Agenda — Pacifica City Council, February 28, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

SAFE PARKING PROGRAM OPERATIONS

AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT
This Safe Parking Program Operations Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __________, 2021 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Pacifica (“City”), a municipal corporation and Pacifica Resource Center, a 501(c)(3) organization ("PRC"). City and PRC shall be identified as “City,” “PRC” or individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, established in 1974, PRC provides individuals throughout Pacifica with groceries, housing support, and other critical services; and WHEREAS, PRC is the core agency in San Mateo County that provides these services to individuals in Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, PRC is the point of entry for homeless services in Pacifica and offers a number of programs and services to assist the unhoused in finding and maintaining temporary and permanent shelter and has established connections with non-governmental and governmental agencies to coordinate the various housing programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica created via Resolution No. ____and Ordinance No. ___, a three-year Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) in the City of Pacifica which provides participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with an operating toilet (collectively “Designated Vehicle”), a temporary parking space for a limited period of time as participants in the Program try to find permanent housing solutions; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it requires the specialized services of PRC in order to operate the Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, City and PRC, for the consideration hereinafter described, mutually agree as follows:

1. RECITALS
The Parties agree that the Recitals identified above are true and correct and are hereinafter incorporated as substantive terms of this Agreement.

10.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 2 of 24 ends

2. TERM
Unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section below, the term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date (date this Agreement is fully-executed) and terminate on [3 years and 90 days following Effective Date]______________, 2025 unless otherwise extended by the Parties in writing. (“Term”)

3. OBLIGATIONS OF PRC
In order to implement and operate the Program, PRC shall do the following:

A. PRC shall implement and operate the Program, as adopted by the City, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (“Services”). Services shall not include enforcement of city, state, and federal laws and ordinances.

B. PRC shall screen applicants who desire issuance of a Regular Permit, Provisional Permit, or Short-Term Permit as defined in this Agreement and issued pursuant to the Program(“Permit”). Applicant screening, at a minimum, should consist of an application form and application review process.
i. The purpose of PRC’s assessment is to ensure that applicants can meet the Program criteria, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) applicants must be experiencing homelessness or be housing insecure and working with PRC toward permanent housing; (2) applicants must own or lease or utilize with permission of the vehicle owner the Designated Vehicle; (3) applicants must have a valid driver’s license, valid insurance, and current State vehicle registration; and (4) the Designated Vehicle must have working basic safety and sanitation features, including fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide alarms, toilets, and waste valves. :

PRC will work with the Applicants to provide proof of a valid driver’s license, valid insurance, and current State vehicle registration.
ii. PRC may issue Permits to those individuals whom PRC confirms meet the qualifications for the Program either in the form of a “Regular Permit” or a “Provisional Permit” as discussed further in Section D below.
iii. The term “Permit Holders” herein refers to those who are issued either a “Regular Permit” or a “Provisional Permit.”
C. Ensure that applicants who are registered participants in the Unhoused on the Coast program, members of the Homeless Outreach Team, or Pacifica Residents as defined below, shall have their applications processed in order of submission but before other applicants that do not meet all of the foregoing criteria. For purposes of this Agreement, the “Unhoused on the Coast” program shall mean PRC services to help unhoused families and individuals in Pacifica and along the coast through Half Moon Bay return to and maintain stable housing through outreach and engagement and housing focused case management; the “Homeless Outreach Team” shall mean LifeMoves’ homeless outreach program; and a “Pacifica Resident” shall mean a person

10.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 3 of 24 ends

who can demonstrate that they have resided in a house, apartment, vehicle or other location within the geographic boundaries of the City for at least 30 days since October 1, 2020, with length of Pacifica residency a factor in prioritizing amongst Pacifica Residents at PRC’s discretion.

D. PRC shall issue permits at its discretion under the Program. A Permit cannot be issued or re-issued/renewed for a period beyond termination of the Program.

The design, format, layout, and wording of the Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the City. Written documentation and/or agreements provided to Permit Holders that describe the terms of the Program shall also be subject to review and approval by the City.
i. Applicants to the Program who meet all of the qualifications for the Program may be issued a “Regular Permit” upon admittance to the Program for a single term of up to 29 days. Issuance of a Regular Permit for additional 29 day terms for Regular Permit Holders who continue to meet all of the qualifications for the Program may be granted by PRC, in PRC’s sole discretion, with PRC striving to issue the additional permit for a different Parking Site as defined below, than the previous Permit. Renewals or multiple issuances of the Permit do not create a tenancy. The Permit Holder must move their vehicle between renewals or reissuances of the Permit. ii. Applicants to the Program who do not meet all of the qualifications for the Program at the time the application is filed with the PRC and who may need additional time to comply with the Program may be issued a “Provisional Permit” upon admittance to the Program for one single term of 29 days with no renewal or re-issuance period. PRC may issue Provisional Permits, in its sole discretion, to Applicants who meet at least two of the Program criteria identified in Paragraph 3(B) above, so long as the total number of Provisional Permits issued at any point does not exceed the maximum total of six Provisional Permits.
iii. PRC, at its discretion, may issue Short-Term Permits, for oversized vehicle parking for not more than 72 hours at Parking Sites that are not assigned to Regular or Provisional Permit Holders who sign the Code of Conduct for ShortTerm Permit Holders described at Section 3(H) of this Agreement.

E. PRC, in its sole discretion, may assess a Program Fee and collect the Program Fee at the time the Regular Permit or Provisional Permit is issued, as well as upon re-issuance of the Regular Permit every 29 days. The Program Fee shall be set on a sliding scale and will be paid to PRC pursuant to the following fee schedule:
• $29 for families with income at 30% or below median income; • $290 for families with income between 30% and 50% of median income;

10.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 4 of 24 ends

and,
• $725 for families with income between 50% and 80% of median income.

PRC may adjust these fees as necessary, without approval of the City. PRC shall use any fees collected for the Program.

Income determination is based on current income and proof of income may include self-certification, paycheck stub, or bank statement. PRC shall advise all Permit Holders of the applicable renewal fee.

F. PRC will, at its discretion, assign Permit Holders a designated parking space selected by PRC from the spaces identified by the City in Section 4 (“Parking Sites”), or as may be amended, and shall help ensure that Permit Holders display their Permits and that Regular Permit Holders and Provisional Permit Holders move their Designated Vehicles to a new Parking Site every 29 days while they are participating in the Program.

G. Ensure that Regular Permit Holders, Provisional Permit Holders, and Short-Term Permit Holders sign and agree to be bound by the Participant Bill of Rights and Onsite Code of Conduct (“Code of Conduct”).
i. PRC’s Code of Conduct for Regular and Provisional Permit Holders is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” PRC’s Code of Conduct for Short-Term Permit Holders is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” PRC has discretion to prepare and amend the Code of Conduct so long as the amendments are in accordance with Section 3(G)(ii) and Section 3(G)(iii) of this Agreement and PRC notifies the City of any significant changes to the Code of Conduct.
ii. The Code of Conduct for Regular and Provisional Permit Holders shall require at a minimum that all Permit Holders do the following:(i) properly dispose of gray and black water; (ii) properly dispose of trash and recyclables; (iii) keep all personal property within the Designated Vehicle and do not place any personal property or items around the exterior of the Designated Vehicle, including but not limited to chairs, tables, tarps, BBQs; (iv) do not cook outside the Designated Vehicle or light any fires; (v) do not store hazardous materials in or around the Designated Vehicle; (vi) do not participate in illegal drug use or sales, illegal activities or violence; (vii) properly control pets; (viii) do not block any access to the sidewalk; (ix) be considerate of neighbors and not loiter, trespass, publicly use drugs or alcohol, light fires, or use open flames or other burners in the Parking Site or surrounding area; and (x) comply with all laws during participation in the Program.
iii. The Code of Conduct for Short-Term Permit Holders shall require at a minimum that all Short-Term Permit Holders do the following: (i) properly dispose of gray and black water; (iii) properly dispose of trash and recyclables; (iii) keep all personal property within the Designated Vehicle and do not place any

10.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 5 of 24 ends

personal property or items around the exterior of the Designated Vehicle including but not limited to chairs, tables, tarps, BBQs; (iv) do not cook outside the Designated Vehicle or light any fires; (v) do not store hazardous materials in or around the Designated Vehicle; (vi) do not participate in illegal drug use or sales, illegal activities or violence; (vii) properly control pets; (viii) do not block any access to the sidewalk; and (ix) be considerate of neighbors and not loiter, trespass, publicly use drugs or alcohol, light fires, or use open flames or other burners in the Parking Site or surrounding area.
iv. PRC will work with the City to monitor Permit Holders’ compliance with the Code of Conduct. PRC shall also retain discretion to revoke a Permit for any Permit Holder in its sole discretion.

H. PRC will provide Permit Holders with written documentation that describes the terms of the Program. For Regular Permit Holders, this information at a minimum will explain that they must park the Designated Vehicle in the appropriate Parking Site; display the Permit on the dashboard; they must move their Designated Vehicle from the designated Parking Space every 29 days and before a new permit is issued or renewed; no tenancy rights are created; and the Permit is non-transferable. For Provisional Permit Holders, this information at a minimum will explain that they must (i) park the Designated Vehicle in the appropriate Parking Site; display the Permit on the dashboard; the Permit is valid for one single term of 29 days with no renewal or reissuance period; no tenancy rights are created; and the Permit is non-transferable. For Short-Term Permit Holders, this information at a minimum will explain that they must (i) park the Designated Vehicle in the appropriate Parking Site; display the Permit on the dashboard; the Permit is subject to the 72 hour parking limitations set forth in Pacifica Municipal Code section 5-2.01 et seq.; they must move their vehicle from the designated space between renewals or re-issuances of the Permit; no tenancy rights are created; and the Permit is non-transferable.

I. PRC will provide Permit Holders with written documentation that states the procedures for issuing written warnings for failing to comply with the Code of Conduct or grounds for termination from the Program, including the appeals process. Applicants who do not agree with a decision made by PRC staff regarding denial of an application into the Program or Permit Holders who do not agree with a decision regarding termination from the Program shall be able to appeal to the PRC. PRC’s written guidelines for warnings, revocation, termination, and the appeal process is subject to review and comment by the City. PRC shall have sole discretion regarding whether to terminate or not re-issue a Permit Holder’s Permit.

J. PRC shall ensure that Regular and Provisional Permit Holders and ShortTerm Permit Holders sign a release of liability agreement approved by the City.

10.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 6 of 24 ends

K. PRC and City shall co-host a mobile dumping station for Permit Holders twice a month. The City has identified the location for the mobile dump station at 2212 Beach Boulevard, which may be changed at the discretion of the City Manager. The mobile dumping station shall also be available to other individuals inhabiting Designated Vehicles within the City who have obtained a voucher for use of the site from PRC.

PRC shall, in its discretion, distribute vouchers for the mobile dumping station and the garbage/dumpster to those non-Permit Holder individuals inhabiting Designated Vehicles in Pacifica.

L. PRC shall ensure that all Parking Sites are kept in a clean manner and that no garbage or debris is maintained at the Parking Sites through the City’s service contract with a service provider, such as Recology of the Coast.

M. PRC shall provide case management services to Permit Holders to coordinate, monitor, and advocate for services for the Permit Holders to meet their particular needs and assist them to return to housing.

N. PRC shall periodically report to the City on the status of the Program at least on a semi-annual basis.

O. PRC, upon 10 business days’ notice of request, shall meet and confer with the City pertaining to questions the City may have regarding the Program, including but not limited to achievement of Program outcomes, including Permit Holders progression towards returning to housing, and information regarding implementation of the Program. The City reserves the right to ask PRC to provide details of its operation plan or program design, whether formal or informal, that sets forth the specific manner that PRC intends to implement and operate the program.

4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
The City shall do the following:

A. Stripe 13 spaces with an average length of thirty (30) feet which will be made available as a Parking Site to Permit Holders for a period of 29 days, in the following locations determined by the City:
(i) 4 spaces on the west side of Oceana Boulevard, west of the City of Pacifica Public Works Department Building at 151 Milagra Avenue; (ii) 3 spaces on Lundy Way. To accommodate these spaces, the City will widen Lundy Way sufficient to make OSV parking safe; (iii) 1 space on Milagra Drive, across the road from City of Pacifica Public Works Department Building at 151 Milagra Avenue. (iv) 1 space on the west side of Francisco Boulevard near the North Coast County Water District facility at 2400 Francisco Boulevard. (v) 2 spaces on the west side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course.
(vi) 2 spaces on San Pedro in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware.

10.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 7 of 24 ends

The locations listed above may be subject to change by the City as long as thirteen spaces with an average length of thirty (30) feet are maintained by the City as part of the Program. The City will provide adequate notice to PRC of any changes to the parking spaces that are part of the Program.

When not reserved by a Permit Holder, PRC can in its discretion make the Parking Sites available for Designated Vehicles for those who sign and abide by the Code of Conduct for Short-Term Permit Holders and display the short-term parking permit granted by PRC, subject to the City’s preexisting parking regulations (e.g. 72 hour parking limitations).

B. The City’s Police Department shall regularly patrol the Parking Sites to ensure compliance with City parking regulations. If the City is made aware that a vehicle is illegally parked in a Parking Site, the City shall take necessary enforcement actions.

C. The City shall provide specified funding, in accordance with Section 5, for PRC’s operation of the Program.

D. The City, in coordination and through contract or agreement with Recology of the Coast, shall provide dumpsters to PRC or drop off service for garbage disposal until at least [ADD DATE] at a City facility. Dumpsters and/or drop off stations will be available to Permit Holders and to other persons inhabiting recreational vehicles (RVs), mobile homes and campers, within the City who have obtained a voucher for use of the dumpsters or drop off service from PRC. The cost per bag and the dumpster is to be determined by the City with Recology.

E. The City, in coordination with PRC as a co-host, shall co-host a mobile dump station bi-monthly. The City has identified the location for the mobile dump station at 2212 Beach Boulevard, which may be changed at the discretion of the City Manager. The City will provide staffing and funding as necessary to help facilitate the mobile dump service, funded by the City.

F. Upon 10 business days’ notice of request, the City shall meet and confer with PRC pertaining to questions PRC may have regarding the implementation and operation of the Program.

5. CITY FUNDING
The City’s funding obligation for the Program will total $360,000, payable in installments of $120,000 by June 30, 2022; $120,000 by June 30, 2023; and $120,000 by June 30, 2024. If the Program is successful and the program operation requires additional funding, the City Council may approve additional City funding.

10.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 8 of 24 ends

PRC must maintain adequate records to evidence the costs and expenses associated with the Services and shall provide those records to the City, upon request of at least 10 business days. In accordance with California Government Code § 8546.7, this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the California State Auditor, at the request of the City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three years after final payment.

6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
PRC and City agree that the PRC will perform the Services as an independent contractor and not as an employee or agent of the City. Persons employed or utilized by PRC in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of the City.

PRC is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. PRC shall have sole control over the manner and means of carrying out the Services.

7. SUBCONTRACTING
PRC may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of the City. PRC will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of the PRC and the City.

Subcontractor agrees to be bound to PRC and City in the same manner and to the same extent as PRC is bound to City under the Agreement. Subcontractor further agrees to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any sub-subcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the City indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor upon request.

8. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
A. PRC will perform the Services in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which PRC is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which PRC practices its profession, and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. PRC will comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to performance of the Services, including but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act, any laws and regulations applicable to PRC, and any laws and regulations related to any copyright, patent, trademark or other intellectual property right involved in performance of the services. PRC’s Failure to comply with any law(s) or regulation(s) applicable to the performance of the services hereunder shall constitute a material breach of this agreement.

10.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 9 of 24 ends

B. PRC shall assign only competent personnel to perform Services pursuant to this Agreement.

9. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, PRC and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.

10. INDEMNITY
A. PRC shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and servants against all damages, claims, liabilities, losses, and other expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and related costs, whether or not a lawsuit or other proceeding is filed, to the extent that they arise out of the willful misconduct of PRC and/or its employees arising out of its administering of the Program.

B. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless PRC and its officers, agents, employees, and servants against all damages, claims, liabilities, losses, and other expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and related costs, whether or not a lawsuit or other proceeding is filed, to the extent they arise out of the willful misconduct of the City and/or its officials or staff arising out of its obligations specified in this Agreement.

C. This Section shall not apply to any claims for losses arising from any claim that any term of the Code of Conduct was not sufficiently enforced by either PRC or the City.

D. A party seeking indemnity and defense under this section shall provide the indemnifying and defending party with prompt notice of any claim and give control of its defense and settlement to the indemnifying and defending party. The party seeking indemnity and defense shall also cooperate in all reasonable respects with the indemnifying and defending party, its insurance company, and its legal counsel in its defense of such claim. The obligation to defend and indemnify pursuant to this section shall not cover any claim in which there is a failure to give the indemnifying and defending party prompt notice, but only to the extent that such lack of notice prejudices the defense of the claim. The indemnifying and defending party may not settle any potential suit hereunder without the other party’s prior written approval, which will not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. If a party who owes indemnity and defense under this section fails to promptly indemnify and defend a covered claim, the other party shall have the right to defend itself, and in such case, the party owning indemnity and defense shall promptly reimburse the other party for all of its associated costs and expenses.

10.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 10 of 24 ends

E. The obligations imposed by this section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement..

11. INSURANCE
PRC, for itself and its employees and all of PRC’s, subcontractors, consultants and other agents related to the Program, shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by PRC in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

C. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.
(i) Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this
Agreement, PRC shall provide City with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that PRC has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to City. PRC shall also furnish City with original endorsements with the following documentation:
(ii) Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after City shall have received written notification thereof from Consultant by United States mail;

10.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 11 of 24 ends

(iii) Providing that PRC’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
(iv) Excepting PRC’s professional liability insurance and workers’ compensation policy, naming City, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and
(v) Providing that for any claims relating to PRC's Services hereunder, PRC’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to City, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of PRC’s insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
(vi) It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of: (a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

E. Material Breach. If PRC fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. City, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from PRC resulting from said breach. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to City.

12. PARKING SITES AS IS
PRC may perform part of the Services at the Parking Sites which contain unknown working conditions and may contain hazardous or contaminated materials. PRC shall

10.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 12 of 24 ends

be solely responsible for the health and safety of PRC’s employees during the performance of the Services.

13. LICENSES & PERMITS
PRC represents and warrants to City that PRC and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses and permits to provide the Services of this Agreement.

14. TERMINATION
A. City or PRC may terminate this Agreement for convenience by giving at least ninety (90) days written notice to the other Party specifying the termination effective date. Upon receipt of such notice, PRC may continue performance of the Services through the date of termination; or
B. PRC may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days written notice if the Council fails to approve the funding specified in Section 5.

C. If PRC materially breaches any term of this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies the City may have at law or equity, the City may immediately terminate the Agreement by 10 business day’s written notice to the PRC.

D. If the City materially breaches any term of this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies PRC may have at law or equity, PRC may immediately terminate the Agreement by 10 business day’s written notice to the City.

15. BINDING EFFECT AND ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITION
This Agreement is binding upon City, PRC, and their successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, neither City nor PRC may assign, sublet or transfer its interest in this Agreement or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the other, and any purported assignment without such consent will be void.

16. NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by mail or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; and (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day. A courtesy copy shall also be sent electronically by email. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Section.

Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice

10.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 13 of 24 ends

or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:

If to CITY: City Manager
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Email: [email protected]
If to PRC: Anita M. Rees Executive Director
Pacifica Resource Center
1809 Palmetto Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: 650 738-7470 x3
Facsimile: 650 359-2053
Email: [email protected]

17. Confidential Information
A. As used in this Agreement, the following words, terms, and phrases shall have the meanings set forth below:
(1) “Confidential Information” shall mean and include any and all information (a) customer and client data (including, but not limited to, identity or demographic analyses of customers and clients), focus group reports, and marketing or advertising studies; (c) such other information of or regarding PRC that PRC actually maintains as confidential or proprietary; provided, however, that such information shall be deemed confidential only to the extent that it (i) has not been previously disclosed to the public, or (ii) is not ascertainable from public or published information or trade sources, or (iii) is not subsequently publicly disclosed (other than by a violation of this Agreement). Any Information that is marked or otherwise identified as “Confidential Information” at the time of Disclosure shall be presumed to be Confidential Information for the purposes of this Agreement.
(2) “Information” shall mean and include any data or information Disclosed (as defined in this Agreement) in the form of (a) any written information, reports, documents, books, notebooks, memoranda, charts, or graphs; (b) computer tapes, disks, CD-ROM, files, or other mechanical or electronic media; (c) oral statements, representations, or presentations; (d) audio, visual, or audio-visual materials or presentations, including audiotapes, videocassettes, laser discs, or CDs; and (e) any other documentary, written, magnetic, or other permanent or semi-permanent form.

10.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 14 of 24 ends

(3) “Disclose” or “Disclosure” shall mean and include any delivery, transmittal, presentation, or representation of Information, by any Person to any other Person.
(4) “Person” shall mean and include any individual or natural person, corporation, trust, proprietorship, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity.

B. City agrees to retain and maintain in strict confidence, and to require its agents, employees, independent contractors, and advisors to retain in confidence, any and all Confidential Information of PRC. City agrees that, without the prior express written consent of PRC, City shall not, either directly or indirectly, individually or in concert with others: (1) Disclose any such Confidential Information to any other person; (2) use any such Confidential Information for the benefit of any person other than PRC; or (3) permit any Confidential Information to be Disclosed to or used by any person other than PRC.

This confidential information provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

18. CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROHIBITION
City and PRC will comply with the requirements of the City’s Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. PRC may be required to file with the City Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the City Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the City Clerk.

PRC may not perform Services for any other person or entity that, pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, would result in a conflict of interest or would otherwise be prohibited with respect to PRC’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement. PRC agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide any necessary and appropriate information requested by City or any authorized representative concerning potential conflicts of interest or prohibitions concerning PRC’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

PRC may not employ any City official, officer or employee in the performance of the Services, nor may any official, officer or employee of City have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code §1090 et seq. PRC

10.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 15 of 24 ends

hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of City. If PRC was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of City in the previous twelve months, PRC warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. PRC understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and PRC will not be entitled to any compensation for PRC’s performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and PRC will be required to reimburse City for any sums paid to PRC under this Agreement. PRC understands that, in addition to the foregoing, penalties for violating Government Code §1090 may include criminal prosecution and disqualification from holding public office in the State of California.

Any violation by PRC of the requirements of this provision will constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and the City reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

19. APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and the interpretation of this Agreement. Any action or proceeding that is initiated or undertaken to enforce or interpret any provision, performance, obligation or covenant set forth in this Agreement shall be brought in a state court in San Mateo County.

20. THIRD PARTIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the City or PRC. PRC’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between PRC and any subcontractors or subconsultants for any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement.

21. WAIVER
No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either City or PRC of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.

22. SEVERABILITY

10.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 16 of 24 ends

If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged will remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

23. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.

24. AUTHORITY
Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their authorized representative to execute this Agreement on the date first written above.

CITY PRC
By: __________________________________ By: _______________________________ _______________________
Its: Its: __________________________
ATTEST:

By: ____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________
Michelle Marchetta-Kenyon, City Attorney

10.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 17 of 24 ends

EXHIBIT A

PACIFICA SAFE PARKING PERMIT (PSPP)
Participant Bill of Rights and Onsite Code of Conduct
(Regular and Provisional Permit Holders)
The goal of the Pacifica Safe Parking Permit (PSPP) program is to provide unhoused individuals and families who are living in vehicles a place to park in a safe, secure, sanitary, and welcoming environment while they work toward returning to housing. All PSPP participants are asked to observe the following guidelines and code of conduct to maintain a safe and healthy space for everyone. All participants must read and have a signed agreement on file in order to participate in PSPP.

PARTICIPANT’S BILL OF RIGHTS
a. Participant’s rights will be exercised in ways that also respect the rights of other participants. No one’s rights are absolute.
b. All participants are entitled to enjoy a safe and healthful living environment at the program site.
c. All participants are entitled to be treated in a manner that respects their dignity and individuality.
d. All participants with disabilities, personal and cultural differences are entitled to reasonable accommodations under fair housing laws when such accommodations are necessary because of their disability, personal and cultural identity. The program will accommodate participants’ needs (expressed, implicit or implied) as long as such accommodation will not result to an essential change in the program or structure.
e. All participants are entitled to remain in the program while it is active and not be involuntarily removed without good cause and just procedures. f. All participants are entitled to just and standardized procedures for determining eligibility, admissions, sanctions and discharges, and resolving grievances. g. All participants are entitled to reasonable privacy and confidential treatment of personal, social, financial, medical, mental and behavioral health records, and in compliance with the participant’s written consent to release information. h. All participants are entitled to the full exercise of their civil, constitutional, and legal rights.

PARTICIPANTS CODE OF CONDUCT:
• Participants will maintain quiet hours between 10p and 8a and will turn off generators during those hours.
• Participants will be considerate of neighbors near their PSPP designated space and will not loiter, trespass, publicly use drugs or alcohol, or use open flames or other burners at their designated PSPP space or in the neighborhood and the surrounding area.

10.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 18 of 24 ends

• Participants will keep personal belongings within their vehicle at their designated PSPP space so that there are no personal belongings outside of the vehicle. • Participants will conduct their living within their vehicle parked in their designated PSPP space and will not camp, cook, or live on the street, outside their vehicle, or in the neighborhood and surrounding areas.
• Participants will maintain a clear sidewalk in front of and around their designated PSPP space.
• Participants will maintain a safe and clean environment at their designated PSPP space, in or around their vehicle, free of:
o hazardous materials
o illegal weapons
o illegal drugs
o illegal activities
o and violence.
• Participants will maintain and use the toilet in their vehicle parked at their designated PSPP space.
• Participants will properly dispose of gray and black water in the manner identified by PRC at a location that is authorized to dispose of gray and black water. • Participants will properly dispose of all trash and recyclables. • Participants will properly dispose all extinguished cigarettes and cigars in the garbage, not on the ground, and will not smoke within 30 feet of neighbors’ doors, windows, or fence line.
• Participants will resolve all conflicts peacefully and with the support of PRC, as needed.
• Participants will abide by all laws.
• Participants will maintain PSPP’s commitment to be culturally competent, equitable, and inclusive and will not act or make remarks that are ethnically degrading, racist, sexist, or homophobic.
• Participants will ensure that all visitors will abide by PSPP’s Code of Conduct at all times.
• PARTICIPANTS WITH PETS:
o Will keep them on leash when outside of their vehicle and will not tie them to the outside of the vehicle.
o Will clean-up after their animals.

By signing below, I agree to participate in the Pacifica Safe Parking Permit (PSPP) program and have read and agree to the code of conduct in this agreement. I understand that failure to comply with this agreement may result in my disenrollment or prohibition from participating in the Pacifica Safe Parking Permit (PSPP) program. My participation in the Pacifica Safe Parking Permit (PSPP) program is voluntary and may be discontinued at any time by my choice or due to failure to comply with the code of conduct outlined in this agreement.

10.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 19 of 24 ends

Participant Name (print):

Participant Signature Date
Core Principles
Housing First
According to the webinar Core Principles of Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing issued by HUD and the Unites States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), the Housing First approach is based on the following principles:

1. Housing is safe and affordable;

2. All people can achieve housing stability in permanent housing; supports may look different;

3. Everyone is “housing ready”; and

4. Improved quality of life, health, mental health, and employment can be achieved through housing.

Harm Reduction
Harm reduction policies, procedures, and practices aim to reduce the negative consequences of behaviors that are detrimental to the participant’s health and wellbeing (i.e., abuse of drugs and/or alcohol, failure to be medication compliant, engaging in criminal activity, prostitution, choosing to sleep outside, etc.). In housing settings, harm reduction is intended to prevent a participant’s loss of housing and/or termination from the program based solely on his or her inability to stop engaging in harmful behaviors.

PRC incorporates a harm reduction model utilizing all interventions possible, short of termination from the program, to enable the participant to reduce or minimize their risky behaviors, while at the same time assisting them to move into and become stabilized in permanent housing. Harm reduction is not intended to prevent the termination of a participant whose actions or behavior constitute a threat to the safety of other participants and staff.

Trauma-Informed Care
Trauma-informed care requires that every part of PRC’s design and operation be approached with an understanding of trauma and the impact it has on those receiving services. Traumatic experiences can impact how clients receive services provided and the environment in which those services are delivered. PRC works to establish a safe and supportive environment, ensuring that all staff receive training on traumatic stress and its impact, as well as the relationship between trauma and mental health, substance use, and homelessness.

10.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 20 of 24 ends

Cultural Competency, Racial Equity, and Inclusivity
At all levels, PRC works to provide programs that are culturally and linguistically competent, racially equitable, and gender inclusive, and address the needs of populations to be served, including, but not limited to, race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, economic class, age, family status, language spoken and understood, physical and mental disabilities, living situation, etc.

10.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 21 of 24 ends

EXHIBIT B

PACIFICA SAFE PARKING PERMIT (PSPP)
Participant Bill of Rights and Onsite Code of Conduct
(Short-Term Permit Holders)
The goal of the Pacifica Safe Parking Permit (PSPP) program is to provide unhoused individuals and families who are living in vehicles a place to park in a safe, secure, sanitary, and welcoming environment while they work toward returning to housing. All PSPP participants are asked to observe the following guidelines and code of conduct to maintain a safe and healthy space for everyone. All participants must read and have a signed agreement on file in order to participate in PSPP.

PARTICIPANT’S BILL OF RIGHTS
i. Participant’s rights will be exercised in ways that also respect the rights of other participants. No one’s rights are absolute.
j. All participants are entitled to enjoy a safe and healthful living environment at the program site.
k. All participants are entitled to be treated in a manner that respects their dignity and individuality.
l. All participants with disabilities, personal and cultural differences are entitled to reasonable accommodations under fair housing laws when such accommodations are necessary because of their disability, personal and cultural identity. The program will accommodate participants’ needs (expressed, implicit or implied) as long as such accommodation will not result to an essential change in the program or structure.
m. All participants are entitled to remain in the program while it is active and not be involuntarily removed without good cause and just procedures. n. All participants are entitled to just and standardized procedures for determining eligibility, admissions, sanctions and discharges, and resolving grievances. o. All participants are entitled to reasonable privacy and confidential treatment of personal, social, financial, medical, mental and behavioral health records, and in compliance with the participant’s written consent to release information. p. All participants are entitled to the full exercise of their civil, constitutional, and legal rights.

10.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 22 of 24 ends

other burners at their designated PSPP space or in the neighborhood and the surrounding area.
• Participants will keep personal belongings within their vehicle at their designated PSPP space so that there are no personal belongings outside of the vehicle. • Participants will conduct their living within their vehicle parked in their designated PSPP space and will not camp, cook, or live on the street, outside their vehicle, or in the neighborhood and surrounding areas.
• Participants will maintain a clear sidewalk in front of and around their designated PSPP space.
• Participants will maintain a safe and clean environment at their designated PSPP space, in or around their vehicle, free of:
o hazardous materials
o illegal weapons
o illegal drugs
o illegal activities
o and violence
• Participants will maintain and use the toilet in their vehicle parked at their designated PSPP space.
• Participants will properly dispose of gray and black water in the manner identified by PRC at a location that is authorized to dispose of gray and black water. • Participants will properly dispose of all trash and recyclables. • Participants will properly dispose all extinguished cigarettes and cigars in the garbage, not on the ground, and will not smoke within 30 feet of neighbors’ doors, windows, or fence line.
• Participants will resolve all conflicts peacefully and with the support of PRC, as needed.
• Participants will abide by all laws.
• Participants will maintain PSPP’s commitment to be culturally competent, equitable, and inclusive and will not act or make remarks that are ethnically degrading, racist, sexist, or homophobic.
• Participants will ensure that all visitors will abide by PSPP’s Code of Conduct at all times.
• PARTICIPANTS WITH PETS:
o Will keep them on leash when outside of their vehicle and will not tie them to the outside of the vehicle.
o Will clean-up after their animals.

By signing below, I acknowledge I have read and agree to the code of conduct in this agreement. I understand that failure to comply with this agreement may result in the revocation of my permit. My participation is voluntary and may be discontinued at any time by my choice or due to failure to comply with the code of conduct outlined in this agreement.

10.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 23 of 24 ends

Participant Name (print):

5. Housing is safe and affordable;

6. All people can achieve housing stability in permanent housing; supports may look different;

7. Everyone is “housing ready”; and

8. Improved quality of life, health, mental health, and employment can be achieved through housing.

10.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

Page 24 of 24 ends

10.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program) ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA TO AMEND ARTICLE 12 OF CHAPTER 7 "TRAFFIC" WITHIN TITLE 4 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SECTION SEC. 4-7.1207 AND TO AMEND SECTION 5-

2.03, “VIOLATIONS: ABATEMENT” WITHIN CHAPTER 2, "VEHICLES PARKED FOR SEVENTY-TWO HOURS OR MORE”, WITHIN TITLE 5 OF THE PACIFICA

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY SAFE PARKING PERMIT WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 72-2021, approving execution of a settlement agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode and Stephen Sanders and approving a memorandum of understanding with Pacifica Resource Center for development and implementation of a safe parking permit program; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. XXX, approving the adoption of a Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance would create a Regular, Provisional, or Short-Term Permit to allow Permit Holders of the Temporary Safe Parking Program to park their Designated Vehicles at their assigned Parking Sites; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22507(b) authorizes the establishment of preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups to park on specified streets; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the Program will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area given the very limited number of parking sites identified to participate in the Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Amended. Article 12, "Stopping, Standing and Parking Restricted or Prohibited," Chapter 7, "Traffic" within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add a new Section 4-7.1207, “Temporary safe parking permits” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Sec. 4-7.1207. Temporary safe parking permits.

10.c
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: C. Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program) (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Temporary Safe Parking Program is to establish a temporary preferential parking program that allows admitted participants a dedicated parking space for parking their Designated Vehicles.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall mean and include:
(1) Designated Vehicles shall mean those operational recreational vehicles, trailers or motorhomes with operating toilets that are owned or leased by Permit Holders or are being utilized by a Permit Holder with permission of the registered owner of the vehicle and identified in the application for the Program and authorized to park at the Parking Site.
(2) Parking Site(s) shall mean those thirteen locations for parking identified in the Program. The Parking Sites shall be identified by resolution of the city council and/or posted with signs indicating no parking except by permit. (3) Permit shall mean either a valid Regular, Provisional, or Short-Term Permit issued pursuant to this Section. Regular Permit shall mean the permit issued to applicants accepted to the Program who meet all of the qualifications for the Program.

Provisional Permit shall mean the permit issued to applicants to the Program who meet at least two of the qualifications for the Program at the time the application is filed, but who need additional time to comply with all of the qualifications for the Program.

Short-Term Permit shall mean a Short-Term Permit that may be issued under the Program for oversized vehicle parking for not more than 72 hours at Parking Sites that are not assigned to Regular or Provisional Permit Holders. (4) Permit Holder shall mean those individuals who are issued a Permit. (5) Program shall mean the Temporary Safe Parking Program established by the Council via Resolution No. XXX and the Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, as may be amended from time to time.
(6) Regular or Provisional Permit Holders shall mean those people that apply for and are admitted to the Program and are issued either a Regular Permit or a Provisional Permit.
(7) Short-Term Permit Holders shall mean those people that are issued a Short-Term Permit.
(c) Permit required. No vehicle shall be parked in a Parking Site without displaying a valid Permit issued in accordance with the Program.
(d) Duration of Permit.
(i) A Regular Permit may be issued upon admittance to the Program, for a single term of 29 days, with the potential for issuance of subsequent Regular Permits for single terms of 29 days. A Provisional Permit may be issued upon admittance to the Program for one single term of 29 days with no renewal period. A Short-Term Permit may be issued for a period no longer than 72 hours.
(ii) Regular or Provisional Permit Holders shall not be subject to the 72 hour parking limitations set forth in section 5-2.01 et seq.

10.c
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: C. Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program) (iv) Short-Term Permit Holders are subject to the 72 hour parking limitations set forth in section 5-2.01 et seq.
(e) Limitations.
(1) The Permit Holder must comply with all other laws and any rules or code of conduct adopted as part of the Program, as may be amended from time to time. (2) The Permit must be displayed in the front dashboard area of the Designated Vehicle. (f) Termination and Revocation. The Permit may be terminated and revoked in accordance with the Program standards.
(g) Violation. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction, shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code.” Section 3. Amended. Section 5-2.03, “Violations: Abatement” within Chapter 2, "Vehicles Parked For Seventy-Two Hours or More”, within Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows with deletions in strikethrough and additions in underline:

Section 5-2.03. - Violations: Abatement.
(a) No person who owns or has the possession, custody, or control of any vehicle shall park such vehicle or leave the vehicle standing upon any highway for a period of more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours.
(b) In the event a vehicle is in violation of subsection (a) of this section, any member of the Police Division of the Department of Public Safety authorized by the Director of Public Safety may remove such vehicle from the highway in the manner provided in, and subject to the requirements of, the Vehicle Code of the State and this chapter. (c) This section shall not apply to those vehicles displaying a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit issued in accordance with the Temporary Safe Parking Program pursuant to section 4-7.1207.

Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. This Ordinance is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities exempts the operation, permitting, leasing, or licensing of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of determination of exemption. In this case the public facility, parking areas on existing streets, will continue to be used for that purpose. Section CEQA Guidelines 15304(e) – Minor Alterations to Land exempts minor temporary uses having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment.

Further, since the parking areas in the ROW are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, it could be argued that the Program and Ordinance are not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that introduction and adoption of the proposed ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment.

10.c
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: C. Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program) Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

10.c
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: C. Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4899 : Temporary Safe Parking Program)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consider introduction of an ordinance repealing and replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within Chapter 5 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code to adopt new regulations regarding the use of disposable food service ware; and approve and authorize the City Manager to sign approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Move to introduce by title only and waive further reading, of Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within Chapter 5 of Title 6 to add a New Article 4, “Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities” to Regulate the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware; and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU and finding the approval of the MOU exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

STAFF CONTACT:

Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst
650-501-6027
[email protected]
Tina Wehrmeister, Assistant City Manager
650-738-7440
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In October 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 838, which established sustainable food service ware standards, including prohibiting the use of plastic cutlery, stirrers, straws and encouraging the use of paper cups. The City’s Municipal Code also prohibits the use of foam, or solid polystyrene containers for prepared food.

In 2018, California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1884 requiring that full-service restaurants only provide single-use plastic straws upon consumer request versus distributing them automatically without a specific request from the consumer. The State expanded on this law by passing AB 1276 on October 5, 2021. Under AB 1276, food facilities must go beyond just plastic straws and require consumers to request additional food service ware accessories such as utensils, stirrers, splash sticks, and condiment packets. The State also strengthened enforcement by directing local governments to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these statutes by June 1, 11 Packet Pg. 254
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
2022. Furthermore, AB 1276 allows local governments to adopt more restrictive requirements at their discretion.

In February 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors repealed and replaced their existing 2011 ordinance with Ordinance No. 04823, also known as the “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance”. The San Mateo County 2020 model ordinance expands on their 2011 ordinance to further reduce plastic pollution and litter by limiting the use of single-use plastic and other food service ware waste, such as plastic straws, utensils, cups, and clamshells. It also restricts many single-use fiber-based food service ware from containing intentionally added PFAS.

The City’s existing Sustainable Food Service Ware Ordinance was well ahead of the of the County ordinance until the County’s ordinance amendment in 2020. While the City’s existing ordinance contains provisions that align with the County’s current model ordinance, some discrepancies do exist. The County’s current Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance goes beyond that of the City to include prohibition of all disposable single use plastic service ware including cups, bowls, plates, takeout, and delivery containers. The County ordinance requires accessories to be distributed by request only, unbundled as separate individual units.

Additionally, the County prohibits open bins/containers for distribution of accessories, and requires customers to request accessories from an employee, or have them available at a dispenser that only dispenses one item at a time with the exception of refillable bulk condiment dispensers.

The San Mateo County Ordinance went into effect in March 2020 for the unincorporated areas, with the mandatory provisions scheduled to become operative and subject to enforcement in March 2021. However, recognizing the hardship caused by COVID-19 on restaurants and other food facilities, the County amended its ordinance on February 23, 2021, which extended the operational and enforcement start date of the ordinance one year to March 25, 2022. On October 5th, 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1276, and AB 1200 mandating restrictions on the distribution of single-use food service ware accessories, and the sale and distribution of food packaging containing regulated PFAS substances. The County ordinance was amended once again on February 8th, 2022 to align with both State bills, changing the enforcement date to October 1, 2022. In April 2021, the City Council approved the FY 2021- 2022 work plan which represents the City Council priorities for the fiscal year. Workplan item 15 states the following:

Evaluate the City’s plastic food service ware ordinance and consider potential updates to address plastic cups and lids
The City currently has an ordinance regulating single use plastics and utensils. The City Council is interested in reviewing the provisions of the current City ordinance, comparing provisions with the San Mateo County ordinance, and potentially considering expanding the ordinance to additional materials such as plastic cups and lids.

Per Council’s direction under the work plan, the proposed ordinance incorporates the County’s model ordinance, recently updated to reflect the more recent statutory requirements including cups and lids, referred to as “food service ware” within the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would repeal the existing Article 4 (Ordinance No. 838), within Chapter 5 of Title 6 and replace it with a new Article 4 entitled “Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities”, which will be based on the County’s model ordinance. The provisions of the proposed ordinance are summarized as follows:

1. The definitions in section 6-5.401 have been updated to add certain terms to conform to 11 Packet Pg. 255
Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
the County’s model ordinance.

2. The prohibition on the use of foam or solid polystyrene as containers for prepared food remains in section 6-5.402.

3. Accessories such as straws, stirrers, utensils, condiment cups and packets, napkins, stick/picks, toothpicks, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves etc. shall be provided only when requested by the consumer. Accessories will be available unbundled as separate individual units at refillable dispensers that dispense one item at a time. Take-out food delivery services that utilize digital ordering platforms shall provide clear options for customers to affirmatively request accessories.

4. Food facilities shall use non-plastic, compostable plates, bowls, cups (of all sizes), food trays, clamshells, boxes, deli containers, and other containers. These items may be lined with, but not made entirely of compostable plastic. Additionally, these items shall be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) or by another 3rd party approved by the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability (OOS) to ensure that the items breakdown in an industrial composting facility and are free of or have minimal traces of harmful fluorinated chemicals.

5. Some notable exemptions that will be allowed are summarized below. a. Disposable food service ware made from aluminum.
b. Disposable plastic straws may be provided only upon request to consumers with medical needs.
c. Healthcare facilities may distribute disposable plastic straws without a request from the patient.
d. Drive-through areas of food facilities, may ask a drive through customer if the customer wants a specific type of disposable food service ware accessory if the item is necessary for the customer to consume the prepared food, or to prevent spills, or to safely transport prepared food.
e. If no reasonably feasible disposable food service ware alternative exists

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK
In November 2021, leaders of several environmental organizations based in Pacifica, wrote to City officials expressing strong support for the adoption of the San Mateo County model Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance with an additional requirement for reusable food ware when food is consumed on premises (dine-in) (see Attachment C). This request goes above and beyond provisions of the San Mateo County model ordinance. The suggested changes would exclude disposable paper food wrappers, sleeves, foil wrappers, paper napkins, and paper tray liners for dine-in customers. Should the City choose to include this provision, the City, and not the County, would be responsible to enforce a reusables requirement for dine-in food facilities as this is not a provision of the County model ordinance. Due to limited enforcement resources, the City Manager is not recommending adoption of the modified dine-in requirement as a mandatory regulation. Further, this would require operational changes to impacted restaurants; additional outreach and education is recommended prior to adoption of a mandatory reusable requirement for all dine-in establishments, if the Council were interested in this option. An alternative is also provided below under Alternative Action.

City staff sent notice to a Pacifica food facilities email list generated by business license records to provide information on the proposed ordinance amendment which included information on how to comment/and or join to participate in tonight’s meeting.

The recommended amendment satisfies Council’s desire to develop stronger regulations related to disposable food service ware in the City of Pacifica while participating in a regional, uniform approach to restricting the use and distribution of plastics countywide. 11 Packet Pg. 256
Pacifica City Council 4
February 28, 2022
Benefits to adopting the County’s Ordinance
Adoption of an ordinance modeled after the San Mateo County ordinance regulating the use of disposable food service ware by food facilities creates a collaborative, regional streamlined approach to restricting the use of and distribution of plastics countywide. The benefits to adopting an ordinance modeled after the County’s Ordinance include:
• Outreach and Education: The County will be responsible for the education and outreach efforts to Pacifica food establishments when the ordinance is implemented at no cost to the City. This includes providing and maintaining its website with an available a list of approved disposable food service ware sources and/ or references to organizations that maintain regularly updated lists of products that meet the ordinance requirements. • Enforcement: The County will also provide enforcement for all cities that adopt the ordinance at no cost to the City. Enforcement is anticipated to be complaint based. • Regional Streamlining: Adoption of the San Mateo County model ordinance allows for a regional, uniform approach to the implementation policies of the ordinance.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
To promote consistency within jurisdictions throughout San Mateo County and leverage economies of scale, the County has offered to lead the education and enforcement efforts. The proposed Ordinance has been drafted to designate the County of San Mateo as the “Enforcing Agent”. To permit San Mateo County to provide these services, the City will be required to enter a Memorandum of Understanding (see Attachment B).

Should the City desire to go above and beyond provisions of the County and require reusable food service ware for dine-in as requested in Attachment C, the City will be held responsible to enforce this provision.

The enforcement date of the proposed ordinance amendment, enforced by San Mateo County is October 1, 2022.

CEQA
Adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that said actions may have a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The proposed ordinance satisfies Council’s desire to develop stronger regulations related to disposable food service ware in the City of Pacifica while participating in a regional, uniform approach to restricting the use and distribution of plastics countywide. However, the following alternative actions have been identified for City Council consideration:
• Add a provision that food service facilities are highly encouraged to provide reusable food service ware in place of single-use disposable food service ware for dine-in customers. In this instance, San Mateo County will provide only education for this provision.
• The Council may decline to adopt proposed amendments or request modifications.

However, this option is not recommended as the proposed amendments have been 11 Packet Pg. 257
Pacifica City Council 5
February 28, 2022
identified to conform with California State Law AB 1200 and AB 1276 as well as increase City contribution to environmental preservation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Priority No. 15 –Evaluate the City’s plastic food service ware ordinance and consider potential updates to address plastic cups and lids.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City upon adoption of this ordinance as the County of San Mateo will be responsible for education, outreach and enforcement of this ordinance.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (PDF)
Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU (PDF)
Attachment C- Enviornmental Organization Letter (PDF)
11 Packet Pg. 258
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 4, “SUSTAINABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND PROHIBITED PLASTIC PRODUCTS” WITHIN CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 6 WITH A NEW ARTICLE 4, “REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES”TO REGULATE THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance 838 in October, 2018, codified in Article 4 within Chapter 5 of Title 6 (Section 6-5.401 et seq.) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which established certain standards relating to the use of disposable food service ware by Food Facilities within the City of Pacifica, including prohibiting the use of plastic cutlery, stirrers, and straws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica ("City") is committed to sustainability, environmental preservation, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, although plastics are generally recyclable, plastics synthesized from petroleum and natural gas do not biodegrade. Even with the emergence of bioplastics, which are derived from renewable biomass sources, such as plants and microorganisms, there is no certified type of bioplastic that biodegrade in a marine environment; and WHEREAS, the production, management, and consumption associated with disposable food service ware, typically used for only a few minutes before being discarded, have significant environmental impacts, including environmental contamination; consumption of precious resources such as energy and water; emissions of greenhouse gases; air and water pollution; litter on streets; and plastic pollution in waterways and oceans; and WHEREAS, the most effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of disposable food service ware include, in order of priority, using reusable food service ware; using natural -fiber based compostable materials, many made from renewable resources such as bamboo, wheat stalk/stem, and sugarcane that do not contain toxic chemicals; and recycling food service ware. When products are reused and recycled, natural resources are spared, less energy is used for the production of new products, and premium landfill space is preserved; when compostable products are turned into compost, they can reduce water use and lessen the need for fertilizer at the site where the compost is applied (e. g., gardens, yards, farm land, etc.), which can also lead to cost savings since less/no fertilizers need to be purchased; and WHEREAS, reduction of disposable food service ware in the environment will advance compliance with federal, state, and local clean water mandates; and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in preserving its beaches and the communty in general, litter-free to ensure the health and safety of its citizens and the preservation of the environment.

11.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Repeal and Replacement.

Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” of Chapter 5, “Garbage, Collection and Recycling” within Title 6, “Health and Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
“Article 4, Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities Sec. 6-5.401. –Definitions.

The following terms, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(a) “Aluminum Foil- based” means any Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum, including but not limited to aluminum tray liners, aluminum foil, and aluminum foil baskets.
(b) “Compostable” means that an item or material:

1. Meets standards for composability from a certified/approved independent third-party approved by the Enforcing Agent, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and/or

2. Is any variation of acceptable materials that will break down or otherwise become part of usable compost in a safe and timely manner as determined by the Enforcing Agent, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and

3. Is Natural Fiber-based. Compostable items may include those that are made entirely of Natural Fiber or Natural Fiber-based items that are coated or lined with biologically based polymer, such as, but not limited to corn or other plant sources (e.g., compostable plastics), if certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the Enforcing Agent.
“Compostable” does not include items made entirely/primarily of biologically based polymer (e.g., PLA, PHA, or other compostable plastic), even if labeled or certified as compostable.
(c) "Customer" means any person receiving goods from a Food Facility. (d) “Disposable” means designed to be discarded after a single or limited number of uses and not designed or manufactured for long-term multiple reuse (e) “Enforcing Agent” shall mean the Manager of the County of San Mateo or their designee as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated XXX between the City of Pacifica and San Mateo County authorizing the County of San Mateo to provide education and enforcement services within the City of Pacifica. If the MOU is terminated by either party for any reason, an alternative Enforcing Agent may be designated by the City Manager or their designee.

11.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) (f) “Food Service Ware” means food contact products used for serving, distributing, holding, packaging, and/or transporting Prepared Food including, but not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays, clamshell containers, boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper (e.g., wraps, bags, tray liners, etc.). The term "Food Service Ware" includes Food Service Ware Accessories.
(g) “Food Service Ware Accessories” include different types of Food Service Ware such as straws, stirrers, Utensils, condiment cups and packets, cocktail sticks/picks, toothpicks, napkins, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves, and other similar accessory or accompanying Food Service Ware used as part of food or beverage service or packaging. Detachable lids for beverage cups and food containers are not considered a Food Service Ware Accessory.
(h) “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
(i) "Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Restrictions” mean either of the following:

1. PFAS has not been intentionally added to a product or product component.

2. The presence of PFAS in a product or product component is below 100 parts per million, as measured in total organic fluorine. (j) “Food Facility” means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food to the public for human consumption, as defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or successor. It includes both permanent and temporary food facilities. Public schools are exempt from the provisions of this article.
(k) “Food Scrap Composting Method” means (1) self-hauling of food scraps to a permitted composting facility or a transfer station that accepts food scraps that will be transferred to a permitted composting facility for on-site compost processing, (2) food scrap compost collection service provided by a curbside hauler, or (3) on-site food scrap composting.
(l) “Healthcare Facilities” mean places that provide healthcare to the public.

Healthcare Facilities includes, but is not limited to hospitals, clinics, outpatient care centers, nursing homes, psychiatric care centers, medical offices, hospice homes, mental health and addiction treatment centers, orthopedic and other rehabilitation centers, urgent care, birth centers, etc. (m) “Natural Fiber/Natural Fiber-based” means a plant or animal-based, nonsynthetic fiber, including but not limited to products made from paper, sugarcane, bamboo, wheat stems/stalk, hay, wood, etc.
(n) “Non-Compostable” means not meeting the definition of Compostable set forth in this article.
(o) "Polystyrene based" means and includes expanded polystyrene, which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term “polystyrene” also includes polystyrene that has been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (expanded polystyrene [EPS]) and clear or solid polystyrene known as oriented polystyrene

11.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) (p) “Prepackaged Food” means any properly labeled processed food, prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer and prepared at an approved source.
(q) “Prepared Food” means food or beverages that undergo a cooking or food preparation technique on the Food Facility’s premises for consumption by the public. Cooking or food preparation technique includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Cooking methods, utilizing the application of heat, such as steaming, microwaving, simmering, boiling, broiling, grilling, frying, or roasting.

2. Beverage preparation, such as blending, brewing, steeping, juicing, diluting, or pouring.

3. Food preparation techniques such as defrosting, rinsing, washing, diluting, cutting, portioning, mixing, blending, assembling, coating, dipping, garnishing, decorating or icing.

Prepared Food does not include raw eggs or raw, butchered meats, fish, and/or poultry sold from a butcher case, a refrigerator case, or similar retail appliance. (r) “Standard Condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, and includes different types such as ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, and sugar/sugar substitutes.
(s) “Takeout Food” means Prepared Food requiring no further preparation, which is purchased to be consumed off a Prepared Food Facility’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food delivered by a Food Facility or by a third-party Takeout Food Delivery Service.
(t) “Takeout Food Delivery Service” is a service that delivers Takeout Food from a Food Facility to a customer for consumption off the premises. This service can be provided directly by the Food Facility or by a third-party (u) “Utensils” include different types of instruments used to assist the consumption of food, specifically, forks, knives, spoons, sporks, chopsticks, and tongs.

Sec. 6-5.402. -Distribution of Disposable Food Service Ware and Standard Condiment

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this Section, Food Facilities for onpremise dining and off-premise dining (e.g., Takeout Food Delivery Service, catering off-site, etc.), shall not provide any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging to a consumer unless the specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or specific type of Standard Condiment is requested by the consumer.
(b) Food Facilities may ask a drive-through consumer if the consumer wants a specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils), if the item is necessary for the consumer to consume Prepared Food or to prevent spills of or safely transport Prepared Food. (c) Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging provided by Food Facilities for use by consumers for onpremise dining and off-premise dining shall not be bundled or packaged in a

11.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) manner that prohibits a consumer from taking only the type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or type of Standard Condiment desired without also having to take a different type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory or type of Standard Condiment. Food Facilities cannot distribute Disposable Utensils that are bundled or packaged together. Each type of Utensil (e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) must be specifically requested by the consumer in order for a Food Facilities to provide the item(s). (d) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a Food Facility from making unwrapped Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers that dispense different types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories one item at a time to allow for Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories to be obtained.
(e) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a Food Facility from making Standard Condiment available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers to allow for Standard Condiment to be obtained. Food Facilities that offer Standard Condiment are encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather than condiments packaged for single-use.
(f) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide consumers with the option to proactively request the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of Standard Condiment from a Food Facility serving Prepared Food. The default option on the digital ordering/point-of-sale platforms of Takeout Food Delivery Services shall be that no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment are requested.
(g) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide Food Facilities the ability to tailor the digital ordering/point-of-sale platforms so that Food Facilities can customize and itemize the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select. (h) If a Food Facility uses any Takeout Food Delivery Service, the Food Facility shall customize its menu with an itemized list and/or provide options of the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select. Only those specific types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) or specific types of Standard Condiment proactively requested by the consumer shall be provided by the Food Facility. If a consumer does not request any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment, no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment shall be provided by the Food Facility for delivery of Takeout Food. Pursuant to Subsection (d), each type of Utensil (e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) offered by the Food Facility shall also be listed

11.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) individually, unbundled on the menu and provided by the Food Facility for delivery with the Takeout Food only if requested by the consumer.

Sec. 6-5.403. -Standards and Required Use of Disposable Food Service Ware (a) No Food Facility shall use Polystyrene- based Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food.
(b) Food Facilities shall only provide Disposable straws, stirrers, utensils, and cocktail/toothpicks (and the packaging that these individual items are wrapped in, if any) that are Compostable
(c) Nothing in this Ordinance shall conflict or be construed to conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act or any other applicable law concerning the rights of individuals with disabilities. In particular, nothing in this article shall restrict, or be construed to restrict, the provision by Food Facilities of Disposable NonCompostable straws to individuals who may request the use of Disposable NonCompostable straws to accommodate medical needs or disabilities. Healthcare Facilities may distribute Disposable Non-Compostable straws with or without request by a patient at the discretion of the Healthcare Facility staff based on the physical or medical needs of the patient.
(d) Food Facilities shall use Compostable items for the below Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food:

1. Plates

2. Bowls (of all sizes including, but not limited to soup and salad bowls)

3. Cups (of all sizes including, but not limited to beverage and accessory cups for Standard Condiments

4. Food Trays and Food boats

5. Boxes

6. Hinged or lidded containers (e.g., clamshells), deli containers, and other containers used for the sale and/or distribution of Prepared Food (e) Commencing on the effective date of this Chapter up until December 31, 2022, for the Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware listed in Subsection (d), Food Facilities shall use items that meet Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Restrictions. To verify the PFAS Restrictions, Food Facilities shall use items that are certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the County Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors and haulers, as needed.
(f) For all other Disposable Food Service Ware not listed in subsection (b) and (d), Food Facilities shall use only Disposable Food Service Ware that can be composted by the Food Scrap Composting method utilized by the Food Facilities and/or accepted for recycling by the Food Facility’s recycling collection service, unless a feasible alternative does not exist, as determined by the Enforcing Agent.
(g) The Enforcing Agent shall maintain a list of approved Disposable Food Service Ware sources and/or references to organizations that maintain regularly updated

11.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) lists of products that meet the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d) and (e) of this Section. This information shall be made available on the Enforcing Agent’s website and in the Enforcing Agent’s Office. If a product is not included on the approved lists, the Food Facility wishing to use a product as Disposable Food Service Ware shall establish to the Enforcing Agent’s satisfaction that the product complies with the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d) and (e) of this Section.

Sec. 6-5.404. -Record Keeping and Inspection
(a) Food Facilities shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the below items

1. Commencing on October 1, 2022, Food Facilities shall keep complete and accurate records or documents of the purchase of the acceptable Disposable Food Service Ware evidencing compliance with this Ordinance for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase.

2. The records shall be made available for inspection at no cost to the Enforcing Agent during regular business hours. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at the Food Facilities address.

3. The provision of false or incomplete information, records, or documents to the Enforcing Agent shall be a violation of this article.

Sec. 6-5.405. – Exemptions
The following are exempt from the requirements of this article. (a) Prepackaged Food.
(b) Polystyrene coolers and ice chests intended for reuse. (c) Disposable Food Service Ware that is entirely Aluminum Foil-based or recyclable glass.
(d) If the Enforcing Agent determines that a reasonably feasible Disposable Food Service Ware that complies with Section 6-5.402 (a), (b), (d), and (e) does not exist, these items will be exempt from all or select requirements of the abovementioned provisions of this article until the Enforcing Agent determines that a reasonably feasible alternative is available on the market for purchase. The Enforcing Agent will have a current list of these temporarily exempted Disposable Food Service Ware made public.
(e) Temporary exemptions due to an emergency are automatic without the submission of a request for an exemption. An emergency is defined as a sudden, unexpected occurrence posing a clear and imminent danger that requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services. Examples of an emergency include, but are not limited to natural disasters, emergencies due to the release of hazardous materials, emergencies associated with loss of power and/or water, or emergency medical response.

11.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) Sec. 6-5.406. -Case-by-Case Consideration of Hardship Exemption (a) Grounds for an exemption.

An exemption from any of the provisions of this article may be granted by the Enforcing Agent upon demonstration by a Food Facility to the satisfaction of the Enforcing Agent that strict application of the requirements would cause undue hardship. An “undue hardship” includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. A situation unique to the Food Facility where a suitable alternative that conforms with the requirements detailed in the Section 6-5.402(a), (b), (d), and (e) does not exist for a specific application.

2. Imposing the provisions of this article would cause significant economic hardship. “Significant economic hardship” may be based on, but not limited to, demonstrating that suitable Disposable Food Service Ware is not available at a commercially reasonable price and the additional cost associated with providing the Disposable Food Service Ware is particularly burdensome to the Food Facility based on the type of operation(s) affected, the overall size of the business/operation, the number, type and location of its facilities, the impact on the overall financial resources of the Food Facility, and other factors. Reasonable added cost for a suitable item as compared to a similar item that the Food Facility can no longer use shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to support an exemption for such item. In determining whether a significant economic hardship has been established, the Enforcing Agent may consider the following information: ability of the Food Facility to recover the additional expense by increasing its prices; the availability of tax credits and deductions; outside funding; and other options. (b) Request for an exemption. A request for an exemption from the requirements of this article shall include all information deemed necessary by the Enforcing Agent render a decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the requested exemption. A request for an exemption may be approved by the Enforcing Agent, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. The duration of the exemption, if granted, shall also be determined by the Enforcing Agent. Information about the application process for requesting an exemption will be available on the Enforcing Agent’s website and in the Enforcing Agent’s Office.

Sec. 6-5.407. -Enforcement
(a) The Enforcing Agent may enforce this Chapter.
(b) A violation of this article is an infraction and is also punishable by administrative fines as set forth in Chapter 1.40 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Violations of

11.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) this article may also be subject to the remedies and penalties set forth in Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
(c) Compliance plan.

1. If requested by the Enforcing Agent, a Food Facility that is in violation of any of the provisions detailed in this article shall create and submit to the Enforcing Agent a compliance plan, which will include information on corrective action(s) that the Food Facility shall undertake to come into compliance. Other requested information may include, and are not limited to proposed timeline for corrective action(s), and identification of individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.

2. The Food Facility shall create and submit its completed compliance plan within fourteen calendar days (14) from the time of request by the Enforcing Agent. (d) This Section shall not be interpreted to limit any otherwise available civil or administrative remedies under law.

Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective October 1, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________

11.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Kevin Woodhouse, City Attorney

11.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN

CITY OF PACIFICA AND COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR

DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE ORDINANCE

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), entered into this ______ day of______________, 20__, by and between the County of San Mateo, hereinafter called "the County" and the “City of Pacifica”, hereinafter called "the City"; W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the County’s Board of Supervisors repealed and replaced the existing County ordinance banning polystyrene disposable food service ware by food vendors (Municipal Code Chapter 4.107) with the Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance (Ordinance) No. 4860 on February 25, 2020; and
WHEREAS, to promote consistency within jurisdictions throughout San Mateo County and leverage economies of scale, the County has offered to lead the education and enforcement efforts for the Ordinance in the incorporated cities of San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Ordinance (Ordinance No. xx on [date] and authorizes the County to provide education and enforcement services within the City’s jurisdiction.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

1. Duties of the City
The County will lead education and enforcement efforts for the Ordinance if the City satisfies the following criteria:
a) Keeps as part of its municipal code either a reference incorporating the Ordinance in its entirety or an ordinance that contains each of the provisions of the Ordinance. b) Authorizes the County to enforce the municipal code provisions adopted pursuant to subsection a) above, including authorization to hold hearings, issue citations, and assess administrative fines on behalf of the City.
c) Remains a party to this MOU.

2. Services to be Performed by the County
A. The County shall provide education and enforcement services for the City as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

11.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 2 B. The County shall hire a consultant to provide education services within jurisdictions in San Mateo County that adopt the Ordinance. If appropriate, interested cities will also have the option of entering into contractual agreement with the same consultant for education services specifically relating to provisions that go beyond and that fall outside the Ordinance. Please see Section 2.D. for additional information.

C. The County shall only provide education and enforcement services for the Ordinance within the City’s jurisdiction if it has determined that it has adequate resources to do so.

D. The County shall only offer to provide education and enforcement for services relating directly to the provisions of the Ordinance. If the City adds new provisions that go beyond the existing provisions of the Ordinance, the County may, at its discretion, offer to provide education and enforcement services, pending further assessment by the County. The assessment will involve evaluating the alignment of the objectives of the City’s “add-on” provisions with those of the Ordinance and the level of effort and resources required for education and enforcement services.

As an alternative, if the County elects not to offer education and enforcement services for the “add-on” provisions, the City can administer, implement, and fund its own education and enforcement services specifically for the “add-on” provisions. Specific to education services, if City policy allows and the City chooses to do so, the City can enter into a separate contractual agreement with the same consultant that will be providing education services for the Ordinance, as referenced in Section 2.B. above.

E. The County will not be obligated to provide education and enforcement services if modifications are made to the Ordinance by the City, which specifically omit existing provisions and/or reduce the impact of the Ordinance in any way.

3. Consideration
The benefit of this MOU to the City is the opportunity to join a growing number of local governments that are leading the effort around reducing single-use plastic and other food ware waste. An additional benefit includes the implementation of education and enforcement efforts for the Ordinance within the City’s jurisdiction with minimal spending of resources by the City.

The benefit of this MOU to the County is the implementation of a uniform, standardized, and coordinated effort throughout the incorporated and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

4. Relationship of Parties
It is expressly understood that this is an agreement between two independent entities, the County and the City, and that no individual agency, employee, partnership, joint venture, or other relationship is established by this MOU. The intent by both the County and the City is to create an independent collaborative relationship.

5. Hold Harmless

11.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 3 The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and servants against all damages, claims, liabilities, losses, and other expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and related costs, whether or not a lawsuit or other proceeding is filed, to the extent that they arise out of (1) the negligence or willful misconduct of County staff in performing the education and enforcement services described in this memorandum of understanding; or (2) any allegation that the promotional or educational materials produced or used by County staff pursuant to this memorandum of understanding infringe any third-party right of any kind, including without limitation, any intellectual property right.

The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County and its officers, agents, employees, and servants against all damages, claims, liabilities, losses, and other expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and related costs, whether or not a lawsuit or other proceeding is filed, to the extent they arise out of (1) the act of adopting ordinance No. __ establishing food service ware regulations; or (2) any acts or omissions by City staff in implementing ordinance No. __. that arise out of City staff's negligence or willful misconduct; or (3) any allegation that the promotional or educational materials produced by City staff pursuant to this memorandum of understanding infringe any third-party right of any kind, including without limitation, any intellectual property right.

A party seeking indemnity and defense under this section shall provide the indemnifying and defending party with prompt notice of any claim and give control of its defense and settlement to the indemnifying and defending party. The party seeking indemnity and defense shall also cooperate in all reasonable respects with the indemnifying and defending party, its insurance company, and its legal counsel in its defense of such claim. The obligation to defend and indemnify pursuant to this section shall not cover any claim in which there is a failure to give the indemnifying and defending party prompt notice, but only to the extent that such lack of notice prejudices the defense of the claim. The indemnifying and defending party may not settle any potential suit hereunder without the other party’s prior written approval, which will not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. If a party who owes indemnity and defense under this section fails to promptly indemnify and defend a covered claim, the other party shall have the right to defend itself, and in such case, the party owning indemnity and defense shall promptly reimburse the other party for all of its associated costs and expenses.

The obligations imposed by this section shall survive termination or expiration of the MOU.

6. Amendment of MOU and Merger Clause
This MOU, including the Exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the sole MOU of the parties hereto pertaining to Disposable Food Service Ware Education and Enforcement Activities and correctly states the rights, duties, and obligations of each party as of this document's date. In the event that any term, condition, provision, requirement or specification set forth in this body of the MOU conflicts with or is inconsistent with any term, condition, provision, requirement, or specification in any exhibit and/or attachment to this MOU, the provisions of this body of the MOU shall prevail. Any prior MOU,

11.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 4 promises, negotiations, or representations between the parties not expressly stated in this document are not binding. All subsequent modifications shall be in writing and will become effective when signed by both parties.

7. Records
The County shall maintain and preserve all records relating to this MOU in its possession and those of any third-party performing work related to this MOU for a period of five (5) years from the termination of this MOU.

8. Assignability
The County shall have the right to assign this MOU or any portion thereof to a third party or subcontract with a third party to perform any act required under this MOU without the prior written consent of the City.

9. Notices
Any written notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be deemed to be properly given when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, or when transmitted by email communication, addressed:

In the case of the County, to:

Carolyn Bloede, Director
County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability
455 County Center, 4th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94065
Email: [email protected]
In the case of the City, to:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica , CA 94044
Email: [email protected]

10. Controlling Law and Venue
The validity of this MOU, the interpretation of its terms and conditions, and the performance of the parties hereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce this action must be brought in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Mateo.

11. Term and Termination
A. The term of this MOU shall commence on [date] and shall automatically be renewed from year to year on the same terms and conditions without any further action of the Parties.

B. This MOU may be terminated without cause by the City or the County at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party.

11.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 5 12. Authority
The parties warrant that the signatories to the MOU have the authority to bind their respective entities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, have affixed their hands.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO CITY OF PACIFICA
By:____________________________ By:____________________________ Carolyn Bloede Kevin Woodhouse
Director, Office of Sustainability City Manager
Date: __________________________ Date: __________________________

11.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 6 EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES
The below education and enforcement activities relating to the County of San Mateo’s (the County) Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance (Ordinance) will be conducted by the County and the City of Pacifica (the City) within the City’s jurisdiction.

I. Education and Outreach

1. The County will conduct education and outreach to food facilities that operate in the City’s jurisdiction that may be impacted by the Ordinance. Per the Ordinance, the County will focus efforts only on entities that are defined as a “food facility” under the California Retail Food Code.
1 These entities are required to have a health permit with the County’s Environmental Health Services (EHS) to serve food and beverages to the public. The County’s Office of Sustainability (OOS) will collaborate with EHS to identify food facilities in the City jurisdiction that will be impacted.

2. The County will conduct education and outreach to the general public in the City’s jurisdiction.

3. The County will develop a standardized and uniform education and outreach strategy that will be rolled out in the City’s jurisdiction as well as in unincorporated areas of the county and other cities in the county that adopt the Ordinance. The County may utilize a combination of standardized strategies for education and outreach activities, which may include, but is not limited to development and distribution of educational materials (e.g., flyers, posters, resource guide that will have information on compliant disposable food ware products, signs, banners, etc.), mailers, phone calls, emails, social media posts, videos, newspaper ads, door-to-door visits, pilot and implementation of behavior change campaigns, etc.

4. As needed, the City will supplement the County’s efforts for the Ordinance with any additional education and outreach activities that are tailored to the City’s needs and managed by City staff (e.g., City’s social media accounts, City website, City newsletter, internal City sustainability activities, etc.).

II. Enforcement

1. The County will conduct enforcement of the Ordinance within the City’s jurisdiction utilizing a compliant-based system. The County will respond to complaints or referrals from the public and/or from City staff and work with food facility operators to investigate and resolve reported issue(s).

2. The County will follow enforcement provisions detailed in the County’s Municipal Code Chapter 1.40 – Administrative Remedies to correct violations of the Ordinance committed in the City’s jurisdiction.
1 Although public schools are defined as a food facility under the California Retail Food Code, they are exempt from complying with the Ordinance based on the fact that the State has the sole authority to dictate their operations.

11.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) 7 3. The County will lead the effort in reviewing requests for exemptions submitted by food facilities and approve them, as needed, in whole or in part, with or without conditions.

4. The County will keep detailed records of enforcement in the City’s jurisdiction for a minimum of five (5) years.

5. The County will notify the City promptly about any related issues that arise that require City assistance or lead in resolving the issue(s) related to noncompliance.

6. The City will work with the County on any related issues that arise that require City assistance or lead in resolving the issue(s) related to noncompliance.

11.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU [Revision 1] (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) Date: 11/29/2021
RE: Strengthening Pacifica’s policies on single use plastic foodware Dear Pacifica City Councilmembers and Mayor,
We are leaders of several environmental and civil society organizations based in Pacifica, and are writing to express our strong support for the adoption of the San Mateo County (SMC) Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance with an additional requirement for reusables when food is consumed on premises (dine-in). Single use plastics are well known to have major negative impacts on the environment and human health, and these impacts disproportionately affect low income communities of color. In addition, single use plastics are causing an unnecessary burden on our municipal solid waste management system, as they comprise a large fraction of municipal waste reaching the only landfill in the County—Ox Mountain in Half Moon Bay—that is rapidly approaching its capacity.

In 2018, the City of Pacifica demonstrated bold leadership on reducing plastic pollution by amending its existing ban on polystyrene (Styrofoam) foodware to include plastic straws, stirrers, and cutlery, and was the first city in San Mateo County to enact such a policy. Positive results have been tangible as far fewer of these items are collected during local beach cleanups.

Since then, the negative impacts of all single use have become much better documented, and many jurisdictions in the Bay Area are also pursuing aggressive policies that restrict single use plastic foodware. Recognizing the diverse problems single use plastics cause throughout their lifecycle, San Mateo County (SMC) recently adopted its own Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance, that also serves as a model ordinance for cities within the county.

The SMC policy goes beyond Pacifica’s current ordinance to include additional single use plastic items, along with requirements for businesses to supply single use items only if requested for takeout and delivery orders, while encouraging reuse. We strongly recommend the City of Pacifica to adopt the SMC model ordinance, along with an additional provision that requires reusable foodware for dine-in, when food is consumed on the premises where it is purchased. Reuse policies are already included in the foodware ordinances of Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Santa Rosa, and Berkeley, and we firmly believe including a reuse requirement in the current policy would prevent the need for yet another amendment in the near future, while effectively reducing the waste and litter generated from single use items.

The existing, proposed, and recommended foodware policies are summarized below:

Pacifica’s existing foodware ordinance (Section 6-5.402 and 6-5.403):
 Prohibits vendors from providing disposable polystyrene (Styrofoam) food service ware.  No polystyrene disposable food service ware allowed for City facilities, and no city department or agency will purchase or acquire polystyrene for use at City facilities.  Prohibits use of plastic cutlery, plastic stirrers, and plastic straws, and encourages use of compostable paper cups. Prohibits entities or organizations that rent or use City facilities to use plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery, and encourages 100% compostable paper cups.

11.c
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment C- Enviornmental Organization Letter (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) SMC Ordinance:
 Includes all disposable single use plastic food service ware (cups, bowls, plates, takeout and delivery containers, etc.).
 Requires accessories to be distributed by request only, unbundled as separate individual units.
 Online takeout and food delivery services to distribute single use accessories only if customers opt-in.
 Encourages REUSE as the most sustainable option.

Additional recommended amendments:
 Requirement for reusable food service ware for dining on premises.  Excludes disposable paper food wrappers, sleeves, and bags; foil wrappers, paper napkins, paper tray liners and paper plate liners.
 Full or partial waiver may be granted if the Food Vendor can demonstrate inability to comply due to insurmountable space constraints, undue financial hardship, and/or extraordinary circumstances.

Why include the additional “reusables for dine-in” requirement?  It is the new normal: almost all current California foodware policies include reuse for onsite dining. San Mateo County is one of the few that does not, yet Pacifica could remain at the forefront of sustainability efforts.
 Reduces the amount of trash generated by food service businesses; better for health and the environment.
 Saves businesses money in the medium to long term.
 Alignment with jurisdictions that are currently drafting or have introduced reuse policies in the Bay Area and beyond: Berkeley, Petaluma, Palo Alto, Cupertino, San Francisco, Marin County, Burbank, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa.

We believe that amending Pacifica’s existing ordinance to include the SMC model policy, plus the additional requirement of reusables for dine-in, would greatly benefit the health and wellbeing of Pacifica’s residents and visitors, while having a positive impact on the environment.

Thank you very much for your attention to this important issue, and please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Plastic Free Future Pacifica Climate Committee
Alejandra Warren Dierdre Martin
Matthew Warren
Pacifica Environmental Family
Cindy Abbott
Pacific Beach Coalition
Lynn Adams Tree City Pacifica
Antony Luxton Amy Andonian Kaii Martin
Ana Garcia Sandy Ayers Susan Miller
Jim Fithian Annie Crow Gail Benton Shoemaker
Jeff Moroso Marjory Davis
Paul Totah

11.c
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment C- Enviornmental Organization Letter (4895 : Food Service Ware Ordinance)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report and direct staff to proceed with conceptual design of preferred alternative STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E.- Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E. - Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer (650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E. - Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Over the past several decades, the northern coastline of Pacifica has seen progressive coastal bluff erosion. The combination of poorly cemented bluff sand and high energy waves cause episodic bluff erosion resulting in a loss of land. In early 2017, a large bluff retreat was documented within the City-owned property at the 400 Block of Esplanade, just south of the Manor Drive and Esplanade Avenue intersection. The major bluff retreat occurred and formed a cove between two areas that have rock protection and shortened the distance to the City’s roadway (at its nearest point) to approximately thirty-two feet.

After this severe bluff retreat in February 2017, staff formulated a two-phase plan to protect the road and infrastructure behind the cove. The first phase, which was completed in the summer of 2018, installed an emergency protective measure by constructing a rock revetment to armor the bluff. Meanwhile, the planning and design of a permanent measure (second phase) could be carried out. To help fund this project, staff immediately reached out to State and Federal emergency agencies to seek possible funding sources for both phases of work. Staff successfully submitted the first phase of work (emergency) to FEMA’s Public Assistance Program for funding and then submitted a funding request for the second phase of work (permanent) in October of 2017 to CalOES’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

The first phase for the temporary work was completed in the summer of 2018 after receiving emergency permitting from the California Coastal Commission. After the submittal of the City’s CalOES HMGP application for the permanent repair work, the City received an award to begin the preliminary work in July of 2020.
12 Packet Pg. 278
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
Since the approval of the consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol in November of 2020, project feasibility work on the project progressed. The project team reviewed the physical settings of the site through topographical and bathymetric surveying, assessed a variety of coastal engineering elements including sea-level rise, performed a geotechnical condition assessment through borings and material analysis, and completed biological and cultural resource assessments (See Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report). This extensive emergency repair assessment has allowed staff to progress to a point to recommend for Council’s consideration an alternative to move forward for the final repair of this coastal area.

Moffatt & Nichol used the above information to consider a wide array of alternatives that meet the main project goal of protecting the City’s infrastructure in this area. These alternatives included: removal of rock and utilities in the area, hard armoring, beach nourishment, and beach nourishment with sand retention structures. After the first analysis by Moffat & Nichol, five feasible conceptual level alternatives were brought forth for further analysis. The five alternatives analyzed in depth were:

1. No protection alternative - remove the rock revetment and all directly threatened infrastructure allowing natural bluff erosion.

2. Rock Revetment - rock revetment similar to what is currently in place with minor changes.

3. Low Shotcrete Wall - a combination of buried rock revetment and shotcrete seawall supported by tiebacks to approximately 32 feet in elevation.

4. High Shotcrete Wall - a combination of buried rock revetment and shotcrete seawall supported by tiebacks to approximately 65 feet in elevation.

5. Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles - rock revetment similar to what is currently in place with minor changes and stitched piles installed at the bluff top.

Each alternative has pros & cons which are discussed throughout Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report. Each alternative was ranked by the project team according to an agreed-upon methodology that assessed technical performance, lifecycle costs, and environmental impacts of each alternative. The alternatives and scoring of alternatives were discussed with the California Coastal Commission in late 2021 to update them on the project and to ensure the project’s analysis was going to be sufficient to support their requirements when applying for a Coastal Development Permit.

Ultimately, rock revetment (alternative 2) scored the highest overall in the report’s analysis. This rock revetment alternative was estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative being estimated at almost $1M less than the next alternative, alternative 5. As the recommended alternative will likely include most of the emergency rock revetment placed in 2018, changes to the in-place revetment may be minor. Staff anticipates the final cost will be significantly less than the study’s median estimate of $2.4M, which was estimated as if there was no rock revetment there to allow for a fair comparison with the other alternatives. This alternative is also consistent with both the 1980 LCLUP and the 2020 Draft LCLUP. Furthermore, rock revetment would match what exists to the north and south of the project site, does not adversely affect public access but rather protects the construction access ramp that is used by the public, and allows the upper portion of the bluff to retreat to a stable slope. Additionally, while the rock revetment does take some beach space laterally, the beach space it occupies is located between two existing rock revetments and can only be accessed during low tides and consequently is not often used by the public.

As noted, approval of the staff recommended alternative may lead to a project cost savings when compared with what has been originally estimated for this project. The project estimate was originally from $3-$6 million with the assumption a vertical wall was going to be needed.

Should the project be approved by California Coastal Commission, staff believes there could be 12 Packet Pg. 279
Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
significant savings. It is staff’s intention that improvements to recreational access will help offset any mitigations the Coastal Commission may seek to impose on the project.

Thus, it is the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the attached feasibility report and direct staff to continue with the conceptual design of alternative 2, rock revetment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

1. Reject the project team’s recommendation of the rock revetment in favor of another alternative. This alternative action could have long-term impacts that could include higher project costs, elongated timelines, and cause difficulty in permitting.

2. Direct the project team to further study certain technical aspects where there might not be clarity. This alternative action may require further budget approval by City Council for the project team to undertake additional work as well as delays in the overall project timeline.

These actions are not recommended by the City Manager at this time.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item is consistent with the following Council-adopted goals and Work Plan initiatives:
• “An Engaged Community” includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
• “Stewardship of City Infrastructure” includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise.
• “Maintaining a Safe Community” includes supporting our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to storm emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm, seawall, and wastewater), and engaging in emergency preparedness activities.
• City Council Priority Item 5. Continue Esplanade Avenue Bluff Erosion Infrastructure Protection Projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Selection of this alternative is anticipated to save costs in both design and construction fees.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report (PDF)
12 Packet Pg. 280
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Draft Design Report

PRODUCED FOR CITY OF PACIFICA
FEBRUARY 2022
ATTACHMENT 1 12.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® i
Document Verification
Client City of Pacifica
Project name 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project Document title Draft Design Report
Document subtitle
Status Progress Draft
Date December 27, 2021
Project number 201818
File reference
Revision Description Issued by Date Checked
0 Progress Draft M. Jorgensen August 19, 2021
1 Progress Draft N. Nichols,
M. Jorgensen
September 1, 2021
2 Progress Draft M. Jorgensen September 27, 2021
3 Draft Submittal N. Nichols October 22, 2021
4 Revised Draft N. Nichols February 4, 2022
Produced by:

Moffatt & Nichol
2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3500
T 925.944.5411
www.moffattnichol.com

12.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® ii
Table of Contents
Document Verification..................................................................................................................................................i Glossary........................................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................4

1.1. Project Background ............................................................................................................................................4

1.2. Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................................4

2. Physical Setting................................................................................................................................................6

2.1. Project Location..................................................................................................................................................6

2.2. Topography.........................................................................................................................................................7

2.3. Bathymetry..........................................................................................................................................................9

2.4. Site Conditions....................................................................................................................................................9

3. Coastal Engineering Assessment.................................................................................................................11

3.1. Tidal Datums and Base Flood Elevation...........................................................................................................11

3.2. Sea-Level Rise .................................................................................................................................................12

3.3. Wave Action......................................................................................................................................................13

3.3.1. Wave Statistics .................................................................................................................................................14

3.3.2. Extreme Wave Conditions ................................................................................................................................17

3.3.3. Wave Runup and Total Water Levels ...............................................................................................................18

3.4. Shoreline Profiles..............................................................................................................................................19

3.5. Bluff Profile .......................................................................................................................................................21

3.5.1. Bluff Recession.................................................................................................................................................21

3.5.2. Projected Bluff Recession due to Sea-Level Rise ............................................................................................25

3.5.3. Projected Bluff Recession Impacts ...................................................................................................................26

3.6. Sediment Transport Processes.........................................................................................................................26

3.6.1. San Francisco Littoral Cell................................................................................................................................26

3.6.2. Closure Depth...................................................................................................................................................27

3.6.3. Sand Supply Impacts........................................................................................................................................27

4. Geotechnical Conditions Summary ..............................................................................................................29

4.1. Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................29

4.2. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation............................................................................................................29

4.3. Geotechnical Analysis ......................................................................................................................................30

4.3.1. Static Slope Stability .........................................................................................................................................30

4.3.2. Seismic Slope Stability .....................................................................................................................................34

4.3.3. Removal of Existing Revetment........................................................................................................................35

5. Biological Resources Assessment Summary..............................................................................................36

6. Cultural Resources Assessment Summary .................................................................................................37

7. Design Criteria ................................................................................................................................................38

8. Potential Alternatives .....................................................................................................................................39

12.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® iii

8.1. Alternative 1: No Protection Alternative ............................................................................................................39

8.2. Alternative 2: Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment......................................................................................41

8.3. Alternative 3: Bluff Toe Protection – Low Shotcrete Wall..................................................................................42

8.4. Alternative 4: Bluff Protection – Shotcrete Wall ................................................................................................43

8.5. Alternative 5: Bluff Protection – Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles .......................................................................44

8.6. Beach Nourishment ..........................................................................................................................................45

8.7. Sand Retention Structures................................................................................................................................47

9. Evaluation Criteria & Selection of Preferred Alternative.............................................................................49

10. Preliminary Design of Selected Alternative..................................................................................................53

11. Permitting Approach ......................................................................................................................................55

12. Summary .........................................................................................................................................................56 References..................................................................................................................................................................57 Appendices:

Appendix I: Historical Aerial Imagery I
Appendix II: Historical Coastal Photographs (California Coastal Records Project) II Appendix III: Biological Resources Assessment III
Appendix IV: Cultural Resources Assessment IV
Appendix V: Evaluation of Alternatives V
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: 400 Esplanade Avenue, Pacifica Project location (circled)..........................................................................6 Figure 2-2: Project area vicinity......................................................................................................................................7 Figure 2-3: Topographic survey (NAVD88)....................................................................................................................8 Figure 2-4: View of bluff and rock revetment..................................................................................................................9 Figure 2-5: View of beach area fronting bluff. ..............................................................................................................10 Figure 3-1: Extreme-Value Analysis of water levels at NOAA Station 9414290 – San Francisco................................12 Figure 3-2: Annual average distribution of significant wave heights. ...........................................................................15 Figure 3-3: Annual average distribution of peak wave periods. ...................................................................................16 Figure 3-4: Variation of significant wave height as a function of return period.............................................................17 Figure 3-5: Distribution of wave periods associated with significant wave heights. .....................................................18 Figure 3-6: Bluff profiles at 400 Esplanade Avenue.....................................................................................................20 Figure 3-7: Stratigraphy of bluff near the southern terminus of Esplanade Avenue, CSA (2001). ...............................21 Figure 3-8: Location of bluff edge 1943 to 2021...........................................................................................................23 Figure 3-9: Average bluff recession 1943-2020. ..........................................................................................................24 Figure 3-10: Schematic of Bruun Rule. ........................................................................................................................25 Figure 3-11: San Francisco Littoral Cell, from ESA (2016). .........................................................................................26 Figure 4-1: Plan View – Section used in geotechnical analysis ...................................................................................30 Figure 4-2: Global Static Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater..............................................................................................31 Figure 4-3: Upper Bluff Static Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater ......................................................................................32 Figure 4-4: Upper Bluff Static Analysis; High Groundwater .........................................................................................32 Figure 4-5: Upper Bluff Static Analysis; Extreme Groundwater ...................................................................................33

12.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® iv
Figure 4-6: Upper Bluff Seismic Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater...................................................................................34 Figure 4-7: No Revetment Static Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater .................................................................................35 Figure 8-1: Alternative 1 – No Protection .....................................................................................................................39 Figure 8-2: Alternative 2 – Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment.............................................................................41 Figure 8-3: Alternative 3 – Bluff Toe Protection – Low Shotcrete Wall.........................................................................42 Figure 8-4: Alternative 4 – Bluff Protection – Shotcrete Wall .......................................................................................43 Figure 8-5: Alternative 5 – Bluff Protection – Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles ..............................................................45 Figure 10-1: Rock Weight vs Nominal Size; Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-1601, Plate B-31...................................54 List of Tables
Table 3-1: Tidal and storm surge elevations, NOAA (2021c), FEMA (2017)................................................................11 Table 3-2: Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco, OPC (2018).......................................................................12 Table 3-3: OPC (2018) SLR projections for 1-in-200 chance scenario. .......................................................................13 Table 3-4: Summary of extreme wave height characteristics for offshore waves. .......................................................17 Table 3-5: Estimated wave runup elevations with SLR. ...............................................................................................18 Table 3-6: Estimated number of annual average bluff exposures to wave action with SLR.........................................19 Table 3-7: Bluff recession due to long-term erosion and sea-level rise. ......................................................................25 Table 4-1: Summary of Geotechnical Analysis (Static)................................................................................................33 Table 7-1: Design criteria.............................................................................................................................................38 Table 9-1: Evaluation Results Summary......................................................................................................................51

12.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® v
Glossary
BFE {FEMA} Base Flood Elevation
CalOES California Office of Emergency Services
CoP City of Pacifica
CY Cubic Yards
elev Elevation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCLUP {City of Pacifica} Local Coastal Land Use Plan
MN Moffatt & Nichol
NAVD North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)
NDBC National Data Buoy Center
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC National Research Council
OPC {California} Ocean Protection Council
RCP Representative Concentration Pathways
RP Return Period
SLR Sea-Level Rise
SWEL {FEMA} Stillwater Elevation
TWL {FEMA} Total Water Level
USGS United Stated Geological Survey

12.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 1
Executive Summary
Project Scope
The 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project (Project) intends to provide infrastructure protection due to erosion along 200 linear feet of bluff at the intersection of West Manor Drive and Esplanade Avenue in Pacifica, CA. The site has experienced recent severe bluff erosion which, if left unchecked would impact nearby infrastructure that includes sidewalk, curb, roadway, and storm drain, water, and electrical utilities.

An emergency rock revetment was therefore constructed in 2018 (CSA, 2018), to protect the City of Pacifica (City) infrastructure and public safety.

The focus of the project is to develop a permanent solution for infrastructure protection. The current phase of work includes concept development and preliminary design and includes an evaluation of alternatives which identifies the preferred alternative that best addresses project criteria and is also consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP)1. The alternatives considered include:
• No Protection Alternative
• Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment
• Bluff Toe Protection – Low Shotcrete Wall
• Bluff Protection – Shotcrete Wall
• Bluff Protection – Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles
• Beach Nourishment
• Sand Retention Structures in combination with beach nourishment Preferred Alternative
Based on an initial screening and evaluation of the above alternatives, Alternative 2 Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment was identified as the preferred alternative. This alternative is considered to be consistent with the 1980 LCLUP and the 2020 Draft LCLUP.

This alternative consists of rock slope protection at the toe of the bluff to prevent bluff toe erosion which leads to bluff retreat/collapse that would threaten existing infrastructure. This alternative would be similar to the existing rock revetment that was installed in 2018 on an emergency basis; if the existing rock revetment meets project requirements it could remain as-is, or it could remain with minor modifications to address any known deficiencies. Initial analysis indicates the existing rock revetment meets the current project requirements; however further investigation to determine if any deficiencies have developed since initial construction would be needed to finalize the design and determine if modification or repositioning of rock is needed.

The proposed rock revetment would be consistent with the adjacent bluffs to the south and north. The bluff to the south is protected by a 670-ft long permitted rock revetment, and the bluff to the north is protected by a 110-ft long rock revetment. These adjacent, permanent revetments are located slightly west of the proposed revetment because the recent storm events did not cause landward migration like the Project site experienced. The Project site is thus located in a small cove, and the proposed 1 CoP (2020). Note: 1980 LCLUP is certified by the California Coastal Commission and is in effect; the Draft LCLUP (2020) has been approved by City Council. Certification by the California Coastal Commission is pending.

12.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 2
rock revetment ties into the existing rock to the south and north. The proposed rock revetment would result in a consistent appearance within the overall bluff vicinity and would protect existing infrastructure in a similar manner to the adjacent existing rock revetments.

Existing public access would not be affected along the roadway or on the beach. The rock revetment would take up a portion of the beach and would therefore continue to be an encroachment on the beach. Note that due to the wave exposure and beach elevations, the Project site’s beach that currently exists in the small cove is often inaccessible from the north and south. The informal ramp to the north of the Project provides ad hoc access to some degree but the route has experienced a series of damaging storm events and subsequent repairs; however, this route is not considered to be formal public access.

The bluff face above the proposed crest elevation of +32’ NAVD (up to approximate elevation +65’ NAVD) will continue to erode naturally and supply sand to the littoral system. However, in this context it should be noted that the fraction of beach-quality material contained in the bluff material is limited and estimated to be less than 10%. There would be a reduction to the natural sand supply from the beach elevation (approximate elevation +10’ NAVD) to the crest of the rock revetment due to the presence of the revetment.

There would likely be minimal (or very limited) construction needed for this alternative due to the presence of the rock revetment placed in 2018. Construction activities would be limited to repositioning of existing rock to address displaced rock or improve revetment layout, if required. Periodic maintenance during the service life of the rock revetment would consist of visual inspection and readjusting or resetting rock as needed after major storm/wave events.

Design Criteria
This report summarizes the design criteria and findings of the technical studies supporting the concept development, which includes analysis of wave action and an assessment of potential impacts to sand supply. Design criteria established for the bluff protection structure are summarized in the table below.

DESIGN CRITERIA
Project Service Life 25 years
Objective (Minimum) Top of future bluff slope 10’ from curb Vertical Datum NAVD88 (NAVD)

BLUFF GEOTECH
Stability Static; Seismic 0.2g

COASTAL
Base Flood Elevation Zone VE (El. 24’ NAVD) per FEMA (2017) Design Condition 1% Annual Chance Storm Event
Storm Recurrence Interval 100-year return period
Sea-Level Rise Projection 6.9 feet (end-of-century, 1-in-200 Chance Projection) Design Wave Height 27.2 feet (significant wave height in the surf zone) Maximum Wave Height 49.0 feet (max. breaking wave height in the surf zone) Wave Runup Elevation w/SLR +32’ NAVD

12.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 3

DESIGN CRITERIA
Beach Elevation (High) +10’ NAVD
Beach Elevation (Low) +6’ NAVD
Scour Elevation +2’ NAVD

12.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 4

1. Introduction

1.1. Project Background
The purpose of the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project (Project) is to protect City infrastructure and public safety. The Project focuses on protection of a 200-foot long section along the bluff at the intersection of West Manor Drive and Esplanade Avenue.

This portion of the bluff has experienced progressive erosion which resulted in the demolition of homes and need of revetment maintenance directly south of the proposed Project. Removal of homes led to the creation of the 500 Esplanade Coastal Trail which terminated as the southern limit of the proposed Project. In the winter of 2017, the area saw severe bluff erosion, which, if left unchecked would compromise the road and utilities. Continuing loss of land at this location would undermine the road and impact infrastructure within the road, which would render the adjacent neighborhood uninhabitable and force the City and utility companies to redirect essential infrastructure.

To address this, a temporary rock revetment was constructed in 2018 and the City began planning for a long-term solution. The 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) – which is certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and is currently in effect – states that riprap seawalls should be utilized in this area to protect City infrastructure. Similarly, the 2020 Draft LCLUP (approved by but pending certification by the CCC) included an alternatives analysis for the overall area concluded that bluff protection or beach nourishment in conjunction with sand retention structures should be explored for the area.

The Project is located in close proximity to the proposed Pacifica Esplanade Coastal Trail Project, CoP (2018)2, which is a planned 700-foot long blufftop trail that will tie-in to the existing coastal trail along the 500 block of Esplanade Avenue to the south.

1.2. Scope of Work
Moffatt & Nichol was retained by the City of Pacifica (City) to develop the documentation, analysis, design, drawings, and specifications for construction of the Project.

The Project includes the following phases:

1. Project Initiation Phase

2. Technical Studies, including:
• Wave Runup Study
• Sand Supply Study
• Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment
• Topographic Survey

3. Alternatives Analysis

4. Conceptual Design (30%); and

5. Environmental Documentation
2 The proposed 2018 Pacifica Esplanade Coastal Trail Project does not have a Coastal Development Permit in effect.

12.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 5
This report summarizes the design criteria and findings of the technical studies supporting development of alternatives, which includes analysis of geotechnical conditions, wave action and an assessment of potential impacts to sand supply.

Several possible alternatives are described and evaluated, leading to selection of a preferred alternative which is carried forward to a 30% conceptual design with supporting environmental documentation by Rincon Consultants. The environmental documentation will include a Project description, biological assessment, and archeological resources assessment; CEQA documentation is anticipated to include an Initial Study that would support a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

12.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 6

2. Physical Setting

2.1. Project Location
Figure 2-1 shows the location of the Project site, circled in red.

Figure 2-1: 400 Esplanade Avenue, Pacifica Project location (circled).

Figure 2-2 provides an overview of the Project site vicinity. Elevation contours referenced to NAVD88 are shown at 5-ft intervals; Project limits are outlined in red, and contour elevation +10’ (nominal beach elevation) is shown in blue. Immediately north of the Project area, an existing earthen ramp3 provides access to the beach.
3 Not in project but adjacent to project area.
xxx
Pacific Ocean

12.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 7
Figure 2-2: Project area vicinity
The proposed Pacifica Esplanade Coastal Trail project (“trail project”) is shown in yellow and is located seaward of the existing curb on Esplanade Ave. The trail project involves development of an approximately 10-ft wide concrete-surfaced coastal trail to connect from the existing trail to the south of West Manor Drive and extend approximately 600 feet northward. The planned coastal trail also includes options for a widened plaza area, amenities for seating, picnic tables, landscaped areas, and plantings that would improve public recreation.

This Project will support connectivity for public access along Esplanade Avenue, preserve existing access to the beach, and preserve the potential for the proposed future coastal trail discussed above.

2.2. Topography
The site topography was obtained via a drone and topographic survey by CSW (2021), conducted on April 20, 2021. The drone survey produced high-resolution topographic data and aerial imagery for the Project site. An overview of the site topography is provided in Figure 2-3. Elevation contours are referenced to NAVD88 (NAVD).

Based on the topographic survey, the approximate MHW line (elev +5.29’ NAVD) is shown in magenta, and the approximate MHHW line (elev +5.90’ NAVD) is shown in red.

12.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 8
Figure 2-3: Topographic survey (NAVD88).

12.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 9

2.3. Bathymetry
Bathymetric data for the seafloor at the Project site was acquired from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) developed by NOAA (2021a). The bathymetry data was supplemented with high-resolution coastal LiDAR data from NOAA (2021b).

2.4. Site Conditions
Figure 2-4 shows a blufftop view of the bluff and rock revetment constructed in 2018. Emergent vegetation can be noted along the blufftop edge. In the background, approximately center of the image a talus deposit is noticeable where a localized bluff failure has deposited material atop the rock revetment. Figure 2-5 shows a view of the beach fronting the bluff which provides public access to beachgoers.

Figure 2-4: View of bluff and rock revetment.

12.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 10
Figure 2-5: View of beach area fronting bluff.

12.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 11

3. Coastal Engineering Assessment

3.1. Tidal Datums and Base Flood Elevation
Table 3-1: Tidal and storm surge elevations, NOAA (2021c), FEMA (2017). summarizes tidal datum planes for the Project site associated with normal astronomical tides and extreme tides based on data from NOAA Station 9414290 San Francisco, CA. The latter includes effects of low-pressure storm systems, high tides, and El Niño effects. The King tide elevation was estimated based on tide predictions from NOAA (2021c).

Estimates of extreme tide elevations including storm surge are provided in the bottom section of Table 3-1: Tidal and storm surge elevations, NOAA (2021c), FEMA (2017).. These were determined based on Extreme-Value Analysis (EVA) of water level data for the period from 1972 to 2021. The relationship between extreme water levels and return periods is shown in Figure 3-1: Extreme-Value Analysis of water levels at NOAA Station 9414290 – San Francisco.. The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) indicated in the bottom row of Table 3-1 is from FEMA (2017), which reflects the Total Water Level (TWL) rounded to the nearest whole foot. The TWL accounts for the Stillwater Level (SWEL) and wave runup at the shoreline.

Table 3-1: Tidal and storm surge elevations, NOAA (2021c), FEMA (2017).

Tidal Plane Feet (NAVD88)
Normal Astronomical Tides
King Tide (Approx. Annual Maximum) +7.26
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) +5.90
Mean High Water (MHW) +5.29
Mean Sea Level (MSL) +3.18
Mean Low Water (MLW) +1.19
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) +0.06
Extreme Tides (with Storm Surge)
10-year Return Period (RP) +8.26
25-year RP +8.56
50-year RP +8.76
100-year RP (FEMA 1% SWEL) +8.96
100-year RP (FEMA 1% BFE) Zone AE (El. 24)
Information on wave statistics and wave heights developed for design purposes are provided in Section 3.3.

12.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 12
Figure 3-1: Extreme-Value Analysis of water levels at NOAA Station 9414290 – San Francisco.

3.2. Sea-Level Rise
Current guidance for California recommends evaluation of sea-level rise (SLR) impacts using a scenario-based analysis. This method is founded on the approach by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to understand how sea-level rise and other drivers interact to threaten health, safety, and resources of coastal communities.

IPCC climate change scenarios are expressed in terms of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). RCP 8.5 projects a future with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, high population and relatively slow income growth with modest rates of technological change and energy intensity improvements, leading in the long term to high energy demand and GHG emissions. Some estimates of current emissions are tracking close to RCP 8.5.

Comprehensive guidance for California was first developed by the National Research Council, NRC (2012). The guidance relied on the best available science at the time to identify a range of sealevel rise scenarios including high, low, and intermediate projections, taking into account regional factors such as El Niño and extreme storm events that affect ocean levels, precipitation, and storm surge. This approach allows planners to understand the full range of possible impacts that can be reasonably expected based on the best available science, and build an understanding of the overall risk posed by potential future sea-level rise.

The best available science and most recent guidance is summarized in OPC (2018) and has been adopted for this assessment. Table 3-2: Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco, OPC (2018). summarizes sea-level rise scenarios from OPC (2018) for the San Francisco tide gauge which are applicable to Pacifica.

Table 3-2: Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco, OPC (2018).

12.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 13
Table 3-3 summarizes OPC (2018) SLR projections for the 1-in-200 chance scenario for SLR by 2050, 2075, and 2100.

Table 3-3: OPC (2018) SLR projections for 1-in-200 chance scenario.

Tidal Plane
Year
2020
(0.16’ SLR)
2050
(1.9’ SLR)
2075
(4.0’ SLR)
2100
(6.9’ SLR)
Coastal BFE +24.0 +25.9 +28.0 +30.9
Coastal SWEL +9.0 +10.9 +13.0 +15.9
King Tide +7.3 +9.2 +11.3 +14.2
MHW +5.3 +7.2 +9.3 +12.2

3.3. Wave Action
The primary failure mode of the bluff is due to wave action eroding the toe of the bluff. Wave events are highly episodic and the potential for erosion of the bluff is tied to a number of factors. One of the key contributors to potential erosion are high water levels, which can enable wave runup to reach and erode the toe of the bluff. High water levels can occur due to high tides, storm surge, and El Niño conditions.

Astronomical tides occur daily with the highs and lows following a monthly cycle according to the alignment of the earth, moon, and sun. High tides occurring in combination with storm surge are termed extreme tides. Storm surge occurs due to low barometric pressure and wind shear associated with the passage of storm systems.

12.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 14
The El Niño phenomenon (and La Niña) refers to cycles of warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean, typically lasting 9 to 12 months. These cycles often commence in June or August and reach their peak during December through April, and subsequently decay over May through July. Their periodicity is irregular, occurring every 3 to 5 years on average. The warming associated with El Niño produces a rise of the ocean level, which can be on the order of 6 to 18 inches. The period of elevated ocean levels can be on the order of months, while the peak highs and lows occur on a scale of days to weeks.

A wave study was conducted to determine the following:
• Statistics of waves incident on the coast. This includes wind-generated waves and swell waves originating from distant storm systems over the Pacific. • Extreme wave conditions needed for design of the bluff protection structure. • Wave runup at the toe of the bluff, which to some extent depends on the type of bluff protection, alternatively no protection.

The findings of the above are described in the following sections.

3.3.1. Wave Statistics
Wave statistics were developed for wave data recorded at NDBC Station 46046 – San Francisco, NDBC (2021). The rose diagram in the upper portion of Figure 3-2 summarizes the wave data by direction, percentage of exceedance, and by wave height as indicated by the color bar.

The data shows that the majority of waves arrive from westerly to northwesterly directions with a smaller portion of waves arriving from southerly to west-southwesterly directions.

The table in the lower portion of Figure 3-2 summarizes significant wave heights by direction and percent occurrence. The table highlights that 45.31% of waves arrive from west-northwesterly (WNW) directions. 48.29% of significant wave heights are in the range from 3 to 6 feet, and 37.17% are in the range from 6 to 10 feet in height. A smaller percentage of the waves, about 7.94%, are larger than 10 feet in height.

Waves recorded at the NDBC buoy consists of a multitude of wave heights and wave lengths, the distribution of which is termed a wave spectrum. The significant wave height, HS, is defined as the average of the 1/3 of the largest waves in the wave spectrum. This value is close to the average wave height that would be estimated through visual observation. The largest individual waves are typically on the order of Hmax = 1.8 × HS. Refer to estimates provided in Table 3-4.

Figure 3-3 presents the annual average distribution of peak wave periods recorded at the NDBC wave buoy. In terms of wave direction and percentage of occurrence, the rose diagram follows the same distribution as portrayed in Figure 3-3, while the color scale indicates the peak wave period, ranging from 3-6 seconds (dark blue), across 12-16 seconds (green), to 16-20 seconds (yellow), and waves with periods of 20 seconds and longer (red).

The table in the lower portion of Figure 3-3 shows that waves with periods longer than 20 seconds arrive from westerly and west-northwesterly directions.

12.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 15
Figure 3-2: Annual average distribution of significant wave heights.

12.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 16
Figure 3-3: Annual average distribution of peak wave periods.

12.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 17

3.3.2. Extreme Wave Conditions
An EVA analysis was conducted on wave data recorded at NBDC Station 46026 – San Francisco for the years from 1982 to 2020. Figure 3-4 shows the relationship between significant wave heights and return periods estimated based on the EVA analysis. The significant wave heights for recurrence intervals of 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years are summarized in Table 3-4 along with estimates of the maximum wave height.

Figure 3-4: Variation of significant wave height as a function of return period.

Table 3-4: Summary of extreme wave height characteristics for offshore waves.

Return Period
(years)
Significant Wave Height
(feet)
Maximum Wave Height
(feet)
1 19.4 34.9
2 21.6 38.9
5 23.5 42.3
10 24.7 44.5
25 26.2 47.2
50 27.2 49.0
100 28.2 50.8
Figure 3-5 shows the relationship between peak wave periods and significant wave heights. It should be noted that the peak wave periods recorded at the NDBC buoy include both wind-waves, typically having wave periods shorter than 8-12 seconds, and swell waves having wave periods longer than 8 seconds.

12.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 18
The data shows that significant wave heights up to 9 feet can have wave periods ranging from 4 to about 22 seconds. The largest waves of 15 to 18 feet have wave periods in the range from 14 to 18 seconds.

Figure 3-5: Distribution of wave periods associated with significant wave heights.

The wave heights summarized in Table 3-4 were adopted for the conceptual design. Wave runup and total water levels are explored further in Section 3.3.3.

3.3.3. Wave Runup and Total Water Levels
Estimates of the total water level, accounting for storm surge, tides, SLR, and wave runup are provided in Table 3-5. The estimates are based on hourly simulation of wave action and water levels for a period of 32 years where concurrent wave and water level data is available (1980 through 2011). The analysis estimates the highest runup elevation at El. +19.7, which is fairly consistent with the FEMA (2017) estimated BFE of El. +24 considering that the 1% annual chance flood event did not occur between 1980 and 2011. The analysis summarized in Table 3-5 is intended to reflect the annual average wave conditions at the site, but does account for variability in the wave climate, tidal variation and storm surge occurring over the period of data availability. The analysis also captures significant El Niño events that occurred in the period, very strong El Niño conditions in 1982-83, and 1997-98, and strong El Niño in 1987-88 and 1991-92. The second column of the table provides a projection of the FEMA 1% Annual Chance Base Flood Elevation based on the projected SLR.

Table 3-5: Estimated wave runup elevations with SLR.

12.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 19
SLR
Projection
SLR
(feet)
Wave Runup Elevation (ft NAVD88)
Estimated FEMA 1% Annual Chance
Present 0.2 +19.7 +24.0
2050 1.9 +27.2 +25.9
2075 4.0 +33.5 +28.0
2100 6.9 +43.9 +30.9
Table 3-6 indicates the estimated average number of times per year the unprotected portion of the bluff could be exposed to wave overtopping. The results show that the rock revetment could be effective in protecting the bluff out to about 2075 (4 feet of SLR). Beyond this amount of SLR with varying degrees of protection thereafter.

Table 3-6: Estimated number of annual average bluff exposures to wave action with SLR.

SLR
Projection
SLR
(feet)
Rock
Revetment
Present 0.2 n/a
2050 1.9 n/a
2075 4.0 1
2100 6.9 136
Low beach El. +11.0
Bluff exposure El. +30.0

3.4. Shoreline Profiles
Figure 3-6 shows bluff profiles at 400 Esplanade Avenue captured in NOAA Coastal LiDAR data, obtained from surveys conducted in 1997, 1998, 2010, 2014 and 2016, NOAA (2021b). The figure also includes the profile data from the survey by CSW in 2021 as part of this project. Based on the profiles shown in the figure, the bluff receded by 83 feet over the period from 1997 to 2016. Refer to Section 3.5.1 for estimated rates of bluff recession.

The height of the bluff, h, is about 62 feet. The slope of the bluff face is approximately 64° from the horizontal, or 0.5H:1V. The toe of the bluff is approximately at El. +14.6 feet NAVD88. The high beach elevation is about the same elevation, which corresponds to El. +11.4 feet relative to Mean Sea Level (MSL).

12.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 20
Figure 3-6: Bluff profiles at 400 Esplanade Avenue.
0 +10
+20
+30
+40
+50
+60
+70
+80
+90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 Elevation (feet NAVD88)
Distance (feet)
1997 Fall 1998 Spring 2010 NCMP 2010 USGS 2014 USACE/NCMP 2016 USGS 2021 CSW h

12.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 21

3.5. Bluff Profile
Figure 3-7 from CAS (2001) shows the general stratigraphy and composition of the bluff material along Esplanade Avenue. The upper portion consists of about 12 feet of dune sand (Qd). When material in this layer fails, the cut can stand on a slope of about 1H:1V or steeper when wet. When the material dries out, the natural angle of repose is about 30°, approximately 1.7H:1V. Below the dune sand is an old soil horizon consisting of a 5 foot thick layer of clayey material. Underlying the old soil horizon is the predominant portion of the bluff visible to beachgoers. This portion of the bluff consists of an approximately 50-ft thick stratum of alluvial deposits (Qfo) composed of fine to medium grained sands and gravels with intervals of poorly indurated silts. As noted in the figure, seepage can often be observed from layers in this deposit.

Figure 3-7: Stratigraphy of bluff near the southern terminus of Esplanade Avenue, CSA (2001).

3.5.1. Bluff Recession
An assessment of the average rate of bluff recession was conducted based on aerial imagery from the University of Santa Barbara Geospatial Library, UCSB (2021). Refer to Appendix I for excerpts of the imagery. The earliest imagery available dates back to 1943. Figure 3-8 shows the location of the bluff edge digitized based on the UCSB aerial imagery (note background image is from 2020). The 1943 bluff edge is indicated by the teal line whereas lines in hues of green, yellow, orange, and red indicate the location of the bluff edge in years since 1943. The years for which imagery was available include: 1943, 1946, 1956, 1963, 1965, 1987, 1993, 2001, and 2020.

Figure 3-9 shows the average rate of bluff recession estimated based on the aerial imagery. The average rates were computed based on a linear trend through profiles of recorded bluff edge locations, taken at intervals of 32.8 feet (10 m) along the coast. The horizontal bars on the left side of figure indicate the average rate of recession in feet per year, ranging from 0.5 ft/year (light yellow) to 2.5 ft/year (red). The dashed blue line segments indicate where rock armoring is visible along the bluff.

12.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 22
The results indicate that the average rate of bluff recession ranges from 1.2 feet per year to 2.5 feet per year. The 400 block of Esplanade Avenue has some of the highest rates of bluff recession computed, on the order of 2 to 2.5 feet per year. The computed rates of recession are in line with USGS estimates from USGS (2006, 2021).

The general trend of bluff recession appears to be fairly constant in terms of the extent of bluff erosion that occurred between 1943 and 2020. However, bluff erosion is known to be highly episodic and irregular, and thus use of average rates of recession should be used for understanding overall trends; use of average rates of recession for future planning is not recommended, as a single event can results in extensive and/or rapid bluff recession.

It should be noted that this assessment is laced with an amount of uncertainty due the following factors:
• Image resolution of the historical imagery and distortion in the photos. • Accuracy of geo-referencing the imagery.
• Accuracy of identifying the bluff edge. The edge along the top of the bluff can be affected by localized bluff failures which can be difficult to detect at the resolution of the imagery. Also, the historical imagery shows a gradual transition from dune formations with vegetation to a more vertical bluff edge.
• Shoreline armoring constructed to prevent erosion of the bluff, after which the rate of recession is halted. Refer to areas with dashed blue line in Figure 3-9. It should also be noted that at the termination of shoreline armoring, neighboring areas without bluff protection can be impacted, often referred to as end scour, terminal scour, or flanking erosion.

12.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 23
Figure 3-8: Location of bluff edge 1943 to 2021.

Feet
0 500 1,000
Project Site

12.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 24
Figure 3-9: Average bluff recession 1943-2020.

0.5 ft/yr 1.0 ft/yr 1.5 ft/yr 2.0 ft/yr 2.5 ft/yr Armored Bluff Project Site

12.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 25

3.5.2. Projected Bluff Recession due to Sea-Level Rise
The Bruun Rule, devised by P. Bruun in 1962, relates shoreline erosion to sea level rise as shown in Figure 3-10 where 𝑅𝑅 is shoreline recession, 𝑆𝑆 is the amount of sea-level rise, 𝐿𝐿 is the horizontal extent of the shoreline zone where active sediment transport occurs, 𝐵𝐵 is the beach height above mean sea level, and ℎ is the closure depth beyond which significant sediment transport does not occur.

Figure 3-10: Schematic of Bruun Rule.

The Bruun Rule states that the sand deficit (dark gray area) needed to elevate the seabed to compensate for SLR can be balanced by shoreline erosion.

The equation developed by Bruun, which relates shoreline erosion to sea level rise is as follows:

𝑅𝑅 = 𝐿𝐿 ∙ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 � 𝑃𝑃(ℎ + 𝐵𝐵)
𝑃𝑃(ℎ + 𝐵𝐵) − 𝑆𝑆
� ≈ 𝑆𝑆 ∙ 𝐿𝐿
𝑃𝑃(ℎ + 𝐵𝐵) = 𝑆𝑆tan 𝜃𝜃
Where 𝑅𝑅 is the shoreline recession, 𝑆𝑆 is the amount of sea-level rise, 𝐿𝐿 is the horizontal extent of the shoreline zone where active sediment transport occurs, 𝐵𝐵 is the beach and dune height above mean sea level, ℎ is the closure depth beyond which significant sediment transport does not occur, 𝜃𝜃 is the average slope of the active profile, and 𝑃𝑃 is the fraction of beach quality material contained in the bluff material.

The equation therefore predicts that sea-level rise can result in shoreline erosion and bluff recession (R). Another outcome of the Bruun Rule is that the beach elevation will rise in tow with sea-level rise.

This occurs because the wave runup elevation increases with the rise in ocean level.

Table 3-7 summarizes the projected extents of future bluff recession due to long-term shoreline erosion and sea-level rise. An average long-term erosion rate of 2.5 feet per year was assumed based on the findings in Section 3.5. The contribution to bluff recession associated with sea-level rise was computed based on the Bruun Rule.

Table 3-7: Bluff recession due to long-term erosion and sea-level rise.

Bluff Recession
due to:

Year
2050
(1.9’ SLR)
2075
(4.0’ SLR)
2100
(6.9’ SLR)
Long-term Erosion (feet) 75.0 137.5 200.0
Sea-Level Rise (feet) 39.2 88.5 170.7
Recession Total (feet) 114.2 226.0 370.7

12.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 26

3.5.3. Projected Bluff Recession Impacts
The estimated distance from the edge of the bluff to the planned Pacifica Esplanade Coastal Trail project (Figure 2-3), is approximately 30 feet. Although the calculated average rate of bluff recession of 2.5 feet per year implies that infrastructure impacts would not occur during the next 12 years, this average rate is actually based on episodic events of rapid bluff erosion, not a steady or gradual process. It is not uncommon for 20-ft of bluff erosion to occur in a single event. The close proximity of the bluff to the City infrastructure should instead be understood as putting City infrastructure in imminent danger of a single extreme, or several moderately extreme, erosional events.

Looking at a time frame beyond the immediate future, any amount of sea-level rise over time would increase the effects of wave-driven erosion causing events; City infrastructure is thus threatened in both the immediate and longer-term time frames.

3.6. Sediment Transport Processes

3.6.1. San Francisco Littoral Cell
Pacifica is located within the San Francisco Littoral Cell, which extends from Fort Point, San Francisco to Point San Pedro, Pacifica as indicated by the red line in Figure 3-11, reproduced from ESA (2016).

Figure 3-11: San Francisco Littoral Cell, from ESA (2016).

Patsch and Griggs (2006) have published several papers to describe and investigate sediment transport along the California Coast.

A littoral cell is a section along the coast where sediment processes are isolated from adjacent coastal reaches. Littoral cells are often located between inlets, rivers, headlands protruding from the coast, and submarine canyons that prevent littoral sediment from passing from one cell to the next. As such, sediment sources, transport paths, and loss of sediment (sinks) are contained within the littoral cell.

12.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 27
Common sources of sand within a littoral cell include: longshore sediment transport into the cell, sediment from rivers and streams, seacliff or bluff erosion, gully erosion, onshore transport of sediment (can have a seasonal variation), dune erosion, and beach nourishment. Sinks that result in loss of sand can include: longshore transport out of the cell, offshore transport of sediment, dune growth, submarine canyons, and sand mining. The balance of these is termed a sediment budget, which can be at an equilibrium, or subject to erosion or accretion. The offshore limit of a littoral cell is at a water depth where wave action is no longer able to mobilize and bring sediment in suspension. This is defined as the Closure Depth and is described further in Section 3.6.2.

The general sediment transport direction within the San Francisco Littoral Cell is from the north to the south. The overall rate of sand transport along the coast has been estimated to 100,000 to 270,000 CY/year. Pacifica is located in the southern portion of the cell and includes sub-cells: Mussel Rock, Manor District, Beach Boulevard, Sharp Park, Hidden Cove, Rockaway Cove, Linda Mar, and Shelter Cove. Littoral sub-cells define segments along the coast whose morphological characteristics and sediment processes are distinguishable from the upcoast and downcoast areas. However, littoral sub-cells are not fully isolated and permit the littoral transport to pass down the coast.

3.6.2. Closure Depth
Sediment transport primarily occurs within the surf zone along the shoreline. In deeper water, waves are unable to mobilize sediment on the seafloor. The depth at which this occurs is termed the closure depth.

Hallermeier (CEM, 2011), defines the closure depth as:
ℎ𝑐𝑐 = 2.28𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒 − 68.5 � 𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒
2 𝑔𝑔𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒
2�
Where 𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒 is effective significant wave height and 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 the effective wave period based on conditions exceeded only 12 hours per year (0.14% of the time). Birkemeier, (CEM, 2011) suggested a simpler relationship given by:
ℎ𝑐𝑐 = 1.57𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒
Based on wave data from offshore wave buoy 46237, NDBC (2021), the closure depth is estimated to around 30 feet. Based on the berm profile height, B = 11.4 feet, estimated in Section 3.4, the height of the active profile is consequently: ℎ𝑐𝑐 + 𝐵𝐵 = 29.6 + 11.4 = 41.0 feet.

3.6.3. Sand Supply Impacts
The sand on the beach at the Project location consists of sand from San Francisco Bay transported down the coast combined with sand originating from erosion of the bluffs along the coast. The bluff material in the region consists of cemented sands with varying content of silt and clay (fines). The fines are washed out during wave processes and the remaining sand becomes part of the littoral transport along the shore. The direction of sand transport can vary depending on the direction of incident waves but is generally southward along the coast.

In terms of sand supply, the primary focus is to determine to what extent the proposed bluff protection could limit the natural supply of sand to the beach. Bluff stabilization will limit the supply of sand to the beach that would have otherwise occurred due to bluff erosion.

12.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 28
The majority of the material on the beach is coarse sand ranging from 0.4mm in diameter to 2.0mm, with a D50 of approximately 0.9mm. The bluff consists of very fine to medium cemented sand and fines, based on samples taken at depths of 24.5-ft and 53.5-ft below the ground surface. Figure 3-12: Beach Sand Gradation.Figure 3-12 shows the gradation of the beach sand versus the two bluff sand gradations.

Figure 3-12: Beach Sand Gradation.

The black dashed line at 0.9mm indicates that the fraction of beach quality material (larger than

0.9mm) contained in the bluff is limited to 9-13% of the bluff material. This means that when the bluff erodes, 87-91% of the material is washed out and removed by wave action and only 9-13% of the eroded material supplies sand to the beach. Because the bluff is limited in its ability to supply appropriately sized sand to the beach, stabilization of the bluff would have a limited impact on the sand supply to the beach.

12.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 29

4. Geotechnical Conditions Summary

4.1. Existing Conditions
The primary geotechnical hazard associated with the site is the potential instability of a 70-foot high, near-vertical bluff which is receding eastward toward Esplanade Avenue. The subject bluff area trends north to south for about 200 feet and has retreated eastward toward Esplanade Avenue; homes to the immediate south of the bluff have been demolished due to bluff retreat; the properties have since been converted to public open space for enjoyment of coastal resources. In 2018, rock was placed at the bluff toe on an emergency basis under the direction of Cotton Shires Associates (CSA). This rock was placed in a 60-ft wide, 15- to 20-ft deep prism consisting of 8-ton riprap unlderlain by geotextile fabric.

The prism of riprap provides protection of the bluff toe from wave-induced erosion and appears to have performed as intended to resist further bluff toe erosion. However, the upper 50 feet of the bluff remains very steep and has continued to show signs of instability as indicated by two soil slumps that occurred after the installation of the rock. The approximate volume of these relatively recent soil slumps are approximately 1,000 cubic yards on the northern portion of the bluff and about 100 cubic yards on the southern portion of the bluff. The noted soil slumps remain on the crest of the riprap to the present time. Vegetation has begun to develop on the soil slump material.

Similar bluffs are present to the south, with rock toe protection and an upper unprotected, steep slope; the bluff to the north is similar to the bluff to the south. The rock toe to the south was constructed in the mid-1980s in response to severe wave-induced erosion in 1983.

4.2. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
The geotechnical study for the subject project consisted of the review of previous geotechnical and geologic reports for the subject bluff and surrounding area, intermittent field observations of the bluff area made from Fall 2020 to the present time, subsurface explorations and soil sampling, laboratory testing of selected soil samples, and computer-modelled slope stability analyses. Subsurface explorations included two borings – B-1 and B-2 – performed with a truck-mounted hollow-stem-auger drilling rig to depths of about 100-feet and 98.5 feet below the ground surface, respectively, on the central and southern portion of the site between the top of bluff and Esplanade Avenue. Additionally, two cone penetrometer tests, CPT-1a and CPT-1b were advanced to practical refusal depths of about 45- and 55-feet, respectively, on the northern portion of the site, between the top of bluff and Esplanade Avenue. Furthermore, portable drilling equipment was utilized at the beach level to advance borings to depths of about 5 to 10 feet in an effort to confirm the horizontal limits of the riprap apron and thickness of beach sand deposits.

The subsurface exploration revealed that the upper 15-feet of the bluff consists of dense to very dense sandy fill material underlain by sand dune deposits. The deposits are, in turn, underlain by Pleistocene age alluvial terrace deposits which consist of about 5 to 10 feet of very stiff to hard sandy clay underlain by dense to very dense silty sand down to the maximum explored depth of 100 feet below the ground surface.

Laboratory testing of selected samples collected from the borings consisted of direct shear strength tests at natural and artificially increased moisture content and triaxial shear strength tests. The results of the laboratory data was used in conjunction with blow count data obtained during soil sampling in the field along with shear strength data obtained from the CPTs in order to develop strength parameters used in slope stability analyses for the bluff.

12.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 30

4.3. Geotechnical Analysis

4.3.1. Static Slope Stability
Slope stability analyses were focused primarily on the southern portion of the bluff, where it has receded closest to Esplanade Avenue; this is shown as section B-B in Figure 4-1 below. A number of analyses were made based on potential slip planes of different depths and at different elevations. The analyses assume a suite of possible failure (slip) planes, and the lowest safety factor for each suite of potential failure planes is highlighted in red and labelled “a”. The scenario with the lowest safety factor indicates a higher likelihood of occurrence compared with higher safety factors.

Figure 4-1: Plan View – Section used in geotechnical analysis The results of the analyses indicated lower safety factors for the stability of the portion of the bluff above the proposed revetment compared to analyses extending down to the beach. This is shown in Figure 4-2, as the lowest factor of safety of 1.36 occurs for a shallow slip plane while deeper failures extending under the revetment have higher safety factors.

The analysis shown in Figure 4-2 shows two notable things. First, it indicates that deep-seated failures that encompass the revetment are less likely (comparatively) than shallower slip planes (“soil wedges”) that occur above the revetment. The revetment functions as a stabilizing buttress to the lower bluff, preventing a large-scale slope failure. The resulting shallow failures do not extend as far landward, resulting in avoidance of impacts to existing City infrastructure. Second, the factors of safety for deepseated failure planes range from 1.44 to 1.47, which indicate a relatively stable overall bluff condition for deep-seated bluff failure; the focus will be on failures in the steep bluff above the revetment.

12.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 31
Figure 4-2: Global Static Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater To assess the likely failures that are expected to occur, additional analysis was performed focused on the steep upper bluff above the existing rock revetment; this analysis assumed several groundwater conditions (in-situ, high, and extreme) to simulate potential seasonal variations. The results of the additional analyses are shown in Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-5, showing low factors of safety ranging from 0.56 to 1.04 for the slope failures (shown in red and labelled “a”); these are the likely failures that would occur under static conditions under varying groundwater levels and assuming various potential failure planes.

12.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 32
Figure 4-3: Upper Bluff Static Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater Figure 4-4: Upper Bluff Static Analysis; High Groundwater

12.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 33
Figure 4-5: Upper Bluff Static Analysis; Extreme Groundwater Overall, the upper portion of bluff is shown to be marginally stable when evaluating relatively small soil wedges that are near the bluff face; larger soil wedges that extend closer to Esplanade Avenue have higher safety factors which indicate a lower likelihood of occurrence.

The groundwater level has a significant impact on the safety factor for all analyses; when a rise in water table is incorporated in the analyses, such as during a very wet and rainy winter, safety factors of less than 1.0 result for small- and moderately-sized soil wedges between the bluff face and Esplanade Avenue. Given the site’s sensitivity to instability due to elevated groundwater levels, groundwater management should be considered in the design phase.

Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the geotechnical analysis for the steep upper bluff, as shown in the figures above.

Table 4-1: Summary of Geotechnical Analysis (Static)
Figure Groundwater Factor of
Safety
Distance to
Roadway
Figure 4-2 – Global Analysis In-Situ 1.36 ~35’
Figure 4-3 – Upper Bluff Analysis In-Situ 1.04 ~23’
Figure 4-4 – Upper Bluff Analysis High 1.00 ~23’
Figure 4-5 – Upper Bluff Analysis Extreme 0.56 ~40’

12.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 34

4.3.2. Seismic Slope Stability
Similar to the analyses for static slope stability, seismic slope stability analyses were performed by incorporating a psuedostatic coefficient of 0.2g with various potential failure planes. The psuedostatic coefficient was developed based on guidelines presented in the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual4 and the CGS Special Publication 117A5. The results show that shallow soil wedges of similar extent and shape to that of the static analyses will have the lowest factors of safety, which is consistent with the results for static analysis discussed previously. The analysis shown in Figure 4-6 shows a low factor of safety of 0.78 indicating a high likelihood of occurrence, and the failure plane extending to within 27-ft of the roadway.

Figure 4-6: Upper Bluff Seismic Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater It should be noted that other failure planes have factors of safety below 1.0 and there is potential for those failures to occur instead of failure plane “a”. However, failure plane “a” has a much lower factor of safety than others that show greater potential impact to infrastructure (such as failure plane “e”) and is thus considered the most likely to occur.
4 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services/manuals/geotechnical-manual 5 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Program-SHP/SP_117a.pdf

12.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 35

4.3.3. Removal of Existing Revetment
To address the bluff slope stability prior to the placement of the 2018 revetment (or as will later be described as the No Protection alternative) an analysis was performed without the rock being present.

Figure 4-7 shows the results, with a factor of safety of 0.75 indicating a high likelihood, and a failure plane extending to approximately 12-ft from the roadway.

Figure 4-7: No Revetment Static Analysis; In-Situ Groundwater It should also be noted that other potential slip planes shown in Figure 4-7 have factors of safety below

1.0 – such as failure plane “c” – that have potential to occur instead of failure plane “a” that would have a more significant impact on City infrastructure.

12.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 36

5. Biological Resources Assessment Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared a Biological Resources Assessment report for the proposed 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project in the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (see Appendix III). The report documented existing conditions at the Project site and provided an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the Project site.

No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the biological reconnaissance survey.

No impacts to any special-status plants or wildlife are expected from the terrestrial portion of the Project because no project activity is occurring in areas of potential habitat for these species. However, potential nesting habitat for the American peregrine falcon and smaller birds protected under California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) occurs on steps and ledges of the bluff face. Since Project activities could disrupt nesting birds if active nests occur in the study area, a pre-construction nesting bird survey for the peregrine falcon and any other nesting bird species would ensure CFGC is not violated.

Project impacts are expected to occur on terrestrial areas of the Project, including disturbed habitat at the top of the coastal bluff and on the face of the coastal bluff. No native vegetation communities are present within the study area, and iceplant species (Carpobrotus spp.) are dominant. No impacts to any special-status species are expected from construction activities. No rocky intertidal habitat is present in the study area, although rip rap placed as rock revetment may provide future suitable habitat for the black abalone. Some temporary and localized indirect and direct impacts to rocks and upper tidal habitat on the beach are anticipated to occur; however, the potential for sensitive species to occur at the Project site is low. To avoid potential impacts to special-status marine species, a preconstruction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Impacts to sensitive biological resources would be considered less than significant under the California Environmental Quality Act with implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures.

The Project site includes a seep that would be considered a coastal wetland under the California Coastal Act and may be jurisdictional under the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts to the wetland will be avoided and a pre-construction survey will be conducted following approval of Project plans to ensure that the wetland boundary is marked in the field and no impacts will occur.

12.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 37

6. Cultural Resources Assessment Summary
Rincon also prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the Project (see Appendix IV).

Since the Project may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is therefore considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). The cultural resources assessment report was prepared in compliance with Section 106 and includes the delineation of a project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE), a cultural resources records search, a field survey of the APE, and preparation of this report. As the federal lead agency, the USACE is responsible for completing consultation with Native American Tribes in accordance with Section 106.

The cultural resources records search was completed by staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, on May 21, 2021. The field survey of the APE was completed on May 27, 2021. The cultural resources records search and field survey did not identify any cultural resources within the APE or a 0.5-mile radius. The APE has been previously disturbed by construction of the extant road and associated utilities as well as natural bluff erosion. Based on the results of this study, a finding of no historic properties affected is appropriate for the undertaking. The following best management practices are recommended in the case of unanticipated archaeological resources or human remains.

If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for NRHP eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant and cannot be avoided by the Project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties.

The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.

12.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 38

7. Design Criteria
The primary design criteria for the bluff protection include:
• Wave Height
• Wave Runup
• Slope Stability
The specific design criteria established for the bluff protection structure are summarized in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1: Design criteria.

GENERAL
Project Life 25 years minimum
Objective (Minimum) Top of future bluff slope 10’ from curb (for sidewalk) Objective (Preferred) Top of future bluff slope 20’ from curb (for coastal trail)

BLUFF GEOTECH
Stability Static
Seismic: 0.2g

COASTAL
Base Flood Elevation Zone VE (El. 24 feet NAVD88) per FEMA (2017) Design Condition 1% Annual Chance Storm Event
Storm Recurrence Interval 100-year return period
Sea-Level Rise Projection 6.9 feet (end-of-century, 1-in-200 Chance Projection) Design Wave Height 27.2 feet (significant wave height in the surf zone) Maximum Wave Height 49.0 feet (max. breaking wave height in the surf zone) Wave Runup Elevation w. SLR +32’ NAVD88
Beach Elevation (High) +10’ NAVD88
Beach Elevation (Low) +6’ NAVD88
Scour Elevation +2’ NAVD88

12.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 39

8. Potential Alternatives
The primary functional requirement of the infrastructure protection is to ensure continued roadway and utility function and access. Alternatives that meet this objective are described in the following.

The alternatives considered include:

1. No Protection Alternative

2. Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment

3. Bluff Toe Protection – Low Shotcrete Wall

4. Bluff Protection – Shotcrete Wall

5. Bluff Protection – Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles

6. Beach Nourishment

7. Sand Retention Structure

8.1. Alternative 1: No Protection Alternative
In the No Protection alternative shown in Figure 8-1, the existing rock revetment placed in 2018 for emergency purposes would be removed and the bluff and beach left unprotected. This would allow the bluff to continue to erode naturally and provide a supply of sand to the littoral system.

Figure 8-1: Alternative 1 – No Protection
The No Protection alternative would be a reasonable solution if several key criteria were met:
• There is sufficient offset distance between the bluff and critical City Infrastructure to allow natural processes of bluff recession to occur without impact to the infrastructure (roadway and utilities).
• The City infrastructure is not afforded protection due to being recently (post-Coastal Act) constructed.
• The natural processes would not affect other existing permitted shoreline protection features.

12.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 40
However, the No Protection alternative does not meet these criteria:
• Close proximity of bluff to City infrastructure; one significant wave event coupled with expected bluff collapse would likely affect infrastructure if the No Protection alternative is implemented.
• City infrastructure is pre-Coastal Act allowing the City to pursue protection. The No Protection alternative would require the City to act contrary to its own interests and would violate the City’s duty to serve its constituents.
• Outflanking of the existing revetments to the south and north will cause bluff erosion in adjacent areas.

This alternative has several benefits because it would: 1) remove all rock placed for the emergency revetment; 2) restores the beach’s natural sand materials; 3) allows unrestricted, natural supply of bluff material to the littoral transport system, and 4) does not require maintenance of protective features (revetment or wall).

Drawbacks for this alternative are significant, as listed below:
• Loss of part (eventually all) of Esplanade Avenue which serves as the primary access for residential, commercial, and emergency vehicles.
• Need for relocation of storm drain system within the roadway, which includes new 60” pipe installed in 2013.
• Need for relocation of sanitary sewer utilities within the roadway. The gravity-flow system would need to be rerouted landward and may require a pump station to convey flow to the existing system to the south.
• Need to relocate water utilities within the east side of the roadway. • Loss of driveway access requires relocation of the Post Office. This would be a significant planning/design effort with a high construction cost.
• Loss of future trail access along the west edge of Esplanade Avenue As shown in the geotechnical analysis, removal of the existing revetment would result in likely collapse of a major portion of the bluff face, extending up from the beach to approximately 12-ft from the roadway. In addition to the bluff failure, the toe of bluff would be exposed to direct wave energy and would migrate landward; this is shown in Figure 8-1 as the expected failure plane after a 20-ft bluff recession occurs. The landward migration will be episodic, depending on actual storm events; however, a steady landward recession of the bluff toe would occur, causing steepening of the bluff face and leading to bluff failure.

The ongoing cycle of bluff failure and bluff toe recession is an immediate threat to the roadway; a single large storm event (or a series of smaller events) could cause sufficient bluff toe migration to trigger a bluff collapse that would damage the roadway. To ensure public safety and prevent environmental damage due to utilities, the roadway would need to be closed and utilities relocated; the closure and utility work would need to be performed soon after removal of the existing revetment.

It may be possible to initially close the west half of Esplanade Ave, but full road closure will be needed eventually.

The project drawbacks, requiring extensive modifications to City infrastructure at significant expense, do not appear consistent with the existing site both at beach-level and at roadway-level. Additionally, the Project site is allowed protection as features that existed prior to the Coastal Act, similar to the area immediately to the south where a permitted rock revetment has existed for almost 40 years.

12.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 41
Furthermore, if the existing rock revetment was removed, the bluff and beach would continue to erode and be subject to shoreline and bluff recession. Because the adjacent protected portions of the bluff are erosion-resistant, the landward migration of the beach and bluff would create an isolated pocket beach. This pocket beach area would be cut off from the main beach and would not be accessible to the public. There would not be room to provide vertical access down to this isolated pocket beach and it would be an unsafe area due to wave exposure and potential for bluff collapse.

Lastly, the erosion that would occur within the project site as a result of the No Protection alternative would compromise the permitted revetment to the south and the existing informal access ramp to the north.

8.2. Alternative 2: Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment Figure 8-2 shows a concept utilizing a rock revetment to protect the bluff. The basis for this alternative is the same as the currently in-place rock revetment placed for emergency infrastructure protection.

Figure 8-2: Alternative 2 – Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment The purpose of the rock revetment along the toe of the bluff is to prevent wave runup from eroding the base of the bluff. The overall dimensions and footprint of the rock placement are related to the front slope of the rock and the crest elevation. The typical slope of rock placement is 1.75H:1V or flatter.

The crest elevation is generally located at around El. +30 feet NAVD to prevent wave runup from overtopping the rock revetment. The bluff face would remain unprotected above this elevation.

This alternative presents a number of benefits:
• Rock needed for the revetment is readily available and relatively inexpensive. • Rock can be placed on the beach with conventional construction equipment. • Rock revetments are typically able to adapt to changes over time (varying beach elevation, bluff recession, sea level rise).
• Rock revetments can self-heal and adjust in response to naturally occurring extreme events (seismic, waves)
• The Project revetment would work in conjunction with existing revetments to the south and north to provide continuous, consistent protection of infrastructure.

12.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 42
Drawbacks to the rock revetment include the loss of beach area due to the footprint of the rock mass, and the general aesthetic appearance of large rock along the beach. Regarding the loss of beach surface area, the area covered by the revetment is not located on public land (above MHHW line) and this area is not accessible on a daily basis due to tides and beach elevations. Thus, the footprint of the beach potentially lost due to the revetment is often inaccessible or hazardous for public use due to existing conditions.

A practical benefit to this alternative is that the existing temporary rock revetment could be transitioned to a permanent structure as part of the Project. The existing revetment may continue to function as bluff toe protection as-is or with modification to address any deficiencies identified during the design phase. Accordingly, this alternative presents as the least impactful in terms of actual construction activities and related environmental impacts; however, for the purposes of the Alternative Evaluation presented in this report, this alternative is being evaluated as if it does not currently exist.

8.3. Alternative 3: Bluff Toe Protection – Low Shotcrete Wall Alternative 3 provides a means of bluff toe protection while requiring only a small volume of rock for scour protection. This alternative is shown in Figure 8-3 and includes a low shotcrete wall supported by tiebacks, with the same upper “crest” elevation as Alternative 2. Due to a lack of erosion-resistant material at the base of the wall a small amount of rock is needed to resist scour. The rock will typically be buried beneath the beach sand surface, but the rock may become exposed for a short duration following high wave activity; over time, normal wave activity is expected to naturally re-cover the rock with sand.

Figure 8-3: Alternative 3 – Bluff Toe Protection – Low Shotcrete Wall The primary benefit of this concept is the elimination of the rock revetment and restoration of the majority of the beach to normal conditions and materials. Furthermore, the shotcrete is often considered aesthetically superior to rock due to the ability for the shotcrete to be sculpted and colored.

However, the shotcrete wall concept has drawbacks that are significant:
• A shotcrete does not perform as well as a rock revetment in resisting wave forces due to typically steeper slopes. This results in high wave forces and wave runup that may extend

12.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 43
above the top of the wall; there is no option for flattening the slope of the bluff to reduce wave forces and resulting wave runup elevation.
• Shotcrete walls are generally monolithic, acting as a large structural element that relies on tiebacks that are designed for a particular tributary area; a failure in one portion of the wall or supporting soil can lead to wall failure.
• Compared to rock, shotcrete is not as durable or as easily maintained. • Walls are more susceptible to potential scour at the toe and to loss of support at the top due to surface erosion removing soil materials.
• Excavating the toe of the marginally stable bluff is hazardous for construction workers and may lead to premature bluff collapse.
• Dewatering of the excavation will likely be necessary, which is challenging operationally and may have environmental impacts.
• Tiebacks do not perform well in soils that are saturated and may not provide adequate support for the wall, requiring support from other means (piles, additional mass).

Lastly, in comparison with non-structural options, structural walls are generally more expensive, and they cannot be easily maintained or modified if need arises.

8.4. Alternative 4: Bluff Protection – Shotcrete Wall
This alternative extends the bluff protection up to elevation of +65’ as shown in Figure 8-4. The bluff would be protected by a shotcrete wall supported by tieback anchors embedded into the bluff. This alternative is essentially an expansion of Alternative 3, extending the bluff protection upward to its maximum required elevation.

Figure 8-4: Alternative 4 – Bluff Protection – Shotcrete Wall Above the shotcrete wall the flatter slope would be regraded and a drainage system would be installed to collect surface flows and direct the flow down-slope toward the beach via a system of buried piping.

The bottom of the wall would be protected from scour by a rock scour apron similar to Alternative 3.

The benefits of this alternative are similar to those of Alternative 3: removal of rock from the beach and aesthetic benefits of sculpted and colored shotcrete. An additional benefit of this alternative – beyond that of Alternative 3 – is that it provides a long-term permanent solution for protecting City

12.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 44
infrastructure because it does not allow further bluff recession. The existing bluff location and slope would be fixed in place by the shotcrete veneer, preserving infrastructure located landward of the wall.

This type of solution has been implemented in many locations along the Pacific coastline, and if constructed appropriately can provide a high level of shoreline protection. However, this alternative has several drawbacks, many of which have already been described for Alternative 3. In addition to those drawbacks already described for the Low Shotcrete Wall, the Shotcrete Wall alternative also has the following issues:
• Drainage from a high wall is extremely important to minimize potential for buildup of hydrostatic loads.
• Vertical loads of the shotcrete are much higher compared to a Low Shotcrete Wall, requiring a thicker shotcrete layer with corresponding increases in cost. • The higher shotcrete wall will contrast more due to its large scale; the vertical extent is not appropriate for the lateral extent and location between two rock revetments. Visually the higher wall will detract from the natural aesthetics of the site. • Loads for a taller wall are dramatically higher at lower elevations, where groundwater reduces the capacity and effectiveness of tiebacks. A higher wall will be technically challenging to design and construct properly.

8.5. Alternative 5: Bluff Protection – Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles Another long-term solution developed uses stitch piles in conjunction with a rock toe revetment, as depicted in Figure 8-5. This alternative can be thought of as an improvement over Alternative 2 which merely protects the bluff toe. For Alternative 5, the bluff toe is protected from erosion while also providing protection of the uppermost portion of the bluff adjacent to the roadway.

This concept consists of a series of cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles spaced a short distance apart.

These piles provide lateral support to the uppermost portion of the bluff, and the small gaps between adjacent piles rely on soil arching to remain stable and resist sloughing between piles. The piles intercept the potential slip plane, “stitching” the soil to provide lateral support while allowing water to pass through and prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the piles.

The CIDH piles would be connected to other CIDH piles by a cast-in-place concrete cap. The cap will distribute loads evenly along the piles and provide continuous support at the top to prevent loss of material due to surface (stormwater) flows. The cap will also allow installation of a continuous guardrail system to ensure public safety if/when a vertical drop forms seaward of the cap. Landward of the cap, the proposed coastal trail could be constructed as envisioned by the City’s proposed trail project; overall, the addition of the stitch piles and cap would only occupy a narrow band of land or approximately 4-ft in width.

Once the stitch piles are exposed due to natural bluff erosion and/or collapse, the piles would be subject to lateral loading and will deflect a small distance. This lateral displacement will not affect the piles’ ability to support loads but may require adjustment of the guardrail for aesthetic reasons.

If desired, a shotcrete facing could be applied in the future along the face of the outer CIDH piles to prevent migration of material from between the piles. This future shotcrete wall could be constructed with features intended to give the wall a more natural looking appearance, such as sculpting and coloring the shotcrete.

12.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 45
This alternative has several benefits. First, as described for Alternative 2, the rock revetment would provide adequate protection from bluff toe erosion and generally prevent deep-seated global slope failures. The shallow slope failures which do not threaten City infrastructure under Alternative 2 will be mirrored in Alternative 5. The major additional benefit of this alternative is the protection from extreme and long-term potential slip planes well in excess of the slope failures that justify the adequacy of Alternative 2. That is, the Stitch Piles provide a much-enhanced level of protection at minimal additional cost or risk.

The reason this assertion is based on the available space at the top of bluff (roadway elevation) that can accommodate typical CIDH pile equipment and operations. CIDH piles are generally cost-effective and perform well in soils that are self-supporting. For the Project, the upper soils will require a casing to keep the drilled hole open, but the majority of the pile is in competent material that will not need a casing. CIDH piles conform to the irregularities of the drilled hole, providing excellent capacity and adjusting to anomalies that may be encountered below grade.

Figure 8-5: Alternative 5 – Bluff Protection – Rock Revetment & Stitch Piles

8.6. Beach Nourishment
Per the findings of the draft LCLUP, CoP (2020), options for beach nourishment were considered as a potential project alternative. Beach nourishment can be a means of preventing bluff erosion with a minimum impact to natural resources. The feasibility of beach nourishment is dependent on several key factors:
• Sand Source
• Quantity of Sand Required
• Grain Size
• Placement Method
• Siting & Context
• Maintenance
• Permitting

12.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 46
Based on these factors, an evaluation of the beach nourishment option for the Project was made, with the following findings and conclusions:
• Sand Source: There is limited availability of sand of the appropriate size, gradation, color, and material characteristics in the region. Current shortages of sand would result in longer lead times for sand procurement and delivery.
• Quantity of Sand Required: The volume of sand needed for beach nourishment is typically an order of magnitude greater than the volume of rock needed to provide bluff toe protection due to sand’s natural angle of repose. However, the potential area available for sand placement is expected to be constrained by permit conditions (westward/seaward project extent). Based on this, approximately 40,000 cy of sand is expected to be needed as an initial placement along approximately 1,200 ft of shoreline; this length of shoreline starts about 400-ft south of the project site and extends approximately 600-ft to the north of the project site. This volume of sand would attempt to replicate the extent of protection currently provided by the rock revetment given the inherent limitations of the available (permittable) space and the angle of repose for sand. The extent of beach nourishment needed to provide equivalent protection to the 200-ft long project site is greatly in excess of the actual project needs and extends far beyond the project’s defined limits. • Placement Method: There is limited access to the beach for marine-based construction equipment due to the prevailing wave conditions in the surf zone. o If marine-based delivery is used, the Contractor’s mobilization costs would be very high compared to the material cost.
o If marine-based delivery is not used, sand would need to be delivered by truck. Due to the inherent hazardous conditions at the bluff top, pushing sand from the bluff top onto the beach is not an option; sand would need to be trucked down to the beach and dumped and rehandled on the beach. The informal ramp to the north of the Project would need to be improved to function as a truck haul route.
• Siting & Context: The Project is limited in length and is bounded by rock revetments on both sides. Sand placed in such an isolated and discreet context is not expected to persist longterm nor will it present itself as a natural and appropriate solution. • Maintenance: Sand placed as beach nourishment is expected to erode due to normal wave activity and will erode rapidly due to storm events. Annual maintenance should be performed to ensure the bluff toe is adequately protected; the maintenance quantity is expected to range from 20% to 100% of the initial placement quantity. The City would have limited ability to place additional material on an emergency basis due to cost, lead times for procurement of material, and access to the beach following a storm event. • Permitting: The sand placed for beach nourishment is expected to be landward of the MHW line, which will require a steeper post-construction sloping face than what the sand will attain naturally over time. Permits will need to include an allowance of maintenance activity to be performed routinely and in response to events, which may make the permitting process more difficult.

For these reasons, although beach nourishment is typically a reasonable alternative for bluff protection, the site-specific constraints described above resulted in the decision that beach nourishment would not be carried forward for this Project.

12.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 47

8.7. Sand Retention Structures
Sand retention structures can potentially reduce wave energy by retaining sand in the Project vicinity and causing waves to break further off-shore; this is done by preventing lateral and longitudinal sand transport by means of constructing in-water structures that block or reduce natural sand movement.

As wave energy is reduced, the potential for bluff erosion is reduced and the existing bluff toe is protected by the build-up of sand in the nearshore area. Because of the impact to the natural sand transport, sand retention structures may need to be combined with beach nourishment, at least as part of the initial construction and possibly for ongoing maintenance purposes.

Potential sand retention structures could consist of:

1. Groins (perpendicular to shore) constructed of rock, concrete armor units, sandbags, timber pilings or sheet-pile.

2. Breakwaters (parallel to shore) constructed of rock, geotube, or concrete armor units.

Similar to Beach Nourishment, the feasibility of sand retention structures is dependent on several key factors:
• Type of Structure
• Quantity Required
• Placement Method
• Siting & Context
• Maintenance
• Permitting
An evaluation of the sand retention structures option for the Project was made, with the following findings and conclusions:
• Type of Structure: Given the wave exposure, a structure made of armor rock would provide the best combination of performance, durability, and cost. The short project length (200-ft) indicates that a single breakwater would likely provide the most appropriate level of protection with a minimum of rock needed. A perpendicular groin may be needed to construct the breakwater, resulting in a T-head or L-shaped structure with a very large permanent footprint and significant visual impact.
• Quantity Required: The volume of rock needed for a breakwater depends on the water depths and required geometry/size of the structure. Assuming a 200-ft long breakwater of appropriately sized rock would require a very large structure that would more than double the quantity of rock placed during the 2018 emergency work. • Placement Method: The use of marine-based construction equipment may be difficult at the site; instead, land-based equipment will be used to build temporary access out into the nearshore during mild wave conditions to construct the permanent breakwater. Because the working platform for land-based equipment must be removed after the permanent breakwater is completed, the cost for installation will be very high. • Siting & Context: The structure would extend well beyond the Project limits, encroaching into the beach and surf zone. The portion on the beach would impact beach access, and the portion in the surf zone would be present a shallow water or submerged hazard. A breakwater placed in the nearshore to protect this short portion of unprotected bluff will likely affect longshore sand transport and impact (via scour) the permitted revetment to the south.

12.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 48
• Maintenance: Large wave events may cause rocks to be dislodged from the structure, or create scour at the base of the structure leading to slumping/flattening of the structure. The City would have a very limited ability to re-place additional rock on an emergency basis due to cost and access to the breakwater following a storm event. • Permitting: The anticipated permitting process would be difficult given the issues described above. The impacts of this type of structure would far exceed other alternatives while not improving performance, durability, maintainability, or cost.

Based on these significant site-specific issues, sand retention structures were deemed infeasible and were not further considered as part of the alternatives analysis.

12.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 49

9. Evaluation Criteria & Selection of Preferred Alternative The criteria used to evaluate the alternatives consist of three categories: Performance, Environmental, and Financial. Within these categories are sub-categories to allow a thorough evaluation to be performed on a number of important issues. Each sub-category is assigned a weighting factor based on the relative importance of each item. The criteria and weighting factors are provided below:

Category Description Score
Technical 40 pts
Performance Protect infrastructure from erosion due to wave forces and stormwater surface runoff.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Provides Toe Protection – 5 pts
• Bluff Stability – 4 pts
• Provides Upper Bluff Protection – 3 pts
• Provides Scour Protection – 2 pts
• Self-Adjusts to Changing Conditions – 2 pts
16 pts
Reliability / Longevity Maintain level of protection despite uncertainties around dynamic parameters such as beach condition, water level, storm wave characteristics (height, direction, period).

Total available points are based on the following:
• Reliability – 4 pts
• Longevity – 4 pts
8 pts
Sea Level Rise
Adaptability
Ability to adapt to SLR scenarios in short-, intermediate, and long-term timeframes.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Crest Adaptability – 4 pts
• Toe Adaptability – 4 pts
8 pts
Constructability Is the alternative feasible and constructable at the Project location (dynamic ocean environment)
Total available points are based on the following:
• Ease of Construction – 2 pts
• Beach Work – 2 pts
4 pts
Maintenance Minimize effort required to maintain (minimize requirements to maintain original design characteristics)
Total available points are based on the following:
• Inspection Needs – 2 pts
• Operations & Maintenance – 2 pts
4 pts

12.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 50
Financial 30 pts
Project Costs Total Project cost including initial construction cost, plus lifecycle costs which include future operations, inspection, maintenance, and decommissioning costs.
30 pts
Environmental 30 pts
Marine Biological
Resources
Improved or no negative environmental impact to marine
biological resources.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Temporary Impacts – 3 pts
• Permanent Impacts – 3 pts
6 pts
Terrestrial Biological
Resources
Improved or no negative environmental impact to terrestrial biological resources.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Temporary Impacts – 3 pts
• Permanent Impacts – 3 pts
6 pts
Visual Resources Improved or no negative environmental impact to visual resources.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Bluff Aesthetics – 3 pts
• Beach Aesthetics – 3 pts
6 pts
Coastal Access Improved or no negative impact to blufftop access and beach access.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Blufftop Access – 3 pts
• Beach Use – 3 pts
6 pts
Recreation Improve recreation opportunities, encourage increased visits and beach use.

Total available points are based on the following:
• Recreation Opportunities – 3 pts
• Encourages Beach Use – 3 pts
6 pts
The criteria listed above was applied to the alternatives, with the evaluation summarized below in Table 9-1. A full description of the evaluation results is provided in Appendix V.

12.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 51
Table 9-1: Evaluation Results Summary
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection Bluff Toe
Protection
Rock
Revetment
Bluff Toe
Protection
Low Shotcrete
Wall
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall
Bluff Toe
Protection
Rock
Revetment &
Stitch Piles
Technical - Max 40 pts 21 pts 35 pts 24 pts 29 pts 38 pts Performance
Max 16 pts 8 pts 13 pts 9 pts 12 pts 15 pts
Reliability & Durability
Max 8 pts 4 pts 7 pts 5 pts 6 pts 8 pts
Sea Level Rise Adaptability
Max 8 pts 4 pts 8 pts 5 pts 7 pts 8 pts
Constructability
Max 4 pts 2 pts 4 pts 3 pts 2 pts 4 pts
Maintenance
Max 4 pts 3 pts 3 pts 2 pts 2 pts 3 pts
Financial - Max 30 pts 7 pts 30 pts 22 pts 12 pts 23 pts Environmental - Max 30 pts 23 pts 22 pts 25 pts 23 pts 22 pts Marine Biological Resources
Max 6 pts 6 pts 5 pts 5 pts 5 pts 5 pts
Terrestrial Biological Resources
Max 6 pts 6 pts 4 pts 5 pts 3 pts 3 pts
Visual Resources
Max 6 pts 6 pts 4 pts 5 pts 3 pts 3 pts
Coastal Access
Max 6 pts 2 pts 5 pts 5 pts 6 pts 6 pts
Recreation
Max 6 pts 3 pts 4 pts 5 pts 6 pts 5 pts
Technical (Max 40 pts) 21 pts 35 pts 24 pts 29 pts 38 pts Financial (Max 30 pts) 7 pts 30 pts 22 pts 12 pts 23 pts Environmental (Max 30 pts) 23 pts 22 pts 25 pts 23 pts 22 pts

12.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 52
Totals (Max 100 pts) 51 pts 87 pts 71 pts 64 pts 83 pts Ranking 5 1 * 3 4 2
* Highest Ranked Alternative

12.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 53

10. Preliminary Design of Selected Alternative
The Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment alternative is the highest ranked alternative and will be carried forward into Preliminary Design. The revetment consists of a layer of large armor rock of appropriate characteristics, placed on a prepared subgrade foundation. These characteristics include:
• Material properties: density, durability, type
• Shape: angularity, slenderness
• Size/Weight
The armor rock is typically underlain by either a geotextile fabric or an underlayer of smaller rock; both may be used if deemed necessary. The bottom of the armor should be designed to resist expected wave-induced scour, and keyed into a firm, undisturbed subgrade.

Armor rock size is determined by wave height (see Section 3.3) which in turn determines the minimum armor layer thickness which is approximately (or slightly less than) twice the nominal rock size.

Underlayer rock size, if needed, is similarly based on the appropriate rock size in relation to the armor rock, and the underlayer thickness is determined in the same manner as the armor layer.

Based on the anticipated wave heights, the nominal armor rock size that is appropriate for the Rock Toe is 8-ton. This corresponds to a rock of approximately 5-ft to 6-ft in nominal diameter; see Figure 10-1. The underlayer for this size of armor rock is 1/2-ton rock with a nominal size of 2-ft in diameter.

12.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 54
Figure 10-1: Rock Weight vs Nominal Size; Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-1601, Plate B-31

12.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 55

11. Permitting Approach
Rincon, with the assistance from the City, Moffatt & Nichol and other Project team members, will continue to coordinate the preparation of permit applications, attendance at meetings, and ultimate issuance of applicable permits from the regulatory agencies.

Rincon’s biological and archaeological technical studies/reports will be provided to the City as a part of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application package to comply with the California Coastal Act (CCA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City’s adopted Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and other regulatory permitting requirements for the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project (Project). Our approach also assumes that the City will be the lead CEQA agency; therefore, Rincon will prepare the required CEQA documents (presumably an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) in accordance with the relevant State guidelines and procedures. Rincon will coordinate with the City, Project team, and California Coastal Commission (CCC) throughout the environmental review and CDP approval processes. The potential Project alternatives are not anticipated to require work at or below the high tide line and therefore, permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and State Lands Commission are not expected to be required.

The results of the biological and cultural studies indicate that one sensitive natural resource occurs within the Project area; a seep, considered a wetland based on presence of hydrophytes and positive indicators for wetland hydrology, that occurs along the upper portion of the bluff near the existing informal beach access route. Accordingly, this sensitive biological resource has been incorporated into the evaluation of the feasibility of potential Project alternatives such that a preferred project alternative was selected which avoids the subject feature. Furthermore, the Project team will review the LCP, public access plan, and associated communications between the City and CCC and incorporate the information into the CDP application to further justify selection of the preferred Project alternative. This approach will assist the City with a streamlined process to achieve CEQA and CCA/LCP compliance.

12.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 56

12. Summary
The focus of the present work is to develop a solution providing permanent protection of City infrastructure. The current phase of work includes concept development, technical studies, and an evaluation of alternatives to determine which of the alternatives is considered the highest ranked alternative. The technical studies that were conducted include the following:
• Wave Study
• Sand Supply Study
• Biological Resources Assessment
• Cultural Resources Assessment
• Geotechnical Investigation
Most notably, the geotechnical investigation indicates that the existing condition of the bluff – with the 2018 rock revetment in place – would likely experience shallow slope failures originating at the top of the rock revetment rather than deep-seated failures through or below the revetment; the shallow failures terminate at least 20-ft west of the roadway. Conversely, removal of the existing rock revetment would allow a larger bluff failure that could potentially impact the roadway and existing utilities. This indicates that the presence of revetment not only protects the bluff toe from wave-induced erosion but also buttresses the bluff and improves the bluff’s overall stability.

The evaluation of alternatives resulted in Alternative 2 Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment being the highest ranked alternative. The Rock Revetment alternative was consistently high scoring in all three categories: Technical, Financial, and Environmental. It should also be noted that the scoring was based on the premise that the rock revetment does not currently exist and would need to be fully constructed; if the scoring were to take into account the fact that the revetment exists, the scoring would be even higher.

Based on the technical studies and evaluation of alternative presented in this report, the Bluff Toe Protection – Rock Revetment alternative will be carried forward for further consideration and coordination between the City, the design team, project stakeholders, the Coastal Commission, and other permitting agencies as needed.

12.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 57
References
CEM (2011). Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1100 Part II, IV). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Change 3 (28 Sep 11).

CoP (2018). Pacifica Esplanade Coastal Trail Project. Initial Study and Mitigated negative Declaration.

City of Pacifica, 170 Santa Maria Ave., Pacifica, CA 94044. Draft, May 2018.

CoP (2020). Local Coastal Land Use Plan. Certification Draft. Prepared for City of Pacifica. Prepared by: Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; DKS Associates; Economic & Planning Systems (EPS); and ESA. February 2020.

CSA (2018). 400 Esplanade Ave. Infrastructure Preservation Project Emergency Protective Measures.

As-Built Drawings. Prepared for the City of Pacifica. Prepared by: Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Geologists. Updated: 8/17/18.

CSA (2001). Mitigation of 1998 El Niño Sea Cliff Failure, Pacifica, California. Patrick O, Shires, Ted Sayre, and David W. Skelly. Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. Article from: Engineering Geology Practice in Northern California, Division of Mines and Geology (2001).

CSW (2021). Drone and Topographic Survey, 400 Esplanade Ave. Prepared by: CSW|ST2, CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. Civil & Structural Engineers, Surveying & Mapping, Environmental Planning, Land Planning, Construction Management. 45 Leveroni Court, Novato, CA 94949. Project Number: 2030094. Field Survey conducted on: April 20, 2021. Horizontal Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) per Zone 3, Epoch 2017.5.

Vertical Datum: North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) per CRTN (California Real Time Network), Epoch 2017.5.

ESA (2016). San Francisco Littoral Cell, Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan. Prepared for:

The California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup. Prepared by: Environmental Science Associates, Kearns & West, Peter R. Baye, PhD; Philip King, PhD. Draft, January 2016.

FEMA (2017). Flood Insurance Rate Map. San Mateo County, California and Incorporated Areas.

Panel 38 of 510. Map Number: 06081C0038F. Version Number 2.3.2.1. Map Revised:

August 2, 2017. Map Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 10N; North American Datum 1983; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88. National Flood Insurance Rate Program. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

NDBC (2021). National Data Buoy Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center of Excellence in Marine Technology. National Data Buoy Center, Bldg. 3205, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529.

NOAA (2021a). San Francisco Bay, California 1/3 arc-second NAVD 88 Coastal Digital Elevation Model. National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/ NOAA (2021b). Coastal LiDAR. Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Data Access Viewer. NOAA:

Data Access Viewer

12.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.® 58
NOAA (2021c). Tides & Currents. Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (COOPS), 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
NRC (2012). Sea-level rise for the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: past, present, and future. National Academies Press.

OPC (2018). State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance. California natural resources agency, California Ocean Protection Council, 2018.

Patsch & Griggs (2006). Littoral Cells, Sand Budget, and beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline. By: Kiki Patch and Gary Griggs. Institute of Marine Sciences. University of California, Santa Cruz. California Department of Boating and Waterways, and California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup. October 2006.

UCSB (2021). UC Santa Barbara Library. Geospatial Collection. Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9010. https://www.library.ucsb.edu/
USGS (2006). National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 3: Historical Shoreline Change and Associated Coastal Land Loss Along Sandy Shorelines of the California Coast. Cheryl J.

Hapke, David Reid, Bruce M. Richmond, Peter Ruggiero and Jeff List. Open-File Report 2006- 1219. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS (2021). Coastal Change Hazards Portal. https://marine.usgs.gov/coastalchangehazardsportal

12.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Appendix I
Historical Aerial Imagery

12.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 1: Date of image: 10/11/1943 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 2: Date of image: 7/29/1946 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 3: Date of image: 9/8/1956 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 4: Date of image: 7/10/1963 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 5: Date of image: 5/17/1965 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 6: Date of image: 6/22/1987 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 7: Date of image: 8/25/1993 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 8: Date of image: 6/7/2001 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix I
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Plate 9: Date of image: 10/14/2020 (project location circled).

12.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix II
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Appendix II
Historical Coastal Photographs
(California Coastal Records Project)

12.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix II
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
1972
1979

12.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix II
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
1987
2002

12.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix II
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
2004
2005

12.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix II
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
2008
2009

12.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix II
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
2013
2019

12.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Appendix III
Biological Resources Assessment
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

12.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure
Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
Moffat & Nichol
Neil Nichols, Civil Engineer
2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Via email: [email protected]
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
May 2021
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Table of Contents
Biological Resources Assessment i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................2

1.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................2

1.2 Project Description..............................................................................................................2 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Regulatory Overview...........................................................................................................5

2.1.1 Definition of Special-status Species....................................................................5

2.1.2 Environmental Statutes......................................................................................5

2.1.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance ..................................................6

2.2 Literature Review................................................................................................................7

2.3 Field Reconnaissance Survey ..............................................................................................7 3 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................................9

3.1 Terrestrial............................................................................................................................9

3.1.1 Physical Characteristics.......................................................................................9

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages..................................................................................9

3.1.3 Soils.....................................................................................................................9

3.1.4 Vegetation and Other Land Cover......................................................................9

3.1.5 General Wildlife................................................................................................12

3.2 Marine...............................................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Physical and Oceanographic Characteristics....................................................13

3.2.2 Marine Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat ...........................................13 4 Sensitive Biological Resources......................................................................................................14

4.1 Terrestrial..........................................................................................................................14

4.1.1 Special-Status Species.......................................................................................14

4.1.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitats.......................................15

4.1.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands.................................................................15

4.1.4 Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................16

4.1.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ...................................16

4.1.6 Habitat Conservation Plans ..............................................................................16

4.2 Marine...............................................................................................................................17

4.2.1 Special-Status Species.......................................................................................17

4.2.2 Sensitive Marine Communities and Critical Habitats.......................................19 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................22

5.1 Special-Status Species.......................................................................................................22

5.2 Sensitive Plant Communities ............................................................................................25

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................25 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
ii

5.4 Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................................26

5.5 Local Policies and Ordinances...........................................................................................26

5.6 Adopted or Approved Plans..............................................................................................26 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................27 7 References....................................................................................................................................28 8 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................30 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Soils...................................................................................................................................10 Figure 4 Land Cover ........................................................................................................................11 Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Framework
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Floral and Faunal Compendium
Appendix D Special-Status Species Evaluation Tables
Appendix E NMFS Special Status Species List
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Executive Summary
Biological Resources Assessment 1
Executive Summary
This document provides the findings of a Biological Resources Assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the proposed 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project in the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. The report documents existing conditions at the project site and provides an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the study area.

The 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project includes repairs to prevent further bluff recession and protect infrastructure within the road that runs along the coast (Esplanade Avenue) using some combination of armor rock or a seawall; beach nourishment, living shorelines, or sandbags to prevent additional erosion of the coastline at the project site. Rock revetment was placed at the toe of the bluff within the study area in 2018 as a preliminary step to slow erosion.

Project impacts are expected to occur on terrestrial areas of the project, including disturbed habitat at the top of the coastal bluff and on the face of the coastal bluff. No native vegetation communities are present within the study area, and iceplant species (Carpobrotus spp.) are dominant.

No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the biological reconnaissance survey. No impacts to any special-status plants or wildlife are expected from the terrestrial portion of the project because no project activity is occurring in areas of potential habitat for these species.

However, potential nesting habitat for the American peregrine falcon and smaller birds protected under California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) occurs on steps and ledges of the bluff face. Since project activities could disrupt nesting birds if active nests occur in the study area, a pre-construction nesting bird survey for the peregrine falcon and any other nesting bird species would ensure CFGC is not violated.

No marine special-status species were observed during the biological reconnaissance survey or from review of site photographs taken by the surveying biologist. The western edge of the study area is in a tidal zone, but no in-water construction is expected. Nearshore waters and submerged lands within and adjacent to the project area are designated as critical habitat for black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) to a depth of six (6) meters (50 CFR Section 226.221). No impacts to any special-status species are expected from construction activities. No rocky intertidal habitat is present in the study area, although rip rap placed as rock revetment may provide future suitable habitat for the black abalone. Some temporary and localized indirect and direct impacts to rocks and upper tidal habitat on the beach are anticipated to occur; however, the potential for sensitive species to occur at the project site is low. To avoid potential impacts to special-status marine species, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Impacts to sensitive biological resources would be considered less than significant under the California Environmental Quality Act with implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures.

The project site includes a seep that would be considered a coastal wetland under the California Coastal Act and may be jurisdictional under the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts to the wetland will be avoided and a pre-construction survey will be conducted following approval of project plans to ensure that the wetland boundary is marked in the field and no impacts will occur. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
2 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) to document the existing biological conditions at 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project (project) site in the city of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. This BRA is prepared with the intent of serving as the basis for suitable analysis of the potential impacts to biological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process and to support environmental permitting required for the project under the California Coastal Act and other environmental regulations.

1.1 Project Location
The proposed project to prevent further bluff erosion is located west of the intersection of Manor Drive and Esplanade Avenue, along the 400 and 500 blocks of Esplanade Avenue in Pacifica, California (Figure 1). This location corresponds to 122.49341N longitude and 37.64944W latitude and is located in Sections 23 and 26, Township 03 South, Range 06 West on the San Francisco South, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. The study area surrounding the project site is located at the edge of the coastline and includes a coastal cliff and an area of beach below (Figure 2).

1.2 Project Description
The project will include repairs to prevent further bluff recession and protect infrastructure within the road that runs along the coast (Esplanade Avenue) using armor rock or a seawall; beach nourishment, living shorelines, or sandbags; or some combination of the two to prevent additional erosion of the coastline at the project site. Rock revetment was placed at the toe of the bluff within the study area in 2018 as a preliminary step to slow erosion. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Introduction
Biological Resources Assessment3
Figure 1Regional Location Map
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project 4
Figure 2 Project Location
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Methodology
Biological Resources Assessment 5
2 Methodology

2.1 Regulatory Overview
Regulated or sensitive resources studied and analyzed herein include special-status plant and animal species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, and locally protected resources, such as protected trees. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by Federal, State, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Pacifica).

2.1.1 Definition of Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special-status species include:
▪ Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); species that are under review may be included if there is a reasonable expectation of listing within the life of the project
▪ Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ Species designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
▪ Species designated as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, if the project would affect lands administered by these agencies ▪ Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance or local policy.

2.1.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes (Appendix A):

Terrestrial and Marine
▪ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
▪ Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
▪ California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
▪ California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
▪ California Coastal Act
▪ Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
▪ City of Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
6 Terrestrial
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
▪ The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Marine
▪ Endangered Species Act
▪ Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
▪ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ▪ Marine Mammal Protection Act
▪ Coastal Zone Management Act
▪ National Marine Sanctuaries Act
▪ National Invasive Species Act
▪ Marine Life Protection Act
▪ Marine Life Management Act
▪ California Ocean Plan

2.1.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist, were used to evaluate potential environmental effects. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Methodology
Biological Resources Assessment 7

2.2 Literature Review
Prior to the field survey, Rincon conducted a literature review to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources on and adjacent to the site. The literature review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth 2021), regional and site‐specific topographic maps, climatic data, and other available background information.

Queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; 2021a), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2021a), Essential Fish Habitat Mapper (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2021b), NOAA Fisheries California Species Tool (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2021d), and CNPS Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2021) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species, as well as other specialstatus species, considered to have potential to occur within the San Francisco South, California USGS

7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding quadrangles (Point Bonita, San Francisco North, Hunters Point, San Mateo, and Montara Mountain).

In addition, the following resources were reviewed for information about the project site:
▪ Aerial photographs of the project sites and vicinity
▪ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2021a)
▪ USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2021b)
▪ CDFW CNDDB map of State and federally listed species that have been previously documented within a 5‐mile (8‐kilometer) radius of the project site (2021a)

2.3 Field Reconnaissance Survey
Rincon biologist Anastasia Ennis conducted a field reconnaissance survey of the study area on April 22, 2021. The 3.56-acre study area is shown on Figure 2, and encompasses the area surrounding the location where bluff reinforcement will occur. The reconnaissance survey consisted of pedestrian survey throughout the site between the hours of 1430 and 1530. The temperature was 52 degrees Fahrenheit and foggy with winds gusting at approximately 15 miles per hour. Although the tide was low during the survey, due to safety reasons, the beach at the south-westernmost portion of the study area was not walked but was scanned from the bluff above.

The survey focused on documenting existing conditions and biological resources, evaluating the project site for potential to support terrestrial and marine special-status plants, wildlife species, marine habitats, special-status vegetation communities and potentially jurisdictional resources.

Focused protocol surveys were not conducted. Prior to conducting the reconnaissance survey, Rincon biologists reviewed aerial photographs and database search results for special-status species records in the vicinity of the project.

Additionally, the biologist evaluated the general health and level of existing disturbances to vegetation communities. The biologist documented any sign of the presence of special-status species within the proposed project boundary. Results of the survey were used to identify suitable habitat for special-status species that may require focused protocol surveys or other more involved analyses, and to develop an approach for evaluating potential impacts to existing biological resources on the project site.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
8 Representative photographs were taken to document existing conditions, vegetation communities, species sign, or other notable biological resource observations. Photographs are included in Appendix B. Compendia of plants and wildlife observed during surveys are included in Appendix C of this report.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment 9
3 Existing Conditions

3.1 Terrestrial

3.1.1 Physical Characteristics
The project is located on the Pacific coast of the San Francisco Peninsula in Pacifica, California.

Pacifica has a Mediterranean climate with rains falling mostly in the winter and spring. Due to the coastal location of the project, fog and cool temperatures are common in the summer. The average annual high temperature is 64 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the average annual low temperature is 49°F. Average annual precipitation is 29.5 inches. The study area is situated on a steep coastal bluff and includes a sloping trail that provides beach access from the top of the bluff, approximately 55 feet above the beach. The study area includes city streets at the eastern edge, and beach at the western edge. Elevations within the study area range from 0-13 feet (0-4 meters) above mean sea level at the beach and 70-86 feet (21-26 meters) above mean sea level at the top of the bluff.

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages
Storm drain runoff and surface flow appears to drain out of the top of the coastal bluff, creating a seep or coastal wetland feature in specific areas of the site. Near the top of the trail to the beach, where it curves sharply to parallel the coastline, runoff has formed a channel down the center of the trail. South of Manor Drive, the study area is part of the Milagra Creek watershed as presented in the City’s General Plan (City of Pacifica 2014). Milagra Creek is an intermittent stream that originates in the hills to the east of the project site and drains through undeveloped and residential areas. It enters storm drains approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the study area (USGS 2021).

3.1.3 Soils
The study area contains the following three soil map units (USDA, NRCS 2021a): Urban land; Urban land-Orthents, 5 to 75 percent slopes; and Beaches. Soil series are depicted in Figure 3. None of the three soil map units are associated with an official soil series. Urban land and Urban land-Orthents are associated with developed areas. The Beaches soil type includes areas along the shoreline where tidal action deposits and reworks sediments. None of the soils mapped within the project site are listed as hydric soils in San Mateo County (USDA, NRCS 2021b)

3.1.4 Vegetation and Other Land Cover
Four (4) land cover types, including one vegetation community, were identified within the study area during the field survey. Figure 4 provides a map approximating the types and acreages of the various vegetation communities and land-cover types that occur within the study area. The vegetation community characterizations for this analysis were based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition ([MCV2] Sawyer et al. 2009). 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
10 Figure 3 Soils
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment 11
Figure 4 Land Cover
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
12 Ice Plant Mat
Ice plant mat, consisting of iceplant and sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis and C. chilensis), is the dominant vegetation community in the study area, making up 0.56 acre of the study area. This vegetation community most closely corresponds with the Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp.

Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance in the MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009). Iceplant occurs in dense patches at the top of the bluff and wherever a step occurs on the bluff face. While iceplant makes up at least 80 percent of the vegetative cover in this community, additional herbaceous plants present include American dune grass (Elymus mollis), coastal sand verbena (Abronia latifolia), and sea rocket (Cakile maritima). A single coastal willow (Salix hookeriana) was present at the base of the trail to the beach within this vegetation community. Yellow monkeyflower (Erythranthe guttata) is present where a seep occurs within this habitat type on the bluff face.

Coastal Bluff
This land cover type describes the barren or sparsely vegetated cliffs that occur on the eroding vertical face of the bluffs, making up 0.24 acre of the study area. Scattered vegetation does occur in this habitat, including ice plant and some of the species in the ice plant mat community. Tree mallow (Malva arborea) was also observed in this area.

Beach
The 0.86 acre of beach within the study area is covered with fine pebbles and is devoid of vegetation. No rocky intertidal is present; however, this area is subject to periodic tidal inundation.

Disturbed/Developed
Disturbed and developed land cover within the study area (1.87 acres) refers to paved roads and buildings, barren disturbed area at the top of the bluff, and large rip rap boulders placed at the base of the bluff in 2018 to slow bluff erosion. Vegetation is mostly absent from this land cover type, although landscaped and ruderal vegetation is present.

3.1.5 General Wildlife
Several western gulls (Larus occidentalis) and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were observed flying over the study area during the survey. One European starling was perched on a utility pole along Esplanade Avenue within the study area, and a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was observed in flight over the study area. Several surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) were observed foraging offshore, just outside the study area.

3.2 Marine
This section describes the oceanographic conditions and marine biological resources immediately adjacent to the study area and provides specific information on marine habitats and resources based on the results of the reconnaissance-level field surveys, review of site photographs and review of existing data sets from various sources (see Literature Review 2.2). 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment 13

3.2.1 Physical and Oceanographic Characteristics
The marine portion of the study area consists of periodically inundated beach on the Pacific Ocean (Figure 4). At high tides, the rip rap rock placed at the toe of the bluff within the study area is also partially inundated. The rock revetment was placed in 2018, and during the field survey, no invertebrates were observed to have established on the rip rap. The marine portion of the study area is cliff backed rocky intertidal and subtidal rocky reef with deep sand channels. The adjacent shoreline 0.75-mile in either direction is composed of similar beach with steep bluffs or a seawall with stretches of rip rap.

The offshore waters of the Pacific Ocean immediately adjacent to the study area provide habitat for fish, birds, marine mammals and other wildlife, including sensitive species. Ocean water temperatures in Pacifica range from 9 to 18°C (49 to 64°F). Sea surface temperatures can vary by several degrees close to shore compared to those of the open ocean water averages.

3.2.2 Marine Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat The waters adjacent to the study area are considered critical habitat for black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii ), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) southern Distinct Population Segment, and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as well as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for four separate Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). Shallow water nearshore marine fishes including rockfish (Sebastes spp.), surfperch, flatfish, croakers, and coastal pelagic species may occur adjacent to the study area. Waters adjacent to the study area contain habitat suitable for marine fish species defined as those regulated through the goals, objectives, policies, and mandates of the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) by the CDFW Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (CA-NFMP), The Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Management Plan (GMP), The North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Salmon Fisheries Management Plan (SFMP), and The Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (CPSMP). The species regulated by the MLMA include:
▪ Black and yellow rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas); kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens); olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides); blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus); brown rockfish (Sebastes Auriculatus); treefish (Sebastes serriceps); Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus); California scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata); CA-NFMP and GMP regulated ▪ Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus); lingcod (Ophiodon elongates); leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata); GMP regulated
▪ White seabass (Atractoscion nobilis); CDFW White Seabass Fishery Management Plan regulated ▪ California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher); CA-NFMP regulated ▪ Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagaz); northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax); Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicas); jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus); CPSMP regulated ▪ Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch); Federally Endangered (FE) and State Endangered (SE); SFMP regulated
▪ Steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss); Federally Endangered (FE) and State Endangered (SE); SFMP regulated
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
14 4 Sensitive Biological Resources
Local, state, and federal agencies regulate special-status species and other sensitive biological resources and require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted onsite prior to the approval of proposed development on a property. This section discusses sensitive biological resources observed on the project site and evaluates the potential for the project site to support additional sensitive biological resources. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special-status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, previous reports for the project site, and the results of surveys of the project site.

The potential for each special-status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to the following criteria:
▪ No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and species would have been identifiable on-site if present (e.g., oak trees). Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species. ▪ Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality.

The species is not likely to be found on the site. Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.
▪ Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.
▪ High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
▪ Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last 5 years).

4.1 Terrestrial

4.1.1 Special-Status Species
Special-Status Plant Species
Based on the database and literature review, 78 special-status plant species were documented within the San Francisco South, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding five quadrangles. Thirty-four (34) species have known occurrences within five miles of the project site, of which seven (7) are listed as threatened or endangered and 24 are classified as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1.B1-3 (Appendix D). None of these species have the potential to occur on the project site due to the absence of habitat, lack of suitable soils, and historical development and disturbance within the study area (see Appendix D). The species occurring within the five-mile radius of the project site are either likely extirpated historic occurrences or have been documented in natural communities such as grasslands or coastal scrub, often protected as part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area or California State Parks lands. No special-status plant species 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 15
were observed during the reconnaissance survey in April 2021 and no special-status plants are expected to occur.

Special-Status Animal Species
Rincon evaluated 42 special-status wildlife species for their potential to occur in the project site, or in adjacent habitats (Appendix D). Nineteen (19) species have known occurrences within five miles of the project site. Species are considered to have special status based on a State and/or federal listing, or because they are considered a California Species of Special Concern (SSC), or are otherwise protected by CDFW. Special-status species are discussed in further detail below.

The federally and State endangered coho salmon - central California coast DPS (Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4), federally threatened steelhead – central California coast DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8) and federal candidate species and State threatened longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) have low potential to occur in waters adjacent to the study area. They are discussed with other special-status marine species in section 4.2.

American Peregrine Falcon
The peregrine falcon (State fully protected species; Falco peregrinus annatum) has one nest locations recorded 2.5 miles northeast of the project site (CDFW 2021a). Ledges on bluffs can provide suitable nesting sites in or near the study area and this species has the potential to forage within the study area. The study site is bounded by open water to the west and developed areas to the east. Disturbance from humans and domestic dogs using trails above and along the bluffs and the beach below reduces the quality of nesting habitat, but there is a low potential for this species to nest within the study area.

Nesting Migratory Birds
The study area contains marginal ground-nesting habitat at the top of the bluffs, crevices and ledges on the bluff face, and some utility poles that could provide nesting habitat for passerines and other nesting native birds are protected by the MBTA or CFGC Section 3503. The nesting season generally extends from February through August in California but can vary based upon annual climatic conditions.

4.1.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitats Four sensitive natural communities were listed by CNDDB within five miles of the study area. These include northern maritime chaparral, serpentine bunchgrass, northern coastal salt marsh, and valley needlegrass grassland. None of these communities occur in the study area. Critical habitat for the federally threatened Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydrydas editha bayensis) is designated on San Bruno Mountain, 3.5 miles northeast of the study area (USFWS 2021a). Critical habitat for the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is located 1.5 miles southeast of the study area. Neither of these species has potential to occur within the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat.

4.1.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The western edge of the study area includes Waters of the United States (Pacific Ocean) as it extends from the mean high tide line (HTL) on the beach and at the base of the bluff where rock revetment has been placed.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
16 A seep was observed during the site visit at the top edge of the bluff within the study area, just above where the trail curves to the north for beach access (Figure 4). Soils at this location on the bluff face were observed to be wet during the site visit, despite lack of recent rain, with water moving slowly onto the trail below. The occurrence of yellow monkey flower, an obligate wetland species, marked a change in vegetation within the surrounding ice plant mat vegetation community on the bluff edge. Groundwater and surface street runoff flowing from adjacent developed areas to the east of the study area are likely sources for the seep. The seep in the study area would be considered a coastal wetland under the California Coastal Act due to its hydrology and dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and therefore, also qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). In addition, the seep is potentially under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

4.1.4 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated wildlife populations. To facilitate movement and dispersal, wildlife movement corridors need to provide suitable habitat for species as they pass through or temporarily shelter within the corridor area. The habitat need not be similar to the habitat patches it is connecting but should still provide those primary constituent elements (i.e., space for individual and population growth, breeding, foraging, and shelter) necessary for the species’ survival.

The project site is located in an area where habitat has been disturbed by erosion, construction, and anthropogenic use. The eastern edge of the project site is developed and adjacent to additional developed areas, with Highway 1 located 400 feet to the east. The narrow undeveloped portion of the study area contains disturbed barren areas with a vegetation community dominated by nonnative iceplant. The coastal bluff is mostly barren and heavily eroded. All accessible parts of the study area, including the beach and tops of the bluff, are frequented by humans and dogs for recreational use. Although the study area includes narrow undeveloped coastal lands open space that could potentially provide essential elements of species habitat requirements to support migratory or movement corridors. However, the study area’s location within a developed area, and the significant human presence and disturbance within the study area indicate that the terrestrial component of the project site is not likely to be used as a migratory or dispersal corridor for land based species. Avian species are likely to traverse the project site regularly because of its coastal location and proximity to natural areas, such as Golden Gate National Recreation Area lands.

However, the activities of the project are not expected to impede regional wildlife movement as the study area is not well connected to nearby natural areas with greater habitat value. The project activities will not obstruct species moving through adjacent coastal waters.

4.1.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances The City of Pacifica General Plan and the accompanying Local Coastal Land Use Plan identifies sensitive habitats and biological resources, with particular attention paid to California Coastal Act designations of ESHA. Neither plan identifies particular sensitive resources within the study area, aside from its location within the Coastal Zone.

4.1.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
No habitat conservation plans are involved in the project. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 17

4.2 Marine

4.2.1 Special-Status Species
For the purpose of this report, special-status species are defined as those previously presented in Section 2.1.1. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(a), also directs that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. Therefore, species included in the World Conservation Union’s Red List of Vulnerable Species (IUCN), protected under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), protected by the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) are also listed here.

Based on the database and literature review, 20 special-status marine species are known or have the potential to occur within the project area (Appendices D & E). Of these 20 species, two have a moderate potential to occur, six have a low potential, and 12 are not expected to occur based on the criteria presented above in Section 4. The species that can be reasonably anticipated to occur were determined based on the published ranges of the species, and the type, extent, and condition of habitat available at the site including the extent of the work area. Accordingly, no special-status marine species were observed within the study area during the survey effort.

Special-status species or other protected species with moderate potential to occur within or adjacent to the project area but could be potentially affected, are discussed below, and, if applicable evaluated under Section 5. Species with a low potential to occur are only included if further discussion is warranted.

Special-Status Invertebrates and Fishes
Black abalone is a federally endangered species with a low potential to occur within the study area.

Black abalone inhabit suitable rocky substrate from the high intertidal zone to 6 m depth but are most abundant in the mid-low intertidal. Their current range is from about Point Arena in northern California to Southern Baja California (MARINe) but are considered rare north of San Francisco. No rocky substrate appears to exist in the mid-low intertidal zone preferred by abalone. No abalone or other invertebrates were observed on rip rap, although at the southwest corner of the site, where the rip rap is closer to the water, could potentially provide suitable substrate for black abalone.

Subtidal substrate adjacent to the study area is too fine to provide suitable substrate.

Coho salmon, Central California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), is federally and state listed as endangered with a low potential to occur within the study area. Similar to other salmonids, coho salmon utilize both freshwater and marine habitats to complete all life stages. Coho, or ‘silver’ salmon, once thrived in San Pedro Creek and other regional streams. San Pedro Creek, 0.25-mile south of the study area, is a small stream where coho salmon spawn (NMFS 2012, Williams et al. 2016). Based on the absence of suitable habitat along the shoreline and in the upper intertidal zone, there is no potentially suitable habitat for adult coho salmon to forage and travel to potential spawning habitat within the study area.

Steelhead occurring in San Francisco Bay and surrounding coastal environments are part of the Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Steelhead of the Central California Coast DPS is a federally threatened species and state Species of Special Concern with a low potential to occur within the study area. Steelhead travel between freshwater habitat to marine to complete all life stages. This special-status species spawns in gravel-bottomed, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
18 rivers and streams, and then migrates to the ocean for the adult life stage. Adults migrate from their marine environment back into the freshwater streams and rivers of their birth in order to mate and spawn.

Green Sturgeon in the region are part of the southern DPS and are federally threatened and a state Species of Special Concern with a low potential to occur within the study area. The southern DPS of green sturgeon occupies coastal bays and estuaries from Monterey Bay, California, to Puget Sound, Washington. Critical habitat has been designated to include: Coastal U.S. marine waters within 60 fathoms depth from Monterey Bay, California (including Monterey Bay), north to Cape Flattery, Washington, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington, to its United States boundary.

Additionally, several large watersheds flowing into San Francisco Bay and north are also individually included.

Longfin smelt, a federal candidate and State-threatened species, is an anadromous pelagic estuarine fish with a low potential to occur within the study area. Their range extends from the San Francisco Bay-Delta in California northward to the Cook Inlet in Alaska. Historically they spawned in creeks south of the study area and have been detected in waters outside of the Golden Gate as recently as 2002 (Garland 2017). They depend on both fresh and marine waters for spawning and rearing.

Special-Status Marine Mammals
The harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) both have a moderate potential to occur within the study area. Both the harbor seal and California sea lion live in temperate coastal habitats along the coast of California. The beach within the study area provides a potential haul out location; however, the beach is not isolated or protected from disturbance. The study area is not considered a rookery or regular haul out site. California sea lions occur throughout San Francisco Bay and along the coast and have significant haul out locations at protected locations.

The Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) is a federally threatened and MMPA protected species. Their breeding grounds are almost entirely on Guadalupe Island, off the Pacific coast of Mexico but have been documented traveling great distances from their breeding grounds. The species has a low potential to occur within the study are due to the species being rarely documented along the west coast of the United States. On occasion adult pup on San Miguel Island and in recent years pup strandings have been documented along California beaches.

The Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) is a federally threatened and MMPA protected species. Historically the species ranged from Japan to Baja, Mexico but today Southern sea otters occur along the California mainland coastline from San Mateo County to Santa Barbara County, California, and San Nicolas Island, Ventura County. Southern sea otters are among the smallest of marine mammals and unlike most other marine mammals, they have little subcutaneous fat, relying instead on their clean, dense, water resistant fur for insulation against the cold. Depending on factors such as habitat, sex, reproductive status, and per-capita prey availability, obtaining sufficient quantities of food requires that sea otters spend 20-50 percent of the day foraging (USFWS 2019).

Sea otters are not expected to occur within the study area because they are not known to occur north of Ano Nuevo State Beach, which is 37 miles south of the project site.

Many marine mammal species occur in the offshore waters of Pacifica. The Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), is a State fully protected species and is not expected to occur within the study area. They breed in the Channel Islands and give birth from December to March. Individuals may occur on land preferably on sandy or rocky areas along the coastline. A majority of their life is spent in the water diving and foraging for food. Northern elephant seals dive almost continuously 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 19
during the 6 to 8 months they spend at sea. They dive to depths of 300-800 meters and dives can last up to 2 hours (NOAA 2019c).

Cetaceans include a broad and diverse group of whales and dolphins considered primarily occupying offshore and near coastal waters. Many species are documented to actively forage and transit offshore from Pacifica annually. Considering the study area’s limited marine habitat, none of the cetacean species are expected to occur in the study area, although they may be present in waters offshore, west of the study area. Cetacean species considered and evaluated include the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), coastal bottle nose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis).

Other Protected Species (Sea Turtles)
Loggerhead, Green, Leatherback, and Olive Ridley Sea Turtles The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) is divided into nine (9) DPSs, five of which are protected as federally endangered (FE), and four of which are federally threatened (FT). The FE DPS and are not expected to occur within the study area. The species are circumglobal and occur throughout temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is divided into 11 DPSs, three of which are protected as FE, and eight of which are protected as FT. The FE DPS species is not expected to occur within the study area. The species primarily nests in the Hawaiian Islands, U.S. Pacific Island territories, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the East Coast of Florida.

The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is listed as FE throughout its range, with one Northwest Atlantic DPS that is a candidate for listing. The species is not expected occur within the study area. Pacific leatherback populations are most at-risk for extinction due to continuing decline.

In the Eastern Pacific, the species primarily nests in Mexico and Costa Rica. The species undertakes long migrations between breeding and feeding areas and spend most of their lives in the ocean.

They feed on soft-bodied open-ocean pretty such as jellyfish and salps. Western Pacific leatherbacks feed off the Pacific Coast of North American and migrate across the Pacific for nesting. The study area includes designated critical habitat for this species.

The Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) is divided into two DPS, with the Mexico’s Pacific coast breeding DPS listed as FE and all other populations listed as FT. The FE species is not expected to occur within the study area. The species occurs throughout the Pacific Islands and the southeast and west coasts. The species nests in large groups that gather ashore all at once, which makes them vulnerable to harvesting.

4.2.2 Sensitive Marine Communities and Critical Habitats The guiding policies for the protection of marine habitats in the coastal zone are set forth in the Coastal Act which states; marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. The following ESHA or critical habitats overlap with or are adjacent to the study area. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
20 Marine Mammal Hauling Grounds
No marine mammal species are documented to maintain rookeries or haul-outs in the vicinity of the study area. California sea lions and harbor seals opportunistically utilize beaches such as the one present within the study area as hauling grounds during low tide. Significant marine mammal rookeries are located north and south of the study area on the San Mateo coast. Harbor seals tend to habituate to repetitive and consistent levels of activity occurring at facilities, along roads or railways. However, haul out Harbor seals are not tolerant of human or dog activity along the beach, bluffs, or in the water, particularly when this activity is sudden or noisy.

Essential Fish Habitat
The study area is located within designated EFH for three groups of managed species including Coho and Chinook Salmon, Groundfish, and Coastal pelagic species (NMFS 2021). The study area has potential to support at least one life stage of these economically important species included in their perspective fishery management plans (FMP). Species covered under FMPs for Salmon, Groundfish, and Coastal pelagics include but are not limited to species such as Coho salmon, steelhead trout, cabezon (Scorpanenichthys marmoratus), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), black rockfish (Sebastes melanops), Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicas), and jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus). Coastal nearshore areas are identified as being important for one or multiple life stages (adult, juvenile, larva and egg) of a broad range species within the listed FMPs.

Black Abalone Critical Habitat
The study are lies within black abalone critical habitat that covers 242 square miles (390 square kilometers) of rocky habitat along the California coastline from the mean high water line down to 20 feet (6 meters). The critical habitat designation area generally spans from Del Mar Landing in northern Sonoma County down to the entrance to Los Angeles Harbor, including all of the offshore islands (NOAA 2019b). Rip rap in the study area and adjacent coastline is marginally suitable black abalone critical habitat though the presence of animals has not been documented recently.

Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat
Green Sturgeon designated critical habitat for the threatened Southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon (Southern DPS of green sturgeon) includes Coastal U.S. marine waters within 60 fathoms depth from Monterey Bay, California (including Monterey Bay), north to Cape Flattery, Washington, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington, to its United States Boarder (NOAA 2019c). The fish occupy coastal waters from southern California to Alaska and are known to aggregate in the Columbia River estuary, Washington estuaries, and Oregon estuaries (such as Winchester Bay) in the spring to late summer months. Green sturgeons spend a large portion of their lives in coastal marine waters as subadults and adults. Subadult male and female green sturgeon spend at least approximately 6 and 10 years at sea, respectively, before reaching reproductive maturity and returning to freshwater to spawn. Green sturgeon typically feeds on soft bottom benthic infauna, macroinvertebrates and some fish species. Green sturgeon has the potential to move through nearshore habitat adjacent to the study area although the hard substrate present in adjacent shallow nearshore habitat is not considered optimal foraging habitat for green sturgeon.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 21
Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat
Leatherback sea turtle designated critical habitat in California includes 16,910 square miles along the coast from Point Arena to Point Arguello east of the 3,000-meter depth contour. This sea turtle nests on tropical and subtropical beaches but will forage in waters along the California coast. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
22 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
The criteria used to evaluate potential project-related impacts to biological resources are presented in Section 2.1. This section discusses the possible adverse impacts to biological resources that may occur from implementation of the project and includes recommended avoidance and minimization measures to ensure significant impacts are avoided.
▪ For each impact identified in this report, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in one of the following categories:
▪ No impact would result when no adverse change in the environment is expected; no mitigation would be required.
▪ A beneficial impact would result when the proposed Project would have a positive effect on the natural or human environment and no mitigation would be required (Class IV). ▪ A less-than-significant impact would not cause a substantial change in the environment, although an adverse change in the environment may occur; only compliance with standard regulatory conditions would be required (Class III).
▪ A significant (but mitigable) impact would have a substantial adverse impact on the environment but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through successful implementation of identified mitigation measures (Class II). ▪ A significant unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level (Class I).

5.1 Special-Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The terrestrial portion of the project site includes developed/disturbed areas where equipment and materials will likely be staged. A portion of the bluff face would be altered through potential armoring. Construction activities may cause direct impacts to vegetation or to potential wildlife or plant habitat within the study area. Sound travels farther underwater: if in-water work is proposed during high-tides, the noise of construction could have a direct effect on special-status species sensitive hearing, described subsequently in more detail.

No trees are present in the project site or study area that represent potential nesting habitat for larger birds or raptors. The study area does include a cliff face with ledges and crevices that could be used by American peregrine falcon or passerines for nesting. The presence and noise of construction equipment could disrupt nesting birds protected under CFGC, if nesting birds are present in or adjacent to the project site. The project could adversely affect nesting birds and/or peregrine falcon if construction occurred while they are present primarily through indirect behavioral disturbance.

Avoidance Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be incorporated into construction standards to ensure 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 23
avoidance of impacts to American peregrine falcon or other nesting birds and to avoid take or violations of CFGC.

No special-status marine species were observed or detected during the reconnaissance surveys.

Special-status marine species were determined to occur within the study area based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the study are. The following special-status species were identified as having a moderate potential for occurrence within the study area.

The study area contains habitat that supports resident, foraging and transiting special status marine mammals, including both pinnipeds and cetaceans protected under the MMPA. Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift, which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al. 1999). A permanent threshold shift (PTS) is said to occur when the loss of hearing sensitivity is unrecoverable and a temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a short-term shift in an animal’s auditory threshold. Noise can also cause other forms of disturbance when marine mammals alter their normal patterns of behavior to move away from the source. The waters adjacent to the study area are relatively shallow (approximately 35 feet) reducing the potential for the cetaceans (e.g., grey whale) and migratory pinnipeds (e.g., Northern elephant seals) to occur. The California sea lion and harbor seal have a moderate potential to occur. Additionally, harbor seals and California sea lion may use the shoreline as a haul out. The project could adversely affect marine mammals if construction occurred while they are present primarily through indirect behavioral disturbance.

Avoidance Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would be incorporated into construction standard practices for compliance with the MMPA to ensure that marine mammals are not disturbed, thereby avoiding adverse effects to marine mammals.

Black abalone have a low potential to occur on rip rap placed within the study area. If project activities are anticipated to directly impact rip rap that functions as rocky intertidal, direct impacts may occur. Rocky intertidal habitat is considered critical habitat for black abalone. Direct impacts to rock substrate could occur during construction. The implementation of avoidance measure BIO-5 will ensure avoidance of direct and indirect effects to this species.

Sea turtles, particularly the green sea turtle, have a low potential to occur within offshore areas adjacent to the study area. No project activities are anticipated to directly impact sea turtles or have an adverse change to their environment.

BIO-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to initiation of all construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status biological resources that may occur in the study area. This training will include information about California red-legged frog, Black abalone, Harbor seal, California sea lion and nesting birds as well as other special-status species potentially occurring in the study area.

The specifics of this program shall include identification of special-status species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of special-status resources, and review of the limits of construction and measures required to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employees, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
24 documenting they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them.

The crew foreman shall be responsible for ensuring crew members adhere to the guidelines and restrictions designed to avoid impacts to special-status species.

BIO-2 Nesting Bird Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance To avoid impacts to potential nesting peregrine falcon or other nesting birds project activities should occur outside the breeding and nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If project activities must begin within the nesting season, then no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of project activities, a nesting bird pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint, plus a 100-foot buffer. If no active nests are observed, no further action would be required.

Pre-construction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist during the time of day when birds are most active and should be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds on the project site and within the designated buffer. A report of the nesting bird surveys results, should be submitted to Moffat & Nichol for review and approval prior to clearance for mobilizing equipment. If nests are found, their locations should be flagged (if possible), recorded with the use of a GPS unit, and mapped onto an aerial photograph of the project site at a scale no less than 1” = 200’. Avoidance buffers should be established around active nests.

Depending upon the species, suitable minimum buffers may be 50 feet for non-raptor species and 300 feet for raptor species.

Appropriate buffers should be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist. If active nests are present, all project work should be conducted outside the established avoidance buffer zone from the nest until it is no longer active. No staging of large equipment should occur within the avoidance buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that breeding/nesting is complete and all the young have fledged. If buffer zones are determined to be infeasible, a qualified biological monitor should be on site to monitor project activities within the avoidance buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted. Nesting bird surveys are not required for project activities that occur between September 1 and January 31.

BIO-3 Avoidance Measures for Marine Mammals and Cetaceans To minimize indirect project impacts to marine mammals including harbor seals, California sea lions, Southern sea otters, whales, dolphins, or other pinniped species marine mammal monitoring shall be conducted during any in-water construction activities that are expected to generate continuous (non-impulsive) sound sources greater than 120 dB root mean square (RMS) such as drilling or sawing or non-continuous (impulsive) sound sources greater than 153 dB SELcum (jack hammering or pile driving). Additionally, if haul out pinnipeds are within 100 feet of in-water construction area no water construction may occur until the animals voluntarily leave the area.

BIO-4 Exclusion Zones and Shutdown Measures
Exclusion zones will be based on the areas potentially exposed to sound levels equal to or exceeding those expected to cause level B Behavioral take of marine mammal species likely to occur in the project area. The exclusion zone will be 150 feet to account for impulsive sounds up to 170 dB RMS at source (10 meters). The sound source level is based on a conservative estimate of the impulsive sound level potentially generated from an underwater rock hammer and assumes typically applied spreading loss (15 log R). If marine mammals are observed approaching or within the exclusion zone 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 25
in-water construction activates will be stopped by the monitor until the animals have left the area or have not been resighted for 15 minutes. Implementation of exclusion zones and shutdown measures will reduce potential impacts to protect marine mammals to less than significant.

BIO-5 Avoidance Measures for Black Abalone
To minimize direct or indirect project impacts to black abalone critical habitat such as rocky intertidal and shallow subtidal rocky reefs the work area will be surveyed by a qualified biologist prior to in-water construction activities. The survey area and limits of in-water construction will be clearly marked using colored flagging and a qualified biologist assigned to observe in-water construction activities at all times. The project must ensure 100% avoidance of black abalone at all times.

5.2 Sensitive Plant Communities
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

No impacts will occur to any sensitive plant communities or riparian habitat.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

The project is likely to have temporary or permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. (Pacific Ocean).

Depending on the final project design, if construction activities occur west of the High Tide Line (HTL), the City of Pacifica would be required to obtain regulatory permits from the USACE as well as a lease from the State Lands Commission. If in-water work is planned, construction standards would be employed to avoid changes to physical or chemical properties of the ocean water quality or have affect to biological populations that may cause upper trophic level impacts to fish, marine mammals, seabirds, or other species. Therefore, the indirect impacts on jurisdictional waters, including EFH, are determined to be less than significant.

The seep, a potential California Coastal Commission wetland that occurs in the study area, is located on the bluff face along the trail that leads from the top of the bluff to the beach. Avoidance of the seep will be included in project design. Avoidance Measure BIO-6 would be incorporated into construction standards to ensure avoidance of impacts to the coastal wetland.

BIO-6 Avoidance Measures for Coastal Wetland
To avoid direct or indirect project impacts to coastal wetland, following approval of project design by the City of Pacifica and on the morning prior to the start of construction if not before, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey to ensure that the project design has incorporated appropriate wetland avoidance measures. The survey area and limits of construction will be clearly 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
26 marked by the contractor to avoid impacts to the seep. If impacts to the wetland cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will develop a restoration and mitigation plan with guidance from the California Coastal Commission and potentially the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

5.4 Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

Direct impacts to wildlife movement or EFH as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. The completed project will not impede the movement of wildlife through the region nor alter EFH habitat or water quality to any level of significance. Direct and indirect impacts from the project are proposed to be localized and temporary. In terms of terrestrial work, no nocturnal noise generating activities are proposed. Marine construction activities are not expected to cause noise above disturbance thresholds and BIO-3 and BIO-4 are recommended for compliance with the MMPA to ensure that marine mammals are not disturbed, thereby reducing indirect effects to less than significant. The indirect wildlife movement impacts terrestrial species would be less than significant. Due to the absence of potential impacts, no measures are recommended. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any fish or wildlife species or with any wildlife corridors of impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

5.5 Local Policies and Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
The project will not have impacts on any sensitive habitats within the Coastal Zone.

5.6 Adopted or Approved Plans
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan occurs in the area of the project site. The project would have no impacts under CEQA.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance
Biological Resources Assessment 27
6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This Biological Resources Assessment has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limited also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile wildlife species could occupy the site on a transient basis or re-establish populations in the future. Our field studies were based on current industry practices, which change over time and may not be applicable in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, review of CNDDB RareFind5, and specified historical and literature sources. Standard data sources relied upon during the completion of this report, such as the CNDDB, may vary with regard to accuracy and completeness. In particular, the CNDDB is compiled from research and observations reported to CDFW that may or may not have been the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Although Rincon believes the data sources are reasonably reliable, Rincon cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the data sources it has used. Additionally, pursuant to our contract, the data sources reviewed included only those that are practically reviewable without the need for extraordinary research and analysis. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
28 7 References
Calflora. 2021. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation.

Berkeley, CA. Updated online and accessed via: www.calflora.org.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. Accessed April 2021.
_____. 2021b. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. April 2021.
_____. 2021c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved April 2021 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
_____. 2021d. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. April 2021.

California Native Plant Society. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.8. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Baldwin , B.G. (Ed.), D.H. Goldman (Ed.), D. J. Keil (Ed.), R. Patterson (Ed.), T. J. Rosatti (Ed.), D. H.

Wilken (Ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Garland, R. S. 2017. Historic and contemporary distribution of Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) along the California coast. California Fish and Game 103(3):96-117.

Google Earth Pro. 2021. Historical Imagery.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Heritage Program. 156 pgs.

Kastak, David & J. Schusterman, Ronald & Southall, Brandon & J. Reichmuth, Colleen. (1999).

Underwater temporary threshold shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinniped. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 106. 1142-8. 10.1121/1.427122.

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List:
2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1–17. Published 28 April 2016.

Multi Agency Rocky Intertidal Network (MARINe). 2021. Explore the Data. Available online from https://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Final Recovery Plan for Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. NMFS, Southwest Region, Santa Rosa, California.
_____. 2017. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2015. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-170, 247p
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021a. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/ essential-fish-habitat-mapper (accessed April 2021).
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) References
Biological Resources Assessment 29
_____. 2021b. Black Abalone Critical Habitat Mapper.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/black-abalone-critical-habitat-map (accessed April 2021).
_____. 2021c. Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat.
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/green_sturgeon/grn_sturg_cr itical_habitat.html
_____. 2021d. California Species List Tools.
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/california_species_list_tools. html
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Houghton-Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts.

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021a. Web Soil Survey. Accessed April 2021. Soil Survey Area: San Francisco and East San Mateo County, California. Soil Survey Data: Version 8, August 27, 2009. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. _____. 2021b. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed via: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
_____. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. January 2000.
_____. 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
_____. 2021b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/criticalhabitat.html United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. National Hydrography Dataset. Accessed through the National Map at http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Climate of California. Available at:
www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php.

Williams, T.H., B.C. Spence, D.A. Boughton, R.C. Johnson, L.G. Grozier, N.J. Mantua, M.R. O’Farrell, and S.T. Lindley. (2016). Viability assessment for Pacific Salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-564
Zeiner, D., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer (May 1988). California’s Wildlife. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, Volumes I, II, & III. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
308 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author ▪ Anastasia Ennis, Associate Biologist
Technical Review ▪ Craig Lawrence, Senior Biologist ▪ Colby Boggs, Principal/Senior Ecologist Graphics ▪ Audrey Brown, GIS Analyst
Production ▪ Debra Jane Sel
tzer, Lead Formatting Specialist
Field Reconnaissance Survey ▪ Anastasia Ennis, Associate Biologist 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Appendix A
Regulatory Setting
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-1
Regulatory Setting
Special-status habitats are vegetation types, associations, or sub-associations that support concentrations of special-status plant or animal species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife.

Listed species are those taxa that are formally listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or as endangered, threatened, or rare (for plants only) by the State of California (i.e., California Fish and Game Commission), pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act or the California Native Plant Protection Act. Some species are considered rare (but not formally listed) by resource agencies, organizations with biological interests/expertise (e.g., Audubon Society, CNPS, The Wildlife Society), and the scientific community.

The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. A number of federal and state statutes provide a regulatory structure that guides the protection of biological resources. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of biological resources within the project site include:
▪ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands and other waters of the United States); ▪ San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State); ▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federally listed species and migratory birds); ▪ California Department Fish and Wildlife (riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state-listed species; Species of Special Concern; nesting birds);
▪ City of Pacifica
Terrestrial and Marine
▪ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
▪ Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
▪ California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
▪ California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
▪ California Coastal Act
▪ Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
▪ City of Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan Terrestrial
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
▪ The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Marine
▪ Endangered Species Act
▪ Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-2
▪ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ▪ Marine Mammal Protection Act
▪ Coastal Zone Management Act
▪ National Marine Sanctuaries Act
▪ National Invasive Species Act
▪ Marine Life Protection Act
▪ Marine Life Management Act
▪ California Ocean Plan
▪ Marine Invasive Species Act
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has authority to regulate activities that could discharge fill of material into wetlands or other “waters of the United States.” Perennial and intermittent creeks are considered waters of the United States if they are hydrologically connected to other jurisdictional waters (typically a navigable water). The USACE also implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order 11990, which is intended to result in no net loss of wetland value or acres. In achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, the USACE seeks to avoid adverse impacts and offset unavoidable adverse impacts on existing aquatic resources. Any fill of wetlands that are hydrologically connected to jurisdictional waters would require a permit from the USACE prior to the start of work. Typically, when a project involves impacts to waters of the United States, the goal of no net loss of wetland acres or values is met through avoidance and minimization to the extent practicable, followed by compensatory mitigation involving creation or enhancement of similar habitats.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. The SWRCB has issued general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) regarding discharges to “isolated” waters of the State (Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004- DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be Outside of Federal Jurisdiction). The RWQCB administers actions under this general order for isolated waters not subject to federal jurisdiction, and is also responsible for the issuance of water quality certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for waters subject to federal jurisdiction.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS implements the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703- 711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668). The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 USC § 153 et seq.). Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species.

Projects that would result in “take” of any federally threatened or endangered species are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the FESA, depending on the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-3
involvement by the federal government in permitting and/or funding of the project. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the FESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is restricted to direct mortality of a listed species and the law does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated.

The CDFW also enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibits take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided.

California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level office to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

CDFW administers these requirements.

Species of Special Concern (SSC) is a category used by the CDFW for those species which are considered to be indicators of regional habitat changes or are considered to be potential future protected species. Species of Special Concern do not have any special legal status except that which may be afforded by the Fish and Game Code as noted above. The SSC category is intended by the CDFW for use as a management tool to include these species in special consideration when decisions are made concerning the development of natural lands. The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and associated riparian vegetation, when present, also fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code (Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements) gives the CDFW regulatory authority over activities that divert, obstruct, or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any river, stream or lake. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-4
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act, is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a “project.” A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Service has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales and anadromous fish such as salmon.

Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2116) sets forth procedures by which individuals, organizations, or the Department can submit petitions to the Fish and Game Commission requesting that a species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal be added to, deleted from, or changed in status on the State lists of rare, threatened or endangered species.

The factors that contribute to determining the need to list a species include the present or threatened modification or destruction of habitat, competition, predation, disease, overexploitation by collectors, or other natural occurrences or human-related activities. Procedures governing the submission and review of petitions for listing, uplisting, downlisting, and delisting of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals are described in Section 670.1, Title 14, California Code of Regulations.

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. “Clean Water Act” became the Act’s common name with amendments in 1972.

Under the CWA, EPA has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. EPA has also developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-5
The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or manmade ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.

California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
Enacted in 1957, many of the Fish and Game Code provisions are derived from the 1947 former Fish and Game Code, as well as older statutes under the former Penal and Political Codes originally enacted in 1872. The new statutes relating to more modern topics, such as endangered specifies, were added later. This is a fluid code amending and adjusting older California game laws, for example, to comply with newer protected species lists and regulations.

California Coastal Act
In October 1972, the United States Congress passed Title 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464, which established a federal coastal zone management policy and created a federal coastal zone. By that legislation, the Congress declared a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone in order to balance the nation’s natural, environmental and aesthetic resource needs with commercial-economic growth. The Congress found and declared that it was a national policy “to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as to the need for economic development (16 U.S.C. 1452b). As a result of that federal enactment, coastal states were provided a policy and source of funding for the implementation of federal goals.

The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20) was a temporary measure passed by the voters of the state as a ballot initiative. It set up temporary regional Coastal Commissions with permit authority and a directive to prepare a comprehensive coastal plan. The coastal commissions under Proposition 20 lacked the authority to implement the Coastal Plan but were required to submit the Plan to the legislature for “adoption and implementation.” The California Coastal Act of 1976 is the permanent enacting law approved by the State legislature.

The Coastal Act established a different set of policies, a different boundary line, and different permitting procedures than Proposition 20. Further, it provides for the transfer of permitting authority, with certain limitations reserved for the State, to local governments through adoption and certification of Local Coastal Programs (LCP) by the Coastal Commission.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-6
▪ That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected, ▪ That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason, and
▪ That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation.

The Porter-Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Boards (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews Regional Water Boards decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use of surface water. The Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards have numerous NPS-related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts*, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid Federal permit. Migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712).

The MBTA implements Conventions between the United States and four countries (Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia) for the protection of migratory birds.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts*, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part*, nest, or egg thereof.” The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Section 9 of this Act, Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, prohibits the construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways of the U.S. without Congressional approval. Administration of section 9 has been delegated to the Coast Guard.

Structures authorized by State legislatures may be built if the affected navigable waters are totally within one State, provided that the plan is approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of Army (33 U.S.C. 401).

Under section 10 of the Act, the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other structures is prohibited without Congressional approval, and excavation or fill within navigable waters requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-7
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) established:
▪ A fishery conservation zone between the territorial seas of the United States and 200 nautical miles offshore;
▪ An exclusive U.S. fishery management authority over fish within the fishery conservation zone (excluding highly migratory species);
▪ Regulations for foreign fishing within the fishery conservation zone through international fishery agreements, permits, and import prohibitions; and
▪ National standards for fishery conservation and management and eight regional fishery management councils to apply those national standards in fishery management plans.

Congress enacted the 1996 amendments to the Act, known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) (P.L. 104-297), to address the substantially reduced fish stocks that declined as a result of direct and indirect habitat loss. The SFA requires that BOEM and other agencies consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service concerning actions that may adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

In 2007, President Bush signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. It mandates the use of annual catch limits and accountability measures to end overfishing, provides for fishery management by a limited access program, and calls for increased international cooperation.

Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted on October 21, 1972. All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the “take” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S.

Jurisdiction for MMPA is shared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Service’s Branch of Permits is responsible for issuing take permits when exceptions are made to MMPA.

Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), passed in 1972 and administered by NOAA, provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes. The goal is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.”
The CZMA outlines three national programs, the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). The National Coastal Zone Management Program aims to balance competing land and water issues through state and territorial coastal management programs, the reserves serve as field laboratories that provide a greater understanding of estuaries and how humans impact them, and CELCP provides matching funds to state and local governments to purchase threatened coastal and estuarine lands or obtain conservation easements.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-8
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and protect areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational or esthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries.

Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect marine resources, such as coral reefs, sunken historical vessels or unique habitats.

National Invasive Species Act
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, was enacted to prevent and control infestations of the coastal inland waters of the United States by the zebra mussel and other nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. The Act was also enacted to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program and for other purposes. The Act defines “nonindigenous species” as “any species or other viable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including any such organisms transferred from one country into another.” “Aquatic nuisance species” is defined as “a nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural or recreational activities dependent on such waters.”
Marine Life Protection Act
The Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 directs the state to redesign California’s system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to function as a network in order to: increase coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state’s marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems subject to minimal human disturbance. Six goals guided the development of MPAs in the MLPA planning process:
▪ Protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function and integrity of marine ecosystems.
▪ Help sustain, conserve and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value, and rebuild those that are depleted.
▪ Improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance, and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity.
▪ Protect marine natural heritage, including protection of representative and unique marine life habitats in CA waters for their intrinsic values.
▪ Ensure California’s MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures and adequate enforcement and are based on sound scientific guidelines. ▪ Ensure the State’s MPAs are designed and managed, to the extent possible, as a network.

To help achieve these goals, three MPA designations (state marine reserves, state marine parks and state marine conservation areas), one marine managed area (state marine recreational management area) and special closures were used in the MPA planning process. For the purposes of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-9
MPA planning, a public-private partnership commonly referred to as the MLPA Initiative was established, and the state was split into five distinct regions (four coastal and the San Francisco Bay) each of which had its own MPA planning process. All four coastal regions have completed these individual planning processes. As a result, the coastal portion of California’s MPA network is now in effect statewide. Options for a planning process in the fifth and final region, the San Francisco Bay, have been developed for consideration at a future date.

Marine Life Management Act
The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA), which became law on January 1, 1999, established a fishery management system for four groups of fisheries:
▪ The nearshore finfish fishery and the white seabass fishery. ▪ Emerging fisheries - new and growing fisheries that are not currently subject to specific regulation.
▪ Those fisheries for which the Fish and Game Commission held some management authority before January 1, 1999. Future regulations affecting these fisheries will need to conform to the MLMA.
▪ Those commercial fisheries for which there is no statutory delegation of authority to the Commission and Department. (In the case of these fisheries, CDFW may prepare, and the Commission may adopt, a fishery management plan, but that plan cannot be implemented without a further delegation of authority through the legislative process.) Borrowing from experience with federal fishery management law, the MLMA initiated a comprehensive approach to fisheries management. The primary vehicle for this approach is the development of fishery management plans for all of the State’s major recreational and commercial fisheries.

California Ocean Plan
Ocean standards protect the beneficial uses of California’s marine waters through establishing water quality objectives and implementation provisions in statewide water quality control plans and polices. Ocean standards plans and policies include: the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan); the Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (California Thermal Plan); and the Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant cooling (Once-Through Cooling Policy).

The Ocean Standards Unit is responsible for developing and updating the statewide plans and policies involving marine waters, and providing scientific support and inter-agency coordination regarding marine pollution and resource management.

Marine Invasive Species Act
The Marine Invasive Species Program began in 1999 with the passage of California’s Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act, which addressed the threat of species introductions from vessels arriving at California’s ports. In 2003, the Marine Invasive Species Act was passed, reauthorizing and expanding the 1999 Act. Subsequent amendments to the Act and additional legislation further expanded the Program’s scope. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-10
The Marine Invasive Species Program seeks to reduce the risk of aquatic nonindigenous species introduction into California’s waters through:
▪ The development, implementation, and enforcement of vessel biofouling and vessel ballast water management strategies and polices.
▪ The use of best available technology and peer reviewed science. ▪ Partnerships with stakeholders to improve awareness of invasive species issues and assess program efficacy.

City of Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan The Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) were published in 2014. The General Plan and LCLUP aim to ensure that the goals of the California Coastal Act are furthered by land use actions and policies that affect land within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Commission. The City’s zoning code includes a Coastal Zone Combining District, with development guidance based on goals set forth by the Coastal Act, which include public access to the shoreline and protection of the coastal environment. The following policies in the General Plan and LCLUP are relevant to the proposed project:

CO-G-1 Water Quality. Support the improvement of Pacifica’s water quality, including both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration.

LU-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special-status species.

CO-G-8 Coastal Environment and Special-Status Communities. Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and special-status communities, particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs. Special-status communities in the Coastal Zone are considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

CO-I-11 Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect other potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), High Value or High Habitat Value areas, and Wildlife Movement Corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values.

CO-I-12 Protect Water Quality through Best Management Practices. Continue to require the use of BMPs to reduce water quality impacts from construction and development. Measures include:
▪ Site Design and Source Control. Ensure that all new development incorporates site design and source control BMPs into the project design in order to preserve the infiltration, purification, and retention functions of each site’s natural drainage systems, and to prevent or minimize the runoff of pollutants, sediments, waste, and pathogens from the site.
▪ Construction Pollution Control. Require all construction projects to adopt measures to minimize erosion and runoff of pollutants and sediments from construction-related activities, and to limit activities that result in the disturbance of land or natural vegetation. Construction projects will be 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-11
required to use appropriate erosion prevention techniques, sediment control measures, and best management practices in accordance with City Specifications and General Conditions of Approval and the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.
▪ Treatment Control. Require that new development implement treatment control BMPs (or structural treatment BMPs) where the combination of site design and source control BMPs is not sufficient to protect water quality and comply with applicable water quality permits. Stormwater treatment systems must meet the numeric sizing criteria established in the NPDES Permit and must be operated and maintained in compliance with the NPDES Permit.

CO-I-13 Infrastructure and Water Quality. Ensure that the design and construction of new infrastructure elements does not contribute to stream bank or hillside erosion or creek or wetland siltation, and incorporates site design and source control BMPs, construction phase BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize impacts to water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.

CO-I-28 Protection of Biological Resources with New Development. Protect sensitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures:

The City shall avoid development and/or buildout in critical habitat of special- status species.
▪ Pre-construction Plant and Wildlife Surveys. Project applicants shall engage a qualified biologist to conduct presence/absence biological surveys for sensitive plant and wildlife species prior to construction adjacent to or within identified special-status communities and other sensitive areas identified in Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan. If special-status species are identified, thequalified biologist shall consult with the CDFW and establish no-disturbance buffers around avian nests, bat roosts, and sensitive plants to avoid disturbance and direct impacts to these resources during construction. If no special-status species are detected during surveys, then construction-related activities may proceed. Nesting birds, in particular, are protected by two means; they receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and nesting raptors (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) are protected under the State Fish and Game Code, §3503.5. ▪ Require biological resource assessments be conducted prior to approvalfor any development within 300 feet of creeks, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas shown on Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan.
▪ Require on-site monitoring of biological resources by a qualified biologist throughout the duration of construction activity.
▪ Require compensatory mitigation by means of habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement; for the loss of any critical habitat and/or special-status communities.
▪ The City will coordinate with the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, CDFW, and RWQCB in providing developers with the best guidance to avoid impacts to special-status species and habitat areas including creeks, wetland features, woodlands, or other sensitive natural features.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-12
CO-I-30 Verification of ESHA. Prior to any proposed development in an ESHA or potential ESHA, require that a habitat survey be conducted by a qualified botanist or biologist. The habitat survey will verify whether the site is an ESHA, and document the extent of the sensitive resources, document potential negative impacts to the habitat, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Verification of an ESHA shall be based on the following considerations:
▪ Presence of natural communities identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (determined by a state rarity ranking of S1 to S3). ▪ Recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened or endangered under State or federal law.
▪ Recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species for which there is compelling evidence or rarity, such as a designation of 1B (rare or endangered in California or elsewhere) or 2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere) by the California Native Plant Society. ▪ Presence of coastal waterways.
▪ Integrity of the habitat and its connectivity to other natural areas.

CO-I-31 Management of ESHA. If the area qualifies as an ESHA under the California Coastal Act, the following regulations apply:
▪ No new development shall be allowed within primary habitat areas with the exception of resource-dependent uses that can be demonstrated to have no significant adverse impact.
▪ Buffer areas shall be established around all sensitive resources, providing a minimum of 100 feet, and varying as needed to account for feeding,breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements. New buildings in buffer areas shall be allowed only if there are no other feasible development areas on the parcel. ▪ 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 beminimized.
▪ Exterior lighting shall be minimized through the use of low-intensity fixtures and shielding and directed away from ESHA to have the lowest impact onwildlife.

CO-I-34 Habitat Preservation. Require a habitat survey be prepared by a qualified botanist or biologist for any development proposed for the following areas, as shown in Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan.
▪ Designated Critical Habitat for Endangered or ThreatenedSpecies; ▪ Potentially Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA); ▪ High Habitat Value/Threatened by Fragmentation;
▪ Wildlife Movement Corridor; and
▪ High Value/Further Analysis Needed Prior toDevelopment.

The survey will be used to determine the exact location of habitat areas and to recommend mitigation measures that minimize potential impacts. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-13
CO-I-36 Construction during Nesting Season. If site work or construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), then pre-construction breeding bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to any site disturbance to ensure that no nests will be disturbed or destroyed during Project implementation. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction activities, then the biologist shall create a no disturbance buffer of 250 feet around passerine nests and a 500-foot buffer around raptor nests. Work-free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the breeding season or until after the qualified biologist determines the young have fledged (usually late June through mid-July). Nests initiated during construction activities would be presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer zone around such nests is not necessary. However, nests shall be flagged, and construction activity shall avoid killing and/or injuring nesting birds.

CO-I-37 Pre-Construction Bat Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for special-status and nonlisted bat species will be performed by a qualified biologist if large trees (>4 ft. diameter at breast height) are to be removed or underutilized or vacant buildings are to be demolished. A no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be created around active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes CO-I-38 Protection of the California Red-Legged Frog During Construction and San Francisco Garter Snake during Construction. To minimize disturbance, require all grading activity within 100 feet of aquatic habitat shall be conducted during the dry season (May 1 and October 15) to protect California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. A qualified biologist shall conduct presence/absence surveys for California redlegged frog and San Francisco garter snake prior to construction in or adjacent to riparian areas, grasslands near ponds/wetlands, or other sensitive habitats. Any individuals identified shall be treated in consultation with USFWS. Construction shall follow accepted procedures for exclusion and avoidance of California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and their habitat. Additionally, the biologist shall supervise the installation of exclusion fencing along the boundaries of the work area, shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction workers, and shall be present during initial vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities.

CO-I-39 Invasive Plant Species. Prohibit the use of invasive plant species, such as pampas grass, adjacent to wetlands, riparian areas, or other sensitive habitats.

CO-I-41 Biological Productivity. Maintain—and where feasible, restore—the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, and lakes in order to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and to protect human health.

Techniques may include:
▪ Minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharge;
▪ Controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow;
▪ Encouraging wastewater reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats; and
▪ Minimizing alteration of naturalstreams.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
A-14
CO-I-42 Heritage Trees. Protect trees designated by the City Council as having special value, according to the terms of the Heritage Tree Ordinance.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Appendix B
Site Photographs
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Site Photographs
Biological Resources Assessment B-1
Photograph 1. View of coastal bluff, rock revetment, and beach within study area, facing south.

Photograph 2. View of beach and bluff face from path to beach within the study area, facing north. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
B-2
Photograph 3. View of rip rap at its westernmost extent on the beach within the study area, facing southwest.

Photograph 4. View of seep on bluff face within ice plant mat from the path to beach within the study area, facing north.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment B-3
Photograph 5. View of ice plant mat and developed/disturbed area at top of coastal bluff within the study area, facing north.

Photograph 6. View of developed/disturbed area with ice plant mat visible at edge of coastal bluff within the study area, facing south.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
B-4
Photograph 7. View of developed/disturbed area along Esplanade Avenue within the study area, facing northwest.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Appendix C
Floral and Faunal Compendium
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Floral and Faunal Compendium
Biological Resources Assessment C-1
Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area on April 22, 2021 Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Shrubs
Malva arborea Tree mallow None Introduced
Salix hookeriana Coastal willow None Native
Herbs
Abronia latifolia Coastal sand verbena None Native
Atriplex prostrata Fat -hen None Introduced
Cakile martitima Sea rocket None Introduced, Cal-IPC limited Carpobrotus chilensis Sea fig None Introduced, Cal-IPC moderate Carpobrotus edulis Iceplant None Introduced, Cal-IPC high Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons None Introduced, Cal-IPC limited Erythranthe guttata Yellow monkey flower None Native
Lupinus arboreus Coastal bush lupine None Native
Plantago maritima Sea plantain None Native
Sagina procumbens Birdeye pearlwort None Native
Sonchus oleraceus Common sowthistle None Introduced
Grasses
Elymus mollis American dune grass None Native
Hordeum marinum Seaside barley None Introduced, Cal-IPC moderate Cal-IPC – California Invasive Plant Council
Animal Species Observed Within the Study Area on April 22, 2021 Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Birds
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk None Native
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow None Native
Larus occidentalis Western gull None Native
Melanitta perspicillata Surf scoter None Native
Sternus vulgaris European starling None Introduced
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project C-2
This page intentionally left blank.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Appendix D
Special-status Species Evaluation Tables
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Special-status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-1
Special-status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Acanthomintha duttonii
San Mateo thorn-mint
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral, Valley and foothill
grassland. serpentinite. 50 -
300 m. annual herb. Blooms
Apr-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Agrostis blasdalei
Blasdale's bent grass
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal prairie. 0 - 150
m. perennial rhizomatous
herb. Blooms May-Jul
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan onion
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland. clay,
volcanic, often serpentinite.
52 - 305 m. perennial
bulbiferous herb. Blooms
(Apr)May-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered
fiddleneck
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub,
Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland. 3 - 500
m. annual herb. Blooms MarJun
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Arctostaphylos
franciscana
Franciscan manzanita
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal scrub (serpentinite).
60 - 300 m. perennial
evergreen shrub. Blooms FebApr
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Arctostaphylos
imbricata
San Bruno Mountain
manzanita
None/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral, Coastal scrub.
rocky. 275 - 370 m. perennial
evergreen shrub. Blooms FebMay
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Arctostaphylos montana
ssp. ravenii
Presidio manzanita
FE/SE
G3T1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral, Coastal prairie,
Coastal scrub. serpentinite
outcrop. 45 - 215 m.
perennial evergreen shrub.

Blooms Feb-Mar
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Arctostaphylos
montaraensis
Montara manzanita
None/None
G1/S1
1B.2
Chaparral (maritime), Coastal
scrub. 80 - 500 m. perennial
evergreen shrub. Blooms JanMar
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Arctostaphylos pacifica
Pacific manzanita
None/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral, Coastal scrub. 330
- 330 m. evergreen shrub.

Blooms Feb-Apr
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Arctostaphylos
regismontana
Kings Mountain
manzanita
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Chaparral, North Coast
coniferous forest. granitic or
sandstone. 305 - 730 m.
perennial evergreen shrub.

Blooms Dec-Apr
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Arenaria paludicola
marsh sandwort
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Occurs in sandy substrates
and openings within
freshwater or brackish
marshes and swamps. This
species blooms between May
and August, and typically
occurs at elevations ranging
from 3-170
meters.

Not
Expected
Marshes and swamps
are not present within
the study area.

Astragalus
pycnostachyus var.
pycnostachyus
coastal marsh milkvetch
None/None
G2T2/S2
1B.2
Coastal dunes (mesic), Coastal
scrub, Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt, streamsides). 0 -
30 m. perennial herb. Blooms
(Apr)Jun-Oct
Not
Expected
Coastal scrub dunes,
and marshes are not
present and there are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Astragalus tener var.
tener
alkali milk-vetch
None/None
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Playas, Valley and foothill
grassland (adobe clay), Vernal
pools. alkaline. 1 - 60 m.
annual herb. Blooms Mar-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Calystegia purpurata
ssp. saxicola
coastal bluff morningglory
None/None
G4T2T3/S2S3
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub, North
Coast coniferous forest. 0 -
105 m. perennial herb.

Blooms (Mar)Apr-Sep
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Carex comosa
bristly sedge
None/None
G5/S2
2B.1
Coastal prairie, Marshes and
swamps (lake margins), Valley
and foothill grassland. 0 - 625
m. perennial rhizomatous
herb. Blooms May-Sep
Not
Expected
Coastal prairie,
marshes, and other
natural vegetation
communities are not
present and there are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-3
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Carex praticola
northern meadow sedge
None/None
G5/S2
2B.2
Meadows and seeps (mesic).
0 - 3200 m. perennial herb.

Blooms May-Jul
Not
Expected
Meadows are not
present and there are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Centromadia parryi ssp.
parryi
pappose tarplant
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal prairie,
Meadows and seeps, Marshes
and swamps (coastal salt),
Valley and foothill grassland
(vernally mesic). often
alkaline. 0 - 420 m. annual
herb. Blooms May-Nov
Not
Expected
Chapparal, coastal
prairie, and other
suitable natural
vegetation
communities are
absent.

Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. palustre
Point Reyes bird's-beak
None/None
G4?T2/S2
1B.2
Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt). 0 - 10 m. annual herb
(hemiparasitic). Blooms JunOct
Not
Expected
Marshes and swamps
are not present within
the study area.

Chorizanthe cuspidata
var. cuspidata
San Francisco Bay
spineflower
None/None
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal
scrub. sandy. 3 - 215 m.
annual herb. Blooms AprJul(Aug)
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. Six
occurrences have
been recorded within
five miles of the
project site (CDFW
2021a).

Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
robust spineflower
FE/None
G2T1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral (maritime),
Cismontane woodland
(openings), Coastal dunes,
Coastal scrub. sandy or
gravelly. 3 - 300 m. annual
herb. Blooms Apr-Sep
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat may
be present, however
no suitable natural
vegetation
communities occur
within the study area.

Two historic
occurrences have
been recorded within
five miles of the
project site (CDFW
2021a).

Chorizanthe valida
Sonoma spineflower
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal prairie (sandy). 10 -
305 m. annual herb. Blooms
Jun-Aug
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Cirsium andrewsii
Franciscan thistle
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
prairie, Coastal scrub. mesic,
sometimes serpentinite. 0 -
150 m. perennial herb.

Blooms Mar-Jul
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. Two
historic occurrences
have been recorded
within five miles of the
project site (CDFW
2021a).

Cirsium fontinale var.
fontinale
Fountain thistle
FE/SE
G2T1/S1
1B.1
Seeps and streams in
chaparral and valley and
foothill grasslands. Common
name formerly: Crystal
Springs fountain thistle.

Grows on serpentine soils in
San Mateo County. 120-150
m. Blooms May-Aug
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Cirsium hydrophilum
var. vaseyi
Mt. Tamalpais thistle
None/None
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Chaparral, Meadows and
seeps. serpentinite seeps. 240
- 620 m. perennial herb.

Blooms May-Aug
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Cirsium occidentale var.
compactum
compact cobwebby
thistle
None/None
G3G4T2/S2
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal dunes,
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub.
5 - 150 m. perennial herb.

Blooms Apr-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
natural communities
are absent. One
historic occurrence
has been recorded
within five miles of the
project site (CDFW
2021a).

Clarkia franciscana
Presidio clarkia
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland
(serpentinite). 25 - 335 m.
annual herb. Blooms May-Jul
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
natural communities
are absent. No
occurrences have
been recorded within
five miles of the
project site (CDFW
2021a).

Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed Chinesehouses
None/None
G1/S1
1B.2
Coastal dunes. 0 - 20 m.
annual herb. Blooms Apr-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Blooms
March-May. Closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal
scrub. On decomposed shale
(mudstone) mixed with
humus. 30-250m (100-820ft).

Not
Expected
Suitable elevation and
substrate is absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, North Coast
coniferous forest, Riparian
forest, Riparian woodland.
mesic. 25 - 425 m. perennial
deciduous shrub. Blooms JanMar(Apr)
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Eriophyllum latilobum
San Mateo woolly
sunflower
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Cismontane woodland (often
serpentinite, on roadcuts),
Coastal scrub, Lower
montane coniferous forest.
45 - 330 m. perennial herb.

Blooms May-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Blooms April
through October. Chenopod
scrub, alkali meadow, playas,
valley
and foothill grassland. In
seasonal alkali wetlands or
alkali sink scrub with Distichlis
spicata, Frankenia, etc. 1-835
m.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Fritillaria biflora var.
ineziana
Hillsborough chocolate
lily
None/None
G3G4T1/S1
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland.
serpentinite. 150 - 150 m.
perennial bulbiferous herb.

Blooms Mar-Apr
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Fritillaria lanceolata var.
tristulis
Marin checker lily
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
prairie, Coastal scrub. 15 -
150 m. perennial bulbiferous
herb. Blooms Feb-May
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland.

Often serpentinite. 3 - 410 m.
perennial bulbiferous herb.

Blooms Feb-Apr
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Gilia capitata ssp.
chamissonis
blue coast gilia
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.1
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub.
2 - 200 m. annual herb.

Blooms Apr-Jul
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Coastal dunes. 2 - 30 m.
annual herb. Blooms Apr-Jul
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-6
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Riparian woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland. Usually
rocky, axonal soils. Often in
partial shade. 60 - 1300 m.
perennial herb. Blooms MarJun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Hemizonia congesta ssp.
congesta
congested-headed
hayfield tarplant
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Valley and foothill grassland.
sometimes roadsides. 20 -
560 m. annual herb. Blooms
Apr-Nov
Not
Expected
Suitable grassland
habitat is absent. Two
historic occurrences
have been recorded
within five miles of the
project site (CDFW
2021a).

Hesperevax sparsiflora
var. brevifolia
short-leaved evax
None/None
G4T3/S2
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub (sandy),
Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie.
0 - 215 m. annual herb.

Blooms Mar-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat may
be present; however,
there are no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Hesperolinon congestum
Marin western flax
FT/ST
G1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral, Valley and foothill
grassland. serpentinite. 5 -
370 m. annual herb. Blooms
Apr-Jul
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Heteranthera dubia
water star-grass
None/None
G5/S2
2B.2
Marshes and swamps
(alkaline, still or slow-moving
water). Requires a pH of 7 or
higher, usually in slightly
eutrophic waters. 30 - 1495
m. perennial herb (aquatic).

Blooms Jul-Oct
Not
Expected
Marshes and swamps
are not present within
the study area.

Holocarpha macradenia
Santa Cruz tarplant
FT/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland.
often clay, sandy. 10 - 220 m.
annual herb. Blooms Jun-Oct
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Horkelia cuneata var.
sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
None/None
G4T1?/S1?
1B.1
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Chaparral (maritime),
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub.
sandy or gravelly, openings.
10 - 200 m. perennial herb.

Blooms Apr-Sep
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie,
Coastal scrub. sandy. 5 - 755
m. perennial herb. Blooms
May-Sep
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Hypogymnia schizidiata
island rock lichen
None/None
G2/S1
1B.3
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Chaparral. On bark and
wood of hardwoods and
conifers. 360 - 405 m. foliose
lichen (null). Blooms
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Lasthenia californica
ssp. macrantha
perennial goldfields
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub. 5 - 520
m. perennial herb. Blooms
Jan-Nov
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
no recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Layia carnosa
beach layia
FE/SE
G2/S2
1B.1
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub
(sandy). 0 - 60 m. annual
herb. Blooms Mar-Jul
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Leptosiphon croceus
coast yellow
leptosiphon
None/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
prairie. 10-150 m. Blooms
Apr-May
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat may
be present although
the site is disturbed
and no natural
communities are
present. There are no
recorded occurrences
within five miles
(CDFW 2021a).

Leptosiphon rosaceus
rose leptosiphon
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub. 0 - 100 m.
annual herb. Blooms Apr-Jul
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
two recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Lessingia arachnoidea
Crystal Springs lessingia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland.
serpentinite, often roadsides.
60 - 200 m. annual herb.

Blooms Jul-Oct
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-8
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Lessingia germanorum
San Francisco lessingia
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal scrub (remnant
dunes). 25 - 110 m. annual
herb. Blooms (Jun)Jul-Nov
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent and this
species has a very
limited distribution.

Given the disturbed
nature of the site, it is
unlikely that this plant
will occur.

Lilium maritimum
coast lily
None/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Broadleafed upland forest,
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Coastal prairie, Coastal
scrub, Marshes and swamps
(freshwater), North Coast
coniferous forest. sometimes
roadside. 5 - 475 m. perennial
bulbiferous herb. Blooms
May-Aug
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Limnanthes douglasii
ssp. ornduffii
Ornduff's meadowfoam
None/None
G4T1/S1
1B.1
Meadows and seeps.

Agricultural fields. 10 - 20 m.
annual herb. Blooms NovMay
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Malacothamnus
aboriginum
Indian Valley bushmallow
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland. Rocky, granitic,
often in burned areas. 150 -
1700 m. perennial deciduous
shrub. Blooms Apr-Oct
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Malacothamnus
arcuatus
arcuate bush-mallow
None/None
G2Q/S2
1B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland. 15 - 355 m.
perennial evergreen shrub.

Blooms Apr-Sep
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson's bush-mallow
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Riparian woodland. 185 -
1140 m. perennial deciduous
shrub. Blooms Jun-Jan
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Malacothamnus hallii
Hall's bush-mallow
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal scrub. 10 -
760 m. perennial evergreen
shrub. Blooms (Apr)MaySep(Oct)
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Microseris paludosa
marsh microseris
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland. 5 - 355 m.
perennial herb. Blooms AprJun(Jul)
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-9
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Monardella sinuata ssp.
nigrescens
northern curly-leaved
monardella
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Chaparral (SCR Co.), Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub, Lower
montane coniferous forest
(SCR Co., ponderosa pine
sandhills). Sandy. 0 - 300 m.
annual herb. Blooms
(Apr)May-Jul (Aug-Sep)
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Monolopia gracilens
woodland woolythreads
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest
(openings), Chaparral
(openings), Cismontane
woodland, North Coast
coniferous forest (openings),
Valley and foothill grassland.

Serpentine. 100 - 1200 m.
annual herb. Blooms
(Feb)Mar-Jul
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Pentachaeta bellidiflora
white-rayed
pentachaeta
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland (often
serpentinite). 35 - 620 m.
annual herb. Blooms MarMay
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Plagiobothrys
chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower
None/None
G3T1Q/S1
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal prairie,
Coastal scrub. mesic. 3 - 160
m. annual herb. Blooms MarJun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Plagiobothrys diffusus
San Francisco
popcornflower
None/SE
G1Q/S1
1B.1
Coastal prairie, Valley and
foothill grassland. 60 - 360 m.
annual herb. Blooms Mar-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat and
elevation are absent.

Plagiobothrys glaber
hairless popcornflower
None/None
GH/SH
1A
Meadows and seeps
(alkaline), Marshes and
swamps (coastal salt). 15 -
180 m. annual herb. Blooms
Mar-May
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Polemonium carneum
Oregon polemonium
None/None
G3G4/S2
2B.2
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane coniferous
forest. 0 - 1830 m. perennial
herb. Blooms Apr-Sep
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Potentilla hickmanii
Hickman's cinquefoil
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, Closedcone coniferous forest,
Meadows and seeps (vernally
mesic), Marshes and swamps
(freshwater). 10 - 149 m.
perennial herb. Blooms AprAug
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat may
be present although
the site is disturbed
and no natural
communities are
present. There are no
recorded occurrences
within five miles
(CDFW 2021a).
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-10
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Sanicula maritima
adobe sanicle
None/SR
G2/S2
1B.1
Chaparral, Coastal prairie,
Meadows and seeps, Valley
and foothill grassland. clay,
serpentinite. 30 - 240 m.
perennial herb. Blooms FebMay
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
None/None
G3/S2
2B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub.
sometimes alkaline. 15 - 800
m. annual herb. Blooms JanApr(May)
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Silene scouleri ssp.
scouleri
Scouler's catchfly
None/None
G5T4T5/S2S3
2B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
prairie, Valley and foothill
grassland. 0 - 600 m.
perennial herb. Blooms (MarMay)Jun-Aug(Sep)
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences.There are
seven recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Silene verecunda ssp.
verecunda
San Francisco campion
None/None
G5T1/S1
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral,
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland.
sandy. 30 - 645 m. perennial
herb. Blooms July
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There are
two recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Spergularia macrotheca
var. longistyla
long-styled sand-spurrey
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Meadows and seeps, Marshes
and swamps. Alkaline. 0 - 255
m. perennial herb. Blooms
Feb-May(Jun)
Not
Expected
Suitable wetland
habitat is absent.

Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Chaparral, Coastal
prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley
and foothill grassland. open
areas, sometimes
serpentinite. 10 - 500 m.
annual herb. Blooms Apr-May
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Suaeda californica
California seablite
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt). 0 - 15 m. perennial
evergreen shrub. Blooms JulOct
Not
Expected
Marshes and swamps
are not present within
the study area.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-11
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland (sometimes
serpentinite). 5 - 415 m.
annual herb. Blooms Apr-Jun
Not
Expected
No native vegetative
communities occur
within the study area,
which is heavily
disturbed by
anthropogenic
influences. There is
only one recorded
occurrence within five
miles (CDFW 2021a).

Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, Valley
and foothill grassland (mesic,
alkaline), Vernal pools. 0 - 300
m. annual herb. Blooms AprJun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Triphysaria floribunda
San Francisco owl'sclover
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.2
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland.
usually serpentinite. 10 - 160
m. annual herb. Blooms AprJun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Triquetrella californica
coastal triquetrella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
scrub. soil. 10 - 100 m. moss.

Blooms
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat may
be present although
the site is disturbed
and no natural
communities are
present. There are
two recorded
occurrences within
five miles (CDFW
2021a).

Viburnum ellipticum
oval-leaved viburnum
None/None
G4G5/S3?
2B.3
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest. 215 - 1400
m. perennial deciduous
shrub. Blooms May-Jun
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is
absent.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 9-quad search radius of site.

Status (Federal/State) CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank) FE = Federal Endangered 1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere FT = Federal Threatened 1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered 2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common FD = Federal Delisted elsewhere
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered CRPR Threat Code Extension SCT = State Candidate Threatened .1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/ SR = State Rare high degree and immediacy of threat)
SD = State Delisted .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/ moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/ low degree and immediacy of threat)
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-12
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-13
Special-status Animal Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Invertebrates
Callophrys mossii
bayensis
San Bruno elfin
butterfly
FE/None
G4T1/S3
Coastal, mountainous areas with
grassy ground cover, mainly in
the vicinity of San Bruno
Mountain, San Mateo County.

Colonies are located on steep,
north-facing slopes within the
fog belt. Larval host plant is
Sedum spathulifolium.

Not
Expected
Grassy ground cover is
absent in the study area.

Euphydryas
editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot
butterfly
FT/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to native grasslands
on outcrops of serpentine soil in
the vicinity of San Francisco Bay.

Plantago erecta is the primary
host plant; Orthocarpus
densiflorus & O. purpurscens
are the secondary host plants.

Not
Expected
Native grasslands are
absent. Critical habitat is
present within 5 miles of
the study area (USFWS
2021a).

Haliotis
cracherodii
Black abalone

FE, SC (NMFS),

P, IUCN
Primarily found in rocky
intertidal and shallow subtidal
reefs along the coast.

Low The study area is within
NMFS critical habitat for
this species; however,
suitable rocky reef and
intertidal habitat is not. No
sessile species were
observed during field
survey.

Plebejus
icarioides
missionensis
Mission blue
butterfly
FE/None
G5T1/S1
Inhabits grasslands of the San
Francisco peninsula. Three larval
host plants: Lupinus albifrons, L.
variicolor, and L. formosus, of
which L. albifrons is favored.

Not
Expected
Grassland habitat and host
plants are not present in
the study area.

Speyeria callippe
callippe
silverspot
butterfly
FE/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to the northern
coastal scrub of the San
Francisco peninsula. Hostplant is
Viola pedunculata. Most adults
found on E-facing slopes; males
congregate on hilltops in search
of females.

Not
Expected
Coastal scrub is absent in
the study area.

Speyeria zerene
myrtleae
Myrtle's
silverspot
butterfly
FE/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to the foggy, coastal
dunes/hills of the Point Reyes
peninsula; extirpated from
coastal San Mateo County.

Larval foodplant thought to be
Viola adunca.

Not
Expected
The study area is located
outside of species' extant
range.

Fish
Acipenser
medirostris
green sturgeon
Threatened/
None
G3/S3
SSC
Occupies coastal bays and
estuaries from Monterey Bay,
California, to Puget Sound,
Washington. Watersheds
draining into San Francisco Bay
and other large rivers systems
have been listed as habitat
Low No habitat in study area.

Designated critical habitat
overlaps the southwestern
portion of the study area.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-14
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
tidewater goby
FE/None
G3/S3
Brackish water habitats along
the California coast from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego
County to the mouth of the
Smith River. Found in shallow
lagoons and lower stream
reaches, they need fairly still but
not stagnant water and high
oxygen levels.

Not
Expected
Suitable brackish water
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the study area.

Mylopharodon
conocephalus
hardhead
None/None
G3/S3
SSC
Low to mid-elevation streams in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin
drainage. Also present in the
Russian River. Clear, deep pools
with sand-gravel-boulder
bottoms and slow water
velocity. Not found where exotic
centrarchids predominate.

Not
Expected
Suitable fresh water stream
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the study area.

Oncorhynchus
kisutch pop. 4
coho salmon -
central California
coast ESU
FE/SE
G4/S2
Federal listing = pops between
Punta Gorda & San Lorenzo
River. State listing = pops south
of Punta Gorda. Require beds of
loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for
spawning. Also need cover, cool
water & sufficient dissolved
oxygen.

Low Fish may move through
waters just outside the
study area while migrating
to and from freshwater
breeding habitat. Critical
habitat has been designated
within 5 miles of the project
site, in San Pedro Creek to
the South.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 8
steelhead -
central California
coast DPS
FT/None
G5T2T3Q/S2S3
DPS includes all naturally
spawned populations of
steelhead (and their progeny) in
streams from the Russian River
to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California (inclusive).

Also includes the drainages of
San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays.

Low Fish may move through
waters just outside the
study area while migrating
to and from freshwater
breeding habitat.

Spirinchus
thaleichthys
longfin smelt
FC/ST
G5/S1
Euryhaline, nektonic &
anadromous. Found in open
waters of estuaries, mostly in
middle or bottom of water
column. Prefer salinities of 15-
30 ppt, but can be found in
completely freshwater to almost
pure seawater.

Low Historically, longfin smelt
spawned in freshwater
streams south of the project
site but extant populations
only spawn north of the SF
Bay Delta. These
populations migrate out to
the San Francisco Bay and
Gulf of the Farralones but
are unlikely to move south
to waters outside of the
study area. However,
surveys have detected
longfin smelt off the coast
of Pacifica as recently as
2002 (Garland 2017).
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-15
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT/ST
G2G3/S2S3
WL
Central Valley DPS federally
listed as threatened. Santa
Barbara and Sonoma counties
DPS federally listed as
endangered. Need underground
refuges, especially ground
squirrel burrows, and vernal
pools or other seasonal water
sources for breeding.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is absent.

Dicamptodon
ensatus
California giant
salamander
None/None
G3/S2S3
SSC
Known from wet coastal forests
near streams and seeps from
Mendocino County south to
Monterey County, and east to
Napa County. Aquatic larvae
found in cold, clear streams,
occasionally in lakes and ponds.

Adults known from wet forests
under rocks and logs near
streams and lakes.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is absent.

Rana boylii
foothill yellowlegged frog
None/SE
G3/S3
SSC
Partly-shaded, shallow streams
and riffles with a rocky substrate
in a variety of habitats. Needs at
least some cobble-sized
substrate for egg-laying. Needs
at least 15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is absent.

Rana draytonii
California redlegged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep
water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation.

Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval
development. Must have access
to estivation habitat.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is absent
within the study area.

Critical habitat is present
within 5 miles of the project
site (USFWS 2021a).

Reptiles
Chelonia mydas
green turtle
FT/None
G3/S1
Marine. Completely
herbivorous; needs adequate
supply of seagrasses and algae.

Not
Expected
Suitable food source is not
present in marine habitat
adjacent to the study area
and no recorded
occurrences occur.

Caretta
Loggerhead sea
turtle
FE They are circumglobal, occurring
throughout the temperate and
tropical regions of the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

Loggerheads are the most
abundant species of sea turtle
found in U.S. coastal waters.

Not
Expected
The species is highly
migratory and is not
expected to occur in the
study area
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-16
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Dermochelys
coriacea
Leatherback sea
turtle
FE The Eastern Pacific leatherback
subpopulation nests along the
Pacific coast of the Americas
from Mexico to Ecuador, and
marine habitats extend from the
coastline westward.

Not
Expected
The species is highly
migratory and is not
expected to occur in the
study area. Designated
critical habitat overlaps the
southwestern portion of the
study area.

Emys marmorata
western pond
turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers, streams
and irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation, below
6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks
or grassy open fields) upland
habitat up to 0.5 km from water
for egg-laying.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Lepidochelys
olivacea
Olive Ridley sea
turtle
FE The olive ridley sea turtle is
considered the most abundant
sea turtle in the world and can
be found in the Pacific Islands,
Southeast, and the West Coast.

Not
Expected
The species is highly
migratory and is not
expected to occur in the
study area
Thamnophis
sirtalis
tetrataenia
San Francisco
gartersnake
FE/SE
G5T2Q/S2
FP
Vicinity of freshwater marshes,
ponds and slow-moving streams
in San Mateo County and
extreme northern Santa Cruz
County. Prefers dense cover and
water depths of at least one
foot. Upland areas near water
are also very important.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Birds
Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent
upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Not
Expected
Suitable grassland and
scrubland habitat as well as
rodent burrows are absent.

Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marbled murrelet
FT/SE
G3G4/S1
Feeds near-shore; nests inland
along coast from Eureka to
Oregon border and from Half
Moon Bay to Santa Cruz. Nests
in old-growth redwooddominated forests, up to six
miles inland, often in Douglasfir.

Not
Expected
Study area is outside of
species range.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-17
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Coastal salt & freshwater marsh.

Nest and forage in grasslands,
from salt grass in desert sink to
mountain cienagas. Nests on
ground in shrubby vegetation,
usually at marsh edge; nest built
of a large mound of sticks in wet
areas.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None
G4/S1S2
SSC
Summer resident in eastern
Sierra Nevada in Mono County.

Freshwater marshlands.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
None/None
G5/S3S4
FP
Rolling foothills and valley
margins with scattered oaks &
river bottomlands or marshes
next to deciduous woodland.

Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to
isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine falcon
FD/SD
G4T4/S3S4
FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or
other water; on cliffs, banks,
dunes, mounds; also, humanmade structures. Nest consists of a scrape or a depression or
ledge in an open site.

Low Suitable foraging habitat
occurs within the site.

Ledges on bluffs, though
eroding may provide
suitable habitat for nesting.

One occurrence has been
recorded miles to the east.

Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa
saltmarsh
common
yellowthroat
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of the San Francisco
Bay region, in fresh and
saltwater marshes. Requires
thick, continuous cover down to
water surface for foraging; tall
grasses, tule patches, willows
for nesting.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None/ST
G3G4T1/S1
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes,
wet meadows and shallow
margins of saltwater marshes
bordering larger bays. Needs
water depths of about 1 inch
that do not fluctuate during the
year and dense vegetation for
nesting habitat.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.

Melospiza
melodia pusillula
Alameda song
sparrow
None/None
G5T2?/S2S3
SSC
Resident of salt marshes
bordering south arm of San
Francisco Bay. Inhabits
Salicornia marshes; nests low in
Grindelia bushes (high enough
to escape high tides) and in
Salicornia.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-18
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Melospiza
melodia samuelis
San Pablo song
sparrow
None/None
G5T2/S2
SSC
Resident of salt marshes along
the north side of San Francisco
and San Pablo bays. Inhabits
tidal sloughs in the Salicornia
marshes; nests in Grindelia
bordering slough channels.

Not
Expected
Salt marsh habitat is not
present.

Phoebastria
albatrus
short-tailed
albatross
FE/None
G1/S1
SSC
Pelagic bird that forages widely
on squid, fish, flying fish eggs,
shrimp, and crustaceans
throughout the Pacific, including
off the coast of California.

Breeds on islands in Japan and
Taiwan and has also been
known to nest on Midway Atoll,
a U.S. territory.

Not
Expected
This species is not expected
to occur within the study
area - no invertebrate
communities are present,
open water is only present
within the study area at
high tide, and the site is
heavily disturbed by
anthropogenic influences.

Rallus obsoletus
California
Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G5T1/S1
FP
Salt water and brackish marshes
traversed by tidal sloughs in the
vicinity of San Francisco Bay.

Associated with abundant
growths of pickleweed but feeds
away from cover on
invertebrates from mudbottomed sloughs.

Not
Expected
Salt marsh habitat is not
present.

Sternula
antillarum browni
California least
tern
FE/SE
G4T2T3Q/S2
FP
Nests along the coast from San
Francisco Bay south to northern
Baja California. Colonial breeder
on bare or sparsely vegetated,
flat substrates: sand beaches,
alkali flats, landfills, or paved
areas.

Not
Expected
Beach and barren areas at
the top of the bluff within
the study area are heavily
disturbed by anthropogenic
influences and beach
habitat within the study
area is sloped and subject
to tidal influence.

Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats
including deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in open,
dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts in crevices of
rock outcrops, caves, mine
tunnels, buildings, bridges, and
hollows of live and dead trees
which must protect bats from
high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.

Not
Expected
Dry habitat is not present.

No occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
(CDFW 2021a).
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-19
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend's bigeared bat
None/None
G3G4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in
a wide variety of habitats. Most
common in mesic sites, typically
coniferous or deciduous forests.

Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls, ceilings in caves, lava
tubes, bridges, and buildings.

This species is extremely
sensitive to human disturbance.

Not
Expected
Forests are not present
within the study area, which
is frequently subject to
human disturbance . No
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
(CDFW 2021a).

Lasiurus
blossevillii
western red bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Roosts in trees in forests and
woodlands of varying
elevations. Forages in
grasslands, shrublands, open
woodlands and forests, and
agriculture. Typically found in
riparian habitats, does not occur
in deserts.

Not
Expected
Woodland habitat is not
present within the study
area.

Neotoma fuscipes
annectens
San Francisco
dusky-footed
woodrat
None/None
G5T2T3/S2S3
SSC
Typically found in forest habitats
with moderate to dense
understory. Can occur in
chaparral, riparian woodlands,
and coniferous forests,
particularly redwood. Builds
middens out of grasses, leaves,
and woody debris. This
subspecies is found only in the
San Francisco Bay region.

Not
Expected
Forest habitat is not present
within the study area.

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Low-lying arid areas in Southern
California. Need high cliffs or
rocky outcrops for roosting
sites. Feeds principally on large
moths.

Not
Expected
High cliffs are present and
may provide suitable
roosting habitat; however,
this bat is not thought to
breed in California and the
study area is outside their
range (Zeiner et al. 1988).

One historic occurrence
from 1984 is recorded
within five miles of the
study area (CDFW 2021a).

Reithrodontomys
raviventris
salt-marsh
harvest mouse
FE/SE
G1G2/S1S2
FP
Only in the saline emergent
wetlands of San Francisco Bay
and its tributaries. Pickleweed is
primary habitat, but may occur
in other marsh vegetation types
and in adjacent upland areas.

Does not burrow; builds loosely
organized nests. Requires higher
areas for flood escape.

Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present and the survey area
is outside of species range.

Scapanus
latimanus
insularis
Angel Island mole
None/None
G5THQ/SH
Known only from Angel Island in
San Francisco Bay. Needs friable
soils for burrowing.

Not
Expected
Survey area is outside of
species range.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-20
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Scapanus
latimanus parvus
Alameda Island
mole
None/None
G5THQ/SH
SSC
Only known from Alameda
Island. Found in a variety of
habitats, especially annual and
perennial grasslands. Prefers
moist, friable soils. Avoids
flooded soils.

Not
Expected
Survey area is outside of
species range.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Needs sufficient
food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on
burrowing rodents. Digs
burrows.

Not
Expected
Dry habitat is not present
and no burrows were
observed on the site. No
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
(CDFW 2021a).

Zapus trinotatus
orarius
Point Reyes
jumping mouse
None/None
G5T1T3Q/S1S3
SSC
Primarily in bunch grass
marshes on the uplands of Point
Reyes. Also present in coastal
scrub, grassland, and meadows.

Eats mainly grass seeds w/ some
insects & fruit taken. Builds
grassy nests on ground under
vegetation, burrows in winter
Not
Expected
The study area is outside of
the species' range and
bunch grass marsh is not
present.

Marine Mammals
Arctocephalus
townsendi
Guadalupe fur
seal
FT
MMPA
Guadalupe fur seals live in the
waters off southern California
and the Pacific coast of Mexico.

During the breeding season,
they are found in coastal rocky
habitats and caves. Little is
known about their whereabouts
during the non-breeding season.

Not
Expected
Animals may occur in
offshore waters outside the
study area. However, the
rare nature of the animal
and small extent and
disturbed nature of the
study area greatly reduces
the potential for haul out
and occurrences in the
study area.

Balaenoptera
borealis
Sei whale
FE
MMPA
Sei whales are found in tropical,
temperate, and subpolar
waters, and prefer temperate
waters in the mid-latitudes.

They are typically observed in
deeper waters far from the
coastline.

Not
Expected
No suitable habitat is
present within study area
and this species is unlikely
to be found near the coast.

Balaenoptera
musculus
Blue whale
FE
MMPA
Blue whales migrate seasonally
between summer feeding
grounds and winter breeding
grounds They prefer deep
waters to shallow coastal
waters. The North Pacific blue
whales live off the California
coast and migrate to waters off
the coast of Mexico and Central
America in winter.

Not
Expected
No suitable habitat is
present within study area.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-21
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Balaenoptera
physalus
Fin whale
FE
MMPA
The Fin whale population in the
North Pacific mostly migrates
seasonally from summer feeding
areas in the Arctic to tropical
breeding and calving areas in
the winter migrate seasonally
between summer feeding
grounds and winter breeding
grounds. Fin whales travel in
open seas away from the coast.

Not
Expected
No suitable breeding or
feeding habitat is present
within study area and this
species is unlikely to be
found near the coast.

Delphinus delphis
Short-beaked
common dolphin
MMPA One of the most abundant and
familiar dolphins in the world
widely distributed, preferring
warm tropical to cool temperate
waters that are primarily
oceanic and offshore. Shortbeaked common dolphins are
often found in association with
underwater ridges, seamounts,
and continental shelves where
upwelling occurs and prey is
abundant.

Not
Expected
Animals may occur
transiting or foraging
offshore, well outside of the
study area. The small extent
of the study area greatly
reduces the potential for
occurrences.

Enhydra lutris
nereis
southern sea
otter
FT/None
G4T2/S2
FP
Occurs in nearshore marine
environments from Ano Nuevo
in San Mateo County to Point
Sal in Santa Barbara County.

Requires canopies of giant kelp
or bull kelp for rafting and
feeding. Prefers rocky substrates
with abundant invertebrates to
prey on.

Not
Expected
Kelp canopies and rocky
substrate are not present
within the study area. The
study area is located 37
miles north of Ano Nuevo,
which marks the northern
extent of the species' range.

Eschrichtius
robustus
Gray whale
MMPA Breeding occurs in lagoons in
Baja California in the fall.

Migration occurs northward
along the west coast from midFebruary to May.

Not
Expected
Animals may occur
transiting or foraging
offshore, well outside of the
study area. The small extent
of the study area greatly
reduces the potential for
occurrences.

Eubalaena
japonica
Northern Pacific
right whale
FE
MMPA
Migration from far northern
feeding grounds to warmer
waters in southern California
occurs during the winter.

Not
Expected
Animals may occur
transiting or foraging
offshore, well outside of the
study area. The small extent
of the study area greatly
reduces the potential for
occurrences.

Eumetopias
jubatus
Steller
(=northern) sealion
FD/None
G3/S2
MMPA
Breeds on Ano Nuevo, San
Miguel and Farallon islands,
Point St. George, & Sugarloaf.

Hauls-out on islands & rocks.

Needs haul-out and breeding
sites with unrestricted access to
water, near aquatic food supply
and with no human disturbance.

Not
Expected
The study area does not
overlap with breeding sites,
and haul out is not
expected within the study
area due to routine human
disturbance.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
D-22
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Megaptera
novaeangliae
Humpback whale
FE
MMPA
Feeding and migration occurs
off the coast of California during
spring, summer, and fall.

Not
Expected
Animals may occur
transiting or foraging
offshore, well outside of the
study area. The small extent
of the study area greatly
reduces the potential for
occurrences.

Mirounga
angustirostris
Northern
elephant seal
FP
MMPA
Breeding occurs in Channel
Islands and birth occurs from
December to March. May occur
on land in sandy or rocky areas
along coastline. Ocean dive
depths can be up to 300-800
meters.

Not
Expected
The disturbed nature and
small extent of the beach
surrounding the study area
greatly reduces the
potential for occurrences.

Haul out and birthing
locations are known at Ano
Nuevo State Beach to the
south and Point Reyes
National Seashore to the
north.

Orcinus orca
killer whale
FE
MMPA
Killer whales are found in all
oceans throughout the world.

The southern resident
population, which spends spring
through fall in inland waterways
of Washington State at the
boundary of Canada, has been
seen as far south as central
California in the winter.

Offshore killer whales can occur
more than 9 miles offshore, but
are also sometimes seen in
nearshore waters.

Low Animals may occur
transiting or foraging
offshore, well outside of the
study area. The small extent
of the study area and
shallow near-shore habitat
greatly reduces the
potential for occurrences.

Critical habitat for this
species has been proposed
approximately 0.25-mile
offshore to the west of the
study area.

Phoca vitulina
harbor seal
MMPA Temperate coastal habitats
along the coast of California.

Rest on rocks, reefs, beaches.

Moderate Habitat occurs just west of
the study area at Younger
Lagoon Beach and animals
frequent rocky points along
the adjacent shoreline,
However the small extent of
the study area greatly
reduces the potential for
occurrences
Phocoena
harbor porpoise
MMPA Prefer coastal areas and are
most commonly found in bays,
estuaries, harbors, and fjords.

They are particularly vulnerable
to gillnets and fishing traps,
pollution, and other types of
human disturbance, such as
underwater noise.

Low The study area is close to
both San Francisco Bay and
Half Moon Bay; however,
the small extent of the
study area and lack of
suitable marine habitat
within the study area
greatly reduces the
potential for occurrences.

Physeter
macrocephalus
Sperm whale
FE
MMPA
Sperm whales are a
cosmopolitan species and prefer
ice-free waters deeper than
3,300 feet (1000 meters).

Not
Expected
No suitable habitat is
present within study area.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffat & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Biological Resources Assessment D-23
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Tursipos
truncatus
Common
bottlenose
dolphin
MMPA Bottlenose dolphins are found in
temperate and tropical waters
around the world. They inhabit a
wide variety of habitats,
including harbors, bays, gulfs,
and estuaries, as well as
nearshore coastal waters,
deeper waters over the
continental shelf, and even far
offshore in the open ocean.

Not
Expected
Waters adjacent to the
study area provide suitable
habitat; however, the small
extent of the study area and
lack of suitable marine
habitat within the study
area greatly reduces the
potential for occurrences.

Zalophus
californianus
California sea lion
MMPA Shallow waters in temperate
coastal habitats along the coast
of California. Rest on beaches,
docks, buoys, and jetties. Prefer
sandy beaches or rocky coves
for breeding and haul-out sites.

Moderate Habitat occurs adjacent to
the study area, and there is
the potential for haul out
on the beach within the
study area. However,
routine human disturbance
on the beach and the small
extent of the study area
reduces the potential for
occurrences.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 9-quad search radius of site.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered
FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SR = State Rare
SD = State Delisted
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
WL = CDFW Watch List
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank
MMPA= Marine Mammal Protection Act
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Appendix E
NMFS Special-Status Species List
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Quad Name San Francisco South
Quad Number 37122
-F4
ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) -
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
X
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) -
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
X
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -
X
ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
X
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -
X
ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
X
Range White Abalone (E) -
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat - X
ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) - X
ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) - X
Fin Whale (E) - X
Humpback Whale (E) - X
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X
North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X
Sei Whale (E) - X
Sperm Whale (E) - X
ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) - X
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -
Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -
MMPA Species (See list at left)
ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list below and consult the NMFS Long Beach office
562-980-4000
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) MMPA Cetaceans
-
X
MMPA Pinnipeds -
X
MMPA Species
Consult the NMFS Long Beach office
562-980-4000
Species MMPA Status
ESA
Status
Baird's Beaked Whale MMPA Depleted
Blue Whale MMPA DepletedE
Cuvier's Beaked Whale MMPA Protection
Dwarf Sperm Whale MMPA Protection
False Killer Whale MMPA Protection
Fin Whale MMPA DepletedE
Gray Whale (Western North Pacific) MMPA DepletedE
Gray Whale (Eastern North Pacific) MMPA Protection
Hubb's Beaked Whale MMPA Protection
Humpback Whale MMPA DepletedE
Killer Whale (Southern Resident) MMPA DepletedE
Killer Whale MMPA Depleted
Minke Whale MMPA Protection
North Pacific Right Whale MMPA DepletedE
Pygmy Sperm Whale MMPA Protection
Sei Whale MMPA DepletedE
Short Finned Pilot Whale MMPA Protection
Sperm Whale MMPA DepletedE
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Stejneger's Beaked Whale MMPA Protection
Dall's Porpoise MMPA Protection
Harbor Porpoise MMPA Protection
Northern Right Whale Dolphin MMPA Protection
Pacific White Sided Dolphin MMPA Protection
Risso's Dolphin MMPA Protection
Short Beaked Common Dolphin MMPA Protection
Striped Dolphin MMPA Protection
California Sea Lion MMPA Protection
Guadalupe Fur Seal MMPA DepletedT
Northern Elephant Seal MMPA Protection
Northern Fur Seal MMPA Depleted
Pacific Harbor Seal MMPA Protection
Steller Sea Lion MMPA Protection
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix III
February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Appendix IV
Cultural Resources Assessment
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

12.a
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure
Preservation Project
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
prepared for
Moffatt & Nichol
2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, California 94569
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
July 2021
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Please cite this report as follows:

Foster, Elaine and Heather Blind. 2021. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project.

Rincon Consultants, Inc., Project No. 20-10369.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Table of Contents
Cultural Resources Assessment Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope.........................................................................................................................1 Dates of Investigation ....................................................................................................................1 Summary of Findings......................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking ................................................................................3

1.2 Area of Potential Effects.....................................................................................................3

1.3 Personnel ............................................................................................................................3 2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................6

2.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act .......................................................6 3 Natural and Cultural Setting ..........................................................................................................8

3.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................8

3.2 Cultural Setting ...................................................................................................................8 4 Background Research ................................................................................................................. 12

4.1 California Historical Resources Information System........................................................ 12 5 Field Survey Methods and Results.............................................................................................. 14 6 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................... 17

6.1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources............................................................... 17

6.2 Human Remains............................................................................................................... 17 7 References .................................................................................................................................. 18 Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects Map.............................................................................................5 Figure 3 Overview of the Sandy Beach Area of the APE, Facing South ..........................................15 Figure 4 Overview of Esplanade Avenue, Facing East ....................................................................15 Figure 5 Overview of APE with Fenceline Separating Esplanade Avenue from the Beach.............16 Figure 6 Pathway Cutting into Bluff in Northern Portion of APE....................................................16 Tables
Table 1 Previous Studies within a 0.50-Mile Radius of the APE ................................................... 12 Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.50-mile of the APE ............................ 13 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
ii
Appendices
Appendix A Records Search Results
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Executive Summary
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 1
Executive Summary
Purpose and Scope
Moffatt & Nichol retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project located in Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (project). The project will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is therefore considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). This cultural resources assessment report was prepared in compliance with Section 106 and includes the delineation of a project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE), a cultural resources records search, a field survey of the APE, and preparation of this report. As the federal lead agency, USACE is responsible for completing consultation with Native American Tribes in accordance with Section 106.

Dates of Investigation
The cultural resources records search was completed by staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, on May 21, 2021. The field survey of the APE was completed on May 27, 2021.

Summary of Findings
The cultural resources records search and field survey did not identify any cultural resources within the APE or a 0.5-mile radius. The APE has been previously disturbed by construction of the extant road and associated utilities as well as natural bluff erosion. Based on the results of this study, a finding of no historic properties affected is appropriate for the undertaking. The following best management practices are recommended in the case of unanticipated archaeological resources or human remains.

Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for NRHP eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties.

Human Remains
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
2 remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Introduction
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3
1 Introduction
Moffatt & Nichol retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment for the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project located in Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (project). The project requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is therefore considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). This cultural resources assessment report was prepared in compliance with Section 106 and includes the delineation of a project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE), a cultural resources records search, a field survey of the APE, and the preparation of this report. As the federal lead agency, USACE is responsible for completing consultation with Native American Tribes in accordance with Section 106.

1.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking
The proposed APE is situated in Township 3S, Range 6W, Section 23 and 26 of the U.S. Geological Survey San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 1). Located in the city of Pacifica, the proposed undertaking involves emergency placement of rock revetment to prevent continuing erosion currently taking place at 400 Esplanade Avenue. The APE includes a bluff that has experienced significant erosion during winter storms, which has endangered the adjacent road and associated utilities. The project involves installation of protection measures along the bluff at 400 Esplanade Avenue. Protections may include hard armor such as armor rock or seawalls, and soft armor such as beach nourishment, living shorelines, or large sandbags.

1.2 Area of Potential Effects
The APE for an undertaking is defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.16(d) as the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such property exists.” The APE for the proposed undertaking was determined through analysis of the undertaking’s geographic area, its scale and nature, and its potential for direct and indirect effects to historic properties. The APE was delineated to encompass the direct project footprint of the bluff and adjacent areas of beach and along Esplanade Avenue (Figure 2).

1.3 Personnel
Cultural Resource Specialist Heather Blind, MA, Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA), served as the principal investigator for this study and conducted the field survey. Ms. Blind meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) for archaeology and was a contributing author to this report. Rincon Archaeologist Elaine Foster, MA, RPA, conducted background research and is the lead author of this report. Rincon GIS Analyst Allysen Valencia prepared the figures included in this report. Rincon Principal Andrew Pulcheon reviewed this report for quality control.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project 4
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Introduction
Cultural Resources Assessment Report5
Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects Map
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
6 2 Regulatory Framework

2.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act
The definition of a federal undertaking [36 CFR 800.16(y)] includes projects requiring a federal permit, license, or approval. Due to the necessity for an USACE permit, the proposed undertaking is subject to Section 106 (16 United States Code 470f), which requires federal agencies to account for the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings (36 CFR 800.1). Under Section 106, the significance of any adversely affected historic property is assessed and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce any impacts to an acceptable level. Historic properties include any district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, per the criteria listed below (36 CFR 60.4):

The quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined in the following manner:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Regulatory Framewor
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
8 3 Natural and Cultural Setting

3.1 Environmental Setting
The APE for the current undertaking is located along Pacifica Esplanade Beach and includes a portion of Esplanade Avenue. Composed primarily of sand (beach) and asphalt (road), the APE is at sea level with the Pacific Ocean to the west and the City of Pacifica to the east.

3.2 Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Overview
The project lies in the San Francisco Bay archaeological region (Milliken et al. 2007; Moratto 1984).

Following Milliken et al., (2007), the prehistoric cultural chronology for the Bay Area can be generally divided into five periods: the Early Holocene (8,000-3,500 B.C.), the Early Period (3,500- 500 B.C.), the Lower Middle Period (500 B.C. to A.D. 430), the Upper Middle Period (A.D. 430-1050), and the Late Period (A.D. 1050-contact).

It is presumed that Paleoindian groups lived in the area prior to 8,000 B.C., however no evidence for that period has been discovered in the Bay Area to date (Milliken et al. 2007). For this reason, the Paleoindian Period (ca. 11,500-8,000 B.C.) is not discussed here.

The earliest intensive study of archaeology in the San Francisco Bay Area began with N. C. Nelson of the University of California Berkeley, between 1906 and 1908. He documented over 100 shell mounds along the shores of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Nelson was the first to identify the Bay Area as a discrete archaeological region (Moratto 1984).

Early Holocene (8,000-3,500 B.C.)
The Early Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by a mobile forager pattern and the presence of millingslabs, handstones, and a variety of leaf-shaped projectile points, though evidence for this period is limited. It is likely that Holocene alluvial deposits buried many prehistoric sites in the area (Ragir 1972; Moratto 1984). Sites such as CCO-696 and CCO-637 in Contra Costa County are two of just a few sites dating to this period. The earliest date for the Early Holocene comes from the CCO-696 at Los Vaqueros Reservoir, approximately 68 kilometers (42 miles) northeast of the APE, dating to 7920 cal B.C (Milliken et al. 2007).

Early Period (3,500-500 B.C.)
The Early Period saw increased sedentism as indicated by new ground stone technologies (introduction of the mortar and pestle), an increase in regional trade, and the earliest cut-bead horizon. The first documentation of the mortar and pestle, dating to 3800 B.C., comes from CCO-637 in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir area. By 1500 B.C., mortars and pestles had almost completely replaced millingslabs and handstones. A shift to a sedentary or semi-sedentary lifestyle is marked by the prevalence of mortars and pestles, ornamental grave associations, and shell mounds. The earliest cut bead horizon, dating to this period, is represented by rectangular Haliotis and Olivella beads from several sites, including CCO-637, SCL-832 in Sunnyvale, and ALA-307 in Berkeley (Milliken et al. 2007). The advent of the mortar and pestle indicate a greater reliance on processing 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Natural and Cultura
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 9
nuts such as acorns. Faunal evidence from various sites indicates a diverse diet based on mussel and other shellfish, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, and birds (D’Oro 2009).

Lower Middle Period (500 B.C. – A.D. 430)
The Lower Middle Period saw numerous changes from the previous period. Rectangular shell beads, common during the Early Period, disappear completely and are replaced by split-beveled and saucer Olivella beads. In addition to the changes in beads, Haliotis ornaments, bone tools and ornaments, and basketry awls indicating coiled basketry manufacture appeared. Mortars and pestles continued to be the dominant grinding tool (Milliken et al. 2007). Evidence for the Lower Middle Period in the Bay Area comes from sites such as the Emeryville shell mound (ALA-309) and Ellis Landing (CCO295). ALA-309 is one of the largest shell mounds in the Bay Area and contains multiple cultural sequences. The lower levels of the site, dating to the Middle Period, contain flexed burials with bone implements, chert bifaces, charmstones, and oyster shells (Moratto 1984).

Upper Middle Period (A.D. 430-1,050)
Around A.D. 430, Olivella saucer bead trade networks established during earlier periods collapsed and over half of known sites occupied during the Lower Middle Period were abandoned. Olivella saucer beads were replaced with Olivella saddle beads. New items appear at sites, including elaborate, decorative blades, fishtail charmstones, new Haliotis ornament forms, and mica ornaments. Sea otter bones became more frequent from earlier periods (Milliken et al. 2007).

Excavations at ALA-309 have indicated a shift from oysters to clams at that site. Subsistence analysis at various sites dating to this period indicate a diverse diet that included various species of fish, mammal species, bird species, shellfish, and plant resources that varied by location within the Bay Area (Hylkema 2002).

Late Period (A.D. 1,050-contact)
The Late Period saw an increase in social complexity, indicated by differences in burials, and an increased level of sedentism. Small, finely worked projectile points associated with bow and arrow technology appear around A.D. 1250. Olivella shell beads disappeared and were replaced with clamshell disk beads. The toggle harpoon, hopper mortar, and magnesite tube beads also appeared during this period (Milliken et al. 2007). This period saw an increase in the intensity of resource exploitation that correlates with an increase in population (Moratto 1984). Many of the well-known sites of earlier periods, such as the Emeryville shell mound (ALA-309) and the West Berkeley site (ALA-307) were abandoned, possibly due to fluctuating climates and drought that occurred throughout the Late Period (Lightfoot and Luby 2002).

Ethnographic Overview
The project APE lies within an area traditionally occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people.

Ohlone territory extends from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers issue into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur, with the inland boundary most likely constituted by the interior Coast Ranges (Kroeber 1925:462). The Ohlone language belongs to the Penutian family, with several distinct dialects throughout the region (Kroeber 1925: 462). A discussion of the Ohlone follows.

Ohlone
The pre-contact Ohlone were semi-sedentary, with a settlement system characterized by base camps of tule reed houses and seasonal specialized camps (Skowronek 1998). Villages were divided 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
10 into small polities, each of which was governed by a chief responsible for settling disputes, acting as a war leader (general) during times of conflict, and supervising economic and ceremonial activities (Skowronek 1998, Kroeber 1925:468). Social organization appeared flexible to ethnographers and any sort of social hierarchy was not apparent to mission priests (Skowronek 1998).

Ohlone subsistence was based on hunting, gathering, and fishing (Kroeber 1925: 467, Skowronek 1998). Mussels were a particularly important food resource (Kroeber 1925: 467). Sea mammals were also important; sea lions and seals were hunted, and beached whales were exploited (Kroeber 1925: 467). Like the rest of California, the acorn was an important staple and was prepared by leaching acorn meal both in openwork baskets and in holes dug into the sand (Kroeber 1925: 467).

The Ohlone also practiced controlled burning to facilitate plant growth (Kroeber 1925: 467, Skowronek 1998).

Seven Franciscan missions were built within Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system (Kroeber 1925: 462, Skowronek 1998). After the establishment of the missions, Ohlone population dwindled from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814 (Skowronek 1998). In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300. The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize aspects of their culture (Skowronek 1998).

Historic Overview
Post-European contact history for California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848–present), summarized below.

Spanish Period (1769–1822)
In 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition to observe what was known by the Spanish as Alta (upper) California. For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the coast of Alta California. They made limited inland expeditions but did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junipero Serra established the first Spanish settlement in Alta California at Mission San Diego de Alcalá. This was the first of 21 missions erected by the Spanish between 1769 and 1823. In addition to the missions, four presidios and three pueblos (towns) were established throughout the state (State Lands Commission 1982). During his expedition, Portola traveled to Sweeney Ridge, in present day Pacifica (San Mateo County) and was the first European to identify the San Francisco Bay. The closest mission, Mission San Francisco de Asís, roughly 9 miles northeast of the current APE, was established in 1776.

During this period, Spain granted ranchos to prominent citizens and soldiers, though very few in comparison to the subsequent Mexican Period. To manage and expand herds of cattle on these large ranchos, colonists often forced or coerced the labor of the surrounding Native American population (Engelhardt 1927a; Reséndez 2016). The missions were responsible for administrating to local Native American populations and for their conversion to Christianity (Engelhardt 1927b). The influx of European settlers brought Native American populations in contact with European diseases which they had no immunity against, resulting in a catastrophic reduction in native populations throughout the state (McCawley 1996).
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Natural and Cultura
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 11
Mexican Period (1822–1848)
The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican Revolution (1810-1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. This period saw the privatization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833 which enabled Mexican governors in California to grant former mission lands to private individuals. Successive Mexican governors made more than 700 land grants between 1822 and 1846, putting much of the state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Shumway 2006). About 22 land grants (ranchos) were located in San Mateo County. In 1839, Governor Juan Alvarado granted the 8,928-acre Rancho San Pedro to Don Francisco Sanchez, which encompasses the present-day city of Pacifica. Sanchez built an adobe house on the Rancho and used the land ranch cattle until it was sold in 1871 (Architectural Resources Group 2017).

The Mexican Period ended in early January 1848, following several decisive battles against the United States. On January 10, leaders of the Pueblo of Los Angeles surrendered peacefully after Mexican General Jose Maria Flores withdrew his forces. Shortly thereafter, newly appointed Mexican Military Commander of California Andrés Pico surrendered all of Alta California to US Army Lieutenant Colonel John C. Fremont in the Treaty of Cahuenga.

American Period (1848–Present)
The American Period officially began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for conquered territory including the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Settlement of Southern California continued to increase during the early American Period. Ranchos were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans, with many subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns.

The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 led to the California Gold Rush (Guinn 1977; Workman 1935:26) and California’s population, particularly that of the bay area, grew exponentially.

During this time, San Francisco became California’s first true city, growing from a population of 812 to 25,000 in only a few years (Rolle 2003). During the gold rush, Redwood City developed into an important shipping point for a variety of goods in route to San Francisco.

By 1853, the population of California exceeded 300,000. Thousands of settlers and immigrants continued to pour into the state, particularly after the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. By the 1880s, the railroads had established networks throughout northern California, resulting in fast and affordable shipment of goods, as well as a means to transport new residents to the booming region (Dumke 1944). Construction on the Ocean Shore Railway began in 1905 with the intention of connecting San Francisco to Santa Cruz, though by its completion in 1907 it only made it as far south as Half Moon Bay, going through Tobin in present-day Pacifica. During this time, several small communities began to grow, with a large population boom following World War II. In 1957, Pacifica was incorporated into San Mateo County (City of Pacifica 2014). 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
12 4 Background Research

4.1 California Historical Resources Information System
Rincon requested a search of the California Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State University, on April 5, 2021, with results received on May 21, 2021 (Appendix A). The purpose of the records search was to identify known cultural resources studies and resources within the APE and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding the APE.

The records search also included a review of the following: NRHP, California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmark, Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility.

The records search identified 12 cultural resources studies conducted previously within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE (Table 1), none of which are located within the APE.

Table 1 Previous Studies within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the APE NWIC
Report No. Author Year Study
Relationship
to APE
S-003056 David Chavez 1978 An Archaeological Impact Evaluation of the Edgemar Residential Development area in Pacifica (letter
report)
Outside
S-003078 David Chavez 1979 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed Esplanade Townhouses Location in Pacifica
Outside
S-003140 Daniel Young 1976 Archaeological Survey Report for Resurfacing and Reconstructing Shoulders of Highway on 4-SM-1-

45.4/46.5
Outside
S-003169 William Breece 1981 Archaeological Survey for the Rancho Del Mar Project Area, Northwest Pacifica, San Mateo County,
California
Outside
S-017339 Matthew Clark 1995 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the City of Pacifica’s Coastal Bike Route Project, San Mateo
County, California
Outside
S-021836 Miley Holman 1999 Archaeological Research Conducted at the Bowl Project Area, Pacifica, San Mateo County, California
(letter report)
Outside
S-035627 Carolyn Losee 2008 Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T CN5421 "Hayne Road & Sonora", 380 Esplanade Avenue,
Pacifica, California 94044. EBI #61086997 (letter
report)
Outside
S-035643 Melinda Hickman
and Connie Moreno
2008 Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Manor Drive
Overpass Widening Project/ Milaga Drive On-Ramp
Project, San Mateo County, California
Outside
S-043927 Dana Supernowicz 2010 Cultural Resources Study of the Ace Hardware Project, Clearwire Site N. CA-SFO0293, 451 Oceana Boulevard,
Pacifica, San Mateo County, California 94044
Outside
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Background Research
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 13
NWIC
Report No. Author Year Study
Relationship
to APE
S-043927a Milford Donaldson
and Brian Ross
2010 FCC100614F: Clearwire Wireless Broadband Proposed
Telecommunication Project: CASFO0293, 451 Oceana
Blvd Pacifica, San Mateo County, California 94044
Outside
S-046397 Tim Spillane 2014 Archaeological Overview and Assessment: Indigenous Sites of the GGNRA, 2014
Outside
S-047104 Heidi Koenig 2015 Milagra Battery Trail Project, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Outside
S-048814 Carolyn Losee 2017 Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T CCL05421 “Hayne Rd/Sonora” 380 Esplanade Avenue, Pacifica,
San Mateo County, California 94044 (letter report)
Outside
Source: NWIC 2021
Additionally, the records search identified two previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5- mile radius of the APE (Table 2), neither of which are located within the APE.

Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.50-mile of the APE Primary
Number
Resource
Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP Status
Relationship
to APE
P-41-002394 Building Pacific Manor
Hardware Building
2010 (Dana Supernowicz,
[none])
Recommended
ineligible for
NRHP
Outside
P-41-002555 Building 380 Esplanade Ave 2017 (Alexandra Bevk [none]) Recommended ineligible for
NRHP and CRHR
Outside
Source: NWIC 2021
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
14 5 Field Survey Methods and Results
Rincon Cultural Resources Specialist and Archaeologist Heather Blind, MA, RPA, conducted a field survey of the APE on May 27, 2021. The archaeologist surveyed the APE where possible using transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart. The survey transects were oriented generally in a north-south direction. The archaeologist examined exposed ground surface for the following:
artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were inspected visually. Field notes of survey conditions and observations were recorded using Rincon field forms and a digital camera.

Copies of the original field notes and photographs are maintained at Rincon’s Oakland office.

The APE consists of a sandy beach bordering the Pacific Ocean with an adjacent bluff consisting of compact sand and sedimentary rock in the west (Figure 3) and the paved roadway known as Esplanade Avenue in the east (Figure 4). Ground visibility was very good within areas of bluff or beach, and was poor along the roadway where the APE was covered with asphalt. The eastern portions of the APE have been previously disturbed by the construction of Esplanade Avenue, installation of utilities and fencing, and previous restoration efforts. A chain link fence separates the beach bluff from Esplanade Avenue and runs in a generally north-south direction (Figure 5).

Additionally, a pathway leads from Esplanade Avenue in the northern portion of the APE cutting into the bluffs down to the beach (Figure 6). Large stones line the bluff edge along the beach. One concrete footing with no historic-era diagnostic features was identified within the APE. This footing was likely from a modern lamp post. No cultural resources were identified during the survey. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Field Survey Method
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 15
Figure 3 Overview of the Sandy Beach Area of the APE, Facing South Figure 4 Overview of Esplanade Avenue, Facing East
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
16 Figure 5 Overview of APE with Fenceline Separating Esplanade Avenue from the Beach Figure 6 Pathway Cutting into Bluff in Northern Portion of APE 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Conclusions and Rec
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 17
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
This study did not identify cultural resources or cultural resources sensitivity within the APE. The CHRIS records search did not indicate any previously recorded cultural resources within the APE or a

0.5-mile radius, and the survey did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the APE. Further, the APE has been previously disturbed by construction of the extant road and associated utilities as well as erosion to the bluff. Based on the results of this study, a finding of no historic properties affected is appropriate for the undertaking The following best management practices are recommended in the case of unanticipated archaeological resources or human remains.

6.1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for NRHP eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties.

6.2 Human Remains
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
18 7 References
Architectural Resources Group
2017 Sanchez Adobe Historical Site: Master Plan. Report prepared for San Mateo Parks Department, Redwood City, California.

Bean, Walton
1968 California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

City of Pacifica
2014 Pacifica General Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report. Accessed April 1, 2021. https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=6572.

D’Oro, Stella
2009 Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University.

Dumke, Glenn S.
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, California: Huntington Library Publications.

Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1927a San Fernando Rey, the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. 1927b San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Mission San Gabriel, San Gabriel, California.

Guinn, J.M.
1977 Gold! Gold! Gold! from San Francisquito! in Los Angeles Biography of a City. John Caughey and LaRee Caughey, eds. Berkeley, California: University of California, Berkeley Press.

Hylkema, Mark G.
2002 Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233–262. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, Alfred J.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

Originally published 1925, Smithsonian Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) References
Cultural Resources Assessment Report 19
Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby
2002 Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area: Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L.

Jones, pp.263-281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California.

Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.

Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.

National Park Service
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document. Accessed February 2020 at:
https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm
Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.

Reséndez, Andrés
2016 The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, New York.

Rolle, Andrew
2003 California: A History. Wheeling, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.

Shumway, Burgess McK.
2007 California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County. Rockville, Maryland:

Borgo Publishing Press.

Skowronek, Russell K.
1998 Sifting the Evidence: Perceptions of Life at the Ohlone (Costanoan) Missions of Alta California. Ethnohistory 45: 675-708.

State Lands Commission
1982 Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities. Report on file with the California State Lands Commission, Sacramento, California. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Moffatt & Nichol
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
20 Workman, Boyle
1935 The City that Grew. Southland Publication Co., Los Angeles, CA. 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Appendix A
Records Search Results
400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 5/21/2021 NWIC File No.: 20-1984
Elaine Foster
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 N. Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003
Re: 400 Espalande Infrastructure Preservation Project
The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the South San Francisco USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a ½ mile radius:

Resources within project area: None
Resources within ½ mile radius: P-41-002394; P-41-002555 Reports within project area: None
Reports within ½ mile radius: S-3056; S-3078; S-3140; S-3169; S-17339; S-21836; S-35627; S-35643; S-43927; S-46397; S-47104; S-48814
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution.

If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,
Justin Murazzo
Researcher
*Notes:
** Current versions of these resources are available on-line:

Caltrans Bridge Survey: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Soil Survey: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateld=CA Shipwreck Inventory: http://www.slc.ca.gov/Info/Shipwrecks.html 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Draft Design Report – Appendix IV February 2022

12.a
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Appendix V
Evaluation of Alternatives

12.a
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report) 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Technical
Maximum 40 points
21 points 35 points 24 points 29 points 38 points
Performance
Maximum = 16 pts
 Bluff Toe Protection
(BT)
max = 5 pts
 Bluff Stability (BS)
max = 4 pts
 Upper Bluff Protection
(UB) max = 3 pts
 Scour Protection (SP)
max = 2 pts
 Self-Adjusting (SA)
max = 2 pts
8 points
 BT = 3 pts
 BS = 1 pt
 UB = 0 pts
 SP = 2 pts
 SA = 2 pts
Sand from bluff will provide
some short-term toe
protection from wave action
by limiting water depth and
causing waves to break
further offshore. Toe of bluff
will migrate landward
episodically leading to upper
bluff collapse. Upper bluff
remains unprotected and will
be allowed to erode over
time. Sand provides some
protection from scour and
self-adjusts very well. Scour
protection not needed due to
absence of structure or
revetment.
13 points
 BT = 5 pts
 BS = 3 pts
 UB = 1 pt
 SP = 2 pts
 SA = 2 pts
Rock provides excellent
protection from wave
action. Bluff stability
sufficient to avoid impacts
to infrastructure. Upper bluff
remains unprotected and
will be allowed to erode
over time, but upper bluff
erosion is constrained by
the toe protection. Rock
self-adjusts to
accommodate anomalies
such as overtopping (if
occurs).
9 points
 BT = 4 pts
 BS = 3 pts
 UB = 1 pt
 SP = 1 pt
 SA = 0 pts
Shotcrete wall provides
good protection from wave
action. Overtopping (if
occurs) would potentially
reduce performance if soil
material is mobilized from
behind shotcrete face. Bluff
stability sufficient to avoid
impacts to infrastructure.

Upper bluff remains
unprotected and will be
allowed to erode over time.

Rock toe scour apron
provides scour protection
for the shotcrete wall.
12 points
 BT = 4 pts
 BS = 4 pts
 UB = 3 pts
 SP = 1 pt
 SA = 0 pts
Shotcrete wall provides
good protection from wave
action at toe of wall and
prevents overtopping.

Surface flow needs to be
redirected to prevent
erosion from mobilizing
bluff material which would
greatly reduce
performance. Excellent bluff
stability avoids impacts to
infrastructure. Rock toe
scour apron provides scour
protection for the shotcrete
wall.
15 points
 BT = 5 pts
 BS = 4 pts
 UB = 2 pts
 SP = 2 pts
 SA = 2 pts
Same bluff toe protection
as Alt 2 plus some upper
bluff protection. Excellent
bluff stability avoids impacts
to infrastructure. The
middle portion of the upper
bluff remains unprotected
and will be allowed to erode
over time, but bluff erosion
is constrained by the toe
protection.

Stitch piles will reduce
extent of uppermost bluff
erosion by intercepting the
potential slip plane. Soil
arching between piles will
allow short-term exposure
of bluff between piles.

Future shotcrete wall could
be constructed on face of
exposed piles, if desired or
necessary.

12.a
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Reliability & Longevity
Maximum = 8 points
 Reliability (RE)
max = 4 pts
 Longevity (LO)
max = 4 pts
4 points
 RE = 2 pts
 LO = 2 pts
Sand from eroding bluff
provides reliable protection
but only for short duration.

Sand longevity is
compromised by off-shore
and long-shore migration.
7 points
 RE = 4 pts
 LO = 3 pts
Rock revetments are
reliable when properly sized
and constructed. Rock has
excellent longevity. Upper
bluff is allowed to erode
above the revetment,
leading to some reduction
in longevity.
5 points
 RE = 3 pts
 LO = 2 pts
Shotcrete walls with
tiebacks are considered
reliable when properly
designed and constructed.

Concrete walls can not
adjust to changing condition
so scour may reduce both
reliability and longevity.

Potential for corrosion of
reinforcing steel reduces
longevity.
6 points
 RE = 3 pts
 LO = 3 pts
Shotcrete walls with
tiebacks are considered
reliable when properly
designed and constructed.

Concrete walls can not
adjust to changing condition
so scour may reduce both
reliability and longevity.

Potential for corrosion of
reinforcing steel reduces
longevity. Full-height wall
provides better longevity
than low-height wall.
8 points
 RE = 4 pts
 LO = 4 pts
Rock revetments are
reliable when properly sized
and constructed. Rock has
excellent longevity.

Upper bluff protection
results in highest-rated
longevity. Concrete will not
be in a wave environment
which will not affect
longevity as much as Alt 3
and Alt 4.

Sea Level Rise
Adaptability
Maximum = 8 points
 Crest Adaptability (CA)
max = 4 pts
 Toe Adaptability (TA)
max = 4 pts
4 points
 CA = 2 pts
 TA = 2 pts
Ability to adjust to SLR is
limited due to the small
available volume of sand
contributed to the beach by
the bluff itself.

Managed retreat will
accommodate SLR but only
for short duration before
infrastructure is subject to
damage.
8 points
 CA = 4 pts
 TA = 4 pts
Rock at the bluff toe will
continue to perform as SLR
occurs. Additional rock can
be added to the revetment
if needed in the future to
address issues caused by
SLR.
5 points
 CA = 2 pts
 TA = 3 pts
Scour rock at the shotcrete
wall is minimal but can be
augmented to address
increased scour caused by
SLR. The shotcrete wall
can not be raised in
response to SLR, but some
modifications can be made
above the shotcrete wall if
needed due to overtopping.
7 points
 CA = 4 pts
 TA = 3 pts
Scour rock at the shotcrete
wall is minimal but can be
augmented to address
increased scour caused by
SLR. The shotcrete wall will
not need to be raised in
response to SLR.
8 points
 CA = 4 pts
 TA = 4 pts
Rock at the bluff toe will
continue to perform as SLR
occurs. Additional rock can
be added to the revetment
if needed in the future to
address issues caused by
SLR. Stitch piles will not be
affected by SLR.

12.a
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Constructability
Maximum = 4 points
 Ease of Construction
(EC)
max = 2 pts
 Beach Work (BW)
max = 2 pts
2 points
 EC = 0 pts
 BW = 2 pts
Extensive construction due
to closure/realignment of
Esplanade, storm drain
removal and new outfall
construction, and new
sanitary sewer pump station
and relocation of pipe
system.
4 points
 EC = 2 pts
 BW = 2 pts
Requires excavation (3,600
cy) followed by placement
of approximately 5000 cy of
rock. This requires the
highest number of truck
haul trips but work effort is
not technically challenging.
3 points
 EC = 1 pt
 BW = 2 pts
Requires rock scour apron,
extensive bluff surface
preparation, tieback
installation, and shotcrete
application. Significant
equipment will need to
operate from the beach.
2 points
 EC = 1 pt
 BW = 1 pt
Requires rock scour apron,
extensive bluff surface
preparation, tieback
installation, and shotcrete
application. Significant
equipment will need to
operate from the beach and
some work may need to be
done from the bluff top via
crane.
4 points
 EC = 2 pts
 BW = 2 pts
Requires excavation (3,600
cy) followed by placement
of approximately 5000 cy of
rock. This requires the
highest number of truck
haul trips but work effort is
not technically challenging.

CIDH piles installation will
impact area near roadway
but sufficient space is
available for cranes and
concrete pump truck.

Operations &
Maintenance
Maximum = 4 points
 Inspection Needs (IN)
max = 2 pts
 Operations &
Maintenance (OM)
max = 2 pts
3 points
 IN = 2 pts
 OM = 1 pt
No maintenance of bluff
required. Bluff will erode and
supply material to the beach.

Maintenance of pump station
for storm drain will result in
ongoing effort and cost.
3 points
 IN = 2 pts
 OM = 1 pt
Maintenance of revetment
may include replacement of
dislodged rock due to large
waves.
2 points
 IN = 1 pt
 OM = 1 pt
Scour apron and shotcrete
wall will need periodic
inspection and
maintenance. Scour apron
will be susceptible to large
waves.
2 points
 IN = 1 pt
 OM = 1 pt
Scour apron and shotcrete
wall will need periodic
inspection and
maintenance. Scour apron
will be susceptible to large
waves. Measures to
prevent erosion from
above/behind shotcrete wall
may also need periodic
maintenance.
3 points
 IN = 2 pts
 OM = 1 pt
Maintenance of revetment
may include replacement of
dislodged rock due to large
waves. Concrete piles and
cap are not expected to
require maintenance.

12.a
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Financial
Maximum 30 points
7 points 30 points 22 points 12 points 23 points
Estimated Project Cost Range: $8.1M - $12.1M
Median Cost: $10.1M
Work includes closure of
Esplanade at the intersection
with Manor Drive.

Southbound Esplanade
would turn east onto Manor
Drive, and northbound
Esplanade would terminate
at a new cul-de-sac. Cul-desac requires acquisition of three properties, significantly
increasing project costs.

Work will include roadwork
and utility relocation and
modifications, including new
storm drain outfalls and a
sanitary sewer pump station.

Significant permitting,
design, and CM costs will be
required.

Costs are based on
planning-level costs by City
of Pacifica.

Lowest lifecycle costs due to
absence of infrastructure
protection features requiring
maintenance.

Range: $2.0M - $2.9M
Median Cost: $2.4M
Lowest project cost. No
special materials needed.

No utility costs expected.

Related soft costs are
minimal.

Costs are based on bids for
construction performed in
2018 escalated to 2022.

Lowest lifecycle costs for
alternatives providing
infrastructure protection
(Alts 2-5) due to minimal
maintenance cost and
decommissioning costs.

Range: $2.7M - $4.1M
Median Cost: $3.4M
Shotcrete wall requires
specialty contractor. No
utility costs expected.

Related soft costs are
minimal.

Costs are based on bids for
construction performed in
2018 escalated to 2022 and
recent quote for similar type
of shotcrete wall.

Range: $4.9M -$7.3M
Median Cost: $6.1M
Shotcrete wall requires
specialty contractor. No
utility costs expected.

Related soft costs are much
higher than Alt 3 due to
significantly larger wall.

Costs are based on bids for
construction performed in
2018 escalated to 2022 and
recent quote for similar type
of shotcrete wall.

Highest lifecycle costs due
to demolition and disposal
of shotcrete wall.

Range: $2.5M - $3.8M
Median Cost: $3.2M
Cost to construct revetment
is same as Alt 2.

Additional costs are due to
cast-in-drilled-hole piles.

No utility costs expected.

Related soft costs are
minimal.

Costs are based on bids for
construction performed in
2018 escalated to 2022;
CIDH pile cost based on
Caltrans Cost Data 2021.

12.a
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Environmental
Maximum 30 points
23 points 22 points 25 points 23 points 22 points
Marine Biological
Resources
Maximum = 6 points
 Temporary Impacts (TI)
max = 3 pts
 Permanent Impacts (PI)
max = 3 pts
6 points
 TI = 3 pts
 PI = 3 pts
Work is above MHW and will
not affect marine biological
resources.
5 points
 TI = 3 pts
 PI = 2 pts
Work is above MHW and is
not expected to have
temporary impacts to
marine biological
resources. Rock footprint
may at times have an
impact on marine biological
resources.
5 points
 TI = 2 pts
 PI = 3 pts
Work is above MHW and is
not expected to have
temporary impacts to
marine biological
resources. Rock footprint
not likely to have an impact
on marine biological
resources. Shotcrete and
tieback operations could
result in temporary impacts.
5 points
 TI = 2 pts
 PI = 3 pts
Work is above MHW and is
not expected to have
temporary impacts to
marine biological
resources. Rock footprint
not likely to have an impact
on marine biological
resources. Shotcrete and
tieback operations could
result in temporary impacts.
5 points
 TI = 3 pts
 PI = 2 pts
Work is above MHW and is
not expected to have
temporary impacts to
marine biological
resources. Rock footprint
may at times have an
impact on marine biological
resources. Stitch piles do
not affect marine
environment.

Terrestrial Biological
Resources
Maximum = 6 points
 Temporary Impacts (TI)
max = 3 pts
 Permanent Impacts (PI)
max = 3 pts
6 points
 TI = 3 pts
 PI = 3 pts
No temporary or permanent
impacts due to fully natural
habitat.
4 points
 TI = 2 pts
 PI = 2 pts
Revetment construction will
have minor temporary
impact to terrestrial
resources due to equipment
and hauling. Some
permanent impacts due to
footprint of revetment.
5 points
 TI = 3 pts
 PI = 2 pts
Revetment construction will
have minor temporary
impact to terrestrial
resources due to equipment
and hauling. Shotcrete wall
will have moderate
temporary and permanent
impacts to terrestrial
resources due to presence
of shotcrete wall and
tiebacks.
3 points
 TI = 2 pts
 PI = 1 pt
Revetment construction will
have minor temporary
impact to terrestrial
resources due to equipment
and hauling. Full-height
shotcrete wall will have
greatest temporary and
permanent impacts to
terrestrial resources due to
presence of shotcrete wall
and tiebacks.
3 points
 TI = 2 pts
 PI = 1 pt
Revetment and CIDH pile
construction will have minor
temporary impact to
terrestrial resources due to
equipment and hauling.

Some permanent impacts
due to footprint of
revetment, and footprint of
CIDH piles.

12.a
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Visual Resources
Maximum = 6 points
 Bluff Aesthetics (BL)
max = 3 pts
 Beach Aesthetics (BE)
max = 3 pts
6 points
 BL = 3 pts
 BE = 3 pts
Natural bluff, no impacts.
4 points
 BL = 3 pts
 BE = 1 pt
Natural upper bluff, rock at
toe of bluff will result in
moderate negative visual
impact. Rock at lower
elevations are typically
hidden/buried under beach
sand.
5 points
 BL = 3 pts
 BE = 2 pts
Natural upper bluff, scour
rock at toe of bluff is
typically hidden/buried
under beach sand.

Shotcrete wall at toe of bluff
will result in moderate
negative visual impact but
less impact than rock.
3 points
 BL = 1 pt
 BE = 2 pts
Bluff covered with shotcrete
wall has greatest visual
impact, even with sculpting
and coloring to appear
natural. Shotcrete wall at
toe of bluff will result in
moderate negative visual
impact but less impact than
rock.
3 points
 BL = 2 pts
 BE = 1 pt
Natural upper bluff, rock at
toe of bluff will result in
moderate negative visual
impact. Concrete piles will
be largely hidden from
roadway initially and will
over time be revealed due
to upper bluff erosion and
will be visible from the
beach.

Coastal Access
Maximum = 6 points
 Blufftop Access (BT)
max = 3 pts
 Beach Use (BU)
max = 3 pts
2 points
 BT = 1 pt
 BU = 1 pt
Bluff will be prone to
collapse and will pose a
hazard to blufftop
(longitudinal) access and
users on the beach.
5 points
 BT = 2 pts
 BU = 3 pts
Protecting the base of the
bluff will allow safe beach
use and minimize bluff
erosion which preserves
blufftop access along
Esplanade. Upper bluff is
unprotected so potential for
long-term impact to blufftop
access exists.
5 points
 BT = 2 pts
 BU = 3 pts
Protecting the base of the
bluff will allow safe beach
use and minimize bluff
erosion which preserves
blufftop access along
Esplanade. Upper bluff is
unprotected so potential for
long-term impact to blufftop
access exists.
6 points
 BT = 3 pts
 BU = 3 pts
Protecting the majority of
the bluff will allow safe
beach use and potentially
eliminate bluff erosion
which preserves blufftop
access along Esplanade.
6 points
 BT = 3 pts
 BU = 3 pts
Protecting the base of the
bluff will allow safe beach
use and minimize bluff
erosion which preserves
blufftop access along
Esplanade. Stitch piles
further protect the
uppermost portion of the
bluff for blufftop access.

12.a
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Alternative
1 2 3 4 5
No Protection 1 Bluff Toe Protection
Rock Revetment 1
Bluff Toe Protection
Low Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Shotcrete Wall 1
Bluff Protection
Rock Revetment & Stitch
Piles 1
Recreation
Maximum = 6 points
 Recreation
Opportunities (RO)
max = 3 pts
 Encourages Beach Use
(EB) max = 3 pts
3 points
 RO = 1 pt
 EB = 2 pts
Construction of blufftop
access (Coastal Trail) would
not be warranted without
adequate bluff protection.

Largest available beach
area. However, the area
near the bluff toe may be
hazardous and may need to
be signed accordingly to
warn beach users.
4 points
 RO = 2 pts
 EB = 2 pts
Protecting the bluff toe
minimizes future bluff
collapse/erosion, allowing
construction of blufftop
access (Coastal Trail) and
encourages beach use.

Beach use is hindered
slightly due to rock
revetment footprint.
5 points
 RO = 2 pts
 EB = 3 pts
Protecting the bluff toe
minimizes future bluff
collapse/erosion, allowing
construction of blufftop
access (Coastal Trail) and
encourages beach use.

Beach use is maximized by
reduction of rock revetment.
6 points
 RO = 3 pts
 EB = 3 pts
Protecting the entire bluff
eliminates future bluff
collapse/erosion, allowing
construction of blufftop
access (Coastal Trail) and
encourages beach use.

Beach use is maximized by
reduction of rock revetment.
5 points
 RO = 3 pts
 EB = 2 pts
Protecting the bluff toe
minimizes future bluff
collapse/erosion, allowing
construction of blufftop
access (Coastal Trail) and
encourages beach use.

Beach use is hindered
slightly due to rock
revetment footprint. The
pile-supported coastal trail
will provide the greatest
degree of access along
Esplanade.

Technical 21 points 35 points 24 points 29 points 38 points Financial 7 points 30 points 22 points 12 points 23 points Environmental 23 points 22 points 25 points 23 points 22 points Totals
Max 100 points
51 points 87 points 71 points 64 points 83 points
Rank 5 1 3 4 2
1 Scoring of Alternatives assume that there is no existing rock revetment.

12.a
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project | City of Pacifica Appendix V – Evaluation of Alternatives
February 2022
Creative People, Practical Solutions.®
Summary of Conceptual Costs used in Financial Category Scoring Financial Category Scoring

12.a
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Feasibility Report [Revision 1] (4880 : Approval of 400 Esplanade

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Follow-up Information about Council Chambers Improvements or Relocation of Meetings to an Alternate Location and Update on Returning to In-Person City Council Meetings RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning March 14, 2022; and

2. Receive follow-up information about Council Chambers’ improvements or relocation of City Council meetings to the Community Center or Oceana High School Theatre and provide direction to the City Manager about next steps.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council has discussed when and how to return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings several times since fall 2021, at City Council meetings on September 27, November 8, and December 13. Due to health risks from COVID-19 variants, the Council decided each time to delay return to in-person meetings and, most recently on December 13, set March 14, 2022, as the new target date. The City Council also directed implementation of a “phone-in for public comment” hybrid model for City Council and Planning Commission meetings, the two regular meeting bodies that are filmed and streamed by Pacifica Community Television (PCT).

In addition, at the December 13 meeting, at the request of then Mayor pro Tem Bier, the City Council discussed whether the Council supported making modest improvements to the current Council Chambers or relocating City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meetings to the Community Center Auditorium at 540 Crespi Drive. As part of that discussion, the Council directed the City Manager to bring back more cost and operational impact information about those options, in addition to inquiring about potential use of the Oceana High School Theatre.

COVID-19 Update
Although the Omicron variant spread rapidly during and after the December holiday season, with positive case rates spiking in mid-January, there has been a recent dramatic decrease in positive cases in the third week of February. In addition, the health effects of Omicron are generally much less severe for vaccinated persons, and San Mateo County has a 93.9% vaccination rate for 5+ age. As a result of the decrease in cases and lower health risks from Omicron for vaccinated persons, on February 9, 2022 the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that San Mateo County would align with the state in lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated persons beginning February 16, 2022. However, unvaccinated individuals over age 2 will continue to be required to wear masks in all indoor public settings, and businesses 13 Packet Pg. 490
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
may determine their own protocols to protect staff and patrons and may choose to require all patrons to wear masks. Bay Area health officers continue to strongly recommend masks be used as an effective tool to prevent the spread of COVID-19, especially in crowded or poorly ventilated indoor public settings. Indoor masking is still required by the State for everyone, regardless of vaccination status, in public transportation; health care settings; congregate settings like correctional facilities and homeless shelters; long term care facilities; and in K-12 schools and childcare settings.

Given these improvements, the City Manager recommends a return to in-person City Council meetings beginning with the March 14, 2022, City Council meeting and other Commission/Committee meetings in March. As previously directed by the City Council, the City will pilot-test an additional alternative option for providing live public comment during the Council and Planning Commission meetings as a “phone-in for public comment” hybrid system, which allows for someone who is watching a streaming version of the meeting on television or computer to call in via telephone to make public comments. City staff has been preparing with technology improvements and staffing over the past couple months to test this type of hybrid system. As previously presented to the Council in May 2021, a video and phone hybrid model such as Zoom and In-person combined, would require significant technology improvements at the Council Chambers and ongoing costs and staffing necessary to implement, and was not selected by the Council. It should also be noted that the phone-in option is susceptible to technology disruptions, and is not a guaranteed method of meeting participation. When meetings are conducted in-person, according to the Brown Act they can continue and are not required to be adjourned when such technological disruptions occur.

Council Chambers, Community Center Auditorium, and Oceana High School Theatre The second topic for discussion is whether there is Council interest in pursuing the possibility of relocating City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission meetings to the Community Center Auditorium at 540 Crespi Drive or to Oceana High School Theatre. If not, is there Council interest in exploring in funding modest improvements to the current Council Chambers, such as painting, redecorating walls, new carpet, and potentially reconstructing the Council dais to more of a curved configuration to facilitate lines of sight during Council deliberations. As follow-up to the December 13, 2021, discussion on this topic, staff has researched these options further and has the following information to report:

I. Oceana High School Theatre:

The City Manager reached out to the Jefferson Union High School District Superintendent and related staff to inquire about the feasibility of holding City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission meetings at the Oceana High School Theatre. The District’s initial reaction was that while they would like to be a good community partner and help facilitate this arrangement, they are concerned about extra work related to cleaning and/or supervising the space on a weekly basis. However, they are open to discussing it further if the City Council is interested.

In addition, a more thorough assessment would need to be completed regarding Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, technology improvements, and portability of furniture and A/V equipment to not interfere with school usage of the theatre. The District is not currently allowing outside rentals of the theatre due to COVID-19, but that may change in the near future.

In summary, this option remains a possibility pending further discussions with the District and facility assessment, should the Council be interested in exploring further. 13 Packet Pg. 491
Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
II. Community Center:

The Community Center auditorium is a multi-use room that provides space for community and senior programming. Holding Council and Commission meetings there would require set-up and break-down for each meeting and significant equipment investment. Some of the details below were presented in December, combined with additional information researched by staff:

Costs:
• Staffing for set-up and breakdown of meetings is estimated to $1,200/month and would impact Public Works and Community Center staff workload normally spent on other duties;
• Janitorial: Unknown extra cost and scheduling for extra janitorial service; • Audio/Visual Technology Upgrades: $75,000 - $95,000
▪ Portable mixing/control audio configuration required
▪ Installation of audio and visual monitors
▪ Portable computer equipment for Council/staff
▪ Microphones/Assistive Listening Devices (depending on what could be reused from the Council Chambers)
▪ Pacifica Community Television costs/operations - See Attachment A.

Some equipment details may overlap with above. Estimated cost to PCT is $50,000.

Pros:
• Nicer facility than Council Chambers
• More accessible
• More parking and better outside lighting
• Convenience of staff offices in the same building
Cons:
• Facility not centrally located in town
• Senior/Community programming impact and loss of revenue:
▪ Dance classes and community meeting space would not be able to occur in the auditorium approximately 5-8 nights per month (depending on number of regular and special Council meetings) and some afternoons (depending on start-time of meetings which determines start time of setup) ▪ Revenue loss of approximately $20,000 (based on 2019 figures) III. Improvements to Council Chambers:

The Council Chambers serves as a dedicated facility for Council/Commission meetings.

Lighting and audio/visual improvements have been made to the Council Chambers in recent years. PCT has a dedicated equipment room at the facility. Updated cost estimates from Public Works for cosmetic improvements are as follows:

Item Cost
Repaint Chambers $49,000
Replace Carpeting $25,000
Replace Windows $35,000
Replace Dais $50,000
Total $159,000
13 Packet Pg. 492
Pacifica City Council 4
February 28, 2022
The repainting cost is high due to wallpaper removal and retexturing and preparing the walls for new paint. These items would not trigger any ADA required improvements; however, any other items that would increase the total cost to over $171,000 would require ADA improvements, making the project more costly. Repainting the chambers, replacing the carpet, and replacing the windows to refresh the space by using warmer, brighter colors, would be the easiest components of cosmetic improvements. The cost for these three tasks would be $109,000 and could take up to two months, depending on window and carpet stock inventory. Reconstructing the dais would be more complex, involving design, fabrication, and electrical permitting and work.

The City Manager is seeking direction from the Council whether to pursue further any of these options. On December 13, 2021, the City Manager also indicated the need to report back to the Council about anticipated workload impacts for pursuing these options. Due to staff vacancies, the many priority projects impacting the City Manager’s Office, Public Works, and the IT Division (as relates to this issue, but other Departments are also maxed out), and the recent tripling of Public Records Act Requests being processed by the City Clerk’s Office, staff has no additional bandwidth to pursue these options without postponing other priorities. The option that is the least impactful to other priorities would be cosmetic improvements to the Council Chambers, which would be contracted out and managed by Public Works.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could identify additional options or alternatives for Council discussion not included in the information above.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Improvements to Council/Commission meeting spaces, whether at Council Chambers or the Community Center, relate to Council Goals “An Engaged Community” and “Stewardship of City Infrastructure.”
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the Council’s discussion of this item. Potential cost impacts are noted in the above summary information, and would need to be refined further pending Council direction. Funding for Council Chambers improvements would need to be allocated from General Fund undesignated balance.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Pacifica Community Television Memorandum re: “Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica Community Center” (PDF) 13 Packet Pg. 493
Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica Community Center DATE: December 6, 2021
TO: The City of Pacifica
FROM: Pacific Coast TV
BACKGROUND:

On November 30, 2021, the City of Pacifica requested that Pacific Coast TV (PCT) provide information about what equipment, audio-visual, broadcasting, etc. components as well as one-time and recurring costs would be involved if the Council were to consider holding regular City Council and Planning Commission meetings at the Pacifica Community Center auditorium instead of at Council Chambers. Additionally, other items to consider are whether or not the community center can accommodate the requirements for an installed control booth or if a mobile setup would be more appropriate. Since the community center is a multipurpose use facility, it would be more practical to use a mobile method.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:

The following is a comprehensive list of equipment and components required to broadcast public meetings originating from the community center:

1. Cameras
a. Tripods/Mounts
b. Cameras
c. Controllers
d. Cabling

2. Control Booth/Cart
a. Monitors
b. Recorders
c. Computers
d. Switcher
e. Distribution Amplifiers
f. Power Conditioners

13.a
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Community Television Memorandum re: “Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica g. Cabling

3. Audio & Public Address System
a. Microphones
b. Loudspeakers
c. Mixer
d. Distribution amplifiers
e. Cabling
f. Power conditioners
g. Assistive listening

4. Projector System
a. Screen(s)
b. Projector
c. Cabling

5. Broadcast Connectivity/Transport (Through Comcast).
a. Transcoders, Transmitters/Receivers, Encoders/Decoders b. Fiber connectivity
c. Switch

6. Internet Connectivity (for teleconferencing purposes) a. Modem
b. Router/Switch
c. Computers
d. Cabling
COSTS:

PCT can address costs relating to items 1 (cameras) and 2 (control booth/cart). The estimated one time cost for equipment alone is $50,000.

Costs relating to item 3 (audio & public address) should be addressed to Norcal Sound.

Costs relating to item 5 (broadcast connectivity) should be addressed to Comcast PEG division.

Ongoing costs will likely be incurred by telecommunication subscriptions such as internet service providers and teleconferencing.

13.a
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Community Television Memorandum re: “Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica

Pacifica City CouncilFebruary 28, 2022

Pacifica City Council
February 28, 2022