1 826 Stanyan St., San Francisco, CA 94117 • 415-290-5718 • [email protected] September 9, 2024
Pacifica City Council
Mayor Susan Vaterlaus
540 Crespi Dr.
Pacifica, CA. 94044
Re: Pacifica City Council Continued Special LCLUP Study, September 17, 2024 Further SF Public Golf Alliance comment on the Confusion over Tsunami Issues in Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP, and strong suggestion that Pacifica Follow Half Moon Bay Tsunami Policies Approved by Coastal Commission in April 2021.
Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmembers,
This is a follow-on to our August 6, 2024 letter to Your Council1 (incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit 1), in which we objected to the overreach and confusion in Tsunami policies found in Pacifica’s Draft Local Coastal Plan {“Draft LCLUP”).2 Among others, we objected to the Draft LCLUP’s use of Tsunami as a development restriction, and noted that the Coastal Commission has recently approved Local Coastal Plans in other coastal cities, including Half Moon Bay, that do not use the Tsunami risk to restrict or condition infill development. When, about midway through Your Council’s August 12, 2024 Council meeting Councilmembers Bier, Beckmeyer and Boles asked City Staff for a legal opinion responding to issues raised in our August 6, 2024 letter,3 City Manager Woodhouse demurred, saying that Staff believes “we’ve clearly responded to the comments that we have tonight.”4
But the Draft LCLUP’s Tsunami policies are NOT COHERENT but are instead internally inconsistent and confusing to the public, to Councilmembers and to Pacifica City Staff. At that August 12 Council Meeting, Staff’s responses were confused, confusing, and incorrect 1 San Francisco Public Golf Alliance Letter to Pacifica City Council, Aug. 6, 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ghnzI-ZLO6rkfzJWvD_4hwtpU01iWaP/view?usp=drive_link 2 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan (August 2024 Revised Draft), Pacifica City Council August 12, 2024 Agenda Packet, Item 14, Attachment C, at Packet Pgs. 389-707 https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 3 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube, Pacifica City Council Meeting, Aug. 12, 2024 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc), at 3:05:35 – 3:06:30 (Bier and Beckmeyer) and 3:07:12 – 3:07:35 (Boles and Beckmeyer)
4 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube, Pacifica City Council Meeting, Aug. 12, 2024 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc), at 1:48:48 – 1:49:49 2 to many of the Councilpersons’ questions about Tsunami, and to issues raised in our August 6 letter and by other members of the public.
1. Tsunami risk is a development restriction in Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP At Council’s August 12, 2024 meeting, Acting Assistant Planning Director Cervantes repeatedly told Councilmembers that the Draft LCLUP does not use Tsunami risk as a development restriction, and does not mandate “Technical Reports”5 or “Siting and Design”6 requirements on property development located outside mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zones.7 Responding to a question from Councilmember Boles, Ms. Cervantes also advised City Council that the extensive “Tsunami Evacuation Area” mapped in the Draft LCLUP’s Natural Hazards Chapter at the Flood Zones Map, Figure 5-38 is “not . . tied to any policy.”9 5 Pacifica Draft LCLUP, supra, at p. 6-32-33 (Pkt.Pgs. 592-593), Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policy CR-I-19, Technical Reports https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 6 Pacifica Draft LCLUP, supra, at p. 6-33 (Pkt.Pg. 593), Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policy CR-I-20, Siting and Design https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 7 Pacific Coast TV Video, City Council August 12, 2024 meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc:
(1) Boles at 1:46:06: “And just to clarify something that you told me separately, but we don’t have restrictions on development in tsunami inundation zones, right? “ Cervantes: 1:46:17: “Correct. So, if your property is in a tsunami inundation zone and just a tsunami inundation zone, the only requirement is that you record a deed disclosure – a risk disclosure. There’s no other prohibitions on development, there’s no requirements for additional technical reporting or siting or design. Those policies are only applicable to the Coastal Vulnerability Map.”
(2) Bigstyck: 1:48:02 If it’s a Tsunami Inundation Zone but not a Coastal Vulnerability Zone, the only requirement is you put a disclosure “this is a Tsunami Inundation Zone,” and that’s the entirety of the requirement.
Cervantes: 1:48:18: Correct.
(3) Boles:2:57:37. A couple of things with the tsunamis. I think even after your clarification, there’s still confusion that there’s any limitation on development in tsunami zones. Can you say that really clearly one last time.
Cervantes: 2:57:51. Again, the City’s LCLUP does not contain any prohibition, any requirements for development in Tsunami Inundation Zones only. The only requirement is that if you are going to obtain a Coastal Development Permit in a tsunami inundation zone is that you record a risk disclosure on the property, that you are in a tsunami inundation zone. . . .
Cervantes: 2:59:10. Our LCLUP does not require Siting, Design, Technical Reporting for Tsunami Inundation.
8 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan (August 2024 Draft), Pacifica City Council August 12, 2024 Agenda Packet, Item 14, Attachment C, at Packet Pgs. 389-707
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544, at Pg. 8-16, Packet Pg. 664 9Pacific Coast TV U-Tube, Pacifica City Council Meeting, Aug.12,2024:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc Boles: 1:50:14. So what will happen with our maps. Because the tsunami evacuation area right now is overlaid.
Does that go away completely, or is that something that is still showing up in our LCP? Cervantes: 1:50:24 – 1:50:57. The Tsunami Evacuation Zone will likely remain on our map overlay on our maps, not because it’s tied to any policy, but because it’s important information for property owners and for the city to be aware of, and for that to be easily available to the public. That would be the only reason it would stay and Tsunami FN 10, cont. Evacuation Zones are important information to know and understand for preparedness, but it would not be tied to any policy.
3 But both of these statements by Ms. Cervantes are incorrect. To begin with, the Draft LCLUP’s Chapter 5, Natural Hazards, includes Guiding Policy NH-G-2 and Implementing Policy NH-I-30 that impose siting and design requirements on development in “tsunami hazard zones” and specifically in the “Tsunami Evacuation Zone” (mapped at Figure 5-3), without reference to whether or not the properties lie in mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zones.
Guiding Policies
NH-G-2 Development in Hazardous Areas. Site and design development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risk without the need for armoring (e.g. flood damage prevention programs).10
Implementing Policies
NH-I-30 Tsunami Evacuation Zone. For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone, require use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures.11 (emphasis added)
Moreover, Ms. Cervantes’ answers to Councilmembers’ questions did not deal with the newly-added provision in the final sentence of the Draft LCLUP’s Coastal Resilience Implementing Policy CR-I-1, which provides that proposed development on properties located outside of Coastal Vulnerability Zones will be reviewed as if they were located inside Coastal Vulnerability Zones, where “best available science” shows that development would be “vulnerable to coastal hazards”.12 As discussed at pages 3-4 of our August 6 letter to Your Council, this “reviewed as if” language of Implementing Policy CR-I-1 invokes the Figure 5-3 Flood Zones map and the “best available science” identified in the Legend at the bottom right-hand corner of that map, including the extraordinarily improbable (once-in-975-year recurrence probability) “Tsunami Hazard Area for San Mateo County, Department of Conservation, State of California, 2021.”13 This creates an effective backdoor for imposing the burdensome and potentially impossibly expensive 10 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan (August 2024 Draft), supra, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544, Natural Hazards Chapter, at Pg. 5-19, Packet Pg. 551.
11 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan (August 2024 Revised Certification Draft), supra, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544, Natural Hazards Chapter, at Pg. 5-20, Packet Pg. 552.
12 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan (August 2024 Draft), supra, https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544, Coastal Resilience Chapter, Implementing Policy CR-I-1, at Pg. 6-13, Packet Pg. 573.
13 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 4 requirements of Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policies CR-I-19 (Technical Reports)14 and CR-I20 (“Siting and Design”)15 on virtually all Pacifica properties west of the Coast Highway.
2. Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure Policy -- Implementing Policy CR-I-21 -- is severe and disproportionate and far exceeds any reasonable relationship to the Tsunami risk. At City Council’s August 12, 2024 LCLUP Study Session, Pacifica Planning Staff and City Manager told the Council that “in practice the details of the [Pacifica Draft LCLUP] risk disclosure are the same” as in the Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan approved by the Coastal Commission in April 2021. But this is wrong.
At pages 2-3 of our August 6 letter to Your Council we cited the City of Half Moon Bay’s Coastal Commission-approved Local Coastal Plan, whose Shoreline Hazards policies include a narrowly targeted Tsunami risk disclosure and limited hold harmless policy:
“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.16” (emphasis added)
By contrast, Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP’s Coastal Hazard Risk Disclosure Implementing Policy CR-I-21, with its eight subparagraphs and a catchall “waive[r of] any rights that might exist under applicable law for shoreline protection structures,”17 goes far beyond Half Moon Bay’s narrow and tailored Shoreline Hazard Policy 7-9. At Council’s August 12 meeting, Acting Deputy Planner Cervantes compared the Pacifica and Half Moon Bay policies by showing a slide captioned “Tsunami Inundation Zones” (a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2), which included a copy of what she described as the first two pages of a 4-page Half Moon Bay Tsunami Risk Disclosure and Waiver form which Ms. Cervantes said “is very similar to what we’re requiring . . . disclosure of hazards that need to be recorded against the property.”18 City Manager 14 Pacifica Draft LCLUP, supra, at p. 6-32-33 (Pkt.Pgs. 592-593), Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policy CR-I-19, Technical Reports: https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 15 Pacifica Draft LCLUP, supra, at p. 6-33 (Pkt.Pg.593), Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policy CR-I-20, Siting and Design: https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 16 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 17 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. 18 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube, Pacifica City Council Meeting, Aug.12,2024:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc Cervantes: 1:43:30 – 1:46:00: “… the Half Moon Bay LCLUP that has similar policies to what we are proposing to do with the risk disclosure, so that’s Policy 7-9 as you can see here on the slide. And so it does include the second sentence that says that “infill development on existing building sites will be permitted in tsunami inundation zones 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.” Very simple sentence, just has two clauses. Well, on the left-hand side of on the screen you 5 Woodhouse followed-up, telling Council: “. . .. when we’re talking about Inundation Zones and comparing to Half Moon Bay. . . in practice the . . details of the risk disclosure are the same. We’re just putting it upfront and transparently in the policy in the LCP, whereas in Half Moon Bay, you get that later on, when you work with city staff and you have this covenant that you have to record.”19 But both Ms. Cervantes and Mr. Woodhouse were mistaken. The Half Moon Bay form, captioned “Restrictive Covenant,” recites at Page 1-2, Recitals A thru F, that the property is located in a tsunami inundation zone, that Policy 7-9 of Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan requires that developers of infill development “must provide a disclosure of hazard presence and a hold harmless clause indemnifying the City from any harm caused to permitted development by tsunami inundation,” and that the Covenant is intended to fulfill the requirements of Policy 7-9.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Half Moon Bay Tsunami Covenant (at page 2 of the document) then (i) disclose that the property ”is within a tsunami inundation zone and any development there is thus subject to the risk of tsunami inundation,” and (ii) covenant that the developer agrees to hold the City harmless against potential liabilities arising out of the City’s approval of the Permit. There are no further waivers of rights in Half Moon Bay’s “Restrictive Covenant” document. (A full 4-page copy of the complete Half Moon Bay “Restrictive Covenant” form was courteously provided to us by Ms. Cervantes, and is linked at the footnote below.)20 By contrast, the eight subparagraphs of Pacifica Draft LCLUP Hazard Risk Disclosure Implementation Policy CR-I-21 are not limited to tsunami disclosure and are not limited to waiver of claims against the city for tsunami-caused damage only. Rather, Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP Implementing Policy CR-I-21 would require property owners to “acknowledge the site is subject to coastal hazards, including but not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, coastal flooding, landslides bluff and geologic instability, and the interaction of same, and all as impacted by sea level rise,” [and] “assume and accept the risks to themselves and their properties of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development,. . . [and] “waive any rights that may exist under applicable law for shoreline protection structures.” 21 There is no such
wholesale waiver of rights in the Half Mood Bay Tsunami Restrictive Covenant.
FN 18, cont. can see what that actually entails. these are just the first two pages, this is a 4-page document, so again the policy might be very straightforward and simple to read, but when you’re actually considering what that entails for implementation, what it entails for a property owner, it is a more detailed process, and so really what we’re trying to do with our policy for risk disclosure is, it has essentially the language that we are anticipating will be in our risk disclosure that will be a template for Coastal Development Permit approvals,. . but the idea that just because your policy is one sentence means that it’s easier to implement is really false. I think the policy itself is very similar to what we’re requiring. It’s disclosure of hazards that need to be recorded against the property.” (emphasis added) 19 Pacific Coast TV U-Tube, Pacifica City Council Meeting, Aug.12,2024:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc Woodhouse, 1:48:48 – 1:49:48: “I want to just emphasize the point that I think Ms. Cervantes was saying that’s important at this point when we’re talking about Inundation Zones and comparing to Half Moon Bay. . . in practice the details of the risk disclosure are the same. We’re just putting it upfront and transparently in the policy in the LCP, whereas in Half Moon Bay, you get that later on, when you work with city staff and you have this covenant that you have to record.” (emphasis added)
20 Here is a link to the full 4-page Covenant provided to us by Ms. Cervantes: City of Half Moon Bay, Restrictive Covenant Form (Tsunami) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_zcrImr3UVgIitP9kgJRporIYAqMetnI/view?usp=drive_link 21 Pacifica Draft LCLUP (August 2024), supra,
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544, Coastal Resilience Implementing Policy CR-I-21, Coastal Hazards Risk Disclosure, at Pgs. 6-33 to 6-35, Packet Pgs. 593-595 6 3. The waiver of rights in Pacifica’s Implementing Policy CR-I-21 may be an illegal “taking”.
Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP’s Coastal Resiliency Implementing Policy CR-I-21 is the sort of overreaching, disproportionate mandated waiver of rights which the United States Supreme Court described in Sheetz vs. County of El Dorado, California22 as an illegal “taking” of property rights in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, all as discussed at pages 6-7 of our June 25, 2024 letter to Your Council,23 which letter is incorporated herein by this reference and attached as EXHIBIT 3.
4. The Draft LCLUP’s “Tsunami Inundation Zone” map is uncertain, unscientific, uncredentialed, unverifiable, and unsuitable for inclusion in the Draft LCLUP.
Staff’s Written Report for Council’s August 12 Study Session lists “updated maps” first among its list of the “many benefits to having an updated LCLUP.”24 But the “Figure 6-2 Tsunami Inundation Zone” map (found at Packet Page 667 of the August 12 Agenda Packet) is so badly flawed in so many ways as to be unfit for inclusion in the Draft LCLUP. Let us count the ways. (1) The creator of the map is unidentified by either name of qualifications beyond Acting Deputy Planning Director Cervantes’ response to a question from Council at the August 12 Council meeting that “. . . this map was created [by] our community resources department summer intern who has some experience with GIS.”25 She did not name the summer intern or describe the intern’s qualifications beyond “some experience with GIS.” (2) The map is unscientific and unverifiable because it does not adequately identify its sources. A legend at the bottom left-hand corner of Figure 6-2 lists the following sources: “California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks” No publications are identified from any of these entities. (3) Pacifica Planning Staff and City Council appear uncertain of what scale of Tsunami should be used to define a Pacifica “Tsunami Inundation Zone”. So the “Figure 6-2 Tsunami Inundation Zone” provides limited information to the public.
The map Legend at the top left of “Figure 6-2 Tsunami Inundation Zone” identifies a 475-year “Average Return Period” frequency for the Tsunami Inundation being mapped.
But a new term -- “Tsunami Inundation Zone” – proposed by Pacifica Staff for inclusion in 22 Sheetz vs. County of El Dorado, California, United States Supreme Court, October Term 2023, No. 22-1074 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1074_bqmd.pdf 23 Letter, SF Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, June. 25, 2024, re, inter alia, Tsunami, at pp. 7-8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7-fIm98PVzqArhsfkV-xBv_ycZavINH/view?usp=sharing 24 Pacifica City Council August 12, 2024 Agenda Packet, Item 14, City Council Agenda Summary Report, Aug. 12, 2024, at page 2 (Pkt. Pg. 326) https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 25 Pacifica StaƯ’s Agenda Summary Report, Aug. 12, 2024, Id., at page 5 (Pkt. Pg. 329), says only “The draft TIZ [Tsunami Inundation Zon] map was created using limited staƯ resources.” At Council’s August 12, 2024 LCLUP Special Study session, Acting Deputy Planning Director Cervantes told Council: “. . . our community development summer intern who has some experience with GIS, so they were able to create this map.” Pacific Coast TV U-Tube, Pacifica City Council Meeting, Aug.12,2024:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0R5J9ls6Xc, at 1:42:57, ff. 7 the Draft LCLUP’s Glossary clearly shows uncertainty whether ultimately a 475-year period -- or some other frequency -- will be used to define Pacifica’s “Tsunami Inundation Zone.”26
The same uncertainty and indecision can be seen in the Minutes of Council’s June 26, 2024 LCLUP Special Study Session, 27 which records the following comments by Mayor Pro Tem Beckmeyer and former Planning Director Christian Murdock.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated . . . with the terminology of tsunami inundation zone, she does not know how we are exactly defining that. (Minutes, at page 31.) Mayor Pro Tem Beckmeyer. . . . wanted to come back to this inundation versus evacuation and the maps.
She . . . wants to understand what our position is or how can we provide some security around this since we do not have the maps and have not identified what epic we are trying to map to. (Minutes, at page 33.)
Former Planning Director Christian Murdock “ . . . agreed, and stated there is a proposed definition of tsunami inundation zone which gives the example of a comparable 475-year average return period tsunami event . . . He stated that we are not going to get to a precise outcome. Council has given policy direction with the definition to strive to shrink the affected area to that which would be subject to a more probable tsunami event than essentially the worst case tsunami event that the Coastal Commission’s tsunami evacuation zone would have caused.” (Minutes, at page 33.)
5. Tsunami Over the Top. The Legend at upper left of the Figure 2 Tsunami Inundation Zone map marks the projected “475 year Average Return Period” with blue diagonal striping. If this draft map is accurate, it appears that substantial areas in both the Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods -- including the City of Pacifica’s Beach Boulevard properties, the Palmetto district, and popular restaurants and hotels in Rockaway Beach, including Nick’s, Moonraker, the Sea Breeze, Lighthouse Hotel, and others – will be subject under the Tsunami provisions of Pacifica’s August Draft LCLUP to the Siting and Design and Technical Reports requirements, notwithstanding those properties location in “Special Resiliency Areas”, because the existing shoreline protective structures are projected to be overtopped by a once-in-475-year Tsunami.28 26 Draft LCLUP, supra, Glossary, P. G-12 (Pkt.Pg. 644)
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 The new proposed Glossary definition reads as follows: “Tsunami Inundation Zone: An area of likely tsunami inundation under a tsunami scenario.
The applicable tsunami scenario should balance a reasonable probability of event occurrence with a reasonable potential of the tsunami event causing substantial loss of life and/or damage to property. Such a tsunami scenario could include, but is not necessarily limited to, 475-year Average Return Period (ARP) event described in the publication Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Maps for the State of California (Phase 2), California Department of Conservation (2023)” (emphasis added).
27 Minutes, Pacifica City Council Meeting, June 26, 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a67PcS9iXEKd2uJRm7IZZfCJuH3PiqEq/view?usp=sharing 28 The elevation of the top of the Beach Boulevard Seawall between the Pacifica Pier (West end of Santa Rosa St.) and Clarendon Rd. is between 23-26 feet NAVD according to Pacifica’s Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, etc., July 31, 2024, at p. 4, first sentence: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/18566/638580359795200000. The height of the Rockaway Beach shoreline protective structure west of Nick’s Restaurant is barely more than the elevation of the restaurant’s parking lot, which is less than 15 feet above sea level NAVD. See topographic map below at footnote 30. 8 See the interactive Pacifica topographic map, footnoted below, which shows the elevations of the shoreline protective structures and streets and buildings in the neighborhoods.29
6. Special Resiliency Areas Appear Now Less Than Advertised. Some may be surprised.
In its current iteration, the Draft LCLUP’s general description of the “Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas” reads, in part: “The purpose of modifying policies applicable to this area is to allow ongoing reliance on the existing shoreline protection structures . . .”30 (emphasis added) But a Coastal Commission Staff-originated change (which change first publicly appeared in Council’s June 26, 2024 Agenda Packet31) to Coastal Resources Implementing Policy CR-I-39 would limit the “ongoing reliance” only to “may rely on a shoreline protection structure in that area that is existing at the time of the permit application to help demonstrate that its setbacks meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-20.” (emphasis added) One implication of this change is that the SSRAs’ shoreline protection structures might not be “relied on” with respect to flood mitigation. The Pacifica Staff Report’s June 26 summary comments on the renumbered and revised Implementing Policy CR-I-39 as follows: “CR-I-39 allows development to rely on any existing shoreline protection structure” and “While the changes to Chapter 6 may seem extensive compared to the version of Chapter 6 published for the May 23rd City Council meeting, the intent of the Chapter 6 and the SSRA policies is mostly unchanged. The SSRA policies will still allow development behind the designated SSRA to use protection from coastal hazards that may be provided by the existing shoreline protection structures.”32 These Staff comments appear to overlook the point of the new limited application of CR-I-29 to “setbacks”.
We suggest that this matter of Implementing policy CR-I-39 merits a detailed and focused discussion at Council’s September 17 meeting.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: LOOK TO HALF MOON BAY
As detailed in our August 6 letter to Your Council, Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan effectively deals with the Tsunami problem by permitting infill development in Tsunami Inundation Areas, without development restrictions, while requiring a targeted tsunami-only disclosure and waiver. The Coastal Commission recent, unanimous and enthusiastic approval of Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan includes the Commission’s determination that the Half Moon Bay plan – including its Tsunami provisions – fully comply with the Coastal Act.
29 Pacifica Topographic Map (interactive): https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-kpc57/Pacifica/ 30 Draft LCLUP, supra, Coastal Resilience, p. 6-41 (Pkt. Pg. 601 https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1544 31 Pacifica City Council Agenda Packet for Special Meeting re LCLUP, June 26, 2024, Implementing Policy CR-I-39, at P. 6-41 (Pkt.P.285) https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540 32 Pacifica City Council Agenda Packet for Special Meeting re LCLUP, June 26, 2024, Id. Staff Report, pp. 6-7 (Pkt Pgs. 9-10). https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1540 9 We respectfully recommend the Half Moon Bay approach, closely adapting for Pacifica’s use the following language from that Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Plan, which permits infill development in tsunami areas and provides a narrow disclosure and hold harmless agreement specifically and narrowly targeted to 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.
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.
33 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; Oceane Ringuette, CCC District Supervisor; Julian Honey, CCC Planner; Mr. Jeff Guillet 33 Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Plan, supra. 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 10 EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1
Letter, August 6, 2024, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ghnzI-ZLO6rkfzJWvD_4hwtpU01iWaP/view?usp=drive_link EXHIBIT 2
Slide from Staff Presentation to Pacifica City Council Aug. 12, 2024 LCLUP Study Session / Half Moon Bay Form: Restrictive Covenant (Tsunami Inundation Zone) EXHIBIT 3
Letter, June 25, 2024, San Francisco Public Golf Alliance to Pacifica City Council, pp. 7-8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cmSqBoq6wCgji5PSMxjyyU4thwgohFjU/view?usp=sharing