POLICIES FOR SPECIFIC SITES
NH-I-20NH-I-19 Esplanade. Establish appropriate zoning for privately-owned, undeveloped land on the west side of Esplanade Avenue to ensure minimal development consistent with the
5.6 5.6
1.g
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) PACIFICA LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN – REVISED CERTIFICATION DRAFT, APRIL 2024 OCTOBER 2023FEBRUARY 2020 5-16
General Plan classification. New development shall preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way and shall be sited and designed to ensure that any proposed development could withstand erosion resulting from a 100-year seismic or storm event and in accordance with CR-I-44 and preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way.
NH-I-21NH-I-20 Pedro Point Upper Slopes. Maintain zoning for the upper slopes of Pedro Point to ensure that any new development is at a density appropriate to the steep slopes.
5.3 FLOODING
Under Section 30236, flood protection devices that alter rivers or streams must use the best mitigation measures, and are limited to necessary water supply projects or flood control projects where no other method is feasible, and where necessary to protect public safety or existing development. New development is expected to minimize risks to life and property in high flood hazard areas, under Section 30253.
Flooding has been an ongoing issue for low-lying areas of Pacifica, and likely will continue to be a challenge in the future, including possible inundation from a tsunami wave. Strategies to minimize flooding impacts will include limiting development in flood-prone areas and incorporating Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines and suggested mitigation activities into the City’s plans and procedures for managing flood hazards.
Flood Zones
Flood hazards mapped by FEMA to support the development of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) generally identify areas of greater flood risk (100 and 500 year events) in the lower reaches of the main stream channels, and the risk of coastal flooding along the shoreline, although they do not account for climate change or sea level rise, and thus should be reviewed in conjunction with Appendix B (“Coastal Zone Vulnerability Maps”). Flood zones based on the FIRMs are shown in Figure 5-3. The FIRMs represent the best available maps of flood hazard areas in Pacifica. Additional maps of flood hazard areas prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources are not available for the city. The City’s annex to the Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) includes additional information on past flooding events and actions to mitigate flooding risk in Pacifica.
Areas of flood risk include:
• Broad flood inundation in several parts of Sharp Park Golf Course and the Rockaway Beach district. • More narrowly confined flood hazards along the creeks; limiting potential flooding in these areas. For example, along Milagra Creek mapped flood hazards are typically within the active channel.
Coastal Flooding
Pacifica can also experience flooding from coastal sources, which occurs as some combination of high tides, large wind-driven waves, storm surge, and/or tsunami waves. Areas with the potential for coastal flooding are the low-lying areas along the coast, including the Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada area and Pacifica State Beach.
5.7 1.g
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-17
The only section of coastline protected by levees is the Sharp Park Golf Course area. However, drainage from Sanchez Creek and Laguna Salada to the ocean can be insufficient to prevent lowland flooding during high tide/high flow events. A seawall/revetment structure protects the area north of the Sharp Park Golf Course, generally along Beach Boulevard, including the Pacifica Pier. This structure has required maintenance to repair areas where beach erosion has undermined it. Policies addressing increased coastal flooding from potential sea level rise are provided in Chapter 6, Coastal Resilience.
1.g
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 217 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-19
TSUNAMI
A tsunami can occur after a significant earthquake beneath the ocean. Coastal flooding, potentially severe damage, and threats to human health and safety can result from a tsunami. Recorded tsunami run-up magnitude is generally lower at Pacifica than other locations from San Francisco to Monterey, likely due to offshore bathymetry and shoreline alterations along the city. Tsunami hazards are generally coincident with the coastal flooding zones: at the Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada area, Lower Calera Creek, portions of Rockaway Beach, and the residential and commercial area at Linda Mar near the mouth of San Pedro Creek.
Tsunamis can reach Pacifica from several sources, including ‘far-field’ sources throughout the Pacific Ocean, a substantial earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone in northern California north to Vancouver Island, movement along local fault lines such as the Seal Cove Fault or San Gregorio Fault, and local coastal landslides. Travel times, the degree of warning, and the magnitude of the wave will vary depending on the source and initial strength of the tsunami-generating event. Earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone are likely the most hazardous to Pacifica because of the potential for very large wave generation, and a relatively short travel time (on the order of one to three hours). However, smaller events along local faults could result in a wave that reaches Pacifica with essentially no warning time, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the existing tsunami warning system.
According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are approximately 900 existing dwelling units within Pacifica’s tsunami run-up area.
San Mateo County has an established emergency proposal for tsunamis. As part of this program, the City has installed a tsunami warning system, consisting of three solar powered alarm towers. One is located in the Sharp Park neighborhood, the second is located in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood, and the third tower stands at Pacifica State Beach. This system links into a San Mateo County alert system that can reach email and cell phones.
Policies
Guiding Policies
NH-G-2 Development in Hazardous Areas. Site and design Protect development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risk without the need for armoring (e.g. flood damage prevention programs).
Implementing Policies
NH-I-22NH-I-21 Floodplain Management. Continue to manage floodplains through zoning, development requirements, and ordinances, and take other actions as required by FEMA, in order to remain a participant of the National Flood Insurance Program.
NH-I-23NH-I-22 Flood Map Review. Periodically review maps prepared by FEMA and the State Department of Water Resources to identify changes in mapping of areas subject to flooding and amend the General Plan, Municipal Code, or LCP as warranted.
5.8 1.g
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 219 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-21
communications facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone, and 100-year flood plains, and other portions of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone over the anticipated life of the development.
5.4 FIRE HAZARDS
New development is expected to minimize risks to life and property in high fire hazard areas (Section 30253).
Fire hazards in Pacifica include both urban and wildland fires. Urban fires involve the uncontrolled burning of built structures due to human-made causes; wildland fires affect grassland, forest, and brush (and the structures on them), and can result from either human or natural causes. Pacifica has a substantial risk of wildland fires, with many areas of high and very high threat within the Planning Area. The City’s main challenges regarding these hazards are:
• Actively Managing the Urban-Wildland Interface. Pacifica’s residents enjoy close contact with open ridges and woodlands. This brings with it the risk of proximity to wildland fires. Preparedness is essential, and the North County Fire Authority’s fire prevention activities, especially its Vegetation Management Program, are important.
• Maintaining and Enhancing Evacuation Routes. It is critical that road capacity exists for local residents, workers, and visitors to evacuate in case of an environmental disaster, including fire.
Urban Fires
Urban fires are fires that begin in a building in urban centers. They are typically localized but have the potential to spread to an adjoining building. The risk of urban fires is highest where single-family homes, multi-family residences, and business facilities are clustered close together, increasing the possibility of rapid spread to an adjoining building. The risk to life and property can be reduced by adopting and funding adequate levels of fire protection and ensuring new buildings are built to include fire resistive features which conform to modern fire and building codes.
Wildland Fires
Wildland fires are fires that start in a wooded or undeveloped area. Their potential for damage is dependent on the extent and type of vegetation, known as surface fuels, as well as weather and wind conditions.
Wildland fires occur infrequently but typically cause more damage than urban fires.
About two-thirds of Pacifica is undeveloped, and nearly half is protected open space. This undeveloped land is mainly on the rugged ridges that form the City’s western edge and descend down to the ocean between Pacifica’s valley communities. Coastal scrub is the predominant vegetation type, interspersed with annual grassland. Significant areas of eucalyptus forest and mixed woodland are present in eastern Sharp Park and on Cattle Hill and San Pedro Mountain. In California, most wildfire damage occurs in wildland urban interface areas, where homes and woodland vegetation are directly adjacent. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has designated Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) throughout the state based on factors such as fuel, slope, and weather to indicate varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate,
5.12 1.g
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 221 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-23
The CDF also designates land as either a State or Local Responsibility Area (SRA and LRA), based on population density, land use, and land ownership. The City of Pacifica is an LRA while the small areas of the Planning Area outside City limits are in an SRA. Lands in Pacifica owned by the federal government and the County are designated as a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) within the Pacifica LRA.
Fire and Emergency Services
The cities of Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica are contributing members of the North County Fire Authority (NCFA), a Joint Powers Authority established in 2003. The Fire Authority provides both emergency response and non-emergency public safety services to the three cities and their 185,000 residents in its service area.
Two of the Authority’s 10 stations are in Pacifica. Fire Station 71, at 616 Edgemar Avenue, serves the north end of Pacifica, while Fire Station 72, at 1100 Linda Mar Boulevard, serves the south end. Neither is located in the Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 223 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-25
Fire and Emergency Response
NCFA has established the following service ratio and response time standards:
• Service ratio standard: one responder per 1,500 population. • Response time standards for fire service: Four-minute travel time to 90 percent of calls for fire service, and eight-minute travel time for all apparatus on-scene for fire calls for service. • Response time standard for Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Under seven-minute travel time (6:59) for first response to 90 percent of calls.
Pacifica’s long and narrow geography and its reliance on Highway 1 as the single north-south access route makes the City a challenge for fire response. A 2008 study determined that the Vallemar, West and East Fairway Park, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway neighborhoods in central Pacifica are beyond four-minute travel distance from northern San Mateo County fire stations, corresponding with the standard response time for first-due fire apparatus. The full assignment response time standard cannot be met in Pacifica from Vallemar south.10
NCFA’s EMS standard is for 90 percent of calls to be reached in less than seven minutes. This standard is met for 97 percent of calls in the North Zone, including approximately 93 percent of calls in Pacifica.
The NCFA Fire Authority needs additional facilities to meet its fire response standards for Vallemar and areas to the south. A third, mid-point station in Pacifica with a truck and engine company has been discussed for some time. The area that currently does not meet first-response time standards has a low density of development, and so it has fewer persons and structures threatened by fire. A new station would be needed if the central part of Pacifica were to experience significant new development, for example at the Quarry site.
Pacifica has an ISO rating of 4. The City’s rating is unlikely to be affected by population growth, but population growth will increase existing deficiencies in service delivery.
Fire Prevention
The NCFA’s Fire Services Prevention Bureau manages code enforcement, plan review and construction inspection, fire investigations, and public education. A key part of the Bureau’s code enforcement activities is the annual safety inspection of every commercial business and multi-family residential property in its service area. The Fire Authority also conducts a Vegetation Management Program, promoting compliance with vegetation standards to reduce the threat of fire in the urban/wildland interface.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The regional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two several mitigation strategies for wildland fires in Pacifica, including update of its Emergency Operations Plan; pursuing opportunities to preserve and protect critical transportation infrastructure; and developing and delivering business programs and public outreach programs to promote resiliency and community preparedness. : review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and 10 Emergency Services Consulting, 2008.
1.g
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 225 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) CHAPTER 5: NATURAL HAZARDS
5-27
NH-I-38NH-I-37 Fire Prevention Inspections. Continue to require a fire prevention inspection of every permitted business and multi-family development covered by the North County Fire Authority.
NH-I-39NH-I-38 Fire Prevention Education. Continue educating the public about local fire hazard prevention programs. Work cooperatively with the North County Fire Authority to promote public awareness of fire safety and emergency life support.
NH-I-40NH-I-39 Vegetation Management. Promote and support the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards, if consistent with the LCP.
NH-I-41NH-I-40 Multi-Jurisdictional Approach. Participate in State or regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory frame-work to manage the wildland-urban interface, including implementation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
NH-I-42NH-I-41 Rockaway Quarry Service. Ensure that any new development at the Rockaway Quarry site is adequately served by public infrastructure, including fire and police services.
5.14 1.g
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 227 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6 COASTAL RESILIENCE
The purpose of this chapter is to provide policies which protect existing development from the hazard of sea level rise and which guide the design of new development to respond to sea level rise during the economic anticipated life of the project. Topics covered in this element include sea level rise projections, transfer of development rights (TDR), repair and replacement of existing shoreline protection structures (e.g., sea walls), and establishment of appropriate site design measures for new development.
Protection of property rights is an important theme in this chapter. Balancing appropriate protection of property and coastal resources along the dynamic coastline is an important theme in this chapter.
6.1 1.g
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 229 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 230 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 231 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 232 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 233 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6 -7
<<INSERT FIGURE 6-1>>>
1.g
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 235 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-9
The findings of the Vulnerability Assessment were used to inform which adaptation strategies may be appropriate to consider in each subarea and provide the background information for the subsequent study, the Adaptation Plan, which is discussed below. The Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps utilized the best available data at the time of preparation. The erosion scenario does not account for existing shoreline protection structures. This information is continually evolving and the maps reflect a long planning horizon recognizing typical design life of structures. Updated models and site-specific analysis could identify that the respective Coastal Vulnerability Zones may have shifted to include more or less area. Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps are not detailed to the parcel-scale and should not be used for real estate, financing, or insurance transactions, or other uses such as navigation, permitting, or regulatory uses. To confirm vulnerability potential, further studies should be performed for Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Coastal Vulnerability projections were sourced from publicly available data and existing models not created by the City of Pacifica.
Adaptation Plan
Following the above-mentioned Vulnerability Assessment, but also in 2018, the City prepared a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan6. The Adaptation Plan was prepared using information identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. The purpose of the Adaptation Plan was to be a background document that analyzed various adaptation strategies for each subarea, including the costs and benefits of each adaptation strategy, to inform future decisions on adaptation policies. The cost-benefit analysis section of the Adaptation Plan was not adopted or approved by the City of Pacifica. The purpose of the costbenefit analysis was to provide information regarding various sea level rise scenarios and adaptation options and was not intended to prescribe specific adaptation policies. The cost-benefit analysis was perceived to require additional work to adequately analyze the value of public recreational amenities.
The cost-benefit analysis shall not be used for any future purpose by the City of Pacifica or its planning processes, including implementation of the Local Coastal Program, public infrastructure investment, permitting or other regulatory purposes.
The Adaptation Plan modeled selected feasible adaptation strategies for each subarea. The plan identified environmental triggers for when an adaptation strategy would need to be implemented and the cost-benefit analysis of implementation. The cost-benefit analysis considered costs related to • Engineering
• Flooding and erosion
• Transient occupancy, sales, and property tax receipts • Property transactions
The estimated costs were then compared to the estimated benefits of the increased recreational value of expanded beach areas. The comparison was made using an economic methodology that detailed its assumptions as well as the limitations of the analysis and gaps in available data. The cost-benefit analysis was conducted using engineering unit cost estimates for adaptation measures and asset replacement, scheduling (and costing) of adaptation measures through time using a shoreline evolution model and flooding thresholds, and conducting a geographic information system (GIS) exposure analysis 6 Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, prepared by ESA. September 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58348.79&BlobID=14632. This footnote is for informational purposes only and does not constitute incorporation of the Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan into this LCLUP.
6.4 6.4
1.g
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 237 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-11
Additionally, the City also heard concerns from the public regarding the recreational beach value used in the cost-benefit analysis. Commenters were concerned that the $40/day per person-visit value was an unsupported value and the analysis overestimated beach attendance. Concerns were that an overestimated value would set a standard for future mitigation costs for maintaining current shoreline protection structures and would create an imbalance on the analysis in favor of managed retreat. The cost-benefit analysis in the Adaptation Plan was prepared to support and inform the comparison of various adaptation strategies. The cost-benefit analysis is not intended to establish a standardized statewide beach recreation value. As fully discussed in the Adaptation Plan, the City did address concerns that the $40/day per person-visit value was too high for Pacifica’s beaches and that the number of people using the beach was very small, lower than the estimates used in the Adaptation Plan.
In response, a sensitivity analysis was applied using a lower day-use value ($10/day per person-visit)8. In summary, significantly lowering the value of a beach day, or significantly lowering attendance, did not change the rank ordering of the alternatives in economic terms, except at Rockaway Beach, where a higher attendance estimate would justify beach nourishment, which would also help protect the hotels, restaurants and other businesses there.
The findings of the Adaptation Plan are just one of the considerations that were used to develop the Coastal Resilience policies below and, as discussed, the Coastal Resilience policies focus on protection and armoring of the shoreline for specific limited circumstances as provided for within the Coastal Act and reassessment of the Adaptation Plan in the future. Therefore, changes to the cost-benefit analysis are not necessary to inform the Coastal Resiliency policies. in a manner to discourage managed retreat as suggested by some public commenters detailed below would be unnecessary since the Coastal Resilience policies do not include managed retreat as an adaptation strategy. As noted earlier in this section, the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the Adaptation Plan shall not be used for any future purpose by the City of Pacifica or its planning processes.
The Adaptation Plan was prepared to inform City decision making about a variety of sea level rise adaptation policies, but does not include or dictate the ultimate policies selected by the City. Although managed retreat alternatives are analyzed in the Adaptation Plan in accordance with the City’s grant agreement with the CCC, these analyses do not, in themselves, equate to a managed retreat policy. The City uses other sea level rise adaptation policy in this LCP and any future changes to policy will require an amendment to this LCP. To the contrary, the City has rejected managed retreat as a sea level rise adaptation policy in this LCP and managed retreat could only become the policy of the City subsequent to a future amendment to the LCP.
As mentioned above, there are many unknowns associated with sea level rise. The science and modeling of sea level rise projections are inherently uncertain. The rate of sea level rise is highly dependent on whether global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase or whether global emissions will be reduced. The rate of sea level rise could be higher, or lower, than current projections. The Vulnerability Assessment and the Adaptation Plan are the background documents that were prepared to inform the development of the Coastal Resilience policies contained in the LCP. The background documents were prepared based on the best available science and available data at the time of preparation. As discussed 8 Note that the effect of lowering the beach value by 75% yields the same result as lowering attendance by 75% or reducing both attendance and unit value by 50%.
6.4 6.4
6.4 6.4
1.g
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 239 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-13
Implementing Policies
CR-I-1 Vulnerability Identification and Mapping. The City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones shall be mapped based on the best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. Mapping shall be updated as necessary to guide implementation of the LCP’s Coastal Resilience policies. Notwithstanding the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps, site-specific hazard mapping and assessment may be required as part of the individual development review process for properties within the City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones.
6.5 COASTAL RESILIENCE POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-2 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. The City shall implement its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan10 as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies. Adaptation alternatives evaluated in the Adaptation Plan that are not specifically expressed in these Coastal Resilience policies shall not be implemented without an amendment to the LCP, public notice, and opportunity for public input. The City shall monitor implementation and, consistent with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-4, update the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan to strengthen public safety, preserve existing neighborhoods, assure local economic vitality, respond to climate change, promote environmental justice, implement the Coastal Act, and protect the public trust.
Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones may be approved consistent with the subarea policies in Section 6.6 if the following findings can be made:
a. The proposed development is sited and designed to avoid, and where unavoidable, to minimize coastal hazards and impacts to coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the Adaptation Plan; b. All project impacts on coastal resources are avoided, and where unavoidable, minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-5) or consistent with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-59.
c. The project will not pose unacceptable risks to life or property for the anticipated life of the development or otherwise create a nuisance; and d. The project will not encroach on public trust lands for the anticipated life of the development; and
10 Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, prepared by ESA. September 2018. Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58348.79&BlobID=14632. This footnote is for informational purposes only and does not constitute incorporation of the Final Draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan into this LCLUP.
6.5 6.6
6.6 6.6
6.6 1.g
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 241 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-15
CR-I-6 Adaptation Funding. The City will pursue feasible grant funding sources or new funding mechanisms, such as the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHADs) as supported by NH-I-16, or securing FEMA and other federal or state adaptation and hazard mitigation funds, to finance adaptation strategies for public infrastructure.
CR-I-7 Transfer of Development Rights. Use the City’s transfer of development rights (TDR) ordinance to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones (sending sites) to receiving sites outside of Coastal Vulnerability zones. Identify areas where densities and heights may be increased using TDR credits, including to facilitate affordable housing.
CR-I-8 Critical Transportation Infrastructure. The City will pursue opportunities to preserve, protect, or relocate critical local transportation infrastructure, or provide alternative access, to mitigate against isolation and economic loss, and to ensure public safety, while avoiding (and where unavoidable minimizing and mitigating) impacts to coastal resources, including public access and recreation, to the maximum extent feasible, and being consistent with prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
CR-I-9 Hazard Prone Infrastructure. The City will preserve, protect, or relocate hazard prone infrastructure to maintain critical services and protect coastal resources, including if required by prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Preservation/protection in situ with shoreline armoring shall be required to meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57.
CR-I-10 Business Outreach. The City’s Economic Development Division shall provide nonfinancial assistance to businesses in evaluating options to promote business resiliency.
CR-I-11 High Water Program. The City will research and evaluate feasible new funding mechanisms to implement a program to record high water marks where feasible following high-water events.
CR-I-12 Flood Ordinance Consistency. The City will review and amend as necessary the flood damage prevention ordinance to assure consistency with the updated policies and ordinances of the LCP.
CR-I-13 LHMP Alignment. The City will coordinate its departments and programs to align the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the LCP to ensure proactive, coordinated and streamlined adaptation efforts and response to future coastal hazards. The City shall leverage FEMA funding opportunities for hazard mitigation and other related funding mechanisms to implement the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies.
6.9 6.10
1.g
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 243 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-17
As required in Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3, the City shall monitor erosion, flooding, and sea level rise amount into the future to identify triggers for future adaptation measures beyond initial actions required due to existing conditions. Where applicable, the titles of the policies in this subsection detail when the policy should be implemented. For example, CR-I-15 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infrastructure) should be implemented when 0 to 1 foot of sea level rise or a 260-foot bluff offset is experienced. The bluff offset is measured distance between the edge of the bluffs and the asset (e.g., infrastructure, development). These triggers do not account for regulatory permitting, approvals, or financing; therefore planning should be done in advance of the triggers.
Generally, for all lands within the Coastal Vulnerability 2050 Pacific Institute erosion hazard zones 11 ,
utilities, roadways and other public infrastructure should be floodproofed unless other adaptation alternatives are implemented and performing well, and only if consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies. The City should incentivize risk reduction (e.g, floodproofing, etc.) that property owners can invest in, with grant funding or code updates. In addition, the City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue floodproofing infrastructure that may be currently exposed to coastal erosion and flooding to reduce the consequences of under-performance of protection measures, only if such floodproofing infrastructure is 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. 244 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 245 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 246 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 247 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-21
The backshore of Northwest Sharp Park is armored but may be overwhelmed by waves with as little as one foot of sea level rise, due to existing scour and shoreline protection structure sloughing, increased wave loads and overtopping of the shoreline protection structure. Beaches tend to exist ephemerally in pockets, with armoring impeding lateral access from the degraded vertical access ways. Existing property and infrastructure are at risk from coastal erosion so actions should be taken soon. As directed by CR-I-5, the City will prepare a public access improvement plan as part of the Shoreline Mitigation Program . Due to the potential lead time of establishing a sand source, beach nourishment planning should begin immediately. CR-I-55 would direct the City to evaluate a citywide sand replenishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to determine the City’s preferred sand replenishment design.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-20 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Private land owners may maintain, expand, or construct new shoreline protection structures to protect existing structures in danger from erosion, consistent with CR-I-2 and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
CR-I-21 Beach Nourishment (0-2 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept), to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.
CR-I-22 Flood Protection (1 feet SLR). Enable property owners to modify development structures (e.g., elevate a residence) to manage impacts of wave run-up and overtopping of bluff face provided such modifications are consistent with the LCP and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.
SHARP PARK, WEST FAIRWAY PARK AND MORI POINT
The Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point sub-area (Figure 14 and Figure 15, Appendix B-4) includes land west of Highway 1 and contains the Palmetto Ave business district, Beach Boulevard Promenade, Fishing Pier, multiple City-owned parcels and landmarks, the Sharp Park Golf Course (SPGC), West Sharp Park and West Fairway Park neighborhoods and Mori Point. In order to represent the
6.20 6.21
6.22 1.g
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 249 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-23
levels expected in the future will be necessary (Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-3). Results of the monitoring will be considered during the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Update to determine if additional flood protection adaptation measures are necessary.
Implementing Policies
CR-I-23 Sharp Park Golf Course. Strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s ability to provide public access along the coast, protect 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. 250 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 251 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-25
protection structure maintenance needs. Establish mechanisms through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) to receive and use beach impact mitigation funds from other sub-areas of the City.
CR-I-33 Development Setbacks (ongoing). Implement new development shoreline setbacks consistent with CR-I-44.
CR-I-34 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to the private landowners of the Rockaway Headlands to voluntarily transfer development potential as supported by CR-I-7.
PACIFICA STATE BEACH & WEST LINDA MAR
This sub-area spans from the northeast end of Pacifica State Beach to the mouth of San Pedro Creek and includes land west of Highway 1 North. The beach is currently 100 to 250 feet wide. The backshore is mostly comprised of low vegetated dunes habitat in the middle and north portions, while a low seawall fronts the northern pump station and parking lot at the southwest end of the sub-area. The backshore in this sub-area is approximately 15 percent armored.
Adaptation policies for Pacifica State Beach and West Linda Mar are presented together because actions taken at Pacifica State Beach influence coastal hazard exposure to West Linda Mar. Much of the Pacifica State Beach sub-area has a persistent, relatively wide beach with bulkheads in the south transitioning to dune fields in the north. Hence, this shore and roadway can likely withstand at least 2 feet of sea level rise. However, the West Linda Mar sub-area east of Highway 1 has a low elevation and is subject to flooding from high creek flows and rising groundwater associated with sea level rise. Due to the existing beach widths at Pacifica State Beach and existing coastal armoring, armoring actions are not a near - term priority. However, conditions of existing armoring at the Anza stormwater pump station should be monitored to ensure protection in the near term. Nourishment of Pacifica State Beach should be initiated using the shoreline-backshore offset for the main parking lot. Beach nourishment projects should include dune restoration to maintain ecology, protect the sewer force main that is buried in the existing dune field north of the main parking lot/Anza pump station as well as provide flooding protection of Highway 1 and West Linda Mar. Pump stations at Pacifica State Beach are vulnerable to wave run-up and require floodproofing in place. The West Linda Mar neighborhood is also vulnerable to flooding from San Pedro Creek based on existing FEMA hazard maps and will become more vulnerable as sea level rise increases the flood levels in the creek via its ocean boundary condition. The West Linda Mar neighborhood was constructed in a former lagoon and experiences high groundwater issues in the lowest areas, which is evident by existing wetlands around the skate park and homes furthest west.
Groundwater in low areas near the ocean are directly influenced by the sea level, and thus groundwater issues will increase with sea level rise.
6.32 1.g
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 253 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-27
Implementing Policies
CR-I-41 Shoreline Protection Structure Upgrades. Allow maintenance of existing or new shoreline protection structures to reduce hazards and resource impacts if consistent with Policies CR-I-56 and CR-I-57. Mitigate impacts consistent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5), or CR-I-59, as necessary.
CR-I-42 Flood Protection (0-1 feet SLR). Allow private property owners to raise homes and other development structures above wave run-up hazards if consistent with Policy CR-I-61, consistent with height limitations.
6.7 NEW SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD POLICIES
Implementing Policies
CR-I-43 Technical Reports. Development proposed on the shoreline in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall include coastal engineering, geomorphology and other relevant technical reports unless on-site hazards already identified in a recent Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map or assessment approved within the last five years are adequate for evaluating and ensuring compliance with the LCP, including through use of permit conditions to address any uncertainty. Reports shall
• be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or other suitably qualified professional; • use the best available science;
• consider the impacts from the med-high projection (CalNRA & OPC 2018; or similar precautionary projections as reflected in future updated statewide guidance) of sea-level rise for the anticipated duration life of the proposed development;
• demonstrate that the development will avoid (or if unavoidable, minimize) impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection devices, except that 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. 254 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 255 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-29
• Public access structures where no feasible alternative means of public access exists; and
• Shoreline protection structures if otherwise allowed by the LCP and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Such shoreline protection structures shall be designed and constructed to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize effects on erosion of the bluff face, and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and to mitigate) coastal resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
CR-I-48 Minor Development in Shoreline Areas. Minor and/or ancillary development, including public trails, benches, gazebos, patios, etc., may be located seaward of a bluff or shoreline setback line provided that development is otherwise consistent with the LCP, does not create a hazard, does not use a foundation that can serve as a bluff retaining device, such as caissons, or that requires landform alteration, and that the development is removed or relocated by the landowner when threatened or in the event that portions of the development fall to the bluffs, beach or ocean.
CR-I-49 Substantial Structural Modifications to Existing Structures. When a proposed physical improvement modifications to an existing structure would constitute a Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM), as defined, the portion of the project constituting a SESM such proposed development shall correct any existing legal nonconformities and shall be undertaken consistent with the LCP and, if applicable, the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies CR-I-43 and CR-I-44. Any portion of the existing structure that remains and which is determined to be legally nonconforming with an LCP standard, including bluff setbacks or other hazard criteria, shall not be modified to increase the degree of nonconformity. 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. 256 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 257 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-31
CR-I-55 Beach Nourishment. In coordination with the California Coastal Commission and other permitting agencies (e.g., State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the City shall evaluate a beach nourishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations, consistent with sub-area policies and the Coastal Act. The beach nourishment program will need to be evaluated to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and will include measures to protect water quality and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and mitigate) potential adverse coastal resource impacts, including biological resource impacts, from deposition of material, including measures such as sand compatibility specifications, restrictions on volume of deposition, timing or seasonal restrictions, and identification of environmentally preferred locations for deposits. The City will also consider developing an opportunistic sand program and evaluate how replenishment options may need to change over time with sea level rise.
CR-I-56 Existing Shoreline Protection Structures. Except as may be otherwise provided in the LCP sub-area policies, legally permitted shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained, as supported by Section 30235 of the Coastal Act, subject to all coastal development permit requirements (including those associated with the construction of the structure and/or prior repair and maintenance episodes) until the development they are protecting is removed or redeveloped pursuant to the definition of a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) or no longer requires shoreline protection structures, at which time the shoreline protection structure shall be reevaluated for consistency with the LCP, and removed if no longer necessary and/or allowed, and the area restored.
Activities considered “repair and maintenance” shall not result in any enlargement or extension of modification to the shoreline protection structure, or any replacement of materials in excess of 50%, or any seaward encroachment or impairment of public trust resources, and shall provide mitigation for any new coastal resource impacts not previously or otherwise mitigated, including through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (CR-I-5) and/or Policy CR-I-59. Other modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification shall be considered to be an existing shoreline protection structure. This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification. Modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Structural Modification shall be considered to be allowed without the above mentioned considerations.
CR-I-57 New Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, deep piers and caissons, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall only be
6.48 6.49
6.50 6.51
1.g
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 259 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 6-33
conditions at the site and surrounding area, and whether the shoreline protection structure is still needed for protection. The plan shall require an inspection at least every five years to identify:
• Any structural damage and need for repair;
• Environmental impacts, including excessive scour, impacts to shoreline processes and beach width (at the project site and the broader area and/or littoral cell as feasible), and impacts to public access and the availability of public trust lands for public use; and
• The status of the existing structure being protected. • The monitoring plan shall also be updated to at a minimum include any specific requirements associated with coastal permit approval.
At least every 15 years the landowner shall submit a new Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) survey of the subject property based on field data collected within 12 months of the date submitted. Surveys shall comply with Coastal Resilience Policy CR-I-46.
6.9 COASTAL FLOODING AND OTHER HAZARD STANDARD POLICIES Implementing Policies
CR-I-61 Flood Risk Reduction. The City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue, floodproofing of infrastructure and other development in danger from projected flooding by 2050. Allow and facilitate (if feasible) private owners to floodproof development structures, consistent with other LCP policies.
1.g
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APOLICIES IN CHAPTER 3 OF
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
ACT
This appendix provides each policy of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended. These policies form the parameters for planning in the Coastal Zone, and are binding in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. In some cases, policies are not relevant to the specific setting of Pacifica’s Coastal Zone. This is noted in italics following the policy in question.
The six chapters of this LCLUP each begin with a section called “Coastal Act Framework,” where Coastal Act policies that are most applicable to the subject of the chapter are summarized. However, additional policies from this appendix may also apply.
1.g
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 262 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-3
(3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure. (4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure. (5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach.
As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
Section 30212.5 Public facilities; distribution
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities; encouragement and provision; overnight room rentals
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.
Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
The commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.
Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
1.g
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 264 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-5
support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land.
ARTICLE 4: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Section 30230 Marine resources; maintenance
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.
Section 30231 Biological productivity; water quality
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Section 30232 Oil and hazardous substance spills
Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur.
Section 30233 Diking, filling or dredging; continued movement of sediment and nutrients (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(l) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
1.g
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 266 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-7
mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fishkills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.
Section 30236 Water supply and flood control
Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (l) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
ARTICLE 5: LAND RESOURCES
Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
Section 30241 Prime agricultural land; maintenance in agricultural production The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas’ agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through all of the following:
(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses or where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development.
(c) By permitting the conversion of agricultural land surrounded by urban uses where the conversion of the land would be consistent with Section 30250.
(d) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (e) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (f) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b), and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.
No prime agricultural land exists in the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 268 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-9
ARTICLE 6: DEVELOPMENT
Section 30250 Location; existing developed area
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.
(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
Section 30252 Maintenance and enhancement of public access The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
1.g
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 270 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-11
Section 30261 Tanker facilities; use and design
Multicompany use of existing and new tanker facilities shall be encouraged to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, except where to do so would result in increased tanker operations and associated onshore development incompatible with the land use and environmental goals for the area. New tanker terminals outside of existing terminal areas shall be situated as to avoid risk to environmentally sensitive areas and shall use a monobuoy system, unless an alternative type of system can be shown to be environmentally preferable for a specific site. Tanker facilities shall be designed to (1) minimize the total volume of oil spilled, (2) minimize the risk of collision from movement of other vessels, (3) have ready access to the most effective feasible containment and recovery equipment for oil spills, and (4) have onshore deballasting facilities to receive any fouled ballast water from tankers where operationally or legally required.
No tanker facilities exist in the Pacifica Coastal Zone. Tanker facility development would be incompatible with land use and environmental goals for the area.
Section 30262 Oil and gas development
a) Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260, if the following conditions are met:
(1) The development is performed safely and consistent with the geologic conditions of the well site. (2) New or expanded facilities related to that development are consolidated, to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, unless consolidation will have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce the number of producing wells, support facilities, or sites required to produce the reservoir economically and with minimal environmental impacts. (3) Environmentally safe and feasible subsea completions are used when drilling platforms or islands would substantially degrade coastal visual qualities unless use of those structures will result in substantially less environmental risks.
(4) Platforms or islands will not be sited where a substantial hazard to vessel traffic might result from the facility or related operations, as determined in consultation with the United States Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.
(5) The development will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazards unless it is determined that adequate measures will be undertaken to prevent damage from such subsidence. (6) With respect to new facilities, all oilfield brines are reinjected into oil-producing zones unless the Division of Oil and Gas, Geothermal Resources of the Department of Conservation determines to do so would adversely affect production of the reservoirs and unless injection into other subsurface zones will reduce environmental risks. Exceptions to reinjections will be granted consistent with the Ocean Waters Discharge Plan of the State Water Resources Control Board and where adequate provision is made for the elimination of petroleum odors and water quality problems. (7)(A) All oil produced offshore California shall be transported onshore by pipeline only. The pipelines used to transport this oil shall utilize the best achievable technology to ensure maximum protection of public health and safety and of the integrity and productivity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
1.g
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 272 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-13
Section 30263 Refineries or petrochemical facilities
(a) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities not otherwise consistent with the provisions of this division shall be permitted if (1) alternative locations are not feasible or are more environmentally damaging; (2) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; (3) it is found that not permitting such development would adversely affect the public welfare; (4) the facility is not located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas; and (5) the facility is sited so as to provide a sufficient buffer area to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property.
(b) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall minimize the need for once-through cooling by using air cooling to the maximum extent feasible and by using treated waste waters from inplant processes where feasible.
Section 30264 Thermal electric generating plants
Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, except subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 30413, new or expanded thermal electric generating plants may be constructed in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has been determined by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to have greater relative merit pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516.1 than available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant's service area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516.
Section 30265 Legislative findings and declarations; offshore oil transportation The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Transportation studies have concluded that pipeline transport of oil is generally both economically feasible and environmentally preferable to other forms of crude oil transport. (b) Oil companies have proposed to build a pipeline to transport offshore crude oil from central California to southern California refineries, and to transport offshore oil to out-of-state refiners. (c) California refineries would need to be retrofitted if California offshore crude oil were to be used directly as a major feedstock. Refinery modifications may delay achievement of air quality goals in the southern California air basin and other regions of the state.
(d) The County of Santa Barbara has issued an Oil Transportation Plan which assesses the environmental and economic differences among various methods for transporting crude oil from offshore California to refineries.
(e) The Governor should help coordinate decisions concerning the transport and refining of offshore oil in a manner that considers state and local studies undertaken to date, that fully addresses the concerns of all affected regions, and that promotes the greatest benefits to the people of the state.
No known offshore oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 274 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES
A-15
(d) This act is not intended, and shall not be construed, to decrease, duplicate, or supersede the jurisdiction, authority, or responsibilities of any local government, or any state agency or commission, to discharge its responsibilities concerning the transportation and refining of oil. (Added by Ch. 1398, Stats. 1984.) No known offshore oil or gas fields exist in or adjacent to the Pacifica Coastal Zone.
1.g
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 276 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
B COASTAL VULNERABILITY
ZONE MAPS
This chapter provides maps which define areas identified in the Vulnerability Assessment as having the potential for erosion and/or coastal flooding under the PHGLXPhigh sea level rise scenario for year 2100.
1.g
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[B-
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
)DLUPRQW:HVW
1
Disclaimer: 7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
Appendix B-2
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
:HVW(GJHPDUDQG3DFLILF0DQRU
1RUWKZHVW6KDUS3DUN
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
Appendix B-3
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
6KDUS3DUN:HVW)DLUZD\3DUN
DQG0RUL3RLQW
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
k 0RELOH+RPH3DUN
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
0RELOH+RPHV
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
&KXUFK
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[%
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
5RFNDZD\%HDFK4XDUU\DQG+HDGODQGV
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B)LJVB&RPPXQLW\P[GMUM 6285&(
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\,PDJHU\
&LW\RI3DFLILFDQG60&$VVHWV
3DFLILF,QVWLWXWH(URVLRQ
2&2)&RDVWDO)ORRGLQJ
/HJHQG
3DFLILFDB&LW\/LPLWVB&$63
6XEDUHD%RXQGDULHV
&RPPXQLW\$VVHWV
$+ 6HQLRU&HQWHU
^_ $IIRUGDEOH5HQWDO
#* &RPPXQLFDWLRQ7RZHU
&RPFDVW8WLOLWLHV
/RFDO6WUHHWV
&LW\2ZQHG3DUFHO
/DQGPDUN
$W5LVNFRPPXQLW\
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
$JULFXOWXUH
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
0XOWL)DPLO\
&RPPHUFLDO
$XWR6HUYLFHV
+RWHOV
2IILFH
0L[HG8VH
8WLOLWLHV
,QGXVWULDO
6FKRROV
2WKHU3XEOLFRU&RPPXQLW\8VHV
2WKHU2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNV $FFHVVLEOH2SHQ6SDFH
%HDFK
9DFDQW8QGHYHORSHG
&RDVWDOVulnerability
:DYH5XQXS
IW6/5
6WRUP)ORRG$UHD
IW6/5
)ORRG3URQH$UHD
IW6/5
&RDVWDO(URVLRQ
)HHW
$SSHQGL[%
Coastal Vulnerability =RQH Map
3DFLILFD6WDWH%HDFK
:HVW/LQGD0DU
3HGUR3RLQWDQG6KHOWHU&RYH
1
'LVFODLPHU
7KH&RDVWDO9XOQHUDELOLW\=RQH
&9=
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
1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
REFERENCES
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Respective hotels; City of Pacifica; hotels.com; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2008.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2010.
ABAG Projections, 2010.
Plan Bay Area Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, 2012.
San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2008.
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA Annual Survey-FY 2007-08.
January 2009. Accessed at http://www.bawsca.org,2009.
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). CIP and Bond Projects Status Report February 20, 2008.
Accessed at http://www.nccwd.com, February 2008
NCCWD. Website http://www.nccwd.com, accessed May 2009.
RWQCB, 2006.
PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Pacifica General Plan, 1980
California Coastal Commission, “Some Facts About Public Prescriptive Rights,” accessed July 2013 at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/pr-access-facts.pdf.
San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2008.
National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/statistics.htm, accessed 2009.
California Park & Recreation Society. Market Research to Support CRPS Building the Brand Initiative. March 2009.
1.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 284 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
REFERENCES
R-3
NATURAL HAZARDS
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG07).
Fact Sheet 2016-20302008-3027. Forecasting California’s Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Regions 2014-2043s – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf. 2008. Accessed at https://pubs.usgs. gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Susceptibility http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/liquefac.html. 2003.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003; US Geological Survey, 2008; ESA.2009; City of Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Open File Report 97-745, San Francisco Bay Landslide Folio, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-745/. 1997.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). Coastal Erosion Along the U.S. West Coast During the 1997–98 El Niño: Expectations and Observations, http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/lidar/AGU_fall98/, 2005.
Heberger. M.H. Cooley, P. H. Gleick, E. Moore of Pacifica Institute. The impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. A paper from the California Climate Change Center. May 2009.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire). https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10315/firethreat_19_ada. Pdf Emergency Services Consulting, 2008.
COASTAL RESILIENCE
California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2015. Sea-level Rise Policy Guidance Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea-level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits.
Unanimously Adopted August 12, 2015.
California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2018. Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea-level Rise in Local Coastal Programs. March 2018, Revised.
California Natural Resources Agency (CalNRA) and California Ocean Protection Council (OPC), 2018. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update. Adopted March 2018.
City of Pacifica. 1994. City of Pacifica Implementation Plan codified in Articles 43 and 44, Chapter 4, Title 9 Planning and Zoning. Amended November 8, 2017. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=16544. Accessed on January 11, 2018.
1.g
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 286 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
REFERENCES
R-5
This page intentionally left blank.
1.g
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GLOSSARY
Acronyms
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
BART: Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAWSCA: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BMP: Best Management Practices
CCWRP: Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
CDF: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game
CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database
CRLF: California Red-Legged Frog
CRSMP: Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
ESHA: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FESA: Federal Endangered Species Act
GGNRA: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
HPD: Hillside Preservation District
LHMP: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID: Low Impact Development
NCCWD: North Coast County Water District
NCFA: North County Fire Authority
1.g
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 289 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GLOSSARY
G-3
Best Available Science: The most recent peer-reviewed and locally-relevant science reasonably validated by qualified experts in the scientific community, and as may be recommended by the State of California or other authoritative coastal management entity (e.g. NOAA).
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, operation and maintenance procedures, structural treatment devices, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the conveyance of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff.
Biodiversity: A term used to quantitatively or qualitatively describe the species richness and abundance of plants and animals within an ecosystem.
Bluff: A high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water.
Bluff/Cliff Edge: The upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff face, the bluff line or edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge.
Bluff Face: The portion of a bluff between the bluff edge and the toe of the bluff.
Buffer: A buffer is a development setback designed to minimize the disturbance that development may cause in sensitive environments, or to protect development from nuisances or hazards.
Building Footprint: The full horizontal extent of a structure and all attached structures, above or below grade.
Cliff: A high, very steep, perpendicular, or overhanging face of rock.
Coastal Access: The ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or in land coastal recreation areas and trails.
Coastal Bluff: A bluff, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion or the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified in Public Resources Code Section 30603(a)(1) or (a)(2)..
Coastal Development Permit (CDP): A permit for any development within the coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600 of the California Coastal Act.
Coastal-Dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea in order to function.
Coastal Hazards: Include but are not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, wave overtopping, coastal flooding, and their interaction, all of which may be exacerbated by sea level rise.
7.3 7.4
1.g
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 291 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GLOSSARY
G-5
Erosion: The wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical weathering; mass wasting; and the actions of waves, wind, and underground water.The process by which material is removed from the earth’s surface (including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, and transportation), most commonly by wind or water.
Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policiesEnvironmental Justice refers to the fair treatment of all people – regardless of race, income, and religion – when implementing policies that affect housing and the environment. The federal and State government have policies that require agencies to identify and avoid placing a disproportionately large number of minority and low-income populations in certain geographical locations.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA): Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development (California Public Resources Code Section 30107.5).
Estuary: A coastal water body, usually semi-enclosed by land, having open, partially obstructed, or intermittent exchange with the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater from the land.
Existing Structure: A structure that has any of the following characteristics:
i) lawfully constructed prior to the certification date of the LCLUP; or ii) permitted for construction prior to the certification date of the LCLUP, and all permits remained in full force and effect prior to the date of construction; or iii) authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.”
..
Fault Rupture: The displacement of the earth’s surface due to the movement along a fault associated with an earthquake.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Fluvial: Produced by the action of a stream.
Fill: Earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area.
Fuel Modification: A fire control strategy that thins vegetative cover within a buffer area surrounding development in order to interrupt continuous paths of fuel and provide defensible space to allow for firefighting operations in case of wildland fire.
7.6 7.7
1.g
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 293 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GLOSSARY
G-7
face areas and increase infiltration, such as use of permeable paving, vegetated swales, and water retention facilities.
Marine System: Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and coastline exposed to waves and currents of the open ocean shoreward to (1) extreme high water of spring tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergent vegetation, trees, or shrubs; or (3) the seaward limit of the Estuarine System, other than vegetation. Salinities exceed 30parts per thousand.
Mitigation: A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant measures are identified.
As defined in Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, mitigation includes:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Mitigation Measures:Mitigation Measures: Action taken to avoid, minimize, or eliminate environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by repairing or providing substitute resources or environments. Measures imposed on a project consistent with Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act to avoid, minimize, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the environment or for purposes of consistency with Coastal Act requirements.
Monitoring: The systematic collection of physical, biological, or economic data or a combination of these data in order to make decisions regarding project operation or to evaluate project performance. Monitoring is typically required for beach nourishment projects and habitat restoration projects.
Net Developable Area. The total area of land available for development, not necessarily the total area of a property itself. It does not include open space, drainage land, regional roads and land used for other public facilities.
New Development: Development, as defined in Section 30106 of the California Coastal Act, where no existing development occurs. New Development does not include the remodeling or improvement of an existing structure, as defined, and also does not include any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.”.
7.8 1.g
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 295 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GLOSSARY
G-9
tributaries, creeks, and flood control and drainage channels. “Sea” does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing directly or indirectly into such area.
Sea Cliff: A vertical or very steep cliff or slope produced by wave action, situated at the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave-cut platform, and marking the inner limit of beach erosion.
Seawall: A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action. It is usually a vertical wood or concrete wall as opposed to a sloped revetment.
Sediment: Grains of soil, sand, or rock that have been transported from one location and deposited at another.
Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: Those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. "Sensitive coastal resource areas" include the following: (a) Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan;(b) Areas possessing significant recreational value; (c) Highly scenic areas; (d) Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer; (e) Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas; (f) Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income persons; and(g) Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access.
Seiche: A standing wave in an enclosed body of water that may be caused by tidal action or a seismic event.
Shore: Narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach.
Shore Protection: Structures or sand placed at or on the shore to reduce or eliminate upland damage from wave action or flooding during storms.
Shoreline: Intersection of the ocean or sea with land; the line delineating the shoreline on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean low water line from the time the chart was prepared. Seaward of the base of coastal bluffs and/or at or near the sandy beach/ocean elevation, including as depicted in Appendix B (“Coastal Zone Vulnerability Maps”) and denoted as “wave run-up,” “storm flood area,” and “flood prone area.”
Shoreline Armoring: Protective structures such as vertical seawalls, revetments, riprap, revetments, and bulkheads built parallel to the shoreline for the purposes of protecting a structure or other upland property.
Special Status Species: Plant and animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts; species that are candidates for listing under federal or state law; species designated as USFWS species of concern or species of local concern; species designated by CDFG as species of special concern; species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald Eagle Protection Act; and species that may be considered rare or endangered pursuant to Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Any species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species
7.9 1.g
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 297 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
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. 298 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 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. 299 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 1-1
Paci ca and the Paci ca
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
City Limits
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; County of
San Mateo, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTEMLA VE
FRANCISCO BLVD
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
DVLB HCAEB
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
CLARENDON RD
1 92
35 1
1 280
Paci ca
380
101
101
280
101
280
80 101
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly
City
Half
Moon
Bay
Hillsborough
Paci ca Millbrae
San
Bruno
South San Francisco
Montara
Emery
S A N F R A N C I S C O
S A N
M A T E O
San
Francisco
Bay
Paci c
Ocean
Paci ca Planning Area
County Lines
Urbanized Area
Freeways
Highways
Major Arterials
BART
Caltrain
1.g
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Pac i c
O cea n
P A OTTE MLA VE
SHOREVIEW AVE
SALADA AVE
SANTA ROSA AVE
MONTECITO AVE
CLARENDON RD
P A OTTE MLA VE
CARMEL AVE
PALOMA AVE
PACIFIC AVE
SAN JOSE AVE
SANTA MARIA AVE
GRAND AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE
DANMANN
HALLING WAY
SHELTER COVE
STANLEY AVE
KENT RD
OLYMPIAN WAY
STERLING AVE
LIVINGSTON AVE
ROCKAWAY BEACH
DONDEE ST
OLD COUNTY RD
SAN MARLO WAY
2 1
1 2
3 4
6 5
7 Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 2-2:
Existing Land Use
in the Coastal Zone
Single-family Resdiential
Multi-family Residential
Mobile Homes
Commerical
Auto Services
Hotels, Motels
O ce
Mixed Use
Utilities
Industrial
Schools
Church
Other Public or Community Uses
Other Open Space
Parks & Accessible
Open Space
Beach
Agriculture
Vacant/Undeveloped
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
City Limits
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci
ca, 2019; County of San Mateo,
2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Visitor Accommodations
1 San Francisco RV Resort
2 America’s Best Value Inn
Paci
ca
3 Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
4 Sea Breeze Motel
5 Paci
ca Motor Inn
6 Holiday Inn Express
& Suites Paci
ca
7 Paci
ca Beach Hotel
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
Paci ca Pier
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTE MLA VE
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
ESPLANADE AVE
DVLB HCAEB
DVLB OCSI CNARF
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MONTEREY RD
FRANCISCO BLVD
1.g
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GAT EWAY DR
FIRECREST AVE
INVERNESS DR
MONTEREY RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
SKYLINE BLVD
GLENCOURT
MONTEREY RD
VEA OTTEMLAP
EDGEMAR DR
MILLER AVE
AVALON DR
OCEANA BLVD
PALOMA AVE
TALBOT AVE
BRADFORD WAY
SHARP PARK RD
MOANA WAY
LUNDY WAY
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
REINA DEL MAR AVE
ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE
TERRANOVA BLVD
EVERGLADES DR
ODDSTAD BLVD
CRESPI DR
LERIDA WAY
CRESPI DR
SEVILLE DR
MANZANITA D
A
R
LICANTE
LIN
DR
DA MAR BLVD
ROSITA RD
ROSITA RD
ADOBE RD
PERALTA RD
DE SOLO
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER AVE
PARK LINCOLN GRAND AVE
WESTBOROUGH
KING DR
SKYLINE BLVD
MILAGRA DR
HICKEY BLVD
ESPLANADE AVE
MANOR DR
ROBERTS RD
SHARP PA RK RD
SEASIDE DR
CLARENDON RD
P a c c
O c e a n
D e vi l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 2-3:
Land Use Diagram
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Planning Area
City Limits
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
Urban Reserve (Unincorporated)
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Zone
ESPLANADE AVE VEA OTTEMLAP
DVLB HCAEB
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MONTEREY RD
PALMETTO AVE
SHOREVIEW AVE
SALADA AVE
LINDA
SANTA ROSA AVE
MONTECITO AVE
CLARENDON RD
VEA OTTEMLAP
CARMEL AVE
PALOMA AVE
PACIFIC AVE
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN JOSE AVE
SANTA MARIA AVE
GRAND AVE
DANMANN
HALLING WAY
SHELTER COVE
STANLEY AVE
KENT RD
OLYMPIAN WAY
STERLING AVE
LIVINGSTON AVE
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
SAN PEDRO AVE
Note: Senior or a
ordable housing may be
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Office Commercial
Service Commercial
Visitor-Serving Commercial
1.g
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) West Edgemar,
Paci c Manor
Fairmont
West
West
Sharp
Park
Sharp Park GC,
West Fairway Park,
and Mori Point
Pedro Point
and
Shelter Cove
Rockaway Beach,
Quarry, and
Headlands
Paci ca
State
Beach
F
Northern
Coastal
Blu s
Bowl Site
Paci
c
Manor
Industrial
Northern
Palmetto
Promenade and Beach
Boulevard Property
Palmetto Ave
Eureka Square and
Mixed Use Center
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach
Rockaway
Headlands
Undeveloped
San Pedro
Avenue Site
Pedro Point
Shopping Center
Shamrock
Ranch
Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Figure 2-4:
Sub-Areas &
Speci c Sites
Subarea
Speci c Sites
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTEMLA VE
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
DVLB HCAEB
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Key to Area Maps
1.g
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
Bowl
Manor
Shopping
Center
Industrial
Northern
Palmetto
Beach
Boulevard
Property
Palmetto
Ave
Eureka Square
and Mixed
Use Center
Fish
Undercrossing
Fairmont
West Park
Ingrid B.
Lacy
Middle
School
City
Hall
Promenade
Sharp
Park
Golf
Course
Overcrossing
Overcrossing
San
Francisco
RV Park
Pier Talbot Rd Trail
Coastal Trail
West Edgemar,
West
Sharp
Park
Fairmont
West
Lands End
Apts.
12 10
11 9
4 5
2 1
7 VEA OTTEMLAP
BEACH BLVD
PALMETTO AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
FRANCISCO BLVD
7 8
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Service Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Park
Conservation
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
top/View)
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Existing Trail
Proposed Trail
On-street trail
Subareas
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-5:
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
3 6
8 1.g
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Sharp Park
Golf Course,
West Fairway Park
& Mori Point
Rockaway Beach,
Quarry, &
Headlands
State
Beach
Rockaway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach Rockaway
Headlands
Water Recycling
Plant
Flats
Pad
Proposed
Overcrossing
Undercrossing
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
SEASIDE DR
Mor i Po i n t
( G GNR A )
Sh a r p Pa r k
& Golf Cour s e
Sharp
Park
Beach
12 14
13 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 7
8 0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(16 -21 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Center
(30 to 50 units/acre)
Retail Commercial
Service Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Public and Semi-Public
Park
Conservation
Transportation Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
top/View)
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Existing Trail Proposed
Trail
On-street trail
Existing Trailhead
Subareas
Speci c Sites
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-6:
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
15 16
1.g
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) State Beach
Pedro
Point
& Shelter
Cove
Pedro Point Trail
Coastal Trail
Undeveloped
San Pedro Ave Site
Pedro Point
Shopping
Center
Shamrock
Ranch
GRAND AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE
Devil’s Slide Trail
DEVIL’S SLIDE TUNNEL
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
State Beach
25 21
22 23
24 26
27 Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Retail Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
Urban Reserve
Transportation Corridor
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Existing Trail
Proposed Trail
On-street trail
Existing Trailhead
Proposed Trailhead
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points
View Corridor
20 Subareas
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 3-1
Figure 2-7:
outh
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed at up
to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
Note: ordable housing may be
developed up to 1.5 times the maximum with the
Density Bonus program.
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Visitor-Serving Commercial
16 1.g
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
GAT EWAY DR
FIRECREST AVE
INVERNESS DR
MONTEREY RD MANOR DR
SKYLINE BLVD
GLENCOURT
MONTEREY RD
EDGEMAR DR
MILLER AVE
AVALON DR
OCEANA BLVD
PALOMA AVE
TALBOT AVE
BRADFORD WAY
SHARP PARK RD
MOANA WAY
LUNDY WAY RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
REINA DEL MAR AVE
ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE
TERRANOVA BLVD
EVERGLADES DR
ODDSTAD BLVD
CRESPI DR
LERIDA WAY
CRESPI DR
SEVILLE DR
MANZANITA D
A
R
LICANTE
LIN
DR
DA MAR BLVD
ROSITA RD
ROSI
ADOBE RD
TA RD
PERALTA RD
DE SOLO
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER AVE
PARK LINCOLN
WESTBOROUGH
KING DR
SKYLINE BLVD
MILAGRA DR
HICKEY BLVD
MANOR DR
ROBERTS RD
SHARP PA RK RD
CLARENDON RD
Pa c
O c e a n
De v i l ’ s S l i de T u nn e l
Pier
Sh a r p Pa r k
G o l f C o u r s e
Mo r i P o in t
( G G N R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
23 25 24 26
27 22
21 20
19 18
17 13
14 7
5 2
1 1
3 Figure 3-1:
Coastal Access
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Coastal Access Points
Coastal Access Points
(Beach)
Regional Open Space
Neighborhood &
District Parks
Golf Course
Beach
Conservation
Partial Conservation
with Development
School
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
on GGNRA land
Pursue small public park and trail
Improve public access and
Maintain public parking as part
of redevelopment of City-owned
Beach Boulevard property
Ensure public access
Provide public trail to overlook
point as part of development
or land conservation
Provide additional signage and amenities
at Crespi Drive parking lot in relation to
proposed extension of Baquiano Trail
Improve new segment of Coastal Trail
along former railroad berm
Trail and access improvements expected under
land steward management; new trails should
provide coastal views from Pedro Peak
PALMETTO AVE
ALMETTO A P VE FAIRWAY DR
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
3 4
9 8
7 6
12 11
10 14 15
16 Ensure public access to beach
in 400-block of Esplanade Avenue
if feasible
and restore blu conditions
Play elds
1.g
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) P
acc
Ocean
D e vi l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 3-2:
Parks and Open Space
System
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Park Opportunity Site
RegionalOpenSpace
District, Neighborhood,
& Pocket Parks
Special Facilities
Schoolelds
Priorities for Conservation
Golf Course
Beach
OtherProtected OpenSpace
PartialConservation
with Development
Urban Reserve
Visitor Serving Commercial
LowIntensity Visitor-
Serving Commercial
Visitor Parking Lot
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
P
PALMETTO AVE
VE A OTTE MLAP
FAIR
WAY DR
GRAND AVE
SEASIDE
DR
Pier
Sharp Park
Go lfC ourse
MoriPoint (GG N R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State Beach
Northern Coastal
Ingrid B. Lacy
Middle School
Rockaway
Quarry
Site
Fairmont
West Park
Sharp Park Beach Promenade
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN PEDRO AVE
BEACH BLVD
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019: San Mateo
1.g
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
MilagraRidge Trail
PiertoRidge Trail
SharpPark Trail
Mori RidgeTrail
BaquianoTrail Trail
San Pedro Valley Trail
PedroPo ni t Trail
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
De v il’s Slide T rail
HarryDean Trail
Pac i c
O cea n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 3-3:
Trail System
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Existing Trails
Existing On-Street
Trail Routes
Proposed Trails or
Trail Improvements
Proposed On-Street
Trail Routes
Coastal Trail
Existing Trailheads
Trailheads to be
Improved
Visitor Parking Lot
Existing SR 1 Crossing
Proposed SR 1 Crossing
Regional Open Space
Neighborhood, District
and Pocket Parks
Golf Course
Beach
Other Protected Open Space
Partial Conservation
with Development
School Play elds
100
Contour
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2008; San Mateo
County, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
OLD COAST HWY
P A OTTE MLA EV
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
SAN JOSE AVE Paci ca
Pier
Sha rp Pa r k G ol f C ou r s e
Mor i Poi n t (G GN R A )
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
BLVD
Fa r allon View
1.g
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Paci c
O cean
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 3-4:
BicycleNetwork
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Existing Class I
Proposed Class I
Existing ClassII
Proposed Class II
Existing Class III
Proposed Class III
Class III to be upgraded
to Class II
Class I to be upgraded
Bicycle Lockers
Bicycle Parking
Changing Room w/Water
Changing Room w/oWater
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
Pedestrian/Bicycle Underpass
Existing Link
PotentialLinkto UnpavedTrail
Coastal Zone
Parks/Open Space
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2009;
SanMateoCounty, 2009;Dyett&Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
OLD COASTHWY
P A OTTE MLA EV
FRANCISCO
BRADFORD
FAIR
WAY DR SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD
SAN PEDRO
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
1.g
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Pac
i c
Ocean
GATEWAY
DR
PALMETTO AVE
MONTEREY RD
EVA OTTE MLAP
OCEANA BLVD
PA
L
O
MA
AVE
TA
L
B
OT
AVE
DVLB OCSI CNARF
CLARENDON RD BRADFORD WAY SHARPPA RK
R
D
M
O
A
N
A
WAY
LUNDY WAY
FAIR
WAY DR RIDG
E
WAY DR
SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD ROCKAWAY BEACH
AVE
FASSLER AVE
SAN PEDRO AVE GRAND AVE
MILAG
RA
D
R
ESPLANADE AVE
MANOR
DR
ROBERTS RD
Manor Dri
ve
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned imp
r
o
vements)
R
E
I
N
A
D
E
L
MA
R
AVE
CRESPI
DR
LINDA MAR
BLVD
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 3-5:
RoadwayNetwork
and Planned
Improvements
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Freeway
MultiLane Highway
TwoLane Highway
Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Unimproved RightofWay
Planned Improvement
PotentialFuture Street
Pedestrian Priority Zone
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2019;
San Mateo County,2019;Dyett& Bhatia,
2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
1.g
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
112
110
14 16
16 16
14 294
110
112
19 16
140
140
112
16 14
14 110
294
118 112
P
P
16 110
49 49
19 49
19 19
Manor Dri
v
e
O
v
e
r
c
rossing
(planned)
Pac
O cean
D e vi l’ s S l i d e T u nne l
Figure 3-6:
Transit Routes
and Facilities
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 SamTrans to BART
SamTrans to Caltrain
Local Service
Park and Ride Lot
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Paci ca, 2019; DKS, 2019; San
Mateo County, 2019; Dyett& Bhatia,2019.
118
GATEWAY
DR
OLD COASTHWY
MONTEREY RD
E AV TO TE LM PA
OCSI CNARF
BRADFORD SHARPPARK
R
D
FAIR
WAY DR SEASIDE DR
BEACH BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
FASSLER
AVE
SAN PEDROGRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
Sharp Park Golf Cour s e
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlands
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA) CRESPI DR
SamTrans OnDemand
Service Area
1.g
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) NORTH
GLOBE
BIG
INCH
MILAGR A
CREEK
UNNAMED
SANCHEZ
CREEK
CALER A
CREEK
QUARRY
SAN PEDRO
CREEK
Milagra Creek
S anchez Cr eek
Cal e r a Creek
Roc kaway Creek
San P edro Cree k
Pac i c
O cea n
D e vil’s
Sl i d e T u n n e l
Figure 4-1:
Hydrology
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Creeks
Water Treatment Facility
Stream Restoration Projects
Coastal Zone Protected Open Space
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2009;
City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Watersheds
Sharp Par k Golf Cours e
Paci ca
Pier
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pedro Poin t
Headland s
(GGNRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Treatment
Facility
Laguna
Salada
Horse
Stable
Pond
OLD COAST HWY
AP ML ET OT VA E
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR FRANCISCO BLVD
1.g
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 0 1/4 1/2
1 MILES
2 Pac i c
O c e a n
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
Figure 4-2: Vegetation
Annual Grassland
Coastal Blu Scrub
Eucalyptus
Northern Coastal Scrub
Monterey Cypress
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Beach/Intertidal
Urban
Creeks
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: California Dept of Fish & Game,
1988, 2003; California Dept of Forestry,
2009; USDA Forest Service, 2017;
FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2009; City of
Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Ped ro Point
Headlan d s
(GG NRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Water
Recycling
Plant
N o r ther
n C oastal Scru b
Norther
n Coastal Scru b
Ann u a l Grassl a n d
A nn ua
l Grass la n d
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Beach/Intertidal
Eucalyptus
Monterey
Cyprus
Coastal
Blu Scrub
Beach/
Intertidal
Beach/Intertidal
Urban
Urban
Urban
Ann u a l
Grassl a n d
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Norther
n Coastal Scru b
Beach/Intertidal
Coastal
Blu Scrub
P A OTTEMLA EV
DVLB OCSICNARF
CLARENDON RD
FAIRWAY DR
SAN PEDRO
ESPLANADE AVE
1.g
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Pa
c
O ce a n D e vil’ s S l i d e T u nne l
Figure 4-3:
Potential
Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat
Areas
0 1/4 1/21
MILES
2 Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
SOURCE: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2019;
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2019;
National Park Service, 2009; USDA Forest
Service, 2017; California Natural Diversity
Database, 2019; California Native Plant
Society, 2019; California Dept of Fish &
Game, 2019
; FEMA, 2017; ESA, 2008;
City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County,
2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Critical Habitat
Steelhead
California Red-Legged Frog
Pier
Sharp Pa r k
Golf Cour s e
Mori Poi n t
(GGNR A )
Ped ro Poi n t
Headlan d s
(GG NR A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
E AVTOTELMPA
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE
DR
San Pedro Creek
Potential ESHA
Note: The preliminary delineation of ESHA boundaries does not include an exhaustive compilation of the habitat areas that meet the ESHA definition. Site-specific biological evaluations and field observations shall be required to identify ESHAs and other special status resources that may not have been included in the literature and database review.
1.g
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
200
300
400
100
Mori Point
Rockaway
Headlands
Pedro Point
Headlands
Pacific
Ocean
D evil’s Slid e T u n n el
Figure 4-4:
Visual Resources
0 1/2 1 1/4
MILES
2 Source: US Geological Survey, 2009; City of
Pacifica, 2008; San Mateo County, 2009;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
Gateways
Prominent Landforms
Coastal View Corridors
Scenic Routes
Prominent Ridges
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Pacifica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Rockaway
State Beach
PALMETTO AVE
PALMETTO AVE
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
Manor Dr
Palmetto Ave
Paloma Ave
Salada Ave
Clarendon Rd
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Coast Highway
Shelter Cove/Shoreside Dr
Rockaway Beach
1.g
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
300
200
100
100
Pac i c
O c e a n
Dev i l’s S l ide
Tunne l
Figure 5-1:
Liquefaction and
Fault Lines
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
San Andreas Fault
Alquist-Priolo Zone
100 foot contour interval
400 foot contour interval
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
Liquifaction Potential
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments,
2003; US Geological Survey, 2019; ESA. 2009; City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019. 100
400
Paci ca
Pier
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paci ca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
EVA OTTE MLAP
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
FRANCISCO BLVD
1.g
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400 500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600
500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000 900
800
500 600
700
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500 400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 1100
300
200
300
200
300
400
600 500
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
900
1220
200
300
300
400
Pa c c
O ce a n
De v i l ’ s S l i de T u nn e l
Figure 5-2:
Slope Failure and Shoreline
Protection Structures
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Mostly Landslides
Few Landslides
Not Landslide Prone
Seawall
Riprap, Other Revetments
500 foot Contours
100 foot Contours
Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
DFIRM, 2017; US Geological Survey, 1997; ESA, 2009; City of Paci ca, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia,
2019.
Shoreline Protective Structures
Note:
Pier
Sharp Pa r k
Golf Cour s e
Mori Poi n t
(GGNR A )
P e d ro Po i n t
Headlan d s
( G G N R A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
(GGNRA)
OLD COAST HWY
EV ALMETTO A P
BRADFORD WAY
FAIRWAY DR
BEACH BLVD
GRAND AVE
ESPLANADE AVE
SEASIDE DR
FRANCISCO BLVD
SAN PEDRO AVE
1.g
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 8-16
Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
G ol f Course
San Pedro Valley County Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge (GGNRA)
FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
ODDSTAD BLVD
GRAND AVE
ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE
REINA DEL MAR AVE
CRESPI DR
CRESPI DR
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
PALOMA AVE
CLARENDON RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MI LAGR ADR
MONTEREY RD
IVERNESS DR
NELSON AVE
PA ML ETTO AVE
ADOBE DR
BEACH BLVD
HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
P e n i n s u l a Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
Devil' s Slide Tunnel
PERALTA RD
ROSITA RD
EVE RGLAD ES DR
M ANZA NI T A DR
LERI D A WAY
R OBERTSRD
SHAR P P A RK R D
BRADFORD WAY
ESPLANADE AV E
E DGEMAR A VE
GAT EWAYDR
FIRECREST AVE
OCEANA BLVD
SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE
MOANAW AY
Water
Recycling
Plant
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Source: National Flood Hazard Layer for San Mateo
County, FEMA, 2019; Tsunami Hazard Area for
San Mateo County, Department of
Conservation, State of California, 2021; City
of Pacifica, 2020; San Mateo County, 2020;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
Flood Zones
Planning Area
City Limits
0.2% Annual Chance
Flood Zone
1% Annual Chance
Flood Zone
1% Annual Chance
Coastal Flood Zone
Tsunami Evacuation Area
Historic
Figure 5-3: Flood Zones
& Clubhouse
1.g
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
G ol f Course
San Pedro Valley
County Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge (GGNRA)
FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD
GRAND AVE
ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE
CRESPI DR
FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
PALOMA AVE
CLARENDON RD
PALMETTO AVE
MANOR DR
AVALON DR
MI LAGR ADR
MONTEREY RD
IVERNESS DR
NELSON AVE
PALMETTO AVE
ADOBE DR
BEACH BLVD
HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Peninsula
Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
Devil' s Slide Tunnel
PERALTA RD
ROSITA RD
EVE RGLAD ES DR
M ANZA NI T A DR
LERI D A WAY
R OBERTSRD
SHAR P P A RK R
BR
D
ADFORD WAY
ESPLANADE AV E
E DGEMAR A VE
GAT EWAYDR
FIRECREST AVE
OCEANA BLVD
SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE
MOANA WAY
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
LINDA M AR BLVD
ODDSTAD BLVD
LINDA MAR BLVD
C R E SPIDR
REINA DEL MAR AVE
Police
Station
Fire
Station
#72
Fire Station # 71
LRA
FRA
SRA
FRA
FRA
LRA
FRA
LRA
LRA
SRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
LRA
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in State Responsibility Area
Very High
High
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, 2020; City of Pacifica, 2019; San
Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.
Public Safety Facilities
Fire Protection
Responsibility Area
City Limits
Planning Area
Local (LRA)
State (SRA)
Federal (FRA)
LRA
SRA
FRA
The City will update this
figure as new recommended
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
maps are adopted by the City.
Historic
Figure 5-4:
Fire Hazards and
Emergency Services
& Clubhouse
1.g
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) :HVW/LQGD0DU
3HGUR3RLQWDQG
6KHOWHU&RYH
6KDUS3DUN:HVW)DLUZD\3DUNDQG0RUL3RLQW
)DLUPRQW:HVW
5RFNDZD\%HDFK4XDUU\DQG+HDGODQGV
1RUWKZHVW6KDUS3DUN
:HVW(GJHPDU3DFLILF0DQRU
3DFLILFD6WDWH%HDFK
3DWK
8
?*,6?*,6?3URMHFWV?[[[[?'B3DFLILFD/&3?B0;'VB3URMHFWV?7B9XOQHUDELOLW\?9$B3URMHFW$UHDP[GMUM
6285&(
&LW\RI3DFLILFD
/HJHQG
3DFLILFD&LW\/LPLWV6XEDUHDV
0LOHV
)LJXUH6-
Coastal Resilience6XEDUHDV
1 /RFDWLRQ0DS
1.g
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
1.g
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
1.g
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Questions Received from Council before May 9, 2024
Is this true?: "Anything less than full destruction
of a structure due to natural disaster counts
toward an SSM. You're better off letting that
kitchen fire burn down your entire house then
putting it out. Other examples include
earthquake, wind damage, tree damage, etc."
No, California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff have clarified that in their interpretation of Section 30610(g) of the Coastal Act, the term “destroyed” means a structure has been rendered uninhabitable. In order for a structure to be considered a residence for habitation, it must provide the minimum kitchen, sanitation, and sleeping requirements in the California Building Code. There are several ways that a structure can be damaged that would deem it uninhabitable. For example, if a portion of the structure itself is damaged and the structure is then open to the environment, or if the bathroom is damaged and then the residence no longer meets sanitation requirements, then it is considered uninhabitable.
Would upgrades to any part of the property
trigger a deed restriction? Is this for any
development on the property (uninhabitable and
habitable) or just the livable spaces (habitable
areas) of a property vs. a storage shed
(uninhabitable structure)/deck?
No, only approval of a Coastal Development Permit would trigger a deed restriction for properties within the Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) and Tsunami Inundation Zone (as stated in the City Alternative Modification draft). The CVZ and Tsunami Inundation Zone function like overlay zones within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone has an appeal and non-appeal jurisdiction. There are certain types of projects that can be approved via a building permit in the non-appeal zone that require a CDP within the appeal jurisdiction.
The Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) policies do not distinguish between habitable and uninhabitable areas, also sometimes referred to as conditioned and unconditioned spaces.
Property that has more concrete for driveways
and carports than structures. Would existing
property be considered a new development if
one demolished the concrete and replaced it or
changed it to asphalt? (uninhabitable structure)
The definition of development includes placing and replacing of materials. However, just because something is considered development does not mean that it requires a Coastal Development Permit or it meets the definition of Substantial Structural Modification (SSM). In this instance, replacement of concrete to asphalt, with no other changes, may not even require a building permit and would therefore not trigger the SSM definition.
What about decks or carport overhangs? Is this
considered new development if I make
repairs/waterproof and/or replace them?
(uninhabitable structure) Would this be
considered new development?
Again, the definition of development includes placing and replacing of materials. However, just because something is considered development does not mean that it requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or it meets the definition of Substantial Structural Modification (SSM). The permitting requirements depend on where the project is proposed (i.e. appeal or non-appeal jurisdiction and CVZ or non-CVZ). Generally, more types of development would require a CDP in the appeal jurisdiction.
The permit requirement and whether it is considered an SSM also depends on the amount of repair and replacement. For example, on an oceanfront property (which will always be in the appeal jurisdiction based on its location), complete replacement of an existing deck may require a CDP and, because decks are a structural component, would count towards
1.h
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) the SSM calculations. However, minor repair and replacement of some deck boards would not require a CDP or count towards the SSM calculations. There are also exemptions from SSM calculations for exterior waterproofing/weatherproofing along with other types of improvements, which would exempt these types of projects. The case studies published for the March 2nd Special Meeting provide a good overview of these differences.
What about replacing existing fences? If I change
the style and materials of the existing fence and
replace them. (uninhabitable structure) Would
this be considered new development?
Replacement of an existing fence, like for like, is unlikely to trigger a CDP or count towards a SSM. See above response for further clarification.
What about replacing existing siding on a building
(habitable structure - where tenants live)?
Replacement of existing siding will not trigger a CDP or count towards a SSM due to the exemptions included in the SSM definition. See above response for further clarification. “Reinforcing” a carport or detached garage, if it involves replacement of structural components, could count toward an SSM. There are exemptions for certain types of structural component replacements, such as those for dryrot/termite repair, or seismic retrofits/upgrades.
What about replacing existing siding or
reinforcing a structure, like a carport or detached
garage (uninhabitable structure)? Would this be
considered new development?
What if I add electric car charging stations on my
property, is this considered new development?
(uninhabitable structure)
Electric charging stations are generally approved via a building permit and would typically not require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). In some instances, installation of electric charging stations on commercial and/or multi-family properties may require a CDP based on the location, loss of parking, changes to circulation, loss of landscaping, etc. Even then, electric charging stations are unlikely to involve replacement of structural components and thus, would not count toward the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition.
What if I add solar on top of habitable structures
and/or uninhabitable structures, is this
considered new development?
Roof-top solar can usually be approved via a building permit only. However, if structural roof improvements are needed to accommodate the roof-top solar, then refer to the case studies from the March 2nd Special Meeting related to new and replacement roofs.
What if I add electricity to decks and fencing (that
does not currently exist), is this considered new
development? (uninhabitable structure)
Adding electrical outlets to existing structures can be done via a building permit. This type of electrical work also does not typically include structural modifications, and thus, would not count toward the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition.
Do SRA's allow for maintenance, improvement or
complete rebuilding of coastal protections like
the Sharp Park seawall?
The SRA policies do not allow or prohibit shoreline protection structures. Other LCLUP policies and Coastal Act provisions regulate shoreline protection structure construction/replacement. The SRAs allow development to rely on existing shoreline protection structures.
1.h
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) If part of their purpose is to protect existing
infrastructure why does it start and stop in West
Sharp Park? What about the golf course?
What about the shoreline next to the Palmetto
Ave. corridor that carries infrastructure from the
Manor? If that's not protected erosion on those
bluffs will compromise the Shoreview
neighborhood, IBL Middle School and everything
up to and including the Manor Shopping Center
and the rest of the Esplanade apartments.
The SRA boundary was decided in part based on the location of existing publicly owned and continuous shoreline protection structures. Additionally, “existing infrastructure” includes more than utilities. It includes public infrastructure like sidewalks, roads, trails, and public parking. In the Sharp Park and Rockaway SRA boundaries, the public infrastructure is directly behind the existing shoreline protection structures and would be imminently threatened by removal of the shoreline protection structures.
Why aren't the Golf Course and West Fairway
Park neighborhood included in the SRA's? What
about the utilities running under the golf course?
Who pays if they have to be relocated?
As mentioned above, the SRA boundary was decided on a number of factors, including the presence of existing shoreline protection structures that protect existing public infrastructure. The West Fairway Park neighborhood does not have any existing shoreline protection structures. The Sharp Park Golf Course berm provides protection for the golf course and some coverage for the neighborhood, but it does not protect the wide variety of public infrastructure like the West Sharp Park and Rockway Beach shoreline protection structures. The public utilities within the Sharp Park Golf Course are not abutting the existing shoreline protection structure, they are further east and thus may not require relocation in the short and medium -term based on sea level rise and coastal erosion projections. Any future relocation of infrastructure is beyond the scope of the LCLUP and would need City Council and City and County of San Francisco coordination, including allocation of costs for any relocation.
Since the Coastal Commission does not have the
power of Eminent Domain, where will Pacifica get
the money to compensate property owners? Will
the State provide that money or is that out of our
pocket?
It is unclear what power of eminent domain this scenario is referencing. The LCLUP is not proposing the physical taking or invasion of any private property by the City of Pacifica for any private property. Thus, eminent domain cannot occur through the mere adoption of a LCLUP.
If water and sewer lines, streets and even Hwy 1
have to be relocated, who pays for it? This
decision is NOT being made by the people of
Pacifica.
Relocation of infrastructure is technically and legally complex. Any project proposing relocation of infrastructure would need to be thoroughly reviewed, designed, and approved by City Council, including consideration of financing mechanisms. These specific issues are beyond the scope of the LCLUP.
1.h
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) If the LCLUP is approved, what's the timetable for
implementation? How does the City plan to
replace lost revenue caused by devaluation and
loss of taxpaying properties?
Implementation timelines for policies in the LCLUP vary depending on the policy. It is unclear what lost revenues may result from certification of the LCLUP given that property values are affected by a variety of factors beyond local government plans and policies.
Are any of these true?: A pre-Coastal Act home in
a non-SRA location with a second story added in
1980 is instantly considered an SSM when they
get a permit.
An addition to an existing home would count towards the SSM calculation regardless of its location behind a SRA or not; however, not all additions will trigger the SSM policies (only those with the addition of 50% of more).
That same home will have to “correct any legal
nonconformities”, but there is no definition of
what that means
The term “nonconformity” is commonly used in land use regulations. Most often, there is no precise definition because the potential types of nonconformities are many. This term refers to aspects of a development that would not comply with current regulations if the project were to be reviewed today. So from that basis, a comparison of a specific property to applicable LCLUP, Implementation Plan (IP), and other applicable City standards is necessary. There are definitions for Non-Conforming Use and Non-conforming structure within the Glossary of the LCP. Additionally, please see response below.
Homes in non-SRA areas such as West Fairway
Park (1/2 mile from the shoreline) would have
more restrictions than homes on Beach Blvd at
ground 0.
The only policy that is less restrictive between SRA and non-SRA properties is CR-I-49, which, per the City Alternative Modification draft, would allow properties within the SRA to only correct nonconformities related to coastal hazards instead of correcting all nonconformities, which can include uses and design. Other policies allow properties behind the SRA to rely on an existing shoreline protection structure and the protection they provide.
All the houses in the Tsunami Evacuation Zone
are affected by SSM?
The SSM definition is applicable to all properties within the Coastal Zone, not just the Tsunami Evacuation Zone or any other zone, such as CVZ or SRA. The policies within the LCLUP are only applicable to properties within the Coastal Zone.
Please clearly define the role of the California
Coastal Commission and its work with coastal
cities in California including Pacifica. Do we have
an option to not work with the CCC?
As previously mentioned in the FAQs for the March 2nd Special Meeting, under state law, California Coastal Commission (CCC) certification is required for an LCLUP to take effect.
The California Coastal Act grants authority to the CCC to carry out the purpose and intent of the Act, including adopting regulations for its administration.
There is no way for the City of Pacifica to achieve an LCLUP that can be implemented without the certification of the CCC.
Please clarify the coastal zone boundary of CCC
jurisdiction under the LCLUP
There are several exhibits in the LCP that clearly show the coastal zone boundary, including Figure 1-1. Generally, the Coastal Zone extends from the inland limit of Highway 1 right-ofway seaward. Except that the Coastal Zone in Pacifica also includes the Shelldance Nursery
1.h
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) area which is inland from Highway 1. There are no changes to the coastal zone boundary proposed with the new LCLUP.
What is the difference in process/regulations for
development project applications in the Coastal
Commission appeal jurisdiction (which is smaller
than the LCLUP coastal zone), and the rest of the
coastal zone (this question has no relation to
SRAs).
Please refer to the March 2nd Special Meeting Case Studies attachment. In general, fewer exemptions from the requirement for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) apply within the appeal jurisdiction, meaning more projects within the appeal jurisdiction must undergo the public hearing process for a CDP.
Can the Coastal Commission exert its power
beyond this jurisdiction, for example, Linda Mar
to Peralta?
No. The Coastal Commission’s authority is limited to the Coastal Zone.
If city maps show coastal hazard zones extending
beyond CCC jurisdiction areas, how would these
new hazards factor into city review of projects?
For example, how would the city review projects
in Linda Mar east of Highway 1 that are in
tsunami zones?
The LCLUP including the Coastal Vulnerability Zones (CVZs) are only applicable within the Coastal Zone. Properties located outside the Coastal Zone (generally, east of Highway 1) would not be subject to LCLUP policies. As noted above, the Coastal Commission has no jurisdiction outside the Coastal Zone.
Would substantial structural modification
policies, deed restrictions, or other LCLUP policies
apply outside the coastal zone?
Would new development or building code
defined substantial structural modifications
(SSM-BC) sometimes require different building
practices, for example raising homes?
The only policy that is automatically required of projects reaching the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) threshold is CR-I-49, which requires correction of any existing legal nonconformities. Raising or elevating structures is one of the simplest ways to mitigate several hazards, including flooding and wave run-up. However, projects may find other ways of mitigating coastal hazards. The LCP does not contain specific mitigation measures in order to allow property owners the flexibility of design. It is important to note that existing law (not the LCLUP) may already require elevation of structures above flood hazard areas in some instances. Thus, hazard mitigation including structure elevation are not new concepts introduced in the LCLUP.
Do FEMA flood hazard mapped areas require
modifications to existing buildings as part of an
SSM-BC today in or out of the coastal zone? ( I
have had to consider this for a project in Palo
Alto in a FEMA Flood zone for example).
Yes, Federal flood hazard policy frequently requires mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate flood hazard in building design, which can include elevation of structures above the projected flood elevation. These requirements apply even for projects reviewed under a building permit only. Importantly, these Federal regulations already require that modifications to existing structures exceeding 50% of the market value of the structure
1.h
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) must bring the entire structure into compliance with current regulations, including elevation requirements.
Do areas subject to coastal flooding and high
velocity wave action (e.g. Beach Blvd and
Rockaway neighborhoods in maps below) need to
comply with building standards required by the
National Flood Insurance Program?
Yes, this is verified by the Building Official during the building permit review.
I’ve heard community members say managed
retreat is to do nothing and let the ocean win,
but I’ve also heard coastal engineers say that
seawalls are a tool of managed retreat. Does the
Coastal Commission have an official definition?
Per the CCC’s Sea Level Rise FAQ document, dated June 2021, managed retreat means “Moving structures away from hazardous coastal areas. This can happen over the short term in areas with high near-term vulnerabilities, but more often, it is something that would occur over longer periods of time. Even so, it is important to plan ahead to understand when impacts are likely to occur because the cost of inaction is higher than proactive adaptation planning.”
Further in that document, it states “Managed retreat involves relocating development away from coastal locations threatened by sea level rise. In most places throughout California, managed retreat will not be necessary for many decades but there are cases when communities may need to consider this option sooner. In the near or medium term there are other adaptation measures that can be utilized to protect coastal resources and development. However, over the long term, there are coastal locations where flooding and erosion will become so extreme that there will be no other feasible adaptation option except relocation or removal of development.” The document also states that seawalls are one of many adaptation measure tools to protect development.
Some community members say that managed
retreat is the only adaptation policy the CCC
accepts and yet our Adaptation Plan from 2018
lists other strategies, including armoring and
seawalls. For example, in Sharp Park armoring is
listed as a first strategy, see below. Can you
clarify?
When the Adaptation Plan mentions managed
retreat for private property, it includes the word
(optional) in parentheses. Can you explain?
Property owners must individually decide what adaptation measures are feasible and desirable to make informed decisions. Some property owners will decide that the preferred adaptation measure for them is to modify or demolish development, particularly if the costs associated with shoreline protection structures (when eligible) may exceed the economic value of the property or the owner’s financial means. The City’s LCLUP policies help to establish a framework for informed decision making, in part by clearly identifying applicable coastal hazards.
Some buildings in Pacifica have been red tagged
(deemed unsafe to occupy). How does that
process unfold and who pays?
Currently, condemning unsafe buildings (i.e., red tagging) is one of the City’s tools for addressing structures that become structurally compromised, such as those on coastal bluff locations. Red tagging a building has no immediate costs to the City although it can initiate a complicated sequence of events. Best case, a property owner takes the
1.h
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) necessary steps to make a structure safe or to demolish the structure. In other cases, an owner lacks the will or means to take the necessary steps, and the City may choose to bear the costs of building demolition if necessary to preserve public health, safety, and welfare (such as avoiding a building collapse onto the beach). The City has various tools to pursue recovery for these costs but it involves a complicated legal process.
Our 2018 Adaptation plan includes policies to
2100. Given that new proposed OPC guidance is
for less SLR in the short term(30-50 years), but
potentially higher, less predictable SLR in the long
term(50-100+ years), and more erosion both
short and long term, does staff think updating to
new OPC guidance is either helpful or necessary?
Would it be helpful to use measurable triggers
instead of hard dates, ie. a 1 or 2 feet of slr, or a
certain distance from the bluff edge?
Updating the LCLUP to utilize the new Ocean Protection Council (OPC) guidance, once formally adopted, is necessary in order to utilize the “best available science” (a term used in the LCLUP). Further specific work is needed to prepare a final adaptation plan in light of Coastal Commission staff’s suggested modification to delete all of the specific trigger policies previously contained in the LCLUP. Work on a final adaptation plan would occur post-certification of the LCLUP as a follow-on planning activity.
Does the CCC define specific sources as to what
constitutes "best available science"? What would
be the approximate timeline and cost to update
to new OPC guidance?
Yes, the CCC has a webpage dedicated to SLR science. City staff anticipates that it will cost at least $50,000 to update Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) maps based on cost estimates obtained several years ago. A map update process would follow the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) final adoption of new sea level rise (SLR) projections. Adoption is anticipated in June, and subsequent map updates would likely take several months to prepare and several more months to review and adopt by the City before submitting to Coastal Commission for certification.
Are deed restrictions required everywhere in the
Coastal Zone for new development and SSM’s?
Are there any other triggers or policies that could
lead to deed restrictions?
Please see the proposed alternative modification presented by City staff in the March 23 staff report. It addresses circumstances in which a deed restriction may be required and potential exemptions.
Can you share an example of the deed restriction
language the CCC and city of Pacifica currently
requires? Will that change when our LCLUP is
certified?
The City does not currently have policies requiring a deed restriction in relation to new development in its LCLUP. Policy CR-I-45 is an important step to align the City’s LCLUP with existing Coastal Commission practice to require deed restrictions for many types of new development and to implement the provisions of the Coastal Act (notably, Public Resources Code section 30253).
Does the CCC or the City of Pacifica require
geotechnical reports for interior remodels or
Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Sec. 8-1.16 requires that any project on a site located within a geologic or seismic hazard zone mapped by the California Geology Survey or adopted in the General Plan provide a geotechnical report with the specifications in that code section.
1.h
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) small additions? What size addition triggers the
need for a geotechnical report?
The LCLUP also would require geotechnical reports for projects proposed in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones (CVZs) if a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required. There is no clear threshold for a project type that may require a geotechnical report, but generally the smaller the project, the less likely it would be required. Similarly, in general, the smaller the project (such as an interior remodel), the less likely it would require a CDP.
Can you give a list of nonconformities that would
need to be corrected with an SSM?
As currently drafted, policy CR-I-49 requires development which constitutes a SSM to correct any existing legal nonconformities, except behind the SRAs. The LCP defines nonconforming use as a use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulation or required conditions for the district it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of the Pacifica Municipal Code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City and non-conforming structure as an existing structure that is legally nonconforming with an LCP standard. As such, a nonconforming use could be a legally established residence on a commercially zoned lot, for instance. Or a nonconforming structure could mean a structure or portion thereof that is within a CVZ and has not mitigated the coastal hazard.
In general, if safety conditions allow, does the
CCC prioritize physical access to beaches over
bluff view access? Does ‘holding the line’ with
shore armoring imply that access may be further
restricted / lost as conditions worsen?
In general, the CCC prefers direct access to the beach over views of the beach/ocean.
However, “coastal access” can take many forms. Proposed shoreline protection structures must analyze potential impacts to the public’s access to the coast and incorporate maximum opportunities to maintain or expand access. Otherwise, the project must mitigate losses to coastal access such as through payment of mitigation fees.
When technical and biological analyses are
prepared for a site, for example the Pedro Point
Field, would conditions over the life of a
proposed project be required to be considered,
for example, rising groundwater and floodwater
from sea level rise, that would also increase the
extent of habitat areas, and/or the amount of
projected flooding?
As stated in Policy CR-I-43, development proposed in CVZ must provide technical reports that demonstrate the development will avoid and/or mitigate impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development. Policy CR-I-51 also requires consideration of a sea level rise buffer to allow for the migration of wetlands and other coastal habitats caused by sea level rise over the anticipated life of a development. This response cannot address the specific factors applicable to a specific property which must be analyzed at time of project proposal.
Do density bonus laws currently apply in the
coastal zone?
Yes, density bonus law, including concessions, incentives, and waivers are fully available to projects as long as the project is also consistent with the Coastal Act. In other words, under current law, density bonus law cannot be used to create a coastal resource impact inconsistent with the Coastal Act and an applicable LCLUP. This means both laws must be harmonized during the review process.
1.h
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Does the city or the CCC require construction
operations and staging plans as part of
development review in determining buffers in
sensitive environmental areas such as near
creeks or wetlands?
Construction and staging plans are not required as part of the development application review and are usually reviewed during the building permit phase. However, if during the development application review and approval, environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and/or ESHA buffers are identified, they are applicable to every stage of the project, not just the development application review. In other words, those exhibits are part of the overall project and the project is required to comply with any permits and/or conditions of approval during construction and the life of the project.
As sea levels rise and legally defined public trust
lands move inland, what happens to structures
that are no longer on private or city owned
property?
The Coastal Act discourages development from having the potential to end up on public trust lands. This is one reason that coastal hazard analysis and setbacks for the anticipated life of a project are critically important. Deed restrictions requiring modification or removal of development in the face of advancing coastal hazards also seek to minimize the potential for private development to end up on public trust lands. For existing development, the City and applicable state agencies must address these situations on a case-by-case basis.
Could the city attorney explain or give examples
of takings law in the face of coastal hazards that
endanger residents or the public? Is it possible
for all economic use to be denied without a valid
takings claim?
The potential impact of the LCLUP is dependent on the specific circumstances of each property, including the location, size, and specific site conditions. Any potential allegations regarding the loss of property rights would need to be analyzed on a site-specific basis.
Additionally, the LCLUP does not propose any regulations that would deny property owners all economically beneficial or productive use of their land. Generally, the Courts have held that regulation that affects the use of land is not a taking so long as the regulation has not eliminated all viable economic use of the property. Regulations that my affect the value of property, such as land use designations governing allowable uses, are not takings of private property.
Do we need to update our references as we did
for the GP? Many seem very old, for example
1980 General Plan, 2009 NCCWD, etc.
City staff can undertake a final review of potential outdated references once City Council determines whether to proceed with certification of the LCLUP.
Specifically, what infrastructure, if any, is
currently protected by the berm?
It is difficult to characterize whether the infrastructure discussed below is “protected by” the Sharp Park Golf Course Berm. Site-specific hazard analysis has not been performed and year 2100 modeled coastal erosion without the berm is not modeled to significantly encroach into the Sharp Park Golf Course based on the Coastal Vulnerability Zone maps. In addition, much of the infrastructure that is present is located well inland of the berm.
1.h
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Therefore, the remainder of this response addresses the presence of infrastructure in the Sharp Park Golf Course area without opining on whether it is protected by the berm.
Public Works staff has assessed the presence of public infrastructure in the Sharp Park Golf Course area and concluded three agencies own and operate infrastructure in this area: City and County of San Francisco, City of Pacifica, and North Coast County Water District (NCCWD).
The City and County of San Francisco owns and maintains stormwater infrastructure within the Sharp Park Golf Course property which is shown in the figure below. Some City of Pacifica stormwater infrastructure is also shown in the figure, outside the Sharp Park Golf Course property, generally to the south and east of the golf course.
The City of Pacifica owns and maintains sewer infrastructure within the Sharp Park Golf Course property as shown in the attached map (PDF). The sewer infrastructure consists of a 15” gravity line flowing northward from the West Fairway Park neighborhood into the West Sharp Park neighborhood, and a 24” force main flowing southward from West Sharp Park toward the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. See excerpt from City of Pacifica Storm Drain Master Plan below.
The NCCWD owns potable water infrastructure on the far eastern (inland) portion of the Sharp Park Golf Course site serving the club house and fire hydrant.
Other question: SSMs; Does solar count as
substantial? Do battery backup for the solar?
The Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition, shown with City staff’s recommended alternative modifications on packet pages 47-48, applies to physical
1.h
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Remodeling a bathroom? Remodeling a kitchen?
Installing a sub-panel? Windows? A paint job?
improvements to an existing structure that alter, remove, or replace structural components such as exterior walls and the structural components of floors, roofs, and foundation structures. The SSM definition does not apply to nonstructural alterations to an existing structure, such as typical installations of solar panels or battery backup systems, bathroom or kitchen remodels, electrical system or wiring modifications such as circuit panel replacements or subpanel installations, window replacements, or painting. These installations typically do not require associated structural alterations, such as reinforcing a roof or floor for installation, which means that without structural alterations they would not count toward the SSM definition.
Moreover, staff has proposed for City Council consideration a number of new exceptions to the SSM definition to explicitly clarify certain types of work that would be exempt, such as replacement of plywood roof sheathing, replacement of doors/garage doors, appliance installations (including water heaters, generators, and solar panels that do not require structural modifications), remedial actions to address termite infestation and dry rot, and other modifications necessary to comply with State or Federal law such as disabled accessibility improvements and seismic retrofits/upgrades.
Carveouts allow existing armoring to be analyzed
as part of new development, but how does that
work practically when even the new seawall in
Sharp Park is only being designed to last 50 years
and buildings need to be designed to last 75-100
years, and new infrastructure up to 150 years?
The SRA policies address shoreline protection structures that provide broad protection to public assets (infrastructure, streets, coastal access, parking areas, etc). These are anticipated to be present over the long-term and as a result, the associated shoreline protection structures are anticipated to be present over the long-term (including future replacement). However, while future replacement of shoreline protection structures is uncertain, development undertaken in reliance on SRA policies would be required to record the waiver of rights to future shoreline protection, assumption of liability and risk, and obligations to restore the site if needed in response to coastal hazards such as advancing erosion. In other words, the grant of development approvals under the SRA policies wouldbe conditional based upon the actual conditions of the site and limited by the terms of the waiver and assumption of liability and risk and as such, the City would have a mechanism to require an owner to modify or remove the approved development if necessary in the future.
Pp8 "removing the waiver allowances from SRA
policies and incorporating them into the zoning
ordinance instead", please explain the waivers
and when/where they would be incorporated?
This phrase means that specific zoning language would be considered during update to the City’s Implementation Plan (IP) that would follow LCLUP certification. The full scope of such waiver language is not clear at this time, but is likely to be more limited than previously considered if such waiver language is included at all.
1.h
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) pp 10 under analysis of previous approvals - did
staff analyze 1567 Beach Boulevard where I
understand Coastal Commission denied
application entirely, and did not consider staff's
recommendation to make project smaller? Can
the city attorney explain takings law limitations if
there is a potential public safety hazard or public
nuisance?
Yes, staff’s analysis included the 1567 Beach Boulevard CDP approved by the City Council on appeal. Generally, whether there is a “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment requires an analysis of the facts of each case. However, abating a public nuisance or addressing a public safety hazard does not generally result in an unlawful taking of property.
This marked up text is in the redlined LCLUP is
different than the table. Redlines delete Coastal
Commission language, why? Perhaps the table is
correct and not the markups in the LCLUP?
The redlines in Attachment G represent the changes approved by Council in October 2023 to incorporate 2040 General Plan. To keep the changes consistent in Attachment G, redlines in Attachment B are shown as green text, like all other alternative modifications. If redlines deleted CCC text, it is because the text/section was deleted as part of the 2040 General Plan consistency changes. If green text deleted CCC text, it is because that is a proposed alternative modification. All of the changes in Attachment G are done manually and there is a risk of human error. Attachment B – Summary table should be used as the correct version of any possible inconsistencies. Staff will verify the redline LCLUP upon final approval of alternative modifications by Council, before transmittal to CCC. pp 131 Sharp Park. Also, what does redeveloping
source protection mean?
The odd wording first appears in version of the LCLUP attached to the March 2023 CCC certification hearing; however, it does not appear to be a CCC suggested modification. The odd wording does not appear in the 2020 version of the LCLUP, so it is unclear when/how the text change occurred. It appears to be an error that was not caught by City staff. In order to align this LCLUP policy with the 2040 General Plan policy and CCC suggested modification, it should read: “Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course, consistent with CDP terms and conditions, and support development of additional recreational uses in upland portions of the Park located outside the Coastal Zone east of Highway 1.”
Simple clarification for folks just joining the
conversation: N/A means that we are accepting
CCC suggested changes?
Correct. An “N/A” in the “Draft Alternative Modification” column means staff recommends accepting the CCC staff’s suggested modification without further revision.
2.8 LD-1-20 San Pedro Ave: What does " at a
density range on the lower third of CRMU density
range" mean in simple terms?
The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) land use designation allows for residential development in conjunction with commercial development at a density up to 15 units per gross acre. The lower third of CRMU density range means 1-5 units per acre. This is consistent with City Council’s 2020 LCLUP action for the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site which specified allowable residential density of 3-5 units per acre.
1.h
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)
2.12 LD 1-37 Please give examples of this so I can
understand the suggested mod and why all of the
CCC language is not suggested.
The main issue with CCC staff’s suggested modification is that it ignores the large proportion of Pacifica that is located outside the Coastal Zone but that is reliant on infrastructure located inside the Coastal Zone. This is an issue if, for instance, sites identified for residential development outside the Coastal Zone need to upgrade sewer lines or pump stations in the Coastal Zone to provide additional capacity.
3.7 PR-1-57 Roadway Retrofit: comment:
Complete Streets are streets designed and
operated to enable safe use and support mobility
for all users. Those include people of all ages and
abilities, regardless of whether they are travelling
as drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, or public
transportation riders. Not just bicycles.
Staff believes a change in title to something like “Complete Streets Roadway Retrofits” would be acceptable and should address this concern.
4.4 What are the consequences of accepting
CCC's suggested changes? Why did it need to be
changed?
The staff alternative modification is intended to simplify the language and result in policy language most similar to that in the General Plan. The CCC suggested modification is not of particular concern from a policy standpoint, but the language is not necessary given the statement that the map is “a tool to help identify areas where further evaluation for biological issues may be needed.” Therefore, whether a particular species is/is not present will be addressed through site-specific analysis and the language proposed for deletion is not necessary.
4.14 What are the consequences of keeping ccc
phrase "and no less than 50 feet" Please give
examples
The restriction of “no less than 50 feet” is unnecessarily prescriptive for a policy document such as the LCLUP and does not allow expert-informed opinion about a particular impact on a particular resource that may justify less than 50 feet of buffer area. In addition, many properties in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone are small, some with lot widths of less than 50 feet.
Thus, a prescriptive “no less than 50 feet” buffer could eliminate all development potential and trigger more takings analyses during the development review process.
5.4 Erosion Protection - why would CCC delete
this? Reasoning behind it.
CCC staff was concerned in after their initial reading that this could be a loophole to allow shoreline protection. After discussions between City and CCC staffs, City staff explained that was not the intent and the CCC staff supported restoration of the language with some further clarifications that are proposed.
6.7 Monitoring shoreline change: What does the
monitoring program consist of? Please give
examples of what you mean by "half of the
required surveys"
The alternative modification is intended to address the expense and staff burden of a major shoreline monitoring program that would require all identified critical sites to be surveyed two times per year. The meaning of “perform half of the required surveys each year” means alternating winter/summer surveys for each particular location so it is only surveyed once per year. This is primarily a cost/staff resources related modification.
1.h
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) What benefit do properties in the SRA's have that
others outside of the SRA's do not have? What is
the consequences for west fairway park being
outside of the SRA? How can we explain to this
neighborhood that they are not being "left out"?
The key policy component of the SRA policies is that development can include protection provided by an existing shoreline protection structure in the coastal hazards analysis required as part of development review. Beyond that, development that is proposed subject to the SRA policies would be subject to mostly the same requirements as property outside an SRA.
With that in mind, there is no particular benefit to the West Fairway Park neighborhood from inclusion in the West Sharp Park SRA because the existing shoreline protection structures in the area (Beach Boulevard seawall and Sharp Park Berm) do not currently address the applicable flooding hazard for the area. The SRA policies primarily provide benefit in relation to coastal erosion hazards which are not applicable to the West Fairway Park neighborhood.
It is likely, but has not been confirmed with specific technical modeling, that the reduced sea level rise projections in the 2024 Ocean Protection Council update will be most beneficial to the West Fairway Park neighborhood and may have the potential to eliminate some or all of
the neighborhood from the Coastal Vulnerability Zone. In such case, the SRA would also have no benefit to these properties. Staff intends to update the CVZ map based on the 2024 OPC update once finalized and undertake an LCP amendment to adopt the new map once the LCLUP is certified.
It is also important to note that the West Fairway Park neighborhood is expected to benefit significantly from reduced flooding risk upon successful completion of the BBIRP project, which is proposed to close the “Clarendon Gap” - a significant source of sea level rise-induced flooding. This may also serve as a basis to reduce or eliminate the area of West Fairway Park included in the CVZ.
Has CCC staff already reviewed and approved the
GP (red) related amendments?
The CCC staff has provided a comment letter to City staff on the General Plan consistency amendments but also has not raised any concerns in ongoing staff coordination meetings.
Has CCC staff indicated in any way if they are
uncomfortable with any specific policies that the
city has amended? If so, which ones? Have they
reviewed the latest red lined revisions in this
agenda?
City staff is not aware of any serious concerns from CCC staff with the alternative modifications. The alternative modification language has been the focus of ongoing staff coordination meetings to reach agreement on language both staffs believe can be supported by their respective decision makers.
1.h
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) What do you mean by interior Sharp Park levy? In the policies in Chapter 6, an interior levee refers to a potential method of flood protection that could be constructed within the Sharp Park Golf Course. This, of course, would require coordination with the City and County of San Francisco and would likely require approval of CCC.
Who is the ultimate arbiter of feasibility, the city
or the CCC, for example when considering moving
infrastructure our of hazard zones?
The respective permitting agency based on applicable permitting jurisdiction and appeal jurisdiction.
Were Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation
Plan ever approved/adopted by city? Documents
I downloaded from city website still say draft.
It does not appear the Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan were ever adopted as standalone documents. The requested action on 12/10/2018, was for the City Council to give direction to incorporate relevant portions of the Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan into the LCLUP for adoption. This occurred and primarily formed Chapter 6 “Coastal Resiliency,” which was part of the Certification Draft LCLUP adopted by City Council in February 2020.
What agency is responsible for ESHA maps and
how often are they updated?
Various state and federal resource agencies prepare habitat maps used by the City to create the ESHA map. The ESHA map is updated as needed upon release of new information related to ESHA.
What was the previous land use and zoning
designation for the Pedro Point Field and did it
allow housing?
The 1980 LCLUP designates the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site (also variously known as the Calson Property, Calson Field, and Pedro Point Field) as “Commercial” which allows mixed-use commercial and residential development up to 21.8 units per acre. The applicable zoning on the site is less clear, but appears to be C-R (Commercial Recreation) which is a discontinued zoning district that staff does not believe allowed housing. The site is currently zoned as C-2 (Community Commercial) which does allow housing consistent with the current LCLUP designation, but staff is not certain that zoning change was certified by the Coastal Commission.
What is the fiscal and staff resource commitment
to create a Shoreline Mitigation Plan? How is it
different than a Shoreline Management Plan?
The Shoreline Mitigation Plan and Shoreline Management Plan have similar objectives to offset various impacts from shoreline protection. The Shoreline Mitigation Plan is more focused on beach widths while the Shoreline Management Plan is associated with offsets from the SRA such as adapting shoreline protection to be less impactful, and visitor amenity improvements. An opportunity exists to merge the plans post-LCLUP certification.
As an implementation activity, specific fiscal and staff resource commitments are not known at this time.
Do we have any critical public facilities per 5.12
pp 218-19 in CVZs now?
Yes. The Vulnerability Assessment from 2018 includes an assessment of these critical public facilities.
1.h
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) I learned today that the last two homes on the
bluff at Esplanade south of the post office were
able to obtain FEMA money to tear them down
and also to pay them for their loss of investment.
Can you give me more information on this? How
much were they paid, what were the details of
the program? Can this be done again for other
vulnerable properties as they become
uninhabitable/yellow or red tagged?
Public Works managed these homeowners’ applications for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Staff has not analyzed other properties for eligibility at this time.
Is there a reason we would not want to do a
more robust cost/benefit analysis to help us
evaluate options as erosion increases?
A more robust cost-benefit analysis may be a tool to guide future decision making along the shoreline.
What LCLUP or other city policy addresses bluff
erosion, redtagging and eventual removal of
projects in hazardous areas such as the
apartments on Esplanade?
The LCLUP policies are not likely to be the most effective mechanism to address locations that are subject to imminent threat from coastal erosion. Other City tools, like the ability to red tag a structure if it were to be rendered unsafe to occupy, as well as nuisance abatement if nuisance conditions are present, provide the mechanisms to preserve public health and safety in the event a property owner fails to take responsible action to address applicable hazards. However, the LCLUP would include a requirement for many types of development to record a deed restriction that, among other things, clarifies it’s an owner’s responsibility to remove development if necessary due to coastal hazards.
What is the expected timeline to start work on
the shoreline monitoring program CR-I-3? Has the
CCC indicated how they want these to be
conducted?
The specific timeline is unknown at this time. Resources and other ongoing City priorities will need to be evaluated once the LCLUP is certified.
CRI-56 Please explain in plain language and detail
which exclusions you think pertain. Is this for
maintenance or modification or possible
expansion of existing shoreline protection.
It is difficult to provide specifics because shoreline protection structures are constructed in different ways. The language in question is intended to address the criteria in the Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition, and to provide as much latitude as possible for routine repair and maintenance activities for shoreline protection structures.
1.h
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Please clarify which, if any policies, do not apply
in SRAs.
The standard policies the SRA policies would modify are as follows: CR-I-17, CR-I-43, CR-I44, and CR-I-49.
The references and glossary has a lot of red line
edits, were these reviewed with CCC staff?
The redlines in Attachment G represent the changes approved by Council in October 2023 to incorporate 2040 General Plan, that have been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff.
Who originally permitted, and who now owns
and manages/maintains the armoring in front of
Nicks in Rockaway?
Staff needs more time to research the permit history of the shoreline protection structure in question.
How in practice are seawalls’ existing condition,
structural capacity, remaining life, and projected
overtopping/flooding risks determined for new
development and SSM’s in SRAs?
A site-specific engineering analysis is performed on the relevant shoreline protection structure or portion thereof.
Does city certify armoring and keep updating
records as they degrade over time and have a
certain defined useful life? Or is each project’s
applicant geotechnical engineer responsible to do
the analyses? If so, how would they get current
information; would they have to do their own
visual and technical analyses, including perhaps
borings or xrays to understand what may be
happening under concrete cover – ie is the
reinforcing rusting or spalling?? A regular
structural engineer a homeowner would hire
would not normally have this expertise.
The City conducts periodic maintenance on shoreline protection structures it owns. This primarily includes visual assessments for exterior issues requiring attention. Further investigation would not typically be performed except as part of a project-level analysis.
Is the city responsible for defined regular
maintenance of armoring in SRAs and would we
be liable if we were not able to maintain them
adequately per the project permit evaluations?
Staff is unaware of any specific regular maintenance obligation and is unaware of any specific liability arising from a property owner choosing to rely on SRA policies.
Please share the maps of infrastructure,
especially sewer, storm drains and water in both
SRA areas and SP Golf Course as was requested
by Sue B. at our last meeting.
See response above with map exhibit.
Have the SRA areas been evaluated to ascertain if
they are official “High velocity zones”, implying a
The SRAs simply allow reliance on whatever protection is provided by an existing shoreline protection structure.
1.h
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) rate of overtopping, a threshold that makes it
unsafe and potentially a public nuisance?
Is there a possibility that SRA’s could create an
additional liability for the city in terms of allowing
development and pedestrian access in areas that
are already regularly hazardous in storms and
king tides?
Staff is unaware of any specific liability arising from these circumstances.
Does/can potential increased development in
SRAs comply with FEMA guidelines for building in
a flood zone?
The SRA policies would not eliminate the need to comply with flood zone development requirements as part of the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Could FEMA deny disaster money now or in the
future be denied when they change their maps to
include flooding to SLR due to SRA policies that
encourage increasing development and number
of people in hazardous zones?
Staff is unable to speculate on what FEMA may do in the event of a future disaster.
Do SRA’s preclude or negate a development
project’s need to evaluate and provide coastal
resource mitigations?
Coastal resources encompasses a broad range of items. A particular development project would not need to mitigate coastal resource impacts such as loss of sand/beach width as those impacts are required to be addressed at the permit level for shoreline protection structures as well as in the City’s Shoreline Management Plan and Shoreline Mitigation Plan. Other coastal resource mitigations, such as impacts to biological resources, must still be included under SRA policies.
SRA carveouts mention existing armoring, not
new. Is there some additional benefit to having
carveouts that would allow new armoring?
The SRA policies do not support or discourage new shoreline protection structures. Rather, they reflect that where shoreline protection structures exist in the enumerated areas, the protection from coastal hazards that is provided can be considered during review of development.
Would ER-I-30 apply to the quarry reclamation
plan?
Currently, no LCLUP policies apply to the Quarry because it is an area of deferred certification. Depending on when the LCLUP is certified and when the Quarry Reclamation Plan receives a Coastal Development Permit, it is possible that policies in the proposed LCLUP Update could apply to development at that site, including Quarry Reclamation Plan activities.
NH-I- 26 please provide a map or description of
these flood control channels the city wishes to
exempt so we can understand impacts.
These include creeks like Calera Creek, San Pedro Creek, Rockaway Creek, and others that are part of the City’s stormwater infrastructure. See Figure 5.1 in the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan for more details.
1.h
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Could we require real estate disclosures for SRAs
and/or CVZs?
That will require further review to determine if it could be required but ultimately would be a policy decision for City Council and likely would require adoption of an ordinance.
Thus, it would be an implementation action in the Implementation Plan following LCLUP certification.
Please provide existing zoning and current land
use map as well as proposed under SPSP and an
analysis of which properties are not currently in
compliance within SRAs in Sharp Park and
Rockaway.
Staff does not understand the question about properties that “are not currently in compliance” within SRAs.
What does our current city planning/building
code define as a substantial remodel or addition
that would trigger other upgrades like seismic or
sprinklers? Is it calculated by valuation or square
footage or percent of structural elements or
some other method?
Triggers for these upgrades vary and some are difficult to summarize. Other statemandated upgrades may be required – those listed below are for explanatory purposes.
Terms used below are from the California Building Code and should not be confused with LCLUP terminology.
- Seismic upgrades: Difficult to summarize. Generally, where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area and involves a substantial structural alteration. In some cases, lower thresholds apply, for instance in the most severe seismic zones a 50 percent of building area alteration need not also involve a substantial structural alteration. - Fire sprinkler retrofits: Required by a City of Pacifica local building code amendment.
Applies at 1,000 square feet addition to single-family residential (R-3) occupancies and 500 square feet for other occupancies.
- Disabled accessibility: Difficult to summarize. Generally, the entire area of alteration must be made accessible. Additional improvements up to 20% of the project cost (not to exceed the annual valuation threshold limit, which is $200,399 in 2024) must be made to areas outside the area of alteration.
Please paint the fullest picture possible of what
our future looks like if we do not update our
LCLUP at all... If we cannot actuate our GP/SPSP,
does entropy overcome our ability to renew and
thereby survive? Is the new library, if ever, put
into jeopardy since it's in the coastal zone, and
we'd be working off our old document to the
exclusion of our otherwise updated policies?
Answer: Not achieving an LCLUP Update
Not achieving an LCLUP Update would have many adverse consequences for the City of Pacifica. Staff has articulated many of these in prior staff reports during the LCLUP Update process. Important, adverse consequences include the following:
• Staff’s assessment is that the 1980 LCLUP is not adequate to continue guiding the City’s actions in the Coastal Zone on a long-term basis. Many objectives of the 1980 LCLUP have been accomplished, such as protection of key beach and open space areas and formalization of public coastal access, and the narratives and policy goals reflect the needs of the community 40+years ago, not the needs of today and tomorrow.
1.h
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) • Many development permit findings require the City to determine a project is consistent with both the General Plan and the certified LCP, which includes the LCLUP. Deviations between provisions in the 2040 General Plan and LCLUP could complicate findings of consistency. These would include matters like land use, density, transportation improvements, etc.
• Absence of a certified LCLUP that is consistent with the 2040 General Plan presents the potential for conflicts between the two documents which could complicate project completion or necessitate time-consuming project-level LCLUP amendments to effectuate projects desired by the City Council. • While projects in the City’s Strategic Plan Workplan may be able to continue under the 1980 LCLUP, successful completion of the LCLUP Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan will allow for more clarity in the regulations applicable to these activities and benefit other priority projects, such as the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project, 2212 Beach Blvd Development, and the Sharp Park Library project. It would also minimize the need for project-level LCP amendments.
• Benefits of an updated LCLUP include updated maps reflecting conditions in Pacifica, modernized policies to guide development, enhanced environmental protections, strengthened economic development and housing policies, and consistency with the City’s 2040 General Plan. Importantly, the 1980 LCLUP does not effectively identify climate change and sea level rise (SLR) as major issues that need to be addressed.
• An updated LCLUP is needed to address these emerging community priorities:
o In-fill, mixed-use development, preservation of open spaces, enhancement of parks and other community facilities, and improved planning to address hazard mitigation and evacuation from wildfires and other events
o Planning for more than 2,000 housing units
o Strengthening the City’s fiscal position and ability to provide highquality services, infrastructure, and facilities, and to hire and retain staff.
• Senate Bill (SB) 272 will require an update by 1/1/2034 to address SLR anyways, and we will lose years of benefit from an updated LCLUP in the meantime if it is not updated in the near future.
1.h
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Interior Sharp Park Levy is in CR-I-27, please
explain what this is and what it proposes to do to
reduced flooding in Sharp Park. It may be related
to the plan from Wild Equity that Bob Battalio
and Peter Baye helped with, per my conversation
with Aaron Peskin and Brent Plater.
Staff is not familiar with a specific project design or concept for an interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee. It is listed as one potential option to be considered to address fluvial storm flooding that impacts homes and businesses.
FEMA money for homes on Esplanade - given that
Public Works assisted with these applications, we
should know much money was given to the last
two homes given and how was it calculated? Staff
only said they had no information for future
eligibility, but they did not answer these
questions.
Public Works staff familiar with this matter are no longer employed at the City of Pacifica.
Planning Department staff searched available City Council records and identified City Council Resolution No. 56-2017 related to the matter. It appears that state and federal funding was provided to the City to compensate property owners up to 75% of pre-disaster property value in conjunction with demolition of the structures at 528 and 532 Esplanade Avenue. The total amount of funding appears to have been $993,760.00 for both properties (average $496,880 each).
Is the pump station at the pond at the south end
of the gold course operated and maintained by
San Francisco or Pacifica?
The best information available to staff indicates the City and County of San Francisco operates and maintains this stormwater pump station.
Why did we not redline language that staff had
included in previous agendas as alternative
modifications that have subsequently been taken
out? I would like to ask staff to list these for
council and the public tomorrow for clarity. For
example: waivers to development standards in
SRAs, deviations from fire access requirements,
and removal of structures after several significant
damage events.
Staff first introduced these policy concepts during the 12/5 community roundtable (LCLUP Meeting #2). Between that meeting and preparation for the 3/2 community Q&A meeting (LCLUP Meeting #3), City staff had more coordination meetings with Coastal Commission staff, where they provided further guidance on the policies, including a recommendation to remove these concepts. Hence, the 3/2 report, including the summary table or redline document included in the 4/15 agenda packet (LCLUP Meeting #4), do not contain any of these policy concepts. In short, these policies were taken out of consideration before staff even had an opportunity to incorporate them into the LCP document or the Summary Table.
Does the Coastal Commission define where bluffs
occur in relation to height from natural grade to
the shoreline? For example, historic photos
shown at the Rosanna Xia event showed steep
steps in grade changes occurring in north Sharp
Park and Shoreview before the sea wall and
armoring were built.
The LCLUP would include a definition for “coastal bluff” on 4/15 packet p. 289. City staff has generally applied bluff-related policies to areas such as Beach Boulevard even though shoreline protection structures have affected the natural position of the bluff.
1.h
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) Is staff planning to update other maps to match
the General Plan?
Staff imagines there may need to be a package of minor amendments to the LCLUP to conform various items between the General Plan and LCLUP following certification.
Updates to figures are expected to be part of this process.
What efforts have we made to engage with San
Francisco officially about the LCLUP and the golf
course?
City and County of San Francisco staff were involved to some degree in coordinating the City’s 2017-2018 vulnerability assessment. Their staff have also commented on the City’s LCLUP Update at various times in relation to the Sharp Park Golf Course.
For purposes of meeting the 50% threshold in
CCC’s residential policy guidance, does it matter
whether the repair/upgrade is to a habitable
portion of the property or an uninhabitable
portion of the property? Does CCC policy
differentiate the two or are all
repairs/changes/upgrades considered equally?
The Substantial Structural Modification (SSM) definition is the relevant standard for consideration on this issue (as opposed to the CCC’s guidance document) and does not distinguish between habitable and non-habitable portions of structures. The focus is on structural modifications and associated building floor area.
Is it true that anything less than full destruction
of a structure due to natural disaster counts
toward an SSM? Would a homeowner be better
off letting that kitchen fire burn down your entire
house then putting it out. Other examples include
earthquake, wind damage, tree damage, etc.
This reflects a direct reading of Public Resources Code section 30610(g). City staff has discussed this matter specifically with Coastal Commission staff, who has indicated as a matter of practice, the Coastal Commission has interpreted the language “destroyed by a disaster” to mean any significant damage to a structure caused by a disaster such that the structure has been rendered unusable or uninhabitable. Therefore, it would not be necessary to allow a structure to be completely destroyed by a fire, as in the commenter’s example, in order to avail oneself of the benefits of Public Resources Code section 30610(g).
1.h
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 1 Cervantes, Stefanie
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:03 AM
To: _City Council; Public Comment; Coffey, Sarah; Pacifica Permit Tech; City Manager; CoastalPlan
Cc: Vaterlaus, Sue; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Boles, Christine; Murdock, Christian; 'Phil Ginsburg'; 'Potter, Spencer (REC)'; Cervantes, Stefanie; Woodhouse, Kevin Subject: Pacifica City Council Meeting May 23, 2024, Local Coastal LUP Study Session #5 / SF Pub. Golf Alliance Comment Letter re Environmental Justice Policy Attachments: Ltr.SFPGA.to Pac.Ci.Cil.re.Pacifica.LCLUP.5.14.24.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica City Council Mtg May 23, 2024, LCLUP Study #5 / SF Pub. Golf Alliance Comment Letter re Environmental Justice Policy
Pacifica City Clerk Sarah Coffey – Please acknowledge receipt, include in Council’s Correspondence file in the Study Session #5 file, include in Council’s Agenda Packet, and forward to City Council, Planning Commissioners, Planning Department, and Staff
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica City Council and Pacifica Planning Department Dear Mayor Vaterlaus, Councilmembers, and Planning Department Staff Enclosed please find SF Public Golf Alliance’s comment letter, dated May 14, for Council’s May 23 Local Coastal LUP Study Session #5.
Please include in the public record and in Councilmembers’ and Staff’s meeting packets.
Thank you for your public service. And we look forward to seeing you again.
Very Best Regards
Richard Harris
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
826 Stanyan Street
San Francisco, CA 94117-2726
Phone: (415) 290-5718
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 attachments or reply.
1.i
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 1 826 Stanyan St., San Francisco, CA 94117 • 415-290-5718 • [email protected] May 14, 2024
Pacifica City Council
540 Crespi Dr.
Pacifica, CA. 94044
Pacifica City Council Meeting / May 23, 2024 / Draft Local Coastal LUP Study Session #5 LCLUP Should Incorporate Relevant Language from the CCC Environmental Justice Policy Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and Council Members,
This is to supplement our letters to Council of April 201 and April 22, 20242 calling for revision of the environmental justice language in Pacifica’s April 2024 Draft Local Coastal LUP. By Exhibit A to this letter, we submit for Council’s consideration a proposed revision. . At Council’s April 15, 2024 LCLUP Study Session No. 4, Councilmembers Bigstyck, Boles, and Beckmeyer voiced opinion that the Environmental Justice Policy in Pacifica’s April 2024 Draft Local Coastal Plan is too narrowly drawn. Both Councilmembers Beckmeyer and Boles suggested that the LCLUP’s environmental justice language be revised to a “broader scope,” as is found in the Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy.3 1 Letter, SF Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, re April 2024 Draft LCLUP.4.20.24 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1 -03aFI4RPoKI7ZuyrWztWv23 CxqR1G/view?usp=drive link 2 Letter, SF Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, re April 2024 Draft LCLUP.4.22.24 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EC4mW3TSgoo3QKPGUIEZQkRl15gUG36w/view?usp=sharing 3 Pacifica City Council, Minutes of April 15, 2024 Meeting, at P. 9, ln. 2 to P. 10, ln. 7, found at Attachment B to Council’s May 13, 2024 Agenda, Pkt. Pgs. 49-50 (Minutes approved at Council’s May 13, 2024 Meeting): https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1531&Inline=True
1.i
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 2 The Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, adopted March 8, 2019, (https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC EJ Policy FINAL.pdf ) includes a 2- page “Introduction” (Pp.2-3 ), a 1-page “Environmental Justice Policy” (P.4) which in turn incorporates a 9-page “Statement of Environmental Justice Principles” (Pp.4-12) with 9 subparts titled “Respecting Tribal Concerns,” “Meaningful Engagement,” “Coastal Access,” “Housing,” “Local Government,: “Participation in the Process,” “Accountability and Transparency,” Climate Change,” and “Habitat and Public Health”; a 5-page “implementation” section (PP.13-17), and a 3-page Glossary (Pp.18-20).
The Introduction (at P.3) describes the dual substantive and procedural aspects of environmental justice and the Coastal Commission’s mission of protecting and preserving coastal resources for all people. . .” The Environmental Justice Policy (at P.4) provides:
“ . . . the Commission as an agency is committed to protecting coastal natural resources and providing public access and lower-cost recreation opportunities for everyone. The agency is committed to ensuring that those opportunities not be denied on the basis of background, culture, race, color, religion, national origin, income, ethnic group, age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. . . . Coastal development should be inclusive for all who work, live, and recreate on California’s coast and provide equitable benefits for communities that have historically been excluded, marginalized, or harmed by coastal development. . . The Commission is committed to compliance and enforcement of Government Code Section 11135,
4 as well as consideration of environmental justice
principles as defined in Government Code Section 65040.12, 5 consistent with Coastal Act
policies, during the planning, decision-making, and implementation of Commission actions, programs, policies, and activities.”
4 Government Code Article 9.5. Discrimination . . . Section 11135(a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. Notwithstanding Section 11000, this section applies to the California State University.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=11135. 5 Government Code Section 65040.12 . . . (e) (1) For purposes of this section, “environmental justice” means the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. (2) “Environmental justice” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A) The availability of a healthy environment for all people. (B) The deterrence, reduction, and elimination of pollution burdens for populations and communities experiencing the adverse effects of that pollution, so that the effects of the pollution are not disproportionately borne by those populations and communities.
(C) Governmental entities engaging and providing technical assistance to populations and communities most impacted by pollution to promote their meaningful participation in all phases of the environmental and land use decisionmaking process.
(D) At a minimum, the meaningful consideration of recommendations from populations and communities most impacted by pollution into environmental and land use decisions. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65040.12.&lawCode=GOV
1.i
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 3 Proposed Revised Definition of “Environmental Justice” The April Draft LCLUP Glossary’s definition of “Environmental Justice” is too narrow. As discussed in detail at pages 2-3 of our April 20, 2024 letter to Council, the April 2024 Draft LCLUP’s definition is constricted to “policies that affect housing and the environment” -- much narrower than the Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, which explicitly includes a far broader range of coastal resources, including equitable coastal access, lower-cost recreational facilities, existing affordable housing, and protection of coastal resources, including “sensitive habitats, watersheds, water quality, marine biodiversity, and biological productivity.6 For Council’s consideration we submit a proposed revision -- Exhibit A hereto -- which we have annotated to quoted language from the Environmental Justice Policy, Coastal Access, Housing, Climate Change, Habitat and Public Health, and Glossary sections of the Coastal Commission’s Policy.
Exhibit “A” is a revised version of Exhibit 1 to our April 8, 2024 letter.
Proposed Modification of Pacifica April 2024 Draft LCLUP Environmental Justice Guiding Policy PR-G-28
To go with a revised definition of Environmental Justice, a slight modification is in order for the April 2024 Draft LCLUP Guiding Policy PR-G-287, as follows (with the two added words “policies, practices” shown in underline and bold).
Guiding Policies
PR-G-28 Environmental Justice. Strive to implement policies, practices, processes and procedures that promote environmental justice in support of the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy.
The effect of the two added words “policies, practices” would be an explicit recognition of Environmental Justice as a substantive policy -- not merely procedural -- of the LCLUP.8 This would accord with the Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, which states:
6 Letter, SF Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, re April 2024 Draft LCLUP.4.20.24, at pp. 2-3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1 -03aFI4RPoKI7ZuyrWztWv23 CxqR1G/view?usp=drive link 7 City of Pacifica March 2024 Draft LCLUP, Chptr.3, Public Access and Recreation, P. 3-46 https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1527&Inline=True 8 Policy PR-G-28 is preceded in the LCLUP’s Public Access and Recreation Section, at P. 3-46, by the text of Subsection 3.9,”Environmental Justice,” which reads as follows:
In 2019, the Coastal Commission adopted its first environmental justice policy. [FN.8] The policy is designed to achieve more meaningful engagement, equitable process, effective communication, and stronger coastal protection benefits under the Coastal Act that are accessible to everyone. While the City of Pacifica has not adopted a formal environmental justice policy, the City recognizes the importance and benefit of inclusive and equitable practices and procedures that reduce impacts on disadvantaged communities.
The stricken language is text from page 3-44 of the original February 2022 Consultation Draft LCLUP adopted by the Council in February 2022 (https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/dl/EPskSdDwa4) – reflecting that at the time “Pacifica has not adopted a formal environmental justice policy”; accordingly the PR-G-28 “Environmental Justice” policy was at that time purely aspirational and procedural; it could not have then been substantive, because as the 2020 version of the text noted, “Pacifica [had] not adopted a formal environmental justice policy.” By contrast, the language of the April 2024 Draft LCLUP should be updated to reflect both procedural and substantive policy.
1.i
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 4 “The term “environmental justice” is currently understood to include both substantive and procedural rights, meaning that in addition to the equitable distribution of environmental benefits, underserved communities also deserve equitable access to the process where significant environmental and land use decisions are made.”9 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.
Coastal Trail / beach disability access ramp at Sharp Park berm, completed by San Francisco in 2021 9 Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, supra, Introduction, at P. 3 (https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC EJ Policy FINAL.pdf
1.i
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3) 5 EXHIBIT A
Proposed Draft Pacifica LCLUP Definition of “Environmental Justice,” with annotation to the California Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy10 Environmental Justice means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of policies that affect coastal resources.11 Environmental Justice includes, among other things, protecting coastal natural resources and providing public access and lower-cost visitor and recreational opportunities and facilities for everyone – not to be denied on the basis of background, culture, race, color, religion, national origin, income, ethnic group, age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity 12 Maximum access and recreational opportunities for all, and the protection, encouragement, and provision of lower-cost visitor and recreational opportunities, embody fundamental principles of Environmental Justice.13 Environmental Justice priorities include protection of existing affordable housing14 and protection of coastal resources, including sensitive habitats, watersheds, water quality, marine biodiversity, and biological productivity.15 The expense of sea level rise adaptation measures for coastal communities could heighten displacement of disadvantaged populations by increasing living expenses.16 10 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, Mar. 8, 2019 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC EJ Policy FINAL.pdf 11 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, Id., Glossary, at p. 19 (22/25) “Environmental Justice means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of policies that affect coastal resources.” 12 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, supra, “Environmental Justice Policy” at p. 4 (8/25) :
“The Commission as an agency is committed to protecting coastal natural resources and providing public access and lower-cost recreation opportunities for everyone. The agency is committed to ensuring that those opportunities not be denied on the basis of background, culture, race, color, religion, national origin, income, ethnic group, age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
13 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, supra, at p. 7 (11/25): “The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities for all, and to protect, encourage, and provide lower-cost visitor and recreational opportunities embody fundamental principles of environmental justice.” 14 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, supra, Housing, at p. 8 (12/25):
“. . . Commission retained the authority to encourage affordable housing. The Commission will increase these efforts with project applicants, appellants and local governments, . . . . by working with local government to adopt local coastal program policies that protect affordable housing. . . . The Commission will also support measures that protect existing affordable housing.”
15 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, supra. Habitat & Public Health, at p. 11 (15/25):
“Understanding that . . . there is no environmental justice without a healthy environment, the Commission will continue to prioritize the protection of coastal resources. This includes sensitive habitats, watersheds, water quality, marine biodiversity, and biological productivity.”
16 California Coastal Commission, Environmental Justice Policy, supra, Climate Change, at p. 11 (15/25) “Lower-income residents and those who live in rental units are also more likely to be displaced by flooding or related impacts as compared to property owners because they lack the funds and/or abilities to rebuild, have less control over their safety, and often have limited access to insurance. The expense of sea level rise adaptation measures for coastal communities could also heighten displacement of disadvantaged populations by increasing living expenses for sewer and water services.”
1.i
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5659 : LCLUP Meeting #4.3)