On Thursday, May 8, the California Coastal Commission will vote on whether to approve Pacifica’s updated Local Coastal Program (LCLUP), the city’s first major update since 1980. The land use plan update outlines Pacifica’s approach to sea level rise. But instead of planning for the future, Pacifica’s plan tries to cement outdated shoreline armoring policies that sacrifice our beaches, surf breaks, and coastal access.
The Coastal Commission needs to hear from the public on this issue. Please tell the Commissioners you oppose Pacifica’s seawall carve outs and ask them to uphold the Coastal Act by requiring City of Pacifica to remove the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area (SSRA) provisions from their proposed Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
Get involved!
Join us on Thursday, May 8 at the California Coastal Commission meeting in Half Moon Bay or on Zoom. Anyone can speak up on the importance of Pacifica’s beaches and call for a better plan - one that does not rely so heavily on shoreline armoring! We deserve smart adaptation planning that preserves our beaches and waves into the future for everyone, and prepares us for rising seas using nature-based solutions. You can read the full staff report here, under item 9am on Thursday.
Here’s how to participate:
- Sign up to speak for item 9a on Thursday in-person or via Zoom.
- Submit a speaker slip here.
- The meeting will start at 9am at the Oceano Hotel in Half Moon Bay.
You can make a difference! Please attend this hearing and help save Pacifica’s beaches and waves!
Top Concerns
- Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas (SSRAs) = Permanent Armoring
Image: Shoreline armoring at Rockaway beach creates unsafe conditions for beach walkers
Pacifica’s plan introduces SSRAs in Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park that are essentially carve-outs that greenlight armoring (also referred to as seawalls) even when it wouldn’t be allowed under state law. They would keep these beaches permanently armored – threatening the waves and Rockaway and keeping the beach inaccessible at Sharp Park. The policies (CR-I-38 through CR-I-40) let new public infrastructure and redevelopment rely on seawalls whether or not they meet Coastal Act criteria for emergency or coastal-dependent development. This approach sidelines the Commission’s case-by-case permitting authority and sets a statewide precedent: carve out an SSRA, and voilà, large, neighborhood-scale armoring becomes a default.
Image: Sharp Park seawall where the City is paving the way to build an even larger seawall that will permanently drown the beach.
These zones would effectively allow neighborhood-scale seawalls to go up without the usual Coastal Act scrutiny. The city’s justification? That the shoreline will be “managed” and “adapted.” In reality, this is just long-term armoring with a fancy new name.
It’s not just a local issue. If SSRAs are approved, any California city could carve out a “resiliency zone” and sidestep the law. That puts every beach and surf break in California at risk of death-by-seawall.
When you wall off the coast with seawalls, you starve the beach of sand and amplify wave reflection. Over time, and as sea levels rise, the beach narrows or disappears, and the waves change: they refract weirdly, close out, or just vanish under high tide.
Pacifica is one of the most surfed stretches of coast in the Bay Area, with year-round breaks for all levels. Rockaway is particularly unique because of its shape, swell exposure, and role as an entry point for new surfers. If we lose it to a seawall with rising seas and worsening erosion, we won’t get it back.
- The Definition of Redevelopment Is Still Too Weak
The LCLUP allows redevelopment to avoid being classified as "new development" under certain circumstances. This could let large, upgraded structures bypass Coastal Act restrictions on shoreline armoring and perpetuates reliance on shoreline armoring. Redevelopment behind shoreline infrastructure (like in SSRAs) is especially slippery, since the plan explicitly allows these projects to rely on existing seawalls for safety and setbacks, undercutting Coastal Act Section 30253’s armoring prohibitions for new development.
- Mitigation is Kicked Down the Road
The LCLUP allows the SSRAs and other seawalls to proceed now, while deferring real mitigation through a future “Coastal Access and Resilience Program” (CR-I-44) and a “Shoreline Adaptation Program” (CR-I-5), which aren’t due for up to three years. There's no guarantee these programs will meaningfully protect beach access, sand supply, or surf zones.
What’s at Stake Statewide
If the Coastal Commission approves Pacifica’s SSRAs, it sends a green light to other cities looking to carve out permanent armoring zones. That risks turning piecemeal armoring into regional shoreline hardening—with cumulative impacts to sand supply, surf spots, habitat, and access that the Coastal Act was written to avoid.
What Surfrider Supports Instead
- Rejecting the SSRAs or requiring a full Coastal Act-compliant review for each site, No new development should rely on shoreline armoring.
- Strengthening the definition of redevelopment to prevent Coastal Act circumvention. Redevelopment should be defined as alteration of more than 50% of major structural components, cumulatively accounted from the date of Coastal Act certification, January 1, 1977.
- Prohibiting new development or subdivisions in mapped coastal hazard zones unless explicitly designed to avoid shoreline armoring.
- Proactive planning for neighborhood-scale nature-based solutions and a resilient strategy of adaptive relocation over time.
Pacifica’s LCLUP may be one city’s plan but if approved as written, it could open the floodgates to more shoreline loss up and down California. Let’s push for a plan that protects our coast and complies with the Coastal Act!