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 ? 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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ? 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 ?
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 ? 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
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 ?
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
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 ?
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 ? 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 ?
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 ? 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 ? 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 ? 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 ?
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
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 ?
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)
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