STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
1 August 6, 2024
Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Deputy Director
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Sent via email
Subject: City of Pacifica Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update – Commission Staff Comments for August 12, 2024 City Council Meeting
Dear Ms. Cervantes,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the City’s comprehensive update to their Land Use Plan (LUP) in advance of the City Council’s adoption hearing. Commission staff requests that this comment letter is shared with your Councilmembers and is made part of the record for the August 12 City Council meeting.
First and foremost, Commission staff is greatly appreciative of all the City’s coordination efforts with us on this comprehensive LUP update to date. Following significant coordination over the last few months, Commission staff provided the City with detailed comments on the full LUP on June 19, 2024. These comments are generally supportive of the City’s draft sea level rise and coastal hazards policies, including the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area policies. As the City notes in their June 26, 2024 staff report, planning for climate change and sea level rise hazards through this LUP update is a critical and necessary step towards protecting the City’s natural and built assets for continued enjoyment by residents and visitors alike. We are glad to see City staff’s acceptance of all Commission staff’s comments on Chapter 6: Coastal Resilience from our June 19 correspondence, as described in the City’s June 26 staff report. With an aside about Policy CR-I-21 Coastal Hazard Risk Disclosure (see #5 below), we believe Chapter 6 is now reflective of what Commission staff can recommend the Commission approve as submitted.
There are four other topics that Commission staff continue to have concerns about: 1) a larger category of what the City has described as “General Plan consistency edits,” 2) Policy LD-I-20 regarding the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site, 3) Policies ER-I-1 and ER-I-24 regarding creek and ESHA buffers, and 4) the definition of “Substantial Structural Modification (SSM).” We would like to reiterate that we believe the best path forward to certification is if our two staffs are largely in agreement on the LUP. In that vein, we understand that the City is striving to approve the LUP update in a form that the Coastal Commission is most likely to approve as submitted, without any modifications. In that spirit, Commission staff is providing additional context on our recommendations associated with 1) General Plan consistency edits, and is providing revised recommendations associated with 2) Undeveloped San Pedro Site, 3) creek and ESHA buffer policies, and 4) the definition of SSM that we believe address both
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
2 Commission and City staff concerns and represents a compromise that we could find acceptable to recommend for Commission approval. The Coastal Hazard Risk Disclosure Policy is discussed as a fifth item below.
1. General Plan Consistency Edits
Commission staff appreciates the City’s efforts to align its LUP with its General Plan but notes that Coastal Act consistency, rather than General Plan consistency, is the standard of review for the LUP.
Commission staff stand by our June 19 recommendations for this reason, but we are amenable to receiving further explanation from the City beyond the General Plan consistency concern and discussing these items further. City staff expressed acceptance of some of our June 19 requested edits to the General Plan consistency language and noted that these edits could be processed through an administrative amendment to the General Plan. City and Commission staff also discussed and resolved some of these issues on our July 31 phone call. Commission staff would like to further articulate the Coastal Act reasoning for the remaining requested edits and hopes that these General Plan edits could also be processed administratively, or that the City could find the LUP language in substantial conformance with the General Plan.
Chapter 2: Land Use and Development
A. On page 2-12, Commission staff requested deletion of the allowable residential density in the Urban Reserve land use designation. Following our July 31 phone call, Commission staff now understand that this language is intended to be the density standard that would apply if/when this land is annexed into the city. If the City would like to retain this sentence, please revise it to clarify that this is a future standard that would apply after annexation and land use designation change, and until then, is only for informational purposes at this time (e.g., change “shall” to “will” with additional context).
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: As written, it could be read that this is a current density standard applicable to lands that the City does not have permitting authority over. It is a standard of review issue to have language in an LCP that sets a development standard for land that the City does not have authority over.
Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation
B. For Policy PR-I-50 on page 3-36, please explain why the City wants to delete high density residential and mixed use from the types of new development projects that would require bicycle parking facilities.
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: Reducing the types of new development projects that would require bicycle parking facilities is not consistent with Coastal Act policies that require new development to maximize public access and recreation opportunities (Section 30210), provide for non-automobile circulation (Section 30252), and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Section 30253). If the City’s reasoning is solely for General Plan
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
3 consistency, Commission staff continue to request that the original policy language be retained.
C. For Policy PR-I-69 on page 3-49, please explain why the City wants to delete “enhances access to the coast.”
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: Enhancing access to the coast is a foundational pillar of the Coastal Act (Section 30210). This policy would not necessarily require transit service to enhance access to the coast as a development standard; rather, as originally written, the policy would only encourage the City to continue coordination efforts with transit agencies with a goal of enhancing access to the coast via transit services. Commission staff continue to request that the original policy language be retained.
D. For Policy PR-I-72 on page 3-49, please explain why the City wants to replace “in all appropriate locations where existing or projected future rider demand will support it” with “on all or part of the Linda Mar Boulevard Park-and-Ride lot.”
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: Commission staff views the City’s revision as a significant narrowing of the scope of this policy, which is contrary to the Coastal Act mandates to maximize public access (Section 30210), facilitate the provision or extension of transit services (Section 30252), and reduce vehicle miles traveled (Section 30253). If the City’s reasoning is solely for General Plan consistency, Commission staff continue to request that the original policy language be retained.
E. For Policy PR-I-74 on page 3-49, please explain why the City revised the original policy language and why the City did not agree with Commission staff’s suggested edits for readability. i. Coastal Act Reasoning: Commission staff’s edits were not intended to change the meaning or application of this policy, only to re-word it for clarification and userfriendliness. As previously written, it was unclear what the required conditions of approval for new development would be. Clarifying these requirements is important for effective implementation of the Coastal Act. If the City’s reasoning is solely for General Plan consistency, Commission staff continue to request that the is revised per Commission staff’s 6/19 recommendation. Commission staff also note that the policy title should be revised to “Transportation Demand Management Measures.” F. For policy PR-G-27 on page 3-52, please clarify why “distribute parking areas throughout the Coastal Zone to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area” was deleted.
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: This language comes directly from Coastal Act Section 30212.5 and is necessary to find the LUP in compliance with the Coastal Act. Commission staff continue to request that the original policy language be retained, or it could be retained but be preceded by the following phrase, which is found in Section 30212.5: “Wherever appropriate and feasible, distribute parking areas . . .”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
4 Chapter 4: Environmental and Scenic Resources
G. For Policy ER-I-8 on page 4-12, please explain the City’s objection to including the term “suitable” or “suitability” with respect to the quality of sediment that can be placed on the shoreline.
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: It is important to ensure that sediment placed on the shoreline from dredging or other activities is found to be “beach quality” for marine resource protections, water quality, and recreational purposes. This is necessitated by Coastal Act Sections 30230, 30231, 30233(b), and 30240, which generally require protection of marine resources, coastal water quality, and sensitive habitat areas. If the City’s reasoning is solely for General Plan consistency, Commission staff continue to request retention of the original policy language or the alternative “Allow suitable”.
H. For Policy ER-I-21 on page 4-27, please explain the City’s reasoning for the revisions to subsection 1 of the policy.
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: Commission staff believes that the City’s revisions are in conflict with Policy ER-G-5 and thus create an internal inconsistency that would implicate development review. The City’s revisions also significantly weaken the policy in conflict with what is required by Coastal Act Section 30240. If the City’s reasoning is solely for General Plan consistency, Commission staff continue to request retention of the original policy language.
I. For Policies ER-G-16, ER-G-17, ER-I-44, and ER-I-53, please explain why the City objects to Commission staff’s recommendations to better match the terminology used in the policies with the terminology used on Figure 4-4.
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: It is important for user friendliness and effective implementation of the Coastal Act to match the terms of the resources that are required to be protected with the terms of where those resources are mapped in Figure 4-4.
Using different terms in different parts of an LCP can lead to confusion and questions about whether the different terms mean the same thing. If the City would prefer to update/revise Figure 4-4 so that the City’s policy language better aligns with the figure’s terminology in that way, that is fine.
Chapter 5: Natural Hazards
J. On page 5-8, the City seems to accept Commission staff’s request to delete the first paragraph starting with “Within the Coastal Zone…” but not the second paragraph starting with “Similarly, a site stability survey is required…” Following our July 31 phone call, Commission staff understand that City staff intended to delete both paragraphs as requested. i. Coastal Act Reasoning: As explained and applicable to both the first and second paragraphs, this new language creates internal inconsistencies with Chapter 6 and thus could implicate development review. Commission staff continue to request that both paragraphs be deleted.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
5 Glossary
K. Please explain the City’s reasoning for replacing the definitions of “easement” and “special status species” with entirely new definitions.
i. Coastal Act Reasoning: Commission staff had reviewed the LUP update in the context of the original definitions and agreed with the language of the original definitions. The new definitions do not seem necessary and are not adequately robust. The new definition of Special Status Species is particularly concerning as it would not include any listed or candidate animal species under California’s Endangered Species Act. Coastal Act Section 30240 protects areas in which plant or animal life are either rare or especially valuable, and this would certainly include species identified under the state Endangered Species Act, and not just the federal Endangered Species Act. Notably, there are numerous species listed under the state act but not the federal act,1 which demonstrates the need for the LCP to protect habitat of state-listed or state-candidate species. Further, the new definition of “special status species” creates an inconsistency with the description of this same term in Chapter 4 (see page 4-23). Commission staff continue to request retention of the original definition of “special status species.” The change in definition of “easement” does not raise as significant of a concern; however, it would be helpful to know the City’s rationale for the change. If the City’s reasoning is solely for General Plan consistency, Commission staff continue to request retention of the original definition. Alternatively, the City could remove this definition entirely and hold this discussion for the IP.
2. Policy LD-I-20 Undeveloped San Pedro Site
For Policy LD-I-20 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site on page 2-31 in Chapter 2, Commission staff recommends the following alternative language to address both the City’s concerns about including a specified density and Commission staff’s concerns about the sensitivity of the site. Please note that our primary concern is about appropriately planning for this site to avoid and protect coastal resources. If the City is intending to allow for a certain amount of total units on this site, then the policy could instead be revised to address the desired density per net acre (the gross acreage minus area that is undevelopable due to coastal resource constraints).
a. LD-I-20 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning district to allow small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses as a standalone project without any residential development, or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses with residential development at a density range of three to five units per gross acre, reduced as necessary to account for coastal resource protections 1 See https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
6 as required by the LCP. Housing may be clustered, and uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial uses, provided the overall site contains both commercial and residential uses. Development must include public coastal access, and must provide public open space, and consider all biological constraints.
3. Creek and ESHA Buffer Policies
Regarding Policies ER-I-1 and ER-I-24, Commission staff acknowledges the City’s desire to retain flexibility in the application of creek and ESHA buffer reductions, particularly to account for takings situations. This is why Commission staff suggested revised language in its June 19th correspondence that separated the policy language allowing for buffer reductions in a takings situation (such that this reduction no longer is tied to the 50-foot minimum) from the language allowing for buffer reductions to accommodation public services for public development (such that this reduction can be no less than 50 feet). The City’s June 26th staff report does not appear to recognize this change, as it states that “[City] Staff believes that buffers should be determined on a case-by-case basis and as necessary to avoid takings claims.” Commission staff agree and note that the June 19th revisions are consistent with this position as it applies to takings situations. Commission staff still request the 50-foot minimum to apply to buffer reduction allowances for public services to reduce ambiguity and maintain sufficient creek and ESHA protections in these situations. The Coastal Act explicitly provides this flexibility for takings situations but otherwise has a very high standard for protection of sensitive habitat areas, and the Commission’s practice has been to establish a minimum buffer to help ensure these protections.
Commission staff also recognize that the City would like to maintain flexibility with determining “temporary disruptions.” We note that the “(e.g. less than six months)” provides an example rather than a strict rule. While Commission staff still prefer to keep this example language in the policy, the City’s additional language about a qualified biologist determination is also acceptable.
In reviewing this policy language again for this correspondence, Commission staff noted several other issues. The primary concern is that Chapter 4 is lacking a policy that addresses wetland buffer requirements. Such a policy is necessary for compliance with the Coastal Act. The other concerns are: 1) within Policies ER-I-1 and ER-I-24, the term “public services” is not defined and thus could potentially be applied in a broader manner than intended; 2) the language calls for review of a qualified biologist’s determination by the City, USFWS, and CDFW—there may be situations where USFWS or CDFW do not have reason to review, and situations where other unlisted resource agencies should provide this same review; 3) consistency with terminology of buffers vs. setbacks; and 4) a sentence fragment in Policy ERI-24 that should be deleted. For all these reasons, Commission staff recommend the following alternative language:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
7 Policy ER-I-1: Creek Protection and Restoration. Maintain, protect, and restore Pacifica’s creeks, including San Pedro, Rockaway, Calera, Sanchez, and Milagra creeks, as environmental and aesthetic resources. Actions will include, but are not limited to:
• Continuing restoration efforts along San Pedro Creek to improve conditions for steelhead by removing obstacles to fish passage, placing rock weirs to facilitate fish passage, and by monitoring the effectiveness of these projects; • Partnering with local organizations, such as the San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, Go Native, the Pacifica Land Trust, and others, on restoration efforts; • Exploring opportunities to collaborate with other agencies and organizations on stream restoration and riparian habitat restoration along Sanchez and Calera creeks; • Enforcing restrictions on the planting of invasive species near creek areas; • Identifying and working with property owners to take advantage of unique opportunities where human active use (e.g., through trail development) would enhance creek appreciation without disrupting ecological function;
• Requiring a minimum of 100 feet setbacks buffers from the top of creek banks, or from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, where it exists, whichever is further, for development proposed adjacent to creeks, in keeping with City regulations and Best Management Practices. The 100-foot buffer may be reduced by the minimum necessary to avoid a taking (for private development), provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated. The 100-foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services (for public development), provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, is no less than 50 feet in any case, and provided that creek resource impacts are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated, all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City, USFWS, and CDFW and applicable resource agencies.
Exceptions to such buffer requirements should be supported by a biological report demonstrating that the adjusted buffer, in combination with incorporated siting, design or other mitigation measures, shall prevent impacts that significantly degrade the creek.
Buffer adjustments should also be limited to where the entire subject legal lot is within the buffer or where it is demonstrated that development outside the buffer would have a greater impact on the creek.
• Permitted uses within buffer zones are limited to uses dependent on the resources within these areas and their buffer zones (i.e. habitat management and restoration, scientific research and educational activities, and low-intensity public access and recreation).
Temporary disruption (e.g. less than six months), as determined by a qualified biologist in consideration of on-site specific biological resources, for the construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of existing or newly permitted facilities or structures is allowed if there are no feasible alternatives, the disruption area is restored to its pre-disruption state or better within one year from the initial point of impact and there is no significant ground disturbance.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
8 Policy ER-I-24: Management of ESHA and Wetlands. If the area qualifies as an ESHA or a wetland under the California Coastal Act, the following regulations apply:
• No new development shall be allowed within primary habitat areas ESHA with the exception of resource-dependent uses (such as i.e. habitat management and restoration, scientific research and educational activities, and low-intensity public access and recreation) that can be demonstrated to have no significant adverse impact disruption of habitat values.
• No new development shall be allowed within wetlands except as described in Policy ER-I-5.
• Buffer areas shall be established around all sensitive resources ESHA and wetlands, providing a minimum of 100 feet, and varying may be expanded as needed to account for feeding, breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements. The 100-foot buffer may be reduced by the minimum necessary to avoid a taking (for private development), provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated. The 100-foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services (for public development), provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, is no less than 50 feet in any case, and provided that ESHA or wetland resource impacts are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated, all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City, USFWS, and CDFW and applicable resource agencies. areas on the parcel. Exceptions to such buffer requirements should be supported by a biological report demonstrating that the adjusted buffer, in combination with incorporated siting, design or other mitigation measures, will prevent impacts that significantly degrade the ESHA and will be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. Buffer adjustments should also be limited to where the entire subject legal lot is within the buffer or where it is demonstrated that development outside the buffer would have a greater impact on the ESHA. • Development shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would degrade adjacent habitat areas, taking into account drainage, vegetation, topography, and other considerations.
• Alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation, impervious surfaces, noise, light, and glare shall be minimized as much as possible.
4. Definition of Substantial Structural Modification
For the Glossary definition of Substantial Structural Modification, Commission staff appreciates that the City is interested in continuing to reflect the language that came out of the local public process for this LUP update. However, the City’s minor change to this definition, as noted in its June 26 staff report, does not entirely address Commission staff’s concerns. In an effort to respect the City’s position and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
9 address remaining Commission staff concerns about overly broad exceptions to the definition, we recommend the following alternative language. The alternative language is intended to 1) help clarify where and how the definition of SSM does apply, both individually and incrementally; 2) remove or modify proposed exceptions that could be considered structural; and 3) improve language consistency (e.g., carrying the references to “alteration, removal and replacement” throughout the policy). For the first intent, Commission staff notes that the newly suggested language “considered individually…” will help provide property owners with the assurance that changes to major structural components are counted individually, rather than additively. For example, a project that alters 20% of the roof framing, 20% of the floor framing, and 20% of the foundation would not be considered a 60% alteration that thus triggers redevelopment because these changes are not additive between different structural components. The clarifications about incremental changes at the end of the definition are solely intended to better align with the language used in subsections i) and ii) at the beginning, i.e. “floor area and individual major structural components.”
Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM): Any physical improvement which modifies an existing structure, as defined, to achieve in any of the following ways:
i) a seaward encroachment of the structure; or
ii) alteration, removal or replacement of 50 percent or more of the linear length or surface area of the exterior walls or other major structural components (including but not limited to floor framing, roof framing, and foundation structures), considered individually (i.e., percentages are calculated by the individual structural component being altered, and are not additive between different structural components), whether or not the floor area or building footprint is expanded; or
iii) an addition that includes new floor area at or below the first story equal to 50 percent or more of the structure’s total existing floor area; or ivii) an increase of the existing building footprint equal to 50 percent or more; but excluding any of the following:
i) alteration, removal, or replacement, or maintenance of nonstructural exterior or interior components, of exterior walls such as nonstructural: decorative i) plywood roof sheathing;
ii) underlayment;
iii) siding;
iiiv) shingles;
iv) other nonstructural roofing materials;
vi) windows and doors (including garage doors) that do not alter width or location; vii) exterior waterproofing/weatherproofing materials;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
10 viii) appliance installations and replacements, such as water heaters, generators, and solar panels, that do not involve structural modifications; viiix) nonstructural remedial actions to address termite infestation and dry rot; and xi) other nonstructural modifications required to comply with State and/or Federal laws and regulations, such as disabled accessibility improvements and seismic retrofits/upgrades.
ii) development on any site which is protected from coastal erosion by an existing, permitted shoreline protection structure;
iii) replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610 of the Public Resources Code;
iv) the demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure; or v) the reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of any shoreline protection structure; provided, however, that the reconstructed, repaired, or maintained shoreline protection structure is not seaward of the location of the former structure, and that such modifications do not increase the height or length of the former shoreline protection structure by more than 10 percent.
Changes to exterior walls, floor area, height, length, or building footprint shall be measured cumulatively from those existing at the site on the date of certification of the LCLUP. The cost of improvements shall not be used as a basis in application of this definition or any policy relying thereupon unless expressly stated in the policy. Incremental changes to floor area and individual major structural components changes that cumulatively amount to alteration, removal, or replacement of 50 percent or more over time shall also be considered a SSM.
5. Policy CR-I-21 Coastal Hazard Risk Disclosure
Earlier on in the LUP update process, the City added the following clause to the end of the disclosure policy in response to Council comments:
Except that an applicant shall not be required to record a deed restriction as described in this policy if a site-specific geotechnical hazard analysis prepared by a qualified professional licensed by the State of California determines that the project site would not be subject to the hazard(s) identified in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones and/or Tsunami Inundation Zone for the Anticipated Life of the project.
Commission staff requested this language be deleted via our June 19 correspondence because it raises concerns. Commission staff notes that the City did strike this language from the draft LUP, but is requesting further input on this language from City Council per its June 26 staff report: “CR-I-21 Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure (previously CR-I-45 Assumption of Risk by Private Landowners): …City Council directed staff to include an exception clause to this policy. CCC staff does not agree with the exception
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
11 clause because it could lead to error and omissions in technical reports that would put the City and property at risk. The policy is a disclosure of risks and does not require action until and if hazards occur.
Staff request Council direction on this specific topic.” Commission staff continues to ask the City not to include this language. As previously stated, the exception clause included in an earlier draft in response to Council/public questions raises concerns for Commission staff. As originally written, the zones where the disclosure statement policy applies are already determined to carry a level of risk. The added exception language opens up the possibility of property owners obtaining technical studies with varying standards, assumptions, etc. to try and prove a hazard does not exist. It seems probable that this will lead to the need for City and Commission staff to review numerous technical reports, have disagreements over the validity or content of those reports, and could lead to additional project appeals.
It is important to note that disclosure policies like this are critical for helping to ensure that property owners and purchasers can understand and plan with identified hazards in mind. Similarly, requiring developers to assume the risks of developing in hazardous locations will help avoid the need to spend public funds on disaster recovery for private development and will ensure future owners are aware of the need for potential future adaptation options. For these and related reasons, the Coastal Commission Local Government Working Group has highlighted the importance of disclosure policies, and they are routinely included in Coastal Commission planning and permitting work.
In this specific case, these disclosures would only be added if and when work is being done that needs a permit – for those homeowners not making any changes to their homes, nothing happens. Furthermore, this is just a disclosure about possible hazards based on completed scientific studies in the area and what may happen as a result of the actual occurrence of those hazards, but it does not trigger any action beyond the disclosure unless and until the hazard actually occurs. Lastly, rather than individual sitespecific studies that attempt to prove hazards do not exist (which raises concerns as described above), if errors in hazard mapping are identified through new information or evolving conditions, the appropriate means of correction would be through updates to the maps and an LCP amendment.
Commission staff thanks you again for the opportunity to comment and work with the City towards a successful LUP update certification. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns leading up to or after your City Council hearing.
Sincerely,
Brittney Cozzolino
Statewide Planning Unit
California Coastal Commission