Agenda — Pacifica City Council, August 12, 2024 (part 4 of 4)

Edwardo will need to:
pay for $30-50K in technical reports before even applying for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP);
site and design as if existing shoreline protections do not exist; record a deed restriction on his property;
remove any non-compliant development; and
waive all rights to future shoreline protections.

West Fairway Park Scenario #2
Five years ago, Pacifica rebuilt the Sharp Park seawall and closed the Clarendon gap. Previous CVZs in West Fairway Park are now no longer threatened . Edwardo wants to remove the fireplace, add a junior ADU, and add a heat pump. His property is still considered to be in a CVZ in West Fairway Park because SSM projects in non-SSRA neighborhoods are not allowed to consider shoreline protections exist.

14.e
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) Edwardo will need to do everything in Scenario #1, even though the new seawall provides real protection to the neighborhood, the LCLUP policies do not allow us to consider them. Again, he is punished for doing the right thing.

West Fairway Park Scenario #3
Kathleen is a homeowner in West Fairway Park, whose home is outside the Coastal Vulnerability Zone – but inside the Tsunami Evacuation Zone – wants to build a porch. Kathleen will be required to go through the full Technical Reports and Siting/Design process because the porch would be located within the Tsunami Zone and because tsunami is a defined "Coastal Hazard".

West Sharp Park Scenario #4
Julie is the owner of a 7-unit low-cost housing apartment building on Palmetto Ave. She needs to replace the driveway and outdoor parking structure for the building, which constitutes an SSM. The new LCLUP has gone into effect, but the city has not completed the requirements for the Coastal Access and Resilience Program and/or the Shoreline Adaptation Program yet and it will likely take a year or more. If Julie had a CDP before the new LCLUP, she would have been OK.

But now Julie must:
pay for $30-50K in technical reports before even applying for a CDP; site and design as if existing shoreline protections do not exist; record a deed restriction;
remove any non-compliant development; and
waive all rights to future shoreline protections, which negates her rights even when/if West Sharp Park becomes SSRA.

Sharp Park Golf Course Scenario #5
The golf course wants to replace a deteriorating golf cart barn with a new structure, which constitutes an SSM. The golf course will be required to go through the full Technical Reports and Siting/Design process and record a deed restriction which includes waiving all rights to future shoreline protections. This is how the Coastal Commission intends to remove the SPGC berm, which comes up for renewal in 2027.

Pedro Point Scenario #6
Tanisha is a homeowner in a CVZ area in Pedro Point. Her house is damaged by (fire / earthquake / tree fall) but is not completely destroyed. Repairs will constitute an SSM, and she will need to go through the full Technical Reports, the Siting/Design process, and record a deed

14.e
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) restriction which includes removing noncompliant development and waiving all rights to future shoreline protections.

Because he’s in a CVZ, Marco will need to go through the full Technical Reports and Siting/Design process.

SF RV Resort, 700 Palmetto, Scenario #8
The Resort is under CCC order to remove the rock revetment protecting the 12-acre property.

Within one or two storm cycles (24 months) the entire property will be eroded, approaching an unprotected Palmetto Ave and Highway 1. The city sewer line crossing the property will need to be relocated east at an unfunded state mandate cost to the city of $4 million (2021 estimate, not a bid).

SF RV Resort, 700 Palmetto, Scenario #9
Consider a property owner in the coastal zone with adjacent properties to the RV Resort losing or waiving their right to shoreline protections. At some point the shoreline protection abandoned by those properties will be removed. Erosion will move east, north, and south. The “protected” property will be isolated by erosion on all sides except west.

Neighborhood Blight in the Coastal Zones
As remodeling and maintenance prohibitions kick in, properties in the coastal zone become dilapidated. Seedy. Run down. Blighted. Property values drop. Resale values and numbers drop. Property taxes are appealed and decline. City revenue tanks. The city’s bond and credit ratings drop.

Property Insurance in the Coastal Zones
While the legislature focuses on fire hazards affecting insurance availability, CCC policies will be the main contributor to lack of insurance in the coastal zone. A relentless CCC focus on removing shoreline protections and prohibiting remodeling and maintenance will increase this risk. Declining property protections and building deterioration equals no insurance renewal.

Certainly, none at resale which means no mortgage.

14.e
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) CCC commissioner Cummings was directly asked about CCC impacts on coastal zone insurance availability. He replied that residents should ask the state Insurance Commissioner that question.

All these scenarios are realistic and spell disaster for Pacifica. I urge city council to table the LCLUP and seek help from our state senators, assemblymen, and legislators.

Respectfully,
Jeff Guillet
31-year resident of Fairway Park West
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.e
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 1 ., San Francisco, CA 94117 •
July 29, 2024
Pacifica City Council
Mayor Susan Vaterlaus
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA. 94044
Re: City Council Special Meeting, Pacifica Local Coastal Plan, August 12, 2024, 5:00 p.m. 1 PACIFICA’S LCLUP SHOULD EXEMPT MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND MINOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES FROM CDP PERMIT REQUIREMENS. THE COASTAL COMMISSION IN APRIL 2021 UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THESE SAME EXEMPTIONS IN HALF MOON BAY’S LOCAL COASTAL PLAN.
2 HALF MOON BAY’S LOCAL COASTAL PLAN ALSO EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR “MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES”.

PACIFICA’S LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN SHOULD DO THE SAME.

Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmembers,

1. Maintenance and Repair
Maintenance and repair of the historic Sharp Park Golf Course and Clubhouse was a major issue of concern raised by public speakers (including the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance) and letter-writers at City Council’s June 26, 2024 LCLUP Study Session. Among others, letters from

14.e
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 2 the Sharp Park Business Women’s1 and Men’s2 Golf Clubs (whose collective several hundred members include large numbers of Pacifica residents) expressed “shock” that the broad definition of “development” and other provisions of Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP appear to require Coastal Development Permits (with potentially onerous application and collateral requirements including expensive technical reports and siting and design requirements) for ordinary maintenance and repair tasks at the landmark Sharp Park Golf Course and Clubhouse.

Responding to these concerns, Council Members Boles, Bier, Bigstyck and Beckmeyer asked Planning Staff at the June 26 Study Session to identify and list any provisions of the June 2024 Draft LCLUP that allow for maintenance and repair of the golf course.3 Interim Deputy Planning Director Stefanie Cervantes responded that “regular maintenance [is] currently exempt from coastal development permits,” but did not cite any Policies or other language in the Draft LCLUP that allows for maintenance and repair.4
Because Pacifica’s Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan5 contains very broad definitions of “development,”6 “structure,”7 and “substantial structural modification,”8 ordinary maintenance activities such as placing or removing sand in sand traps, trimming or removing dead, dying, dangerous, or downed trees, restoring tees and greens, or repairing cart paths or pipes may fall within the broad definition of “development” and thus require Coastal Development Permits.

Likewise maintenance and repair issues at the historic Clubhouse. Both Sharp Golf Course and its Clubhouse are formally designated City of Pacifica landmarks9 because of their architectural pedigree, and in the case of the golf course national and international prominence as the work of the legendary architect Alister MacKenzie. And because they are old – opened in 1932 – they both have special needs to be maintained and kept in good repair. 1 Letter, Sharp Park Business Women’s Golf Club (Villasenor) to Pacifica City Council, June 21, 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EDm6t1NOBTZ -5bm4AfBxd0yALQiExao/view?usp=drive link 2 Letter, Sharp Park Golf Club (Larroche) to Pacifica City Council, June 24, 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S0Uu5x2pqRkZh5USsDBJQVIpLl6BM-FW/view?usp=sharing 3 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube Video, Pacifica City Council June 26, 2024 LCLUP Study Session, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx8 zi3qC0 : Boles at 4:28:35-29:00; Bier at 4:29:04-29:30; Bigstyck at 4:32:08; Beckmeyer at 4:32:15
4 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube Video, Pacifica City Council June 26, 2024 LCLUP Study Session, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx8 zi3qC0: Acting Planning Director Stefanie Cervantes, at 4:29:41 5 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Attachment E to City Council June 26, 2024 Agenda Packet, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540 (Pages 73-350) 6 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Glossary, Pg. G-4 , Packet Pg. 320: “Development: . . . . the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; dis charge or disposal of any dredged material or of a. . . . liquid, solid, . . . waste; grading, removing, . . . .any material . . .” 7 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Glossary, Pg. G-10, Packet Pg. 326: “Structure:

Anything construed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground, or is attached to a building or other structure having a fixed location on the ground.”
8 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Pg. G- 10 Packet Pg. 326 9 Pacifica 2040 General Plan (Adopted 2022-07-11).pdf (egnyte.com), at Table 7-5 Historic Sites and Figure 7-4 Historic and Cultural Resources, at Pages 7-42 to 7-43 (217-218/311)

14.e
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 3 Operation of the landmark golf course and its clubhouse are supported by policies found in Chapters Two (Land Use), Three (Public Access and Recreation), and Four (Environmental and Scenic Resources) of Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP.10  LD-I-5 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. Protect, encourage, and where feasible, provide lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities in the Coastal Zone. These include major, free recreational attractions such as Pacifica Pier and Pacifica State Beach; the public golf course at Sharp Park; the San Francisco RV Park; California Coastal Trail and other trails, lower cost overnight accommodations; and numerous beaches accessible at no cost.11
 PR-I-24 Sharp Park. Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with resource protection, natural hazard, and coastal vulnerability policies, existing 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

1.12  ER-G-12 Historic and Cultural Sites. Conserve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Pacifica’s identity and character and increase public awareness and appreciation for them.13
Since “protection,” “operation,” and “conserve” all necessitate maintenance and repair, maintenance and repair are implied in Implementation Policies LD-I-5, PR-I-24, and General Policy ER-G-12. But the Draft LCLUP contains no General or Implementation Policies expressly exempting Maintenance and Repair from development permit requirements. There is only the following recital in the text of the LCLUP’s Section Two, Land Use:
“Pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from coastal development permit requirements. These exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610 of the PRC (Public Resources Code) and Sections 13252, 13253, and 13250 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).”14
The Coastal Act, at Public Resources Code 30610,15 provides in relevant part as follows:
30610. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division [The Coastal Act], no coastal development permit shall be required pursuant to this chapter for the following types of development and in the following areas: , , ,
(d) Repair or maintenance activities that do not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of those repair or maintenance activities . . . 10 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Attachment E to City Council June 26, 2024 Agenda Packet, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540 (Pages 73-350) 11 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Pg. 2-27, Packet Pg. 116 12 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Pg. 3-20, Packet Pg. 149 13 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Pg. 4-33, Packet Pg. 209 14 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., at Pg. 2-13, Packet Pg. 102

15 California Public Resources Code 30610:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=7. &article=1.

14.e
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 4 At Implementation Policy LD-I-3, Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP provides as follows:

LD-I-3 Coastal Development Permit Findings. For all development that requires a coastal development permit, continue to require written findings that it is consistent with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.16 The corollary of LD-I-3 is that development that does not require a coastal development permit should as well be exempt from CDP permit conditions and requirements, including Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP’s Implementation Policies CR-I-19 (Technical Reports), CR-I-20 (“Siting and Design,” and CR-I-21 (“Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure”).17 But nothing in Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP says this expressly.

For guidance on this issue, we turn to Pacifica’s neighbor, the City of Half Moon Bay, whose updated Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan,18 unanimously approved April 15, 2021 by the California Coastal Commission,19 provides at Appendix A a general exemption from coastal development permit requirements for maintenance, repair and minor additions to existing structures – an exemption that applies city-wide, including to the two golf courses within Half Moon Bay city limits at the Ritz-Carlton Resort. Half Moon Bay’s Maintenance and Repair exemption includes the following language:

Coastal Development Permits A coastal development permit is required for any project that meets the definition of development pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30106. . . . Certain categories of development are exempt from coastal development permit requirements, such as repair and maintenance, agricultural harvesting, minor additions to existing structures, and replacement of structures destroyed by natural disaster. Other types of de minimis development projects that do not have potential for any coastal resource impacts, such as residential additions, accessory dwelling units, invasive plant removal, and minor habitat restoration projects without the use of motorized or mechanized equipment, may be granted a coastal development permit waiver.20
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance requests that similar language be included in Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan June 2024 Draft.
16 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Supra, at Pg. 2-14, Packet Pg. 103 17 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Supra, Implementation Policies CR-I-19, CR—I-20, and CRI-21, at Pages . 2-14, Packet Pages 6-32 to 6-35, Packet Pages 276-279. 18 Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021-exhibits.pdf, at Exhibit 2; the Local Coastal Plan is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Coastal Commission Staff Report for the April 15, 2021 hearing: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021-report.pdf 19 Coastal Commission Meeting, Apr. 15, 2021, Agenda Item 9a, Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, Approved as Submitted: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#2021/4; Draft Minutes of Coastal Commission Meeting, April. 14-16, 2021, at page 8 ( https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/6/W21/W21a-6-2021.pdf); unanimous vote recorded on CalSpan video of the Commission’s April 15, 2021 meeting, at Agenda Item 9a, Motion and Vote:

Video: California Coastal Commission- April 15, 2021, 8 a.m. CAL-SPAN 20 Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, City Council Final Approved Draft, October 2020, Appendix A, p. 2, at 398/480 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021-exhibits.pdf

14.e
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 5 2. Maintenance and Restoration of Historic Buildings and Properties Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan, at Chapter 9 (“Scenic and Visual Resources”) also makes special provision for “maintenance and restoration” of historic buildings and properties:
9-26. Historic Buildings Maintenance. Allow the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings and properties to preserve their scenic and visual qualities.21 CONCLUSION: REQUESTED TEXT FOR (1) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR EXCLUSION FROM CDP REQUIREMENTS, AND (2) ENABLE MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES.

For the reasons discussed above, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance respectfully requests the following provisions and language be added to Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP.

1. Modify Implementation Policy PR-1-24 (found in Chapter Three of Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan) should be amended as follows (with requested amending language in yellow highlight):

PR-I-24 Sharp Park. Support the continued operation of golf, including maintenance and repair of facilities, at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with resource protection, natural hazard, and coastal vulnerability policies, existing 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.

2. Modify Implementation Policy LD-1-3 (found in Chapter Two of Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan), should be amended as follows (with requested amending language in yellow highlight).

Certain categories of development are exempt from coastal development permit requirements, such as repair and maintenance, agricultural harvesting, minor additions to existing structures, and replacement of structures destroyed by natural disaster. Other types of de minimis development projects that do not have potential for any coastal resource impacts, such as residential additions, accessory dwelling units, invasive plant removal, and minor habitat restoration projects without the use of motorized or mechanized equipment, may be granted a coastal development permit waiver.

3. Add a new Implementation Policy to Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, as follows:

ER-I-44 Historic Buildings Maintenance. Allow the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings and properties to preserve their historic, architectural, and visual qualities

21 Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, City Council Final Approved Draft, October 2020, Chapter 9, at 394/480 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021-exhibits.pdf

14.e
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 6 These requested modifications are needed to clear-up uncertainty in Pacifica’s Draft Local Coastal Plan, and track provisions already enthusiastically endorsed by Coastal Commission Staff and unanimously approved by the Coastal Commission on April 15, 2021, for the local coastal plan of Pacifica’s near-neighbor City of Half Moon Bay. So we respectfully request Pacifica City Council approve the above-requested modifications for Pacifica’s LCLUP. . Respectfully submitted,
Richard Harris
President, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
cc: City Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Interim Deputy Planning Director Stefanie Cervantes, Planning Commission and Commissioners, City Clerk Sarah Coffey, Phil Ginsburg, Gen. Mgr., San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept., Spencer Potter, Esq., San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept.; Stephanie Rexing, North Central Coast District Manager, California Coastal Commission

14.e
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 1 ., San Francisco, CA 94117 •
August 6, 2024
Pacifica City Council
Mayor Susan Vaterlaus
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA. 94044
Re: City Council Special Meeting, Pacifica Local Coastal Plan, August 12, 2024, 5:00 p.m.

PACIFICA’S LCLUP SHOULD NOT USE TSUNAMI (WHETHER “EVACUATION” OR “INUNDATION”) AS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION DEVICE BECAUSE IT IS EXTREME, UNLIKELY, AND UNREASONABLE. THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY’S LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, APPROVED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION IN 2021, OFFERS A COMMONSENSE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO THE TSUNAMI RISK.

Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmembers,

14.e
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 2 1. Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan Has Commonsense Tsunami Policy, Approved by the Coastal Commission in April 2021, which can Provide Guidance to Pacifica.

Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan was certified by its City Council in October 2020 and unanimously approved by the Coastal Commission in April 2021, including the Commission’s finding that Half Moon Bay’s Plan “conforms with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.”1 Here is what the Half Moon Bay LCP says about the Tsunami risk:
“Mitigation of tsunami risk consists mainly of improved early warning systems and evacuation routes and information, rather than restrictions on development for infill development sites. However, other planning considerations may apply for PDs [Planned Developments] or new subdivisions. In 2005 the City installed two emergency warning sirens within the city limits and updated its evacuation plan. The City has also obtained its TsunamiReady certification from NOAA.” (emphasis added)
Policies – Shoreline Hazards
7-9. New Development in Tsunami Inundation Zone. Limit the creation of new building sites in the tsunami inundation zone. Infill development on existing building sites may be permitted in the tsunami inundation zone, provided that a disclosure of hazard presence and a hold harmless clause indemnifying the City from any harm caused to permitted development by tsunami inundation are recorded against the property.
2 (emphasis added)
Significantly, the Half Moon Bay LCP’s tsunami disclosure and hold harmless requirement is simple and straightforward, specific to the tsunami inundation risk, and far less burdensome to property owners than the catchall “Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure” of Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP Implementing Policy CR-I-21, with its eight subparagraphs and a general “waive[r of] any rights that might exist under applicable law for shoreline protection structures.”3 Half Moon Bay’s is a commonsense solution to an extraordinarily unlikely occurrence. The “tsunami evacuation zone” mapped in Pacifica’s June 2024 Draft LCLUP at Figure 5-3, “Flood Zones” (copy attached as EXHIBIT 1),4 is based on a once-in “975 year probabilistic tsunami inundation model”.5
1 Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021-exhibits.pdf, at Exhibit 2, the Local Coastal Plan is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Coastal Commission Staff Report for the April 15, 2021 hearing: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021-report.pdf, Resolution, at p. 4.

Coastal Commission Agenda, April 15, 2021, Item No. 9a: Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, Approved as Submitted: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#2021/4; Minutes of April 15, 2021 CCC Meeting, at unnumbered page 8 of 17:
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/6/W21/W21a-6-2021.pdf 2 Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, Id. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/4/Th9a/Th9a-4-2021- exhibits.pdf, at Exhibit 2, Pg. 324/480, first full paragraph, and Pg. 326/480 3 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Attachment E to City Council June 26, 2024 Agenda Packet, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540, at Pg. 6-33 to 635, Packet Pg. 277-279. 4 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., Pg. 8-16, Figure 5-3, “Flood Zones,” at Pkt. Pg. 346/350 5 California Geological Survey Tsunami Hazard Area Map County of San Mateo, Mar. 23, 2021 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/TsunamiMaps/Tsunami Hazard Area Map San Mateo County a11y.pdf

14.e
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 3 Since Tsunami is both an extraordinarily unlikely event and an extreme limitation on property rights, and since the Coastal Commission in 2021 unanimously approved the Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan’s tsunami approach of “improved early warning systems and evacuation routes and information, rather than restrictions on development for infill development sites,” Pacifica should seriously consider the same approach. Pacifica should also seriously consider limiting and simplifying its “Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure” for tsunami, to be specific to tsunami only -- as is done in the Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan’s Shoreline Hazard Policy 7-9.

2. Coastal Confusion: Tsunami, Coastal Hazards, Siting, and Technical Reports, Oh My! Coastal Commission Staff’s demand to establish Tsunami Evacuation Zone as a development restriction in Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP – first made public at City Council’s March 2, 2024 LCLUP Study Session -- was a topic of discussion and confusion at Council’s June 26 meeting. Responding to questions from Councilpersons Bier, Boles, Beckmeyer and Bigstyck6, Acting Deputy Planning Director Cervantes assured Council that Tsunami risk only applies as a restriction on development (thereby invoking the Technical Reports and Siting and Design requirements of Pacifica’s Draft Implementing Policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-207) for properties in mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zones.8
But Pacifica Staff and Councilmembers did not discuss the tsunami implications of two other Coastal Commission Staff-mandated “modifications” that debuted in Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP in March and June 2024, respectively: (i) the Glossary’s new “Coastal Hazards” definition (which includes “coastal flooding” and “tsunami”)9; and (ii) the new Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policy CR-I-1,10 which would effectively extend the impact of the tsunami designation, as follows:

CR-I-1 Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Those areas of the City that are predicted to be vulnerable to coastal hazards have been mapped as Coastal Vulnerability Zones in Appendix B, where such mapping is based on the best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards at the time of LUP adoption. It is likely that such areas will change over time, and Appendix B shall be regularly updated to guide implementation of the LCP’s coastal resiliency provisions. In any case, however, if best available science at the time an application is reviewed shows that proposed 6 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube Video, Pacifica City Council June 26, 2024 LCLUP Study Session, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx8 zi3qC0
7 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Attachment E to City Council June 26, 2024 Agenda Packet, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540, Implementing Policies CR-I-19 (Technical Reports) and CR-I-20 (Siting and Design), at Pgs. 6-32 to 6-33, Packet Pgs. 276-277 8 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube Video, Pacifica City Council June 26, 2024 LCLUP Study Session, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHx8 zi3qC0 Cervantes at 4:33:32-4:35:25, and exchange between Boles and Cervantes at 4:42:12 to 4:43:12.
9 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Attachment E to City Council June 26, 2024 Agenda Packet, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540, Glossary, “Coastal Hazards”, at Pg. G-4, Packet Pg. 320: “Coastal Hazards: Include but are not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, wave overtopping, coastal flooding, and their interaction, all of which may be exacerbated by sea level rise.” 10 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, June 2024 Draft, Id., Coastal Resilience, Implementing Policy CR-I-1, at

Page 6 ends

14.e
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 4 development located outside of such mapped area is also vulnerable to coastal hazards, then such application shall be reviewed as though such development was located in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones. (emphasis added) The text of the 2024 Draft LCLUP, at Chapter 5, Natural Hazards, under subheadings “Flood Zones” and “Coastal Flooding,” provides in relevant part as follows:
“Flood hazards mapped by FEMA . . . identify areas of greater flood risk . . and the risk of coastal flooding . . . Flood zones based on the FIRMs are shown in Figure 5-3. The FIRMs represent the best available maps of flood hazard areas in Pacifica. Coastal Flooding. . . . flooding from coastal sources . . occurs as some combination of high tides, large wind-driven waves, storm surge, and/or tsunami waves.” (emphasis added) The June 2024 Draft LCLUP’s Figure 5-3, “Flood Zones” (EXHIBIT 1), shows a green diagonally-striped “Tsunami Evacuation Area” extending to the Coast Highway in virtually all of the developed Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, Mori Point, Rockaway Beach and Linda Mar neighborhoods; the Legend at the map’s bottom right-hand corner identifies the tsunami information source as: “Tsunami Hazard Area for San Mateo County, Department of Conservation, State of California, 2021.”
Because “tsunami” and “coastal flooding” are components of the Draft LCLUP’s defined term “coastal hazards,” and because the “best available science” for the tsunami risk is the 2021 California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Hazard Area for San Mateo County (mapped in the Draft LCLUP at Figure 3 “Flood Zones”), Draft LCLUP Implementing Policy CR-I-1 means that applications for development in virtually all of Pacifica’s developed neighborhoods west of the Coast Highway “shall be reviewed as though such development was located in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones.” This appears effectively to be a backdoor for technical reports and siting and design requirements for virtually all development in these neighborhoods.

3. Summary and Request
Tsunami is extraordinarily unlikely and a tsunami development restriction burdensome and unreasonable in existing neighborhoods. The Coastal Act does not require Tsunami to be a Local Coastal Plan development restriction – as the Coastal Commission determined in April 2021 in the matter of Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan. So we respectfully request that Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan not use Tsunami – whether “evacuation” or “inundation” – as a restriction on infill development in Pacifica’s already-developed areas and neighborhoods.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Harris
President, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
cc: City Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Interim Deputy Planning Director Stefanie Cervantes, Interim Community Development Director Kavitha Kumar, Planning Commission and Commissioners, City Clerk Sarah Coffey, Phil Ginsburg, Gen. Mgr., San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept., Spencer Potter, Esq., San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept.; Stephanie Rexing, North Central Coast District Manager, California Coastal Commission; Mr. Jeff Guillet

14.e
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) 5 EXHIBIT 1 Pacifica Draft LCLUP JUNE 2024, Figure 5-3, Flood Zones

14.e
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) From: Jeff Guillet
To: [email protected]; Coffey, Sarah; Pacifica Permit Tech; City Manager; CoastalPlan; City Council; Public Comment
Cc: Vaterlaus, Sue; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Boles, Christine; Cervantes, Stefanie; Woodhouse, Kevin; "Phil Ginsburg"; "Potter, Spencer (REC)"; [email protected]; [email protected]; "Butch Larroche"; "Bob Downing"; Kumar, Kavitha Subject: Re: Pacifica City Council / Aug. 12, 2024 / LCLUP Study Session #5, cont. / Comment of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance re: Tsunami, etc.

Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 12:13:03 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to you from a camping vacation in the Sierras. I will still be here and unable to attend the August 12 LCLUP meeting.

I am in 100% agreement with every word attorney Richard Harris wrote below. The new tsunami restrictions remain one of the most hotly contested and confusing issues in CCC staff's rewrite of the LCLUP.

It is an unreasonable demand placed on Pacifica, especially when you consider Half Moon Bay's unanimously approved LCLUP that does not force development restrictions in tsunami evacuation or inundation areas.

I urge city council to use similar language in our LCLUP to protect Pacifica.

Regards,
Jeff Guillet
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 9:48 AM
To: 'Coffey, Sarah' <[email protected]>; 'Pacifica Permit Tech' <[email protected]>; 'City Manager' <[email protected]>; 'CoastalPlan' <[email protected]>; 'City Council' <[email protected]>; 'Public Comment' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Vaterlaus, Sue' <[email protected]>; 'Bigstyck, Tygarjas' <[email protected]>; 'Beckmeyer, Sue' <[email protected]>; 'Bier, Mary' <[email protected]>; 'Boles, Christine' <[email protected]>; 'Cervantes, Stefanie' <[email protected]>; 'Woodhouse, Kevin' <[email protected]>; 'Phil Ginsburg' <[email protected]>; 'Potter, Spencer (REC)' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Butch
Larroche' >; 'Bob Downing' ; Jeff Guillet
>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Pacifica City Council / Aug. 12, 2024 / LCLUP Study Session #5, cont. / Comment of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance re: Tsunami, etc.

14.e
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) Pacifica City Council / Aug. 12, 2024 / LCLUP Study Session, cont. / Comment of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance re: Tsunami, etc.

City Clerk Sarah Coffey – Please confirm receipt, and include our above-attached letter in the public record and Councilmembers’ Agenda and meeting packets, and forward to Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Manager’s Office and Planning Department Staff. Thank you.

Mayor Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica City Council and
Pacifica Planning Department
Dear Mayor Vaterlaus, Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Planning Department Staff
Enclosed please find comment letter of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, dated Aug. 6, for City Council’s Aug. 12, 2024 LCLUP Study Session #5, cont.

Thank you for your service, and
We look forward to seeing you again on August 12.

Richard Harris
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
San Francisco, CA 94117-2726
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.e
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) From: Gordon Tannura
To: Coffey, Sarah; Pacifica Permit Tech; City Manager; CoastalPlan; City Council; Public Comment Subject: Upcoming LCPUP Study Session on 8/12/24
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 1:20:10 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Ms. Coffey - please confirm receipt of this message and include as public record and in Council members’ meeting packets, and forward to all other City parties (e.g., Planning Department, Planning Commission) engaged on the Plan. Thank you.

Council members,
I am writing to again request action to amend or change the current Plan and/or (preferably) suspend or pause the current activities to approve the current Plan. I continue to believe that the City of Pacifica should not be trailblazers in cementing a Plan, but rather wait until a consistent approach and policy is developed by the Coast Commission for all coastal communities. From my understanding, this has not been achieved and I see no reason that the City of Pacifica should establish unreasonable precedents for itself and other cities. Certainly our elected officials in the State Assembly and Senate could be called upon to facilitate such consistent policy formation by the Coastal Commission.

The application of a consistent approach applies particularly to policy for maintenance activities that are necessary for businesses and homes in the coastal zones, and potentially onerous requirements for such activity for structures that are in place and previously approved. I understand that Half Moon Bay has successfully crafted Costal Commission-approved language that in particular identifies that certain categories of development are exempt from coastal development permit requirements, and identifies reasonable and flexible policy as to the type of activities that would be exempt. If indeed their approach is sufficient, we should at least model our Plan after that (but still advocate for the State-wide policy).

In reference to that Half Moon Bay policy, it seems to have particular relevance to the maintenance of the historic Sharp Park Golf Course and its golf course (both which require substantial, ongoing maintenance and repair), the West Fairway properties, and the berm. However, it may not adequately address adequate maintenance of existing structures such as those protecting the RV Resort, which I believe should be allowed to continue their existence and necessary maintenance.

I continue to be confused as to references in policies related to Tsunamis and coastal flooding and hope clarity can be added to either better define separate policies for such events or differentiation from coastal development.

Foremost, I especially encourage the outreach to our elected officials to help develop fair and consistent policies and insure that whatever is put in place protects the interests of all Pacificans, as well as other coastal communities.

Thank you.

14.e
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.e
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment E Public Comments (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) Questions Received from Council and Public After June 23, 2024 What is the degree and nature of deed
restrictions triggered by substantial structural
modification? How limiting is it really? Is it deed
restriction, or just advisory?
The SSM definition does not trigger the Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure (CR-I-21) policy.

CR-I-21 is required for coastal development permit (CDP) approval in Coastal Vulnerability Zones (CVZ) or Tsunami Inundation Zone. So a CDP could be required for a project that does not exceed 50% incremental structural change and still require a Coastal Hazard Risk Disclosure. Additionally, CR-I-21 is a disclosure of potential risk for current and future property owners. All projects within the CVZ need to be sited and designed to be safe for the anticipated life of the development (per CR-I-20) and thus should not require future shoreline protection structures, making the waiver of any rights to future shoreline protection moot.

West Fairway Park Scenario #1
Edwardo is a homeowner in a Coastal
Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) in West Fairway Park.

The West Fairway Park neighborhood is not
included as a Special Shoreline Resilience Area
(SSRA). His 1955 home predates the Coastal Act.

He wants to remove the fireplace, add a junior
ADU, and add a heat pump. This work constitutes
a Substantial Structural Modification (SSM), so
he’s going to be punished for doing the right
thing.

Edwardo will need to:

1. pay for $30-50K in technical reports
before even applying for a Coastal
Development Permit (CDP);

2. site and design as if existing shoreline
protections do not exist;

3. record a deed restriction on his property;

4. remove any non-compliant development;
and

5. waive all rights to future shoreline
protections.

The SSM definition is intended to provide clarity on when repair or modification of existing structures crosses the line and becomes new development requiring the correction of legal nonconformities. There are a number of repair and maintenance items that do not count as an SSM. For example, the addition of a heat pump is not work counted towards SSM.

Removal of the fireplace is likely to count towards SSM, however, this single project is unlikely to reach the 50% threshold. A JADU may count towards SSM; however, a property owner can also work with planning staff to find alternatives that do not require work to count toward SSM, such as conversion of a garage or other space. The proposed LCLUP amendments would not require any property owner to undertake work that triggers an SSM, it would be voluntary and City staff would work with all applicants so that they understand their options in terms of proceeding with repairs that would constitute an SSM.

1. Possibly, if the application is filed prior to reconsideration of coastal hazards/update of maps after the Clarendon gap closure, as none of Fairway West is likely to be in the CVZ once the Clarendon gap flooding risk is removed through future infrastructure improvements.

2. Possibly, if the application is filed prior to reconsideration of coastal hazards/update of maps after the Clarendon gap closure, as and none of Fairway West is likely to be in the CVZ once the Clarendon gap flooding risk is removed through future infrastructure improvements.

3. Yes, if the application is filed prior to reconsideration of coastal hazards/update of maps after the Clarendon gap closure, as none of Fairway West is likely to be in the

14.f
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) CVZ once the Clarendon gap flooding risk is removed through future infrastructure improvements.

4. Non-conformities related to non-coastal resources issues may remain at the City’s discretion, under a proposed Alternative Modification to Policy CR-I-25.

5. Only if the property is in the CVZ at the time of application.

West Fairway Park Scenario #2
Five years ago, Pacifica rebuilt the Sharp Park
seawall and closed the Clarendon gap. Previous
CVZs in West Fairway Park are now no longer
threatened. Edwardo wants to remove the
fireplace, add a junior ADU, and add a heat
pump. His property is still considered to be in a
CVZ in West Fairway Park because SSM projects
in non-SSRA neighborhoods are not allowed to
consider shoreline protections exist.

Edwardo will need to do everything in Scenario
#1, even though the new seawall provides real
protection to the neighborhood, the LCLUP
policies do not allow us to consider them. Again,
he is punished for doing the right thing.

No, once the Clarendon gap is closed, it is likely the entirety of the West Fairway Park neighborhood will be outside a CVZ once the CVZ maps are updated to reflect the new flood protection infrastructure. All projects, even those that do not trigger SSM, in nonSSRA areas are not allowed to consider existing shoreline protection. However, CR-I-19 Technical Reports and CR-I-20 Siting and Design are only applicable to projects within CVZ.

The West Fairway Park neighborhood coastal hazard is storm induced flooding from the Clarendon gap. As stated above, when the Clarendon gap closure is built, it will likely remove the West Fairway Park neighborhood from the CVZ and then Scenario #1 would not occur at all.

West Fairway Park Scenario #3
Kathleen is a homeowner in West Fairway Park,
whose home is outside the Coastal Vulnerability
Zone – but inside the Tsunami Evacuation Zone –
wants to build a porch. Kathleen will be required
to go through the full Technical Reports and
Siting/Design process because the porch would
be located within the Tsunami Zone and because
tsunami is a defined "Coastal Hazard".

No, CR-I-19 Technical Reports and CR-I-20 Siting and Design are only applicable to projects within CVZ, not Tsunami Evacuation Zones or Tsunami Inundation Zones.

West Sharp Park Scenario #4 The replacement of the outdoor parking structure will count towards SSM work; however, the property owner should coordinate with staff to identify if this project triggers the 50%

14.f
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) Julie is the owner of a 7-unit low-cost housing
apartment building on Palmetto Ave. She needs
to replace the driveway and outdoor parking
structure for the building, which constitutes an
SSM. The new LCLUP has gone into effect, but the
city has not completed the requirements for the
Coastal Access and Resilience Program and/or the
Shoreline Adaptation Program yet and it will
likely take a year or more. If Julie had a CDP
before the new LCLUP, she would have been OK.

But now Julie must:

1. pay for $30-50K in technical reports
before even applying for a CDP;

2. site and design as if existing shoreline
protections do not exist;

3. record a deed restriction;

4. remove any non-compliant development;
and

5. waive all rights to future shoreline
protections, which negates her rights
even when/if West Sharp Park becomes
SSRA.
requirement and thus triggers policy CR-I-25. As stated in the definition of SSM, incremental structural changes that cumulatively amount to replacement of 50% or more over time shall also be considered an SSM, so if she obtained an CDP prior to certification of the new LCLUP, if this project already surpassed that trigger, any future work would need to comply with CR-I-25. The Coastal Access and Resilience Program (CR-I-44) and/or the Shoreline Adaptation Program (CR-I-5) do not effect the application of CR-I-25. The application of CR-I-25 is not based on if a property is in or out of a CVZ and/or SSRA.

1. This is only applicable if the site within a CVZ.

2. Only applicable if the site within a CVZ.

3. Only applicable if the site within a CVZ or Tsunami Inundation Zone.

4. Non-conformities related to non-coastal resources issues may be remain at the City’s discretion, under a proposed Alternative Modification to Policy CR-I-25.

5. Only applicable if the site in with a CVZ or Tsunami Inundation Zone.

Sharp Park Golf Course Scenario #5
The golf course wants to replace a deteriorating
golf cart barn with a new structure, which
constitutes an SSM. The golf course will be
required to go through the full Technical Reports
and Siting/Design process and record a deed
restriction which includes waiving all rights to
future shoreline protections. This is how the
Coastal Commission intends to remove the SPGC
berm, which comes up for renewal in 2027.

The existing structure is outside the CVZ so therefore the technical reports and siting and design policies are not applicable. If the project requires a CDP, CR-I-21 Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure may apply; however, because the berm is within CCC permit jurisdiction and the berm protects more than just this structure, the City would need to coordinate with CCC on an appropriate solution.

14.f
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) Pedro Point Scenario #6
Tanisha is a homeowner in a CVZ area in Pedro
Point. Her house is damaged by (fire / earthquake
/ tree fall) but is not completely destroyed.

Repairs will constitute an SSM, and she will need
to go through the full Technical Reports, the
Siting/Design process, and record a deed
restriction which includes removing
noncompliant development and waiving all rights
to future shoreline protections.

Per Section 30610(g) of the Coastal Act, replacement/repair of a structure deemed unhabitable by a disaster, whether or not fully destroyed, does not count as work towards a SSM.

West Sharp Park Scenario #7
Marco is a small business owner in the non-SSRA
area of West Sharp Park. He wants to add solar
panels to the roof of his building to reduce
energy costs and help the environment. Because
he’s in a CVZ, Marco will need to go through the
full Technical Reports and Siting/Design process.

No, solar panels are not considered an SSM nor do installations of solar panels require a CDP and thus do not trigger any policies in the LCLUP.

SF RV Resort, 700 Palmetto, Scenario #8
The Resort is under CCC order to remove the rock
revetment protecting the 12-acre property.

Within one or two storm cycles (24 months) the
entire property will be eroded, approaching an
unprotected Palmetto Ave and Highway 1. The
city sewer line crossing the property will need to
be relocated east at an unfunded state mandate
cost to the city of $4 million (2021 estimate, not a
bid).

Shoreline protections at the new shoreline
abutting Palmetto and Hwy 1 are not planned,
nor funded. Both north and south arterial roads
remain threatened. The eight homes on the north
Planning for sea level rise and shoreline erosion scenarios could be pursued by implementation of Policy CR-I-5, the Shoreline Adaptation Program. And without an updated certified LCLUP, it will be difficult for the City to fund sea level rise adaptation planning due to staff resources, lack of policy, and inability to qualify for grants.

14.f
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) property line of the Resort will have an erosion
hole at their southerly property line. These
property owners have not been warned.

SF RV Resort, 700 Palmetto, Scenario #9
Consider a property owner in the coastal zone
with adjacent properties to the RV Resort losing
or waiving their right to shoreline protections. At
some point the shoreline protection abandoned
by those properties will be removed. Erosion will
move east, north, and south. The “protected”
property will be isolated by erosion on all sides
except west.

See response above.

Property taxes are appealed and decline. City
revenue tanks. The city’s bond and credit ratings
drop.

There is no prohibition on remodeling and maintenance under the new LCLUP.

Additionally, there is nothing prohibiting a property from continuing to remodel or addition after the SSM definition has been triggered. A property owner may at any time propose remodel or complete demo and rebuild. However, the permitting requirements and approval process may look different for different types of projects in different parts of the coastal zone.

Property Insurance in the Coastal Zones
While the legislature focuses on fire hazards
affecting insurance availability, CCC policies will
be the main contributor to lack of insurance in
the coastal zone. A relentless CCC focus on
removing shoreline protections and prohibiting
remodeling and maintenance will increase this
risk. Declining property protections and building
deterioration equals no insurance renewal.

Certainly, none at resale which means no
mortgage.

This is likely to occur whether Pacifica updates the LCLUP or not because coastal hazards are present regardless of this update. With an updated certified LCLUP, property owners will be able to better understand the requirements for property improvements and the City will be able to focus on sea level rise adaptation planning.

14.f
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) CCC commissioner Cummings was directly asked
about CCC impacts on coastal zone insurance
availability. He replied that residents should ask
the state Insurance Commissioner that question.

PACIFICA’S LCLUP SHOULD EXEMPT

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND MINOR

ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES FROM CDP
PERMIT REQUIREMENS. THE
COASTAL COMMISSION IN APRIL 2021

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THESE SAME
EXEMPTIONS IN HALF MOON BAY’S LOCAL
COASTAL PLAN.

As stated in Section 2.3 Land Use Framework, Coastal Development Review “Pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from coastal development permit requirements. These exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610 of the PRC and Sections 13252, 13253, and 13250 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).” These codes sections provide clear language on when maintenance and repair activities do and do not require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Additionally, language on what does trigger a CDP or exemptions to CDP currently exist in the City’s Implementation Plan (i.e. Zoning Ordinance). Staff recommends that the City’s Implementation Plan be updated after certification of the LCLUP to reflect new and updated policy, including what work would qualify for an exemption from a CDP.

Stefanie and or Christian said towards the end of
the meeting when discussing "Technical Reports"
that tsunamis were not in the same category as
other coastal hazards and that technical reports
were not required if a site was in a tsunami
inundation area but not otherwise in a coastal
hazard zone. The definition of coastal hazards
though, on pp 320 includes tsunamis so I don't
think this distinction is very clear. Has it been
confirmed with the CCC that technical reports are
not required for CDPs in tsunami areas? This
relates to CR-I-1 on pp 257 also as there is no
exclusion mentioned for tsunamis.

Policy CR-I-19 Technical Reports is applicable to development proposed in Coastal Vulnerability Zones (CVZ). The definition of Coastal Vulnerability Zones is the area shown on the City’s maps prepared for the Pacifica SLR Vulnerability Assessment (1/12/2018), incorporated herein, and as may be amended from time-to-time based on updated best available science about projected sea-level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. The CVZ maps do not include tsunami inundation zones (TIZ). While staff is actively working to update the CVZ maps, the work also includes creating separate TIZ maps.

Tsunami inundation zones. Has there been any
new input from the CCC? Have we looked at the
language from Half Moon Bay's recently certified
LCLUP? It seems it does not limit infill projects in
CCC staff has not raised any additional concerns with the City’s proposed definition of Tsunami Inundation Zones.

14.f
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) tsunami hazard areas as long as there is a waiver
of liability.

I want to be absolutely clear as to which polices
relate to or have any modifications or alternate
policies for SSRAs and would like staff to have a
comprehensive list ready at the meeting if not
before. There was a partial list in the previous
staff report on pp 9 for the 6/26/24 meeting. The
main policies are separate, but then there is a
smattering of other text imbedded in other
policies. This is what I have noted so far, with
some specific questions added for a few policies:
• CR-I-2 pp258 new exemption added for
SSRAs per my comment at the last meeting.
• CR-I-5 pp 258-259 - Shoreline Adaptation
Program - My understanding is that this program
replaced our adaptation strategies/triggers per
areas of town, and that this work is required
whether or not we do SSRAs. Please confirm. A
specific timeline has been added for this work, 10
years. Is that timeline in any way tied to SSRAs?
• CR-I-19 pp 276
• CR-I-20 pp 277
• CR-I-25 pp 280. Please confirm that there
are no longer any special non-conformity
exemptions to properties in SSRAs
• CR-I-34 pp284 as it relates to CR-I-44
• CR-I-38
• CR-I-39
• CR-I-40
• CR-I-41
• CR-I-42
• CR-I-43
Policies that may not apply in SSRA (these are the policies that have exception language and/or applicants can choose to use more flexible policies):
• CR-I-2 Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones
• CRI-I-19 Technical Reports
• CR-I-20 Siting and Design
Policies that are required for the City to have SSRAs:
• CR-I-38 Public Infrastructure along the shoreline in Special Shoreline Resilience Areas
• CR-I-39 Development directly inland of public infrastructure in Special Shoreline Resilience Areas
• CR-I-40 Armoring in Special Shoreline Resilience Areas. • CR-I-41 Effective date of Policies CR-I-38, 39, and 40. • CR-I-42 Suspension of Policies CR-I-38, CR-I-39, CR-I-40. • CR-I-43 End Date of Policies CR-I-38, CR-I-39, and CR-I-40 • CR-I-44 Coastal Access and Resilience Program.

Policy CR-I-5 Shoreline Adaptation Program is required whether the City has SSRAs or not and the 10 year timeline is not tied to the SSRAs. The language in CR-I-34 that references CR-I-44 is only applicable if the City has SSRAs and the language states that the City may use the projects implemented thru CR-I-44 as mitigation for existing shoreline protection structures.

14.f
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1) • CR-I-44, the Coastal Access and Resilience
Program, which I thought replaced the Shoreline
Management Plan, that was only necessary to
mitigate/offset SSRAs, please confirm. There used
to be a separate policy to address impacts of
existing armoring, which I believe is now deleted,
so I am confused.

Regarding maintenance and small project
exemptions to CDPs that we discussed at the last
meeting, I need to go back and listen to the
discussion. I vaguely remember that Stefanie or
Christian said the language was there that
exempted these types of projects.

Please see response above related to CDP exemptions for maintenance and repairs.

14.f
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment F Responses to Council and Public Questions (5727 : LCLUP #5.1)

Pacifica City CouncilAugust 12, 2024

Pacifica City Council
August 12, 2024