By: Brooks Jarosz
Posted: Nov 28 2018 10:25PM PST
Updated: Nov 29 2018 10:36AM PST
PACIFICA, Calif. (KTVU) – The Fairway Park West neighborhood in Pacifica has been the place Jeff Guillet and his family have called home for nearly a decade, but he’s concerned his property and its value could soon be at risk with the passage of a new coastal plan.
The City of Pacifica is working on updating the Local Coastal Program plan or LCP, which includes preparing for sea level rise over the next 50 to 100 years. It involves making tough decisions to prepare for the worst case scenario. Guillet claims his entire neighborhood is located in a hazard zone, made up of any land west of Highway 1 in Pacifica.
“My home is a third of a mile from the beach, 40 feet above sea level,” Guillet said. “There is no way that I’m going to be affected by sea level rise in the next 100 years.”
While the city has looked at maintaining ocean barriers and replenishing beaches with sand, it’s one controversial proposal that would negatively affect Guillet’s property that has him outraged. The proposal is called managed retreat, which means moving homes and businesses located in the hazard zone to allow nature to do what it wants and maintain the beach.
“We were shocked,” Guillet said. “I just feel angry that this is being done to me by my city that should be protecting me.”
In addition to property values, Guillet is concerned about insurance and also said if managed retreat were to ever be mandated by the city, Pacifica could then restrict renovations and prevent homeowners from pulling permits. With word spreading throughout the community, it has left not just homeowners but business owners on edge.
“I don’t get it,” business owner Cheryl Yoes said. “It’s allowing erosion to happen without trying to do something about it to save the homes and businesses.”
Yoes and her husband own Dial Glass and Window Company. They just renovated and are frustrated that Pacifica even considered managed retreat. She fears it will push people away right now for a problem that may happen decades later.
“I’ve lived here my entire life and the sea level couldn’t have risen more than an inch or two,” Yoes said. “There’s no way.”
That view has dozens of homes and businesses displaying bright, yellow signs talking down managed retreat with worry that even the city’s long-term plan could have short-term consequences.
Pacifica received a grant to assess and consider several strategies to deal with climate change and ocean rise in the future. While what happens is not certain, the city looked at numerous options and is set to approve the sea-level rise adaptation plan this December. Pacifica has received more than 100 comment letters from people concerned with the plan.
“Since no one has a crystal ball about what the future holds related to climate change and sea level rise, the important component of this plan is its adaptability,” Pacifica City Manager Kevin Woodhouse explained. “If we implement strategies but in future decades they don’t seem to be protective, we’re going to need to reevaluate at that time.”
Woodhouse said the strategies being considered and implemented right now are armoring the coast with sea walls and boulders or adding sand to beaches to prevent coastal erosion. However, within the draft policies it does mentioned managed retreat as a potentially “cost effective” and “long-term solution” but also pointing out the effects in the near-term could be “severe.”
“To be absolutely clear, managed retreat is not recommended in the draft policies,” Woodhouse said. “We’re actively working on these other protective measures.”
Right now, millions of dollars is being spent to armor the coast and prevent erosion that could affect homes and businesses. However, homeowner Suzanne Drake who lives on Beach Boulevard feet from the beach is skeptical and said the truth is buried in the paperwork of the draft policies.
“I’m just going through it and right in there it says retreat,” Drake said. “I think it’s a shame.”
She’s concerned that eventually if managed retreat is implemented that she and her family will be flooded out or forced from their home.
The final draft does mention that managed retreat of existing development and infrastructure may be required. To understand why managed retreat will have to be considered by 60 plus coastal cities, 2 Investigates went to the California Coastal Commission. Scientist Carey Batha explained the Pacific Ocean has risen about eight inches over the last century but with more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it’s important coastal cities prepare for a major increase in sea levels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
anyone finding 10 feet being used to set policy?
I good clear traceable set of facts to support the claim that 10 foot SLR is being used to set policies
That would be a specific policy ( like with respect to say the golf course on shrp road) and a specif reference to 10 feet.
Should be easy.
Steve,
Should I bother correcting your above mistakes or do you have the ability to “self edit” ?
Should be easy.
“In general, the Coastal Commission recommends using best available science (currently the 2018 OPC SLR Guidance) to identify a range of sea level rise scenarios, including the low, mediumhigh, and, as appropriate, extreme risk aversion scenario22.”
That’s 10.2 feet by 2100 for the extreme risk scenario. I’m not going to drill in to finding notes, probably not on the web anyway, of Pacifica planners citing this for any specific project. But the above quote specifically says that the California Coastal Commission recommends planning for 10.2 feet of sea level rise by 2100 where appropriate.
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/3_Ch3_2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf
Here is the Coastal Commission’s advice for local governments. “Choose multiple sea level rise scenarios based on range of sea level rise projections. The Coastal Commission recommends that all communities evaluate the impacts from the “medium-high risk aversion” scenario. Local governments should also include the “extreme risk aversion” scenario to evaluate the vulnerability of planned or existing assets that have little to no adaptive (such as the Sharp Park Golf Course?) capacity, that would be irreversibly destroyed or significantly costly to repair, and/or would have considerable public health, public safety, or environmental impacts should that level of sea level rise occur. “
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/5_Ch5_2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf
The California Coastal Commission is therefore explicitly telling local governments to use the 10.2 feet scenario in planning. QED.
Slow down. Take a deep breath. Proofread three times. “Post Comment”.
Nobody has a right to do either option in this instance.
The government should not be giving insurance companies riches by passing laws about things that are decades away.
And the people dont have the right to have taxpayers pay to make thier property survive the natural elements.
At one time people and buisnesses took the chance and build near waterways because that was almost exclusively the best mode of transportation. We dont need to do that anymore, and spreading the cost of people continuing to live and work in floodplain and such should be on them.
Watch who buys coastal properties when their owners get spooked or financially drained by this BS. In NZ, it is rumored to be those on the political “green” or “left”. A nice mix of hypocrisy and greed.
Planning is good. I would put a slow trigger on any implementation
The biggest threat is not really natural sea level increases of 2-3 mm/yr. Sea levels are about 20 meters below the halocene maximum 6000 years ago, and over 100 meters higher than the last glacial period. A major quake could cause parts of the coast to immediately sink 1-3 ft. Major quakes are inevitable but unpredictable. Same with climate.
Living on the coast one must accept risk. Perhaps homeowners and developments should be required to sign a legal waiver before permits are issuing absolving cities and towns of any responsibility. Live and let live.
“I don’t get it,” business owner Cheryl Yoes said. “It’s allowing erosion to happen without trying to do something about it to save the homes and businesses.”
— If people who have homes on the beach are concerned about beach erosion, and want to natural-driven changes in the coastline from obliterating their property, then that sounds like a private problem to me. If a city or township wants to expend resources for the benefit of the owners of a narrow strip of homes, there should be a special assessment.
this shows Sydney no change http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
Nothing to do with “CO2”; Californian shores eroding since “geological times” and everybody could know that.
https://www.google.at/search?q=erosion+Californian+shores+geological+times&oq=erosion+Californian+shores+geological+times&aqs=chrome.
How did previous generations of citizens around the world deal with sea level rise without a “Sea Level Rise Preparation Plan”?