CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), including the Special Resiliency Area policies, and direction to staff regarding transmittal of alternative modifications to the California Coastal Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission.
STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP, Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City has worked on an update to its Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) since 2009.
Most recently in 2023 and 2024, the City has undertaken a community engagement strategy to inform the community and City Council about the LCLUP Update process and steps that could be considered to respond to California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff suggested modifications from March 2023 that would modify the City’s Certification Draft LCLUP approved by City Council in February 2020. Completion of the LCLUP Update would advance Goal 4, Strategy C of the City Council’s 2023 to 2030 Strategic Plan: Update Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan and improve communications and collaboration with the California Coastal Commission.
Most recently, on April 15, 2024, the City Council held a Special Meeting to undertake a detailed discussion of alternative modifications that City staff has proposed in response to the CCC staff’s suggested modifications released in March 2023. After discussion of alternative modifications to Chapters 2 through 5 (a discussion of Chapter 1 was unnecessary), the City Council continued the discussion on the remaining Chapter 6 to April 22, 2024. At the continued meeting, the City Council discussed the LCLUP Update process in more general terms and did not undertake a detailed discussion of alternative modifications for Chapter 6. The Council on April 22 also directed staff preparation of responses to several outstanding questions the councilmembers had. Answers to those questions are attached to this report (Attachment H).
The May 23rd meeting is intended to conclude the detailed review of the alternative modifications and determine whether City Council intends to submit the City-staff recommended alternative modifications to the CCC.
The staff report from the April 15, 2024, City Council meeting provides additional background on the LCLUP Update process.
Pacifica City Council 2
May 23, 2024
INTRODUCTION:
Pacifica Needs an Updated LCLUP
The California Coastal Act requires every city along the coast to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP), which consists of two parts: a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and an Implementation Plan (IP). The LCLUP must be consistent with the Coastal Act. The LCLUP must specify the intended uses of land within the Coastal Zone, and serves as a policy framework for future actions, such as development review and City infrastructure projects. The LCLUP must balance statewide interests for the Coastal Zone as expressed in the Coastal Act with local land use priorities. The LCLUP also guides the contents of the IP, which consists of the zoning ordinance, zoning map, and other policies and programs to implement the LCLUP.
The City’s LCLUP currently in effect was last comprehensively updated in 1980 (“1980 LCLUP”). While the LCLUP is separate from the General Plan, much of the descriptive text and policies overlap between both documents due to their similar purposes of specifying land uses, establishing goals and policies, and providing a policy framework for future actions.
There are many benefits to having an updated LCLUP. These include, but are not limited to, accurate maps, modernized policies to guide development, enhanced environmental protections, strengthened economic development and housing policies, and consistency with the City’s 2040 General Plan. Achieving consistency with the City’s General Plan, which the City Council comprehensively updated in July 2022, will become increasingly challenging over time if a corresponding LCLUP Update is not completed. Also, whenever a conflict between the 2040 General Plan and the 1980 LCLUP occurs, the 1980 LCLUP’s policies will prevail.
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 in many locations, while its assessments of some coastal neighborhoods are no longer reflective of the challenges and needs of those areas. Moreover, the 1980 LCLUP does not do enough to help Pacifica plan for the future. The plan is over 40 years old, and importantly, the 1980 LCLUP does not effectively identify climate change and sea level rise (SLR) as major issues that need to be addressed.
The City Council has recognized since at least 2009 that an update was needed, and started the process at that time. Yet, despite 15 years with various starts and stops in the process, the update is not yet completed. As more time passes, the need for an update continues to grow, and the problems the LCLUP seeks to address will only become more complex. The City Council has demonstrated the capacity to tackle difficult challenges in recent years, and has used lessons learned during community planning processes to inform subsequent planning and implementation activities, as exhibited in the following:
• The General Plan Update, which identified a community desire for in-fill, mixed-use development, preservation of open spaces, enhancement of parks and other community facilities, and improved planning to address hazard mitigation and evacuation from wildfires and other events, among other priorities.
• The Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP), which creates a plan for the historic Sharp Park neighborhood to enhance it as a regional destination and active neighborhood center. • The Housing Element Update, which demonstrated the need to plan for more than 2,000 housing units, while undertaking other supporting actions to accelerate housing approvals and provide services for the neediest members of our community. • The Economic Opportunities Study, which identified ways for the City to strengthen its Pacifica City Council 3
May 23, 2024
fiscal position so it can continue to provide high-quality services, infrastructure, and facilities to meet community needs.
The priorities identified above cannot meaningfully move forward in the Coastal Zone while limited by the 1980 LCLUP. An updated LCLUP is needed to address these emerging community priorities while also addressing issues that are all the more pressing in the Coastal Zone such as climate change and SLR adaptation. While significant City staff resources continue to be absorbed by the LCLUP Update process, work on those other community priorities cannot proceed effectively. Housing Element implementation, pursuing economic development initiatives, planning for City infrastructure and facilities, etc., can all advance much more efficiently once an updated LCLUP is in place. Completion of the LCLUP Update is also needed before staff can focus on pursuing CCC certification of the Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP), which combined with redevelopment of 2212 Beach Boulevard (a major economic opportunity site for the City) will provide a major boost to the Palmetto Avenue commercial corridor and enhance the City as a visitor destination. Implementation SPSP is on hold until the LCLUP and, subsequently, SPSP are certified by the CCC.
Lastly, an update to Pacifica’s LCLUP to account for SLR is inevitable. State law, as enacted in late 2023 with Senate Bill (SB) 272, now requires LCLUPs throughout California to be updated to include a plan to address SLR.
Based on this information, staff’s assessment is that completion of the LCLUP Update as expeditiously as possible and consistent with the 2040 General Plan is in the City’s best interest.
DISCUSSION:
1. Community Engagement
Community engagement has been a significant component of the LCLUP Update process, particularly the latest phase occurring in 2023 and 2024. The City Council has expanded the community engagement plan it initially approved with three meetings into a four-meeting plan, with potential for a fifth meeting. This May 23 meeting is the third iteration of “Meeting #4,” effectively resulting in a six-meeting community engagement plan, and continues the discussion of alternative modifications proposed by City staff that started on April 15. Additional information on the City’s work to update the LCLUP and the community engagement plan is available in the City Council agenda reports for the City Council meetings on October 9, 2023 (Agenda Item No. 10), November 13, 2023 (Agenda Item No. 1), December 5, 2023 (Agenda Item No. 1), March 2, 2024 (Agenda Item No. 1), April 15, 2024 (Agenda Item No. 1), and April 22, 2024 (Agenda Item No. 6). The March 2, 2024 report includes detailed case studies that describe specific scenarios that could result from application of different potential LCLUP policies in the Coastal Zone and responses to almost 150 questions submitted by the public.
This community engagement process is intended to conclude the comprehensive LCLUP update process that started nearly 15 years ago. It involves concluding the LCLUP update process based on the structure and policy emphasis approved by the City Council in the 2020 LCLUP, with consideration of potential modifications to certain policies as an alternative to the CCC staff’s suggested modifications from March 2023 (i.e., the “alternative modifications”). This process is not a reconsideration of policy emphasis or direction that was approved in the 2020 LCLUP (and continued in the Revised LCLUP) and instead is focused on specific changes to LCP policies that will ensure CCC certification.
The purpose of the community engagement process is to bring the Council and community to a point of understanding of the LCLUP Update where a decision is made on whether to submit a Pacifica City Council 4
May 23, 2024
resolution to the CCC in response to CCC staff’s suggested modifications from March 2023.
This is a necessary step to conclude the comprehensive LCLUP update process that was started in 2009 and most recently included incorporation of conforming General Plan amendments in October 2023. Consideration of a resolution to propose alternative modifications that may be acceptable to the CCC is the best and most expedient way for the City to seek CCC certification of the LCLUP in a form that is acceptable to the CCC.
The need for transmittal of alternative modifications by resolution arose during a City-CCC staff coordination after LCLUP Meeting #3 on March 2, 2024. At the coordination meeting, CCC staff relayed that further internal discussions at the CCC concluded that transmittal by resolution was required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30510 which states, in part, that “a proposed local coastal program may be submitted to the [CCC]” only if it is submitted “pursuant to a resolution adopted by the local government...” Staff has prepared the draft resolution included as Attachment A which will serve as the mechanism for transmittal of the alternative modifications to the CCC once they are finalized by the City Council. Adoption of the resolution would be considered at a subsequent City Council meeting.
2. Follow-up Items from April 15 and April 22 Meetings
Staff noted several points in City Council’s discussion at the April 15 and April 22 meetings that required follow-up. Follow-up items are described below with staff’s recommended approach to respond to City Council. Note that no changes have been made to the Alternative Modifications table included in Attachment B since April 15. Therefore, additional policy changes proposed by staff are included in this staff report only.
A. Individualized Determination
Between LCLUP Meeting #3 and Meeting #4, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Sheetz v. El Dorado County (U.S., Apr. 12, 2024, No. 22-1074). The case centered on Constitutional issues related to monetary exactions in the form of legislatively adopted impact fees imposed by a government agency as a monetary condition during the development review process. The Supreme Court held that a legislatively imposed impact fee could, indeed, be challenged as a Nollan/Dolan claim but the Court did not conclude whether the impact fee at issue in Sheetz was invalid. Under the Nollan/Dolan test, such an exaction is a taking unless the government can demonstrate a direct nexus and rough proportionality between the exaction and the burden placed by the property on public resources. (Nollan v.
California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 107; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374). While monetary exactions are not at issue in the LCLUP Update, staff is recommending adding language to the LCLUP to make clear that decisions on coastal development permit issuance would be made based on the facts for each development project. This language will help to ensure that all actions undertaken in furtherance of the LCLUP are consistent with the Nollan/Dolan requirements of a direct nexus and rough proportionality between any exactions and the burden placed by the property on public resources.
Staff recommends the addition of a new policy in the LCLUP to specify that decisions relating to coastal development permit issuance will be reviewed individually in a manner that is consistent with applicable state and federal law. The new policy would read as follows:
LD-I-#: Individualized Determinations. Ensure decisions on coastal development permits include an individualized, property-specific determination of policies, conditions of approval, and other regulations imposed to regulate development, and ensure regulations imposed on properties pursuant to the LCLUP are consistent with applicable state and federal law.
The new policy would be an alternative modification in Chapter 2, Section 2.3 Land Use Pacifica City Council 5
May 23, 2024
Framework, subsection Coastal Development Review, Implementing Policies.
B. Deed Restrictions – Policy CR-I-45
Policy CR-I-45 Assumption of Risk by Private landowners (Modification No. 6.45 in Attachment B) has been the subject of significant public comment and Council discussion during the LCLUP Update process. The policy is intended to provide notice and disclosure to property owners of restrictions on the use of property related to issuance of a coastal development permit (CDP).
At the most basic level, the deed restrictions would effectuate Coastal Act provisions related to new development. Public Resources Code section 30253 provides, in pertinent part, that “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...” The deed restriction requirement in Policy CR-I-45 is triggered upon approval of a CDP for development of a property located in a Coastal Vulnerability Zone or, as proposed in an alternative modification by City staff, property located in a Tsunami Inundation Zone1. The CVZ and Tsunami Inundation Zone are identified using hazard modeling tools at a scale greater than the individual property level.
Staff’s analysis of this issue has concluded that the requirement to record a deed restriction when development is approved with a CDP is reasonably related to implementation of Public Resources Code section 30253 and other applicable Coastal Act provisions. However, staff has also concluded that recordation of a deed restriction should not be required if a qualified professional determines a geotechnical hazard does not actually affect a specific property based on an individualized determination. The following paragraphs discuss further modifications to Policy CR-I-45 recommended by City staff to address this point. a. Individualized Geotechnical Hazard Analysis
Staff acknowledges that an individualized geotechnical hazard analysis could in some cases result in a property being determined not to be subject to a coastal hazard otherwise suggested by the CVZ or Tsunami Inundation Zone maps. In order to address the concern that the deed restriction will be required of properties that are identified in the CVZ and/or Tsunami Inundation Zone, but not actually subject to a geotechnical hazard, staff has proposed language that would allow for an individualized geotechnical hazard analysis to exempt a property from the deed restriction requirement.
Staff has prepared the following revisions to Policy CR-I-45 for Council consideration, with changes to the policy text as included in Modification No. 6.45 in Attachment B shown in strikethrough and underline:
Coastal Development Permit approvals of development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Inundation Zones shall require the applicant to: record a deed restriction requiring the owner to assume liability and indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless, including any injury and/or damage from coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development; unconditionally waive any claim 1 The March 2023 CCC staff suggested modification added properties in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone and Tsunami Evacuation Zone to the policy. The City staff alternative modification proposes to change Tsunami Evacuation Zone to Tsunami Inundation Zone which would narrow the applicability of this requirement.
Pacifica City Council 6
May 23, 2024
of damage from coastal hazards against the City; waive rights to future shoreline armoring; acknowledge the development may need to be removed and the site restored in response to future hazard conditions; and to assume all responsibility for any adverse effects to property caused by the permitted project and/or need for removal or relocation of development. Except that an applicant shall not be required to record a deed restriction as described in this policy if a site-specific geotechnical hazard analysis prepared by a qualified professional licensed by the State of California determines that the project site would not be subject to the hazard(s) identified in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Inundation Zone for the Anticipated Life of the project.
This revision would allow a property to obtain CDP approval and construct development without recording a deed restriction if appropriate technical analysis concluded the property is not subject to any coastal hazards including but not limited to coastal erosion, flooding, and tsunami inundation.
b. Tsunami Inundation Zone
Tsunami is a type of coastal hazard that typically occurs infrequently but that can cause catastrophic damage when it does occur. Planning for tsunami hazard has not been a systematized part of coastal development review in the 1980 LCLUP. Policy CR-I-45, with CCC staff suggested modifications would expand the requirement for recordation of a deed restriction in association with CDP approval to property located in the Tsunami Evacuation Zones as mapped by the California Department of Conservation.
Tsunami Evacuation Zones (TEZ) are mapped based on a worst-case tsunami scenario to facilitate evacuation planning. However, the TEZ do not reflect a less significant, higherprobability tsunami event that staff believes would be more appropriate for purposes of the deed restriction requirement in Policy CR-I-45. Therefore, City staff previously put forth an alternative modification for City Council consideration to require a deed restriction within a Tsunami Inundation Zone (TIZ). The intent behind specifying the TIZ instead of the TEZ was to strike a better balance between Public Resource Code section 30253 Policy CR-I-45 and the likelihood of a specific, damaging tsunami event affecting a particular property.
Public comment has identified particular concern with the inclusion of tsunami inundation as a factor in application of Policy CR-I-45. Staff believes it is appropriate to consider the hazard from tsunami for purposes of CR-I-45 in light of Public Resources Code section 30253, but recognizes that better definition is needed to determine what exact tsunami hazard scenario should be utilized for purposes of this policy. Therefore, staff has proposed adding the term “Tsunami Inundation Zone” to the Glossary, as further discussed in the next section.
C. Glossary
During the April 15 and April 22 meetings, the Council requested some clarifications to the Glossary within the LCLUP, including modifications to existing definitions and addition of new definitions and new acronyms. Staff has summarized these changes, in addition to the tsunamirelated Glossary addition described in the preceding section. a. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
The General Plan consistency changes made in October 2023 deleted a paragraph in Chapter 1 that contained the expanded form and acronym of the term, but added just the acronym in another paragraph. The correction will include adding the expanded version in the new paragraph and adding the term to the Glossary.
Pacifica City Council 7
May 23, 2024
b. Environmental Justice
The General Plan consistency changes made in October 2023 deleted the City’s original definition from the 2020 version of the LCLUP and added the new version from the 2040 General Plan. To address Council’s concern, staff is proposing to keep the original version consistent with the CCC’s environmental justice policy.
c. Mean High Tide Line
City Council directed staff to add a definition for Mean High Tide Line. While the Coastal Act makes several mentions of “mean high tide,” the Coastal Act does not contain a definition. Staff is recommending the following alternative modification to add a new definition with language similar to Policy CR-I-46:
Mean High Tide Line: The intersection of the tidal plane of the mean high water with the shore. Determined by survey prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor based on field data collected within 12 months. The survey must be conducted in consultation with and approved by the California State Lands Commission.
d. Tsunami Inundation Zone
As discussed above under Policy CR-I-45, definition of the relevant tsunami hazard event is necessary to enable site-specific tsunami hazard analysis. Staff recommends defining the term “Tsunami Inundation Zone” as follows:
Tsunami Inundation Zone: An area of likely tsunami inundation under a tsunami scenario defined in the City of Pacifica’s Implementation Plan. The applicable tsunami scenario should balance a reasonable probability of event occurrence with a reasonable potential of the tsunami event causing substantial loss of life and/or damage to property. Such a tsunami scenario could include, but is not necessarily limited to, 475-year Average Return Period (ARP) event described in the publication Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Maps for the State of California (Phase 2), California Department of Conservation (2023).
D. Specifying “Coastal Development Permit”
During the April meetings, Council and public commenters requested clarification on the meaning of the term “permit” in the LCLUP. Staff proposes to change all references to “permit” to “Coastal Development Permit” or “CDP” to clarify that in the context of the LCLUP, the relevant permit is a coastal development permit unless another permit type is specified in the text (e.g., building permit, grading permit). This revision will clarify that the LCLUP policies are intended to be applied to CDP reviews and approvals and not to other non-discretionary permits, such as building permits.
E. Updates to Maps
City Council directed staff to make changes to Figure 3-1, including adding ADA Coastal Access Points where they have been recently constructed at the Sharp Park Golf Course and corrections to other identified coastal access points identified on the map. These map updates are ongoing and staff will ensure they are incorporated into an updated exhibit with the final alternative modifications prior to City Council adoption.
Pacifica City Council 8
May 23, 2024
F. Identification of Specific Policies Related to Special Resiliency Areas Council asked for a clear listing of policies related to the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policies that staff has proposed as alternative modifications. The text of LCLUP provisions related to the SRA concept are summarized immediately below in Table 1 (strikethrough/underline indicates changes from March 2023 CCC staff suggested modifications):
Modification 6.14 The Special Resiliency Areas (SRA) include the existing shoreline protection structures in the Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park subareas. 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 circumstance 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.
Modification 6.15
(Policy CR-I-17)
The City will establish a funding source for 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 sources. The City will ensure that the shoreline management plan contains funding and implementation actions 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 shoreline management plan will fund a variety of projects identifying and carrying out shoreline protection removal opportunities, implementing naturebased 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.
Modification 6.42
(Policy CR-I-43)
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; Pacifica City Council 9
May 23, 2024
Modification 6.44
(Policy CR-I-44)
New development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall be sited and designed to be safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years the anticipated life of the development without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development, as demonstrated by site-specific analyses and/or technical reports. Permit approvals shall prohibit shoreline protection structures for the authorized development, require the property owner to record an acknowledgement that the development does not qualify as an existing structure entitled to construction of a shoreline protection structure under Coastal Act Section 30235, and any other laws, that waive any rights to such protection structures that might exist, and that, where necessary, requires a removal and restoration plan, including bonding for large projects, to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure. However, behind Special Resiliency Areas, new development shall be allowed to be sited and designed in reliance on and in consideration of protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures.
Modification 6.46
(Policy CR-I-49)
Substantial Structural Modifications. When proposed modifications to an existing structure constitute a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM), as defined, such proposed development shall correct any existing legal nonconformities and shall be undertaken consistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies CR-I-43 and CR-I44. Except that behind Special Resiliency Areas, development shall only be required to correct existing nonconformities related to applicable coastal hazards on the site.
G. Other Minor Modifications
During the April meetings, City Council directed staff to incorporate other changes to alternative modifications, including a correction to Modification 3.5 (PR-I-24 Sharp Park), and revisions to Modifications 5.4 (NH-I-9 Erosion Prevention), 5.14 (NH-I-39 Vegetation Management), and
6.23 (CR-I-23 Sharp Park Golf Course).
H. Questions and Answers
The City Council members at the April meetings indicated they had a number of unanswered questions related to the LCLUP Update process. Staff has prepared answers to these questions and included them in Attachment H. Attachment H also includes Council questions answered in advance of the April 15 and April 22 meetings. City Council can also access the extensive list of questions and answers and case studies prepared for Meeting #3 contained in the March 2, 2024 study session staff report.
Pacifica City Council 10 May 23, 2024
3. Meeting #4: Completing Review of All Alternative Modifications Meeting #4 in the community engagement plan is designed to allow City Council to receive a presentation from staff on all of the proposed alternative modifications, including the SRA policies, and to allow City Council to ask questions on any of the alternative modifications. The City Council previously completed its review of alternative modifications except for Chapter 6.
Staff recommends the focus of this meeting be on completion of review of alternative modifications for Chapter 6, along with consideration of the additional information presented in Section 2 of the staff report, above.
Attachment B contains the alternative modifications prepared by City staff in response to CCC staff’s suggested modifications from the CCC’s report from March 8, 2023. The table also contains a brief summary and/or explanation as to why staff is or is not proposing an alternative modification. Staff has made no edits to Attachment B or Attachment G (LCP Redlined Document) since the April 15 staff report.
Chapter 6: Coastal Resiliency contains the largest number of CCC suggested modifications, which are the most significant in terms of their relationship to and impact on existing and future development in Pacifica. The staff drafted alternative modifications, including the Special Resiliency Area (SRA) policy framework, in an attempt to provide a better balance between allowing development and protection of the coast than that provided in the CCC staff’s suggested modifications. For instance, the SRA policies would allow for development to continue in some of the City’s most prominent visitor-serving areas that contain a number of desirable land uses, including housing and commercial uses. Consequently, staff recommends that City Council include the SRA policies in the list of alternative modifications to submit to the CCC.
4. Next Steps
The key outcome of this meeting is to confirm the list of alternative modifications supported by the City Council. Once confirmed by Council, staff will schedule adoption of the resolution in Attachment A at a subsequent City Council meeting. Once adopted, staff will submit the LCLUP inclusive of the alternative modifications to CCC staff. CCC staff has indicated that they will need approximately 2-3 months to review and schedule a hearing on the City’s LCLUP once they receive the City Council resolution. The CCC may then certify the City’s LCLUP as submitted, deny the LCLUP submittal, or certify subject to City Council acceptance of additional suggested modifications.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff has received one public comment since the April 22, 2024 City Council Meeting and before the release date of this report, see Attachment I.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
Adoption of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15266 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs”) which provides that “CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal Act…by (1) Any local government, as defined by Section 30109 of the Public Resources Code, necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program…” Section 15265 further provides that “CEQA shall apply to the certification of a local coastal program… by the California Coastal Commission.” ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
No alternative action has been identified.
Pacifica City Council 11 May 23, 2024
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update is consistent with the following item(s) in the Counciladopted Strategic Plan and Priority Work Plan for FY 2023-24:
• Goal 4: Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation. o Strategy C: Update Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan and improve communications and collaboration with the California Coastal Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact from this item.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution for LCLUP Process Update (DOCX) Attachment B - Summary Table with Alternative Modifications (PDF) Attachment C - Coastal Commission Jurisdictional Boundaries (Sharp Park Golf Course Area) (PDF)
Attachment D - Excerpt of Coastal Commission Staff Report w9a-11-2017(PDF) Attachment E - Rockaway Beach Special Resiliency Area (SRA) (PDF) Attachment F - West Sharp Park Special Resiliency Area (SRA) (PDF) Attachment G - Redlined LCLUP (PDF)
Attachment H - Responses to Council Questions (DOCX)
Attachment I - Public Comments (PDF)