outfitters, campgrounds, rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or view restaurants.
LD-I-7 Development Priority for Visitor-Serving and Recreational Uses. Allow visitor-oriented uses as-of-right in all areas designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial, and all commercial or mixed-use districts within the Coastal Zone.
Development on Visitor-Serving Commercial sites with developable areas of two acres or larger must include a visitor attraction, hotel, conference center, or similar use, and may also include a range of retail and service uses.
Smaller sites may have any visitor- or pedestrian-oriented retail or service use.
LD-I-8 Walkable and Transit-Oriented Development. Facilitate higher-density, mixed use development at specific locations along the coastline where an active, pedestrian environment is desired. as shown on the Land Use Diagram (Figure 2-3).
Future development along Palmetto Avenue and at the Eureka Square site; on lower Linda Mar Boulevard and Crespi Drive in West Linda Mar; at the Pacific Manor Shopping Center; and at Rockaway Beach and Quarry are easily accessible along the Highway 1 corridor and transit routes. Such development should help to make the coastline more accessible to residents and visitors.
LD-I-9 Coastal-Dependent Industry. Allow new coastal-dependent industry only if alternative locations outside the Coastal Zone are infeasible or more environmentally damaging or because to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare, and potential impacts to visual resources, sensitive species and habitat, water quality are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
Future development of oil and gas facilities, refineries or petrochemical facilities, or thermal electric generating plants may be permitted only according to the terms established in Sections 30262, 30263, and 30264 of the Coastal Act. Conditions of Approval shall ensure consistency with all Coastal Act policies.
LD-I-10 Aquaculture. If oceanfront land is found to be suitable for coastal-dependent aquaculture, give such use priority over non-coastal-dependent uses.
1.f
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-28
POLICIES FOR SPECIFIC SITES
LD-I-11 Pacific Manor. Establish appropriate zoning for the Pacific Manor Shopping district to fFacilitate Retail Commercial improvements and Mixed Use redevelopment. in the Pacific Manor shopping district.
Redevelopment or improvements should enhance the area’s walkability and visual appeal, and should include pedestrian realm improvements that help to integrate the district with its coastal setting.
LD-I-12 Northern Palmetto. Support the transition to low-intensity visitor-serving commercial uses over time along the west side of Palmetto Avenue in northern West Sharp Park, and require improvement of the visual appearance of permitted older industrial uses when improvements are proposed to these uses.
Geotechnical studies are required to determine the “net developable area.” New uses are required to provide appropriate setbacks along the coastal bluffs to protect new structures from loss during their design life, and to provide public access to and along the shoreline.
LD-I-13 Palmetto Avenue. Enhance Palmetto Avenue between north of Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road as a pedestrian-oriented main street with retail, restaurants and services as well as multi-family housing and mixed-use development.
This will foster a character that will attract both residents and tourists and will follow standards and guidelines established in the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
LD-I-14 Promenade Area and Beach Boulevard Property. Enhance the Promenade area as a local community and tourist destination, while also ensuring that it adequately responds to and addresses coastal hazard considerations consistent with the LCP.
Non-permanent improvements shall not require additional analysis.
Redevelopment of the city-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property should provide an anchor for Palmetto Avenue and enhance the beachfront experience. The preferred use is a hotel if market conditions allow, but other aAppropriate uses will could include a hotel or conventional commercial/residential mixed-use project with cafes, restaurants, retail, and upper-level housing, if such uses are deemed appropriate considering coastal hazards and the required protections for coastal resources. The mix of uses for any non-hotel project proposal shall emphasize uses that are of interest to visitors and that generate revenues for the City.
LD-I-15 Francisco Boulevard. Facilitate office commercial as well as retail development along the three blocks of Francisco Boulevard north of Santa Maria Avenue, and higher-intensity mixed use development on the three blocks between Santa Maria Avenue and Montecito Avenue.
A core of high-intensity and civic uses here should help to support retail and restaurants along Palmetto Avenue by bringing more residents and workers and by enhancing visibility from Highway 1.
LD-I-16 Rockaway Quarry Site. Enable the responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry Site, considering the potential coastal hazard constraints (including but not limited to bluff erosion, slope stability, and flooding), as well as the biological constraints (specific to sensitive species, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and wetlands) and coastal resource protection more broadly.
2.6 2.7
1.f
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-29
Preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry site could achieve the desired development outcomes. Allowable development should provide City revenues community benefits, including substantial public open space, and commercial uses and public spaces attractive to both visitors and local residents. Uses may include an inn or hotel; shops and restaurants; performance or conference spaces; and public uses. Ordinance No. 391 provides that residential uses are only authorized after a vote of the electorate. Development should be integrated with the Rockaway Beach district, to create an expanded visitor-oriented area in a memorable natural setting.
Environmental protection is a priority at this site and includes preserving upland areas as open space, preserving the riparian corridor along Calera Creek, and preserving critical habitat. Any development of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards and biological resources to ensure safe use of the site and that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; the likely footprint of development could be much smaller than the area designated.
LD-I-17 Rockaway Beach. Facilitate continued improvements in the Rockaway Beach district and promote infill development emphasizing active ground-floor and visitor-oriented uses and links to the Quarry site.
The Rockaway Beach area could be included in a specific plan that also covers the Quarry site.
LD-I-18 Rockaway HeadlandsAramai Point. Facilitate very low-intensity visitor-serving commercial use on the HeadlandsAramai Point between Rockaway and Pacifica State Beach.
Maintain the Coastal Trail connecting the two beaches. Any use on this site must recognize the limited opportunity for vehicular access.
Potential uses should have a low development impact and able to be readily relocated to adapt to evolving coastal conditions, such as rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or similar uses.
LD-I-19 Pedro Point Shopping Center. Facilitate improvements to the existing Shopping Center that result in an improved orientation to the coastal environment and that result in more efficient use of the property with regards to parking, while enhancing its appeal for both neighborhood residents and visitors. Maintain beach access along the Shoreside Drive. right-of-way.
LD-I-20 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning district to allow small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses as a stand-alone project without any residential development, or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses with some low density residential development at a density range of the lower third of the CRMU density range at a density range of three to five units per gross acre. Housing may be clustered, and uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial uses, provided the overall site contains both commercial and residential uses. Development must include public coastal access and must provide public open space, and consider all biological constraints.
A wetland survey conducted according to the requirements of Coastal Commission regulation 13577 (Title 14, California Code of Regulations) is required to delineate potential wetlands on the site as part of the development application and environmental review process. An assessment of potential geotechnical hazards must also be part of the development application and environmental review process, including assessment of the Ocean Shore railroad berm under hazard and vulnerability scenarios consistent with policies in Chapters 5 and 6.
2.7 2.8
2.8 1.f
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-30
CREATING A DESTINATION
LD-I-21 Town Center Sharp Park Area. Use the Sharp Park Specific Plan to guide future development in the West Sharp Park area, as well as adjacent areas east of Highway 1 such as Eureka Square. Through a combination of mixed use land use designations/zoning, streetscape improvements such as undergrounding overhead utility lines, targeted public investment, and marketing strategies, promote Palmetto Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented destination with shops and services for residents and visitors alike. The Sharp Park Specific Plan must be certified by the Coastal Commission before taking effect in the Coastal Zone.
LD-I-22 Business Improvement District. Work with property owners and the Palmetto Business Association to establish a Business Improvement District (BID) to finance local public improvements in the corridor.
LD-I-23 City-Owned Catalyst Projects. Use city-owned properties as catalysts for new development in the Palmetto area and elsewhere in the city.
For key opportunity sites such as the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant site on 2212 Beach Boulevard, the City may issue Request for Proposals for development. Learning from past request for qualifications (RFQ) processes for 2212 Beach Boulevard site will inform strategies to make the site more attractive and marketable as part of a future RFQ for a hotel developer.
LD-I-24 Recycling Center Relocation. Work with Recology, Inc. to identify a new location for a recycling yard its vehicle maintenance facility located on Palmetto Avenue at Pacific Avenue to free up land for visitor-based economic development.
LD-I-25 Increase Tourism. Prepare a multi-faceted program to encourage tourism, focusing on:
• Attracting new hotels or inns, a visitor’s center or other key attraction, tourism-based shopping, and other components; and
• “Branding” and marketing Pacifica’s parks, open spaces, beaches, and other natural amenities.
LD-I-26 Enhanced Visitor Node. Taking all site constraints into account, Ccreate a visitor-oriented commercial and hospitality node at Rockaway Beach and on developable portions of the Rockaway Quarry site. which contains distinctive design, uses, and recreational opportunities.
A key component of this strategy would be to pursue a boutique or high end/resort-oriented hotel and supporting tourist-oriented shopping and dining opportunities.
2.5 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES One purpose of the General Plan and LCLUP is to ensure that the City can accommodate projected population and job growth over the planning period (to 2040). To meet the requirements of State housing law, the City must also have adequate sites where housing affordable to moderate- and low-income households can reasonably be developed. The Plan seeks to meet these needs while also satisfying other community goals and
2.9 1.f
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-31
ensuring safety and environmental protection. This section estimates projected demand for new housing and non-residential space, and the development potential provided under the General Plan land use framework.
Population and Employment
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Pacifica grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, but has grown very little since then. The City gained an average of 790 persons per decade in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s but saw a decline of 1,600 people from 2000 to 2010.
In 2017, Pacifica’s population was 39,141, an increase of six percent from a population of 36,805 in the 2010 Census, and an increase of about 2 percent over its population of 38,390 in 2000. Between 2000 and 2017, the City added 440 housing units, as average household size increased slightly from 2.73 to 2.77 persons.
As in much of the state, Pacifica’s population has grown older in recent decades. Between 2000 and 2017, the 25-to-44 age cohort declined from 33 to 26 percent of the population, and there were also declines in the cohorts age 5 to 17. Meanwhile the 45-to-64 group grew from 27 to 32 percent and the population age 65 or greater rose from 10 to 15 percent.3
According to the Longitudinal Household Employer Dynamics Survey, the Planning Area had 4,725 jobs in 2017, an increase from 4,169 jobs in 2015.
4 Development Capacity and Projections
Development capacity is calculated based on assumptions about new residential and non-residential development that could be built under the Plan’s land use designations and their respective densities and intensities.
As described in the General Plan, there are an estimated 1,280 acres of vacant or underutilized land classified for residential or mixed use in the Pacifica Planning Area. Buildout of an estimated 80 percent of opportunity sites at projected densities would result in a total of 1,040 new housing units. This Plan conservatively uses the 2017 ACS population estimate of 39,141 as a baseline and assumes that Pacifica and its Sphere of Influence will reach a projected population of 41,878 by 2040, based on this development capacity.5 There are an estimated 117 acres of vacant or underutilized land classified for commercial or mixed use, citywide (mixed use land is also counted in the residential capacity analysis). The Rockaway Quarry site accounts for 49 acres, the portion of the site’s 94 total acres that would be potentially available for Visitor-Serving Commercial (VC) development based on the area mapped with this designation. As noted above, the Quarry site’s development capacity may be further reduced by site-specific analyses of geotechnical and biological constraints. Realistic development of opportunity sites would result in an estimated 645,400 square feet of net new non-residential building area. The greatest amount of new building area would be in the VC category, reinforcing the importance of this sector to Pacifica’s economic development strategy. Much of the VC potential is on the Quarry site, which site has proven challenging to develop in the past. New development is estimated to accommodate approximately 1,470 new jobs over the planning period.
The General Plan uses what may be considered a high-growth scenario for two principal reasons. First, much of the potentially developable land in Pacifica may be challenging to develop, so providing capacity to 3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2013-2017 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2019 5 Total population calculated by multiplying 5% vacancy rate by total buildout of 1,040 units; assumes current rate of 2.75 people per household.
2.10 1.f
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-32
accommodate higher growth is more likely to translate to development that meets the needs of slower population growth. Second, there will be a need to provide adequate sites for housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households, to meet regional housing requirements.
Coastal Development Potential
Within the Coastal Zone, including all land west of Highway 1 as well as the Shelldance Nursery, the Planning Area has an estimated development capacity for 334 net new housing units on 78 acres of vacant or underutilized land. Nine in 10 of these units would be in Medium or High Density or Mixed Use areas, and potentially affordable to moderate- and low-income households. See Table 2-2.
TABLE 2-2: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNDER THE LOCAL
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
General Plan Land Use
Vacant or
Underutilized
Acres1
Permitted
Density
Range (units
per acre)
Projected
Density
(units per
acre)2
New Housing
Units at
Buildout3
Residential Districts
Transitional Open Space Residential
-
0.1 or less NA -
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential with Open Space 42 0.2 or less 0.15 - Very Low Density Residential
- 0.2 to 2 1.5 -
Low Density Residential
8 3 to 9 6.5 30
Medium Density Residential
5 10Up to 15 12.5 40
High Density Residential
1 16Up to 214 25 10
Mixed Use Districts
Coastal Residential Mixed Use 5 Up to 155
15 50
Mixed Use Neighborhood 12 16 to 264 25 190
Mixed Use Center
5 30 to 50 32 102
Urban Reserve
Urban Reserve - NA 0.1 -
Total Residential Development Potential on
Opportunity Sites
78 4,128
Existing Units on Underutilized Sites 78
Net New Residential Potential 78 334
Notes
1. Acreages are shown rounded to the nearest whole number, but more detailed numbers are used in calculations.
2. Projected density is informed by average current density of projected land uses and allowable density ranges.
3. A "net-to-gross factor" of 80% is applied to all development potential to account for need for additional streets on large sites. A "flex factor" of 80% is applied to account for property owner priorities and site constraints.
4. Sites of 0.5 acres or more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
5. The Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site shall be limited to 3-5 dwelling units per gross acre as provided in Policy LD-I-20.
Sources: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2010; City of Pacifica, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019202119.
The Coastal Zone also has an estimated capacity for approximately 154,300 net new square feet of nonresidential development on 110 acres of vacant or under-utilized land (land designated for mixed use is counted
1.f
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-33
both here and in the residential capacity analysis.) About two-thirds of the new development capacity would take place in the Visitor-Serving Commercial category, including the Quarry site. See Table 2-3.
1.f
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-34
TABLE 2-3: NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNDER THE LOCAL
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
General Plan Land Use
Vacant or
Underutilized
Acres1
Maximum
NonResidential
FAR
Projected
NonResidential
FAR2
New NonResidential Sq.
Ft. at Buildout3
Mixed Use Districts
Coastal Residential Mixed Use 5 0.5 0.10 13,500
Mixed Use Neighborhood 12 1.0 0.25 75,900
Mixed Use Center
5 3.0 0.35 43,400
Commercial Districts
Retail Commercial
13 1.0 0.25 85,000
Office/Commercial
1 1.5 0.35 13,100
Service Commercial
0 0.6 0.25 1,100
Visitor-Serving Commercial (not including Rockaway
Quarry)
9 2.5 0.35 82,900
Rockaway Quarry Site4
49 0.5 0.35 448,400
Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial
16 0.2 0.05 21,000
Public Facilities and Open Space Districts
Public/Institutional
0 1.0 0.35 1,300
Total Non-Residential Development Potential on
Opportunity Sites
110 785,600
Existing Non-Residential Development on
Underutilized Sites
631,300
Net New Non-Residential Potential 110 154,300
Notes
1. Acreages are shown rounded to the nearest whole number, but more detailed numbers are used in calculations.
2. Projected intensity is informed by average current intensity of projected land uses and allowable intensity ranges.
3. A "net-to-gross factor" of 75% is applied to all development potential to account for need for additional streets on large sites. A "flex factor" of 80% is applied to account for property owner priorities and site constraints.
4. Approximately 49 acres of the 94-acre Quarry site would be potentially developable. This acreage is counted separately from the Visitor-Serving Commercial classification.
Sources: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2008; City of Pacifica, 2008; Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
Public Facilities and Services
A critical function of planning is to evaluate the capacity for existing public facilities and services to handle growth, and to identify long-term needs. In the Coastal Zone, public works facilities should be sited and designed to support development that furthers the goals of the Coastal Act (Section 30254). This section summarizes the projected demand for water and wastewater services, and other utilities, based on the land use framework described above. This framework intends to be consistent with Coastal Act priorities, including visitor-oriented development, public access and recreation, and environmental and scenic protection. The Plan’s approach to the roadway network is covered in Chapter 3.
Potable Water Supply
The North Coast County Water District (NCCWD), an independent water purveyor, supplies water to Pacifica and part of San Bruno. The district gets its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through the Hetch Hetchy system. The District also has rights to a limited amount of surface water from the South Fork of San Pedro Creek for six months of the year. Pacifica’s water is pumped from San Andreas Lake and the Harry Tracey Water Treatment Plant in Millbrae via a main distribution line under Skyline Boulevard,
1.f
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-35
to the Milagra Ridge storage tank. From there, water for northern Pacifica is pumped to the Christian Hill tank on Skyline Boulevard and then distributed by gravity to smaller tanks and to customers. Water for southern Pacifica is piped from the Milagra Ridge tank to the Royce tank, off Fassler Avenue, and then to smaller tanks and to customers. Overall, the system is divided into 34 pressure zones, each separated by pressure-reducing valves.6 The NCCWD has adopted a 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that describes its water supply; past, current, and projected water use; and water conservation targets, among other water resource information.
WATER CAPACITY AND USAGE
The NCCWD system’s 1114 storage tanks have a total capacity of 23.818.3 million gallons, enough to supply the service area with water for seven 5.8 days at the District’s average daily usage rate of 2.433.24 million gallons per day (mgd).7 The District’s contract with SFPUC allows for a maximum purchase of 3.84 mgd.
WATER CONSERVATION
Water use in the District has steadily declined in recent years due to conservation programs and infrastructure repairs. Water conservation will continue to be important in coming years. In 2018, two laws were passed to aid California in making water conservation a way of life: SB 606 and AB 1668. These two laws highlight water efficiency and conservation and are meant to outline certain roles and actions to be carried out by the California Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resource Control Board and water suppliers. Each urban water supplier, starting in November of 2023, will calculate its own objective based on the water needed in its service area for efficient indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) irrigation with dedicated meters and reasonable amounts of system water loss from leaks, the fact sheet states. In determining their objectives, water suppliers will also consider other unique local uses and credits for potable water reuse, based on standards adopted by the state water board. A coordinated response by the City and the NCCWD will help Pacifica meet the requirements of this legislation in the future. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 sets an overall target to reduce urban per capita water use by 20 percent by the end of 2020, with an interim target of 10 percent by the end of 2015. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act provides a Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and requires that all jurisdictions adopt it or one at least as effective.
The City has established procedures to meet the requirements of the state’s Model Ordinance. A coordinated response by the City and the NCCWD will help Pacifica meet the requirements of this legislation, and stay beneath the water supply limit established by the SFPUC.
NCCWD has completed the first phase of a project that pumps treated wastewater from the City’s Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant through a new system of pipes for use as irrigation water for parks, playing fields, and landscaped areas. When the project is fully implemented, it is estimated to have the potential to save up to 55 million gallons of drinking water annually.8
INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION
Pacifica’s water pipes and storage reservoirs are aging and in need of modernization. NCCWD’s current Capital Improvement Plan focuses on pursuing additional sources of supply, addressing water storage deficits by 6 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA Annual Survey-FY 2017-18. March 2019. Accessed at http://www.bawsca.org,2019.
7 BAWSCA, 2019.
8 North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). Amended 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. January 2018. Accessed at http://www.nccwd.com/ October 2019.
1.f
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-36
increasing tank size or adding new tanks, and pipe upgrades. minimizing the risk to the water supply that could result from a major seismic event. NCCWD replaced three major water tanks in recent years, and has completed the installation of back-up generators at all 14 of its storage tanks. It will add sensors allowing automatic shutdown of key tanks during a major earthquake, and install “jumper nodules” at joints in the pipe system.
The transmission main that brings water to Pacifica from the regional system is located above the San Andreas Fault as it follows Skyline Boulevard in San Bruno. NCCWD is committing resources both to short-term pipe inspection and repair along the main line, and to a study of the feasibility of developing an alternative and reliable water source.9 Beyond these modernization efforts, Pacifica and NCCWD are dependent upon the safety and durability of the Hetch Hetchy system.
WATER QUALITY
SFPUC monitors water at the source and at local treatment plants for turbidity, organic and inorganic chemicals, microbial quality, mineral content, and radiological quality. NCCWD monitors water as it enters the District’s system, and takes weekly water samples from various locations. Pacifica’s water is consistently high-quality and safe to drink, meeting all standards set by the California Department of Health Services and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.10
Wastewater
The City operates a wastewater treatment plant, sewage lift stations, and stormwater pump stations, as well as the citywide system of sewer mains and lateral pipes that connect to homes and businesses. Waste water flows through some 106105 miles of main pipes to five sewer pump stations, and on to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. The City’s topography prevents gravity flow to the plant, and requires pump stations at Rockaway Beach, Linda Mar and Sharp Park.
CALERA CREEK WATER RECYCLING PLANT
The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP), located on the south flank of Mori Point, is a tertiary treatment plant, brought online in 2000 to replace the old Wastewater Treatment Plant in West Sharp Park.
The new plant uses ultraviolet disinfection, which allows effluent to be released to wetlands without residual chlorine. The plant has facilitated the creation and restoration of wetlands along Calera Creek, bringing yearround flow to a naturalized stream channel. The NCCWD began receiving recycled water from the plant and has been delivering the tertiary recycled water to recreational and institutional customers for irrigation use since August 2013, and residential customers since 2015. The CCWRP is also the source for a portion of Pacifica’s landscape irrigation water under NCCWD’s water recycling project. Testing at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant indicates that discharges generally meet applicable water quality standards, although there have been some isolated instances of non-compliance.
USAGE AND CAPACITY
Average annual wastewater flows declined from 3.7 million gallons per day (mgd) on average in 2001 to 2.9 mgd in 2008, but were projected to rise to 3.2 mgd by 2012. The CCWRP has a dry weather capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd), a peak hourly dry weather capacity of 7.0 mgd, and a peak hourly wet weather capacity of 20 mgd.11 Because of Pacifica’s projected slow growth, the Plant will have adequate capacity for the next 15 to 20 years. The City shall monitor wastewater discharges from existing and newly permitted 9 North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). 20-Year Long-Term Master Plan. February 2016. Accessed at http://www.nccwd.com. October 2019. 10 North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). Amended 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. January 2018. Accessed at http://www.nccwd.com/ October 2019.
11 RWQCB, 2006.
1.f
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-37
development to ensure that it plans for additional capacity in advance of projected need in the event actual discharge rates exceed these projections.
The City’s sanitary sewer collection system is subject to infiltration and inflow (I/I) of extraneous ground water and storm water.
In May 2011, the City was issued a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and was ordered to eliminate insufficient capacity caused sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from the sanitary sewer collection system by January 1, 2019. In response, the City developed the Wet Weather Equalization (EQ) Basin Project to reduce SSOs, which required construction of a 2.1-million gallon-capacity EQ basin at the Pacifica Community Center parking lot and underground conveyance piping along Linda Mar Boulevard and Arguello Boulevard during high-flow storm events, completed in 2019.
Planned Improvements
The City intends to undertake the following projects:
• A feasibility study for Replacement of thean ultraviolet (UV) treatment system at the CCWRP; • Phase II of the Sewer System Master Plan Update; and
• Sharp Park Pump SystemStation odor control upgrade, to make the site compatible with future redevelopment; and
• .Relocation of the mainline and forcemain at the Sharp Park pump station.
In 2021, the City completed Phase II of the Sewer System Master Plan Update. An Inflow and Infiltration study will determinedetermined improvement needs in the collection system. at Crespi Drive, Linda Mar Boulevard, Fremont Avenue, and Catalina Avenue. This will serve as a basis for project priorities and future master planning.
Electricity and Gas
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides gas and electric services to Pacifica homes and businesses. With energy obtained from power plants, natural gas fields, and renewable energy sources in northern California. Peninsula Clean Energy is an alternative renewable-energy electricity provider. Both providers offer clean energy options including significant shares greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-free power generation. The availability of electricity and gas services is not expected to become an issue during the planning horizon. However, electricity and natural gas use account for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Pacifica. Thus, while supply is not anticipated to be an issue in Pacifica, reducing demand for these resources will help reduce carbon emissions.
Solid Waste Collection and Recycling
Although solid waste accounts for just 2 percent of Pacifica’s carbon emissions, solid waste has the potential to be a much larger contributor to global warming overall because of methane produced byproducts. Solid waste can be reduced through recycling, composting, and reduction and reuse of material goods.
Solid waste collection and recycling services in Pacifica are provided by Recology of the Coast, a division of Recology. Recology, based in San Francisco, operates a number of landfills, waste transfer and materials recovery facilities, including the recycling yard at 1046 Palmetto Avenue in Pacifica. Recology emphasizes waste
1.f
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-38
reduction and diversion, and is the largest compost facility operator by volume in the United States. In Pacifica, Recology of the Coast currently provides curbside pick-up of garbage, recyclables, and green waste for both residential and commercial customers.
The City has enacted an ordinanceOordinance No. 838-C.S regulating plastic beverage straws, stirrers and cutlery, and polystyrene disposable food service wear. requiring all food vendors to use biodegradable or compostable service ware. Also, both the City and San Mateo County have recycling divisions that provide information to help residents and businesses reduce and divert waste from landfills. The City has also adopted Ordinance No. 870-CS to comply with SB 1383, California’s Short Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, to increase organic waste recycling in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Policies
Guiding Policies
LD-G-9 Water Conservation. Work with the NCCWD Water District to meet water conservation objectives as required by the State. targets for reducing per capita urban water use by 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.
Pacifica’s water conservation efforts will include water efficient landscaping requirements, incentives for water conservation, and development expansion of thea system to use recycled wastewater for landscaping irrigation.
LD-G-10 Wastewater Treatment. Ensure that the City maintains adequate capacity to handle wastewater, and continue to expand wastewater recycling.
Implementing Policies
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
LD-I-27 Public Service Priorities. Ensure that existing and planned public works facilities accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted. over the planning period are adequately served by existing and planned public works facilities, and plan for the maintenance, operation, expansion and improvement to public facilities considering threats from coastal hazards. Support studies that evaluate the condition of critical facilities, especially public works infrastructure that has been identified as vulnerable to hazards. Studies shall include alternatives analyses for potential retrofit, improvements, relocation, or other considerations
In the event that 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.
LD-I-28 Water Supply. Support the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency in advocating for reliable and fairly priced water from the San Francisco regional water system.
LD-I-29LD-I-28
2.11 1.f
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2-39
LD-I-30LD-I-29 Water Efficient Landscaping. Collaborate with the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) to design and implement a water-conserving landscaping ordinance that meets State requirements.
The State of California has a Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, which can be adapted to the City’s needs. A coordinated response by the City and the NCCWD will help Pacifica reduce water use and stay beneath the water supply limit established by San Francisco Public Utilities District.
LD-I-31LD-I-30 Incentives for Water Conservation. Encourage the NCCWD to continue and expand its water conservation incentive programs, including free water-efficient fixtures and rebates for water-efficient appliances.
LD-I-32LD-I-31 Water Recycling. Collaborate Continue to support implementation and expansion of with the NCCWDNCCWD’s to expand the water recycling project, involving new pipes and pumping stations, to allow treated wastewater from the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant to be used for irrigation of landscaped areas. in additional parts of the City.
The feasibility of expanding this project to include other potential uses of recycled water such as linkages with fire hydrants will be evaluated.
LD-I-33LD-I-32 Water Storage. Support the NCCWD in its efforts to provide adequate emergency water storage in Pacifica.
LD-I-34LD-I-33 Waste Water Treatment Capacity. Continue to monitor wastewater generation rates so decision-makers are aware of the impacts on the treatment plant from new development, and plan for additional capacity in advance of projected need.
LD-I-35LD-I-34 Sewer System Connections. Require all new development to be connected to the City's sewer system.
LD-I-36LD-I-35 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.
LD-I-37LD-I-36 Waste Collection. Periodically evaluate the City’s waste collection contract to ensure that Pacifica residents and businesses receive high-quality and cost effective service.
LD-I-38LD-I-37 Public Services for New Development. Development shall only be approved if it can be shown that it can be accommodated by adequate and sustainable public services (including in terms of water, sewer, and circulation) without any significant impacts to coastal resources. Public service development shall be limited to levels that are sufficient to accommodate LCP consistent development, including at buildout, and shall not be allowed if it would be growth inducing past that threshold. Avoid locating new or expanded public service facilities in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone. If no feasible alternative exists and a new or expanded public service facility must be located with the Coastal Vulnerability Zone, development shall be consistent with this LCP and the Coastal Act.
2.12 1.f
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 2-40
1.f
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 3 PUBLIC ACCESS AND
RECREATION
Open space is a defining feature of the Pacifica Coastal Zone, an extraordinary resource, and a priority for the community. Parks, schools, and public utility services are a vital part of a livable and sustainable Pacifica. The purpose of this chapter is to document existing public open space and community facilities and infrastructure, identify priority improvements, and ensure that they meet the needs of community members. The close relationship between open space, parks, recreation, and schools is highlighted.
An important part of coastal planning under the Coastal Act is identifying and protecting public access to the shoreline. With this in mind, this chapter provides policies for coastal access, and describes improvements that are proposed to be undertaken during the planning period to enhance recreational use of the coastline.
1.f
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 3-2
3.1 COASTAL ACT FRAMEWORK
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states that “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.” The Coastal Act establishes specific requirements for public access to and along the coast, and identifies lower-cost visitor-serving and recreational use of Coastal Zone land as high priorities. Furthermore, Section 30006 of the Coastal Act states that “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; […] and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation.” 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 by reference into this chapter.
Coastal Act Policies
Article 2: Public Access
• Section 30210 Access; recreational opportunities; posting • Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access • Section 30212 New development projects
• Section 30212.5 Public facilities; distribution
• Section 30213 Protection, encouragement, and provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. • Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent • Article 3: Recreation
• Section 30220 Protection of certain water-oriented activities • Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development • Section 30222 Prioritize visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities on private lands • Section 30223 Upland areas
• Section 30224 Recreational boating use; encouragement; facilities • Article 6: Development
• Section 30252 Maintenance and enhancement of public access • Section 30254 Public works facilities
3.2 COASTAL ACCESS
Under the Coastal Act, the public’s right of access to the sea is protected (Section 30211). New development along the coastline is expected to provide public access from the nearest public roadway, except where public access would endanger public safety or fragile coastal resources or where there is adequate access nearby (Section 30212). Public access requirements are to be implemented in a way that allows flexibility in the time,
1.f
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
place, and manner of access based on site characteristics such as topography, natural resources, and the privacy of adjacent property owners (Section 30214). To the greatest extent feasible, public coastal access facilities should be distributed along the coastline to prevent overcrowding or overuse of any area (Section 30212.5).
The Coastal Act requires that local coastal land use plans include a public access component to coordinate public and private access improvements. Coastal access points in Pacifica are detailed in Table 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-1. Some of the access points are privately-owned, while others are on public land. Two types of access points are distinguished: those that provide beach access, and those that provide bluff-top access or viewpoints.
1.f
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 3-4
Figure 3-1: Coastal Access
1.f
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Coastal Access Points with Beaches
Public access to beaches in Pacifica exists at Sharp Park Beach, Rockaway Beach, and Pacifica State Beach.
The shore can also be reached by a public coastal access ramp across private property at Oceanaire Apartments (formerly Land’s End Apartments) in the West Edgemar-Pacific Manor neighborhood, and a public easement on the south side of the San Francisco RV Park.
Coastal Access Points at Bluff-tops or Overlook Points
Bluff-top or promontory access with views over the coastline exists at Mori Point and on the Northern Coastal Bluffs. Direct views to the Ocean are provided at Esplanade Avenue; along Beach Boulevard; at Rockaway Beach; and from the Ocean Shore Railroad berm and the top of Kent Road in the Pedro Point neighborhood. A multi-purpose trail was constructed in 2006 at the south end of Esplanade Avenue directly north of the San Francisco RV Park. Access and overlook points are listed on Table 3-1.
Coastal Access Improvements
LCLUP and General Plan policies identify additional coastal access improvements. The These include enhanced access to the shore south of City is planning improvements to the public access point south of the San Francisco RV Park and enhanced access to bluffs and as part of repairs to the Milagra Creek stormwater outfall, and may develop a small public park or bluff-top viewing areaareas along Northern Coastal Bluffs, Pedro Point and Rockaway Headlands. on City-owned land along Esplanade Avenue if such improvements are feasible1.
The City has supported potential trail improvements by GGNRA to create additional public access on the Northern Coastal Bluffs and at Pedro Point Headlands. A coastal access point has been identified on Rockaway Headlands, where the public could have the opportunity to experience this spectacular setting.
LCLUP policies identify additional coastal access improvements.
Coastal Access with Development
According to the Coastal Act, new development is required to provide maximum beach access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline, except where specific conditions apply. This provision does not apply to all types of new development, including reconstruction of a single-family house or improvements to structures which do not change the intensity of use (California Public Resources Code Section 30210-30214).
Right of Access Acquired Through Use
Along the California coast the general public has historically used numerous coastal areas. Trails to the beach, informal parking areas, beaches, and blufftops have provided recreational opportunities for hiking, picnicking, fishing, swimming, surfing, diving, viewing and nature study. The public may have the right to use the property by permission of the owner or the public may acquire the right through use of the property without permission. This is sometimes referred to as a “public prescriptive easement.” This term recognizes that the use must continue for the length of the “prescriptive period” before a public easement comes into being. In California the prescriptive period is five years.2
1 See Glossary for Coastal Act definition of “feasible.” 2 California Coastal Commission, “Some Facts About Public Prescriptive Rights,” accessed July 2013 at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-accessfacts.pdf
1.f
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-6
TABLE 3-1: COASTAL ACCESS POINTS
Map Name Beach
Access?
Ownership Detail Proposed Improvement
1 North City Boundary No GGNRA Bluff top. Isolated beach access using informal trails. Erosion concerns.
Support bluff trail development on
GGNRA land.
2 West Fairmont Foredune No GGNRA Bluff top. Isolated beach access using informal trails. Erosion concerns.
Support bluff trail development on
GGNRA land.
3 Pacific View Villas
Condominiums
No Private Bluff top. Accessible from Palmetto Avenue or from trail at Oceanaire Apartments.
4 Oceanaire Apartments
(formerly Land’s End
Apartments)
Yes Private High bluffs. Path and stairway to beach available to public, privately maintained.
5 Esplanade at Manor No City Steep bluffs. Coastal erosion has resulted in loss of houses, and fencing across entire stretch. Trail exists in 500-block of Esplanade Avenue.
Pursue small public park and trail on
bluff-top in 400-block of Esplanade
Avenue if feasible.
6 San Francisco RV Park No Private Bluff top. Lateral trail connects to 500-block of Esplanade Avenue.
7 South of San Francisco RV
Park
Yes Private
(public
easement)
Coastal bluffs. Beach accessible by informal path. Off-street parking provided. Erosion concerns.
Improve public access and restore
bluff conditions.
8 Cottages at Seaside No Private Bluff top. Lateral trail along bluff. 9 Northern Beach Boulevard No City Seawall along Beach Boulevard and armored bluff shoreline.
Limited on-street parking on Beach Boulevard.
10 Pacifica Pier and Vicinity Yes City Access to beach at San Jose, Montecito Avenues across armored bluffs, and to Pier at end of Santa Rosa Avenue. Popular fishing area. Erosion concerns. Parking at City-owned lot.
Maintain public parking as part of
redevelopment of City-owned 2212
Beach Boulevard property and
maintain lateral access along Beach
Boulevard to the Pier.
11 Sharp Park Beach
Promenade
Yes City and State Low bluffs between beach and park. Popular for walking, jogging, fishing, ocean viewing, beachcombing. Parking available along Beach Boulevard.
3.1 1.f
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-7
TABLE 3-1: COASTAL ACCESS POINTS (CONTINUED)
Map Name Beach
Access?
Ownership Detail Proposed Improvement
12 Clarendon Road Yes City and State Access to long beach across very low bluffs, protective berm.
Parking available along Beach Boulevard.
13 Sharp Park, South End Yes City/County
of SF
Beach access from south end of berm. Access point is reached by GGNRA's Mori Point Trail.
14 Mori Point No GGNRA Steep rocky bluffs, subject to rockfalls. Trail improvements and habitat restoration in progress.
15 Mori Point Public Parking
Lot
Yes GGNRA Small parking lot at Mori Point Rd. & Bradford Way. Mori Point Trail provides access to beach and bluff top trails.
1716
7 Calera Creek Public
Parking Lot
Yes City Small parking lot west of Reina del Mar & Highway 1 intersection. Calera Creek Multi-use Trail provides access to Rockaway Beach.
1817
8 Rockaway Beach, North
End
Yes City, private Low armored bluffs to sandy beach. Informal beach access.
Public parking lot provides access to beach, most of which is privately-owned
Ensure public access.
19189 Rockaway Beach Seawall No City Promenade above seawall provides ocean views. Parking available in private lots or on-street.
1920 Rockaway Beach, South
End
Yes Private Gentle slope to sandy beach. Popular for surfing, ocean viewing.
Served by public parking lot for 60 vehicles. Also a trailhead for Coastal Trail.
Ensure public access to the beach.
21201 Rockaway
HeadlandsAramai Point
No Private Headlands with steep cliffs descending to cobble beach. No formal access. Erosion concerns.
Provide public trail to overlook point
as part of development or land
conservation.
22212 North End of Pacifica
State Beach
Yes State Unrestricted access along beach and Coastal Trail. Nearest parking at public lot at Crespi Drive.
23223 Central Pacifica State
Beach
Yes State Unrestricted beach access, and access to Coastal Trail. Public lot across Highway 1 at Crespi Drive provides 175 parking spaces, restrooms and changing facilities/
Provide additional signage and
amenities at Crespi Drive parking lot
in relation to proposed extension of
Baquiano Trail.
24234 South End of Pacifica
State Beach
Yes State Unrestricted beach access and access to Coastal Trail. Public parking for State Beach provided in two parking lots, accessed from Highway 1 and San Pedro Avenue.
1.f
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-8
TABLE 3-2: COASTAL ACCESS POINTS (CONTINUED)
Map Name Beach
Access?
Ownership Detail Proposed Improvement
25245 North Side Pedro Point
Shopping Center
Yes Private Informal trail access, and customer parking at shopping center. Improve new segment of Coastal Trail along former railroad berm.
26256 Oceanshore Railroad
Berm
No Private Narrow sandy beach backed by private residences and the old Oceanshore Railroad berm, about 80-100 feet in height.
Conduct a prescriptive rights study.
27267 Shelter Cove No Private Steep bluff. Access by steep, informal trail on private land. High-up views over Shelter Cove, Pedro Point.
Conduct a prescriptive rights study.
28278 Pedro Point Headlands No Public Headlands with steep cliffs. Limited trail access exists from trailhead at Highway 1.
Trail and access improvements
expected under land steward
management; new trails should
provide coastal views from Pedro
Peak.
Source: Pacifica General Plan, 1980; Dyett & Bhatia , 20202019
3.2 3.2
1.f
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-9
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-1 Coastal Access and Recreational Opportunities. Provide maximum coastal access and recreational opportunities for all people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse, including access at each point identified on Figure 3-1.
PR-G-2 Management of Public Access. Regulate the time, place, and manner that public access is provided, based on such factors as topographic and site constraints; the fragility of natural resources; public safety; and the privacy of adjacent residential uses.
PR-G-3 Distribution of Public Coastal Facilities. Continue to distribute public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, so as to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
PR-G-4 Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled by developing high-density, mixed-use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and improving transit options and efficiency. The City shall strive to implement infrastructure and programs which support a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Implementing Policies
PR-I-1 Public Shoreline Access. Continue to ensure that new development does 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.
Formalized public access locations are shown in Figure 3-1.
PR-I-2 New Development and Coastal Access. Require that new development along the coastline provide public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast, and be designed to minimize impacts to public coastal access and recreation. Ensure that impacts are mitigated through the dedication of access or trail easements or the provision of improvements to other public access points.
The City may grant exceptions to this requirement where public access would pose a safety risk or threat to fragile resources, or where adequate access exists nearby.
PR-I-3 Private Roads and Gates. Prohibit gates and other barriers designed to regulate or restrict access on private roads where such barriers have the potential to impede access to public trails and recreational areas.
PR-I-4 Maintenance of Public Coastal Access. Require a public or private entity to be responsible for required public access ways. Until such an entity agrees to be
1.f
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-10
responsible for liability and maintenance of such access ways, they are not required to be open for public use. Dedicated public access ways should be designed to provide views as well as access connections to or along the shore.
PR-I-5 Impediments to Public Access. Prohibit restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands along the coast except where necessary to protect public safety. Such restrictions include the installation of “private beach” and “private parking” signs, landscaping, and painting red curbs in the public right-of-way.
PR-I-6 Structures on Public Beaches. Limit structural development on public beaches to that which is necessary for public access or safety, such as lifeguard towers, waste receptacles, or wheelchair accessways. Such development shall be able to be removed or relocated, and shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on public access, recreation, and coastal resources.
The limitations of this policy shall not apply to shoreline protection structures permitted in accordance with Section 30235 of the PRC and related policies within this LCLUP.
PR-I-7 Adjustment of Lateral Shoreline Easements. Require that new lateral shoreline easements, where required, automatically adjust as needed to move in response to changes to the shoreline (“rolling easements”).
New development must demonstrate that lateral access can be maintained for the expected life of the project, including consideration of effects from sea level rise. Alternatively, the City may determine that lateral public access is not necessary where public access would pose a safety risk or threat to fragile resources, or where adequate access exists nearby. Alternatively, the Planning Director may determine that lateral access is not necessary.
PR-I-8 Temporary Events. Ensure that temporary events minimize impacts to public access, recreation, and coastal resources through the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation special events permitting process. Consistent with Coastal Commission Guidelines, a Coastal Development Permit shall not be required unless the event meets all of the following criteria:
• Is held between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day; and, • Occupies all or a portion of a sandy beach area; and, • Involves a charge for general public admission or seating where no fee is currently charged for use of the same area (not including booth or entry fees).
Only temporary event meeting all the above criteria shall require coastal development permit review, however, the Planning Director may also exclude from permit requirements temporary events meeting all the above criteria when:
• The fee is for preferred seating only and more than 75% of the provided seating capacity is available free of charge for general public use; or,
3.3 1.f
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-11
• The event is held on sandy beach area in a remote location with minimal demand for publicv use, and there is no potential for adverse effect on sensitive coastal resources; or
• The event is less than only one day in duration; or
• The event has previously received a coastal development permit and will be held in the same location, at a similar season, and for the same duration, with operating and environmental conditions essentially the same as those associated with the previously-approved event.
The Planning Director (or the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director if the Planning Director’s determination is challenged) may determine that a temporary event, even an event that might otherwise not require a coastal development permit per this section above, shall require a coastal development permit if he/she it is determineds that unique or changing circumstances exist relative to the particular temporary event that have the potential for significant adverse impacts on coastal resources. Such circumstances may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
• The event, either individually or together with other temporary events scheduled before or after the particular event, precludes the general public from use of a public recreational area for a significant period of time; or • The event and its associated activities or access requirements will either directly or indirectly impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas, rare or endangered species, significant scenic resources (including as mapped on the LCP Land Use Plan maps or as determined during project review), or other coastal resources; or
• The event is scheduled between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day and would restrict public use of roadways or parking areas or otherwise significantly impact public use or access to coastal waters; or • The event has historically required a coastal development permit to address and monitor associated impacts to coastal resources.
Temporary events located solely within the Coastal Commission’s original coastal development permit jurisdiction area require review and determination of coastal development permit requirement or temporary event exemption from the Coastal Commission.
PR-I-9 Fees and Time Restrictions. Ensure that public beaches and parks in the Coastal Zone are free to access or maintain lower-cost user fees and parking fees, and minimize parking lot and beach curfews to the extent feasible in order to maximize public access and recreation opportunities.
PR-I-10 Northern Coastal Bluffs. Promote potential trail improvements by GGNRA to create controlled public access to the bluffs, while protecting Northern Coastal scrub and other vegetation. (See Points 1 and 2 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1.)
3.3 3.3
3.3 1.f
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-12
PR-I-11 Esplanade Bluffat Manor. Develop a small public park or viewing area and a trail on City-owned bluff top land along the 400-block of Esplanade Avenue (Point 5 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1), if such improvements are feasible3.
PR-I-12 Coastal Access Point South of San Francisco RV Park. Improve Complete planned improvements to public access along easement south of the San Francisco RV Park (Point 7 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1) as part of Milagra Creek stormwater outfall project, including trail improvements and natural restoration.
Lateral access along the bluffs as well as vertical trail improvements should be provided from this coastal access point to City- and Coastal Commission-required public access at San Francisco RV Park to the north, and to properties to the south upon future redevelopment.
PR-I-13 Beach Boulevard. Ensure that public access to the coast at the Promenade and Pier (Points 10 and 11 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1) is maintained and enhanced by redevelopment at the City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard site, including continuation of public parking.
PR-I-14 Rockaway Beach. Ensure that public access to Rockaway Beach (from Points 18 17 through 20 19 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1) is maintained.
PR-I-15 Rockaway Headlands.Aramai Point On the Headlands south of Rockaway Beach, create public access to coastal viewsProvide public trail to overlook point as part of development or land conservation (Point 21 20 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1).
PR-I-16 Central Pacifica State Beach. Provide additional signage and amenities at Crespi Drive parking lot in relation to a proposed trail route connection between the coast and the Baquiano Trail in Sweeney Ridge (Point 23 22 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1).
PR-I-17 North Side of Pedro Point Shopping Center. Construct a new segment of Coastal Trail along the former Ocean Shore Railroad Berm (Point 25 24 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1).
PR-I-18 Pedro Point Headlands. Extend trails on Pedro Point Headlands to a coastal overlook point. (See Point 28 27 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 3-1) PR-I-19 Rockaway Quarry. If a safe public route can be developed on the Quarry uplands, create coastal access along a new trail connecting Rockaway Beach with Mori Point, as part of a conservation proposal or new development.
PR-I-20 New Coastal Access Points. Pursue development of new coastal access points wherever possible based on new acquisitions of public land or easements, within fiscal limitations for maintenance of the access points. 3 See Glossary for Coastal Act definition of “feasible.”
3.4 1.f
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-13
3.3 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
The Coastal Act seeks to protect, encourage, and provide lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities and maximize public recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone (Section 30213), as well as to preserve areas especially suited for ocean-oriented recreational use (Section 30220) unless the demand is not likely in the foreseeable future or similar recreation is already adequately provided for locally (Section 30221). Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses should also be preserved (Section 30223). Section 30224 specifically promotes development of facilities for boating use. New development along the coast should ensure that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload coastal recreation areas (Section 30252).
Parks and recreation facilities provide community gathering places, opportunities for relaxation, passive and active recreation, enjoyment of the natural environment, and a break from the stresses of everyday life. Public open space in Pacifica also defines neighborhoods, establishes urban edges, creates scenic vistas, protects coastal resources, and protects rare and endangered or threatened plants and animals and their habitats.
Pacifica has over six miles of coastline and beaches, offering recreation opportunities that include isolated beach experiences, outstanding fishing, surfing, tide-pooling and diving. Trails provide public access along much of Pacifica’s coastline. Pacifica also provides City parks in a variety of sizes for local residents and visitors, maintains a partnership with local school districts making school play fields available for community use, and has a historic coastal public golf course. and club house.
Existing parks and proposed improvements are shown on Figure 3-2, Parks and Open Space System.
In addition to the extensive public land in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone and the recreation opportunities it affords, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan designates certain areas for Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial uses. This development priority is covered in Chapter 2.
Regional Parks and Beaches
Regional Parks
Regional parks and beaches in the Coastal Zone total approximately 450 acres, and are listed in Table 3-2. This park land is owned and managed by various agencies, including the National Park Service, the State of California, the City and County of San Francisco, and the City of Pacifica. The City does not have permitting authority over park land owned by other public agencies. While the California red-legged frog and the endangered San Francisco garter snake are noted within the Mori Point and Sharp Park areas, these or other sensitive species may be present in other regional park or beach areas.
1.f
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-14
TABLE 3-2: REGIONAL PARKS AND BEACHES IN THE COASTAL ZONE Park Name or Category Owner Acres
Regional Parks
Mori Point (GGNRA) National Park Service 106
Northern Coastal Bluffs (GGNRA) National Park Service 17 Pedro Point Headlands (GGNRA)1 City of Pacifica, State of California 160 Sharp Park2 City and County of San Francisco 128
Subtotal 410
Beaches
Sharp Park Beach City and County of SF, State of California 14 Rockaway Beach Private 4.5=5
Pacifica State Beach State of California, City of Pacifica 21 Subtotal 40
Total 450
Notes:
(1) As of 2012, Pedro Point Headlands is owned by the City of Pacifica and the California Coastal Conservancy. (2) Only portion within Coastal Zone is counted. Portion of Sharp Park Beach within Sharp Park is calculated under “Beaches”.
Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2008; City of Pacifica, 2010; Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
Mori Point and land on Pacifica’s Northern Coastal Bluffs are part of the National Park Service’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which extends in segments from Point Reyes, through San Francisco, to the Santa Cruz Mountains. Additional land owned by the California Coastal Conservancy and the City of Pacifica on Pedro Point Headlands may be added to the GGNRA in the future. As of 20092018, GGNRA estimated approximately 17 million visitors to the Recreation Area as a whole., up from 13 million visitors to 74,820 acres of parkland in 2004.4 Protected ridges and coastal bluffs in and adjacent to the GGNRA are features of major local and regional significance as well as being vantage points for impressive views of the coast and bayside ridges and valleys.
NORTHERN COASTAL BLUFFS
GGNRA manages approximately 17 acres of bluffs along the ocean in the far northern end of Pacifica, nearly contiguous with GGNRA-managed coastal land around Mussel Rock in Daly City.
This land offers wide open views from Palmetto Avenue. There is currently no improved public access. GGNRA intends to preserve and enhance the natural and scenic values of their cliffs, with some public access.
MORI POINT
Mori Point, a 106-acre promontory between Sharp Park and Rockaway beaches, was added to the GGNRA in 2002. Mori Point is accessible from the Coastal Trail along Calera Creek, from the Sharp 4 National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/statistics.htm, accessed 2009.
1.f
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-15
Park levee at Clarendon and Beach Boulevard, or from Mori Point Road in the West Fairway Park neighborhood. The San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog are found on Mori Point, and the unit is managed for the protection of these species, while trail enhancements are also being provided.
SHARP PARK
The 400-acre Sharp Park is the result of a 1917 land bequest by the Murphey Sharp family to the City and County of San Francisco, on the condition that the land remains in recreational use. Sharp Park contains an 18-hole public golf course, with 14 of those holes located in the Coastal Zone and , occupying 128 acres between the ocean berm and Highway 1. Sharp Park Golf Course It was established in 1932 and designed by British golf course architect, Alister MacKenzie. The Sharp Park Golf Course provides low-cost golf to the general public, with reduced greens fees for Pacifica and San Francisco residents. The golf course Sharp Park Golf Course also includes habitat for the California red-legged frog and the endangered San Francisco garter snake. In 2009, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission adopted a restoration plan that would retain the golf course, while also creating more habitat by realigning parts of the course.
PEDRO POINT HEADLANDS
Pedro Point Headlands is the coastal extension of San Pedro Mountain, jutting into the Pacific west of Highway 1 north of Devil's Slide. Most of Pedro Point Headlands within the Planning Area are now owned by the State of California or the City of Pacifica. The Headlands will be managed for habitat protection and public enjoyment. The construction of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel allowed the bypassed highway segment to be converted to a trail in 2014. Parking areas and trailheads are also now available at this segment, and new trails have been developed to link the trailhead at the north end with trails on Pedro Point Headlands. The Headlands will be managed for habitat protection and public enjoyment.
Beaches
PACIFICA STATE BEACH
Pacifica State Beach, stretching more than a half mile between Pedro Point and the Rockaway Headlands, Aramai Point, is one of the most popular surfing and beach bathing spots in the San Francisco area. By a 2005 estimate, more than one million visitors use Pacifica State Beach every year. Most of the beach and dunes are owned by the State and are part of the state parks system, but are managed by the City of Pacifica. Improvements completed in 2004 included rehabilitation of the Linda Mar Sewage Pumping Station, wetlands restoration, shoreline protection, dune restoration, improvements to the Coastal Trail, and new public restrooms.
1.f
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-16
Figure 3-2: Parks and Open Space System
1.f
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-17
Rockaway Beach
Rockaway Beach lies on a small bay between rocky headlands. The north end of the beach may be accessed from a seafront plaza at the end of Rockaway Beach Avenue. A parking lot connects the south end of the beach to a new segment of the Coastal Trail crossing the Headlands between Rockaway Beach and Pacifica State Beach. The new section of Coastal Trail along Calera Creek can be reached from the south end of Rockaway Beach.
SHARP PARK BEACH AND PACIFICA PIER
Sharp Park Beach extends from Mori Point along the west side of the Sharp Park levee to the West Sharp Park neighborhood. The southern section is owned by the City and County of San Francisco as part of Sharp Park, while the northern portion is owned by the State. The beach is open to the public, and is popular for walking. It is reached from the south from a small trailhead at Mori Point, and from the north at the Beach Boulevard Promenade, where public parking is available. The Promenade also provides access to Pacifica Pier, where crabbing and fishing are popular activities.
Open Space Task Force Recommendation
An Open Space Task Force, convened by City Council in 1984 “to identify, prioritize, and seek means for long-range preservation of significant open space in Pacifica,” identified 51 properties as priorities for preservation. Preservation strategies include public acquisition of land or conservation easements; General Plan and zoning changes; use of Transfer of Development Rights; and action by a local land trust. The Open Space Task Force recommendations include land that has been permanently preserved since the Report was produced. Land on Mori Point, Pedro Point Headlands, the Northern Coastal Bluffs, Esplanade Bluff, Sharp Park Beach, and Pacifica State Beach were acquired by land trusts, the City of Pacifica, the California Coastal Conservancy, or the National Park Service for conservation.
Priorities for Regional Park Land in the Planning Area
The General Plan identifies land on the Northern Coastal Bluffs and the bluffs along Esplanade Avenue as priorities for permanent conservation because of the presence of sensitive natural communities and the risks of development along the coast. This land may be managed by GGNRA, the City, or others, with development rights transferred with use of the City's TDR program.
On a variety of other sites shown on Figure 3-1 as “Partial Conservation with Development,” open space is expected to be preserved as part of development.
City Parks and Playfields
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states that new development along the coast should ensure that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload coastal recreation areas.
City parks and school playfields provide active use areas and areas for local passive enjoyment for Pacifica residents. These include district parks, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, special facilities, and school grounds. City parks and school grounds in the Coastal Zone total approximately 10 acres.
The Coastal Zone includes one neighborhood park, Fairmont West, which covers five acres and includes a soccer field, basketball hoops, and public restrooms. Palmetto Mini-Park provides a small playlot for the West Sharp Park neighborhood, while more ample playfields are available for afterschool use at Ingrid B. Lacy Middle School.
1.f
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-18
The most prominent City of Pacifica recreational facilities in the Coastal Zone are Beach Boulevard Promenade and the Pacifica Municipal Pier. Beach Boulevard Promenade is located above the seawall in the West Sharp Park neighborhood. It is served by public parking, and is popular for walking and jogging. The Promenade provides access to the Pacifica Pier and Sharp Park Beach.
Pacifica Municipal Pier, built in 1973, is one of the Bay Area’s most popular places to fish. No fishing license is needed, and several types of fish can be caught from the pier. The pier is adjacent to the Promenade and picnic area along Beach Boulevard. A café is located at the foot of the pier.
Park Standards
The City’s park standards are intended to meet the needs for active and passive recreation and enjoyment of Pacifica residents and visitors over the planning period. Pacifica requires developers to dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee to provide park land at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents. All residents should be within a short walk (one-quarter to one-half mile) of either a neighborhood park or usable outdoor area at a school site, but not necessarily both.
Parks and Recreation Priorities
According to the California Parks and Recreation Society, the most valued feature of parks is the preservation of and access to outdoor spaces, particularly minimally-developed areas in a nearly natural state and areas with facilities for children’s play and for exercise and group sports. Parks also provide a sense of social connectedness.5 The desire for natural areas is abundantly met in Pacifica.
While Pacifica has a good inventory of park land., some built-out neighborhoods with limited existing parkland may experience increasing in-fill density, leading to unique park needs. Because population growth is expected to be slow during the planning period, little new land is needed (an estimated 13 acres citywide). Additionally, fFiscal constraints, meanwhile, make park maintenance a challenge in the future. Pacifica is likely to focus on solutions to address park access in built-out neighborhoods, such as rooftop parks or public plazas, enhancing existing parks, and evaluating opportunities to create new parks on underused public land and as part of new development.
Opportunity sites for new parks and park improvements are shown in Figure 3-2. 5 California Park & Recreation Society. Market Research to Support CRPS Building the Brand Initiative. March 2009.
1.f
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-19
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-5 Coastal Areas Suited for Water-Oriented Recreation. Continue to protect coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities.
This policy applies to but is not limited to the following: fishing at Pacifica Pier, surfing and other water recreation at Pacifica State Beach. The policy is based on Section 30220 of the California Coastal Act.
PR-G-6 Development of City Parks. Create and enhance neighborhood and pocket parks and plazas to provide access to local recreational space to all Pacifica residents.
PR-G-7 Recreation Facilities Enhance outdoor recreation facilities and services in local parks, in coordination with youth and adult leagues and community groups with priority given to sports fields and off-leash dog play areas.
PR-G-8 Community Gathering Place Create or enhance one or more public plazas or central gathering places where all Pacifica residents come together. This place or places should be connected with concentrated, mixed use areas.
PR-G-9 School Playfields. Continue to cooperate with the school districts to make school playfields available for public use after school hours.
PR-G-10 Open Space Preservation. Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety.
The top priority areas for conservation are beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillsides areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and endangered species.
Implementing Policies
REGIONAL PARKS AND BEACHES
PR-I-21 Public Access Improvements and Habitat Restoration. Support GGNRA in implementing habitat restoration and public access improvements at its park units in the Planning Area, including Sweeney Ridge, Milagra Ridge, Mori Point, and the Northern Coastal Bluffs.
PR-I-22 Pedro Point Headlands. Complete the planned transfer of City-owned land on Pedro Point Headlands to an appropriate public or private land steward, and pursue land and/or trail easement acquisition if necessary to connect Headlands trails with the Coastal Trail in Pacifica.
1.f
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-20
PR-I-23 Northern Coastal Bluffs. Promote the permanent conservation of private land on the Northern Coastal Bluffs to protect sensitive natural communities and protect against coastal erosion. Manage protected land together with adjacent GGNRA land.
PR-I-24 Sharp Park. Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with redeveloping sourceresource protection, natural hazard, and coastal vulnerability policies, existing CDP terms and conditions, and support development of additional recreational uses in upland portions of the Park located outside the Coastal Zone east of Highway 1.
The long-term management approach should protect existing development from hazards; protect and restore habitat; and maintain public access to and along the beach.
PR-I-25 Sharp Park and Pacifica State Beaches. Maintain partnership with the State of California in ownership and management of Sharp Park Beach and Pacifica State Beach, balancing public access with protection of habitat and shoreline conditions.
PR-I-26 Rockaway Beach. Pursue Ensure that public ownership ofaccess to Rockaway Beach from designated Coastal Access points is maintained. and promote management that enhances natural shoreline processes.
PR-I-27 Fees and Time Restrictions. Ensure that public beaches and parks in the Coastal Zone maintain free and lower-cost user fees and parking fees, and minimize parking lot and beach curfews to the extent feasible in order to maximize public access and recreation opportunities.
CITY PARKS AND SCHOOL PLAYFIELDS
PR-I-28 Park Land Dedication or In-Lieu Fees. For new land divisions and residential development, continue to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees to provide park land at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents.
PR-I-29 Park Development to Meet Park Standards. Develop new parks in a timely manner using in-lieu fees or land dedicated as part of new development, to ensure that Citywide park and recreation space is available to the community at a ratio of
6.34 acres per 1,000 residents by 2040.
PR-I-30 Community Use of School Grounds and Recreation Facilities. Explore Maintain existing joint-use agreements and seek to strengthen these as needed to ensure community use of play areas and indoor recreation facilities at school sites.
PR-I-31 Parks as Part of Future Development. Create future public spaces, accessible to the community, as part of the redevelopment of publicly-owned sites and of larger privately-owned sites, including the Rockaway Quarry site, the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and the Milagra Canyon site.
3.5 1.f
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-21
PR-I-32 Pocket Park Opportunity Sites on Public Land. Explore opportunities to develop pocket parks on public land that is not otherwise needed as neighborhood gathering places and play areas.
Potential sites are on street stubs or right-of-way not needed to serve future development, and within easy walking distance to adjacent residences. Amenities should include, but not be limited to, play or exercise equipment in park-deficient areas, and benches or picnic tables at scenic overlook points.
3.4 TRAIL SYSTEM
Trails play an important role in enhancing the recreational use of the coastline. Coastal Act provisions call for upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses to be preserved (Section 30223).
Existing Trails in the Planning Area
The Pacifica Planning Area has 67 miles of trails through GGNRA land, in San Pedro Valley County Park, and along the coast, including segments along City streets. Historically, the City has sought to create a system that includes a coastal trail, a ridgeline trail, and lateral trails connecting the ridgeline to the coast, as shown in Figure 3-3.
Coastal Trail
Pacifica's Coastal Trail currently runs almost the length of the Planning Area, from the Daly City boundary to Pedro Point Shopping Center. The route follows Palmetto Avenue alongside the Northern Coastal Bluffs, turns onto Esplanade Avenue through the West Edgemar-Pacific Manor neighborhood, and follows Palmetto again through West Sharp Park. The trail then branches into two parallel routes. The western route travels along the levee between Sharp Park Golf Course and Sharp Park Beach, and then east along the north side of Mori Point. The eastern route follows Francisco Boulevard south, meeting the other trail at the Mori Point trailhead. From this point, the Coastal Trail follows a path alongside Highway 1 and then arcs west along the restored section of Calera Creek in the Rockaway Quarry site. After a short on-street segment in the Rockaway Beach district, the trail follows a path over the Rockaway HeadlandsAramai Point and then along the inland side of the dunes at Pacifica State Beach. The trail currently comes to an end at the south end of the beach.
The City in 2015 acquired an approximately five acre parcel in the Pedro Point Headlands, known as the Colt property, which provided a critical link to other publicallypublicly-owned land in the Headlands. As a result, it should be possible to construct a trail west of Highway 1 to extend the Coastal Trail from its current terminus southward through the Pedro Point Headlands to connect with the Devil’s Slide Trail.
Ridge Trails
Lateral trail connections to the Bay Area Ridge Trail along Sweeney Ridge exist along Milagra Ridge, Mori Ridge and Cattle Hill. Trailheads with parking lots are at Milagra Ridge, Skyline College, Sneath Lane, Devil’s Slide, and Shelldance Nursery off of Highway 1. Connections between the Coastal Trail and the Ridge trails are currently lacking.
1.f
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-22
Pedro Point Headlands
Trails at Pedro Point bring hikers from a trailhead on Highway 1 to an overlook point and to Pedro Summit. They are minimally improved, although the trailhead created with the opening of the Devil’s Slide Tunnels in 2014 has created a new public parking lot. As mentioned above, a trail connection is planned to fill the gap in the Coastal Trail between Pedro Point Shopping Center and Devil’s Slide Trail.
Trailheads and Parking Areas
Existing trailheads in the Coastal Zone exist at the Beach Boulevard Promenade; Mori’s Point Road; Shelldance Nursery; Rockaway Beach; and Pacifica State Beach. Planning Area trails also can be reached from trailheads east of the ridge at Skyline College and at Sneath Lane. A trailhead with parking exists on Highway 1 approaching Devil’s Slide Trail.
Priorities for Enhancing Pacifica's Trail System
Developing an integrated trail system, as proposed in this Plan, will enhance access to and enjoyment of Pacifica's natural resources for both residents and visitors. It will make possible a variety of loop walks taking in a diversity of scenery and connecting large open spaces with Pacifica’s activity centers.
The trail system will function both as a system with a Pacifica identity, and as a link in regional and state trail systems.
The Plan proposes four areas of improvement. First, new trail segments are needed to connect the Coastal and Ridge trails and to provide better access to and through Pacifica's neighborhoods.
Second, new and improved, wildlife-friendly crossings of Highway 1 are needed to make the new trail connections work. Third, new trailheads and improvements are needed to assure access at locations that reinforce existing activity centers. And fourth, a signage and wayfinding program is proposed to make the overall system legible both as a Pacifica system and as part of the California Coastal Trail and Bay Area Ridge Trail.
1.f
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-23
Figure 3-3: Trail System
1.f
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-24
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-11 Trail System Expansion. Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 3-3, and to enhance and augment California Coastal Trail connections and connectivity.
Implementing Policies
PR-I-33 New Segments of California Coastal Trail in Pacifica. Create new trail segments through Rockaway Quarry uplands and the Pedro Point Headlands as part of development or as separate Coastal Trail initiatives.
PR-I-34 Coastal Trail Between Pacifica and Devil’s Slide. Work with involved agencies and property owners to achieve a trail connection west of Highway 1 between Pedro Point Shopping Center and the new north Devil’s Slide trailhead.
PR-I-35 Pedro Point Headlands Trails. In coordination with GGNRA and the California Coastal Conservancy, support trail improvements on Pedro Point Headlands, and extension of these trails to the new trailhead at the north end of Devil’s Slide.
PR-I-36 Pedestrian Improvements on Palmetto and Esplanade. Make sidewalk and streetscape improvements along Coastal Trail segments of Palmetto and Esplanade Avenues a priority.
Streetscape improvements for Palmetto Avenue will also support a pedestrian-oriented mixed use district in West Sharp Park and may provide for a separated path along the Northern Coastal Bluffs.
PR-I-37 Lateral Ridge Trail Extensions. In coordination with GGNRA, pursue lateral ridge trail extensions, providing new connections between the Coast and Sweeney Ridge.
• Extend the Baquiano Trail and Ahni Trail down Fassler Avenue and across private land to Crespi Drive and Highway 1. as part of the Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail. This would connect the Portola Expedition Camp with the San Francisco Bay Discovery Site on Sweeney Ridge, giving visitors the experience of this historic route.
• Extend the Farallon View Trail spur west on a new easement with a new trailhead on Caltrans land, or a shared parking agreement with the church at the base of the hill.
• Extend the Milagra Ridge trail west across preserved land on the lower ridge. • Provide a safe and attractive connection between the foot of the Milagra Ridge Trail and the coastal access point north of the San Francisco RV Park.
3.6 1.f
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-25
PR-I-38 Highway 1 Over-Crossing at Mori Point. Support the development of a new wildlife-friendly over-crossing between Shelldance Nursery and Mori Point, in coordination with GGNRA and Caltrans to enhance visitor facilities in Pacifica. As an interim alternative, strengthen signage and safe connections to the existing Sharp Park Golf Course undercrossing in the East Fairway Park neighborhood.
The new over-crossing design should consider the ability to safely accommodate wildlife movement across Highway 1 as a design feature.
PR-I-39 Harry Dean Trail. Improve and extend existing trails connecting City-owned parks and open spaces in Pacifica's northern neighborhoods to reach Skyline Boulevard on the east and Westline Drive along the Northern Coastal Bluffs.
PR-I-40 Pier to Ridge Trail. Develop a direct pedestrian route between the Sharp Park Beach Promenade and upper Sharp Park Road, also connecting the West and East Sharp Park neighborhoods. Improvements should include:
• A new trail extending east from the top of Talbot Road to Sharp Park Road, with a public access easement; and
• Pedestrian improvements and trail signage along Talbot Road and San Jose or Santa Rosa Avenue.
PR-I-41 Enhanced Visitor Services at Shelldance Nursery. Support the proposal for enhanced visitor services at the Shelldance Nursery site, including an education/visitors’ center, additional parking, and better access, to be implemented by GGNRA.
Shelldance Nursery may become the hub of Pacifica’s trail system, with direct access to coastal and ridge trails, visitor amenities, and proximity to visitor-oriented commercial areas.
PR-I-42 Hikers’ FacilitiesHuts, Campgrounds, and Related Amenities. Support the development of hikers’ facilities and related amenities where huts, kiosks, and cabins for hikers on Sweeney Ridge and at Rockaway Headlands, and the development of campgrounds on sites where sufficient management and services can be provided by the property owner or operator.
PR-I-43 Signage and Wayfinding. Develop the overall image and accessibility of Pacifica’s natural assets, through a program of consistent and attractive signage for the trail system.
• Provide wayfinding signage along all on-street portions of the trail system; at junctions of off-street trails; and at trailheads.
• Provide interpretive signage to identify landforms visible from viewpoints; provide information about the natural environment and sensitive species;
1.f
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-26
information about historical and cultural points of interest; information about unique features of Pacifica; and other subjects.
Each trail should have an identity as part of the Pacifica trail system (e.g., Trail 1—Coastal Trail). Where routes are shared with the California Coastal Trail or the Bay Area Ridge Trail, these should also be identified.
PR-I-44 Pacifica Parks and Trails Map and Guide. Develop a map of Pacifica’s parks and trails to support recreation activities, marketing and outreach efforts.
3.5 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
As with the multi-use trail system described above, bicycle facilities expand access to the coastline for both local residents and recreational users, and support Coastal Act provisions for recreational use of upland areas (Section 30223) and maintenance and enhancement of public access (Section 30252).
Bicycle Circulation
Pacifica’s highly scenic setting, recreational amenities, and connections to major regional open spaces and trails make it ideal for recreational bicycle riding, and for local trips along the coastline or in the valley neighborhoods. However, the network of bicycle routes is inconsistently developed and not always well marked.
The proposed bicycle system, shown in Figure 3-4, is a critical component of the circulation network. It shows both bicycle routes and improved signage to improve access and safety. It provides bicyclists with a complete network of continuous and safe access along the coastal corridor and between neighborhoods. These designations support the City of Pacifica2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
The Bicycle System includes fourthree types of bikeway classifications, consistent with Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:
• Class I facilities (bike paths or trails) are paved trails wholly separated from the street. They allow two-way travel by people bicycling and walking, and are often considered the most comfortable facilities for children and inexperienced riders as there are few potential conflicts between people bicycling and people driving. have exclusive right-of-way, are separated from roads, and exclude general motor vehicle traffic.
• Class II facilities (bike lanes) are marked by painted stripes on the roadway. While the striping provides preferred space for bicycles, they are still part of the paved road and are not exclusive for bicycles.
• Class III facilities (bike routes) share traffic lanes with automobiles and are only identified by signage.
• Class IV facilities (separated bikeways) are for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The
1.f
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-27
separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.
North-South Bikeway
Pacifica’s north-south bikeway primarily runs parallel to and along SR 1. The northern segment includes a Class III facility (a signed bike route) along Esplanade Avenue, a Class II facility (bike lane) along Esplanade and Palmetto Avenues, and another stretch of Class III bike route on Francisco Boulevard to Mori Point Road and State Route 1. At this point, the bikeway becomes a Class I facility (bike path) between Mori’s Point Road and Reina del Mar Avenue. From here, the northsouth bike route goes along a Class I facility along Calera Creek through the Rockaway Quarry site to Rockaway Beach. From here the route has two branches: a bike path over the Rockaway Headlands and along the dunes from Rockaway Beach to Pacifica State Beach; and an unofficial route with a 9- foot-wide striped lane along SR 1. An enhanced north-south bikeway following Plan policies will provide options for more direct travel on major roadways, or more sheltered travel on Class I facilities or low-traffic streets.
Other Bikeways
A Class II (striped bike lane) and Class III (signed bike route) facility runs east-west along Sharp Park Road between SR 1 and SR 35, providing a primary connection to the coastline from the east. Sharp Park Road has a continuous eastbound bike lane; the westbound bike lane currently exists only between College Drive and SR 35. No immediate bikeway improvements are proposed for the eastwest route along Sharp Park Road.
A series of additional bikeways are proposed to serve the Sharp Park, Vallemar, Rockaway Beach, Linda Mar, and Pedro Point neighborhoods. These routes are planned to provide convenient access to most Pacifica residents, to follow streets with gradual slopes, and to use through streets with adequate right-of-way for bicycle facilities where possible. Proposed routes within the Coastal Zone are shown on Figure 3-4.
Bicycle Parking and Amenities
As of 2000, there were 24 bike racks in Pacifica with a combined capacity for 130 bikes. Facilities are an essential component of Pacifica’s bicycle network. End-of-trip facilities include bicycle parking (short-term and long-term parking), self-repair stations, and lockers and changing areas in existing or new buildings. Outdoor facilities, especially bicycle parking, is an important factor because potential users may be less likely to complete a trip by bicycle if they do not believe they have a safe and secure location to lock their bike.
Current bicycle parking is limited in Pacifica. Bike racks are close to most major destinations along the two bike routes, but are not present at Rockaway Beach, the beach access location at the end of Esplanade Avenue, in the Pedro Point area, at some of the public schools, or in the Pacific Manor commercial area. Improved parking and amenities will increase the comfort and appeal of biking in Pacifica during the planning period.
1.f
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-28
Pedestrian Circulation
Walking is a basic and often overlooked part of all trips that also involve transit or automobiles.
Walking can be ideal for short, local trips for shopping, school, and recreation. Adequate facilities for pedestrians help to ensure access to and along the coast. This section focuses on pedestrian facilities that support comfortable and safe day-to-day pedestrian travel. See Section 3.4 for a discussion of the trail system in Pacifica, and Section 3.6 for a discussion of complete streets.
Sidewalks and Crosswalks
Where sidewalks are present in Pacifica, they are generally between five and 10 feet wide and in good condition. Crosswalks are provided at all studied intersections with appropriate striping and, where appropriate, pedestrian signals. Under the Plan, pedestrian facilities will be improved and enhanced, especially where pedestrian activity is a priority. Pedestrian Priority Zones are shown on Figure 3-5, Roadway Network and Planned Improvements.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings of Highway 1
Along SR 1, there are five east-west crossings for automobiles, pedestrians and bikes, at Gateway Drive, Manor Drive, Paloma Avenue, Clarendon Road, and Sharp Park Road. In addition, there are pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings at Milagra Drive and San Jose Avenue, and an undercrossing at Sharp Park Golf Course.
Figure 3-4: Bicycle Network
1.f
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-29
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Develop safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian access within Pacifica and to local points of interest. Establish trails, bike routes and pedestrian amenities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations, and fill in gaps in the existing network.
PR-G-13 Recreational Access. Provide recreational access to coastal resources and public open space in keeping with Pacifica’s natural environment, with links to regional trails and bicycle corridors.
PR-G-14 Mobility for All Users. Create a safe and attractive walking environment accessible for all users, particularly persons with disabilities diabilities, seniors, and younger residents and visitors.
PR-G-15 Connections Across Highway 1. Enhance under- and over-crossings of Highway 1 for pedestrians and bikes to improve accessibility and connect neighborhoods to each other and to the coast.
PR-G-16 Coastal Trail and North-South Bikeway. Complete the Coastal Trail and the north-south bikeway from the north to sound end of the City parallel to Highway 1, providing clear, safe and efficient means to traverse coastal Pacifica.
Implementing Policies
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
See also policies that support pedestrian circulation listed under Section 3.4: Trail System and Section 3.6: Roadway Network and Planned Improvements.
PR-I-45 Pedestrian-Oriented Street Improvements. Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations to improve pedestrian-orientated safety and comfort.
Reduce curb-to-curb road widths and employ roadway design features, such as wider sidewalks, islands, bulb-outs, improved striping and signage, street trees, pedestrian amenities, pedestrian countdown signals, and pedestrian refuges where feasible and appropriate. Priority locations for pedestrian-oriented design improvements include:
• Pedestrian Priority Zones, (including Manor, Sharp Park, Vallemar/Fairway Park, and Linda Mar PPAs,), which include mixed use and higher-intensity areas;
• Streets that are part of Pacifica’s proposed trail system improvements; • Streets adjacent to schools; and
• Locations where pedestrian-automobile collisions have occurred.
1.f
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-30
BICYCLE FACILITIES
PR-I-46 Direct North-South Bikeway. Complete the City’s direct north-south bicycle route to optimize safety and comfort and enhance access to and along the coast.
Improvements should include the following, from north to south:
• Class II bike lanes along Westline Drive north of Palmetto Avenue; • A continuous Class II bikeway on Palmetto Avenue between Westline Drive and the San Francisco RV Park;
• A Class II bikeway on Clarendon Road, Lakeside Road, Francisco Boulevard, and Bradford Way, improving the bikeway between West Sharp Park and Mori Point;
• A reconstructed Class I path between Mori Point and Reina del Mar Avenue that is wider and more sheltered from the highway than the current trail; • A Class II bikeway on SR 1 between Reina del Mar Avenue and San Pedro Creek, providing a direct travel route along SR 1 through southern Pacifica with well-marked and buffered lanes; and
• A Class III bikeway along SR 1 between San Pedro Creek and the Devil’s Slide bypass.
PR-I-47 Parallel North-South Bikeway West of SR 1. Create and upgrade bicycle facilities that provide an alternative for north-south bicycle travel west of Highway 1.
Improvements should include the following, from north to south:
• A Class I trail in a public access easement along the west side of the San Francisco RV park as part of any development or change in use, ensuring public access along the coast (a previous path was lost to erosion); • A Class III route along Beach Boulevard between Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road;
• A Class III bikeway along Dondee Drive in the Rockaway Beach district, connecting existing Class I trails along Calera Creek to the north and Rockaway Headlands to the south;
• A Class I trail parallel west of SR 1 from San Pedro Creek to the Devil’s Slide bypass.
Many sections of the parallel north-south bikeway are shared with the Coastal Trail for pedestrians, covered in Section 3.4: Trail System. These sections should be evaluated for their functionality for both pedestrians and cyclists.
PR-I-48 Bicycle Lockers at Public Parking Lots. Replace existing bicycle lockers at the public parking lot on Crespi Drive, and add lockers at the park-and-ride lot on Linda Mar Boulevard.
1.f
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-31
PR-I-49 Bicycle Parking at Recreation and Shopping Areas. Provide bicycle parking at the following locations:
• Park and beach access at the northern end of Esplanade Drive (Lands End Apartments);
• Manor Plaza shopping area; and
• Pedro Point Headlands/Devil’s Slide.
PR-I-50 Bicycle Parking Requirements for New Development. Continue to rRequire bicycle parking facilities in new high density residential, mixed use, and nonresidential development.
PR-I-51 Bicycle Parking at Schools and Workplaces. Work with the school districts and employers to provide adequate bicycle parking at all schools and workplaces with 30 or more employees.
PR-I-52 Funding for Bicycle Facilities. Designate a portion of the City’s annual street construction and improvement budget to fund bikeway design and construction, and continue to pursue potential funding from MTC and San Mateo County, as well as appropriate Federal and State programs.
PR-I-53 Eligibility Criteria for Improvements. Review eligibility criteria for funding for improvements from the State, to obtain additional funding for bicycle facilities.
3.6 ROADWAY NETWORK AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Section 30254 of the Coastal Act states that new or expanded public works facilities must be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the Coastal Act.
Roadway Network
Three major routes connect Pacifica to the rest of the region. State Route (SR) 1 (Coast Highway) traverses the City from north to south, connecting Pacifica to Daly City and San Francisco to the north, and to Half Moon Bay and the San Mateo County coastline to the south, and providing continuous access to the Pacifica coast. SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard) generally runs along the eastern edge of Pacifica, and is a major north-south route connecting to Santa Clara County and San Francisco. Sharp Park Road follows a southwest-northeast route through the center of Pacifica, connecting SR 1 with SR 35. It continues east of SR 35 in South San Francisco as Westborough Boulevard. Each of these major roadways intersects with I-280, an eight-lane major regional freeway on the Peninsula located between one-half and two miles from the Planning Area.
Roadway Classification
Pacifica’s roadway network is comprised of freeways, highways, arterials, collector streets and local streets. Each classification reflects the character of the roadway as well as its function within the context of the circulation system. Figure 3-5 illustrates the roadway network with street classifications.
1.f
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-32
Mode Priorities
Table 3-3 shows generally how vehicle modes of travel are accommodated on each type of roadway with the City. This table provides a guide for how future roadway improvements should help to produce a complete streets network in Pacifica, with different roadways balancing needs differently to create a system that functions optimally for all users.
TABLE 3-3: MODE PRIORITIES BY ROADWAY TYPE
Facility Transit Bicycles Pedestrians Trucks Automobiles Freeways and Multilane Highways X X
Two-lane Highways
Arterials
Collectors
Local X
X
= Dominant
= Accommodated
= Incidental
= Prohibited
1 Transit has priority over bicycles on Arterials, where conflicts exist.
Streetscape Improvements in Pedestrian Priority Zones
Pedestrian priority zones, shown on Figure 3-5, are areasPpriority zonesAreas (PPAs), shown on Figure 3-5, are areas within proximity to one or more schools, trailheads, and a crossing of Highway 1 that have potential to generate substantial volumes of pedestrians. While pedestrian improvements are not limited to within these areas, areas with highest needs include the Manor, Sharp Park, Vallemar/Fairway Park, and Linda Mar PPAs. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides specific recommendations for each PPA, but pedestrian infrastructure improvements fall into six general categories, including pavement markings; pedestrian-actuated beacons; street furniture; sidewalks, trails, and medians; intersection and street design; and studies. in which high volumes of pedestrian traffic are encouraged and accommodated along the sidewalk. They include portions of Palmetto Avenue, Esplanade Avenue, and other streets in mixed use areas. Sidewalks should be a minimum of eight feet wide with ample pedestrian amenities such as street furniture and wayfinding signs, and a consistent street tree theme. Building frontages should provide a high level of pedestrian interest, with ample windows, doors and architectural articulation. Pedestrian crossings should have a high priority at intersections, with curb bulb-outs at key intersections. In some locations, wellprotected mid-block crosswalks may be appropriate. These areas may also feature distinctive lighting, public art, and bicycle facilities at appropriate locations, and stormwater management features.
The City of Pacifica has made public realm improvements in Rockaway Beach and completed the first phase of is currently undertaking a streetscape improvement program for Palmetto Avenue, from Clarendon Road north to Paloma Avenue. in 2017. Improvements included additions of new bikeways with green pavement markings, landscaping and bulbouts, lighting, and undergrounding utilities. The Sharp Park Specific Plan includes several policies to further enhance the comfort, atmosphere, and navigability of the streetscape for pedestrians and bicyclists within the Sharp Park neighborhood. During the planning period, additional attention will be paid to streetscape improvements in the City’s mixed use centers and visitor-oriented commercial areas.
1.f
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-33
Roadway Improvements and Complete Streets
Roadway improvements will follow design standards for each roadway classification that take into account a facility’s relation to the larger circulation system; appropriate travel speeds; surrounding land uses; conditions for managing local access; safety; and mode priority, as described in this chapter. These standards will be based on “Complete Streets” concepts, and State and federal requirements for “routine accommodation” of cyclists and pedestrians. They will be flexible enough to adopt the latest and best ideas, and allowing for adjustment to existing right-of-way and special circumstances.
Figure 3-5: Roadway Network and Planned Improvements
1.f
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-34
Many roadways in Pacifica offer opportunities for redesign of the existing right-of-way to balance the needs of all users and create a safer and more attractive public realm. Roadway improvements that do not require adjustments to curbs may involve the narrowing of travel lanes to a more compact 10 or 11 feet to accommodate bicycle lanes, or the conversion of four-lane streets to three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction and a continuous center left-turn lane.
Level of Service Standards
Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of the degree of vehicle congestion that occurs during peak travel periods and is the traditional measure of roadway and intersection performance. Level of Service can range from “A” representing free-flow conditions, to “F” representing extremely long delays. LOS B and C signify stable conditions with acceptable delays. LOS D is typically considered acceptable for a peak hour in urban areas. LOS E is approaching capacity and LOS F represents conditions at or above capacity.
In Pacifica’s Coastal Zone, the most critical congestion occurs on SR 1, where certain intersections and roadway segments currently operate at LOS E or F during peak periods. The City’s policy is to limit further deterioration of traffic conditions by evaluating the significance of impacts of new development on highway congestion, and requiring mitigation to maintain, if possible, LOS D for City streets. and the LOS standards set by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for roadway segments included in the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
Multi-Modal Level of Service
To apply the Complete Streets framework, this Plan identifies qualitative indicators that may be used to prioritize improvements and evaluate projects, for all users, including transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists, based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.6 An LOS grade is established for each mode, based on the user’s perceptions of the quality of service provided by the street. These grades correspond to numerical scores, which are calculated using a variety of inputs that cover the facility design, facility controls, and volumes by mode. The thresholds for each grade are shown in Table 3-4.
TABLE 3-4: DEFINITION OF MULTI-MODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE INDICATORS LOS Transit Bicycle Pedestrian
A
(Good walk access to bus stops,
frequent service, good bus stop
amenities.)
(Few driveway and cross street
conflicts, good pavement condition,
ample width of outside lane,
including parking and bike lanes.)
(Low traffic volumes, wide
buffer separating sidewalk
from traffic, numerous
street trees, and high
parking occupancy.)
B
C
D
E
F
(Poor walk access to bus stops,
infrequent service, poor schedule
adherence, no bus stop amenities.)
(Poor pavement condition, narrow
width of outside lane, frequent
driveways and cross streets.)
(High traffic volumes,
limited buffer separating
sidewalk from traffic, few
6 National Cooperative Highway Research Program. “Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets” Report 616. Washington, DC: 2008.
1.f
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-35
street trees, low parking
occupancy.)
Source: Dowling Associates, 2010.
Planned Improvements
The City currently has two one roadway improvement projects in the planning stage in the Coastal Zone. These This improvements are related as is part of the Manor Drive Overcrossing project, described below and shown in Figure 3-5. Other improvements to the roadway network are expected to be needed during the planning period to achieve a balance between existing and future land use and traffic carrying capacity.
Manor Drive Overcrossing
The Manor Drive overcrossing is planned to be widened, and signal control is recommended to be added at the intersections of Manor Drive with Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue. This project could potentially includes a new on-ramp to SR 1 from Oceana Boulevard at Milagra Drive, though other alternatives that achieve similar congestion relief objectives should also be considered.
Additional Improvements to Accommodate Buildout
Additional improvements are justified based on the analysis of existing and projected future traffic conditions with projected growth during the planning period, compared to the City’s level of service standards. For example, signal optimization at the intersection of Linda Mar Boulevard and SR 1 would be calibrated to improve traffic conditions during peak hours. These potential additional improvements should be considered in coordination with Caltrans and the County of San Mateo.
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-17 Comprehensive Circulation System. Create a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system with streets and highways; transit facilities; a continuous network of sidewalks and bicycle routes.
PR-G-18 Serve All Users. Plan, design, build, and maintain transportation improvements to support safe and convenient access for all users with priority for “complete streets” projects that facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use wherever possible.
PR-G-19 Context Sensitivity. Plan, design, and build transportation improvements so that they respect the design and intensity of use of the surrounding environment.
Transportation improvements will be undertaken in consultation with local residents and businesses.
PR-G-20 Congestion on Highway 1. In consultation with Caltrans, seek solutions to ease the traffic congestion that occurs on Highway 1 near the Reina Del Mar, Fassler Avenue, and Linda Mar Boulevard intersections. Strive for the greatest benefit with the least environmental impact possible.
1.f
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-36
PR-G-21 Coordination of Local and Regional Actions. Coordinate local transportation planning and improvements with State, Regional and County agencies to ensure consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan, the Congestion Management Program, and other regional actions.
PR-G-22 Walkable Neighborhoods. Improve pedestrian amenities to create more walkable neighborhoods, especially in mixed use activity centers and around schools.
PR-G-23 Abandonment of Public Rights-of-Way. Ensure that abandonment or vacation of public rights-of-way does not adversely impact coastal access. or emergency access.
Implementing Policies
COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION
PR-I-54 Connective Street Network. Require new streets created as part of new development to continue existing street patterns, and include stub access points to adjacent undeveloped areas.
PR-I-55 Complete Streets Design Approach. Update the City’s engineering design standards to implement Complete Streets concepts, and include Complete Streets design principles in the planning of all circulation improvement projects. These principles include, but are not limited to:
• Maximizing connections with the existing circulation network; • Minimizing ingress and egress points and consolidating entries; • Providing public transit facilities and improvements; • Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (bike lanes and sidewalks); • Minimizing pedestrian crossing distances by providing curb extensions; medians with safety refuges, and other treatments;
• Improving safety by providing lighting and traffic calming devices for residential streets;
• Including landscaping (trees, medians, key intersections and gateways); • Providing appropriate signage, including street signs, entry signs, directional signs, and coastal access identification signs;
• Providing street furniture; and
• Maintaining on-street parking.
Any proposed development or transportation project that does not adequately incorporate Complete Streets concepts should be supported by findings of why all travel modes have not been accommodated. The Complete Streets approach should be applied to new roadway construction as well as to retrofit projects.
1.f
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-37
PR-I-56 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process. Incorporate complete streets concepts at each stage of the development process for projects affecting the right-of-way, including the following:
• As part of design review, both at Phase I and Phase II, require documentation of how the “routine accommodation” of bicyclists and pedestrians has been satisfied in planning and design;
• During project review and approval, ensure that the objectives and purpose are consistent with MTC directives on Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation;
• For projects subject to MTC’s Resolution 3765, as amended, work with MTC to secure approval of the Complete Streets checklist and submittal to MTC of all required documents.
Integrating Complete Streets considerations should require only minor additions to normal design, acquisitions, and approval guidelines.
PR-I-57 Bicycle Roadway Retrofits. Identify opportunities to retrofit existing roadways to create complete streets, giving priority to arterial and collector streets where travel lanes may be narrowed or where four lanes may be converted to three, including a center left turn lane, with bicycle facilities added in both cases.
Palmetto Avenue and Esplanade Avenue may present opportunities for roadway retrofits.
Roadway retrofits will also help to complete the bicycle network, as described in Section 5.4, and provide safety for cyclists. Ten- and eleven-foot travel lanes are often acceptable for auto and transit use, respectively, without adversely affecting capacity. Roadway retrofits to create complete streets will require additional analysis, such as coastal hazard concerns in areas within the Coastal Zone. consistent with this LCP.
PR-I-58 Streetscape in Mixed Use Areas. Require pedestrian-oriented amenities and design in visitor-oriented commercial and mixed use areas, including wider sidewalks, curb bulb-outs at key intersections, outdoor seating, and public art.
Priority streetscapes include Palmetto between Paloma and Clarendon; Montecito, Santa Rosa, and San Jose Avenues in West Sharp Park; Rockaway Beach Avenue and Dondee Way in Rockaway Beach; and Manor Drive and Aura Vista Drive in West Edgemar-Pacific Manor.
PR-I-59 Block Size and Maximum Street Spacing. For new development at the Quarry site, require streets to be designed to maximize connectivity for automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians, with blocks between 200 and 600 feet in length. Provide mid-block pedestrian connections where blocks exceed 500 feet in length.
The intent of these standards is to prevent development of introverted neighborhoods, provide flexibility in circulation, and promote access for bicyclists and pedestrians.
3.7 1.f
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-38
PR-I-60 Roadway Abandonment/Vacation and Public Access. Do not abandon, vacate, or render unusable any City-owned roadways and/or rights-of-ways, unless necessary for reasons of public safety or environmental conservation. Whenever public roadways and/or rights-of-ways are proposed to be abandoned, assess the value of maintaining public pedestrian and/or bicycle access, especially where coastal access can be maintained or improved. Abandonment/vacation of any public roadways and/or rights-of-ways may that may negatively affect coastal resources or public access to the sea will requires a coastal development permit, which shall only be approved if coastal resources can be protected in as good or better conditions as exist at the time of permit evaluation, and subject to terms and conditions to ensure the public’s interests are maintained moving forward. Any public right-of-way that cannot be maintained in a condition suitable for public use shall be offered to another public agency or private association that agrees to maintain the right-of-way for public use.
PR-I-61 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Create and solicit input from a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on planning and funding for transportation improvement projects
PR-I-62 Sharp Park Area Public Realm. Use development guidelines and design standards specified in the Sharp Park Specific Plan to expand the improvements completed as part of Phase I of the Palmetto Streetscape Plan. These improvements will upgrade the appearance and function of Palmetto Avenue and connecting streets and make them more attractive to pedestrians.
PR-I-63 Additional Pedestrian Facilities on Large Sites. Enhance the pedestrian network with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings as part of higher-intensity redevelopment of large sites.
PR-I-64 Universal Design. Require all pedestrian facilities to be ADA compliant and accessible to persons with disabilities.
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO EASE CONGESTION AND IMPROVE LEVEL OF SERVICE PR-I-65 SR 1 Improvements Between South of Fassler and North of Reina del Mar.
Continue to work with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to improve operations along SR 1. Strategies could include installation of a pedestrian overcrossing, allowing for safer grade-separated crossings of pedestrians.
Improvements to SR 1 should alleviate traffic congestion between north of Reina del Mar and south of Fassler Avenue while minimizing environmental impacts and impacts to adjacent land uses, ensuring adequate local access, and enhancing the community’s image.
3.8 1.f
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-39
PR-I-66 SR 1 and Linda Mar Operations. Work with San Mateo County to evaluate, design and implement improvements to the intersection of Linda Mar Boulevard and SR 1. Improvements that would mitigate regional growth may include providing a westbound right turn overlap phase and increasing the overall cycle length, if warranted.
PR-I-67 Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvements. Complete planned improvements to the Manor Drive overcrossing to facilitate traffic movement across SR 1 for all modes.
Improvements should include widening of the overcrossing, possible signal control at the intersections of Manor Drive with Palmetto Avenue and Oceana Boulevard., and a new on-ramp to SR 1 from Oceana Boulevard at Milagra Drive. Additional alternatives that achieve similar or greater congestion relief objectives should also be considered.
PR-I-68 Strategies to Reduce School-Related Peak Hour Auto Congestion. Work with Pacifica School District and Jefferson Union High School District to promote adoption of staggered hours, car-pooling, and use of transit to reduce traffic congestion during peak hours.
This policy applies especially to Vallemar School and the Pacifica School District offices, where trips contribute to traffic congestion around SR 1 and Reina del Mar Avenue.
3.7 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states that new development should maintain and enhance access along the coast by facilitating transit service and providing adequate parking or providing a substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, among other means.
Pacifica’s location at the edge of the metropolitan area and its relatively low density makes extensive transit service or use challenging. Just one percent of all trips to or from Pacifica are made using transit. While as much as four percent of trips between Pacifica and San Francisco are made by transit, only a fraction (under 0.5 percent) of trips within Pacifica are transit trips. Growth during the planning period is expected to be limited, but the LCLUP aims to concentrate new development in mixed use, transit-accessible locations.
1.f
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-40
Figure 3-6: Transit Routes and Facilities
1.f
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-41
Transit Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service throughout San Mateo County and into San Francisco and Palo Alto. SamTrans provides local service in Pacifica as well as service to and from BART and Caltrain stations. In 2021, the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2021 supporting Seamless Transit Principles, seven guiding principles that seek to create a unified, easy-to-use, accessible system across all Bay Area transit networks.
Bus Routes
As of 2019, nine SamTrans bus routes serve Pacifica’s Coastal Zone (see Figure 3-6). • Routes 14 and 16 make loops through the southern and northern areas of Pacifica serving shopping areas, schools, and services.
• Routes 19 and 49 provide service on school days to serve students. Route 19 makes loops through southern Pacifica and up to Ingrid B Lacy Middle School, and Route 49 connects northern Pacifica to Terra Nova High School.
• Routes 110 and 112 provide service between the Highway 1 corridor in Pacifica and the Daly City and Colma BART stations, respectively. Both terminate at Linda Mar Shopping Center. • Route 118 provides service to Colma BART station during the AM and PM peak hour periods of weekdays.
• Route 121 runs through Pacifica’s northern upland neighborhoods, serving Fairmont Shopping Center and providing connections to Skyline College in San Bruno, Serramonte Shopping Center and Seton Medical Center in Daly City, and the Daly City and Colma BART stations. • Route 140 connects the Pacific Manor shopping center on Palmetto Avenue and Manor Drive to Skyline College and the San Bruno BART station to the east. It extends to Terra Nova High School on school days to serve students.
• Route 294 17 connects the Linda Mar Park and Ride to Half Moon Bay and the Hillsdale Caltrain station in San Mateo.
Dial-a-Ride Service
All SamTrans buses are accessible to persons with disabilities. The San Mateo County Transit District also operates dial-a-ride (or paratransit) service for persons who cannot use fixed-route bus service.
Paratransit service in the Planning Area is called RediCoast.
SamTrans OnDemand
In 2019, SamTrans initiated the SamTrans OnDemand rideshare service pilot in the Linda Mar neighborhood in Pacifica. The service offers point-to-point shuttle service within the coverage area for the standard SamTrans fare. Trips can be booked via a smartphone app or through the SamTrans Customer Service Call Center.
Planned Transit Improvements
In Summer 2019, the San Mateo County Transit District launched Reimagine SamTrans, a comprehensive operational analysis (COA) to redesign the entire SamTrans bus system. Reimagine SamTrans began its work by evaluating every element of the SamTrans system to identify improvements to local and regional travel connections, route design, how often the buses run, best
1.f
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-42
practices for operations and public health, and more. Reimagine SamTrans utilized data and public input to pinpoint the strengths and challenges in the current bus system. The recommended SamTrans changes are slated to be adopted in Winter 2021 and implemented in summer 2022.
Changes include shortening of Route 112 to provide more streamlined service; elimination of the FLX Pacifica route, to be covered by Route 110; and direct service on Route 118 to/from Daly City BART only. Regular service updates to SamTrans bus lines are expected as part of an overall system efficiency plan, but no large-scale improvements are expected. Neither BART nor Caltrain have planned improvements that would change service levels in the vicinity of Pacifica.
Park-and-Ride Facilities
Commuter parking is provided at the park-and-ride lot on Linda Mar Boulevard., shown on Figure 3-
6. The lot currently has capacity for 70 vehicles.
1.f
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-43
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-24 Improved Public Transit. Advocate for SamTrans and other public transit providers to improve transit service and facilities, to enable trips to be made without use of a car. In particular, advocate for the expansion of public transit services and facilities to improve public access and recreation opportunities along the coast.
PR-G-25 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Support TDM strategies to reduce congestion and single-occupant vehicle travel.
Implementing Policies
PR-I-69 Service Optimization. Continue coordination efforts with transit agencies (i.e., SamTrans) to maintain transit service that is safe and efficient, provides convenient connections to high-use activity areas and key destinations outside the City, enhances access to the coast, and responds to the needs of all passengers, including seniors, youth, and persons with disabilities.
PR-I-70 Improved Transit Stops. Work with transit agencies to improve transit stops and access to facilities.
PR-I-71 Park-and-Ride Locations and Attributes. Work with Samtrans to identify changes that would improve the convenience and functionality of Park-and-Ride facilities, and result in increased ridership.
PR-I-72 Transit-Oriented Development. Work with Samtrans to facilitate transit-oriented development in all appropriate locations where existing or projected future rider demand will support it. on all or part of the Linda Mar Boulevard Park-and-Ride lot..
PR-I-73 Promotion of Transit Use. Lead an initiative to promote transit use and reduce reliance on the private automobile in order to reduce congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve quality of life.
PR-I-74 Transportation Demand Management Programs.Measure. Incorporate conditions of approval for development projects that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) threshold for impacts to the CMP transportation network to require adoption of transportation demand management (TDM) measures authorized by the CMP to make measurable reductions in their trip generation and to require a monitoring plan to determine if established trip reduction targets are met or exceeded. Require Establish a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for development projects below CMP threshold whenever feasible, but not require a monitoring plan for these smaller projects. program for City employees that may include transit passes or subsidies, preferential carpool parking,
1.f
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-44
car share programs, bicycle lockers, and other incentives to employees choosing transportation modes other than driving.
PR-I-75 Local Transportation Services. Support expanded funding for Local Transportation Services tailored to the schedules and destinations of students, seniors, and recreational visitors.
3.8 PARKING
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states that new development should maintain and enhance access along the coast by providing adequate parking or providing a substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, among other means. Section 30212.5 directs that public facilities, including parking areas, shall be distributed so as to mitigate against any impacts related to overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Parking policies are intended to accommodate parked vehicles used by occupants, visitors, customers, clientele, and employees of a variety of buildings in the City. These policies seek to provide accessible, attractive, secured parking facilities, and to ensure adequate access to beaches and recreational open spaces along the coastline.
On-Street Parking
On-street parking is an important contributor to a street’s functionality. On-street parking is permitted on most residential streets in Pacifica. It is allowed and encouraged on collector streets, and on most arterials in pedestrian-oriented commercial areas. On-street parking can complement both automobile and pedestrian use, and provide a buffer between the two. On-street parking is not permitted on high-traffic roadways such as SR 1, where smooth traffic flow is prioritized.
Off-Street Parking
The City requires off-street parking and loading facilities for all new developments.
Off-street parking is available in public lots in the Planning Area that serve commuters, beach visitors and visitors to recreational open space areas.
• Commuter parking is provided at the park-and-ride lot on Linda Mar Boulevard. • Public parking lots for beach visitors exist at Pacifica State Beach, Rockaway Beach, and Sharp Park Beach and Promenade. The public parking lot on Crespi Drive serves the Community Center as well as beach visitors.
• The Northern Coastal Bluffs and the Esplanade bluff are publicly protected open space with limited trail or beach access, and are served by on-street parking. • Trailhead parking is provided on GGNRA land at Shelldance Nursery.
Parking for open space and beach users is shown on Figure 3-3, Trails and Parking Areas. Table 3-5 provides a current inventory of off-street parking for beach visitors in the Planning Area. While the Crespi Drive beach visitor lot is outside the Coastal Zone, it is an important source of parking for coastal and recreational users.
1.f
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-45
TABLE 3-5: BEACH VISITOR PARKING
Type and Location
Capacity
(approx.)
Crespi Drive 110
Pacifica State Beach (south) 54
Pacifica State Beach (north) 135
Rockaway Beach (south) 50
Rockaway Beach (north) 54
Sharp Park Beach Promenade/Pier 5395
Total 456498
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20202013.
In 2009, parking lots at Pacifica State Beach were 60 to 70 percent full on weekdays and full on weekends, year-round. On hot days, the lots are generally full on any day of the week, while on days with strong winds or rain the lots are 10 to 25 percent full. The lot at Crespi Drive and Highway 1 is 30 to 50 percent full on weekdays in the winter, early spring, and late fall, and 40 to 60 percent full on weekdays during late spring, summer, and early fall. On weekends, this lot is 50 to 60 percent full during the cooler seasons and 60 to 80 percent full during the warmer seasons.7 In summer 2013, Pacifica State Beach began a parking program, wherein a parking receipt or pass is required to park in both the north and south Pacifica State Beach parking lots on Highway 1, the Crespi Drive lot, and SR 1 adjacent to the Pacifica Community Center. Recently constructed parking areas include a lot at the north tunnel entrance at Devil’s Slide, enhanced visitor services at Shelldance Nursery provide access to GGNRA lands. In the future, the public parking area at Sharp Park Beach/Pacifica Pier may be reconfigured as part of redevelopment of the former Wastewater Treatment Plant site.
The City should support the development of centralized off-street parking facilities in areas with multiple attractions or where pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns should be prioritized.
Centralized off-street parking facilities can increase the efficiency of parking for visitors to attractions and can minimize the number of curb cuts for driveways which can disrupt safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation. One tool to accomplish development of centralized off-street parking facilities is payment of in-lieu parking fees by developers. In 2020, the City Council updated the fee for the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan area and enacted a new in-lieu parking fee for the Sharp Park Specific Plan area.
A new parking area serving coastal and recreational visitors has been created near the north tunnel entrance at Devil’s Slide, serving the new trail system at Devil’s Slide and Pedro Point Headlands.
Enhanced visitor services at Shelldance Nursery providing access to GGNRA lands will include expansion of the parking area. Finally, the public parking area at Sharp Park Beach/Pacifica Pier may be reconfigured as part of redevelopment of the former Wastewater Treatment Plant site.
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-26 Private Parking. Ensure adequate off-street parking in all new development. 7 City of Pacifica Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, 2009.
1.f
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – CERTIFICATION DRAFT, FEBRUARY 2020 3-46
PR-G-27 Public and Visitor Parking. Facilitate beach and recreational use by providing safe and well-located public parking. Distribute parking areas throughout the Coastal Zone to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Implementing Policies
PR-I-76 Preserve On-Street Parking. Revise the zoning code to preserve on-street parking by limiting the number and, location, and size of curb cuts.
PR-I-77 New and Enhanced Trailhead Parking. Support GGNRA, the Coastal Conservancy and others in developing and enhancing new public parking for recreational users at Devil’s Slide Trail and Shelldance Nursery.
PR-I-78 Parking at Sharp Park Beach. Ensure that adequate and well-located public parking is preserved for Sharp Park Beach, the Promenade and Pier as part of any redevelopment of the City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property.
PR-I-79 Signage for Visitor-Serving Parking. Undertake a citywide program for improving signs for public visitor-serving parking. This may include incorporating smart parking technology for high-demand parking lots to alert drivers to the location of available parking.
PR-I-80 Parking Enforcement. Continue to make parking enforcement a priority at public visitor parking areas.
3.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In 2019, the Coastal Commission adopted its first environmental justice policy8. The policy is designed to achieve more meaningful engagement, equitable process, effective communication, and stronger coastal protection benefits under the Coastal Act that are accessible to everyone. While the City of Pacifica has not adopted a formal environmental justice policy, the City recognizes the importance and benefit of inclusive and equitable practices and procedures that reduce impacts on disadvantaged communities.
Policies
Guiding Policies
PR-G-28 Environmental Justice. Strive to implement processes and procedures that promote environmental justice in support of the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy.
8 California Coastal Commission Environmental Justice Policy, Adopted March 8, 2019, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/envjustice/CCC_EJ_Policy_FINAL.pdf
1.f
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3-47
Implementing Policies
PR-I-81 Inclusive Engagement. Expand notification efforts for major policy documents and projects within Pacifica’s Coastal Zone to underrepresented communities outside of Pacifica.
PR-I-82 Removal of Barriers to Public Participation. Implement efforts to remove barriers that may prevent underrepresented communities from public participation opportunities. Efforts should be made to provide a welcoming, understandable and respectful atmosphere, and to be considerate of the timing, location, and accessibility of any meeting to accommodate the underrepresented communities.
1.f
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) 4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SCENIC RESOURCES
The purpose of this chapter is to provide policy guidance to protect, preserve, and enhance Pacifica’s environmental and scenic resources.
Topics covered in this element include hydrology and water quality; biological resources; forest, agricultural, and soil resources; and cultural and historic resources. The protection of environmental resources is a critical subject of regulation at the federal and State levels, and is a focus of the California Coastal Act.
1.f
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-2
4.1 COASTAL ACT FRAMEWORK
The California Coastal Act provides extensive policies concerning the protection, use, and experience of the coastal environment. 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 by reference into this chapter.
Coastal Act Policies
Article 4: Marine Environment
• Section 30230 Marine resources; maintenance
• Section 30231 Biological productivity; waste water
• Section 30232 Oil and hazardous substance spills
• Section 30233 Diking, filling or dredging continued movement of sediment and nutrients • Section 30234 Commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities • Section 30234.5 Economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing • Section 30235 Construction altering natural shoreline • Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Article 5: Land Resources
• Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments • Section 30241 Prime agricultural land; maintenance in agricultural production • Section 30241.5 Agricultural lands; determination of viability of uses; economic feasibility evaluation • Section 30242 Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion • Section 30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions • Section 30244 Archaeological or paleontological resources Article 6: Development
• Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
• Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
• Section 30254 Public works facilities
For the purpose of this chapter, these policies may be grouped in six areas: protection of water quality; protection of sensitive habitat on land; protection of natural shorelines; maintenance of land and water for resource-based uses including fishing and farming; protection of cultural resources; and protection of scenic and visual resources. Each of these areas is discussed in the sections that follow.
1.f
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-3
4.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Under the Coastal Act, marine resources are to be “maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored” (Section 30230). This is to be achieved by controlling the quality of runoff, supporting natural infiltration and similar means (Section 30231); protecting against oil and gas spills or leaks (Section 30232); and minimizing diking, dredging, or filling of coastal water, including wetlands (Section 30233).
Pacifica’s water resources are unique and numerous, and they provide important benefits to the city, including wildlife habitat, scenic natural corridors, and flood control. Careful management of urban waterways ensures maintenance of water quality, preservation of ecological functions, and safety of surrounding development.
Understanding Pacifica’s surface water and groundwater resources provides a context for policies for hydrology, water quality, and management.
Surface Water
The City of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone is part of eight watersheds, shown on Figure 4-1, Hydrology. The watersheds largely drains west towards the Pacific Ocean. From north to south, the major watersheds are Milagra Creek, Sanchez Creek (also known as Sharp Park Creek), Calera Creek, and San Pedro Creek.1 A small portion of the watersheds drains to the east, contributing to the upper basin of San Mateo Creek watershed.
Some of the watersheds drain directly into the ocean, while others feed one of five creeks . From north to south, these are Milagra Creek, Sanchez Creek (also known as Sharp Park Creek), Calera Creek, Rockaway Creek, and San Pedro Creek.
Milagra Creek
Milagra Creek drains approximately 460 acres. The drainage area has varied land cover types, including undeveloped portions of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), and relatively dense residential and commercial development near Highway 1. Milagra Creek has intermittent flow in most years.
The lower reaches of Milagra Creek have been altered and the channel hardened in the Coastal Zone reach below Highway 1 to the ocean.
Sanchez Creek
Sanchez Creek watershed, located almost entirely within the City, drains approximately 1,070 acres. Most of the steep hillsides and higher elevations are GGNRA protected open space, while valley bottoms and flatter portions of the hillsides include residential development, Highway 1, and Sharp Park Golf Course. Sanchez Creek has intermittent flow in most years.
At its mouth within the Coastal Zone, Sanchez Creek flows through Horse Stable Pond and exchanges water with Laguna Salada within the Sharp Park Golf Course. Creek flow is then conveyed through a levee to the ocean via a system of pipes. The discharge point of the pipe(s) is often buried in beach sands and is occasionally excavated to allow for free drainage. During high flows, water from the golf course is pumped over the levee into the ocean. There are also several depressional and formerly estuarine wetlands near the mouth of Sanchez Creek at Horse Stable Pond and Laguna Salada.
4.1 1.f
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-4
Calera Creek
Calera Creek drains approximately 1,600 acres in the central portion of the City, via two forks: a main channel toonto the north, and a smaller southern fork, referred to as Rockaway CreekBeach. Land use is dominated by residential neighborhoods with some businesses along main roads. The contributing area of Calera Creek is altered along the valley bottom and near the mouth. The City of Pacifica’s wastewater treatment plant is located near the mouth of Calera Creek, west of Highway 1.
The lower reach of Calera Creek, in the Coastal Zone, was part of a significant restoration project implemented in 1997 and 1998, which included excavation of a new stream channel, restoration of 16 acres of wetlands and 12 acres of surrounding uplands. The restoration site receives additional tertiary-treated wastewater from the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP), adding approximately 3.6 million gallons per day (mgd) to the lower reach. The amount of flow generated by the CCWRP varies with rainfall and usage. The creek is now perennial in the lower reach due to the input from the CCWRP. The creek was likely intermittent in at least some years, and is still intermittent with residual pools above the CCWRP discharge point.
Rockaway Creek
Rockaway Creek is south of Calera Creek in the larger Calera Creek watershed. Rockaway Creek parallels Rockaway Beach Avenue, and flows into the southern end of Rockaway Beach. The upper portions of the watershed are primarily open space, while the valley bottom is comprised of a small residential area, which follows the creek.
San Pedro Creek
San Pedro Creek watershed is the largest in Pacifica, draining approximately 5,300 acres. The watershed extends north to Sweeney Ridge, east to Spring Valley Ridge, and south into the slopes of Montara Mountain.
San Pedro Creek has several tributaries extending past the City boundaries. These tributaries include the South Fork, Middle Fork, North Fork, and Brooks/Sanchez Creek.
San Pedro Creek supports anadromous steelhead trout, a federally-listed endangered species. This creek also has one of the only functioning estuaries between the Devil’s Slide area and the Golden Gate Bridge.
Wetlands along San Pedro Creek provide habitat for the threatened California red-legged frog.
The upper watershed is largely undeveloped, while the lower portion is highly developed with residential subdivisions and commercial shopping centers at Park Mall and near Highway 1. Alterations from historical agricultural and more recent urban development have resulted in a deep channel with steep banks. Channel downcutting and erosion throughout the reach has threatened roads and structures, as many residential lots back up against the creek. In order to protect the banks, formal and informal bank stabilization techniques have been installed over the years.
The City and stakeholders (including the California Coastal Conservancy, Go Native, the Pacifica Land Trust, the San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Pacifica Beach Coalition) have implemented restoration projects and clean-up efforts along the creek resulting in reduced flooding of homes and businesses, reduced erosion of Pacifica/Linda Mar State Beach, and the conservation habitat for steelhead trout.
1.f
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-5
Other creek restoration efforts included:
• Earthwork and planting completed in 2000 which established a more natural channel, improved flood storage, and restored ecosystem functioning.
• Installation of rock weirs in 2005 to stabilize the degrading channel bed, smooth the longitudinal profile, and improve fish passage further upstream at the Capistrano bridge
1.f
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-6
Figure 4-1: Hydrology
1.f
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-7
Groundwater
The 700-acre San Pedro Valley Groundwater Basin lies within the City. Alluvial deposits consisting primarily of clays, sands, silts, and some gravels are found throughout the majority of the basin and are the primary water-bearing formation in the Planning Area.
1 These deposits are approximately 150 feet thick or more.
Water quality, groundwater level, and groundwater storage data for the basin is minimal. The outflow of water from the aquifer occurs by evapotranspiration and seepage to streams, springs, and the ocean. The water table fluctuates seasonally.
In a 1992 study, groundwater wells in the City were monitored to determine the location of seasonally shallow groundwater. The groundwater was mapped for three depths below the ground surface: less than 1.5 feet; less than 3.0 feet; and less than 6.0 feet. Areas within the Coastal Zone with seasonally shallow groundwater include Pedro Point, Fairway Park, and Sharp Park.
Due to the existing development pattern in Pacifica where urbanized land uses are located in close proximity to creeks and streams, there are few areas outside of the creekbeds and streambeds themselves to establish groundwater recharge sites. Existing flood corridors such as lower San Pedro Creek and the surrounding riparian habitat have been designed through previous flood control projects to manage flood flows until water recedes, but have not been designed to retain flood water for the purpose of groundwater recharge. The sloping topography of much of the City also presents challenges to identifying suitable areas for stormwater collection and recharge of groundwater storage areas. The largest area of public land that may be topographically suitable to accommodate stormwater and floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management is the Sharp Park Golf Course, owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. The Laguna Salada is an existing water feature with varying water levels throughout the year.
However, the recreational uses of the remainder of the site preclude their function as a dedicated groundwater recharge site. There are no rivers located in Pacifica.
Wetlands
The Coastal Act defines wetlands as “lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens” (Section 30121). Areas where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface at some time during each year may be identified as wetlands. The criteria for wetland boundary determinations are detailed in California Code of Regulations section 13577(b). Importantly, wetlands in the coastal zone only need to meet one parameter (i.e., hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic species) to be considered a wetland, as differentiated from three parameter delineations which require all three to be present (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineer ACOE delineations).
Seasonal wetlands occur in smaller drainages and localized depressions, forming ponds or flowing water, and are underlain by saturated soils during the winter and spring. Seasonal wetlands 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). The National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 2020) has identified different types of wetlands within the Planning Area (Cowardin et al., 1979). These include 1 Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004.
4.2 1.f
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-8
estuarine and are intertidal marine wetlands, and freshwater emergent, wetlands, and freshwater pond forested, scrub-shrub, and unconsolidated palustrine wetlands.
Impaired Water Bodies
The federal Clean Water Act requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be established for the pollutants identified as causing the impairment of surface water quality. TMDL refers to the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Generally, TMDL is the sum of the loads of a single pollutant from point and nonpoint sources. In Pacifica’s Coastal Zone, San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach is listed as impaired by coliform bacteria and Pacifica State Beach is listed as impaired by diazinon (insecticide).
The Environmental Protection Agency approved the TMDL for San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach on August 1, 2013.
Stormwater
Pacifica’s storm drainage system consists of a collection system and two pump stations. This drainage system acts to convey drainage to area creeks or the ocean. Overall, the City’s system serves 178 miles of roads and 986 inlets, only a small portion of which is within the Coastal Zone.2 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program The San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) was established in 1990 with the assistance of the San Mateo County City/County Association of Governments. The primary goal is to reduce pollution carried by stormwater, and to maintain compliance with the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Participating agencies, including the City of Pacifica, must comply with the NPDES Permit by ensuring that municipal operations, new development and redevelopment, industrial and commercial site controls, and construction site controls mitigate water quality impacts to stormwater runoff during construction and operation phases of projects. As part of the NPDES permit requirement, the City of Pacifica completed a Green Infrastructure Plan in 2019, which describes how low impact development (LID) drainage design will be incorporated into public and private streets, parking lots, building roofs and other facilities to achieve water quality, flow reduction and other environmental and community benefits.
Stormwater Management and Site Planning
New development and redevelopment projects are subject to NPDES permit requirementsProvision C.3, and are grouped into categories based on project type. Depending on their category, projects are required to include stormwater controls, including site design measures, source controls, treatment measures, low impact development, hydromodification management, and construction best management practices (BMPs).
Projects are also required to complete and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan for the inclusion of low impact development drainage design into storm drain infrastructure, which describes how projects will shift their impervious surfaces and storm drain infrastructure from gray, or traditional storm drain infrastructure where runoff flows directly into the storm drain and then the receiving water, to green—that is, to a moreresilient, sustainable system. Construction BMPs include scheduling grading and excavation work in dry weather only; installing temporary erosion controls until vegetation is reestablished; effectively managing all 2 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Annual report, 2007-08. August 29, 2008.
1.f
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-9
run-off within the site and from off-site. Post-construction stormwater treatment measures are required for all projects that create over a certain amount of impervious surface (the current threshold is 5,000 square feet for uncovered parking areas, restaurants, auto service facilities, and gas stations, and 10,000 square feet for other development types.) Stormwater treatment measures that remove pollutants from stormwater during project operations include rain gardens; bioretention areas; and flow-through planters.
San Pedro Creek/Linda Mar Storm Drain Treatment/Diversion Project In 2004, the City completed the Pacifica State Beach Improvement Project. This project has successfully redirected polluted water from first-flush release into the ocean to two constructed wetland treatment swales, and, together with other elements of the project, improved water quality.
Policies
Guiding Policies
ER-G-1 Water Quality. Support the improvement of Pacifica’s water quality, including both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration.
ER-G-2 Watershed Management. Recognize the interrelated nature of Pacifica’s hydrology system, its watersheds, and development in the Planning Area, and protect water resources through comprehensive management of entire watersheds.
ER-G-3 Maintain CreeksHydrological Features as a Resource. Ensure both access to and ecological functionality of the hydrological features in Pacifica.
ER-G-4 Retain Natural Processes. Enable natural processes to occur on developed sites, and utilize these processes to enhance the built environment and users’ experiences of it.
Implementing Policies
CREEKS, WETLANDS, AND COASTAL WATERS
Creek Protection and Restoration. Maintain, protect, and restore Pacifica’s creeks, including San Pedro, Rockaway, Calera, Sanchez, and Milagra creeks, as environmental and aesthetic resources. Actions will include, but are not limited to:
• Continuing restoration efforts along San Pedro Creek to improve conditions for steelhead by removing obstacles to fish passage, placing rock weirs to facilitate fish passage, and by monitoring the effectiveness of these projects; • Partnering with local organizations, such as the San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, Go Native, the Pacifica Land Trust, and others, on restoration efforts; • Exploring opportunities to collaborate with other agencies and organizations on stream restoration and riparian habitat restoration along Sanchez and Calera creeks; • Enforcing restrictions on the planting of invasive species near creek areas;
1.f
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-10
• Identifying and working with property owners to take advantage of unique opportunities where human active use (e.g., through trail development) would enhance creek appreciation without disrupting ecological function; • Requiring a minimum of 100 feet setbacks from the top of creek banks, or from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, where it exists, whichever is further, for development proposed adjacent to creeks, in keeping with City regulations and Best Management Practices. 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 creek 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. 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, shall prevent impacts that significantly degrade the creek. 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 creek.
• Permitted uses within buffer zones are limited to uses dependent on the resources within these areas and their buffer zones (i.e. habitat management and restoration, scientific research and educational activities, and low-intensity public access and recreation), except where reduced buffer is required to avoid a taking or essential for the provision of public services. Temporary disruption (e.g. less than six months), as determined by a qualified biologist in consideration of on-site specific biological resources, for the construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of existing or newly permitted facilities or structures is allowed if there are no feasible alternatives, the disruption area is restored to its pre-disruption state or better within one year from the initial point of impact and there is no significant ground disturbance.
Improvement of Impaired Waterways. Strive to improve water quality in San Pedro Creek, which is listed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list ofimpairedof impaired water bodies, and any other waterway that may be listed as impaired in the future., by reducing and controlling sources of bacterial pollution that affect waterways. .
Funding for Creek Maintenance. Establish funding mechanism to rRequire property owners with parcels adjacent to creeks to pay for creek improvement maintenance.
Wetlands Preservation. Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Continue to require formal delineations of wetlands subject to State or federal regulations prior to any proposed development project where potential wetlands have been identified. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.
4.3 4.3
1.f
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
4-11
Limitations on Diking, Filling or Dredging. Only permit the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, and lakes for the following purposed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects:
• New port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
• New boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. • 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. • Mineral extraction, including extraction of sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
• Restoration activities;
• Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-dependent activities.
Minimize Disruption of Dredging. Require any proposed dredging and spoils disposal to be planned and carried out in a way that will avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats.
Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands. Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity.
Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife or as defined by the Coastal Commission shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, or nature study.
Continued Movement of Sediment and Nutrients. AllowEvaluate the suitability of sediment removed from erosion and flood control facilities to be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline, where environmental effects will be minimal.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Continue to participate in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.
The Program represents a collaborative effort amongst the County and its municipalities, consisting of five major areas of water pollution prevention and control:
• Municipal maintenance activities
• Industrial and illicit discharge
• Public information and participation
• New development and construction controls
• Watershed monitoring
1.f
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment F LCP Redlined Doc (5586 : LCLUP Meeting #3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 4-12
Stormwater Discharge. Ensure compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit, the Construction General Permit and the Construction Dewatering Permit, which regulate stormwater discharge from new and existing development.
These permits are established by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. They require that new development incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Green Infrastructure Plan requirements in site design, construction, and management to minimize storm water runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize infiltration.
Protect Water Quality through Best Management Practices. Continue to require the use of best management practices to reduce water quality impacts from construction and development. Measures include:
• Site Design and Source Control. Ensure that all new development incorporates site design and source control BMPs into the project design in order to preserve the infiltration, purification, and retention functions of each site’s natural drainage systems, and to prevent or minimize the runoff of pollutants, sediments, waste, and pathogens from the site.
• Construction Pollution Control. Require all construction projects to adopt measures to avoid when possible, or minimize erosion and runoff of pollutants and sediments from construction-related activities, and to limit activities that result in the disturbance of land or natural vegetation.