Areas of flood risk include:
• Broad flood inundation in several parts of Sharp Park Golf Course and the Rockaway Beach district. • More narrowly confined flood hazards along the creeks; limiting potential flooding in these areas. For example, along Milagra Creek mapped flood hazards are typically within the active channel.
Coastal Flooding
Pacifica can also experience flooding from coastal sources, which occurs as some combination of high tides, large wind-driven waves, storm surge, and/or tsunami waves. Areas with the potential for coastal flooding are the low-lying areas along the coast, including the Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada area and Pacifica State Beach.
5.7 1.g
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-17
The only section of coastline protected by levees is the Sharp Park Golf Course area. However, drainage from Sanchez Creek and Laguna Salada to the ocean can be insufficient to prevent lowland flooding during high tide/high flow events. A seawall/revetment structure protects the area north of the Sharp Park Golf Course, generally along Beach Boulevard, including the Pacifica Pier. This structure has required maintenance to repair areas where beach erosion has undermined it. Policies addressing increased coastal flooding from potential sea level rise are provided in Chapter 6, Coastal Resilience.
1.g
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-18
Figure 5-3: Flood Zones
1.g
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-19
TSUNAMI
A tsunami can occur after a significant earthquake beneath the ocean. Coastal flooding, potentially severe damage, and threats to human health and safety can result from a tsunami. Recorded tsunami run-up magnitude is generally lower at Pacifica than other locations from San Francisco to Monterey, likely due to offshore bathymetry and shoreline alterations along the city. Tsunami hazards are generally coincident with the coastal flooding zones: at the Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada area, Lower Calera Creek, portions of Rockaway Beach, and the residential and commercial area at Linda Mar near the mouth of San Pedro Creek.
Tsunamis can reach Pacifica from several sources, including ‘far-field’ sources throughout the Pacific Ocean, a substantial earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone in northern California north to Vancouver Island, movement along local fault lines such as the Seal Cove Fault or San Gregorio Fault, and local coastal landslides. Travel times, the degree of warning, and the magnitude of the wave will vary depending on the source and initial strength of the tsunami-generating event. Earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone are likely the most hazardous to Pacifica because of the potential for very large wave generation, and a relatively short travel time (on the order of one to three hours). However, smaller events along local faults could result in a wave that reaches Pacifica with essentially no warning time, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the existing tsunami warning system.
According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are approximately 900 existing dwelling units within Pacifica’s tsunami run-up area.
San Mateo County has an established emergency proposal for tsunamis. As part of this program, the City has installed a tsunami warning system, consisting of three solar powered alarm towers. One is located in the Sharp Park neighborhood, the second is located in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood, and the third tower stands at Pacifica State Beach. This system links into a San Mateo County alert system that can reach email and cell phones.
Policies
Guiding Policies
NH-G-2 Development in Hazardous Areas. Site and design Protect development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risk without the need for armoring (e.g. flood damage prevention programs).
Implementing Policies
NH-I-22NH-I-21 Floodplain Management. Continue to manage floodplains through zoning, development requirements, and ordinances, and take other actions as required by FEMA, in order to remain a participant of the National Flood Insurance Program.
NH-I-23NH-I-22 Flood Map Review. Periodically review maps prepared by FEMA and the State Department of Water Resources to identify changes in mapping of areas subject to flooding and amend the General Plan, Municipal Code, or LCP as warranted.
5.8 1.g
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-20
NH-I-24NH-I-23 NDPES Enforcement. Enforce NPDES permits, as well as the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, to mitigate potential flooding risks by slowing the release of stormwater from development sites into drainage channels.
NH-I-25NH-I-24 Flood Hazard Reduction. Continue to comply with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Municipal Code.
NH-I-26NH-I-25 Flood Insurance. Inform households and businesses located in flood-prone areas about opportunities to purchase federal flood insurance.
NH-I-27NH-I-26 Flood Control Maintenance. Regularly maintain flood control structures, including, but not limited to drainage channels, pipes, and culverts, and stream beds. Routine maintenance of streambeds shall conform to the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Section 30236.
NH-I-28NH-I-27 Flood Control Structures. Require flood control devices that alter rivers and streams to incorporate the best mitigation measures whenever feasible, and only permit them where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible, and where such protection is both necessary for public safety, including for water supply, and or to protect existing development, or where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
NH-I-29NH-I-28 Storm Drainage Impact Assessment. Require developers to provide an assessment of a project’s potential impacts on the local storm drainage system as part of the development review process.
If development is found to have a negative impact on storm drainage, require applicable and effective mitigation measures, such as the creation of permanent or temporary detention or retention basins, provision of additional landscaped areas and green roofs, installation of pump stations, and the use of permeable paving in driveways, walkways and parking areas.
NH-I-30NH-I-29 No Adverse Impact Approach. Update the Flood Hazard Reduction regulations to establish a “No Adverse Impact” standard to floodplain and coastal development.
In essence, NAI floodplain management takes place when the actions of one property owner are not allowed to adversely affect the rights of other property owners. No building permits should be issued for projects that increase the potential for flooding or erosion on and off site, degrade water quality, or increase potential public service costs for things such as emergency personnel and stormwater management, unless such projects are designed and completed in such a way that they will not:
• pose a threat to public safety; and
• substantially increase flood or storm damage risk to public or private property.
NH-I-31NH-I-30 Tsunami Evacuation Zone. For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone, require use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures.
NH-I-32NH-I-31 Critical Facilities Location. Site critical public facilities including hospital and healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and fire stations, and emergency
5.9 5.10
5.11 1.g
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-21
communications facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone, and 100-year flood plains, and other portions of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone over the anticipated life of the development.
5.4 FIRE HAZARDS
New development is expected to minimize risks to life and property in high fire hazard areas (Section 30253).
Fire hazards in Pacifica include both urban and wildland fires. Urban fires involve the uncontrolled burning of built structures due to human-made causes; wildland fires affect grassland, forest, and brush (and the structures on them), and can result from either human or natural causes. Pacifica has a substantial risk of wildland fires, with many areas of high and very high threat within the Planning Area. The City’s main challenges regarding these hazards are:
• Actively Managing the Urban-Wildland Interface. Pacifica’s residents enjoy close contact with open ridges and woodlands. This brings with it the risk of proximity to wildland fires. Preparedness is essential, and the North County Fire Authority’s fire prevention activities, especially its Vegetation Management Program, are important.
• Maintaining and Enhancing Evacuation Routes. It is critical that road capacity exists for local residents, workers, and visitors to evacuate in case of an environmental disaster, including fire.
Urban Fires
Urban fires are fires that begin in a building in urban centers. They are typically localized but have the potential to spread to an adjoining building. The risk of urban fires is highest where single-family homes, multi-family residences, and business facilities are clustered close together, increasing the possibility of rapid spread to an adjoining building. The risk to life and property can be reduced by adopting and funding adequate levels of fire protection and ensuring new buildings are built to include fire resistive features which conform to modern fire and building codes.
Wildland Fires
Wildland fires are fires that start in a wooded or undeveloped area. Their potential for damage is dependent on the extent and type of vegetation, known as surface fuels, as well as weather and wind conditions.
Wildland fires occur infrequently but typically cause more damage than urban fires.
About two-thirds of Pacifica is undeveloped, and nearly half is protected open space. This undeveloped land is mainly on the rugged ridges that form the City’s western edge and descend down to the ocean between Pacifica’s valley communities. Coastal scrub is the predominant vegetation type, interspersed with annual grassland. Significant areas of eucalyptus forest and mixed woodland are present in eastern Sharp Park and on Cattle Hill and San Pedro Mountain. In California, most wildfire damage occurs in wildland urban interface areas, where homes and woodland vegetation are directly adjacent. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has designated Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) throughout the state based on factors such as fuel, slope, and weather to indicate varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate,
5.12 1.g
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-22
high, and very high). FHSZ maps evaluate physical conditions that create a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period. CAL FIRE also has developed maps of fire threat, or a measure of fuel conditions and fire potential in the ecosystem that represent the relative likelihood of “damaging” or difficult to control wildfire occurring for a given area, available at their website9.
CAL FIRE also designates land as either a Federal, State, or Local Responsibility Area (FRA, SRA, and LRA, respectively), based on population density, land use, and land ownership. Portions of the Planning Area within the SOI are designated State Responsibility Areas (SRA), where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires, while the NCFA has primary responsibility for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) within the City limit.
Lands in Pacifica owned by the federal government and the County, including GGNRA lands are designated as a State Responsibility Area (SRAFRA) within the Pacifica LRA.
Some areas shown on Figure 5-4 along the southwestern perimeter within the Sphere of Influence are designated as Very High FHSZs. Most of this land in the Very High FHSZ is an urban reserve or park or other designations where extremely low densities of residential development may be permitted. Land adjacent to these areas that is within city limits is low- and very-low density residential development. To address this risk, the City cooperates with CAL FIRE and the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) through cooperative fire protection agreements.
CAL FIRE tracks the deadliest, largest, and most destructive wildfires that have occurred in the state, with the lists last updated in late March 2021. San Mateo County is not included in any of these lists. However, according to the San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP), it is likely that the risk of wildfires will continue to occur in San Mateo County. Wildfires are influenced by both weather and human activities. Based on its history of past events, San Mateo County has a high chance of a wildfire in any given year.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) maps areas of significant fire hazards in the state. These areas are identified based on weather, terrain, fuels (e.g., type of ground vegetation), and other factors. According to the CDF:
• A Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is designated for much of Pedro Point Headlands, directly adjacent to the Pedro Point neighborhood.
• Pedro Point Headlands has large areas considered to have “high” or “very high” threat of fire. • Mori Point is classified with a mix of “high” and “moderate” risk areas. • Nearly all of the urbanized parts of the Planning Area are classified as having a “moderate threat” level for fire.
Figure 5-4, Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services, shows these locations. 9 https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10315/firethreat_19_ada. pdf
1.g
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-23
The CDF also designates land as either a State or Local Responsibility Area (SRA and LRA), based on population density, land use, and land ownership. The City of Pacifica is an LRA while the small areas of the Planning Area outside City limits are in an SRA. Lands in Pacifica owned by the federal government and the County are designated as a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) within the Pacifica LRA.
Fire and Emergency Services
The cities of Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica are contributing members of the North County Fire Authority (NCFA), a Joint Powers Authority established in 2003. The Fire Authority provides both emergency response and non-emergency public safety services to the three cities and their 185,000 residents in its service area.
Two of the Authority’s 10 stations are in Pacifica. Fire Station 71, at 616 Edgemar Avenue, serves the north end of Pacifica, while Fire Station 72, at 1100 Linda Mar Boulevard, serves the south end. Neither is located in the Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-24
Figure 5-4: Fire Hazards
1.g
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-25
Fire and Emergency Response
NCFA has established the following service ratio and response time standards:
• Service ratio standard: one responder per 1,500 population. • Response time standards for fire service: Four-minute travel time to 90 percent of calls for fire service, and eight-minute travel time for all apparatus on-scene for fire calls for service. • Response time standard for Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Under seven-minute travel time (6:59) for first response to 90 percent of calls.
Pacifica’s long and narrow geography and its reliance on Highway 1 as the single north-south access route makes the City a challenge for fire response. A 2008 study determined that the Vallemar, West and East Fairway Park, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway neighborhoods in central Pacifica are beyond four-minute travel distance from northern San Mateo County fire stations, corresponding with the standard response time for first-due fire apparatus. The full assignment response time standard cannot be met in Pacifica from Vallemar south.10
NCFA’s EMS standard is for 90 percent of calls to be reached in less than seven minutes. This standard is met for 97 percent of calls in the North Zone, including approximately 93 percent of calls in Pacifica.
The NCFA Fire Authority needs additional facilities to meet its fire response standards for Vallemar and areas to the south. A third, mid-point station in Pacifica with a truck and engine company has been discussed for some time. The area that currently does not meet first-response time standards has a low density of development, and so it has fewer persons and structures threatened by fire. A new station would be needed if the central part of Pacifica were to experience significant new development, for example at the Quarry site.
Pacifica has an ISO rating of 4. The City’s rating is unlikely to be affected by population growth, but population growth will increase existing deficiencies in service delivery.
Fire Prevention
The NCFA’s Fire Services Prevention Bureau manages code enforcement, plan review and construction inspection, fire investigations, and public education. A key part of the Bureau’s code enforcement activities is the annual safety inspection of every commercial business and multi-family residential property in its service area. The Fire Authority also conducts a Vegetation Management Program, promoting compliance with vegetation standards to reduce the threat of fire in the urban/wildland interface.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The regional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two several mitigation strategies for wildland fires in Pacifica, including update of its Emergency Operations Plan; pursuing opportunities to preserve and protect critical transportation infrastructure; and developing and delivering business programs and public outreach programs to promote resiliency and community preparedness. : review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and 10 Emergency Services Consulting, 2008.
1.g
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-26
access by emergency responders, and develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework to manage the wildland-urban interface consistent with best practices.
State Requirements
In 2005, the California Building Code was amended to require that all new buildings located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone in SRAs, or any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in LRAs, must use building materials approved for use in wildland/urban interface areas. The code now specifies certain roof coverings, fire resistive wall and ceiling-floor assemblies, wall finish materials, hardware, insulation, and other building materials for use in high fire hazard areas. Also in 2005, Public Resources Code (PRC) 4291 was amended to expand the defensible space clearance requirement around buildings from 30 feet to 100 feet, in any SRA.
Building owners must minimize potential fuel around structures, to minimize the risk of loss, and to improve firefighter safety.
Policies
Guiding Policy
NH-G-3 Fire Prevention. Protect Pacifica residents and businesses from potential wildland fire hazards.
Implementing Policies
NH-I-33NH-I-32 Response Time. Support efforts by North County Fire Authority to meet its response time standards throughout the City.
This effort may include construction of a third fire station in the central part of Pacifica, near the police station or the Quarry site. The City could provide land or shared facilities.
NH-I-34NH-I-33 Adequate Peak Load Water Supply. Work with the North Coast County Water District to maintain adequate water supply for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by the North County Fire Authority.
NH-I-35NH-I-34 Water Storage Locations. In evaluating sites for new water storage facilities, place a priority on locations least subject to impacts from seismic activity and landslides.
NH-I-36NH-I-35 Development Review. Review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation, access by emergency responders, and vegetation clearances that don’t impact ESHAs or wetlands or their associated buffers, unless undertaken consistent with the City’s ESHA and wetlands policies.
NH-I-37NH-I-36 Plan Review in Fire-Prone Areas. Continue to request North County Fire Authority participation in plan review of new buildings in potentially fire-prone areas.
5.13 1.g
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-27
NH-I-38NH-I-37 Fire Prevention Inspections. Continue to require a fire prevention inspection of every permitted business and multi-family development covered by the North County Fire Authority.
NH-I-39NH-I-38 Fire Prevention Education. Continue educating the public about local fire hazard prevention programs. Work cooperatively with the North County Fire Authority to promote public awareness of fire safety and emergency life support.
NH-I-40NH-I-39 Vegetation Management. Promote and support the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards, if consistent with the LCP.
NH-I-41NH-I-40 Multi-Jurisdictional Approach. Participate in State or regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory frame-work to manage the wildland-urban interface, including implementation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
NH-I-42NH-I-41 Rockaway Quarry Service. Ensure that any new development at the Rockaway Quarry site is adequately served by public infrastructure, including fire and police services.
5.14 1.g
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-28
This page intentionally left blank.
1.g
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6 COASTAL RESILIENCE
The purpose of this chapter is to provide policies which protect existing development from the hazard of sea level rise and which guide the design of new development to respond to sea level rise during the economic anticipated life of the project. Topics covered in this element include sea level rise projections, transfer of development rights (TDR), repair and replacement of existing shoreline protection structures (e.g., sea walls), and establishment of appropriate site design measures for new development.
Protection of property rights is an important theme in this chapter. Balancing appropriate protection of property and coastal resources along the dynamic coastline is an important theme in this chapter.
6.1 1.g
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-2
6.1 COASTAL ACT FRAMEWORK
Sea level rise increases the risk of flooding, coastal erosion, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies, which, if left unmanaged, have the potential to threaten many of the resources that are integral to the California coast, including coastal development, coastal access and recreation, habitats (e.g., wetlands, coastal bluffs, dunes, and beaches), coastal agricultural lands, water quality and supply, cultural resources, community character, and scenic quality. Policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act which are most relevant to Pacifica’s plan to manage coastal resiliency through the increasing risks posed by sea level rise include, but are not limited to, the policies listed below. Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, available in Appendix A, is incorporated into this chapter.
Coastal Act Policies
Article 2: Public Access
• Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access • Section 30212 New development projects
• Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent Article 4: Marine Environment
• Section 30235 Construction altering natural shoreline • Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Article 6: Development
• Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
• Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
Additionally, for all purposes with this LCLUP, no activity undertaken pursuant to Section 30610(g) of the Coastal Act shall be construed to be a Substantial Structural Modification as defined in this LCLUP.
This chapter will expand upon the relevant Coastal Act policies with additional legal considerations. In 2015, Governor Brown put into effect two regulatory requirements regarding climate change adaptation planning. The first, Senate Bill 379, requires local agencies to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in long range planning documents. The second, Governor’s Executive Order No. B-30-15, directed state agencies to factor climate change into planning decisions. This order has been promulgated by the California Coastal Commission to include climate adaptation in Local Coastal Programs (LCP).
The purpose of this chapter is to address the above-mentioned regulatory requirements regarding climate change and to provide policy guidance to minimize the risk to persons and property posed by potential sea level rise. These policies recognize that sea level rise projections are continually evolving and the effectiveness of hybrid adaptation strategies is not well known. Therefore, the policies focus on protecting beaches and the natural shoreline while also allowing for protection and armoring of the shoreline for specific limited circumstances as provided for within the Coastal Act and reassessment of the adaptation plan in the future. The policies do not include managed retreat as an adaptation strategy unless and until
6.2A
6.2 1.g
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-3
a future Local Coastal Land Use Plan amendment and public input process culminates in supporting the strategy.
6.2 SEA LEVEL RISE KEY FINDINGS
Climate change is happening now. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing and will continue to cause global warming and resultant climate change. For the coastal setting, the primary exposure will be an increase in sea level rise1 due to thermal expansion of the ocean’s waters and melting of ice sheets. Based on state level studies regarding sea level rise, seven key findings have been determined (CalNRA/OPC 2018):
• Scientific understanding of sea level rise is advancing at a rapid pace. Projections of future sea level rise have been adjusted to address improved understanding of sea level rise contributors and will continue to adjust as scientific understanding increases. • The direction of sea level change is clear. Coastal California is already experiencing the early impacts of a rising sea level.
• The rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets is increasing. These ice sheets will soon become the primary contributor to global sea level rise, overtaking the contributions from ocean thermal expansion and melting mountain glaciers and ice caps. • New scientific evidence has highlighted the potential for extreme sea level rise. If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, key glaciological processes could cross thresholds that lead to rapidly accelerating and effectively irreversible ice loss. • Probabilities of specific sea level increases can inform decisions. A probabilistic approach to sea level rise projections, combined with a clear articulation of the implications of uncertainty and the decision support needs of affected stakeholders, is the most appropriate approach for use in a policy setting.
• Current policy decisions are shaping our coastal future. Before 2050, differences in sea level rise projections under different emissions scenarios are minor but they diverge significantly past that point. After 2050, sea level rise projections increasingly depend on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Waiting for scientific certainty is neither a safe nor prudent option. High confidence in projections of sea level rise over the next three decades can inform preparedness efforts, adaptation actions and hazard mitigation undertaken today, and prevent much greater losses than will occur if action is not taken.
As further discussed below, impacts of sea level rise along Pacifica’s coastline would be significant. High tides and larger storms will challenge and change Pacifica’s existing shoreline, including portions of the 1 Sea level rise is the worldwide average rise in mean sea level.
1.g
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-4
shoreline with shoreline protection structures. Impacts to Pacifica’s shoreline could affect existing coastal developments, coastal habitats, coastal access and recreation. The policies in this chapter will guide Pacifica in how to prepare for the challenges associated with sea level rise and to reduce risks to people and property.
6.3 PREPARATION OF POLICIES
The City of Pacifica received a Local Assistance Grant from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and California Coastal Conservancy. The grant provided funding to the City of Pacifica to hire a consultant to conduct technical analyses for the CCC-recommended multi-step process to develop sea level rise and adaptation policies this LCLUP. The CCC-recommended steps included:
Step 1. Determine a range of sea level rise projections relevant to the LCP Planning Area/segment.
Step 2. Identify potential physical sea level rise impacts in the LCP Planning Area/segment.
Step 3. Assess potential risks from sea level rise to coastal resources and development in the LCP Planning Area/segment.
Step 4. Identify adaptation measures and LCP policy options.
Step 5. Draft an updated or new LCP for certification with the CCC.
Step 6. Implement the LCP and monitor and re-evaluate strategies as needed.
Steps 1 through 3 were completed through the preparation of the Vulnerability Assessment. Step 4 was completed through the preparation of the Adaptation Plan. Steps 1 through 4 are further discussed below.
Step 5 was completed by CCC certification of this LCLUP. Step 6 will be ongoing throughout the implementation of this LCLUP.
Council Goals
In March 2018, the City Council unanimously adopted the following goals to help guide the direction of the planning effort for development of the Coastal Resiliency Policies. The goals included:
1. Bolster efficacy of public safety efforts. Evacuations of bluff top homes have been necessary to protect the health, safety, and wellness of residents. The Adaptation Plan will assist the City to protect human life, property, and critical infrastructure in response to a catastrophic event.
2. Respond to climate change. The Adaptation Plan will allow Pacifica to prepare for sea level rise and climate change impacts by identifying policies that enhance the Coastal Zone’s adaptive capacity.
3. Preserve Existing Neighborhoods and Promote Environmental Justice and Local Economic Vitality. Pacifica’s Coastal Zone includes:
1.g
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-5
• 12% of the City’s population.
• The majority of older, and therefore more affordable, housing stock. • Five of six hotels (80% of the rooms) that generate transient occupancy tax revenues for City operations and bring visitors who patronize businesses. • More than half of commercial businesses, which provide vitality to the community and tax revenue for City operations.
• Public facilities that include City Hall, North Coast County Water District, Ingrid B. Lacy Middle School, the Pacifica Pier, drainage outfalls, waste water pumping stations, sewer force mains, and the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. • Significant historical and public recreational assets including beaches, coastal trails, the Beach Boulevard promenade, parks and Sharp Park Golf Course.
The loss or disruption of these assets could have far reaching impacts and affect everyone in Pacifica, not just those living or doing business in the Coastal Zone. The Adaptation Plan will allow the City to create policies that will protect these areas from the impacts of sea level rise, erosion, and coastal flooding. Consistent with the Coastal Act, the Adaptation Plan shall protect existing homes, businesses, and infrastructure in Pacifica.
4. Preserve and enhance coastal access. Beach and bluff access to the coastline is a crucial element of Pacifica’s coastal character and is valued by the community. The Adaptation Plan will allow the city to identify where bluff erosion, sedimentation, and sea level rise may threaten coastal access.
Vulnerability Assessment
In 2018, the City prepared a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment2 which focused on determining the potential exposure of assets to flooding and erosion hazard under six sea level rise scenarios selected for study. Because future projections of sea level rise along California’s coastline are uncertain (due to uncertainty associated with modeling and the trajectory of global emissions), it was recommended to consider a range of projections to understand the consequences of various decisions, determine the tolerance for risk associated with those decisions, and to inform adaptation strategies necessary to prepare for change in the face of uncertainty. The sea level rise scenarios include no sea level rise (existing conditions) as well as state-recommended scenarios listed in Table 6-1.
TABLE 6-1. PROPOSED FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE (SLR) AMOUNTS FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS WITH ASSOCIATED PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE (CALNRA & OPC 2017) Year Low (17% chance) Med-High (0.5% chance) Extreme (n/a) 2050 1 ft. 2 ft. -
2100 3 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. *
* SLR of 6 ft. at 2075 was considered in place of 10 ft. at 2100 to assess potential impacts under the Extreme scenario. This was recommended by ESA because of the lack of erosion and flooding data for 10 ft. of SLR.
The current best available science was identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. Consistent with the San Mateo County Vulnerability Assessment3, existing and future coastal flooding was evaluated using 2 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, prepared by ESA. June 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67369.96&BlobID=14459. 3 County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, prepared by County of San Mateo et. al. Final Report, March 2018.
1.g
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-6
the Our Coast, Our Future (OCOF; produced by US Geological Survey) mapping products, while future coastal erosion was evaluated using the Pacific Institute (PI) erosion maps.
Our Coast, Our Future
Our Coast Our Future (Ballard et al. 2016) is a collaborative project that provides online maps and tools to help users understand, visualize and anticipate vulnerabilities to sea level rise and storms. The project maps 40 different sea level rise and storm scenarios that were developed by the US Geological Survey (USGS) using their Coastal Storm Modeling System1 (CoSMoS 2.0, North-central California (outer coast)).
Various OCOF mapping products were used to evaluate existing and future coastal flooding hazards due to sea level rise (for regular tidal inundation) and storm flooding (considering a 100-year coastal event).
The OCOF/CoSMoS modeling used for the Vulnerability Assessment does not incorporate the long-term erosion of shorelines and bluffs and thus the flood layers may underestimate flood exposure. The modeling does however use recent (2013) topography that includes existing features such as the elevation of the Beach Boulevard seawall and the Sharp Park Golf Course levee. While potential erosion is not included in the OCOF maps, flooding shown beyond these built features essentially represents conditions for the ongoing maintenance of these elements at their current location and elevation. 4 Pacific Institute Study
In 2009, Philip William and Associates, Ltd. (PWA, now ESA) was funded by the Ocean Protection Council to provide the technical hazards analysis supporting the Pacific Institute report on the “Impacts of Sea Level Rise to the California Coast” (PWA 2009; Pacific Institute 2009). In the course of this work, PWA projected future coastal flooding hazards for the entire state based on a review of existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard maps and projected future coastal erosion hazard areas for the northern and central California coastline, ending at Santa Barbara. These hazard areas were used in the Pacific Institute study, which evaluated potential socio-economic impacts of sea level rise. In order to maintain consistency with the Sea Change SMC study, ESA used the coastal erosion hazard maps in this Vulnerability Assessment to identify potential impacts to Pacifica. The erosion hazard zones produced for this study do not consider the effects of coastal armoring structures, but rather depict the potential extent of erosion in the case that armoring fails or is not maintained. It is important to understand the potential risk that coastal erosion poses to assets without assuming any given adaptation strategy, and the Pacific Institute erosion maps are the best available resource to do so in Pacifica.
The Vulnerability Assessment tabulated asset exposures within seven coastal sub-areas5to facilitate more focused development of adaptation strategies and policies. The subareas used in this assessment, and carried forward throughout this chapter are consistent with the seven subareas used in the other chapters of this LCLUP. The one exception is the West Sharp Park neighborhood. It was decided that the analysis should combine the portion of the West Sharp Park neighborhood along the public sea wall and retaining wall with the Sharp Park Golf Course, West Fairway Park and Mori Point subarea. This decision was made because this entire stretch of shoreline is publicly owned and fully government owned shoreline may have different policy or funding considerations. An additional subarea identified in this planning effort is the West Linda Mar neighborhood, which is not in the Coastal Zone, but will be affected by sea level rise coastal hazards. Figure 6-1 shows the subareas referenced in this Chapter. 4 Erosion modeling was not included in the OCOF mapping data for the Pacifica area at the time of preparation of the Vulnerability Assessment. 5 Eight subareas were analyzed under the Vulnerability Assessment. However, one of those subareas is a portion of West Linda Mar and is outside of the Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6 -7
<<INSERT FIGURE 6-1>>>
1.g
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-8
Based on the best available hazard data from OCOF and PI, the potential hazards for land within the City were identified and evaluated in the Vulnerability Assessment (ESA 2018a). Dominant coastal hazards in Pacifica include the following:
• long-term shoreline erosion
• storm-event coastal erosion of bluffs and beaches
• coastal flooding associated with major wave events
• rising groundwater levels in Linda Mar
• flooding from Laguna Salada and San Pedro Creek
Maps were developed for each subarea depicting the anticipated areas needing protection under the most extreme sea level rise projections. These Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps are included as Appendix B to the LCP and relate to administration of Coastal Resilience Policies CR-I-1, CR-I-2, CR-I-7, CR-I-43, and other policies in this chapter.
The following public and private assets were determined to experience some form of existing or future risk and related vulnerability to sea level rise (e.g., coastal erosion and/or flooding):
• Property (public land and structures, private land and structures including homes, hotels, businesses, etc.)
• Public roads (local and regional)
• Drinking water system
• Wastewater pipes, mains and pump stations
• Stormwater pipes and pump stations
• Parks, trails, and coastal public access
• Beach and wetland habitats
• Other utilities (e.g. communications, electricity, gas) During preparation of the Vulnerability Assessment, the City heard concerns from the public that the PI data used to project coastal erosion did not consider the effects of existing shoreline protection (i.e., coastal armoring) structures. As a result, commenters expressed that the projected area for erosion shown in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps (Appendix B of the LCP) was more extreme than practical due to the protections provided by the existing shoreline protection structures and, therefore, the Maps were inappropriate for purposes of assessing actual vulnerability. However, because the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps show significant erosion for areas that are protected by existing shoreline protection structures, the Maps highlight the protection provided by the structures. importance of the existing structures and the vital need for them to be maintained to protect those vulnerable areas. The City acknowledges that the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps would not be appropriate for the use of site-specific erosion analyses, but the Maps do show important information necessary to make general planning-level decisions about the vulnerability of portions of the Coastal Zone. Revising the Maps to show the anticipated erosion associated with sea level rise with existing shoreline protection structures in place would result in a smaller projected area of vulnerability, but would not fully show what areas are in fact being protected by the shoreline protection structures and the value of the assets they protect would not be accurately captured.
6.3 1.g
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-9
The findings of the Vulnerability Assessment were used to inform which adaptation strategies may be appropriate to consider in each subarea and provide the background information for the subsequent study, the Adaptation Plan, which is discussed below. The Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps utilized the best available data at the time of preparation. The erosion scenario does not account for existing shoreline protection structures. This information is continually evolving and the maps reflect a long planning horizon recognizing typical design life of structures. Updated models and site-specific analysis could identify that the respective Coastal Vulnerability Zones may have shifted to include more or less area. Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps are not detailed to the parcel-scale and should not be used for real estate, financing, or insurance transactions, or other uses such as navigation, permitting, or regulatory uses. To confirm vulnerability potential, further studies should be performed for Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Coastal Vulnerability projections were sourced from publicly available data and existing models not created by the City of Pacifica.
Adaptation Plan
Following the above-mentioned Vulnerability Assessment, but also in 2018, the City prepared a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan6. The Adaptation Plan was prepared using information identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. The purpose of the Adaptation Plan was to be a background document that analyzed various adaptation strategies for each subarea, including the costs and benefits of each adaptation strategy, to inform future decisions on adaptation policies. The cost-benefit analysis section of the Adaptation Plan was not adopted or approved by the City of Pacifica. The purpose of the costbenefit analysis was to provide information regarding various sea level rise scenarios and adaptation options and was not intended to prescribe specific adaptation policies. The cost-benefit analysis was perceived to require additional work to adequately analyze the value of public recreational amenities.
The cost-benefit analysis shall not be used for any future purpose by the City of Pacifica or its planning processes, including implementation of the Local Coastal Program, public infrastructure investment, permitting or other regulatory purposes.
The Adaptation Plan modeled selected feasible adaptation strategies for each subarea. The plan identified environmental triggers for when an adaptation strategy would need to be implemented and the cost-benefit analysis of implementation. The cost-benefit analysis considered costs related to • Engineering
• Flooding and erosion
• Transient occupancy, sales, and property tax receipts • Property transactions
The estimated costs were then compared to the estimated benefits of the increased recreational value of expanded beach areas. The comparison was made using an economic methodology that detailed its assumptions as well as the limitations of the analysis and gaps in available data. The cost-benefit analysis was conducted using engineering unit cost estimates for adaptation measures and asset replacement, scheduling (and costing) of adaptation measures through time using a shoreline evolution model and flooding thresholds, and conducting a geographic information system (GIS) exposure analysis 6 Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, prepared by ESA. September 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58348.79&BlobID=14632. This footnote is for informational purposes only and does not constitute incorporation of the Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan into this LCLUP.
6.4 6.4
1.g
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-10
for the alternative adaptation strategies considered in each sub-area. The Table 6-2 7 below provides a
summary of the methods and data sources used for the cost-benefit analysis.
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF METHODS AND DATA SOURCES FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Estimate Valuation Method Source
Residential Land Market Update County Parcel Data
San Mateo County,
Zillow
Commercial Land Market Update County Parcel Data
San Mateo County,
Zillow
Publicly Owned Land,
Land Trusts Acquisition Cost Apply acreage metric Various Publicly Owned Buildings Appraisals City of Pacifica
Demolition Costs Removal Costs Apply sq. ft. metric ESA Linda Mar Beach Non-Market Valuation
Day Use Value X
Attendance City of Pacifica
Other Beaches Non-Market Valuation
Day Use Value X
Attendance Pacifica CRSMP
Trails None
Estimate Length of Trails
Lost City of Pacifica
Golf Course Market and Non-Market
See Appendix B of
Adaptation Plan Various
Water Pipes Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric NCCWD Communication Conduits Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric Comcast Wastewater Pipes Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Wastewater Mains/Pumps Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Roads Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Stormwater Pipes/Pumps Replacement Costs Apply linear ft. metric ESA/City Source: ESA 2018b; Table 15, Page 69
During preparation of the Adaptation Plan, the City heard concerns from the public that the cost-benefit analysis did not include consideration of some assets, which undervalued the assets needing protection.
Examples provided by the public included the recreational values of Sharp Park Golf Course and coastal trails. The Adaptation Plan provides a detailed description of what assets were considered in the costbenefit analysis and which items were either not included or discussed only at a qualitative value and the reasoning for such actions. An analysis of the recreational value of the Sharp Park Golf Course in the Adaptation Plan concludes that the recreational value of the Golf Course is approximately even with the operation costs for the golf course. For this reason and other factors provided in the Adaptation Plan, and with the recommendation from a qualified economic consultant, the loss of the Sharp Park Golf Course was only evaluated as a loss of public property.
Other public comments related to the valuation assigned to trails. Pacifica has a number of coastal hiking trails which are popular with various user types. However, no reliable source to quantify trail use could be found for inclusion in the Adaptation Plan. The Adaptation Plan recognizes that a recreational value for the trails was not provided, but also assumed that trails are an asset that can naturally be relocated. The cost-benefit analysis does qualitatively value the estimated loss of trails by acknowledging the loss of trails in linear feet for each alternative. 7 Table 6-2 is a replication of Table 15 (page 69) from the ESA 2018b.
1.g
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-11
Additionally, the City also heard concerns from the public regarding the recreational beach value used in the cost-benefit analysis. Commenters were concerned that the $40/day per person-visit value was an unsupported value and the analysis overestimated beach attendance. Concerns were that an overestimated value would set a standard for future mitigation costs for maintaining current shoreline protection structures and would create an imbalance on the analysis in favor of managed retreat. The cost-benefit analysis in the Adaptation Plan was prepared to support and inform the comparison of various adaptation strategies. The cost-benefit analysis is not intended to establish a standardized statewide beach recreation value. As fully discussed in the Adaptation Plan, the City did address concerns that the $40/day per person-visit value was too high for Pacifica’s beaches and that the number of people using the beach was very small, lower than the estimates used in the Adaptation Plan.
In response, a sensitivity analysis was applied using a lower day-use value ($10/day per person-visit)8. In summary, significantly lowering the value of a beach day, or significantly lowering attendance, did not change the rank ordering of the alternatives in economic terms, except at Rockaway Beach, where a higher attendance estimate would justify beach nourishment, which would also help protect the hotels, restaurants and other businesses there.
The findings of the Adaptation Plan are just one of the considerations that were used to develop the Coastal Resilience policies below and, as discussed, the Coastal Resilience policies focus on protection and armoring of the shoreline for specific limited circumstances as provided for within the Coastal Act and reassessment of the Adaptation Plan in the future. Therefore, changes to the cost-benefit analysis are not necessary to inform the Coastal Resiliency policies. in a manner to discourage managed retreat as suggested by some public commenters detailed below would be unnecessary since the Coastal Resilience policies do not include managed retreat as an adaptation strategy. As noted earlier in this section, the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the Adaptation Plan shall not be used for any future purpose by the City of Pacifica or its planning processes.
The Adaptation Plan was prepared to inform City decision making about a variety of sea level rise adaptation policies, but does not include or dictate the ultimate policies selected by the City. Although managed retreat alternatives are analyzed in the Adaptation Plan in accordance with the City’s grant agreement with the CCC, these analyses do not, in themselves, equate to a managed retreat policy. The City uses other sea level rise adaptation policy in this LCP and any future changes to policy will require an amendment to this LCP. To the contrary, the City has rejected managed retreat as a sea level rise adaptation policy in this LCP and managed retreat could only become the policy of the City subsequent to a future amendment to the LCP.
As mentioned above, there are many unknowns associated with sea level rise. The science and modeling of sea level rise projections are inherently uncertain. The rate of sea level rise is highly dependent on whether global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase or whether global emissions will be reduced. The rate of sea level rise could be higher, or lower, than current projections. The Vulnerability Assessment and the Adaptation Plan are the background documents that were prepared to inform the development of the Coastal Resilience policies contained in the LCP. The background documents were prepared based on the best available science and available data at the time of preparation. As discussed 8 Note that the effect of lowering the beach value by 75% yields the same result as lowering attendance by 75% or reducing both attendance and unit value by 50%.
6.4 6.4
6.4 6.4
1.g
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-12
in the policies, updates to these background documents may be appropriate as future best available science progresses, which may warrant the consideration of new or revised Coastal Resilience policies.
6.4 GENERAL POLICIES
Based on the results of the Adaptation Plan, consideration given to the Coastal Act, stakeholder input9, and Council goals, the below Coastal Resilience policies were developed and selected for inclusion in the LCP.
Guiding Policies
CR-G-1 Key Coastal Act Policies. The City of Pacifica adopts the following key policies derived from the Coastal Act to address coastal resilience:
PRC 30235. Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.
PRC 30253. New development shall: (1) minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard; and (2) assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs; and,
The Coastal Resilience policies adopted herein are intended to achieve and are consistent with these key policies, subject to periodic updates as resource and development monitoring and program implementation may dictate.
CR-G-2 Sea Level Rise and Best Available Science. Planning and development reviews shall use, as applicable, the best available science about projected sea level rise and other climate change-related environmental changes when addressing coastal erosion, bluff failure, flooding, and other coastal hazards.
9 Public comments were received throughout the process of preparing the Coastal Resilience policies. Comments and responses to those comments were published after public review of each of the deliverables. Please see https://CityofPacifica.org/sealevelrise for more information.
1.g
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-13
Implementing Policies
CR-I-1 Vulnerability Identification and Mapping. The City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones shall be mapped based on the best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. Mapping shall be updated as necessary to guide implementation of the LCP’s Coastal Resilience policies. Notwithstanding the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps, site-specific hazard mapping and assessment may be required as part of the individual development review process for properties within the City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones.
6.5 COASTAL RESILIENCE POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-2 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. The City shall implement its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan10 as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies. Adaptation alternatives evaluated in the Adaptation Plan that are not specifically expressed in these Coastal Resilience policies shall not be implemented without an amendment to the LCP, public notice, and opportunity for public input. The City shall monitor implementation and, consistent with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-4, update the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan to strengthen public safety, preserve existing neighborhoods, assure local economic vitality, respond to climate change, promote environmental justice, implement the Coastal Act, and protect the public trust.
Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones may be approved consistent with the subarea policies in Section 6.6 if the following findings can be made:
a. The proposed development is sited and designed to avoid, and where unavoidable, to minimize coastal hazards and impacts to coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the Adaptation Plan; b. All project impacts on coastal resources are avoided, and where unavoidable, minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-5) or consistent with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-59.
c. The project will not pose unacceptable risks to life or property for the anticipated life of the development or otherwise create a nuisance; and d. The project will not encroach on public trust lands for the anticipated life of the development; and
10 Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, prepared by ESA. September 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58348.79&BlobID=14632. This footnote is for informational purposes only and does not constitute incorporation of the Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan into this LCLUP.
6.5 6.6
6.6 6.6
6.6 1.g
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-14
e. The project is designed to assure stability and structural integrity absent the need for shoreline protective devices for the anticipated life of the development.
CR-I-3 Monitoring Shoreline Change. The City shall implement a monitoring program for sea level rise, beach width, bluff offset, flooding and storm damage, and other potential measures or triggers for guiding implementation of the Coastal Resilience policies. The monitoring program shall include yearly biannual (minimum following winter and summer) shoreline and bluff edge surveys and also establish thresholds for reassessing the City’s Adaptation Plan.
The City, in coordination with Coastal Commission staff, shall create an alternating schedule to do half of the applicable area each year.
CR-I-4 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Update. The City shall reassess its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies every five years or sooner as required by the shoreline monitoring program (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3). The reassessment shall consider the following:
• Efficacy of Adaptation Plan and implemented measures. • Updated sea level rise projections and risks.
• Potential need to revise adaptation measures or implement new measures, including review of emerging engineering, science, and technologies. • Funding needs and potential funding sources.
The draft findings of the City’s reassessment shall be disseminated to the public for review and comment prior to being finalized.
CR-I-5 Shoreline Mitigation Program. Within three years of certification of the LCP Land Use Plan update, the City shall adopt a Shoreline Mitigation Program to address the coastal resource impacts of existing and future shoreline protection projects in the City, and it shall be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as an LCP amendment.
Special emphasis shall be placed on maintaining beaches and public access to and along the shoreline. The program will update the public access inventory of the LCP as necessary, include a coastal resource inventory and identify priority improvements for maintaining and enhancing coastal shoreline resources, particularly public access and recreation. The program will include enforceable measures to achieve proportional mitigation of resource impacts identified in shoreline protection projects, including consideration of beach widths, sediment management plan actions, and monitoring.
The program will identify potential funding sources for implementation of identified improvements. The program will include provisions for monitoring implementation and program updates as necessary. Until the adoption of a Shoreline Mitigation Program by the City and subsequent certification by the Coastal Commission, coastal resource impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with CR-I-59.
6.6 6.7
6.7 6.8
6.8 1.g
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-15
CR-I-6 Adaptation Funding. The City will pursue feasible grant funding sources or new funding mechanisms, such as the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHADs) as supported by NH-I-16, or securing FEMA and other federal or state adaptation and hazard mitigation funds, to finance adaptation strategies for public infrastructure.
CR-I-7 Transfer of Development Rights. Use the City’s transfer of development rights (TDR) ordinance to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones (sending sites) to receiving sites outside of Coastal Vulnerability zones. Identify areas where densities and heights may be increased using TDR credits, including to facilitate affordable housing.
CR-I-8 Critical Transportation Infrastructure. The City will pursue opportunities to preserve, protect, or relocate critical local transportation infrastructure, or provide alternative access, to mitigate against isolation and economic loss, and to ensure public safety, while avoiding (and where unavoidable minimizing and mitigating) impacts to coastal resources, including public access and recreation, to the maximum extent feasible, and being consistent with prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
CR-I-9 Hazard Prone Infrastructure. The City will preserve, protect, or relocate hazard prone infrastructure to maintain critical services and protect coastal resources, including if required by prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Preservation/protection in situ with shoreline armoring shall be required to meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-10 Business Outreach. The City’s Economic Development Division shall provide nonfinancial assistance to businesses in evaluating options to promote business resiliency.
CR-I-11 High Water Program. The City will research and evaluate feasible new funding mechanisms to implement a program to record high water marks where feasible following high-water events.
CR-I-12 Flood Ordinance Consistency. The City will review and amend as necessary the flood damage prevention ordinance to assure consistency with the updated policies and ordinances of the LCP.
CR-I-13 LHMP Alignment. The City will coordinate its departments and programs to align the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the LCP to ensure proactive, coordinated and streamlined adaptation efforts and response to future coastal hazards. The City shall leverage FEMA funding opportunities for hazard mitigation and other related funding mechanisms to implement the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies.
6.9 6.10
1.g
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-16
CR-I-14 Regional Sediment Management. Participate in regional approaches to protecting, enhancing and restoring coastal beaches and watersheds through the California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, with a goal of minimizing coastal erosion.
CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures shall be avoided except that existing shoreline protection structures may be maintained or new shoreline protection structures constructed to protect existing structures in danger from erosion if found to be the least environmentally-damaging alternative, impacts to beach, public access and recreation, and other coastal resources are fully mitigated consistent with CR-I-5 and CR-I-59, and compliant with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act . Allow shoreline protection structures for the public road and sewer line existing structures if necessary and consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, other LCP policies, and the Coastal Act. New development on blufftops shall comply will all LCP setback policies, including CR-I-44.
CR-I-16 Beach Nourishment. Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment In coordination with the California Coastal Commission and other permitting agencies (e.g. State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) the City shall evaluate a beach nourishment program, in conjunction with sand retention structures (see artificial headlands concept in the Adaptation Plan) as described in CR-I-55, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average, consistent with other LCP policies and the Coastal Act. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time. The beach nourishment program will need to be evaluated to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and will include measures to protect water quality and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and mitigate) potential adverse coastal resource impacts, including biological resource impacts, from deposition of material, including measures such as sand compatibility specifications, restrictions on volume of deposition, timing or seasonal restrictions, and identification of environmentally preferred locations for deposits.
6.6 SUB-AREA POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
The following policies and programs implement the near-term sea level rise adaptation priorities for each sub-area in Pacifica, and identify mid- and long-term adaptation measures, subject to feasibility and monitoring concerns. These priorities were developed based on existing conditions and existing/near term vulnerabilities for each sub-area, as well as the City’s adopted goals for sea level rise adaptation.
6.12 6.11
1.g
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-17
As required in Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3, the City shall monitor erosion, flooding, and sea level rise amount into the future to identify triggers for future adaptation measures beyond initial actions required due to existing conditions. Where applicable, the titles of the policies in this subsection detail when the policy should be implemented. For example, CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure) should be implemented when 0 to 1 foot of sea level rise or a 260-foot bluff offset is experienced. The bluff offset is measured distance between the edge of the bluffs and the asset (e.g., infrastructure, development). These triggers do not account for regulatory permitting, approvals, or financing; therefore planning should be done in advance of the triggers.
Generally, for all lands within the Coastal Vulnerability 2050 Pacific Institute erosion hazard zones 11 ,
utilities, roadways and other public infrastructure should be floodproofed unless other adaptation alternatives are implemented and performing well, and only if consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies. The City should incentivize risk reduction (e.g, floodproofing, etc.) that property owners can invest in, with grant funding or code updates. In addition, the City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue floodproofing infrastructure that may be currently exposed to coastal erosion and flooding to reduce the consequences of under-performance of protection measures, only if such floodproofing infrastructure is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies, consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies (CR-I-61).
The City’s overall approach to address for new development is to minimize or avoid current and projected future coastal hazards is through siting and design of new development to be out of harm’s way and to limit shoreline armoring as much as possible, including to help preserve and protect the City’s shoreline and beaches. At the same time, managed retreat is not included in any of the nearterm policies. Managed retreat would be reconsidered if feasibility and monitoring warranted, as detailed in Coastal Resilience Policies CR-I-3 and CR-I-4.
SPECIAL RESILIENCY AREAS
The Special Resiliency Areas (SRA) include the existing shoreline protection structures in the Rockaway and West Sharp Park sub-areas. The existing shoreline protection structures protect a mix of unified coastal access, including coastal access points and trails; public infrastructure, including sidewalks, roads, water, and sewer; electrical utilities; and public parking, both on- and off-street. The unique circumstances in Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park warrant a unique policy approach. The purpose of modifying policies applicable to this area is to allow ongoing reliance on the existing shoreline protection structures and allow ongoing provision of public services, and protection of robust coastal access for all persons including persons with disabilities within a Special Resiliency Area (SRA). The two SRA locations are identified in Figure 6-2 and 6-3
Implementing Policies
11 Maps available at http://esanw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5163d0c3a03043baba59eb273cce3139
6.13 6.13
6.13 6.13
6.14 1.g
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-18
CR-I-17 Shoreline Management Plan. The City will establish a funding source for a shoreline management plan implementation. Funding sources may include, but not be limited to, grants, fees, assessments, taxes, and any other lawful public or private funding source.
The City will create a funding and implementation plan with specific projects to improve the coastline Citywide. Improvements may include the 400 Esplanade Multi-Purpose Trail, Beach Boulevard Promenade Park Improvements, and the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle Lane Project. Creation of this plan will include community outreach and input.
The plan will identify specific short-, medium-, and long-term projects to mitigate coastal resource impacts from ongoing reliance on shoreline protection within Special Resiliency Areas. In general, the implementation plan will fund a variety of projects identifying and carrying out shoreline protection removal opportunities, implementing nature-based solutions to adapt existing shoreline protection devices, maintenance or alteration of existing shoreline protection devices to expand public coastal access including but not limited to trails and beach access, acquiring and conserving undeveloped coastal properties, and enhancing visitor amenities. Specific improvements and shoreline protection device removal may occur anywhere within the City of Pacifica.
The plan must be submitted to California Coastal Commission for certification within three (3) years of LCLUP certification. Failure to submit will void Special Resiliency Area allowances provided in other LCLUP policies until such time as the CCC certifies the plan.
FAIRMONT WEST
The Fairmont West sub-area includes 0.6 miles of shoreline at the northern most portion of the City of Pacifica that includes open space west of and residential development east of Palmetto Ave and Westline Drive. The most seaward assets in this sub-area are the north end of Palmetto Avenue and Westline Drive which are beyond 300 feet from the current bluff edge, and the Dollaradio station (100 Palmetto Avenue), both of which were constructed prior to the Coastal Act. A rock revetment was constructed along the bluff toe in front of Dollaradio in 2010.
The roadway and utilities in Fairmont West are at risk after one to two feet of sea level rise. Some beach width may exist for access and other coastal resources, but given the high bluffs here, there is not adequate vertical access to the beach. Due to the undeveloped conditions of the bluffs in this sub-area, adaptation efforts are not required immediately. Beach nourishment, while a lower priority for this subarea compared to other more developed sub-areas in the City, could take place at a later date with a larger volume of sand. CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design.
6.15 1.g
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-19
Implementing Policies
CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure). Shoreline protection structures shall be avoided except that the existing shoreline protection structures may be maintained or new shoreline protection structures constructed to protect existing structures in danger from erosion if found to be the least environmentally-damaging alternative, impacts are fully mitigated consistent with CR-I-5, and compliant with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Allow shoreline protection structures for the public road and sewer line existing structures if necessary and consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, other LCP policies, and the Coastal Act. New development on blufftops shall comply will all LCP setback policies, including CR-I-44.
CR-I-16 Beach Nourishment (2 feet SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure).
Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (see artificial headlands concept in the Adaptation Plan) as described in CR-I55, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
CR-I-17 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to private landowners to voluntarily transfer development potential as supported by CR-I-7.
WEST EDGEMAR AND PACIFIC MANOR
The West Edgemar and Pacific Manor sub-area includes all land west of Highway 1, south of Dollaradio Station to and including the San Francisco RV Resort. The sub-area includes 0.8 miles of coastline that consists of rip rap and a few short (100-400 feet) stretches of sandy beach. The backshore is characterized by tall bluffs (60-120 feet) with development on or near the edge of bluff. Approximately 80 percent of the backshore is currently armored in this sub-area, which highlights the erosion hazards posed to bluff top property and infrastructure.
Built assets and property are at risk from bluff erosion where unarmored now. Much of the armored areas may be overwhelmed by waves with as little as one foot of sea level rise, due to scour and structure sloughing, increased wave loads and overtopping of the structure. Beaches tend to exist in pockets, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. Beach access is limited in West Edgemar and Pacific Manor.
6.16 6.17
1.g
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-20
Implementing Policies
CR-I-18 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 220-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure or development). Maintain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures to protect existing public infrastructure structures, including between Bill Drake Way and Manor Drive. Allow private property owners to maintain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures if allowed pursuant to Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, and if consistent with prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act, and require mitigation of beach, public access and recreation and other coastal resource impacts, consistent with CR-I-5 or CR-I-59, as necessary.
CR-I-19 Beach Nourishment (0-1 foot SLR or 220-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure or development). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept) as described in CR-I-55, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
NORTHWEST SHARP PARK
The Northwest Sharp Park sub-area includes land west of Highway 1 and between the SF RV Resort and Bella Vista Ave. This sub-area is the northern portion of the West Sharp Park sub-area for the remaining chapters of the LCP. For this chapter, the West Sharp Park sub-area from the LCP was divided along the parcel boundaries between Shoreview Avenue and Paloma Avenue for two reasons. First, the backshore armoring infrastructure changes at this location from private to public. North of the divide, private homes are armored by rock revetments and gunnite covering the bluff face. South of the divide, a public walkway and Beach Boulevard runs along the bluff top which is protected by a seawall and fronting rock revetment. Secondly, flooding at the Sharp Park Golf Course (SPGC) affects residences surrounding the course. Any shoreline management strategies taken for SPGC will have implications for the neighborhood north of and adjacent to the golf course. Thus, the southern portion of West Sharp Park sub-area was combined with the Sharp Park sub-area in order to more clearly discuss existing conditions, evaluate vulnerability and develop adaptation strategies that account for this flooding linkage.
Northwest Sharp Park sub-area includes approximately 2,800 feet of shoreline from the south end of the San Francisco RV Resort to the north end of the Beach Boulevard seawall. The shoreline is almost entirely covered with rock or rubble; the beach is currently very narrow at the north end and disappears in front of the armored homes along Shoreview Avenue. The backshore is about 90 percent armored in this sub-area, owing to gaps in rubble along the northern bluffs.
6.18 6.19
1.g
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-21
The backshore of Northwest Sharp Park is armored but may be overwhelmed by waves with as little as one foot of sea level rise, due to existing scour and shoreline protection structure sloughing, increased wave loads and overtopping of the shoreline protection structure. Beaches tend to exist ephemerally in pockets, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. Existing property and infrastructure are at risk from coastal erosion so actions should be taken soon. As directed by CR-I-5, the City will prepare a public access improvement plan as part of the Shoreline Mitigation Program . Due to the potential lead time of establishing a sand source, beach nourishment planning should begin immediately. CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-20 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Private land owners may maintain, expand, or construct new shoreline protection structures to protect existing structures in danger from erosion, consistent with CR-I-2 and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
CR-I-21 Beach Nourishment (0-2 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept), to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
CR-I-22 Flood Protection (1 feet SLR). Enable property owners to modify development structures (e.g., elevate a residence) to manage impacts of wave run-up and overtopping of bluff face provided such modifications are consistent with the LCP and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
SHARP PARK, WEST FAIRWAY PARK AND MORI POINT
The Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point sub-area (Figure 14 and Figure 15, Appendix B-4) includes land west of Highway 1 and contains the Palmetto Ave business district, Beach Boulevard Promenade, Fishing Pier, multiple City-owned parcels and landmarks, the Sharp Park Golf Course (SPGC), West Sharp Park and West Fairway Park neighborhoods and Mori Point. In order to represent the
6.20 6.21
6.22 1.g
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-22
flooding connectivity of the lower Sharp Park neighborhood with the SPGC, the “West Sharp Park” subarea was split in two (as described for Northwest Sharp Park above).
The shoreline in this sub-area is comprised of rip rap at the north end along the Beach Boulevard seawall, coarse grained sand from the pier to Mori Point, and exposed wave-cut platforms in bedrock around Mori Point. At the north end of this sub-area, the backshore consists of the Beach Boulevard seawall and fronting rock revetment that extend south of the Pacifica Pier and terminates north of Clarendon Avenue. The seawall protects the pedestrian walkway, road and residential properties from its northern terminus to Montecito Avenue. South of Montecito Avenue there is open space and parking between the seawall/walkway and development that includes City owned and private parcels. The beach is mostly absent along northern Beach Boulevard (north of the pier), and emerges south of the Pacifica Fishing Pier and widens with distance south. Beyond the south end of the seawall, the City currently manages a sand berm to limit wave run-up and overtopping at the end of Clarendon Ave.
South of Clarendon, the backshore consists of an earthen berm levee that spans south to the headlands of Mori Point. The levee was built in the 1980s to protect the Sharp Park Golf Course. The fronting beach is approximately 200 feet wide with sparse vegetation along the back of beach. Approximately 1,150 feet of the northern portion of the levee are covered with rock, while the southern approximately 250 feet are armored by a revetment where the drainage outfall is located.
Most of this area is armored. The northern section between the Pier and Paloma Avenue is subject to frequent wave overtopping and damage to homes has occurred. Beaches are narrow and ephemeral, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. South of the Pier, the beach tends to be more persistent and wider, and there is usually an accessible beach in the vicinity of the end of Clarendon Road, with reliable vertical and lateral beach access. South of Clarendon Road to Mori Point, the beach persists although wave run-up can reach the levee and there is some armoring.
This sub-area is exposed to flooding due to rainfall runoff which cannot flow directly to the ocean. The Clarendon Road area is exposed to flooding now, and certain parts of the West Fairway neighborhood may be exposed to flooding if sea level and ground water levels rise over 3 feet. Due to the potential lead time of establishing a sand source, beach nourishment planning should begin immediately. Policy CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design Flood protection is already needed for homes and businesses along Clarendon Road during rain events and will need to be improved around Sharp Park Golf Course to manage flooding of Laguna Salada regardless of the condition of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm. The City and County of San Francisco is expected to maintain the Sharp Park Golf Course berm which protects the Sharp Park and West Fairway Park neighborhoods from the coastal flooding source, but existing pumping facilities in Sharp Park Golf Course are not designed to mitigate flooding in and around the course during significant rainfall events (i.e., a portable pump station is currently used to manage rainfall runoff flooding along Clarendon Road).
The priority recommendations for flood protection surrounding Sharp Park Golf Course are therefore based on the rainfall (fluvial) flood source, but would also be effective during a major coastal storm if the Sharp Park Golf Course berm is overtopped or breached. Flooding due to wave run-up landward of Beach Boulevard seawalls is already an issue. Monitoring of the existing seawalls against the higher sea
1.g
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-23
levels expected in the future will be necessary (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3). Results of the monitoring will be considered during the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Update to determine if additional flood protection adaptation measures are necessary.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-23 Sharp Park Golf Course. Strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s ability to provide public access along the coast, protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, and provide flood protection. maintenance of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm and armoring, consistent with the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission, including adaptation planning for the course, and protecting public access.
The City of Pacifica shall strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s ongoing maintenance of the berm even if Coastal Commission termination of authorization is trigged by the conditions of approval, or require construction of flood protection improvements by the City and County of San Francisco.
CR-I-24 Shoreline Protection Structures (0 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct shoreline protection structures to protect existing public infrastructure structures if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57. Extend the Beach Boulevard seawall to the Sharp Park Golf Course berm if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-25 Structure Elevation (0-2 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct shoreline protection structures if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57, and with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act to limit wave overtopping unless beach nourishment strategies are effective in reducing wave run-up on the backshore. Elevate development structures if consistent with Policy CR-I-61, and with any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act as necessary to mitigate flood damage, consistent with height limitations,.
Elevations of wave run-up and associated development thresholds shall be determined via a site-specific study.
CR-I-26 Beach Nourishment (0-1 feet SLR). Pursue beach nourishment and sand retention structures to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and provide beach resources. Encourage the City and County of San Francisco to nourish the beach fronting the Sharp Park Golf Course berm to maintain beach widths.
CR-I-27 Flood Protection (0 foot SLR). Evaluate and construct appropriate flood protection measures, which may include a Clarendon Road stormwater basin, pump station, and/or interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee, to protect homes and businesses from existing fluvial storm flood hazard zone.
6.23 6.24
6.25 6.26
6.27 1.g
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-24
CR-I-28 Flood Protection (3 feet SLR). Evaluate the future need to construct a West Fairway Park stormwater basin, pump station, and interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee to protect western homes from future coastal/fluvial flood hazard zone.
ROCKAWAY BEACH, QUARRY AND HEADLANDS
This sub-area includes the vacant quarry site, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway Headlands. Of the 1,800 feet of shoreline at Rockaway Beach, 1,000 feet are backed by armoring structures. South of the armored development, a small creek daylights from under the highway and flows onto the wider public beach. There are two beach access points in this sub-area: one at the parking lot just south of Calera Creek mouth, and the other at Rockaway Beach.
The armoring near the end of Rockaway Beach Avenue is overtopped by waves under present conditions, with occasional damages caused to nearby structures. Hence, this area has very little capacity and will have a noticeably degraded condition with as little as one foot of sea level rise. There is no beach in this area, with waves crashing directly into the shoreline protection structures. The shore becomes more accessible with distance northward but will also be more limited with as little as 1 foot of sea level rise. The south end of Rockaway Beach is unarmored, has a persistent beach and the backshore is estimated to be impacted with about 2 feet of sea level rise.
Due to the cove configuration of Rockaway Beach, it is a great candidate for beach nourishment. Policies recommend that Rockaway Beach be used as a pilot project for beach nourishment in Pacifica. In the pilot project, the City will go through the overall process for beach nourishment and identify available sources in the region and corresponding sediment characteristics and costs, evaluate the performance of the nourishment and enable the City to reevaluate nourishment along northern Pacifica and perform a more thorough assessment for a larger-scale nourishment project.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-29 Shoreline Protection Structure Shoreline Protection Structures (0 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures along the north cove for public safety and hazard reduction if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-30 Shoreline Protection (2-3 feet SLR, or when backshore toe is 100 feet from Highway 1).
Coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate the need for a revetment or other appropriate shoreline protection for the Highway 1 embankment.
CR-I-31 Public Access (0 feet SLR). Plan and provide for enhanced public access, consistent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5).
CR-I-32 Beach Nourishment/Public Access (0 feet SLR). Plan and implement beach nourishment for Rockaway Beach. Monitor and measure performance and any reduction of shoreline
6.28 6.29
6.31 6.30
6.32 1.g
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-25
protection structure maintenance needs. Establish mechanisms through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) to receive and use beach impact mitigation funds from other sub-areas of the City.
CR-I-33 Development Setbacks (ongoing). Implement new development shoreline setbacks consistent with CR-I-44.
CR-I-34 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to the private landowners of the Rockaway Headlands to voluntarily transfer development potential as supported by CR-I-7.
PACIFICA STATE BEACH & WEST LINDA MAR
This sub-area spans from the northeast end of Pacifica State Beach to the mouth of San Pedro Creek and includes land west of Highway 1 North. The beach is currently 100 to 250 feet wide. The backshore is mostly comprised of low vegetated dunes habitat in the middle and north portions, while a low seawall fronts the northern pump station and parking lot at the southwest end of the sub-area. The backshore in this sub-area is approximately 15 percent armored.
Adaptation policies for Pacifica State Beach and West Linda Mar are presented together because actions taken at Pacifica State Beach influence coastal hazard exposure to West Linda Mar. Much of the Pacifica State Beach sub-area has a persistent, relatively wide beach with bulkheads in the south transitioning to dune fields in the north. Hence, this shore and roadway can likely withstand at least 2 feet of sea level rise. However, the West Linda Mar sub-area east of Highway 1 has a low elevation and is subject to flooding from high creek flows and rising groundwater associated with sea level rise. Due to the existing beach widths at Pacifica State Beach and existing coastal armoring, armoring actions are not a near - term priority. However, conditions of existing armoring at the Anza stormwater pump station should be monitored to ensure protection in the near term. Nourishment of Pacifica State Beach should be initiated using the shoreline-backshore offset for the main parking lot. Beach nourishment projects should include dune restoration to maintain ecology, protect the sewer force main that is buried in the existing dune field north of the main parking lot/Anza pump station as well as provide flooding protection of Highway 1 and West Linda Mar. Pump stations at Pacifica State Beach are vulnerable to wave run-up and require floodproofing in place. The West Linda Mar neighborhood is also vulnerable to flooding from San Pedro Creek based on existing FEMA hazard maps and will become more vulnerable as sea level rise increases the flood levels in the creek via its ocean boundary condition. The West Linda Mar neighborhood was constructed in a former lagoon and experiences high groundwater issues in the lowest areas, which is evident by existing wetlands around the skate park and homes furthest west.
Groundwater in low areas near the ocean are directly influenced by the sea level, and thus groundwater issues will increase with sea level rise.
6.32 1.g
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-26
Implementing Policies
CR-I-35 Shoreline Protection (2 ft SLR or 100 foot offset from shoreline to infrastructure).
Evaluate beach conditions and consider future shoreline protection to protect existing parking structures and the existing Linda Mar stormwater and wastewater pump station structures as necessary.
CR-I-36 Highway One Protection. Coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate options for protecting Highway 1, if necessary.
CR-I-37 Beach Nourishment (2 ft SLR or 100 foot offset from shoreline to infrastructure).
Evaluate beach conditions and implement beach nourishment as necessary to maintain a 100-foot buffer seaward of the sewer force main and/or Highway 1. Repeat nourishments as needed.
CR-I-38 Flood Protection (0 feet SLR). Analyze need for floodwall along commercial property to manage flooding from San Pedro Creek under existing conditions with sea level rise allowance. Future flood studies that include climate-driven changes in precipitation should inform any floodwall design. Floodproof Anza pump station (stormwater) to mitigate existing coastal storm flooding vulnerabilities to wave run-up.
CR-I-39 Flood Protection (2 feet SLR or 100-foot offset from shoreline to infrastructure).
Floodproof the Linda Mar pump stations (sewer and stormwater) to mitigate future coastal storm flooding vulnerabilities to wave run-up as necessary.
CR-I-40 Groundwater Management (0-2 feet SLR). Begin groundwater monitoring to determine needs for dewatering wells in the lowest portions of the West Linda Mar neighborhood.
PEDRO POINT AND SHELTER COVE
The Pedro Point and Shelter Cove sub-area is the southernmost in Pacifica. The backshore is low adjacent to the creek with a few homes built seaward of the former Ocean Shore Railroad berm, two of which have boat ramps into the ocean. Most of these homes have been fortified with timber sea walls West of the beach homes, the previous railway berm and road to Shelter Cove rises to a bluff. A wooden seawall is built in front of the northernmost homes in the Shelter Cove community.
Potential bluff erosion may reach the most seaward bluff top homes at Pedro Point by about 2050 with 1 to 2 feet of sea level rise. Private property is mostly armored along the water (boat docks/homes) but requires upgrades by property owners, while bluff top properties have limited ability to prevent bluff toe erosion due to parcel limits. Private property is vulnerable to bluff erosion, but implementing bluff toe armoring would be complicated due to land ownership.
6.33 6.34
6.37 6.35
6.36 1.g
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-27
Implementing Policies
CR-I-41 Shoreline Protection Structure Upgrades. Allow maintenance of existing or new shoreline protection structures to reduce hazards and resource impacts if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57. Mitigate impacts consistent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5), or CR-I-59, as necessary.
CR-I-42 Flood Protection (0-1 feet SLR). Allow private property owners to raise homes and other development structures above wave run-up hazards if consistent with Policy CR-I-61, consistent with height limitations.
6.7 NEW SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-43 Technical Reports. Development proposed on the shoreline in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall include coastal engineering, geomorphology and other relevant technical reports unless on-site hazards already identified in a recent Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map or assessment approved within the last five years are adequate for evaluating and ensuring compliance with the LCP, including through use of permit conditions to address any uncertainty. Reports shall
• be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or other suitably qualified professional; • use the best available science;
• consider the impacts from the med-high projection (CalNRA & OPC 2018; or similar precautionary projections as reflected in future updated statewide guidance) of sea-level rise for the anticipated duration life of the proposed development;
• demonstrate that the development will avoid (or if unavoidable, minimize) impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection devices, except that development behind Special Resiliency Areas will be allowed to consider protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures when analyzing hazards to the maximum extent feasible; and • demonstrate that the factor of safety for blufftop development will be greater than or equal to 1.5 for static conditions and greater than or equal to 1.1 for seismic conditions; and
• evaluate the foreseeable effects that the development will have on coastal resources over time and mitigate the impacts where they are unavoidable.
Reports may be waived for temporary events, temporary development structures or other minor, short-term development where it is clear there will be no significant hazard risks over the project’s life.
6.38 6.39
6.40 6.41
6.43 6.42
1.g
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-28
CR-I-44 Siting and Design. New development on vacant shoreline property in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall be sited and designed to be safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development, as demonstrated by site-specific analyses and/or technical reports. Permit approvals shall prohibit shoreline protection structures for the authorized development, require the property owner to record an acknowledgement that the development does not qualify as an existing structure entitled to construction of a shoreline protection structure under Coastal Act Section 30235, and any other laws, that and a waiver of any rights to such protection structures that might exist, and that, where necessary, requires a removal and restoration plan, including bonding for large projects, to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure. However, behind Special Resiliency Areas, new development shall be allowed to be sited and designed with use of the existing shoreline protection structure.
CR-I-45 Assumption of Risk by Private Landowners. Permit approvals of development on the shoreline in Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Evacuation Inundation Zones shall require the applicant to: record a deed restriction requiring the owner to assume liability and indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless, including any injury and/or damage from coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development; unconditionally waive any claim of damage from coastal hazards against the City; waive rights to future shoreline armoring; acknowledge the development may need to be removed and the site restored in response to future hazard conditions; and to assume all responsibility for any adverse effects to property caused by the permitted project and/or need for removal or relocation make other acknowledgments relating to the risks of development on the property.
CR-I-46 MHTL and Avoidance of Public Trust Lands. Applications for low-lying development adjacent to coastal waters shall include a Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) survey of the development site prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor based on field data collected within 12 months of the application submittal (may be based on City monitoring survey data if collected by a licensed professional land surveyor). The survey shall be conducted in consultation with and approved by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff. Development shall be sited to avoid public trust lands for the approved duration of the project, unless otherwise authorized by the California State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission. The City shall conduct new MHTL surveys every ten years or within one year of a new tidal datum epoch (an epoch is a 19- year tidal cycle used to calculate datums), seismic event in the project area greater than
5.5 magnitude, or significant relative rise in annual local mean sea level records.
CR-I-47 Bluff Face Development. Shoreline protection structures, grading, and landform alteration on bluff faces are prohibited, except for the following:
6.44 6.45
1.g
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-29
• Public access structures where no feasible alternative means of public access exists; and
• Shoreline protection structures if otherwise allowed by the LCP and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Such shoreline protection structures shall be designed and constructed to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize effects on erosion of the bluff face, and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and to mitigate) coastal resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
CR-I-48 Minor Development in Shoreline Areas. Minor and/or ancillary development, including public trails, benches, gazebos, patios, etc., may be located seaward of a bluff or shoreline setback line provided that development is otherwise consistent with the LCP, does not create a hazard, does not use a foundation that can serve as a bluff retaining device, such as caissons, or that requires landform alteration, and that the development is removed or relocated by the landowner when threatened or in the event that portions of the development fall to the bluffs, beach or ocean.
CR-I-49 Substantial Structural Modifications to Existing Structures. When a proposed physical improvement modifications to an existing structure would constitute a Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM), as defined, the portion of the project constituting a SESM such proposed development shall correct any existing legal nonconformities and shall be undertaken consistent with the LCP and, if applicable, the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies CR-I-43 and CR-I-44. Any portion of the existing structure that remains and which is determined to be legally nonconforming with an LCP standard, including bluff setbacks or other hazard criteria, shall not be modified to increase the degree of nonconformity. Except that behind Special Resiliency Areas, development shall only be required to correct existing nonconformities related to applicable coastal hazards on the site.
CR-I-50 Protection of Private Property in Hazardous Areas. Where full adherence with all LCP policies, including for setbacks and other Coastal Resilience and Natural Hazard avoidance measures, would preclude a reasonable economic use of the property as a whole, the City may allow the minimum economic use and/or development of the property necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. There is no taking that needs to be avoided if the proposed development constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise prohibited pursuant to other background principles of property law (e.g., public trust doctrine). If development is allowed pursuant to this policy, it must be consistent with all LCP policies to the maximum extent feasible.
CR-I-51 Habitat Sea Level Rise Migration Buffers. An additional sea level rise buffer area shall be added to required new development habitat buffers if necessary to allow for the migration of wetlands and other coastal habitats caused by sea level rise over the anticipated duration (i.e., economic life) of the development. The overall buffer area
6.46 6.47
1.g
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-30
shall include both the sea level rise and habitat buffer. Habitats include all wetlands, riparian, intertidal/shoreline and terrestrial environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) as defined by the Coastal Act. The sea level rise projection considered shall be determined for the type of development from CalNRA and OPC (2018) guidance or the latest update based on the type of development and current State guidance. Except for temporary uses, as described below, uses and development within sea level rise buffer areas shall be limited to minor passive recreational uses, with fencing, de-siltation or erosion control facilities, or other improvements deemed necessary to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper (upland) half of the buffer area. Water quality features such as drainage swales required to support new development shall not be constructed in wetland buffers. Temporary uses may also be placed in the sea level rise buffer area until such time as sea level rise causes the wetlands or other coastal habitat to migrate to within 100 feet of the temporary uses, at which time, they shall be removed. All habitat and buffers identified shall be permanently conserved or protected through a deed restriction, open space easement, or other suitable device.
CR-I-52 Stormwater and Dry Weather Flows. New development shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non-erosive manner to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff and erosion. Runoff shall be directed inland to the storm drain system or to an existing outfall, when feasible. If no storm drain system or existing outfall is present, blufftop runoff shall not be channelized or directed over bluffs and/or to the beach or the ocean.
CR-I-53 Subdivision Limitations. Update the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the division of shoreline property that creates hazardous or unbuildable parcels due to erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development. Only allow new lots to be created if they can be developed without ever requiring shoreline protection for the development.
6.8 SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURE STANDARD POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-54 Soft Shoreline Protection. Encourage the use of soft or natural shoreline protection methods, such as dune restoration and beach/sand nourishment as alternatives to hard shoreline protection structures, such as revetments or sea walls. Soft shoreline protection devices shall be fully evaluated for coastal resource impacts, and shall only be approved if found consistent with the LCP and Coastal Act policies related to shoreline protection. Consider combining beach replenishment with groin construction to maintain beaches and protect development (see subarea policies).
1.g
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-31
CR-I-55 Beach Nourishment. In coordination with the California Coastal Commission and other permitting agencies (e.g., State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the City shall evaluate a beach nourishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations, consistent with sub-area policies and the Coastal Act. The beach nourishment program will need to be evaluated to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and will include measures to protect water quality and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and mitigate) potential adverse coastal resource impacts, including biological resource impacts, from deposition of material, including measures such as sand compatibility specifications, restrictions on volume of deposition, timing or seasonal restrictions, and identification of environmentally preferred locations for deposits. The City will also consider developing an opportunistic sand program and evaluate how replenishment options may need to change over time with sea level rise.
CR-I-56 Existing Shoreline Protection Structures. Except as may be otherwise provided in the LCP sub-area policies, legally permitted shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained, as supported by Section 30235 of the Coastal Act, subject to all coastal development permit requirements (including those associated with the construction of the structure and/or prior repair and maintenance episodes) until the development they are protecting is removed or redeveloped pursuant to the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) or no longer requires shoreline protection structures, at which time the shoreline protection structure shall be reevaluated for consistency with the LCP, and removed if no longer necessary and/or allowed, and the area restored.
Activities considered “repair and maintenance” shall not result in any enlargement or extension of modification to the shoreline protection structure, or any replacement of materials in excess of 50%, or any seaward encroachment or impairment of public trust resources, and shall provide mitigation for any new coastal resource impacts not previously or otherwise mitigated, including through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) and/or Policy CR-I-59. Other modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification shall be considered to be an existing shoreline protection structure. This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification. Modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Structural Modification shall be considered to be allowed without the above mentioned considerations.
CR-I-57 New Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, deep piers and caissons, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall only be
6.48 6.49
6.50 6.51
1.g
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 6-32
permitted if consistent Section 30235 of the Coastal Act and with the LCP’s sub-area policies, and only when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion coastal hazards, when there is no less environmentally damaging feasible alternative and when designed to avoid, and where unavoidable, minimize eliminate or mitigate to the maximum extent feasible adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply and other coastal resources, where unavoidable coastal resource impacts are required to be commensurately mitigated.
CR-I-58 Authorization Limits of Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures shall only be authorized until the time when the existingstructure protected by such shoreline protection structure: 1) is/are no longer present, or2or 2) no longer require(s) armoring, or 3) is redeveloped pursuant to the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM). This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.
CR-I-59 Mitigating Impacts of New Shoreline Protection Structures. New or reconstructed shoreline protection structures shall be sited and designed to avoid sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible. Adverse coastal resource impacts shall be avoided, and where unavoidable shall be minimized and fully mitigated, including impacts on sand supply, beach area, public access (vertical access to the shore and horizontal access along the shore and blufftop) and recreational use (surfing, fishing, hiking, etc.), public trust lands and values, ecological function, water quality, shoreline aesthetics, and cultural resources. At a minimum, new shoreline protection structures shall:
• blend with the natural environment;
• avoid significant habitat areas;
• minimize encroachment/footprint;
• protect, and where feasible, provide public access; and • control erosion from surface and groundwater flows.
Mitigation options shall include consideration of providing equivalent new public access, recreation, habitat or other coastal resources in the vicinity of the project, or if such options are not feasible, proportional in-lieu fees that consider and reflect, to the maximum extent practicable, the full value of impacted and/or lost resources for the authorization period of the project. Any fees shall be deposited in an interest-bearing account held by the City of Pacifica for use within the City Limits for mitigation of the specific impact identified in the project approval. This policy may be met through compliance with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) CR-I-60 Monitoring Plan for New Shoreline Protection Structures. Proposals for new, redeveloped/augmented or repaired shoreline protection structures shall include a monitoring plan that evaluates the condition of the shoreline protection structure,
6.51 6.52
1.g
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6-33
conditions at the site and surrounding area, and whether the shoreline protection structure is still needed for protection. The plan shall require an inspection at least every five years to identify:
• Any structural damage and need for repair;
• Environmental impacts, including excessive scour, impacts to shoreline processes and beach width (at the project site and the broader area and/or littoral cell as feasible), and impacts to public access and the availability of public trust lands for public use; and
• The status of the existing structure being protected. • The monitoring plan shall also be updated to at a minimum include any specific requirements associated with coastal permit approval.
At least every 15 years the landowner shall submit a new Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) survey of the subject property based on field data collected within 12 months of the date submitted. Surveys shall comply with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-46.
6.9 COASTAL FLOODING AND OTHER HAZARD STANDARD POLICIES Implementing Policies
CR-I-61 Flood Risk Reduction. The City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue, floodproofing of infrastructure and other development in danger from projected flooding by 2050. Allow and facilitate (if feasible) private owners to floodproof development structures, consistent with other LCP policies.
1.g
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APOLICIES IN CHAPTER 3 OF
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
ACT
This appendix provides each policy of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended. These policies form the parameters for planning in the Coastal Zone, and are binding in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. In some cases, policies are not relevant to the specific setting of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. This is noted in italics following the policy in question.
The six chapters of this LCLUP each begin with a section called “Coastal Act Framework,” where Coastal Act policies that are most applicable to the subject of the chapter are summarized. However, additional policies from this appendix may also apply.
1.g
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-2
ARTICLE 1: GENERAL
Section 30200 Policies as standards; resolution of policy conflicts (a)Consistent with the coastal zone values cited in Section 30001 and the basic goals set forth in Section 30001.5, and except as may be otherwise specifically provided in this division, the policies of this chapter shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs, as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500), and, the permissibility of proposed developments subject to the provisions of this division are determined. All public agencies carrying out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone that could have a direct impact on resources within the coastal zone shall consider the effect of such actions on coastal zone resources in order to assure that these policies are achieved. (b) Where the commission or any local government in implementing the provisions of this division identifies a conflict between the policies of this chapter, Section 30007.5 shall be utilized to resolve the conflict and the resolution of such conflicts shall be supported by appropriate findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of identified policy conflicts.
ARTICLE 2: PUBLIC ACCESS
Section 30210 Access; recreational opportunities; posting In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access
Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include:
(1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610. (2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure.
1.g
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-3
(3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure. (4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure. (5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach.
As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
Section 30212.5 Public facilities; distribution
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities; encouragement and provision; overnight room rentals
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.
Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
The commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.
Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
1.g
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-4
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. (c) In carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commission and any other responsible public agency shall consider and encourage the utilization of innovative access management techniques, including, but not limited to, agreements with private organizations which would minimize management costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs.
ARTICLE 3: RECREATION
Section 30220 Protection of certain water-oriented activities Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.
Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.
Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
Section 30222.5 Oceanfront lands; aquaculture facilities; priority Oceanfront land that is suitable for coastal dependent aquaculture shall be protected for that use, and proposals for aquaculture facilities located on those sites shall be given priority, except over other coastal dependent developments or uses.
No oceanfront land has been identified as suitable for aquaculture in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30223 Upland areas
Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible.
Section 30224 Recreational boating use; encouragement; facilities Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water-dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating
1.g
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-5
support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land.
ARTICLE 4: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Section 30230 Marine resources; maintenance
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.
Section 30231 Biological productivity; water quality
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Section 30232 Oil and hazardous substance spills
Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur.
Section 30233 Diking, filling or dredging; continued movement of sediment and nutrients (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(l) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
1.g
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-6
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for these purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division.
For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay" means that not less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be developed or improved, where the improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities. (d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on watercourses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients that would otherwise be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for these purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement, and sensitivity of the placement area.
Section 30234 Commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities Facilities serving the commercial fishing and recreational boating industries shall be protected and, where feasible, upgraded. Existing commercial fishing and recreational boating harbor space shall not be reduced unless the demand for those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been provided.
Proposed recreational boating facilities shall, where feasible, be designed and located in such a fashion as not to interfere with the needs of the commercial fishing industry.
No commercial fishing or recreational boating facilities exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30234.5 Economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing The economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing activities shall be recognized and protected.
Section 30235 Construction altering natural shoreline
Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or
1.g
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-7
mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fishkills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.
Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (l) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
ARTICLE 5: LAND RESOURCES
Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
Section 30241 Prime agricultural land; maintenance in agricultural production The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas’ agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through all of the following:
(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses or where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development.
(c) By permitting the conversion of agricultural land surrounded by urban uses where the conversion of the land would be consistent with Section 30250.
(d) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (e) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (f) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b), and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.
No prime agricultural land exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-8
Section 30241.5 Agricultural land; determination of viability of uses; economic feasibility evaluation (a) If the viability of existing agricultural uses is an issue pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30241 as to any local coastal program or amendment to any certified local coastal program submitted for review and approval under this division, the determination of "viability" shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of an economic feasibility evaluation containing at least both of the following elements:
(1) An analysis of the gross revenue from the agricultural products grown in the area for the five years immediately preceding the date of the filing of a proposed local coastal program or an amendment to any local coastal program.
(2) An analysis of the operational expenses, excluding the cost of land, associated with the production of the agricultural products grown in the area for the five years immediately preceding the date of the filing of a proposed local coastal program or an amendment to any local coastal program.
For purposes of this subdivision, "area" means a geographic area of sufficient size to provide an accurate evaluation of the economic feasibility of agricultural uses for those lands included in the local coastal program or in the proposed amendment to a certified local coastal program. (b) The economic feasibility evaluation required by subdivision (a) shall be submitted to the commission, by the local government, as part of its submittal of a local coastal program or an amendment to any local coastal program. If the local government determines that it does not have the staff with the necessary expertise to conduct the economic feasibility evaluation, the evaluation may be conducted under agreement with the local government by a consultant selected jointly by local government and the executive director of the commission.
No prime agricultural land exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30242 Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (l) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
Section 30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.
No timberlands exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
Section 30244 Archaeological or paleontological resources Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
1.g
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-9
ARTICLE 6: DEVELOPMENT
Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.
(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
Section 30252 Maintenance and enhancement of public access The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
1.g
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-10
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Board as to each particular development.
(d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.
Section 30254 Public works facilities
New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division; provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic twolane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.
Section 30254.5 Terms or conditions on sewage treatment plant development; prohibition Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the commission may not impose any term or condition on the development of any sewage treatment plant which is applicable to any future development that the commission finds can be accommodated by that plant consistent with this division. Nothing in this section modifies the provisions and requirements of Sections 30254 and 30412.
Section 30255 Priority of coastal-dependent developments Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline.
Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland.
When appropriate, coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.
ARTICLE 7: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Section 30260 Location or expansion
Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
No coastal-dependent industry exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-11
Section 30261 Tanker facilities; use and design
Multicompany use of existing and new tanker facilities shall be encouraged to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, except where to do so would result in increased tanker operations and associated onshore development incompatible with the land use and environmental goals for the area. New tanker terminals outside of existing terminal areas shall be situated as to avoid risk to environmentally sensitive areas and shall use a monobuoy system, unless an alternative type of system can be shown to be environmentally preferable for a specific site. Tanker facilities shall be designed to (1) minimize the total volume of oil spilled, (2) minimize the risk of collision from movement of other vessels, (3) have ready access to the most effective feasible containment and recovery equipment for oil spills, and (4) have onshore deballasting facilities to receive any fouled ballast water from tankers where operationally or legally required.
No tanker facilities exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone. Tanker facility development would be incompatible with land use and environmental goals for the area.
Section 30262 Oil and gas development
a) Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260, if the following conditions are met:
(1) The development is performed safely and consistent with the geologic conditions of the well site. (2) New or expanded facilities related to that development are consolidated, to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, unless consolidation will have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce the number of producing wells, support facilities, or sites required to produce the reservoir economically and with minimal environmental impacts. (3) Environmentally safe and feasible subsea completions are used when drilling platforms or islands would substantially degrade coastal visual qualities unless use of those structures will result in substantially less environmental risks.
(4) Platforms or islands will not be sited where a substantial hazard to vessel traffic might result from the facility or related operations, as determined in consultation with the United States Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.
(5) The development will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazards unless it is determined that adequate measures will be undertaken to prevent damage from such subsidence. (6) With respect to new facilities, all oilfield brines are reinjected into oil-producing zones unless the Division of Oil and Gas, Geothermal Resources of the Department of Conservation determines to do so would adversely affect production of the reservoirs and unless injection into other subsurface zones will reduce environmental risks. Exceptions to reinjections will be granted consistent with the Ocean Waters Discharge Plan of the State Water Resources Control Board and where adequate provision is made for the elimination of petroleum odors and water quality problems. (7)(A) All oil produced offshore California shall be transported onshore by pipeline only. The pipelines used to transport this oil shall utilize the best achievable technology to ensure maximum protection of public health and safety and of the integrity and productivity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
1.g
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-12
(B) Once oil produced offshore California is onshore, it shall be transported to processing and refining facilities by pipeline.
(C) The following guidelines shall be used when applying subparagraphs (A) and (B):
(i) "Best achievable technology," means the technology that provides the greatest degree of protection taking into consideration both of the following:
(I) Processes that are being developed, or could feasibly be developed, anywhere in the world, given overall reasonable expenditures on research and development.
(II) Processes that are currently in use anywhere in the world. This clause is not intended to create any conflicting or duplicative regulation of pipelines, including those governing the transportation of oil produced from onshore reserves.
(ii) "Oil" refers to crude oil before it is refined into products, including gasoline, bunker fuel, lubricants, and asphalt. Crude oil that is upgraded in quality through residue reduction or other means shall be transported as provided in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(iii) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply only to new or expanded oil extraction operations. "New extraction operations" means production of offshore oil from leases that did not exist or had never produced oil, as of January 1, 2003, or from platforms, drilling island, subsea completions, or onshore drilling sites, that did not exist as of January 1, 2003. "Expanded oil extraction" means an increase in the geographic extent of existing leases or units, including lease boundary adjustments, or an increase in the number of well heads, on or after January 1, 2003.
(iv) For new or expanded oil extraction operations subject to clause (iii), if the crude oil is so highly viscous that pipelining is determined to be an infeasible mode of transportation, or where there is no feasible access to a pipeline, shipment of crude oil may be permitted over land by other modes of transportation, including trains or trucks, which meet all applicable rules and regulations, excluding any waterborne mode of transport. (8) If a state of emergency is declared by the Governor for an emergency that disrupts the transportation of oil by pipeline, oil may be transported by a waterborne vessel, if authorized by permit, in the same manner as required by emergency permits that are issued pursuant to Section 30624. (9) In addition to all other measures that will maximize the protection of marine habitat and environmental quality, when an offshore well is abandoned, the best achievable technology shall be used. b) Where appropriate, monitoring programs to record land surface and near-shore ocean floor movements shall be initiated in locations of new large-scale fluid extraction on land or near shore before operations begin and shall continue until surface conditions have stabilized. Costs of monitoring and mitigation programs shall be borne by liquid and gas extraction operators.
c) Nothing in this section shall affect the activities of any state agency that is responsible for regulating the extraction, production, or transport of oil and gas.
No known oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-13
Section 30263 Refineries or petrochemical facilities
(a) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities not otherwise consistent with the provisions of this division shall be permitted if (1) alternative locations are not feasible or are more environmentally damaging; (2) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; (3) it is found that not permitting such development would adversely affect the public welfare; (4) the facility is not located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas; and (5) the facility is sited so as to provide a sufficient buffer area to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property.
(b) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall minimize the need for once-through cooling by using air cooling to the maximum extent feasible and by using treated waste waters from inplant processes where feasible.
Section 30264 Thermal electric generating plants
Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, except subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 30413, new or expanded thermal electric generating plants may be constructed in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has been determined by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to have greater relative merit pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516.1 than available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant's service area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516.
Section 30265 Legislative findings and declarations; offshore oil transportation The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Transportation studies have concluded that pipeline transport of oil is generally both economically feasible and environmentally preferable to other forms of crude oil transport. (b) Oil companies have proposed to build a pipeline to transport offshore crude oil from central California to southern California refineries, and to transport offshore oil to out-of-state refiners. (c) California refineries would need to be retrofitted if California offshore crude oil were to be used directly as a major feedstock. Refinery modifications may delay achievement of air quality goals in the southern California air basin and other regions of the state.
(d) The County of Santa Barbara has issued an Oil Transportation Plan which assesses the environmental and economic differences among various methods for transporting crude oil from offshore California to refineries.
(e) The Governor should help coordinate decisions concerning the transport and refining of offshore oil in a manner that considers state and local studies undertaken to date, that fully addresses the concerns of all affected regions, and that promotes the greatest benefits to the people of the state.
No known offshore oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-14
Section 30265.5 Governor or designee; coordination of activities concerning offshore oil transport and refining; duties
(a) The Governor, or the Governor's designee, shall coordinate activities concerning the transport and refining of offshore oil. Coordination efforts shall consider public health risks, the ability to achieve shortand long-term air emission reduction goals, the potential for reducing California's vulnerability and dependence on oil imports, economic development and jobs, and other factors deemed important by the Governor, or the Governor's designees.
(b) The Governor, or the Governor's designee, shall work with state and local agencies, and the public, to facilitate the transport and refining of offshore oil in a manner which will promote the greatest public health and environmental and economic benefits to the people of the State. (c) The Governor, or the Governor's designee, shall consult with any individual or organization having knowledge in this area, including, but not limited to, representatives from the following:
(1) State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (2) State Air Resources Board
(3) California Coastal Commission
(4) Department of Fish and Game
(5) State Lands Commission
(6) Public Utilities Commission
(7) Santa Barbara County
(8) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (9) Southern California Association of Governments
(10) South Coast Air Quality Management Districts
(11) Oil industry
(12) Public interest groups
(13) United States Department of the Interior
(14) United States Department of Energy
(15) United States Environmental Protection Agency
(16) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(17) United States Coast Guard
1.g
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-15
(d) This act is not intended, and shall not be construed, to decrease, duplicate, or supersede the jurisdiction, authority, or responsibilities of any local government, or any state agency or commission, to discharge its responsibilities concerning the transportation and refining of oil. (Added by Ch. 1398, Stats. 1984.) No known offshore oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 A-16
This page intentionally left blank.
1.g
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
B COASTAL VULNERABILITY
ZONE MAPS
This chapter provides maps which define areas identified in the Vulnerability Assessment as having the potential for erosion and/or coastal flooding under the PHGLXPhigh sea level rise scenario for year 2100.
1.g
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[B-
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
)DLUPRQW:HVW
1
Disclaimer: 7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
Appendix B-2
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
:HVW(GJHPDUDQG3DFLILF0DQRU
1RUWKZHVW6KDUS3DUN
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
Appendix B-3
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
6KDUS3DUN:HVW)DLUZD\3DUN
DQG0RUL3RLQW
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[%
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
5RFNDZD\%HDFK4XDUU\DQG+HDGODQGV
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[%
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
3DFLILFD6WDWH%HDFK
:HVW/LQGD0DU
3HGUR3RLQWDQG6KHOWHU&RYH
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
REFERENCES
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Respective hotels; City of Pacifica; hotels.com; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2008.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2010.
ABAG Projections, 2010.
Plan Bay Area Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, 2012.
San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2008.
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA Annual Survey-FY 2007-08.
January 2009. Accessed at http://www.bawsca.org,2009.
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). CIP and Bond Projects Status Report February 20, 2008.
Accessed at http://www.nccwd.com, February 2008
NCCWD. Website http://www.nccwd.com, accessed May 2009.
RWQCB, 2006.
PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Pacifica General Plan, 1980
California Coastal Commission, “Some Facts About Public Prescriptive Rights,” accessed July 2013 at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf.
San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2008.
National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/statistics.htm, accessed 2009.
California Park & Recreation Society. Market Research to Support CRPS Building the Brand Initiative. March 2009.
1.g
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 R-2
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. “Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets” Report 616. Washington, DC: 2008.
Dowling Associates, 2010.
City of Pacifica Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, 2009.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,National Wetlands Inventory, 2011; FEMA, 2008; ESA, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004.
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Annual Report, 2007-08. August 29, 2008.
John Northmore Roberts & Associates et al., 1992; State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990; ESA surveys, 2008.
John Northmore Roberts & Associates et al., 1992.
San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2002.
San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2005.
California Dept of Fish & Game, 1988, 2003; California Dept of Forestry, 2005; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, 2011; FEMA, 2008; ESA, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, 2005.
BLM, 1981; State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1990.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2008; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005; National Park Service, 2005; California Dept of Forestry, 2005; California Natural Diversity Database, 2009; California Native Plant Society, 2008; California Dept of Fish & Game, 2008; FEMA, 2008; ESA, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), 202009.
US Geological Survey, 2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
1.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
REFERENCES
R-3
NATURAL HAZARDS
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG07).
Fact Sheet 2016-20302008-3027. Forecasting California’s Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Regions 2014-2043s – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf. 2008. Accessed at https://pubs.usgs. gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Susceptibility http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/liquefac.html. 2003.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003; US Geological Survey, 2008; ESA.2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Open File Report 97-745, San Francisco Bay Landslide Folio, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-745/. 1997.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). Coastal Erosion Along the U.S. West Coast During the 1997–98 El Niño: Expectations and Observations, http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/lidar/AGU_fall98/, 2005.
Heberger. M.H. Cooley, P. H. Gleick, E. Moore of Pacifica Institute. The impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. A paper from the California Climate Change Center. May 2009.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire). https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10315/firethreat_19_ada. Pdf Emergency Services Consulting, 2008.
COASTAL RESILIENCE
California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2015. Sea-level Rise Policy Guidance Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea-level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits.
Unanimously Adopted August 12, 2015.
California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2018. Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea-level Rise in Local Coastal Programs. March 2018, Revised.
California Natural Resources Agency (CalNRA) and California Ocean Protection Council (OPC), 2018. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update. Adopted March 2018.
City of Pacifica. 1994. City of Pacifica Implementation Plan codified in Articles 43 and 44, Chapter 4, Title 9 Planning and Zoning. Amended November 8, 2017. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=16544. Accessed on January 11, 2018.
1.g
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 R-4
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2018a. Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Prepared for the City of Pacifica January 2018, Revised June 2018.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) 2018b. Final Draft Sea-level Rise Adaptation Plan. Prepared for the City of Pacifica. September 2018.
1.g
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
REFERENCES
R-5
This page intentionally left blank.
1.g
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GLOSSARY
Acronyms
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
BART: Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAWSCA: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BMP: Best Management Practices
CCWRP: Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
CDF: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game
CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database
CRLF: California Red-Legged Frog
CRSMP: Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
ESHA: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FESA: Federal Endangered Species Act
GGNRA: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
HPD: Hillside Preservation District
LHMP: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID: Low Impact Development
NCCWD: North Coast County Water District
NCFA: North County Fire Authority
1.g
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-2
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RWQCB: State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board PG&E: Pacific Gas & Electric
SamTrans: San Mateo County Transit District
SESM: Substantial Exterior Structural Modification
SFGS: San Francisco Garter Snake
SFPUC: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMCWPPP: San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program TDR: Transfer of Development Rights
USGS: United States Geological Survey
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Definitions
Anticipated Life: The period over which a development is expected to be usable, with normal repairs and maintenance, for the purpose for which it was designed, typically a minimum of 75-100 years for residential and commercial development and a minimum of 100-150 years for critical infrastructure.
Aquaculture: A form of agriculture as defined in Section 17 of the Fish and Game Code. Aquaculture products are agricultural products, and aquaculture facilities and land uses shall be treated as agricultural facilities and land uses in all planning and permit-issuing decisions governed by this division.
Beach: The expanse of sand, gravel, cobble or other loose material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the place where there is distinguishable change in physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. The seaward limit of a beach (unless specified otherwise) is the mean low water line. The inland extent of the beach shall be determined as follows:
1) From a distinct linear feature (e.g., a seawall, road, or bluff,etc.); 2) From the inland edge of the further inland beach berm as determined from historical surveys, aerial photographs, and other records or geological evidence; or 3) Where a beach berm does not exist, from the further point separating the dynamic portion of the beach from the inland area as distinguished by vegetation, debris or other geological or historical evidence.
7.1 7.2
1.g
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GLOSSARY
G-3
Best Available Science: The most recent peer-reviewed and locally-relevant science reasonably validated by qualified experts in the scientific community, and as may be recommended by the State of California or other authoritative coastal management entity (e.g. NOAA).
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, operation and maintenance procedures, structural treatment devices, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the conveyance of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff.
Biodiversity: A term used to quantitatively or qualitatively describe the species richness and abundance of plants and animals within an ecosystem.
Bluff: A high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water.
Bluff/Cliff Edge: The upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff face, the bluff line or edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge.
Bluff Face: The portion of a bluff between the bluff edge and the toe of the bluff.
Buffer: A buffer is a development setback designed to minimize the disturbance that development may cause in sensitive environments, or to protect development from nuisances or hazards.
Building Footprint: The full horizontal extent of a structure and all attached structures, above or below grade.
Cliff: A high, very steep, perpendicular, or overhanging face of rock.
Coastal Access: The ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or in land coastal recreation areas and trails.
Coastal Bluff: A bluff, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion or the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified in Public Resources Code Section 30603(a)(1) or (a)(2)..
Coastal Development Permit (CDP): A permit for any development within the coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600 of the California Coastal Act.
Coastal-Dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea in order to function.
Coastal Hazards: Include but are not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, wave overtopping, coastal flooding, and their interaction, all of which may be exacerbated by sea level rise.
7.3 7.4
1.g
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-4
Coastal-Related Development: Any use that is dependent on a coastal-dependent development or use.
Coastal Vulnerability Zone: The areas shown on the City’s maps prepared for the Pacifica SLR Vulnerability Assessment (1/12/2018), incorporated herein, and as may be amended from time-to-time based on updated best available science about projected sea-level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards.
Critical Habitat Areas: Areas containing features essential for the conservation of species listed under the FESA, and which may require special management and protection outside that which is already provided by FESA. Critical Habitat Areas are designated by the USFWS.
Cumulative Effects: The incremental effects of an individual project shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Design Life. The design life of a structure is the period of time during which it can still safely meet the demand of its users.
Development: On land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511).
As used in this section, "structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line. In this LCP, ‘development’ is synonymous with ‘new development.’ Dune: Ridges or mounds of loose, wind-blown material usually sand. A dune structure often has a back and foredune area. Stable dunes are often colonized by vegetation.
Easement: A right given by the owner of land to another party for specific limited use of the land. An easement may be acquired by a government through dedication when the purchase of an entire interest in the property may be too expensive or unnecessary; usually needed for utilities or shared parking.grant of one or more of the property rights by the property owner to and/or for the use by the public, a corporation or another person or entity.
Economic Life (also called “design life” and “expected life”): Period over which a development is expected to be usable, with normal repairs and maintenance, for the purpose for which it was designed.
Energy Facility: Any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy.
7.5 1.g
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GLOSSARY
G-5
Erosion: The wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical weathering; mass wasting; and the actions of waves, wind, and underground water.The process by which material is removed from the earth’s surface (including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, and transportation), most commonly by wind or water.
Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policiesEnvironmental Justice refers to the fair treatment of all people – regardless of race, income, and religion – when implementing policies that affect housing and the environment. The federal and State government have policies that require agencies to identify and avoid placing a disproportionately large number of minority and low-income populations in certain geographical locations.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA): Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development (California Public Resources Code Section 30107.5).
Estuary: A coastal water body, usually semi-enclosed by land, having open, partially obstructed, or intermittent exchange with the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater from the land.
Existing Structure: A structure that has any of the following characteristics:
i) lawfully constructed prior to the certification date of the LCLUP; or ii) permitted for construction prior to the certification date of the LCLUP, and all permits remained in full force and effect prior to the date of construction; or iii) authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.”
..
Fault Rupture: The displacement of the earth’s surface due to the movement along a fault associated with an earthquake.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Fluvial: Produced by the action of a stream.
Fill: Earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area.
Fuel Modification: A fire control strategy that thins vegetative cover within a buffer area surrounding development in order to interrupt continuous paths of fuel and provide defensible space to allow for firefighting operations in case of wildland fire.
7.6 7.7
1.g
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-6
Groundwater: Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation usually found in porous rock strata and soils.
Habitat: The natural environment of a locality, including the physical and biological environment, in which a plant or animal lives.
Headland: A high, steep-faced projection extending into the sea, usually marking an area of fairly stable and rigid landform.
Hillside Preservation District (HPD): A district that overlays Pacifica’s base zoning and covers most of the city’s ridges and open spaces. The HPD is intended to ensure that development of highly sensitive slopes does not endanger the public or harm the environmental or scenic values of the site, and to encourage highquality site planning and design that enhances the beauty of the landscape. The District creates more stringent lot coverage limits, based on the average natural slope of the site, and requires submission of development plans, grading plans, and other documentation.
Hydric Soil: A type of soil with characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation and chemically reducing conditions such as occurs under anaerobic conditions.
Hydrology: The dynamic processes of the water within an environment including the sources, timing, amount, and direction of water movement.
Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments. These plants are also called hydrophytes. In wetlands, hydrophytic species occur where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually found in saturated or submerged soil.
Landslide: Also known as slope failure, a landslide involves the downslope displacement and movement of material, and can be triggered by either static (gravity) or dynamic (seismic) forces.
Land Divisions: Land divisions include subdivisions (through parcel map, tract map, grant deed, or any other method), lot line adjustments, redivisions, mergers, and certificates of compliance.
Littoral Cell: A region that encompasses most features affecting sediment transport. The boundaries of the cell are usually delineated by river drainage areas, promontory headlands, or submarine canyons on the periphery, the continental shelf-continental slope boundary on the seaward side and by inland ridges and river inlets on the landward side. Sediment within these cells generally travel seaward by river drainage, southward (downcoast) by longshore currents, and are eventually lost to the continental slope area or submarine canyon.
Liquefaction: The transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state, in which saturated soil temporary loses strength due to the buildup of excess pore water pressure, especially during earthquake-induced cyclic loading.
Low Impact Development (LID): An approach to development that seeks to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible, employing principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and creating functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource rather than as a waste product.Site planning and development features that reduce impermeable sur1.g Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GLOSSARY
G-7
face areas and increase infiltration, such as use of permeable paving, vegetated swales, and water retention facilities.
Marine System: Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and coastline exposed to waves and currents of the open ocean shoreward to (1) extreme high water of spring tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergent vegetation, trees, or shrubs; or (3) the seaward limit of the Estuarine System, other than vegetation. Salinities exceed 30parts per thousand.
Mitigation: A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant measures are identified.
As defined in Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, mitigation includes:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Mitigation Measures:Mitigation Measures: Action taken to avoid, minimize, or eliminate environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by repairing or providing substitute resources or environments. Measures imposed on a project consistent with Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act to avoid, minimize, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the environment or for purposes of consistency with Coastal Act requirements.
Monitoring: The systematic collection of physical, biological, or economic data or a combination of these data in order to make decisions regarding project operation or to evaluate project performance. Monitoring is typically required for beach nourishment projects and habitat restoration projects.
Net Developable Area. The total area of land available for development, not necessarily the total area of a property itself. It does not include open space, drainage land, regional roads and land used for other public facilities.
New Development: Development, as defined in Section 30106 of the California Coastal Act, where no existing development occurs. New Development does not include the remodeling or improvement of an existing structure, as defined, and also does not include any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.”.
7.8 1.g
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-8
Non-conforming Use: A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.
Non-conforming Structure: An existing structure that is legally nonconforming with an LCP standard.
Permit: Any license, certificate, approval, or other entitlement for use granted or denied by any public agency.
Prescriptive Rights: Prescriptive rights refer to public rights that are acquired over private lands through continuous use over the length of a “prescriptive period” of at least five years. This right of access is considered an “implied dedication” of a public easement, and can occur with or without the explicit consent of the property owner.
Public Trust Lands: All lands subject to the Common Law Public Trust for commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and other public purposes. Public Trust lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed, and which were subject to the Public Trust at any time.
Public works: The following developments are considered public works:
1. All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water, sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities.
2. All public transportation facilities, including streets, roads, highways, public parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, airports, railroads, and mass transit facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and other related facilities.
3. All publicly financed recreational facilities, all projects of the State Coastal Conservancy, and any development by a special district.
4. All community college facilities.
Qualified Biologist: A person who has earned a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in biology or a related field from an accredited college or university and has demonstrated field experience evaluating land use impacts on marine or wildlife species and their habitats. Biologists who conduct wetland delineations shall have completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "Reg IV" wetland delineation training, or the equivalent, and shall have the demonstrated ability to independently conduct wetland delineations.
Riparian: Consists of trees, shrubs, or herbs that occur along watercourses or water bodies. The vegetation is adapted to flooding and soil saturation during at least a portion of its growing season.
Riprap: A protective layer or facing of rock, concrete blocks or quarry stone, placed to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment or bluff.
Sea: The Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific Ocean, excluding non-estuarine rivers, streams,
1.g
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GLOSSARY
G-9
tributaries, creeks, and flood control and drainage channels. “Sea” does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing directly or indirectly into such area.
Sea Cliff: A vertical or very steep cliff or slope produced by wave action, situated at the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave-cut platform, and marking the inner limit of beach erosion.
Seawall: A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action. It is usually a vertical wood or concrete wall as opposed to a sloped revetment.
Sediment: Grains of soil, sand, or rock that have been transported from one location and deposited at another.
Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: Those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. "Sensitive coastal resource areas" include the following: (a) Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan;(b) Areas possessing significant recreational value; (c) Highly scenic areas; (d) Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer; (e) Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas; (f) Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income persons; and(g) Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access.
Seiche: A standing wave in an enclosed body of water that may be caused by tidal action or a seismic event.
Shore: Narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach.
Shore Protection: Structures or sand placed at or on the shore to reduce or eliminate upland damage from wave action or flooding during storms.
Shoreline: Intersection of the ocean or sea with land; the line delineating the shoreline on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean low water line from the time the chart was prepared. Seaward of the base of coastal bluffs and/or at or near the sandy beach/ocean elevation, including as depicted in Appendix B (“Coastal Zone Vulnerability Maps”) and denoted as “wave run-up,” “storm flood area,” and “flood prone area.”
Shoreline Armoring: Protective structures such as vertical seawalls, revetments, riprap, revetments, and bulkheads built parallel to the shoreline for the purposes of protecting a structure or other upland property.
Special Status Species: Plant and animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts; species that are candidates for listing under federal or state law; species designated as USFWS species of concern or species of local concern; species designated by CDFG as species of special concern; species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald Eagle Protection Act; and species that may be considered rare or endangered pursuant to Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Any species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species
7.9 1.g
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-10
Act. It also includes any species designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “candidate” or “species of concern” or species identified on California Native Plant Society’s Lists 1A, 1B, or 2, implying potential danger of extinction.
Storm Surge: A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also includes the rise in level due to atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due to wind stress.
Stream: A topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. A creek is a subset of a stream that tends to have low water flow.
Structure: Anything construed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground, or is attached to a building or other structure having a fixed location on the ground.
Submerged Lands: Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which lie below the line of mean low tide.
Subsidence: The sinking of a portion of the ground surface that may occur from immediate settlement, shrinkage of expansive soil, liquefaction, earthquakes, or excess extraction of groundwater.
Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM): Any physical improvement which modifies an existing structure, as defined, to achieve in any of the following ways:
i) a seaward encroachment of the structure; or
ii) alteration, removal or replacement of 50 percent or more of the linear length of the exterior walls or other major structural components (including but not limited to floor, roof, and foundation structures), whether or not the floor area or building footprint is expanded; or iii) an addition that includes new floor area at or below the first story equal to 50 percent or more of the structure’s total existing floor area; or
ivii) an increase of the existing building footprint equal to 50 percent or more; but excluding any of the following:
i) removal, replacement, or maintenance of nonstructural exterior components, of exterior walls such as: decorative
i) plywood roof sheathing;
ii) underlayment;
iii) siding;
iv) shingles;
v) other roofing materials;
7.10 1.g
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GLOSSARY
G-11
vi) windows and doors (including garage doors);
vii) exterior waterproofing/weatherproofing materials
viii) appliance installations and replacements, such as water heaters, generators, and solar panels, that do not involve structural modifications;
x) remedial actions to address termite infestation and dry rot; and xi) other modifications required to comply with State and/or Federal laws and regulations, such as disabled accessibility improvements and seismic retrofits/upgrades. ii) development on any site which is protected from coastal erosion by an existing, permitted shoreline protection structure; iii) replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610 of the Public Resources Code;
iv) the demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure; or
v) the reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of any shoreline protection structure; provided, however, that the reconstructed, repaired, or maintained shoreline protection structure is not seaward of the location of the former structure, and that such modifications do not increase the height or length of the former shoreline protection structure by more than 10 percent.
Changes to exterior walls, floor area, height, length, or building footprint shall be measured cumulatively from those existing at the site on the date of certification of the LCLUP. The cost of improvements shall not be used as a basis in application of this definition or any policy relying thereupon unless expressly stated in the policy. Incremental structural changes that cumulatively amount to replacement of 50 percent or more over time shall also be considered a SSM.
Temporary Event: An activity or use that constitutes development as defined in Section 30106 of the California Coastal Act, but which is or will be of limited duration and involves the placement of non-permanent structures; and/or involves the use of sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets, or parking areas which are otherwise open and available for general public use.
Tidelands: Lands which are located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water body from all sources (point and non-point) and still maintain water quality standards. Under Clean Water Act section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all water bodies that do not meet water quality standards after application of technology-based controls. TMDL also refers to the written, quantitative analysis and plan for attaining and maintaining water quality standards in all seasons for a specific water body and pollutant.
1.g
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 G-12
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): A mechanism to relocate potential residential development from areas where environmental or land use impacts could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development, in order to preserve significant open space resources. Owners of environmentally sensitive sites may transfer residential development rights to other sites where higher-density development can be supported, or from one part of a site to another.
Tsunami: A wave generated by abrupt movement of the seabed, which can result from an earthquake or a significant landslide.
Watershed: The geographical area drained by a river and its connecting tributaries into a common source. A watershed may, and often does, cover a very large geographical region.The total area above a given point on a watercourse which contributes water to the flow of the watercourse; the entire region drained by a watercourse.
Wave Run-up: The distance or extent that water from a breaking wave will extend up a beach or structure.
Wetland: The Coastal Act defines wetland as land which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, mudflats, and fens. The California Code of Regulations further defines wetland as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate.
Wildlife Movement Corridor: Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by barriers such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or areas of human disturbance or development, allowing wildlife to access additional areas with food, water, and other resources.
1.g
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 1-1
Paci ca and the Paci ca
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
City Limits
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; County of
San Mateo, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTEMLA VE
FRANCISCO BLVD
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
DVLB HCAEB
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
CLARENDON RD
1 92
35 1
1 280
Paci ca
380
101
101
280
101
280
80 101
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly
City
Half
Moon
Bay
Hillsborough
Paci ca Millbrae
San
Bruno
South San Francisco
Montara
Emery
S A N F R A N C I S C O
S A N
M A T E O
San
Francisco
Bay
Paci c
Ocean
Paci ca Planning Area
County Lines
Urbanized Area
Freeways
Highways
Major Arterials
BART
Caltrain
1.g
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Pac i c
O cea n
P A OTTE MLA VE
SHOREVIEW AVE
SALADA AVE
SANTA ROSA AVE
MONTECITO AVE
CLARENDON RD
P A OTTE MLA VE
CARMEL AVE
PALOMA AVE
PACIFIC AVE
SAN JOSE AVE
SANTA MARIA AVE
GRAND AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE
DANMANN
HALLING WAY
SHELTER COVE
STANLEY AVE
KENT RD
OLYMPIAN WAY
STERLING AVE
LIVINGSTON AVE
ROCKAWAY BEACH
DONDEE ST
OLD COUNTY RD
SAN MARLO WAY
2 1
1 2
3 4
6 5
7 Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 2-2:
Existing Land Use
in the Coastal Zone
Single-family Resdiential
Multi-family Residential
Mobile Homes
Commerical
Auto Services
Hotels, Motels
O ce
Mixed Use
Utilities
Industrial
Schools
Church
Other Public or Community Uses
Other Open Space
Parks & Accessible
Open Space
Beach
Agriculture
Vacant/Undeveloped
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
City Limits
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci
ca, 2019; County of San Mateo,
2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Visitor Accommodations
1 San Francisco RV Resort
2 America’s Best Value Inn
Paci
ca
3 Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
4 Sea Breeze Motel
5 Paci
ca Motor Inn
6 Holiday Inn Express
& Suites Paci
ca
7 Paci
ca Beach Hotel
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
Paci ca Pier
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTE MLA VE
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
ESPLANADE AVE
DVLB HCAEB
DVLB OCSI CNARF
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MONTEREY RD
FRANCISCO BLVD
1.g
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GAT EWAY DR
FIRECREST AVE
INVERNESS DR
MONTEREY RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
SKYLINE BLVD
GLENCOURT
MONTEREY RD
VEA OTTEMLAP
EDGEMAR DR
MILLER AVE
AVALON DR
OCEANA BLVD
PALOMA AVE
TALBOT AVE
BRADFORD WAY
SHARP PARK RD
MOANA WAY
LUNDY WAY
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
REINA DEL MAR AVE
ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE
TERRANOVA BLVD
EVERGLADES DR
ODDSTAD BLVD
CRESPI DR
LERIDA WAY
CRESPI DR
SEVILLE DR
MANZANITA D
A
R
LICANTE
LIN
DR
DA MAR BLVD
ROSITA RD
ROSITA RD
ADOBE RD
PERALTA RD
DE SOLO
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER AVE
PARK LINCOLN GRAND AVE
WESTBOROUGH
KING DR
SKYLINE BLVD
MILAGRA DR
HICKEY BLVD
ESPLANADE AVE
MANOR DR
ROBERTS RD
SHARP PA RK RD
SEASIDE DR
CLARENDON RD
P a c c
O c e a n
D e vi l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 2-3:
Land Use Diagram
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Planning Area
City Limits
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
Urban Reserve (Unincorporated)
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Zone
ESPLANADE AVE VEA OTTEMLAP
DVLB HCAEB
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MONTEREY RD
PALMETTO AVE
SHOREVIEW AVE
SALADA AVE
LINDA
SANTA ROSA AVE
MONTECITO AVE
CLARENDON RD
VEA OTTEMLAP
CARMEL AVE
PALOMA AVE
PACIFIC AVE
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN JOSE AVE
SANTA MARIA AVE
GRAND AVE
DANMANN
HALLING WAY
SHELTER COVE
STANLEY AVE
KENT RD
OLYMPIAN WAY
STERLING AVE
LIVINGSTON AVE
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
SAN PEDRO AVE
Note: Senior or a
ordable housing may be
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Office Commercial
Service Commercial
Visitor-Serving Commercial
1.g
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) West Edgemar,
Paci c Manor
Fairmont
West
West
Sharp
Park
Sharp Park GC,
West Fairway Park,
and Mori Point
Pedro Point
and
Shelter Cove
Rockaway Beach,
Quarry, and
Headlands
Paci ca
State
Beach
F
Northern
Coastal
Blu s
Bowl Site
Paci
c
Manor
Industrial
Northern
Palmetto
Promenade and Beach
Boulevard Property
Palmetto Ave
Eureka Square and
Mixed Use Center
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach
Rockaway
Headlands
Undeveloped
San Pedro
Avenue Site
Pedro Point
Shopping Center
Shamrock
Ranch
Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Figure 2-4:
Sub-Areas &
Speci c Sites
Subarea
Speci c Sites
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTEMLA VE
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
DVLB HCAEB
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Key to Area Maps
1.g
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
Bowl
Manor
Shopping
Center
Industrial
Northern
Palmetto
Beach
Boulevard
Property
Palmetto
Ave
Eureka Square
and Mixed
Use Center
Fish
Undercrossing
Fairmont
West Park
Ingrid B.
Lacy
Middle
School
City
Hall
Promenade
Sharp
Park
Golf
Course
Overcrossing
Overcrossing
San
Francisco
RV Park
Pier Talbot Rd Trail
Coastal Trail
West Edgemar,
West
Sharp
Park
Fairmont
West
Lands End
Apts.
12 10
11 9
4 5
2 1
7 VEA OTTEMLAP
BEACH BLVD
PALMETTO AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
FRANCISCO BLVD
7 8
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Service Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Park
Conservation
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
top/View)
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Existing Trail
Proposed Trail
On-street trail
Subareas
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-5:
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
3 6
8 1.g
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Sharp Park
Golf Course,
West Fairway Park
& Mori Point
Rockaway Beach,
Quarry, &
Headlands
State
Beach
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach Rockaway
Headlands
Water Recycling
Plant
Flats
Pad
Proposed
Overcrossing
Undercrossing
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
SEASIDE DR
Mor i Po i n t
( G GNR A )
Sh a r p Pa r k
& Golf Cour s e
Sharp
Park
Beach
12 14
13 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 7
8 0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Service Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Park
Conservation
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
top/View)
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Existing Trail Proposed
Trail
On-street trail
Existing Trailhead
Subareas
Speci c Sites
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-6:
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
15 16
1.g
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) State Beach
Pedro
Point
& Shelter
Cove
Pedro Point Trail
Coastal Trail
Undeveloped
San Pedro Ave Site
Pedro Point
Shopping
Center
Shamrock
Ranch
GRAND AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE
Devil’s Slide Trail
DEVIL’S SLIDE TUNNEL
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
State Beach
25 21
22 23
24 26
27 Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Retail Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
Urban Reserve
Transportation Corridor
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Existing Trail
Proposed Trail
On-street trail
Existing Trailhead
Proposed Trailhead
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
View Corridor
20 Subareas
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-7:
outh
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Visitor-Serving Commercial
16 1.g
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
GAT EWAY DR
FIRECREST AVE
INVERNESS DR
MONTEREY RD MANOR DR
SKYLINE BLVD
GLENCOURT
MONTEREY RD
EDGEMAR DR
MILLER AVE
AVALON DR
OCEANA BLVD
PALOMA AVE
TALBOT AVE
BRADFORD WAY
SHARP PARK RD
MOANA WAY
LUNDY WAY RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
REINA DEL MAR AVE
ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE
TERRANOVA BLVD
EVERGLADES DR
ODDSTAD BLVD
CRESPI DR
LERIDA WAY
CRESPI DR
SEVILLE DR
MANZANITA D
A
R
LICANTE
LIN
DR
DA MAR BLVD
ROSITA RD
ROSI
ADOBE RD
TA RD
PERALTA RD
DE SOLO
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER AVE
PARK LINCOLN
WESTBOROUGH
KING DR
SKYLINE BLVD
MILAGRA DR
HICKEY BLVD
MANOR DR
ROBERTS RD
SHARP PA RK RD
CLARENDON RD
Pa c
O c e a n
De v i l ’ s S l i de T u nn e l
Pier
Sh a r p Pa r k
G o l f C o u r s e
Mo r i P o in t
( G G N R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
23 25 24 26
27 22
21 20
19 18
17 13
14 7
5 2
1 1
3 Figure 3-1:
Coastal Access
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Coastal Access Points
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Regional Open Space
Neighborhood &
District Parks
Golf Course
Beach
Conservation
Partial Conservation
with Development
School
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
on GGNRA land
Pursue small public park and trail
Improve public access and
Maintain public parking as part
of redevelopment of City-owned
Beach Boulevard property
Ensure public access
Provide public trail to overlook
point as part of development
or land conservation
Provide additional signage and amenities
at Crespi Drive parking lot in relation to
proposed extension of Baquiano Trail
Improve new segment of Coastal Trail
along former railroad berm
Trail and access improvements expected under
land steward management; new trails should
provide coastal views from Pedro Peak
PALMETTO AVE
ALMETTO A P VE FAIRWAY DR
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
3 4
9 8
7 6
12 11
10 14 15
16 Ensure public access to beach
in 400-block of Esplanade Avenue
if feasible
and restore blu conditions
Play elds
1.g
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) P
acc
Ocean
D e vi l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 3-2:
Parks and Open Space
System
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Park Opportunity Site
RegionalOpenSpace
District, Neighborhood,
& Pocket Parks
Special Facilities
Schoolelds
Priorities for Conservation
Golf Course
Beach
OtherProtected OpenSpace
PartialConservation
with Development
Urban Reserve
Visitor Serving Commercial
LowIntensity Visitor-
Serving Commercial
Visitor Parking Lot
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
P
PALMETTO AVE
VE A OTTE MLAP
FAIR
WAY DR
GRAND AVE
SEASIDE
DR
Pier
Sharp Park
Go lfC ourse
MoriPoint (GG N R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State Beach
Northern Coastal
Ingrid B. Lacy
Middle School
Rockaway
Quarry
Site
Fairmont
West Park
Sharp Park Beach Promenade
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN PEDRO AVE
BEACH BLVD
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019: San Mateo
1.g
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
MilagraRidge Trail
PiertoRidge Trail
SharpPark Trail
Mori RidgeTrail
BaquianoTrail Trail
San Pedro Valley Trail
PedroPo ni t Trail
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
De v il’s Slide T rail
HarryDean Trail
Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 3-3:
Trail System
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Existing Trails
Existing On-Street
Trail Routes
Proposed Trails or
Trail Improvements
Proposed On-Street
Trail Routes
Coastal Trail
Existing Trailheads
Trailheads to be
Improved
Visitor Parking Lot
Existing SR 1 Crossing
Proposed SR 1 Crossing
Regional Open Space
Neighborhood, District
and Pocket Parks
Golf Course
Beach
Other Protected Open Space
Partial Conservation
with Development
School Play elds
100
Contour
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2008; San Mateo
County, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTE MLA EV
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
SAN JOSE AVE Paci ca
Pier
Sha rp Pa r k G ol f C ou r s e
Mor i Poi n t (G GN R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
BLVD
Fa r allon View
1.g
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Paci c
O cean
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 3-4:
BicycleNetwork
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Existing Class I
Proposed Class I
Existing ClassII
Proposed Class II
Existing Class III
Proposed Class III
Class III to be upgraded
to Class II
Class I to be upgraded
Bicycle Lockers
Bicycle Parking
Changing Room w/Water
Changing Room w/oWater
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
Pedestrian/Bicycle Underpass
Existing Link
PotentialLinkto UnpavedTrail
Coastal Zone
Parks/Open Space
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2009;
SanMateoCounty, 2009;Dyett&Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
OLD COASTHWY
P A OTTE MLA EV
FRANCISCO
BRADFORD
FAIR
WAY DR SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD
SAN PEDRO
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
1.g
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Pac
i c
Ocean
GATEWAY
DR
PALMETTO AVE
MONTEREY RD
EVA OTTE MLAP
OCEANA BLVD
PA
L
O
MA
AVE
TA
L
B
OT
AVE
DVLB OCSI CNARF
CLARENDON RD BRADFORD WAY SHARPPA RK
R
D
M
O
A
N
A
WAY
LUNDY WAY
FAIR
WAY DR RIDG
E
WAY DR
SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD ROCKAWAY BEACH
AVE
FASSLER AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE GRAND AVE
MILAG
RA
D
R
ESPLANADE AVE
MANOR
DR
ROBERTS RD
Manor Dri
ve
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned imp
r
o
vements)
R
E
I
N
A
D
E
L
MA
R
AVE
CRESPI
DR
LINDA MAR
BLVD
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 3-5:
RoadwayNetwork
and Planned
Improvements
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Freeway
MultiLane Highway
TwoLane Highway
Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Unimproved RightofWay
Planned Improvement
PotentialFuture Street
Pedestrian Priority Zone
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2019;
San Mateo County,2019;Dyett& Bhatia,
2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
1.g
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
112
110
14 16
16 16
14 294
110
112
19 16
140
140
112
16 14
14 110
294
118 112
P
P
16 110
49 49
19 49
19 19
Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Pac
O cean
D e vi l’ s S l i d e T u nne l
Figure 3-6:
Transit Routes
and Facilities
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 SamTrans to BART
SamTrans to Caltrain
Local Service
Park and Ride Lot
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2019; San
Mateo County, 2019; Dyett& Bhatia,2019.
118
GATEWAY
DR
OLD COASTHWY
MONTEREY RD
E AV TO TE LM PA
OCSI CNARF
BRADFORD SHARPPARK
R
D
FAIR
WAY DR SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER
AVE
SAN PEDROGRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
Sharp Park Golf Cour s e
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA) CRESPI DR
SamTrans OnDemand
Service Area
1.g
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) NORTH
GLOBE
BIG
INCH
MILAGR A
CREEK
UNNAMED
SANCHEZ
CREEK
CALER A
CREEK
QUARRY
SAN PEDRO
CREEK
Milagra Creek
S anchez Cr eek
Cal e r a Creek
Roc kaway Creek
San P edro Cree k
Pac i c
O cea n
D e vil’s
Sl i d e T u n n e l
Figure 4-1:
Hydrology
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Creeks
Water Treatment Facility
Stream Restoration Projects
Coastal Zone Protected Open Space
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2009;
City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Watersheds
Sharp Par k Golf Cours e
Paci ca
Pier
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pedro Poin t
Headland s
(GGNRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Treatment
Facility
Laguna
Salada
Horse
Stable
Pond
OLD COAST HWY
AP ML ET OT VA E
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR FRANCISCO BLVD
1.g
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 0 1/4 1/2
1 MILES
2 Pac i c
O c e a n
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 4-2: Vegetation
Annual Grassland
Coastal Blu Scrub
Eucalyptus
Northern Coastal Scrub
Monterey Cypress
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Beach/Intertidal
Urban
Creeks
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: California Dept of Fish & Game,
1988, 2003; California Dept of Forestry,
2009; USDA Forest Service, 2017;
FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2009; City of
Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlan d s
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
N o r ther
n C oastal Scru b
Norther
n Coastal Scru b
Ann u a l Grassl a n d
A nn ua
l Grass la n d
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Beach/Intertidal
Eucalyptus
Monterey
Cyprus
Coastal
Blu Scrub
Beach/
Intertidal
Beach/Intertidal
Urban
Urban
Urban
Ann u a l
Grassl a n d
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Norther
n Coastal Scru b
Beach/Intertidal
Coastal
Blu Scrub
P A OTTEMLA EV
DVLB OCSICNARF
CLARENDON RD
FAIRWAY DR
SAN PEDRO
ESPLANADE AVE
1.g
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Pa
c
O ce a n D e vil’ s S l i d e T u nne l
Figure 4-3:
Potential
Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat
Areas
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
SOURCE: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2019;
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2019;
National Park Service, 2009; USDA Forest
Service, 2017; California Natural Diversity
Database, 2019; California Native Plant
Society, 2019; California Dept of Fish &
Game, 2019
; FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2008;
City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County,
2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Critical Habitat
Steelhead
California Red-Legged Frog
Pier
Sharp Pa r k
Golf Cour s e
Mori Poi n t
(GGNR A )
Ped ro Poi n t
Headlan d s
(GG NR A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
E AVTOTELMPA
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE
DR
San Pedro Creek
Potential ESHA
Note: The preliminary delineation of ESHA boundaries does not include an exhaustive compilation of the habitat areas that meet the ESHA definition. Site-specific biological evaluations and field observations shall be required to identify ESHAs and other special status resources that may not have been included in the literature and database review.
1.g
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
200
300
400
100
Mori Point
Rockaway
Headlands
Pedro Point
Headlands
Pacific
Ocean
D evil’s Slid e T u n n el
Figure 4-4:
Visual Resources
0 1/2 1 1/4
MILES
2 Source: US Geological Survey, 2009; City of
Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
Gateways
Prominent Landforms
Coastal View Corridors
Scenic Routes
Prominent Ridges
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Pacifica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Rockaway
State Beach
PALMETTO AVE
PALMETTO AVE
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
Manor Dr
Palmetto Ave
Paloma Ave
Salada Ave
Clarendon Rd
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Shelter Cove/Shoreside Dr
Rockaway Beach
1.g
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
300
200
100
100
Pac i c
O c e a n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 5-1:
Liquefaction and
Fault Lines
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
San Andreas Fault
Alquist-Priolo Zone
100 foot contour interval
400 foot contour interval
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Liquifaction Potential
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments,
2003; US Geological Survey, 2019; ESA. 2009; City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019. 100
400
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
EVA OTTE MLAP
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
FRANCISCO BLVD
1.g
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400 500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600
500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000 900
800
500 600
700
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500 400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 1100
300
200
300
200
300
400
600 500
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
900
1220
200
300
300
400
Pa c c
O ce a n
De v i l ’ s S l i de T u nn e l
Figure 5-2:
Slope Failure and Shoreline
Protection Structures
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Mostly Landslides
Few Landslides
Not Landslide Prone
Seawall
Riprap, Other Revetments
500 foot Contours
100 foot Contours
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
DFIRM, 2017; US Geological Survey, 1997; ESA, 2009; City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia,
2019.
Shoreline Protective Structures
Note:
Pier
Sharp Pa r k
Golf Cour s e
Mori Poi n t
(GGNR A )
P e d ro Po i n t
Headlan d s
( G G N R A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
EV ALMETTO A P
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN PEDRO AVE
1.g
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 8-16
Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
G ol f Course
San Pedro Valley County Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge (GGNRA)
FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
ODDSTAD BLVD
GRAND AVE
ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE
REINA DEL MAR AVE
CRESPI DR
CRESPI DR
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
PALOMA AVE
CLARENDON RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MI LAGR ADR
MONTEREY RD
IVERNESS DR
NELSON AVE
PA ML ETTO AVE
ADOBE DR
BEACH BLVD
HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
P e n i n s u l a Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
Devil' s Slide Tunnel
PERALTA RD
ROSITA RD
EVE RGLAD ES DR
M ANZA NI T A DR
LERI D A WAY
R OBERTSRD
SHAR P P A RK R D
BRADFORD WAY
ESPLANADE AV E
E DGEMAR A VE
GAT EWAYDR
FIRECREST AVE
OCEANA BLVD
SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE
MOANAW AY
Water
Recycling
Plant
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Source: National Flood Hazard Layer for San Mateo
County, FEMA, 2019; Tsunami Hazard Area for
San Mateo County, Department of
Conservation, State of California, 2021; City
of Pacifica, 2020; San Mateo County, 2020;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
Flood Zones
Planning Area
City Limits
0.2% Annual Chance
Flood Zone
1% Annual Chance
Flood Zone
1% Annual Chance
Coastal Flood Zone
Tsunami Evacuation Area
Historic
Figure 5-3: Flood Zones
& Clubhouse
1.g
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
G ol f Course
San Pedro Valley
County Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge (GGNRA)
FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD
GRAND AVE
ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE
CRESPI DR
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
PALOMA AVE
CLARENDON RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MI LAGR ADR
MONTEREY RD
IVERNESS DR
NELSON AVE
PALMETTO AVE
ADOBE DR
BEACH BLVD
HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Peninsula
Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
Devil' s Slide Tunnel
PERALTA RD
ROSITA RD
EVE RGLAD ES DR
M ANZA NI T A DR
LERI D A WAY
R OBERTSRD
SHAR P P A RK R
BR
D
ADFORD WAY
ESPLANADE AV E
E DGEMAR A VE
GAT EWAYDR
FIRECREST AVE
OCEANA BLVD
SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE
MOANA WAY
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
LINDA M AR BLVD
ODDSTAD BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
C R E SPIDR
REINA DEL MAR AVE
Police
Station
Fire
Station
#72
Fire Station # 71
LRA
FRA
SRA
FRA
FRA
LRA
FRA
LRA
LRA
SRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in State Responsibility Area
Very High
High
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, 2020; City of Pacifica, 2019; San
Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Public Safety Facilities
Fire Protection
Responsibility Area
City Limits
Planning Area
Local (LRA)
State (SRA)
Federal (FRA)
LRA
SRA
FRA
The City will update this
figure as new recommended
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
maps are adopted by the City.
Historic
Figure 5-4:
Fire Hazards and
Emergency Services
& Clubhouse
1.g
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) :HVW/LQGD0DU
3HGUR3RLQWDQG
6KHOWHU&RYH
6KDUS3DUN:HVW)DLUZD\3DUNDQG0RUL3RLQW
)DLUPRQW:HVW
5RFNDZD\%HDFK4XDUU\DQG+HDGODQGV
1RUWKZHVW6KDUS3DUN
:HVW(GJHPDU3DFLILF0DQRU
3DFLILFD6WDWH%HDFK
3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B3URMHFW$UHDP[GMUM
6285&(
&LW\RI3DFLILFD
/HJHQG
3DFLILFD&LW\/LPLWV6XEDUHDV
0LOHV
)LJXUH6-
Coastal Resilience6XEDUHDV
1 /RFDWLRQ0DS
1.g
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
1.g
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)
1.g
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment G - LCP Redlined Document (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 1 Cervantes, Stefanie
From: Lawrence Bothen < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:21 PM
To: _City Council
Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian
Subject: LCLUP #3 - Fiscal disaster
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I just posted my takeaways from LCLUP MeeƟng #3 on Next Door as follows:
LCLUP Whitewashes a fiscal disaster for Pacifica
As it is commonly understood, negoƟaƟon, like poliƟcs, requires compromise. Both parƟes are expected to give up something they want to get something more important. Neither gets everything they want. The California Coastal Commission does not parƟcipate in either. But the City of Pacifica thinks that’s what they are doing with their LCLUP. The truth is they brought a water pistol to a gunfight.
For those Pacificans who braved the weather to aƩend the City’s LCLUP MeeƟng #3, this became more evident with each passing anecdote. Planning Director ChrisƟan Murdock outlined how SubstanƟal Structural ModificaƟons (SSM) would be used as a cudgel to bring homeowners in line with CCC’s policies to deprive of them of any form of coastal armoring.
Murdock didn’t say that. But as he went through eight hypotheƟcal case studies it became clear that even minor variables like dry rot discovered in a re‐roof or structural damage from termites could trigger an SSM because it would no longer be a simple job exempted from CCC requirements. Yet this happens all the Ɵme in home repair and remodeling.
Such things aren’t evident unƟl the work has begun. It will force work underground because the SSM penalty is too harsh to bear.
Whether you live in a Coastal Vulnerability Zone or an SRA you would have to get a Coastal Development Permit AND a building permit if it’s approved. But that’s not all. You must sign a deed restricƟon waiving your right to coastal protecƟons and guarantee the new structure can survive coastal hazards for 100 years without coastal armoring. Good luck finding an engineer or contractor who’d sign off on that. In CVZs you’d be liable for coastal engineering studies, or any other studies deemed necessary for your site at costs in the tens of thousands, with no guarantee of approval.
During an audience Q&A Murdock revealed that he doesn’t know of any other coastal ciƟes that have successfully introduced Special Resilience Areas (SRA) in their plans. It seems obvious he hasn’t collaborated with them either. He boasted Pacifica is on the “cuƫng edge” of these adaptaƟons. He also admiƩed they don’t consider the financial repercussions of lost revenue from Pacifica’s greatest stream ‐ property tax; or the costs of removing armoring. No consideraƟon is given to fiscal suicide?
He's cognizant of the cost of relocaƟng sewer and water mains, but not all of them, just the ones in Sharp Park. He didn’t answer what would happen to infrastructure in the PalmeƩo corridor from Manor south, or the SF RV Park. So, one of the poorest, most resource challenged coastal ciƟes in the state is going head to head with a dreadnought bureaucracy, outmanned and outgunned.
Every response to CCC’s redlines ends up endorsing them aŌer suggesƟng alternates. The SRAs, which were suggested by CCC staff, are a red herring. Every scenario the city counters with reverts to removing coastal armoring either now, the near future or in the murky distance.
City staff is clearly not up to the task.
A number of people at the meeƟng asked why should WE be on the cuƫng edge? The gist was let the Del Mar’s and Malibu’s fight that baƩle. Let’s see some wins, some new precedents that can clear a path for Pacifica, then follow in
1.h
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 2 their wake. We have ten years to figure it out. Maybe some daring poliƟcian will get a bill passed that protects coastal towns from CCC overreach. When 60 other coastal ciƟes start clamoring for relief from puniƟve regulaƟons sooner or later someone will jump in the fray and lead. But it’s not happening here.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.
1.h
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 1 826 Stanyan St., San Francisco, CA 94117 • 415-290-5718 • [email protected] March 25, 2024
Pacifica City Council
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
540 Crespi Dr.
Pacifica, CA. 94044
Re: Pacifica City Council / April 15, 2024 / Local Coastal LUP Study Mtg., cont.
Supplement to SF Public Golf Alliance OBJECTION to proposed exclusion of Sharp Park (Golf Course), West Fairway Park and Mori Point subareas from the proposed “West Sharp Park” Special Resiliency Area.
Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and Council Members,
This is to reiterate and supplement the nonprofit San Francisco Public Golf Alliance’s OBJECTION, stated in our Letter to City Council of Feb. 27, 20241, to the exclusion of the Sharp Park (Golf Course) – West Fairway Park – Mori Point vulnerability subarea from the “West Sharp Park” Special Resiliency Area, as proposed by the Planning Department in the March 2024 Consultation Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan presented to the City Council’s March 2, 2024 LCLUP Study Session (hereafter referred to as the “March 2024 Draft LCLUP”).2 1 Letter, SF Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, Feb. 27, 2024, incorporated by this reference:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12cwdIvP5KlwHIw46TGtNkEA63 pRFg1/view?usp=sharing 2 City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan March 2024 Revised Certification Draft (“March 2024 Draft LCLUP”), Attachment F (at Packet pages 105-370) to Pacifica City Council Study Mtg. Mar. 2, 2024, Agenda:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True
1.h
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Sharp Park (Golf Course)-West Fairway Park-Mori Point vulnerability sub-area should be included with the “West Sharp Park Special Resiliency Area.” (See our draft revised SRA map, Exhibit 1.) The March 2024 Draft LCLUP, which fixes the West Sharp Park Special Resiliency Area’s end point at Clarendon Rd., would exclude: (i) coastal lateral and beach access on the Sharp Park Levee -- a half-mile-plus section of the California Coastal Trail which also provides the only emergency and maintenance vehicle access to the Trail and to Mori Point; (ii) Pacifica’s own critical infrastructure – sanitary sewer force main and collection lines and storm sewer drain lines, outfalls, and pumphouse that serve most of the East and West Sharp Park and Fairway Park neighborhoods; (iii) the landmark Sharp Park Golf Course, with its low cost public recreation and wetlands habitat for the California redlegged frog and San Francisco Garter Snake; and (iv) moderate-cost residential neighborhoods and 20% of Pacifica’s “affordable rental” property. This would: (1) violate City Council’s “Coastal Resilience” policy goals, expressly stated in Section
6.3 of the March 2024 Draft LCLUP; (2) would be inconsistent with the “Coastal Vulnerability Zone” sub-area policies at Section 6, Subsection 6 of the March 2024 Draft LCLUP; (3) would be inconsistent with the stated criteria for Special Resiliency Areas; and (4) would violate the Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy.
1. The Sharp Park Levee itself constitutes Coastal Access – lateral and vertical pedestrian beach access, and road access for maintenance and emergency vehicles.
The wide, graded crushed rock roadway on top of the Sharp Park Levee constitutes a popular, half-mile-plus segment of the California Coastal Trail. The coastal protective structure provides lateral coastal access overlooking both the ocean and the coastal wetlands, golf course and scenic backdrop of coastal hills, with three vertical beach access points – a trail at its southern end near the pumphouse, a wheelchair-accessible concrete beach ramp at its northern end, and a concrete stairway from top of the Levee to the beach at the Levee’s midpoint.3, 4 (See photos of the
3 The Sharp Park Levee is misdescribed at page 3-7 of the March 2024 Draft LCLUP at Table 3-1, Point 13 (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True) at Pkt. Pg. 168/400) as follows: “Sharp Park, South End . . Beach access from south end of berm. Access point is reached by GGNRA’s Mori Point Trail.” This is wrong. A correct description follows: “Sharp Park Levee . . . Coastal Trail segment connecting the Beach Boulevard Promenade and the Mori Point headlands. Paved trail along top of levee between golf course and beach provides both lateral coastal access and vertical beach access. Popular for walking, jogging, biking, ocean viewing, beachcombing. Vertical beach access is by trail at the Levee’s south end near Mori Point, by beach stairway at midpoint of Levee, and by a wheelchair accessible ramp at north end of Levee. Parking available on Beach Boulevard and Clarendon Road. The Levee can also be reached on foot and bicycle by GGNRA’s Mori Point Trail.” 4 Coastal Access at the Sharp Park Levee is also misrepresented in the March 2024 Draft LCLUP at Figure 3-1, (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True), at Pkt. Pg.356/400. Only one “Coastal Access Point” – No. 13, “Sharp Park Beach” – is identified on Figure 3-1 (dated 2019). The map’s Legend uses red circles to identify “Coastal Access Points (Bluff-top View)” and white circles to identify “Coastal Access Points (Beach)”. At Sharp Park Beach Figure 3-1 shows only a single white (Beach access) circle at the south end of the Levee. This is incorrect because it omits the vertical beach access stairway at the Levee’s midpoint and the ramp at the Levee’s north end, both completed in or about 2021. (See discussion at footnote 2, above, and Exhibits 2 and 3.), Figure 3 should be revised to show 3 white circles marking “Beach Access”. Additionally, and consistent with Figure 3- 1’s treatment of the “Sharp Park Beach Promenade” and “Northern Beach Boulevard” segments (Access Points 9 and 11 on Figure 3-1), the Sharp Park Levee should also be marked with a red numbered circle designating coastal access “Bluff-top/View”.
1.h
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 3 north beach access and overlook, and the midpoint beach stairway and coastal wetlands-golf course-coastal hills overlook and the southern-end trail users’ amenities and wetlands-coastal hills overlook, attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3.) (As described in footnotes 1 and 2, above, the March 2024 Draft LCLUP’s “Coastal Access” Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 are both out-of-date and must be revised to show San Francisco’s new vertical beach access points and trail user amenity upgrades to the Levee, which were completed in or about 2021.) The above-described new Sharp Park Levee beach access ramp and stairway, and the outlooks, signage, and visitor amenities were all completed in or about 2021 by San Francisco in compliance with public access mitigation measures required by the California Coastal Commission as special conditions for the Commission’s approval on November 8, 2017 of Coastal Development Permit No. CDP 2-17-0702 (Sharp Park Armoring) for after-the-fact authorization of the asconstructed Sharp Park Levee.5 Commission findings in support of its grant of Coastal
Development Permit CDP 2-17-0702 include, inter alia:
(i) “. . . Coastal Act policies clearly protect the sandy beach (and access to and along it) . . . for public access and recreation purposes, particularly free and low cost forms. . . .The Sharp Park complex is a popular public park that provides recreational opportunities . . In addition to the Golf Course, it offers access to coastal trails and coastal views to hikers, runners, cyclists, and visitors who may only have a short time available to see the ocean due to the easy access by car and on foot. The Park contains public pathways . . . including a heavily used pedestrian trail which exists on top of the existing armoring structure, the subject of this report. Thus, altogether, the Sharp Park complex provides significant public recreational access of a variety of forms, many of which are zero or low-cost options.”6 (ii) The Sharp Park Levee is “ . . . the primary emergency vehicular access for Mori Point, part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) which lies directly to the south of Sharp Park“.7 (See photos of emergency vehicles on the Levee responding to a Jan. 14, 2024 near-drowning of a father and young son in the ocean west of the golf course,8 attached at Exhibit 4.) (iii) The Sharp Park Levee provides “. . . access to infrastructure at the pumphouse, which is needed to control floodwaters in Sharp Park” 9 .
(See photos of the pumphouse and a circa 2008 repair at the pumphouse, involving a fleet of trucks and heavy maintenance equipment operating from the Levee, attached at Exhibit 5.)
5 Coastal Commission Staff Report re CDP 2-17-0702 (Sharp Park Armoring), at pp. 5 (Special Condition 3), 16 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/11/w9a/w9a-11-2017-report.pdf 6 Coastal Commission Staff Report re CDP 2-17-0702 (Sharp Park Armoring), at p. 32 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/11/w9a/w9a-11-2017-report.pdf 7 Coastal Commission Staff Report re CDP 2-17-0702 (Sharp Park Armoring), at p. 21 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/11/w9a/w9a-11-2017-report.pdf 8 KGO TV News, Jan. 14.2024 Father and son rescued from ocean near Pacifica, authorities say https://abc7news.com/water-rescue-pacifica-pier-north-of-mori-point-father-son-rescued/14324379/ 9 Coastal Commission Staff Report re CDP 2-17-0702 (Sharp Park Armoring), at p. 20 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/11/w9a/w9a-11-2017-report.pdf
1.h
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 4 2. The Sharp Park Levee Protects Pacifica’s Critical Infrastructure--Sanitary Sewer force main and gravity line, Storm Sewer lines, outfalls, and storm sewer pumphouse.
Sanitary sewer maintenance truck, Sharp Park Golf Course 18th hole cart path, Aug. 23, 2023.
At page 6 of our February 27, 2024 letter to City Council,10 we provided descriptions, copies of maps, photographs, and reports from the City’s consulting engineers showing the sanitary sewer force main and collection line11 and storm sewer lines and outfalls running through the Sharp Park Golf Course.12,
13 (See photos of sanitary sewer pump truck above, and manhole cover in the cart path by the 18th fairway of the golf course, at Exhibit 6.) The Pacifica Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (ESA, June 2018) Hazard Mitigation-Asset Exposure Map for the Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point vulnerability subarea shows the sanitary sewer lines (red) and storm sewer lines (blue) running through the golf course, and shows the storm sewer pumphouse, which pumps Pacifica stormwater through the Levee to the ocean -- all lying within the dark-colored “Storm Flood” hazard exposure area.
14 (A copy of the Hazard Mitigation-Asset
Exposure Map, which has a circled letter P to mark location of the pumphouse at the southwest corner of the golf course adjacent to the south end of the Levee) is attached as Exhibit 7.) 10 Letter, SF Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, Feb. 27, 2024, incorporated by this reference:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12cwdIvP5KlwHIw46TGtNkEA63 pRFg1/view?usp=sharing 11 City of Pacifica [Sanitary Sewer] Collection System Master Plan Update, Final Report, Woodward & Curran, August 2021, Figure ES-1, at pg. 10/170
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2518/637839773773270000 12 City of Pacifica Storm Drainage System Master Plan, Carollo Engineers, February 2012, Fig. 4.1 (3 of 5), at p. 59/129 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/12210/637931377778730000 13 City of Pacifica Storm Drainage System Master Plan, Carollo Engineers, February 2012, 4.2.2 at p.4-10 (65/129) https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/12210/637931377778730000 14 Hazard Mitigation-Asset Exposure Map, Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point, Appendix B-3 to Pacifica Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (ESA, June 2018), Attachment F to Dec. 10, 2018 Pacifica City Council Agenda, Pkt Pg. 768/1050:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1225&Inline=True
1.h
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 5 The near proximity of Pacifica’s storm sewer lines and outfalls and sanitary sewer lines and force main in the low-lying northeastern section of the golf course, combined with the City’s aging and fragile pipelines, renders Pacifica sanitary sewers in the area susceptible to “infiltration and inflow” problems and sewage overflows. Pacifica’s consulting engineer Woodward & Curran’s August 2021 Collection System Master Plan Final Report15 describes the problem:
“The City is subject to infiltration and inflow (I&I) of extraneous groundwater and stormwater into the [sanitary sewer] collection system, resulting in high wet weather flows during storm events. As a result, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) have occurred at several locations in the system during large storms.” (Pg. ES-1, at 8/170) “Approximately 7 percent of the City’s 97 miles of gravity pipelines and 30 to 35 percent of its 4 miles of force mains are exposed to coastal erosion and flooding. Surface inflow into manholes and infiltration into leaky sewer pipes in exposed areas could cause a reduction in capacity, which may lead to backups and even overflows of untreated sewage. Sanitary sewer overflows could potentially enter storm drains and the coastal ocean and pose negative impacts to coastal water quality and ecological health.” (Pg. 164/170, emphasis added)
So it is clear that the existing Sharp Park Levee provides necessary protection for Pacifica’s vulnerable existing critical infrastructure, including the sanitary sewer force main and collection lines and the storm sewer drain lines, outfalls and pumphouse.
3. The Sharp Park Levee protects low-cost public recreational assets and Pacifica Landmarks – the historic Sharp Park Golf Course and Clubhouse. The Levee also protects the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and threatened and endangered frog and snake populations in the Sharp Park wetlands.
The March 2024 Draft LCLUP, Section 4.3 Biological Resources, identifies the Sharp Park wetlands as habitat for the California red-legged frog and San Franciso garter snake, and as “potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area”.16 The California Coastal Commission’s November 8, 2017 ruling conditionally granting San Francisco’s Coastal Development Permit for the Sharp Park Levee also found the Sharp Park wetlands to be ESHA.17 To protect the frog and 15 City of Pacifica [Sanitary Sewer] Collection System Master Plan Update, Final Report, Woodward & Curran, August 2021, pages ES-1-ES-2 (8-9/170), and page 164/170.
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2518/637839773773270000 16 March 2024 Draft LCLUP, Pacifica City Council Study Mtg. Mar. 2, 2024, Agenda Packet Attachment F:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True “Seasonal wetlands and ponds at Mori Point and Sharp Park Golf Course also known to support the California redlegged frog as well as the San Francisco garter snake.” (Pg. 4-17, at Packet pg. 225/400) “Areas around Mori Point and Sharp Park Golf Course are likely to qualify as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.” (Pg. 4-21, at Packet pg. 229).
And see Figure 403, “Potentially Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas,” at Packet Pg. 364/400 17 Coastal Commission Staff Report re CDP 2-17-0702 (Sharp Park Armoring) , at p. 35 (35/38) : “ , , ,the wetlands and adjacent upland areas of Laguna Salada and Horse Stable Pond are considered ESHA under Section 30240.” https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/11/w9a/w9a-11-2017-report.pdf
1.h
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 6 snake species and their wetlands habitat, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has ordered San Francisco to maintain the Sharp Park Levee.18
4. The Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, adopted in 2019, declares “preserving and providing for lower-cost recreational facilities” to be “an environmental justice imperative,” and commits the Commission to “working with local government to adopt local coastal plan policies that protect existing affordable housing.” 19 (Emphasis added.) Pacifica’s March 2024 Draft LCLUP includes policy to “Promote Environmental Justice.” 20
The low-cost public Sharp Park golf course and the affordable homes and apartments in the mid-1950’s era West Fairway Park tract21 and the modest mixed residential triangle at the northeast corner of the golf course south of Clarendon, clearly merit the Coastal Act’s – and the Environmental Justice Policy’s – protections for low-cost public recreation and “existing” affordable housing. In both neighborhoods. The affordable housing in these neighborhoods was “existing” in 2019 when the Commission adopted its Environmental Justice Policy.
The big apartment complex at 2590 Francisco Blvd., near the northeastern corner of the golf course and south of Clarendon Road, is identified as “affordable rental” by a star on the Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map.22 (Copy attached as Exhibit 4 to our Feb. 27, 2024 letter to City Council). Pacifica’s Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (ESA, June 2018) reports the 2590 Clarendon apartment complex constitutes 20% of Pacifica’s total affordable rental property.23 (See Exhibit 8, a copy of Table 7, at the fifth line from the top.) At City Council’s March 2, 2024 public LCLUP Study Session, Planning Director Murdock stated: “relatively few housing element sites are identified in the Coastal Zone.”24 The golf course has a proud history of racial inclusion. Decades before enactment of the Coastal Act, Sharp Park In 1955 hosted the inaugural championship tournament of the Western 18 Biological Opinion Letter, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), October 2, 2012, Conservation Measure 31, at page 19, and Incidental Take Statement, Terms and Conditions No. 1, at page 41: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1h0x8Eg99deRzZUWHFaLS1zcW8 19 Coastal Commission Environmental Justice Policy (Mar. 2019), “Coastal Access” and “Housing,“ Mar. 8, 2019, at pp. 7-8 (pp. 11-12/25) https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC EJ Policy FINAL.pdf 20 March 2024 Draft LCLUP, at Section 6, “Coastal Resilience” Subsection 6.3, includes “Promote Environmental Justice” as a policy “to help guide the direction of the planning effort for the Coastal Resiliency Policies”. https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True, at Packet Pgs. 280-281/400 21 See copy of original 1955 West Fairway Park Subdivision Map, attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 22 March 2024 Draft LCLUP, supra, Appendix B-3, Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point, at Agenda Packet Pg. 329/400: https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True 23 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for Pacifica LCP Update, ESA. June 2018 (Attachment F to City Council Agenda Summary Report, re: Draft Local Coastal Program Policies Relating to Sea Level Rise Adaptation, Dec.10, 2018 (starting at Packet pg.113) https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1225&Inline=True , etc.
Table 7, Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point Asset Exposure (Pkt Pg. 735/1050) 24 Mar. 2, 2024 City Council LCLUP Study Session, Pacific Coast TV video, at 3:54:05:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B Ky2nPtE A&list=PLFUunuheJ0ZU25IaKfa31mnHMxGy V4Ob .)
1.h
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 7 States Golf Association, one of the oldest and largest African American golf organizations in the Country.25 Sharp Park’s role in the integration of golf is memorialized on a storyboard plaque next to the starter’s window at the golf course. (Photo attached hereto as Exhibit 10.)
SUMMARY AND REQUEST
All of the above-described assets in the Sharp Park-West Fairway Park-Mori Point sub-area are protected and need protection – along with the ESHA and its special status frogs and snakes – by the Sharp Park Levee coastal protective structure. The affordable rental apartments and residences in the modest residential neighborhoods, the sanitary and storm sewer systems, and the Landmark golf course and Clubhouse are all old and in need of repair and maintenance (in some cases long-deferred), which repair and maintenance would according to the Pacifica Planning Department be enabled and facilitated by (and in some cases impossible without) application of the proposed “Special Resiliency Area” policies.26 As detailed in this letter and in our February 27, 2024 letter (incorporated herein by reference), the area and neighborhoods mapped in the “Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point” Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map, Appendix B-3 to the March 2024 Draft LCP (copy attached as Exhibit 4 to our Feb. 27, 2014 Letter) meet all of the “Special Resiliency Areas” criteria of the Coastal Resiliency Policies of Chapter 6 of the March 2024 Draft LCLUP.27 So for these reasons -- and for reasons of compliance by the City and by the Coastal Commission itself with the Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy -- we respectfully request:
that the March 2024 Consultation Draft LCLUP’s “West Sharp Special Resiliency Area” be revised to include the entire Sharp Park-West Fairway Park-Mori Point vulnerability subarea, as shown on our draft revised map attached as Exhibit 1; and that the March 2024 Consultation Draft LCLUP’s “Coastal Access” Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 both be revised and updated to correctly identify and describe all of the coastal access points at the Sharp Park Levee, as described above at Pages 2-3, Footnotes 1 and 2, and Exhibits 2 and 3.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Harris
President, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
cc: City Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Planning Director Christian Murdock, Deputy Planning Director Stefanie Cervantes, Planning Commission and Commissioners, City Clerk Sarah Coffey, Phil Ginsburg, Gen. Mgr., San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept., Spencer Potter, Esq., San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept.
25 Washington Golf, “The 70-year Impact of the Western States Golf Association”:
https://wagolf.org/news/the-70-year-impact-of-the-western-states-golf-association/ 26 Attachment B, Case Studies, Case Study #3, to Pacifica City Council Study Mtg. Mar. 2, 2024, Agenda:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True (at Packet pgs. 50-53) 27 March 2024 Draft LCLUP, Chapter 6, subchapter 6-6 at pg.6-17, at Packet pg. 293, Attachment F to Staff Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1517&Inline=True
1.h
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 8 Exhibit 1 Draft revised map, West Sharp Park-West Fairway Park-Mori Point Special Resiliency Area
1.h
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 9 Exhibit 2 Sharp Park Levee north end beach overlook and access ramp.
Beach Overlook and entry to access ramp.
Access ramp, with maintenance truck on Levee in background.
1.h
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 10 Exhibit 3 Sharp Park Levee midpoint beach stair and midpoint and south overlooks Sharp Park Levee midpoint beach stairs (above) and coastal wetlands / golf / ridge view overlook (below).
Coastal trail user amenities and wetlands overlook, Sharp Park Levee south end, near beach trail.
1.h
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 11 Exhibit 4 Rescue vehicles on Levee Jan. 14, 2024, attending near-double drowning of a father and young son in the ocean west of Sharp Park Golf Course.
Stills from TV videos, Jan. 14, 2024, KGO-TV (above) and KTVU-TV (below).
1.h
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 12 Exhibit 5 Storm Sewer Pumphouse at southwest corner of Golf Course, next to Levee Pumphouse (above) and repair (circa 2008), with heavy equipment operating from the Levee (below)
1.h
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 13 Exhibit 6 Sanitary sewer manhole cover, Sharp Park golf cart path, 18th hole.
1.h
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 14 Exhibit 7 Hazard Mitigation – Assets Exposure Map, Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, Mori Point Vulnerability Sub Area, Pacifica Vulnerability Assessment (ESA, May 2018)
1.h
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 15 Exhibit 8 Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, etc. Assets Exposure Table (ESA, May 2018)
1.h
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 16 Exhibit 9 Fairway Park Subdivision Map, Recorded March 17, 1955
1.h
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) 17 Exhibit 10 Plaque at Starter’s Window, Sharp Park Golf Course
1.h
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) J Kremer – LCLUP Ideas, March 28, 2024 p. 1
TO: City Council, Dir. Murdock, Mngr. Woodhouse, publiccomment FROM: Jim Kremer (J )
SUBJ: Ideas for how to proceed towards a Certified LCLUP I am writing to emphasize an optimistic view of how we might proceed to a certified LCLUP. I’m submitting it well ahead of the April 15th meeting as I trust it is relevant to planning that meeting.
There is a clear path that is not only expeditious, allowing City to concentrate on other pressing issues, but also desirable in order to earn CCC Staff acceptance of Alternative Modifications, with or without consideration of SRAs.
Naïve? Presumptuous? I hope it is constructive and practical.
My view of where we are:
• There are compelling immediate real benefits to having a certified LCLUP. • The draft proffered March 2023 by CCC Staff on our behalf could be approved by City Council now.
• Once acted upon by CA Coastal Commission (CCC) presumably at their next possible meeting, City can begin proposing amendments, and such changes are normal. • City Planning Staff (Planning S.) agrees that 75% of the “Suggested Modifications” by CCC Staff in March 2023 are acceptable.
• Only 27 items have been flagged as needing more discussion, often citing effects on future development. These “greenies” are sticking points, and Planning S. has suggested its own Alternative Mods, which have not been vetted by City Council nor by CCC Staff. • Special Resilience Areas (SRAs) are proposed by the city as novel plans that exempt two areas from State Law, in exchange for mitigating actions. However such waivers can only be allowed by CCC if they further the overall goals of the CCC in meeting their state obligations/responsibilities.
• Regardless of negotiations between Planning S. and CCC Staff, much staff time and likely lengthy delays will protract the deliberations, and almost certainly the City will not gain approval for all their Alternative Mods.
• The City foresees approval of a new LCLUP in about a year, but this is uncertain at best, especially on the present path.
• On March ’23, a draft recommended by CCC Staff for Commission approval was sent to Pacifica. If this were accepted by City Council it and would immediately be in CCC Staff’s hands to bring before the CCC expeditiously – and we can be certain they will welcome this! • Regardless of the fate of SRA’s, Pacifica’s Planning S. has indicated that the March ’23 LCLUP with most or all of the Suggested Mods will probably be accepted by City Council as applicable to the rest of the City. Doesn’t that mean that the city will accept this draft in any case, with changes yet to be determined or without? • Two new meetings on this are ahead. As I heard Council request on March 2nd , they want meeting 1 to consider the CCC Staff’s Suggested Mods, in detail, line-by-line. Meeting 2 will be to deliberate among themselves on what was learned and consider the option to accept of all the Suggested Mods or to continue protracted negotiations over many details.
The first of those upcoming meetings is very important. I ask:
A) It is important iour City Council be allowed to study the green highlighted Suggested Mods individually, projected in a visual context that elucidates the rationale. (Marked-up prose from the ’23 D-LCLUP itself is easy to process, often suggesting the rationale. Note that CCC Staff’s March Staff Report provides explanations for categories of Mods in general; and for changes to policies the rationale is given for each. All this can be
1.h
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4) J Kremer – LCLUP Ideas, March 28, 2024 p. 2
viewed at once on a projected screens with windows. I’ll add that it really helps if additions and deletions are highlighted in color.)
B) The first meeting does NOT need a Staff presentation, and it is unnecessary to introduce Alternative Mods. This may go against Planning S. inclinations, but it is counter-productive.
Respect that City Council has a good grasp of the task. They have said what they need is time to study & discuss themselves. Of course Staff is there for Council to ask when input would be helpful.
Overview of this plan:
With an LCLUP certified, all Alternative Mods and SRA ideas can be again pursued with CCC Staff. Importantly, other desirable revisions will also be facilitated. Foremost may be the long term strategy of a monitoring plan and triggers. City hinted at SLR triggers leaving allusions to them in their original draft submitted Feb 2020 [e.g. “CR-I-24 (0-2 feet SLR)”]. We know CCC Staff would support this. (All these lone cryptic inserts were deleted by CCC Staff because their meaning and proposed use were not explained in the city’s submission.) The new OPR SLR Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update cries out to be used to our advantage. But note that the moderated predictions short-term DO NOT obviate the imperative for truly long term planning. For the 100 yr frame, the “best available science” is more uncertain but also more dire than prior predictions. Monitoring data with a hierarchical set of adaptive responses may be the only sensible way to adapt to the climate/SLR challenge, with the added merit of being endorsed by CCC, and perhaps required.
We MUST NOT try to use the 2024 OPR SLR predictions to justify a single short-term armoring alternative.
è A clear path is available now for consideration by the Coastal Commission. It appears not to have been considered seriously, but it is not too late. Accepting that LCLUP with the Suggested Mods proffered by CCC Staff in March 2023 can happen quickly, but only if Suggested Mods are accepted without the many Alternative Mods. Raising ANY is certain to delay approval.
My hope here is to support a path for certification of the critical LCLUP. There are many positive benefits to this path even beyond certification – time for other urgencies, avoiding litigation, building a good faith relationship with CCC, a step toward real long-term planning… .
The negatives diminish under the weight of the benefits.
While you know that I don't agree with a number of Pacifica’s current directions, I honestly think this path can be acceptable to “all sides.” The special sauce is that it can happen fast, and all our modifications can continue much as now, perhaps with much the same likelihood of success, without the crippling delay and public disappointment we otherwise will face.
1.h
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments (5626 : LCLUP Meeting #4)