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 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% 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.