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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.” 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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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)
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 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.