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 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.
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.
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 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 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 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. 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.
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.
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 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
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).