Pacifica City Council
June 25, 2022

transportation
CI-G-17 Improved Public Transit. Advocate for SamTrans and other public transit providers to improve transit service and facilities, to enable trips to be made without use of a car. In particular, advocate for the expansion of public transit services and facilities to improve public access and recreation opportunities along the coast.

Reality versus wishful thinking!
Could you please ask these consultants to come to Pacifica from their place of business in Sacramento with public transit for the next meeting at city hall and tell us all in person why they would advocate for such hair brained ideas? Conclusion
Hiring the same urban planners for millions of $$ that have destroyed the historic and individual character of other small cities as an alibi of “doing something” is a grotesque and counterproductive top down, one template fits all approach! Monetizing “ a problem” does not necessarily solve it, just makes it lucrative for a few.

What we are looking at is a typical, non enthusiastic, bureaucratic and unimaginative approach to a government imposed decree that will stifle local and individual life in its core. The study is presented by some principals hiring some just out of school graduates to fill in an industry produced template to fulfill an imposed requirement to the detriment of us all
I think we should sue the planners for shoddy work and the state agencies for imposing the requirement to produce it and asking them to pay for the plans themselves, present us with the options and let us vote to see if we want to accept it!
Amen
Sharp Park Specific Plan is a sham too; please see following pages for easy to notice inconsistencies in the plan.

We like our quaint little neighborhood with relatively easy beach parking. <> The alternatives presented in SPSP demand another suburban mall with overregulated parking, and congestion for which we have to go in eternal debt to make it possible and pay off . More money for the city along with more expenses with a net zero benefit financially BUT at huge environmental and social costs for the community! = Another bridge to nowhere messing up the scenery!

LAND USE & HOUSING
What’s planned and what we are supposed to get vs what we like! And this is what it looks like when they say
Ensure development honors the area’s character,
history, and coastal locale.
— Promote development of housing in mixed-use
settings, which accommodates residents of all
incomes, family types, and life stages. (page15)
Nobody would mistake that as a place in Tracy
since it has soooo much P-Town character?
The Sharp Park Specific Plan emphasizes a
people-scaled approach to development
which will translate into a walkable, friendly, safe,
and appealing pedestrian realm.

How did they get here and where did they (the
visitors and residents living on the 5th floor
penthouse) park if they are allowed to come in
with a car? Remember there will not be any
parking access from Palmetto only on the side
streets.

What all the most popular, quaint “downtown” areas with character have in common is that they are low rise (max. 2 stories) like in Bolinas, Burlingame, San Mateo ,etc. with a variety of building styles <> NOT 4 or 5 story monsters built to the property line trying to suggest open space by having big window fronts as demanded, looking like Santana Row
So this this is more what we like and want!

3-G-12 Housing Opportunity. Support development of a diverse range of housing opportunities suitable for people of all incomes, abilities, and stages of life.

By charging Development impact fees, Park In-Lieu Fee (Quimby), Sharp Park Specific Plan Parking In-Lieu fee up to $40,260 per space? <> That will make it more affordable for all incomes? Really

MOBILITY & PARKING
Did they explain how an arterial like Palmetto with 2 bus routes will work/co-exist as a pedestrian zone?
General plan -Arterials In Pacifica, arterials are classified as roadways that are wider, accommodate higher volumes of traffic,
(4.1-Page 51) The main arterials in the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area include Palmetto Avenue, Oceana Boulevard, and Paloma Avenue to the west of Highway 1.

Parking?
Page72 The in-lieu fee, if approved for a development project, would allow a waiver of off-street parking requirements for an individual development and require payment of a per-space fee (initially adopted at $40,260 per space and indexed to increase annually) that would allow the City to provide centralized off-street parking facilities. Centralized parking facilities are another strategy to “right size” parking and to achieve other planning goals such as minimizing the number of curb cuts along pedestrian thoroughfares.

Could anybody point me to the suggested location of the “centralized” parking facility please?
Figure 4-8: Existing Parking, shows current weekday parking mostly AND weekend parking full around the pier! BUT the report concludes that as of 2021, Pacifica’s current parking standards result in an oversupply of parking relative to demand in Sharp Park. The high cost of parking construction and maintenance drives up the cost of housing and reduces the supply of affordable housing.

To balance these parking issues, “right sizing,” or converting the parking provisions to a more appropriate or optimum level, helps to strike a supply-to demand balance.

And again how many more million $ will they need tell us exactly what right sizing means. And where we put it!
Table 4-4 Retail; Eating and Drinking Establishments: Three parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable space. That will fill up about 3 tables at a restaurant; all the other patrons are encouraged to use the bicycle s a hot date in biker shorts on a cold, foggy July evening gonna be the new thing or will the UBER driver have to use the arterial roadway through the pedestrian zone to drop guests off in a more conventional attire?
4-I-20 On-Street Parking Supply Management.

Manage on-street parking supply with an ongoing strategy to generally have 15 percent of on-street spaces available for short-term parking to meet needs of commercial patrons. When parking availability falls below this threshold, consider first limiting free parking periods, then implementing paid parking, and then pursuing other parking supply management strategies, including addition of public lots or structures.

Figure 4-8 shows we are already at 85% or above?! Where are the additional lots again? Also, we need to hire 1-2 parking control officers, NO? 2212 Beach Boulevard Uses. Prioritize full-service hotel use at the 2212 Beach Boulevard site. For any non-hotel project, emphasize land uses that are of interest to visitors and generate revenues for the City.

And all these visitors are getting there to the attraction by taking Paloma Ave to the beach? The Paloma Ave that is dedicated to get bicycle and pedestrian improvements? Oh, Maybe Clarendon? Uuups, that is another bicycle and pedestrian heaven we cannot pollute with cars AND one way the wrong way.

parking in the Specific Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, it would be appropriate to spend fee revenue on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

But then we hear that
This new residential development, when it occurs, as well as new development elsewhere in the city, will contribute to park impact fee revenue. If the envisioned development does not materialize as expected, associated impact fee revenue may not be received by the City.

Do they take into consideration that pedestrian/bicycles are commonly short distance transportation <> trying to attract out of town (car) business? So the whole concept that pedestrian improvements reduce the need for parking is just another assumption/wishful thinking without any basis/foot notes. They pile one wishful thought on top of the other into a circular, absurd compilation to prove their assumptions possible.

Promote the addition of curb bulb-outs at street corners and midblock crossings to calm traffic, plant street trees, and heighten pedestrian visibility and comfort.

And who will maintain/pay for these doggie toilets?

well as the envisioned coastal erosion by 2100, 80 years from now – Right smack overlapping the Sharp Park Development.

And what is the solution according to the paper?
These maps are not a substitute for site-specific erosion analyses but do show important information necessary to make general planning-level decisions about the vulnerability of portions of the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area.

How many more millions do they want to tell us that a billion $ sea wall will be the solution in order not only just build our future under water financially but actually and that we can fund it with… Development impact fees Park In-Lieu Fee (Quimby)
Sharp Park Specific Plan Parking In-Lieu fee up to $40,260 per space, Or maybe a special lien/assessment on each lot in town for a million $$ Sounds like a great way to bankrupt the whole city when we get sued down the road because we encouraged someone to build there and are therefore liable for the losses. Can we get flood insurance? How much per year? What have we learned from Esplanade Ave?
The road to Hell is paved with good Intentions
Comments by
André Mettler

From: Gary Emich [
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments - Pacifica General Plan Update
Attachments: Pacifica General Plan Comments (1).docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Mr. Murdock - attached please find my comments regarding the Pacifica General Plan update. I will also be dropping off a hard copy by Close of Business today - March 8, 2022.

Sincerely,
Gary Emich
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1 March 8, 2022
Pacifica, CA 94044-3930
Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Dear Mr. Murdock:

It's encouraging to see that after more than 40 years the Pacifica General Plan is being updated. Thank you for overseeing this effort. Below are my comments regarding the draft Pacifica General Plan.

Preface
The purpose of the following comments, related specifically to the Pedro Point Basin also known as the Pedro Point Field (PPF), is to:
1) Document the numerous sections throughout the Pacifica General Plan Update (PGPU) that are contradictory and do not adhere to Section 1.2, General Plan Requirements, that stipulate: "the general plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other without conflict" (underline added). Refer to Part A - Sections Not Integrated / Conflicting within the PGPU (below). 2) Highlight the sections of the PGPU that repeatedly and consistently underscore the inappropriateness and unsuitability of the proposed PPF Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation based on factors of tourism, critical habitat, liquefaction and flooding. Refer to Part B - Factors Documenting the Inappropriateness and Unsuitability of the PPF as Coastal Residential Mixed Use (below). 3) Demonstrate, based on the PGPU's Land Use definitions and descriptions, that the PPF should be designated as either Visitor-Serving Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor Serving which is in keeping with the California Coastal Commission's original March 24, 1980 certification of the PPF as Commercial Recreation (see Background section immediately following). Refer to Part C - Arguments for Designating the PPF as Visitor-Serving Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor Serving (below).

Background
As reflected in the "Pedro Point Basin" section of the Pedro Point Community Association's (PPCA) webpage (www.pedropoint.org/the-pedro-point-field), on March 24, 1980, the California Coastal Commission certified the PPF in the existing Local Coastal Land Use Plan as Commercial Recreation (low density, visitor-serving, commercially-viable recreational uses). 2 The Coastal Commission further stated: "The designated land use for this area is commercial with emphasis on coastal related and/or visitor-serving uses... this small, ocean side commercial center could be rejuvenated and expanded to become an attractive visitor destination, as well as provide for neighborhood retail needs. Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area.

Adequate public access through the development to the shoreline and a general orientation to coastal related/visitor-serving uses within the project would be appropriate in this location. Given these criteria, commercial use of this portion of the neighborhood is consistent with the....policies of the Coastal Act." Also, as reflected in the "Pedro Point Basin" section of the PPCA webpage, Pedro Point residents historically, repeatedly and consistently have voiced their opinion and sentiments pertaining to zoning changes and developments in the PPF, e.g.
* 1995 Pedro Point Community Plan wherein residents registered strong support for preserving a major portion of the PPF in some form of open space,
* 2011 Letter "In Opposition to the Proposed Land Use Designation Change" wherein the PPCA rejected Pacifica's Draft General Plan Use (GPU) proposed land use designation change, and recommended that it adopt Commercial-Recreational , the designation most similar to the existing land use.
* 2011 Letter "In Support of Commercial-Recreational Use" wherein the PPCA voted for the PPF to retain its current zoning of Commercial-Recreational which is intended for land use that would remain in a primarily undeveloped state but would allow for limited commercial establishments supporting recre3eational uses.
* In 2014, the PPCA unanimously voted to pool their resources to hire experts and an attorney citing deficiencies in the City's draft GPU and draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed land use change did not pass; and the approved land use designation remained CommercialRecreational.

Part A - Sections Not Integrated / Conflicting within the PGPU 1) PGPU - page 2-5 and page 4-24
The photo in the lower right hand corner (showing Pedro Point) on page 2-5 is captioned:
"With its scenic setting along Highway 1, south of San Francisco, Pacifica has potential for more tourismbased retail." The photo on page 4-24 (depicting the residential homes on Pedro Point sitting above Pacifica State Beach) is captioned:
"The scenic Pedro Point neighborhood overlooks Pacifica State Beach." 3 Both photos and captions create visions of a Pedro Point that lures tourists to a "visitor-serving, commercially-viable, recreational use" destination and are inconsistent with the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation.
2) PGPU- page 2-7
"Tourist-oriented retail districts often succeed by providing a unique mix of small-scale "boutique" stores that offer arts, craft and other goods or services with a distinctive local flavor....Pacifica could potentially focus on beach/coastal-related businesses, drawing on its very name to help establish a strong identity" (underline added).

This section likewise argues for maintaining the PPF's original land use designation of CommercialRecreational (visitor-serving, commercially-viable, recreational uses) and, again, is inconsistent with the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation.
3) PGPU - Section 2.5 - Economic Development Strategy - page 2-11 The first Guiding Policy under this section is ES-G-1, Leverage Assets (page 2-12): "Leverage Pacifica's coastal location...focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops...and hiking trails." Implementing Policies, ES-I-4, Increase Tourism (page 2-13): 1)" focus on attracting ...a visitor's center or other key attraction, tourism-based shopping...and 2) "brand" and market Pacifica's parks, open spaces, beaches and other natural amenities."
Implementing Policies, ES-I-34, Expanded Commercial Recreation (page 2-17): "develop low-intensity outdoor commercial recreation uses on sites near Pacifica State Beach" (underline added)." Implementing Policies, ES-I-35, Preserve the Experience of the Natural Environment (page 2-17): "ensure that new development projects do not disrupt view corridors ..or otherwise interfere with residents' and visitors' experience."
Implementing Policies, ES-I-36, Appropriate Site Design (page 2-7): "ensure development projects adjacent to protected natural areas are designed to minimize impacts on those areas by employing low impact development techniques." (As discussed later, the waters along the south and east perimeters of the PPF are home to a number of California Red-Legged frogs.) Thus far, all Implementing Policies of the PGPU noted above support maintaining and arguing for the retention of the PPF as a "visitor-serving, commercially-viable, recreational uses" area and run counter to any possible argument in support of new residential units as the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation would permit.

Further, despite the repeated and numerous examples of the importance and viability of keeping the PPF as a "visitor-serving, commercially-viable, recreational use area," Figure 4-3, Land Use Diagram (page 4-6), abruptly departs with a non sequitur by listing the PPF as Coastal Residential Mixed Use instead of the more appropriate Visitor-Serving Commercial. 4 Visitor-Serving Commercial (page 4-9) is defined as "intending to foster and protect areas that attract and cater to visitors, including...a visitor attraction such as an interpretive center or conference center..retail and services, commercial recreation or other compatible uses.

Whereas, Coastal Residential Mixed Use (page 4-8) is defined as ....mixed-use with housing and retail and/or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses such as retail, vacation rental and time-share units...Sites may be developed up to an overall density of up to 15 units per gross acre (which in the case of PPF would be up to 75 units).

This conflicts with and is not integrated with the numerous other sections of the PGPU that advocate and encourage development of areas such as the PPF as visitor-serving areas. 4) PGPU - Section 6.2-Trail System - page 6-17 and Section 6.3 - Coastal Access - page 6-25 With the acquisition of the Colt Property, the PGPU states (page 6-17): "it should be possible to construct a trail west of Highway 1 to extend the Coastal Trail from its current terminus [at Ace Hardware] southward through the Pedro Point Headlands to connect with the Devil's Slide Trail." Implementing Policies, OC-I-38 New Development and Coastal Access (page 6-26): "Require that new development along the coastline provide public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast, and be designed to minimize impacts to public coastal access and recreation.

Ensure that impacts are mitigated through the dedication of access or trail easements or the provision of improvements to other public access points."
Implementing Policies, OC-I-41, Impediments to Public Access (page 6-26): "Prohibit restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands along coast."
As anyone who has attempted to find parking at either the north or south end of the San Mateo County's Devil's Slide Trail knows parking is at a premium. Currently, there is only parking space for 15 vehicles immediately north of Ace Hardware that allow for access to the Headlands; they are always filled. And, the entire east side of San Pedro Avenue across from Grocery Outlet is marked as "No Parking." This existing situation is not in alignment with these two Implementing Policies.

Section 3.3 Hillside and Coastal Development (page 3-10), calls for: "the protection and enhancement of the coastal environment, including its visual resources. As shown in Figure 4-8, Land Use, Pacifica / Southwest (page 2-23), there are three "visual resources" on Pedro Point. They are the old railroad berm north of the PPF (site #25), at the Shelter Cove overlook (site #26) and on the Pedro Point Trail in the headlands (site #27).

Finally from page 4-27 regarding the PPF: "Future development should include a small park and access to the berm and the beach beyond. Completion of the Devils Slide Tunnel project has provided the opportunity to create a new trailhead and trails through open space land on the headlands." With authorization to build up to 75 residential units on the PPF under the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation, it is highly unlikely the two Implementing Policies could be actuated, that the 5 three "visual resources" could be enhanced or that a small park could be created with access to the berm and the beach beyond. Designation of the PPF as Visitor-Serving Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor Serving could ensure "dedication of access or trail easements" (including but not limited to additional trailhead parking for the Pedro Point Headlands section of the Coastal Trail) as well as creation of a "visitor attraction such as an interpretive center" and allow for the enhancement of the three "visual resources."
Part B - Factors Documenting the Inappropriateness and Unsuitability of the PPF as Coastal Residential Mixed Use
1) Tourism
As demonstrated above, developing PPF as a residential site is inappropriate; and it conflicts with the PGPU, Section 1.4 Plan Themes and Key Initiatives (pages 1-12 and 1-13) which calls for: "Creating a Destination for Tourism..Throughout the update process, community members and stakeholders emphasized the need for more economic activity. There is a widely shared sense that Pacifica has the potential to attract more tourists, and that this should be a key component of the City’s economic development strategy. The Plan includes strategies to enhance tourism by leveraging Pacifica’s natural assets, creating more attractive places in visitor-oriented districts [and] marketing. 2) Critical Habitat
Figure 7-3, Sensitive and Critical Habitat (page 7-19) showing California Red-legged Frog habitat egregiously and erroneously does not designate the PPF as sensitive habitat. There is a significant population of California Red-legged frogs living in the waterway that begins at the intersection of Grand Avenue and San Pedro Avenue and flows along the eastern perimeter of the PPF.

Guiding Policies, CO-G-7: Wildlife and Critical Habitat (page 7-25) mandates: "Conserv[ing] and protect[ing] indigenous, threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat. Habitat can be protected by allowing very limited or no development, by identifying habitat areas as top priorities for permanent conservation, and by managing public land to ensure species protection (underline added).

Permitting up to 75 residential units on the PPF is a far cry from "allowing very limited or no development" and is completely contrary to the cited Guiding Policy above. 3) Liquefaction
Figure 8-1, Seismic Hazard Zones (page 8-4) shows a very significant part of the PPF in a liquefaction zone.

As stated on page 8-5: "Medium liquefaction potential exists in many low-lying neighborhoods, including...parts of Pedro Point." And Figure 8-2, Liquefaction Potential Zones (page 8-6) actually classifies parts of the PPF at a very high risk of liquefaction.

And despite Implementing Policy, SA-I-2 (page 8-11) which clearly states: "Prohibit development in areas of...high or very high liquefaction risk, the PGPU ignores this policy in its proposed designation of the 6 PPF as Coastal Residential Mixed Use. Simple common sense questions the feasibility and sensibility of building residential units in a liquefaction zone.
4) Flooding
Figure 8-4, Flood Zones (page 8-15) designates the entire PPF as a Tsunami Evacuation Area.

Implementing Policy, SA-I-26 Tsunami Evacuation Zone (page 8-18) states: "For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone, require use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures." Suffice it to question whether a tsunami evacuation area is conducive or suitable for building new residential dwellings.

Part C - Arguments for Designating the PPF as Visitor-Serving Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor Serving
The current Pedro Point residential area (excluding the PPF and Shelter Cover), consists of about 250 single family residences and sits on approximately 55 acres (or fewer than 5 homes per acre). Most homes have a partial, if not full, view of the Pacific Ocean and Pacifica State Beach. For decades, the open-space PPF has been utilized by residents for recreation, as an impromptu dog park and for passage to Pacific State Beach as well as to the Coastal Trail.

As proposed, the designation of the PPF as Coastal Residential Mixed Use would allow up to 75 residences to be constructed. This would increase the total number of homes on Pedro Point by over 25% , all squeezed together in an area less than 10% the size of the entire rest of the community. Such a high-density infusion of homes in this relatively small parcel of land is completely out of character with the rest of the Pedro Point Community.

PGPU - Section 4.2 - Land Use Framework page 4-8: "[the designation of Coastal Residential Mixed Use]:
"is intended for sites...with housing and retail, and/or small scale visitor-oriented commercial uses such as retail, vacation rental, or time-share units. Residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor [vertical mixed-use]." Vertical mixed-use structures, including potential for a large number of vacation rental and time-share units, fundamentally would change the existing core character of Pedro Point from one of single family residences to one of a much higher density apartment / condo nature. And, if allowed, it would violate the previously cited Implementing Policy, ES-I-35, which states: "ensure that new development projects do not disrupt view corridors...or otherwise interfere with residents' and visitors' experience." Figure 4-8 (page 4-23) clearly depicts the view looking north from the PPF as a "View Corridor." Allowing vertical mixed-use structures in the PPF would effectively obstruct, either partially or totally, the view of the ocean and Pacifica State Beach for nearly half the residents on Grand and Livingston Avenues and for a good number of those on Sterling and Stanley Avenues.

Reinforcing the Coastal Commission's original 1980 vision for this parcel of land:
"The designated land use for this area is commercial with emphasis on coastal related and/or visitorserving uses... this small, ocean side commercial center could be rejuvenated and expanded to become 7 an attractive visitor destination, as well as provide for neighborhood retail needs. Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area. Adequate public access through the development to the shoreline and a general orientation to coastal related/visitor-serving uses within the project would be appropriate in this location. Given these criteria, commercial use of this portion of the neighborhood is consistent with the....policies of the Coastal Act." This description aptly describes a blend of the PGPU's Visitor-Serving Commercial and Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial designation, both descriptions found on page 4-9.

Visitor-Serving Commercial: [this] designation is intended to foster and protect areas that attract and cater to visitors, including...a visitor attraction, such as an interpretive center...commercial recreation, or other compatible uses.

Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial: [this] designation allows uses that create public access to the coastal setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions: ...concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites and similar uses....the long-term goal of transition to recreation-oriented land uses."
Conclusion
The PGPU's proposed designation of the PPF as Coastal Residential Mixed Use:
* Is inconsistent with and contradicts other sections of the PGPU that recommend different utilizations of properties such as the PPF,
* Ignores the decades long sentiment of Pedro Point residents who repeatedly have resisted changing the land use designation from the original vision articulated by the Coastal Commission, * Does not acknowledge the inappropriateness and unsuitability of this parcel as residential mixed use based on factors of tourism, critical habitat, liquefaction and flooding, and * Would forever change the very fiber and unique characteristic of Pedro Point.

I strongly recommend the draft PGPU land use designation for the PPF is changed to either VisitorServing Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor Serving in the final PGPU.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my comments.

Sincerely,
Gary Emich
Gary Emich
From: Dinah Verby [
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 2:28 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments for Pacifica General Plan Update & DEIR Attachments: Final 2SFGS Report 2-26-07-sm.pdf; DVerby 3-8-22 Comments re GP & DEIR City of Pacifica .doc
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
Please find my comments attached as a Word file, along with a report from Swaim Biological that I have referenced in my comments. Thanks very much.

Dinah Verby
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

STATUS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS

SIRTALIS TETRATAENIA) AT PACIFICA QUARRY, SAN MATEO,

CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

PBS&J EIP Associates
San Francisco, CA 94111
Prepared by:

Swaim Biological , Inc.

Livermore, CA, 94550
February 27, 2007
Revised
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Report................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Project Site Location and Regional Study Area ................................................................... 1

1.3 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................... 1

1.4 San Francisco Garter Snake .................................................................................................. 3

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................... 5

2.1 Trapping and Visual Surveys................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Regional Distribution and Habitat Analysis ......................................................................... 9

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 12

3.1 Trapping and Visual Surveys.............................................................................................. 12

3.2 Regional Distribution and Habitat Analysis ....................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Mori Point/Sharp Park ................................................................................................. 20

3.2.2 Calera Creek Corridor and City of Pacifica Uplands................................................... 20

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 26

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................ 27

7.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS................................................................................... 29

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site location.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project site location in relation to Coastal Zone............................................................. 4 Figure 3. Trapline locations. ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Trapline schematic and photo......................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Marking system for snakes (upper photo) and PIT tag (lower photo). .......................... 8 Figure 6. Regional analysis study area. ....................................................................................... 10 Figure 7. Habitat analysis area (west of Highway 1)................................................................... 11 Figure 8. Listed Species Capture and Observation Sites - Current, Recent and Historic............ 14 Figure 9. 1989 air photo of site showing location of filled ponds and SFGS captures. .............. 22 ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. California Red-legged Frog captures per trap, the percentage of total captures at each trap, and the associated habitat type. ............................................................................................ 16 Table 2. Total Captures from Calera Creek trap lines. ............................................................... 17 Table 3. Total captures from upland trap lines west of Calera Creek.......................................... 18 Table 4. Total captures from trap lines east of Calera Creek in the “flats”. ................................. 19 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Report
This report presents results of a regional analysis of the status of the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). The analysis included a review of existing information on the SFGS in the region and trapping surveys for the SFGS at the site. The trapping and visual surveys were conducted under the authority of a 10 (A) 1(a) Federal recovery permit (PRT815537) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a Memorandum of Understanding issued by the California Department of Fish and Game, (CDFG), and individual Scientific Collecting Permits, held by individuals working on the study.

The purpose of this survey was to assess the condition of the project site habitats and to document the current status of the SFGS on the 85-acre Pacifica Quarry Site, which is proposed for development. This survey cannot determine negative finding for SFGS or indicate that the snakes are absent from the site; SFGS are known to occur on the site from past studies and suitable habitat is present. This stipulation was made in the research proposal submitted to the FWS and DFG which was required to allow the surveys to proceed (Swaim Biological 2006a).

This language was reviewed and approved by the applicants’ consultant, EIP Associates, prior to submission to the FWS and DFG. The applicant is interested in conducting the survey for informational purposes in conjunction with identifying, if possible, a development proposal and mitigation package that assists with the recovery of the SFGS.

1.2 Project Site Location and Regional Study Area
The 85 acre Pacifica Quarry site is in the town of Pacifica approximately 10 miles southwest of San Francisco (Figure 1). This proposed project area is within the range of the SFGS in San Mateo County and SFGS are known to have occupied the site in the past (McGinnis 1990, Barry, 1994). The site lies within the Calera Creek watershed. Pacifica Quarry is bordered by the Rockaway Beach development on the southwest along San Marlo Drive and scattered commercial developments on the south and southeast along Highway 1. Highway 1 is a four lane road with a K-Rail median along the length of Highway 1 to the south and southeast of the project site (Figure 1). The western boundary is the Pacific Ocean and significant areas of the southern and eastern boundary are still bordered by undeveloped land and open space, although it is separated from these undeveloped open space areas by the existing Highway 1. The entire northern border of the site is contiguous with permanent protected open space (Golden Gate National Recreation Area) and City of Pacifica Property along Calera Creek.

1.3 Regulatory Context
The San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) is a state and federally endangered species as well as a state fully protected species. The California red-legged frog (CRF) is a federally listed threatened species and considered a species of special concern by the state. California law (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515) allows the designation of a species as 2 Figure 1. Site location.
3 fully protected. This is a greater level of protection than is afforded by CESA, since such a designation means the listed species cannot be taken at any time.

The project site is also within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (Figure 2).

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) oversees the implementation of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1990, which required coastal states to develop certified Coastal Zone Management Programs.

1.4 San Francisco Garter Snake
The SFGS was one of the first species to be designated federally endangered in 1967: state listing followed in 1971. SFGS populations have severely declined over the past century. This species has suffered from habitat loss due to urbanization, collection by the black-market pet trade, and decline of its main prey species, the California red-legged frog. The introduction of non-native bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana), which eat both the snake and the CRF, may have added to the snake’s decline.

SFGS have a yellowish-green dorsal stripe, edged with black, bordered by a red stripe, then black again on both sides. The belly is blue-green and the top of the head is red (Stebbins, 2003). Hatchlings and juveniles have the same coloration as adults.

Historically, SFGS occurred in scattered wetlands and the associated matrix of uplands along the San Francisco Peninsula, from just south of the San Francisco County line south to Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz County, and along the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains to at least Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985). SFGS enter into a zone of intergradation with conspecific California red-sided garter snake (T. sirtalis infernalis) just south of the Pulgas water temple (Crystal Springs Reservoir, San Mateo Co.) into extreme northern Santa Clara County around Stanford University campus (Barry, 1994).

Currently, Mori Point and Sharp Park (west of Highway 1) are occupied by a breeding population of the SFGS (Swaim Biological 2004, 2006b) and it is the northern most population of the subspecies remaining on the coast. The Mori Point and Sharp Park area are within the Sanchez Creek watershed.
4 Figure 2. Project site location in relation to Coastal Zone. 5 2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Trapping and Visual Surveys
Trapping surveys consisted of a 90 day spring and 45 day late summer/fall survey period.

A trapline consists of approximately twenty-five feet of drift fence and the four associated traps.

The drift fence is constructed from 16-inch high pieces of 1/8th –inch thick, flexible hardboard, of which two inches are buried in the ground for stability and to keep animals from passing under the fence. Traplines were distributed throughout all the habitats of the project area resulting in twelve in willow riparian, eight in non-native grassland, six in a wetland, and fourteen in pampas grass (Figure 3). Traps placed in the willow riparian and wetland were in close proximity to creeks.

Two traps are positioned at each end, for a total of four traps per drift fence (Figure 4). The traps are wooden framed with a wire mesh funnel and large panels of wire mesh to allow light and air circulation into the trap (Figure 4). To prevent animals from exiting, circular one-way Mylar flaps are affixed internally to the entrance hole of each funnel. Traps were checked daily in the late afternoon to ensure captive reptiles were not likely to be in the traps overnight. To prevent the desiccation of captured animals, Soilmoist was placed in a small well approximately 3.5 inches wide and 1 inch deep at the end of the trap opposite from the funnel. This is particularly important for preventing the mortality of threatened species such as the CRLF. The traps were covered with plywood covers to shade the interior.

Thirty-seven traplines were placed around Pacifica Quarry property and activated on March 21st, 2006 (Figure 3). On March 31, three more traplines were added for a total of forty traplines.

Traplines 1- 22 and 26-40 were straight-line fences, and 23-25 were constructed as an array (Figure 3). Traplines 21-25 were deactivated on June 13, due to safety concerns of the trap checkers and the traps. Once school was out for summer, the frequency of persons throwing rocks from the bluffs increased. Though rocks were not intentionally thrown at trap checkers, they were not visible from the bluffs above. The remaining traplines were deactivated on June 29, ending the spring component. The late summer/fall survey began on September 5 and went through October 23. Trap days were calculated for the survey effort. A trap day equals one trapline in the field for 24 hours. Accounting for the schedule above the total number of trapdays was 3,313 spring trap days and 1,200 late summer/fall trap days.

All vertebrates captured were identified to species, with the exception of deer mice (Peromyscus sp.), which were identified to genus. Snakes were sexed and marked for future identification by clipping specific ventral scales and inserting a PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tag (Figure 5)., PIT tagging was discontinued for the for coast garter snakes and they were given ventral scale marks only, after 300 were processed. Morphometrics, including snout-vent length (mm), total length (mm), weight (g), and sex were collected for the first ten coast garter snakes captured, as well as a 3 mm tail clip for genetic analysis, and photos to document color patterns.

Lizards were marked with unique toe clips for future identification (Enge, 1997). 6 Figure 3. Trapline locations.
7 Figure 4. Trapline schematic and photo.
8 Figure 5. Marking system for snakes (upper photo) and PIT tag (lower photo). 9 Visual surveys were conducted in the course of checking traplines and on specific dates at the quarry pond. However, because traps are checked very late in the day to avoid having snakes in the traps overnight, their usefulness in detecting SFGS is somewhat limited. Visual surveys were conducted along the perimeter of the pond on at least three occasions (January 20, mid April, and May 24) and seining of the pond on one occasion (May 24).

2.2 Regional Distribution and Habitat Analysis
The regional analysis study area was defined by SBI as the region including Pacifica, Sharp Park region, Milargra Ridge, Mori Point, the Quarry Area, and east to Highway 35 (GGNRA Lands, portions of the San Francisco Watershed lands associated with San Andreas Lake (Figure 6).

Within that area we compiled SFGS and CRF occurrences by reviewing all accessible environmental documents, published documents, museum collection databases, and contacts with biologists who have done survey work in the area.

The habitat analysis area was smaller in scope and included the project site, the City of Pacifica Property which bisects the quarry site (Calera Creek area), GGNRA’s Mori Point, and Sharp Park west of Highway 1 (Figure 7). EIP Associates mapped jurisdictional wetlands and vegetation types on the site. Swaim Biological mapped the remaining area with a more simplified vegetation layer and general wetland boundaries base on field inspections. Upland areas were also mapped using a general classification: aquatic, grassland, pampas grass, and scrub. SBI then inspected each of these habitats to determine their suitability for target species (SFGS and CRF).
10 Figure 6. Regional analysis study area.
11 Figure 7. Habitat analysis area (west of Highway 1). 12 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Trapping and Visual Surveys
No SFGS were captured or observed on the site, indicating that the current population of SFGS on the site is not large enough to detect. As was acknowledged in the required application to conduct the survey, SFGS cannot be determine to be absent from the site. In this survey CRF, were found to be present and distributed throughout project site in wetlands (permanent and semi permanent) and in the upland habitats (Figure 8, Tables 1-4). CRF breed in the mitigation ponds on the north side of Calera Creek (City of Pacifica Property) and were the second most abundant amphibian trapped on the site.

One adult CRF was captured in the center of the “flats” area south of Calera Creek. In addition several unconfirmed observations of CRF were made in a wetland along Highway 1 on the southern boundary of the Quarry property (Figure 8). These observations were the audible “plops” or splashes of larger frogs jumping into the water as a trap checker went by the margin of the pool. Because the bullfrog is not present on the site, and the splashes were too big for treefrog, it is assumed these were CRF. Confirmation was attempted by biologists, but the habitat there has many roots, branches and mud for CRF to escape into, evading direct observation. Night surveys for eye-shine would be more effective at this location, however this method was not in the scope and is unnecessary since CRF have been documented there in the past (H.T. Harvey 2002). A total 30 + juveniles were observed at this pool in February. Given the sufficient hydro-period in this pool (sufficient water through October), the presence of suitable cover, this wetland is potentially suitable CRF breeding habitat. Additional adult and juvenile CRF were found under nearly every available surface object in the Quarry flats and upland from the quarry pond during the February site visit conducted by H.T. Harvey (Personal Communication Jeff Wilkinson, November 15, 2006).

Other amphibians, all prey species of the SFGS, were distributed throughout the site and were abundant in not only the wetlands, and willow riparian area, but also throughout the upland habitats, including non-native grassland and pampas grass (Figure 8, Tables 2-4).

The most commonly captured prey species were the California slender salamander (Batrochoseps attenuatus) and the Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris) Other vertebrates captured include other reptiles and mammals. Three other snake species are present on the site including coast garter snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris), western yellowbellied racer (Coluber constrictor mormon) and Pacifica gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer).

Coast garter snakes were the most abundant with a total of 1200 captures. No aquatic garter snakes (Thamnophis atratus couchii) were captured. The total captures include recaptures of individuals over the course of the survey. Captures of each species consisted of both adults and juveniles, with adult captures far exceeding juvenile captures. Both males and females of each species were captured with male captures exceeding female captures.

During a portion of the spring survey at Pacifica Quarry, Swaim Biological was also trapping at the Mori Point property to the north of the site. The trapping there was part of a pond creation 14 Figure 8. Listed Species Capture and Observation Sites - Current, Recent and Historic. project carried out in a joint effort by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), and Golden Gate National Park Conservancy. That project satisfies recommendations detailed in recovery task 252 of the San Francisco Garter Snake Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1985). During the study, one coast garter snake that was originally captured in the Pacifica Quarry study (PQ trapline # 16), was recaptured at Mori Point During the period from April 29 through May 2, 2006 (3 days), this female, juvenile coast garter snake (THEL 165b) was documented to have moved a linear distance of 550 meters with and elevation gain of approximately 30 meters, assuming it traveled over the “saddle”, to the trapline on the Mori Point site.

The most commonly captured mammal species was the California meadow vole (Microtus californicus), followed by the western harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) , shrew (Sorex sp.), Botta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), Deer Mouse (Peromyscus sp) broad-handed mole (Scapanus latimanus), dusky-footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes), and black rat (Rattus rattus).
16 Table 1. California Red-legged Frog captures per trap, the percentage of total captures at each trap, and the associated habitat type.

Trap Number Total # of Captures % of Total Captures Habitat Type 1 9 15.52 Willow Riparian
2 2 1.72 Willow Riparian
3 1 1.72 Willow Riparian
6 2 3.44 Willow Riparian
7 1 1.72 Willow Riparian
8 4 3.44 Willow Riparian
9 29 41.38 Willow Riparian
10 17 27.59 Willow Riparian
11 1 1.72 Willow Riparian
40 1 1.72 Pampas Grass
17 Table 2. Total Captures from Calera Creek trap lines.

Calera Creek Trap Lines (lines 1-12)
Trap Line
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total captures
ANLU 0
BAAT 2 1 2 1 6
ENES 0
PSRE 1 1 3 1 6 12
RAAU 9 2 1 2 1 4 29 17 1 66
COCO 2 14 4 12 32
PICA 1 1 2
THEL 7 15 23 14 93 31 64 31 58 17 43 21 417
ELCO 0
ELMU 1 1 2
SCOC 1 1
MICA 2 5 9 5 1 9 9 8 21 6 3 3 81
NEFU 0
PERS 1 1 1 1 1 5
RARA 0
REME 1 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 18
SCLA 1 1 2 4
SORE 1 3 4 4 4 10 6 9 9 1 4 55
THBO 1 1
ANLU - Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris)
BAAT - California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) ENES - Yellow-eyed Salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii)
PSRE - Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla)
RAAU - California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) COCO - Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor mormon) PICA - Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) THEL - Coast Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris) ELCO - San Francisco Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea coerulea) ELMU - California Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) MICA - California Meadow Vole (Microtus californicus)
NEFU - Dusky-footed Wood Rat (Neotoma fuscipes)
PERS - Deer Mouse (Peromyscus sp.)
RARA - Black Rat (Rattus rattus)
REME - Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) SCLA - Broad-handed Mole (Scapanus latimanus)
SCOC - Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
SORE - Shrew (Sorex sp.)
THBO - Botta Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
San Francisco Garter Snake Prey Species
18 Table 3. Total captures from upland trap lines west of Calera Creek.

Upland Trap Lines (lines 13-25)
(Trap lines west of Calera Creek)*
Trap Line
Species 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total captures ANLU 2 2 4 4 1 5 1 2 5 26
BAAT 3 25 52 17 37 24 33 46 4 3 17 26 22 309
ENES 2 1 1 4
PSRE 1 6 1 1 6 2 5 22
RAAU 0
COCO 13 16 14 10 24 14 1 11 8 3 5 2 4 125
PICA 1 4 1 1 1 8
THEL 41 26 12 23 48 14 8 23 26 18 18 19 13 289
ELCO 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 13
ELMU 5 2 2 3 8 3 2 25
SCOC 1 1 3 3 14 2 1 1 26
MICA 3 11 28 7 18 8 7 20 10 1 1 4 3 121
NEFU 0
PERS 1 1 2 1 1 6
RARA 0
REME 10 14 9 4 3 2 4 5 7 3 3 1 3 68
SCLA 0
SORE 1 2 2 6 1 1 1 1 15
THBO 1 3 3 7
* lines 21-25, lines near the quarry pond, were removed in June due to safety concerns
ANLU - Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris)
BAAT - California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) ENES - Yellow-eyed Salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii)
PSRE - Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla)
RAAU - California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) COCO - Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor mormon) PICA - Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) THEL - Coast Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris) ELCO - San Francisco Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea coerulea) ELMU - California Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) MICA - California Meadow Vole (Microtus californicus)
NEFU - Dusky-footed Wood Rat (Neotoma fuscipes)
PERS - Deer Mouse (Peromyscus sp.)
RARA - Black Rat (Rattus rattus)
REME - Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) SCLA - Broad-handed Mole (Scapanus latimanus)
SCOC - Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
SORE - Shrew (Sorex sp.)
THBO - Botta Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
San Francisco Garter Snake Prey Species
19 Table 4. Total captures from trap lines east of Calera Creek in the “flats”.

Trap Lines East of Calera Creek (lines 26-40)
Trap Line
Species 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Total captures ANLU 1 1
BAAT 76 40 51 44 20 12 27 24 17 23 1 1 2 338
ENES 0
PSRE 1 1 11 4 1 2 3 2 25
RAAU 1 1
COCO 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 17
PICA 0
THEL 13 19 33 26 7 23 29 40 34 43 26 9 16 47 29 394
ELCO 1 1 1 3
ELMU 0
SCOC 1 1 2
MICA 3 15 9 17 15 7 15 10 11 14 12 4 31 21 28 212
NEFU 1 1
PERS 1 2 1 1 1 6
RARA 1 1
REME 2 5 9 2 5 6 1 1 6 3 3 5 5 53
SCLA 0
SORE 2 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 4 24
THBO 2 1 1 1 5
ANLU - Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris)
BAAT - California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) ENES - Yellow-eyed Salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii)
PSRE - Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla)
RAAU - California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) COCO - Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor mormon) PICA - Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) THEL - Coast Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris) ELCO - San Francisco Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea coerulea) ELMU - California Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) MICA - California Meadow Vole (Microtus californicus)
NEFU - Dusky-footed Wood Rat (Neotoma fuscipes)
PERS - Deer Mouse (Peromyscus sp.)
RARA - Black Rat (Rattus rattus)
REME - Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) SCLA - Broad-handed Mole (Scapanus latimanus)
SCOC - Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
SORE - Shrew (Sorex sp.)
THBO - Botta Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
San Francisco Garter Snake Prey Items
20 3.2 Regional Distribution and Habitat Analysis

3.2.1 Mori Point/Sharp Park
A breeding population of SFGS is currently present at Mori Point and Sharp Park (City and County of San Francisco). SFGS and CRF population sizes are increasing and expanding their use of the site due to recovery actions being implemented by the GGNRA (Swaim Biological 2004, 2006). The recovery actions completed so far include enhancement of one pond and creation of a second pond in fall of 2004. CRF bred in both ponds in the first winter after creation and SFGS abundance increased accordingly.

Sixty-one days of trapping with 15 traplines in 2005 resulted in a total of 9 captures of 6 individual SFGS. In 2006, a 67 day trapping effort with the same 15 traplines, resulted in 30 captures of 13 individual SFGS. None of the SFGS captured in 2004 were recaptured in 2006.

The closest recent observations of SFGS to the project site, were a foraging individual in February 2006 at a newly created pond approximately 1,250 feet (<1/4 mile) to the north of the boundary of the Pacifica Quarry site and an individual SFGS observed in April on the dirt road adjacent to the created pond (Personal Communication, Susie Bennet, the Parks Conservancy).

However, it should be noted that the focus of the Mori Point surveys was to detect the level of use in newly created wetland habitats, not to determine the full distribution on the site. No effort was made either by trapping or visual surveys, to detect SFGS in upland habitats. Due to the sensitive nature of the species, specific locations on Mori Point are not included here. Point data will be included in reports to the USFWS and CDFG and will be available during any project planning exercises with the agencies.

Historically, SFGS have been observed in relatively large numbers at Sharp Park. Hundreds were collected in the 1950s-1960s, and Barry (1978) made over 40 captures of SFGS from just north of the site boundary down the face of the ridge at the saddle, and into the “bowl” of the Mori Point property (Figure 9). The condition of that upland SFGS habitat is the same now and equal in quality as it was in 1978 when the observations were made. Upland habitat is crucial for SFGS populations as it provides winter retreats. The clusters of upland observations by Barry (1978) were as far as 1800 feet from the nearest wetland habitat. Barry found SFGS near the saddle as late as 1990 (Barry in USFWS 2006). The 1990 observation is not mapped, as the specific site was not determined. Many other researchers have documented SFGS making use of habitat a great distance from the wetlands (McGinnis et al 1991, Larsen 1994, Swaim Biological 2004, California Academy of Sciences, 2006). All known SFGS and CRF point observations in the habitat analysis area are shown below (Figure 8).

3.2.2 Calera Creek Corridor and City of Pacifica Uplands A breeding population of CRF is present on the site. Breeding habitat for CRF includes the mitigation ponds just north of Calera Creek (City of Pacifica Property). These ponds were specifically created for SFGS and CRF as a condition of that project. CRF occupy the entire Calera Creek Corridor, including both mitigation ponds. The CRF population which breeds at 21 the two mitigation ponds north of the creek and the CRF that breed in the marsh portions of the creek rely on foraging in the habitat on the Pacifica Quarry site. Individuals from the Calera Creek Corridor also move into the Quarry Pond (see below).

The Biological Opinion for the Calera Creek Restoration and Wastewater Treatment plant states the intention to reintroduce SFGS and CRF to the mitigation ponds and Calera Creek Riparian areas. As indicated, CRF have already colonized and do not need reintroduction

3.2.3 Pacifica Quarry Property
Prior to August of 1989, at least two ponds occupied by SFGS existed on the Quarry property (Figure 9). These ponds were filled and much of the uplands bulldozed in 1989 (McGinnis, 1990). Since then there have been no confirmed observations on the site.

It is doubtful that the large number of coast garter snakes present at the site contributed to the decline of SFGS. Although these two species do sometimes prey on the same food, coast garter snakes show a preference for slugs and SFGS prey on small frogs (both CRF and treefrog) and other amphibians. One coast garter snake captured in this study, regurgitated approximately fifteen slugs and a caterpillar, but both coast garter snake and SFGS have regurgitated slender salamanders in prior studies. One THEL was also observed foraging on a meadow vole during a site visit.

No real limiting factors for SFGS were found during the survey. Prey is not a limiting factor, cover is not a limiting factor, suitable retreat sites (mammal burrows, rocks, vole runways etc.), are not limiting factors. Human disturbance and dog activity at Mori, where SFGS have a population, is nearly as high as at the quarry. The only difference is bicycle use. Mori Point has less use by bicycles, but it is not likely a significant factor. Each area of the quarry property is discussed below.

The Quarry Pond
The Quarry pond (Figure 8) is used by CRF and they may be breeding there nearly every winter (i.e. deposit egg masses). A total of three CRF were observed at the pond on January 20, 2006 and at least 8 adult CRF were observed on a single site visit and inspection of the perimeter of the pond by Karen Swaim in mid spring. However, it is unlikely to support significant successful metamorphosis of CRF tadpoles. The hydro-period is probably not sufficient to allow tadpoles to develop to the stage where metamorphose into juveniles would occur. The quarry pond was dry by early June of 2006, a wet year. Thorough and complete seining of the pond on May 24 revealed only treefrog tadpoles. The water depth was less than one foot. No CRF tadpoles were detected.

CRF tadpoles may be present in late winter and early spring (February, March, April) and treefrog are present. Garter snakes are active and foraging during this period and could take advantage of the source of food. Pacific treefrog are able to breed successfully and the shallow 22 Figure 9. 1989 air photo of site showing location of filled ponds and SFGS captures. 23 water combined with tadpoles is suitable foraging habitat for SFGS. Disturbance factors may limit the potential for successful reproduction of CRF at the Quarry pond. The pond is frequented by swimming dogs, even during the winter months. The combination of the small size and depth of the pond may lead to dislodging of egg masses and poor water quality for eggs and/or tadpoles. The only potential situation in which CRF could have successful breeding would be in years where there were significant early rains filling the pond in November combined with rains that kept the pond retaining water for at least six months.

Other Wetlands
Other wetlands on the site include the areas of inundation along San Marlo Drive and Highway

1. Based on the observations of 30 + juvenile CRF at the pooled areas adjacent to Highway 1 (Personal Communication Jeff Wilkinson, November 15, 2006), the presence of suitable vegetative cover, and adequate hydro-period of the pool, CRF are very likely to breed there. The wetlands along Highway 1 are currently the highest quality and most valuable foraging habitat on the Pacifica Quarry site. This pool receives runoff from the uplands southeast of Highway 1 through a culvert under Highway 1. Water was present and at least 6-8 inches deep in early October. The wetlands along Highway 1 have been confirmed to be aquatic habitat for CRF (H.T. Harvey 2002 and Personal Communication, Jeff Wilkonson, November 15, 2006) and PTF, both critical components of SFGS prey base. Although this wetland is close to Highway 1 and it is not the ideal placement, CRF are known to survive in such situations. These wetlands also have direct hydrological connection to Calera Creek via the wetlands along San Marlo. The wetland along San Marlo are connected to Calera Creek via a culvert that extends under the bike/pedestrian pathway just east of the Rockaway Beach parking lot (Figure 8).

CRF would be expected to take cover in these wetlands anytime standing water is present or the soil remains moist. Two CRF (small adults) were found under two different pampas grass clumps, in a narrow drainage on the Mori Point site on January 17, 2007 by John Kunna, a Swaim Biological Herpetologist. These observations were made during efforts underway at Mori Point to remove invasive non-native plants.

Upland Habitat
The upland of the Pacifica Quarry site still retains significant structural diversity and dense cover in all areas except the bare areas of the quarry. Rodent burrows are also abundant and small mammal populations thriving in the uplands (Tables 2-4). The upland habitat on the site (including the flats) provides foraging habitat for the local CRF population. We had a trap capture of an adult CRF in the center of the flats (Figure 8) and the H.T Harvey observations made in February of juvenile and adult CRLF under many cover items such as rocks (Personal communication, Jeff Wilkonson, November 15, 2006) and H.T Harvey (2002). CRF would be expected to make use of the uplands primarily during the rainy season, November- March.

During the remainder of the year, April – October, CRF use primarily the riparian corridor, but are still present in lower numbers in uplands greater than 300 feet from wetlands. Our trapping period in the flats did not overlap with the time when high numbers of CRF would be expected to 24 use the area. In contrast, we did capture many CRF in the traps in the riparian corridor during the survey period.

SFGS forage in the upland habitats in the vicinity of wetlands because of the adequate fog and moisture that allows the SFGS prey species to be present in the uplands. The climate allows dispersion of the CRF and pacific treefrog throughout the upland habitat and residency of the slender salamander (Tables 1-4). Trapping indicated the slender salamander is abundant on the site, especially in the upland habitats. Treefrogs and juvenile CRF are especially important prey items of SFGS, as adult CRF can only be eaten by the largest of SFGS (Larsen 1994).

Although there are several disturbance factors and areas of ruderal vegetation on the site, these factors do not preclude use of the uplands by SFGS or their prey. There is still very adequate contiguous cover throughout the site in the form of non-native grassland, brush, willow riparian woodland, and even the areas dominated by pampas grass. The only area SFGS would possibly avoid, once they are reintroduced into the Calera Creek Mitigation Ponds and creek corridor, is the barest areas of the quarry that lack any vegetation.

In addition, the lack of SFGS captures on the immediate project site is not due to lack of suitable habitat or absence of the species. Factors influencing the lack of SFGS detection include the unlawful filling of ponds where SFGS were documented to be present in 1989 (McGinnis 1990) and bulldozing of the uplands surrounding the ponds (McGinnis 1990a and b). Once these ponds were filled and much of the uplands disked, SFGS likely discontinued detectable use of the area or limited use to seasonal foraging at the creek. The timing of the filling of the ponds, in later summer, was extremely detrimental because it occurred at a time when the SFGS would have been concentrating activity in the immediate vicinity of the ponds (McGinnis 1990). Other wildlife species would have been able to survive this action because they are widely distributed in the habitat and other vegetation cover.

The habitat disturbance associated with the construction and realignment of Calera Creek in 1999, 2000 have also contributed to keeping the SFGS population numbers at undetectable numbers on the site. It has been less than six years since the creation of the Ponds on the city of Pacifica property were completed. They are suitable for CRF, but need some management to make them more suitable for SFGS. The mitigation ponds need to have more open sunny habitat at least on the upland side. Currently, tall weedy species have overtaken the edge leaving no good basking habitat adjacent to the pond.

Another factor that has reduced the likelihood of a breeding population becoming reestablished in the Calera Creek Corridor is that the population of SFGS is only slowly and very recently recovering at the adjacent Mori Point. Documented presence of the SFGS in the Mori Point area (Laguna Salada) dates back to 1946 when Wade Fox, a graduate student at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, conducted field work in the area (Barry 1978). Fox later published the data (Fox 1951). The area was subject to heavy collecting pressure in the 1950s, but was recovering well in the late 1970s (Barry 1978) after the scientific community began to recognize the impacts to the species (McGinnis 1988). Barry (1978) recorded over 40 hand captures of SFGS at Mori Point (Figure 8). Many of these observations were of individuals near the ridgeline separating Mori Point from the Calera Creek Corridor, 25 where SFGS were documented in 1989 at two quarry ponds (Figure 8). Barry also observed SFGS on this ridge in 1990 (Barry 2006 in USFWS 2006). These observations combined with the known highly mobile nature of SFGS imply movement of the species between the two watersheds (Calera Creek watershed and Sanchez Creek watershed).

Between 1980 and the late 1990’s, salt water intrusion from the sea wall west of Laguna Salada resulted in a severe reduction of the SFGS population due to loss of breeding habitat for amphibian prey, CRF and Pacific treefrog at Horse Stable Pond and Laguna Salada (McGinnis 1997). Over the next twenty years, trapping and visual surveys of the Mori Point and Sharp Park area produced no SFGS (McGinnis 1986a, McGinnis 1988) one SFGS capture (McGinnis 1997) or two SFGS (one capture on observation) during the surveys (McGinnis 1986b).

The Sharp Park and Laguna Salada populations also experienced drastic declines in the 1980’s over the population levels of the 1950s - 1970s (Barry 1978, McGinnis 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1997). Barry made over 40 SFGS captures on that site). The Sharp Park Population experienced a decline, starting around 1980 due to salt water intrusion into all of the previously freshwater marsh areas of Laguna Salada and the associated wetlands. This occurred due to the breaching of the seawall. With the Sharp Park population drastically reduced, SFGS were not able to readily recolonize the Quarry Site. Sea wall breaches and saltwater intrusions continued into the late 1980s effectively eliminating CRF and treefrog from breeding in Sharp Park, except for the upper reaches of Sanchez Creek. Salinity measurements taken during the spring of 1986 in Laguna Salada and Horse Stable Pond ranged between 5 and 9 ppt (McGinnis 1986a). One hundred percent mortality occurs in eggs exposed to salinity levels greater than 4.5 parts per thousand (Jennings and Hayes 1990). In coastal lagoons, the most significant mortality factor in the pre-hatching state is water salinity (Jennings et al. 1992). Larvae die when exposed to salinities greater than 7.0 parts per thousand (Mark Jennings, National Biological Service, in litt., 1994 ).

No surveys were conducted between 1997 and 2004. In 2004 a small population of SFGS was detected (Swaim Biological 2006) was conducted during baseline survey for a recovery project investigating the effects of wetland enhancement and creation for the CRLF and SFGS. Follow up surveys in 2006 have shown that the Mori Point population appears to be increasing dramatically. This is based on comparison of previous McGinnis surveys (McGinnis 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1997) and the recent Swaim Biological surveys (Swaim Biological 2006b).

Introduction of SFGS into the Mitigation Ponds north of Calera Creek will facilitate recovery of the SFGS in the region and the site. It is expected to increase the local SFGS population numbers and reestablish a breeding SFGS population at the ponds, wetlands and surrounding uplands within the contiguous undeveloped areas. Recovery efforts being implemented by NPS GGNRA, is also expected to increase the local SFGS populations at Mori Point and increase the amount of dispersal from the Sanchez Creek watershed into the Calera Creek watershed over time.

Existing data on SFGS use of uplands indicates that once SFGS are reintroduced they will use the available wetland and upland habitats. This type of movement was demonstrated by the one coast garter snake that moved from Pacifica Quarry to Mori Point and shows it is possible for an 26 SFGS at Mori Point to move to Pacifica Quarry. Additional movement data on SFGS gathered at Mori Point showed multiple SFGS going back and forth between separated seasonal and permanent aquatic habitats (Swaim Biological 2006b).

4.0 CONCLUSIONS
At this time, a specific development is not proposed. However, based on distribution of suitable habitat conditions and distribution of the California red-legged frog on the project site, development of the property is expected to have significant and unavoidable impacts to the CRF and SFGS dispersal habitat. After analyzing the data on the distribution of special status species habitat, especially the current distribution of CRF, we are unable to determine a development footprint that would avoid significant impacts. In addition, we are unable to recommend mitigation for impacts because of the projects sites location in the Coastal Zone. In the course of conducting the regional analysis for the project it was found that the Coastal Commission requires completed avoidance of significant impacts and that mitigation is not an acceptable planning tool (California Coastal Commission 2002, 2006).

The presence of a breeding population of SFGS in the Calera Creek Corridor is crucial to the long term survival of the Mori Point SFGS population. A viable population at Calera Creek watershed will be needed if catastrophic events occur in the Mori Point –Sharp Park area. For example those that have happened in the past (i.e. breaching of the sea wall resulting in salt water intrusion), could occur and severely reduce or extirpate the Mori Point- Sharp Park Population.
27 6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Barry, S. J. (1975). Status of the San Francisco garter snake. Inland fisheries endangered species program special publication 78-2. 21 pp.

Barry, S. J. (1978). Status of the San Francisco garter snake. California Department of Fish and Game. IFB Species Publication 78-2. 21 pp.

Barry, S.J. (1979). Investigations on the occurrence of the San Francisco garter snake at Mori Point, San Mateo County. Unpublished report prepared for Environmental Science Associates.

Barry, S. J. (1996). The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophus sirtalis tetrataenia) on the San Francisco watershed. Unpublished technical report of 5 year study.

California Coastal Commission. May 15, 2004. Letter to Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam, City of Pacifica Regarding DEIR for Pacifica Village Center, Pacifica Quarry Site. 13 pp.

California Coastal Commision. May 12, 2006. Letter to Daniel Grimm, Peebles Corporation, Re: Pacifica Quarry Development. 7 pp.

California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2006. Natural Heritage Division. California Department of Fish and Game, State of California.

H.T. Harvey & Associates (2002). Pacifica Village Center Draft Environmental Impact Report, Biological Resources Section. Prepared for Patricia Jeffery, Placemakers. Emeryville, CA.

Keel, P., S. M. McGinnis, and L. Smith. (1991). Habitat Requirements and Population Estimate for the San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) at Año Nuevo State Reserve, San Mateo County, California. Conducted for the Department of Parks and Recreation State of California. 8pp.

Larsen, S. S. (1994). Life history aspect of the San Francisco garter snake at the Millbrae habitat site. Master’s Thesis. California State University, Hayward, California. 105 pp.

McGinnis, S. M. (1984). The Current distribution and habitat requirements of the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) in coastal San Mateo County.

McGinnis, S. M. (1986). The status of the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) at the Sharp Park Golf Course, Pacifica California. Prepared for Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.

McGinnis, S. M. (1987). The distribution and feeding habitat requirements of the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Final report for California Department of Fish and Game Interagency Agreements C-673 and C-1376. 28 McGinnis, S., P. Keel, and E. Burko. (1987). The Use of Upland Habitats by Snake Species at Año Nuevo State Reserve. Prepared for the Department of Parks and Recreation State of California. 14 pp.

McGinnis, S.M. 1988. A review of the status of the (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) in the Mori Point- Laguna Salada Area, with emphasis on potential upland retreat habitat.

Prepared for The Mori Point Development Company. Unpublished report. 11 pages.

McGinnis, S. M. (1990). The status of the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) on the California Department of Transportation property west side of Hwy 1 at the Calara Creek/Reina Del Mar intersection, Pacifica, California. Unpublished report, submitted to: Environmental Analysis Branch, California Department of Transportation. San Francisco, California.

McGinnis, S. M. (1991). Habitat requirements and population estimate for the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) at Año Nuevo State Reserve, San Mateo, California. Unpublished report, submitted to: The Department of Parks and Recreation.

Sacramento, California.

McGinnis, S. M. (1997). The status of the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) and the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) at Mori Point, Pacifica, California, with an emphasis on the areas proposed for a conference center and road. Prepared for National Investors Financial, Inc. Unpublished report. 15 pages.

Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Book Co., Boston, Massachusetts and New Youk, New York. 335 pp.

Swaim Biological (2006a). Proposal to conduct surveys for the Alameda whipsnake, San Francisco Garter Snake, and California Red-legged Frog under Permit 815537. March 13, 2006. 17 pp.

Swaim Biological (2006b). San Francisco Garter Snake Foraging Habitat Improvement Project, at Mori Point Pacifica, CA 2004-2006.

Swaim Biological. (2006c). Results of 2005 surveys for the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) at Año Nuevo State Reserve, San Mateo County, California, draft. 16 pp.

Swaim Biological. (2006d). Survey Results for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) at the Former Naval Medical Center in Oakland. Prepared for WRA. 30 pp.

USFWS. 1985. Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 77 pp. 29 USFWS. 1996. Section 7 Formal Consultation on the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Wetland Resotration on the Lower Calaera Creek, San Mateo County, CA. 18 pages + figures and appendices.

USFWS. 2004. Section 7 Formal Consultation on the Proposed Enhancement of San Francisco Garter Snake Foraging Habitat at Mori Point in Pacifica, San Mateo County, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 34 pp. + figures.

USFWS. 2006. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) 5-Year Review:

Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Field Office. September 2006. 44 pp.

7.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Bennet, Susie, Biology Intern. Parks Conservancy, GGNRA. December 19, 2006.

Wilkonson, Jeff, PhD Herpetologist, H.T. Harvey and Associates. November 15, 2006.

DINAH F. VERBY
338 Reichling Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
March 10, 2022
Christian Murdock, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Dept.
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044 Emailed to: [email protected] Dear Mr. Murdock,
These are my comments on the General Plan (GP) Update and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). (I apologize for the helter-skelter organization, but I worked on different parts over time, and did the best I could to piece it together.) Since I haven’t had time to review the complete documents in depth, my comments primarily focus on the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements of the GP and the Biological Resources section of the DEIR, particularly as they relate to the Pacifica Quarry, which is located in the Coastal Zone.

I. General Comments:
• As others have commented, there are numerous mis-labeled Guiding and Implementing Policies in the DEIR. Many policies identified as mitigation for impacts in Table ES-3 and elsewhere do not match the correspondingly numbered policies in the GP. (Please refer to comment and Excel spreadsheet from Pete Shoemaker showing the many mislabeling errors.) Since so many citations in the DEIR are inaccurate, the impact analysis is unreliable and it cannot be determined whether the impacts are truly mitigated. Please update and correct the DEIR so that it accurately tracks the GP and recirculate the DEIR.
• The color-coded maps in the GP and DEIR are difficult to interpret (especially the land use maps).

Many shades of colors are so close to each other that one can’t determine what the true land use designation is. For example, in GP Figure 4-7 (GP page 4-20) the color for “Conservation” is nearly indistinguishable from that for “Open Space/Agriculture/Residential.” The accompanying text in the GP is often vague and does not describe the land areas with sufficient specificity. In other instances, the text conflicts with the maps. (See “Map Errors” below) Since the maps seem to be the primary tool for guiding land use decisions, they should be as precise and accurate as possible. Suggestion: Is it possible to use another method such as assessor parcel nos. and maps to identify the proper designations?
• Map Errors: There are apparent errors in the following maps in the GP and DEIR.

Figure 3.7-4 in DEIR: Special Status Species:

The map legend does not match the map markings with regard to California Red-legged Frog (CRLF) Habitat. These areas are marked with red diagonal lines on the map, whereas the legend uses a red and white dotted pattern (which doesn’t appear anywhere on the map that I can find). Please correct the legend so that it corresponds with the diagonal markings on the map.

DINAH F. VERBY March 8, 2022
Comments on Pacifica General Plan Update and DEIR
2 Figure 6-1: Parks and Open Space System (GP Page 6-3)/DEIR Figure 3.12-2:

Rockaway Quarry: The GP at page 6-11 states that portions of the Quarry are designated in Figure 6-1 as “Partial Conservation with Development,” where conservation areas should be determined based on habitat needs and site conditions. However, Figure 6-1 contains no such designation. The Quarry uplands and Calera Creek are shown as “Other Protected Open Space,” while the remaining parts of the Quarry have no discernable color code. The same error exists in the corresponding Figure 3.12-2 in the DEIR.

Oddstad Park: GP Page 6-3, Figure 6-1 (Figure 3.12-2 in DEIR) indicates that District, Neighborhood and Pocket Parks should be dark green. However, Oddstad Park is shown as greenish-yellow. Please correct this so that it is solid dark green.

Cattle Hill & Pedro Point Headlands: Shows GGNRA as the owner of the city-owned Cattle Hill property and the Pedro Point Headlands (PPH). PPH is owned by the City of Pacifica and the State of California (California Coastal Conservancy). It is uncertain whether GGNRA will take title to either of these areas.

Proposed Changes: Delete “GGNRA” under Pedro Point Headlands. Separate the cityowned Cattle Hill property from GGNRA property on Sweeney Ridge. These changes should be made on this and other maps throughout the GP and DEIR, including: GP Figure 6-2 Trail System (GP page 6-16/DEIR Figure 3.12-3); GP Figure 6-3 Coastal Access Trail (GP page 6-21); GP Figure 6-4 Schools and Community Facilities (GP page 6-28/DEIR Figure 3.12-1) See also maps in the Land Use, Conservation elements and many others that I don’t have time to list.

Figure 6-2 Trail System (GP Page 6-16/DEIR Figure 3.12-3):

Pedro Point Headlands: Shows "Pedro Point Trail” as a proposed trail or trail improvement. The restoration efforts of the Pacifica Land Trust Stewards have completed the trails as mapped.

Please mark the trails as “Existing Trails.” Also, the completed Devil's Slide Trail should be shown as an "Existing Trail” rather than a proposed trail.

Figure 7-3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat (GP Page 7.19/DEIR Figure 3.7-3):

These maps fail to show the entire habitat of the California Red-legged Frog (CRLF). Habitats in the Coastal Zone such as Mori Point, the Quarry, and Pedro Point are omitted. Additional habitats are shown in DEIR Figure 3.7-4, page 3.7-24 and should be included in Figure 7-3. • Typos:

GP Page 1-14: under “Non-Residential Development and Employment” heading: “7,6310 jobs” should be 7,310 jobs.

GP Page 4-30 Table 4-3: There is a citation to footnote 4 which does not exist. Footnotes 1 and 2 do not correspond to this table, and appear to belong with Table 4-2.

GP Page 6-5, Table 6-1, footnote 4: “at 202 population” should presumably be “at 2020.” DINAH F. VERBY March 8, 2022
Comments on Pacifica General Plan Update and DEIR
3 GP Page 6-11, right column: “Harmony@1” is now known as “Ohlone Point.” DEIR Page 3.7-18, Table 3.7-3: “Pacific” Ocean misspelled. Under SOURCE: “Pacifica” misspelled.

DEIR Page 3.7-50: footnotes out of order and not properly numbered.

DEIR Page 3.7-57: first full paragraph starting with “Additionally” duplicates most of previous paragraph.
• Hillside Preservation District: I support the addition of new parcels to HPD, as shown on Figure 4-4 (GP

Environmentally Sensitive Area as shown in Figure 3.7-3 of the DEIR. It is therefore unsuitable for development and should be designated “Conservation,” as explained below. Furthermore, it is difficult to tell whether Figure 4-4 accurately lists all of the existing HPD parcels. Please carefully compare Figure 4- 4 to the Zoning Maps to make sure that all HPD lands are included. • Create New Overlay Districts in Hazard Areas: I haven’t had the time to delve into the Safety Element in detail, but I will generally comment that the data and maps regarding hazards such as fire, landslides, sea level rise and flooding are out of date and do not accurately reflect current conditions. As a result, the DEIR impacts analysis cannot be relied upon, since the actual risks from these hazards is not disclosed in the GP. I understand that it is possible to create overlay designations in the GP to mitigate against these hazards and to protect valuable biological resources. Examples are prohibiting new subdivisions, limiting development to one unit per legal lot of record, and requiring development to be transferred where possible through mechanisms such as a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) exchange program and an updated Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for areas with inadequate evacuation routes and hazardous conditions. Please update the GP to include such overlay designations and also update the data to reflect current conditions. • Consider Designation of a proposed Greenbelt (Multiple benefit resilience buffer): For vacant parcels with hazards and/or valuable biological resources that would constrain development, utilize a VMT exchange program or Purchase/Transfer of Development rights program to generate funding to purchase undeveloped properties from willing sellers within the Greenbelt area at the edge of the community.

II. Rockaway Quarry (aka Pacifica Quarry):

The proposed land use designation of Visitor-Serving Commercial in the parts of the Quarry known as the Flatlands and the Pit or Pad is inconsistent with the fact that these areas have been identified as Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), as shown in Figures 7-3 of the GP and 3-7.3 in the DEIR. It is also internally inconsistent with many Guiding and Implementing Policies articulated in the GP update for protection of such areas. The level and intensity of development contemplated in the Preferred Plan is incompatible with Coastal Act policies and seems unlikely to be approved by the Coastal Commission.

It appears in many instances that the GP and DEIR are relying on old, outdated data with regard to the biological assessments. Furthermore, analysis of the biological impacts is improperly deferred with a general statement that “any development of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of biological resources to ensure that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected.” (GP Page 4-22) Other than an oblique acknowledgement at GP Page 4-22 that the development footprint “could be smaller than the area DINAH F. VERBY March 8, 2022
Comments on Pacifica General Plan Update and DEIR
4 designated” due to the existence of “sensitive habitat and wetlands,” there is no analysis of well-documented current conditions and biological resources, such as the existence of seasonal and emergent wetlands in the Flatlands and Pit sections of the Quarry, which are habitat for threatened and endangered species such as the San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) and the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF).

Furthermore, the DEIR improperly fails to analyze the impacts of the pending Quarry Reclamation Plan submitted in 2020 and revised on February 14, 2022. (A separate DEIR for the Reclamation Plan is presently circulating for public comment.) While the existence of the Reclamation Plan is mentioned at Page 3.15-1 of the DEIR, there is no cumulative impacts analysis of this known, anticipated development. Of special note is the fact that the Reclamation Plan proposes to create mitigation wetlands and a CRLF mitigation pond in the middle of the Quarry Flatlands – the very area designated “Visitor-Serving Commercial.” The Reclamation Plan also contemplates creation of a Conservation Easement over some portion of the Flatlands, which would preclude any development in that area.

Based on all the above considerations, the appropriate designation for the entire Quarry and Flatlands area is “Conservation.” It would be a substantial waste of City time, money and resources to pursue a strong commercial center in the Quarry. Accordingly, the City should strongly consider adopting some form of Alternative 2 identified in the DEIR, which involves the greatest amount of conservation and the least amount of development in the Quarry.

More specific comments are detailed below, with references to the Plan documents.

Topic Comment
Wetlands
Missing or outdated
data; deferred
analysis
Policy CO-I-4 in the Conservation Element of the General Plan (GP) “prohibits new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act.”1
Figure 3.7-2 of the DEIR contains a National Wetlands Inventory Map dated 2021, but footnote 10 notes that “many smaller wetlands do not appear on the map” and subsequent projects may be subject to “site-specific wetland delineations that identify the location and extent of federal, state and locally jurisdictional wetlands and other waters.”2 One area where wetlands are not shown is the Rockaway Quarry, located in the Coastal Zone where seasonal wetlands have served as habitat for threatened and endangered species including the San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) and the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF).

The existence of the wetlands along Calera Creek as well as in other parts of the Quarry, including a drainage ditch immediately west of Highway 1, was acknowledged in the 2013 FEIR for the CalTrans State Route 1/Calera Park Highway widening project (which ultimately was not built). Refer especially to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion No. 81420-2009-F-1328 which confirmed these areas to be habitat for the SFGS and CRLF.
1 City of Pacifica Draft General Plan January 2022, page 7-11 (hereafter “GP). 2 City of Pacifica General Plan Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Jan. 7, 2022, pages 3.7- 10 & 11; Figure 3.7-2 (hereafter “DEIR”).

DINAH F. VERBY March 8, 2022
Comments on Pacifica General Plan Update and DEIR
5 Missing Cumulative
Impacts Analysis
More recent wetlands & habitat studies were done by the current owner of the Quarry and are on file with the City as part of the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan (as revised on Feb. 14, 2022), for which a Draft EIR is currently circulating for public comment. Figure 4 of the Reclamation Plan depicts “Wetlands Potentially Subject to Corps Jurisdiction” which exist throughout the Flatlands. Here is a link to those documents:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/proposed_pacifica_quarry_reclamation_pr oject.asp
Other than a couple of acknowledgements in the GP that the Quarry needs reclamation work, I can find no analysis of the actual pending Reclamation plan, which proposes filling the wetlands west of the creek and creating new mitigation wetlands in the middle of the Quarry flats, as well as a conservation easement. Though not yet approved, it is an anticipated project that is not analyzed in the GP or DEIR (at least not in what I’ve read so far). Absent this analysis, there is no factual basis for the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts are less than significant.

Special Status
Species and
Potential ESHA
Missing or outdated
data
GP Figure 7-3 in the Conservation Element3 and DEIR Figure 3-7.3 entitled “Sensitive and Critical Habitat,”4show that the entire Quarry – including the Flatlands and the area known as the Pit or Pad, are “Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas” (Potential ESHA) that should be protected from development under GP Conservation Policies CO-G-7 and CO-G-11.5 GP Land Use Policy LU-G-7 additionally provides for protection of critical wildlife habitat and special status species.6
DEIR Figure 3.7-4 entitled “Special Status Species” shows the federally-threatened California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) to be extant in the Quarry Flatlands.7Furthermore, the DEIR states that the endangered San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) “…are presently known to occur…in the Pacifica Quarry,” citing a 2005 study by Swaim Biological Consulting. 8 A more recent study by Swaim concluded that the entire Quarry including the Flatlands was habitat for the CRLF and that no developable footprint could be identified under Coastal Commission rules. See “STATUS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS SIRTALIS TETRATAENIA) AT PACIFICA QUARRY, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA” Revised Feb. 27, 2007 by Swaim Biological, Inc.] (copy attached).

The Swaim report is quoted extensively in more recent studies in the pending Quarry Reclamation Plan on file with the City, which are not mentioned in the GP or DEIR. That work, if approved, would place wetlands and a CRLF mitigation pond in the middle of the Quarry flatlands, which would presumably preclude most if not all development in that area.

Contrast the above-noted conservation policies with GP Figure 4-3 “Land Use Diagram,” which shows the Quarry flatlands and Quarry Pit/Pad as Visitor-Serving Commercial.9 GP 3 GP, page 7-19, Figure 7-3.
4 DEIR, page 3.7-18, Figure 3.7-3.
5 GP, page 7-25.
6 GP, page 4-31.
7 DEIR, page 3.7-24, Figure 3.7-4.
8 DEIR, page 3.7-31.
9 GP, page 4-6, Figure 4-3.

DINAH F. VERBY March 8, 2022
Comments on Pacifica General Plan Update and DEIR
6 Inconsistency
Deferred analysis
Fig. 4-7 ‘Pacifica, Central” shows the same.10 Similarly, the Land Use Element describes the Quarry as Pacifica’s “most prominent potential development site” and designates the Flats and Pad for hotels, visitor attractions and retail uses. The Economic Sustainability Element contains similar statements. Table 4-3 in the Land Use Element entitled “Non-Residential Buildout Under the General Plan” projects 448,400 sq. ft. of new development in the Quarry, which is more than 78% of all the projected Visitor-Serving Commercial development citywide.11
Further, Policy CD-I-1 of the Community Design Element states: “Rockaway Beach will be the visitor-oriented center. Its charming coastal character will be strengthened by new development and the district will be extended with a connective street pattern onto the flat portion of the Quarry site. It may gain a new, defining feature such as a destination hotel or conference center.”
12 Continuing with that theme, Policy CI-I-6 of the Circulation Element provides for new streets in the Quarry.13
Policy LU-I-25 of the Land Use Element is to “enable the responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry site.”
14 It goes on to say that “any development
of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of biological resources to ensure that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; as a result, the footprint of development could be smaller than the area designated.”15 Again, while noting that reclamation work must occur, there is no analysis of the impacts of the actual Reclamation Plan. Instead, analysis of the biological resources is deferred to the time of a future development, which means that the amount of allowable development in the Quarry remains unknown. This in turn means that there is no basis for the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project impacts are less than significant.

Thanks very much for your consideration of these comments. I am attaching a copy of the Swaim Biological Report which I have referenced.

Sincerely,
Dinah Verby, Resident of Pacifica
Cc: Pacifica Planning Commissioners:
[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] .ca.us,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] California Coastal Commission staff:

[email protected], [email protected] California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: [email protected] 10 GP page 4-20, Figure 4-7.
11 GP, page 4-30.
12 GP, page 3-4.
13 GP, page 5-20.
14 GP, page 4-36.
15 GP, pages 4-22 & 4-36.

From: NamasTeTe [ ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:22 AM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046)
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
I am a 23 year long resident of Pacifica. My address is .

I am writing to express my opposition to the GPU update and DEIR’s proposed land use designation change of the undeveloped field along San Pedro Avenue in Pedro Point.

I request that you do NOT change the land use designation to Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU). My reasonings are numerous, but here are some of the most important:

This field is in a flood plain, as evidenced by the many photographs presented to you. Rain waters flood down from the Pedro Point Headlands on to San Pedro Avenue and on to the undeveloped field.

This field will eventually be underwater from projected sea level rise. There is strong scientific evidence that supports this fact. Homes should NOT be built below sea level. Just look at the home along that East Coast that are constantly flooded at high tides.

The field supports crucial wildlife habitat for so many species. On our daily neighborhood walks, we see great heron and red tailed hawks resting in the trees and catching their prey on the field. We see snakes, red-legged frogs and other species in their native habitat. Where will they go if there is no open space for them? Pacifica must be a good steward of its ecology and environment.

Like it or not, Pedro Point has become a free parking area for surfers. Adding construction and homes to the field along San Pedro Avenue will NOT stop the surfers/visitors from coming, but will just impede vehicular and pedestrian traffic even further for the residents of the area.

Pacificans have been accused of burying our heads in the sand for our denial of climate change in the press lately. We can do better! There are other great opportunities to utilize the undeveloped Pedro Point field that can be a win-win for everyone involved.

The easiest solution to address these issues is to change the land use designation for the Pedro Point field to one that is closest to it's current state, which is Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial (LIVC).

Respectfully,
Therese Langille
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From: Joanne Gold ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 11:43 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
CC: Ed Gold [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046)
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
My husband, Ed Gold, and I are 23 year residents of the Pedro Point neighborhood and are writing to submit comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). As active and involved members of the community, we’re very pleased that the Planning Commission and City Council are committed to updating the General Plan as guiding document for Pacifica’s vibrant future. Thank you for your efforts.

However, we’re writing to state our strongest possible objection to the GPU/DEIR’s proposed new land use designation of “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” (CRMU) for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site in the Pedro Point neighborhood. We have gone on record many times over more than a decade to cite our personal objections to a CRMU – or any residential land use designation – for this property (known locally as the “Pedro Point field”).

We have also personally supported the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) - both as donors and as community organizers - to help submit comments objecting to this designation from legal and environmental experts. Therefore our comments in this letter incorporate by reference the 2022 DEIR/GPU comment letters prepared by the PPCA, and those prepared on behalf of the PPCA which were submitted separately by CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and Coastal Ecologist Dr. Peter Baye. These experts have provided specific details of how a proposed change of the existing land use of the Pedro Point field to CRMU is reasonably likely to cause direct and indirect significant adverse impacts and would conflict with CEQA and Coastal Act policy.

For us personally, there are many reasons a CRMU designation for the Pedro Point field would cause significant and direct negative impacts – here are just a few:

1. Significant adverse aesthetic impact:

Our home directly overlooks the Pedro Point field which provides us with beautiful, scenic views we’ve enjoyed every single day for the past 23 years. From our windows we can also see scores of our neighbors walking in and around the field each day. Like us, they all enjoy the grassy open space to observe wildlife, exercise pets (and kids), take in scenic views of the surrounding hillsides, and use long-worn footpaths to get to the adjacent Linda Mar Beach. The proposed CRMU designation would not only ruin the aesthetic enjoyment of the field for my husband and I, but for our neighbors and visitors to our community as well. Any foreseeable development would certainly degrade the existing visual character of the neighborhood.

2. Significant adverse biological impact:

Like most who live on Pedro Point or those who come to visit here, our family has long enjoyed the diversity of wildlife we’re able to observe in and around the Pedro Point field.

From California Red-legged Frogs (CLRF), to San Francisco Garter Snakes, to deer and coyotes, and a myriad of nesting and foraging birds - over the years we’ve encountered a veritable guidebook of native wildlife species (and have gone on record to document endangered species observed with the California Coastal Commission, such as CLRF).

Foreseeable development from the proposed CRMU designation would irrevocably harm the wildlife, the natural habitat, and our enjoyment of this treasured neighborhood environmental asset.

3. Adverse Parking/Traffic Conditions & Pedestrian Safety Hazards:

We love to walk and ride bikes in and around our neighborhood. But the increased street parking and vehicular traffic along San Pedro Avenue in the past several years has made these outings more and more hazardous. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed CRMU designation would literally choke our streets, making this main thoroughfare un-navigable, and present significant adverse hazards for both emergency access and pedestrians (there are no sidewalks!). The increased traffic would also have related air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts.

4. Significant adverse flooding impact:

Anyone with eyes can see that the Pedro Point field sits at the lowest elevation on the Point and serves as a natural, permeable catch basin for rainwater and run-off from the surrounding hillsides. Many local residents – ourselves included – refer to the streets running perpendicular to the field as “Waterslides” because of all the run-off that streams down into the field for days following any rain event… which have increased in ferocity in recent years due to climate change conditions. Foreseeable development from the proposed CRMU designation would add considerable impervious surfaces, significantly increasing flooding hazards throughout San Pedro Avenue. It’s simply inconceivable that the City would consider this designation and put so many residents at extreme risk.

Lastly, in reviewing the GPU Land Use map (section 4-6, p. 67) we note that it appears the one main property in the entire City of Pacifica being proposed for the new CRMU designation is the privately-owned, undeveloped San Pedro Avenue field. It seems as if this property and its landowner have been singled out for special treatment. The GPU should be a guiding document for the development and policy making decisions of the entire community, not just for the benefit of a single landowner.

In conclusion, we urge you to change the proposed land use designation for the Pedro Point field from CRMU to Conservation (C) which is most consistent with the current state of the undeveloped property. A Conservation designation would also address DEIR deficiencies noted by the PPCA and their expert advisors, and be in compliance with CEQA and Coastal Act policies. It would therefore be not only the most responsible solution, but also the most expedient solution to help move the GPU and DEIR approval process forward.

Thank you in advance for making the smart decision to preserve open spaces like the Pedro Point field, and for valuing Pacifica’s natural assets as a way to ensure our city’s future as a vibrant and desirable coastal destination.

Respectfully,
Joanne and Ed Gold
, Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From: Gary Furlong [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 6:05 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046)
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
I am writing to you in regards to my objection to the General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report's proposed land use designation change of the undeveloped field in Pedro Point from Commercial Recreation to Coastal Residential Mixed Use. My name is Gary Furlong and I have lived on Pedro Point for almost 22 years. My husband, David Costa, has lived here for about 37 years. We have seen dramatic change to the Pedro Point neighborhood; most of it good. I object to what is being proposed for this neighborhood primarily for four reasons: (1) It will damage and completely change the nature of the Pedro Point neighborhood. (2) It will be dangerous for this neighborhood and the city will bear the responsibility for that. (3) It will be environmentally unsound and foolish. (4) The owner of the field bought the property knowing its designation and I resent a land use designation change, that the neighbors object to, simply to enrich someone who bought property based on changing its nature.

1. Pedro Point is a real neighborhood in the best sense of those words. People know each other, socialize together and look out for each other. We have potlucks, parties and communal events together. To add a staggering number of new homes, while removing a green space, will change the basic nature of the neighborhood. I walk almost daily throughout Pedro Point and my walks certainly take me around the field, which serves as a communal area for socializing, as it has done for decades now. I have greatly enjoyed my chance encounters with various wildlife as I walk by the field (including what appeared to a heron that was a bit lost, as it was standing in the field!). Over the many years of its use by the neighborhood, it has become the unofficial heart of the neighborhood for catching up on the local news and visiting with friends, as well as for people walking their dogs and children learning to ride bikes. It should be obvious that reasonably foreseeable development allowed by the proposed new land use designation of the General Plan Update will ruin my enjoyment of this established neighborhood character.

2. There is one road into our neighborhood; just one road. When I moved here there was only limited beach traffic, especially since at that point, San Pedro Road didn't serve as an exit for some of the beach parking. That was also before almost half of the parking lot at our retail center became beach parking. Now days, particularly on sunny days, the traffic going into and out of Pedro Point is almost unbearable and it's getting worse. Frequently San Pedro road is almost impassable due to great number of people parking there to use the shopping center, the beach, or who actually live in the neighborhood. This traffic, especially the beach going part of it, has increased significantly every year for years now and will only get worse. If there is a need to suddenly evacuate the neighborhood, such as a forest fire, our one single road will not be up to the current challenge. I cannot imagine what it would be like if many new homes are built on the field, making traffic significantly worse.

3. The field is environmentally sensitive. Others will have commented on the presence of endangered species. I will limit myself to pointing out that we're currently in a drought, as we have been for some time now. However, during our regular weather cycle this field is marshy and can be prone to flooding. This was before numerous additional houses were built on the hillside, which will further increase the runoff when our weather cycle returns to a more normal, wet winter. In addition to the runoff that is to be expected, many of these new homes also have been built with pumps that are pumping water out from around their foundations, further adding to the water that will flow down to the field. An environmentally sensitive field that is prone to being marshy during normal weather years, not a great choice for cramming in dozens of homes.

4. I believe that everyone has the right to expect a decent return on their investment as long as it is a reasonable expectation. However, the current owner bought this property knowing its land use designation so I feel that the city has no responsibility to help them make a profit by insisting on a land use designation change, especially one that will be harmful both to the neighborhood and the environment.

I believe that one of the highest duties of a city, and its land use designation, is to protect the nature of its neighborhoods and the lives of its residents. I believe that this land use designation change will do just the opposite; as I mention above, is should be obvious that reasonably foreseeable development allowed by the proposed new land designation of the General Plan Update will destroy the valued character of the neighborhood and my enjoyment of it. It's almost seems as if this particular parcel of land has been singled out for special treatment.

Regards,
Gary Furlong
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From: D Mi [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 5:47 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]; Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046)
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
We are writing to object to the General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report's proposed land-use designation change for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site (the "Pedro Point Field"). As we understand it, the proposal would change the designation of the Pedro Point Field from “Commercial Recreation” to “Coastal Residential Mixed Use.” For the sake of brevity, rather than repeat facts presented by and arguments and proposals made on behalf of the community by the Pedro Point Community Association and its counsel and consultant, as well as the additional arguments, facts and proposals presented by Sam Casillas, we incorporate them as though fully set forth herein.

As the Pedro Point neighbourhood has demonstrated over the years, this community stands ready to provide the legal and financial resources (and person-power) necessary to protect our neighbourhood from ill-conceived and/or unlawful decisions regarding the Pedro Point Field. Accordingly, we respectfully urge all decision makers to please carefully consider the points made by the PPCA and its lawyers and consultants, and Mr. Casillas, and work with the community to appropriately designate the Pedro Point Field in a manner that protects the environment and is consistent with applicable law (including the Coastal Act), neighbourhood concerns, and science.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dina and Robert Horan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From: CATHY GLENN [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 7:04 AM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046)
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
My name is Cathy Glenn. I live at in Pedro Point. I'm writing to state my objection to the General Plan Update (GPU) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)’s proposed land use designation change of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site in Pedro Point (ie: the Pedro Point field) from “Commercial Recreation” (CR) to a new “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” (CRMU) designation.

In reviewing the DEIR, I know that the City has concluded that the GPU would not create significant visual impacts related to 1) views of hillsides, 2) degradation of existing visual character, or 3) glare affecting day or nighttime views. As a local resident, I disagree with these Draft EIR conclusions for the following reasons:

My family has lived on Pedro Point for almost 30 years. Our front windows overlook the field, the berm and the ocean. The view of the grassy field is very relaxing and the wild life that we see in there on a regular basis is just wonderful.

My biggest concern about the field being designated Coastal Residential Mixed Use is the increase in traffic and parking that will overtake the Point. Right now we are inundated with beach parkers every sunny day. It is taking its toll on our roads and on our residents safety. The roadways are crumbling, have bigger and bigger pot holes and the parking is ridiculous. People park where ever there is space whether it is a parking space or not. Just crossing San Pedro Road can be an adventure and is getting more and more dangerous. Adding more residents will just exacerbate the problem. We have had to call the police to have parkers ticketed for blocking our driveways. Unless the City is willing to put the money into fixing our infrastructure, this will be an on going problem. My children grew up using the field for play and for access to the beach. I would like to see this continue for the next generation of Pedro Point children.

In addition, reasonably foreseeable development under a CRMU designation would degrade the existing visual character and be out of scale with the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. I have lived here for almost 30 years and the small town look and feel of this neighborhood are an integral part of our community.

I'm also concerned about new sources of light and glare from exterior and interior lighting that would be introduced by reasonably foreseeable development under the General Plan Update’s new land use designation for the field. My nighttime environment would be negatively impacted, as the additional lighting and glare would be visible from my home and take away the peaceful darkness of the evening. As it is now, we can see the ocean in all of its glory day and night, but we won’t be able to watch the waves crash onto the rocks and see the beautiful waterfalls that they create.

For each of these reasons, I believe this project will result in a significant adverse visual impacts. The simplest solution to address these issues is to change the land use designation for the Pedro Point field to one that is closest to it's current state, which is Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial (LIVC).

Respectfully,
Cathy E Glenn
Pacifica, CA 94044
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From:

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 4:27 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: comments on DEIR February 22, 2022
Attachments: DEIR Bibliography Profile.xlsx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Clif Lawrence < >
Date: February 21, 2022 at 2:17:47 PM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Oral Communications - February 22, 2022
Honorable Commissioners,
Good evening.

My name is Clifford (Clif) Lawrence.

Our First U.S. President was born on this date 290
years ago. He commended us to remain mindful of the
importance of the role of "Citizen". We are all here
this evening as concerned citizens, and as such
honored.

Next I wish to express my thanks for the recent
upgrade revisions to the Draft General Plan and Draft
EIR documents. These indexes and search friendly
capabilities have opened a window of opportunity to
identify what IS and what IS NOT there.

Tonight I thought I would share with you somethings
you might not have known about our 2022 Draft EIR.

More specifically some nerdy things about its
Bibliography...

First...there are 193 references. The oldest 1974. The
newest 2013. There are no references in the
Bibliography newer than 2013. In fact, the 2022
Bibliography is IDENTICAL in substance to the
version made public in 2014.

There are at least 5 references with NO DATE.

There is even one document referenced by year as
3013.

Mind you, I accept I may have made some errors in
the creation of this profile. But then I was a little
rushed compared to the years utilized by our high paid
consultants.

We spent a lot of money on these consultants in 2021
and 2020. Somehow they managed to add 300+ pages
to the 2014 DEIR without a single change to the
Bibliography. How is that?
There is another matter of concern. The word
"contingency" only appears ten times in the onethousand pages of the DEIR. Twice in reference to water. Eight times regarding access for emergency
vehicles. Should I conclude, there is no contingency
for the eventual loss of infrastructure under Beach
Blvd? Is there no contingency for the potential
erosion loss of Palmetto Ave at the South Canyon?
How much longer will it take emergency vehicles to
get to West Fairmont, if they can't use Palmetto Ave?
In conclusion I ask you this question. Since you are
not only Planning Commissioners, you are Pacifica
Citizens. As Citizens, how do you grade this DGP and
DEIR? Are you also concerned?
What have we paid for "The Emperor's Clothes?"
I thank you for your time.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
2004 2005 2006 2007
land use2x
79 21
23 77
157738
14 193
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
x x x x
x x x
x
x x
3/10/2022 Pacifica - DEIR Bibliography Profile 2014 and 2022 Land Use Transportation Air Quality
Energy &
Greenhouse
Gases
Hydrology
& Flooding
Biological
Resources
Geology &
Seismicity
Public
Services
,Facilities
& Utilities Noise
Hazardous
Materials
Cultural
Resources Utilities
1974 1
1980 1 1
1981 1
1982
1983 1
1984 1 1 1
1985 1
1986 1
1987
1988 2
1989
1990 2 1
1991
1992 2 2 1
1993 1
1994 2
1995 2
1996 1 1
1997 2 2
1998 2 1
1999 1
2000 1 2 1 1
2001 1 4 1
2002 2
2003 2 4 1
2004 2 1
2005 1 3 12 1
2006 1 5 1 1
2007 1 3 2 1 1 1
2008 1 3 5 2 1 4
2009 1 1 4 13 1 3 1 4
2010 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
2011 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
2012 1 2 1 1
2013 5 15 1 3 1 1 3
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
no ref 1 1 2 1
3013 1
2 7 9 21 23 77 15 7 7 3 8 14
193
NOTE: No changes were found between 2014 and 2022 versions From: Nancy Merchant [ ]
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 4:35 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on DEIR, SPSP and GP
[CAUTION: External Email]
Christian Murdock, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California 94044
Email: [email protected]
In West Sharp Park, the failing shoreline protection (aka “seawall”) has not been reinforced, and the vulnerable infrastructure behind it has not been moved, yet instead of prudently scaling back on allowable development to mitigate existing and future inevitable risks, these planning documents recommend increased intensity and also promoting the tallest buildings Pacifica has ever allowed. Some of these four- to five-story buildings, suggested for affordable housing, would be located north of San Jose Avenue, which is a mere block away from the most vulnerable section of shoreline in West Sharp Park. This does not meet the standards for sustainable development – and, if built, would pass the buck to those who have risked their livelihoods to live or try to build a business based on the city’s lack of transparency.

The Land Use and Housing sections in all three documents don’t even mention sea level rise. The ocean has visibly encroached in the last 30 years in spite of (or perhaps even because of) shoreline protections. Each month the City Council adopts the Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard. Sea level rise is probably the most significant influence affecting land use in Pacifica. Yet, hazards appear not to have been considered at all in determining acceptable land uses.

Nancy Merchant
Pacifica, CA 94044
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From: James Kremer [ ]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:38 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on DEIR
Attachments: JKremer DEIR Comments to City.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Attached are my comments on the DEIR. I know the deadline has been extended, but I want to get these into the system.

Thank you for your hard work on this. I can barely imagine what you are going thorough, and I appreciate it.
-- Jim
James Kremer
Pacifica, CA
attached DEIR comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 1 Initially, I want to address elected and city officials, and the senior staff (Planning Commissioners, City Council, and Planning Staff). I expect that under-staff will deal with the public comments that are received, collating and responding. Some of my comments are at a different level however, and I hope this helps them get noticed.

You all know that the released documents were technically flawed: Table of Contents not linked to pages (EIR with no TOC, text not searchable). Releasing WORD versions was very little help, since altered pagination required adjusting all notes to apply to PDF (not easily searchable K). All together too much time lost bouncing around trying to keep track so my notes will be accurate… This inefficient effort multiplied by all the persons in Agencies, NGOs, and the public.

More importantly, it seems clear to me that no one proof-read the document. Consider: there are two sections 3.14 (p. 721 & 750) nearly identical†; one paragraph I saw begins with a phrase then abruptly begins again with the same words; a table I missing; plans are mentioned to replace the pedestrian walkway over Hwy 1 by Eureka Square (OC-I-31, p6-20), which was completed more than 2 years ago; and perhaps understandable, “Rockaway Point” is mentioned repeatedly to in the GP despite acknowledgement in one place of the new name Aramai Point; oh, & many obvious typos. I’d think that at some point city staff, if not the Dyatt & Bhatia authors, would subject each part to a final read-through. Public/outside review should NOT be a kludge mechanism to do this basic task. († note: This duplication was removed, and non-standard pagination corrected in the revised DEIR released later.) O.K. Here are general issues I hope will receive consideration – Process. There is a expectation from some in the public that all comments received will be logged, given perfunctory dismissive responses by staff, and PC and CC will approve as is. Since substantive changes cannot be made later without recirculating, this seems to imply the city views these documents acceptable as is. That seems to leave only legal challenge as a path to achieving improved documents. Is that your understanding?
I think you may get a chance to resurrect this process. Should become apparent from the critical reviews that major changes must be made, I want to suggest that an extended review will probably save time. Here is what I mean:

After all the input from this hasty round of review is collated, and if crucial changes are made, perhaps the product will be closer to what might be called a First Draft, one that is worthy of careful review. My idea is that THAT is the time to actively engage citizen volunteers again. Many are interested. A “Call” from the city for citizen volunteers to actually read whole sections might be wellreceived – free labor (!) that would find more improvements. With such a collaboration, a 2nd Draft can emerge, worthy of the recirculation review that is deserved.

Missing content – Decarbonization, Electrification and Reach Codes should be major topics for a responsible plan, yet seem to be glossed over or missing. I know some Councilors are aware of this regulatory “wave”! I applaud the mention of decarbonization in control measure EN1 (Table 3.3-5 p 3.3-32) but am disappointed there are rampant code errors that make it impossible to look into how seriously this initiative is being considered here or in the GP. I found Guidance policies related to this topic (EN1: CO-G-13, -51, -59) but code CO-G-13 in GP (p7-34) states an entirely different policy from that in the EIR; a different code# for -51 (=”CO-I-57” GP p7-39) ; different code# for CO-I-59 (=CO-I62 in EIR pE-133, & CO-I-57 in GP p7-39). Oh my. Just pecking around, the same numbers are different words, and the same words are different numbers. Repeatedly. (This turns out to be a general problem not just with decarbonizing.)
These are mainly errors of haste and lack of proofreading, but I want to emphasize the lack of discussion in text body of they key words that appear in policies, which seems strong evidence that this topic is not being taken seriously in our future planning. This is a major, significant omission. A missed opportunity – or obligation!
Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 2 Change from historical emphasis. In a number of places HPD discussions focus on esthetics, scenic views. There are hardly any mention of hillside restrictions in terms of public safety with landslides, water runoff, and wildfire risk, to which we should add then environmental risk to wildlife corridors. While the esthetic emphasis is commonly appreciated, the near exclusion in this new doc of explicit mention of the importance of restricting any development on hillsides as a function of slope is, dare I say, unacceptable. This appears to be a conscious shift in emphasis, which has no basis in public guidance, and strikes me as city over-reach.

This can be seen clearly in the explicit new definitions of zoning categories. The lengthy wording from the 1980 G.P. emphasizing environmental preservation in various categories has been omitted in all cases. Seems to be a conscious shift of guidance. I strongly recommend the original wording be added back in.

Specifically, wording has been omitted from new zone definitions that in 1980 consistently included phrases such as, “will be determined by the existing conditions on the site, such as slope, geology, soils, access, availability of utilities, availability of adequate sewage and highway capacity, public safety, visibility, and environmental sensitivity.” (see all these 1980 categories: OSR, VLDR, LDR, MDR, & HDR) Vague intent and enforceability. Many policies I read struck me as platitudes, with giant loopholes of active facilitation via variances. Many in the public feel variances are being used to bypass reasonable regulations, city and state. I observe at city meetings when officials question staff recommendations, staff responses are often tangential even dismissive, and then Commissioners or Councilors acquiesce. It would be desirable to formally stipulate in policy or regulation that variances are to be used rarely under well constrained conditions. Too bad this is necessary. __________________
Personal background
For the record, I am a retired professor of marine sciences. I have a Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography and 32 years experience as a university professor and research scientist. My expertise is coastal systems ecology, and the most recent focus was the impact of human activities in coastal watersheds on the coastal waters.

My wife, with similar credentials and expertise, was born in Pacifica, daughter of Grace McCarthy. We care about Pacifica! (as I know you do too) I volunteered and was chosen to serve on the Citizens Working Group for the 2019 Sea Level Rise Update to the LCLUP now required by law as administered by the Coastal Commission.

As a result I was primarily interested and became involved with the SLR planning which became the BBIRP (Sharp Park Specific Plan). I will say I am frustrated that the 45 day fuse and the Manager’s advice to focus on the DEIR has so far precluded my even looking once at the SPSP document! L I am not opposed to development. High density, infill, mixed-use with residential over commercial is our future. Following the law (Coastal act, CEQA, HPD), and local government best practices is very important. It is prudent, time-efficient, and will facilitate grants applications to help with costly financing that faces us, as well as just the right way to govern. I am sorry to say, I perceive frequent city governing actions that seem inappropriate recently. I hope my comments help.
___________________
I suppose all this is my “Executive Summary”(!). I have compiled detailed comments and sent all of them to the City email for public comment. I expect staff will be the only one who sees the bulk of them. I am sending only this to Planning staff and city officials. FYI, should you want to explore, my detailed comments there include sections on:

I. Philosophy - big picture concerns that don’t translate easily into discrete modifications II. General Comprehensibility - Suggestions to improve the overall structure of the docs, for easier use, especially important for the G.P. as a forward reaching, useful resource.

III. Specific comments:
• Itemized specifics with substantive problems, in page order • Focus: 3.7 Biological Resources - I spent extra time on this IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY, problems with sources and citations
V. Typos and picky nits
At a later date I will submit comments on the General Plan, with similar sections. -------------- This is the END of introductory comments also sent directly to City officials. -------------- Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 3 DEIR – General comments
I. Philosophy - EIR
Confusion about “the plan.” The DEIR considers multiple plans. The SPSP is “the” plan, previously chosen to proceed and the basis for EIR impact analysis. In this context, considering the Quarry as an “alternative” is confusing. Why consider only one? Indeed, is it not the case that the City is proceeding with Huele to consider that option too? So the whole framework for the EIR seems to me to be a “straw man.” Artificial, and perhaps inaccurate. Does anyone really believe we won’t consider both Palmetto and the Quarry? I do understand the need for a “no action” alternative.

On p E-6, “Additional elements may be included as well”. If this were to be considered, it could not happen only in the GP, for surely the EIR must include all appropriate details. So both the GP and the EIR would have to be re-circulated for agency and public comment? Wow. Seem unlikely; why say this? Sequence of LCLUP with GP+EIR. The EIR & GP acknowledge the linkage to the an updated LCLUP. The current plan is to approve the EIR, GP and SPSP now, then go back change then when the LCLCP is done. This seems badly out of order. Many of the Policies have the icon implicating consistency with LCLUP. It is my understanding that the “Certification Draft” has not been accepted even for review by the CCC, having instead been rejected as insufficiently responsive. Would the whole process not be expedited if an acceptable LCLUP were to be accepted, or at least under review by the CCC at this point in time? If this process for the EIR and perhaps GP are delayed for significant revision, it really makes sense to back off and do this in the right order. It really begs the question in any action can be taken based on an “approved” GP without a current LUP. No one knows, right? What is the future of these docs after approval. The format and constraints for review of the initial documents suggest that the city was not interested in public review. When final and approved, however, it seems to me that not even the GP will be read through by many people. (Certainly not the EIR.) So what should be the goals in finalizing them:

I suggest they must be tractable as working documents for future reference. Details that clearly fell below the threshold of necessity in these versions become super critical: Searching; Crosscomparing and checking; Accuracy and consistency; Clear and well documented explanation. I must believe that staff appreciates that improvement in this vein is a good idea. But the apparent strategy to not allow serious review with intent to make changes now is confusing and alarming. If not now, when? I see lip-service to the only real goal but hasty pressure to getting it done. We will find this to be a serious mistake. Constructive action, not words, is needed. [Note, after the DEIR release of revised version 2/14/22: This doc is more navigable. It IS different however, and it should have been identified as a different version, or release date – something! Changing the name of the file is unreliable and having no distinguishing phrase somewhere in the revision is unacceptable.]
Loopholes for enforcement. For all Policies suggested to reduce Impacts (DEIR p 3.7-56 ff), such as:

LU-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection.

CO-G-7 Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat.

These are example of vague wording, more platitudes than enforceable policies. The city has shown willingness to not look carefully at claims that projects impact critical habitat for the CRLF, if the developer offers conflicting assertions. This may seem snarky of me, but I worry that these policies are being overlooked as if the city wants to approve a project. Example: the city decides a project does not need CEQA review, then professional testimony submitted by outside experts is dismissed in favor of the project’s claim. Yet I understand it is legally required that such case be resolved by requiring an EIR. Some variances are judgment calls, but I have trouble understanding how these evasive actions are permitted. Lapses like this look to the public like pro-developer bias, and can result in justified legal action.

Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 4 How about a POLICY on Variances? Policies that are vague and superficial compromise future efficacy because they do not provide clear guidance to future staff and governors. It may be that Guidance Policies can be platitudes, but Implementation must not be.

This concern led me to seek the word “variance” in the EIR. (thank you for a searchable doc! J) This word appears on only 2 pages. Unsurprisingly, none offers guidance that this tool should be rarely used. In the GP, the word never appears.

II. General comprehensibility - EIR
Hierarchical structure of headings is impossible to follow. I looked at Ch. 3, sec 3.4 “Energy and GHGs” trying only to follow the structure of the layout, i.e. outline levels indicated by the font style.

There are SEVEN levels, indicated by font size/bold/italics/ALL CAPS or Upper-Lower case. I daresay it is IMPOSSIBLE for a reader to know where a section falls in the structure of the presented information – am I going down deeper or rising up? – and if up, by one level or more? Of course this is essential to comprehend the points being made in the intended context. Ideally, this would be made more apparent by successive indenting, but with 7 levels, the prose paragraphs become too narrow!
Yet it is straightforward to fix: MS WORD offers “Outline Numbered” that remains clear with many levels. A full seven layers gets messy, but that is rarely encountered and at least it is clear:

1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Without this or something else explicit, readers have NO CHANCE of discerning the relative hierarchy of the content. To preclude this is unacceptable, an impediment to readers’ understanding. WORD will add these prefixes and update them automatically (I think; at least it will show where they all are in Outline view, and can then be added to text).

Names in headings are repetitive and thus unclear. See e.g. Sec. 3.7 BIOL, (e.g p3.7-49 pdf=p 537) starting below “SUMMARY OF IMPACTS” (& the same applies throughout all elements). Each individual “Impact” has only that word as a heading, so they all look identical (in the layout, but also in the TOC eventually). This is also true for subsequent headings that are recurrent (I made a TOC for

3.7 and the Headings are very repetitive, minimally informative.) This prevents readers from knowing where they are, or when scanning, from keeping track. This is counter-productive and awkward. Even if it is difficult to make the text for all lower subheadings unique, at least do so with heading level numberings that are included in the body of the document. E.g. “Impact 3.7-1” should be the Heading 4 for that item.

Placement of Figures and Tables inconvenient. In my experience, cited graphics should always be placed after text references. This helps the reader, knowing to look down for the info. I encountered some places were this was backwards. When the text is finalized, this could be changed throughout the documents relatively easily.

III. Specific comments - EIR
-POLICIES wording do not agree within the EIR and between it and the GP. In a significant number of items, the same code is followed by different statements. They have to be consistent. In some cases, the same code ID is used for different and unrelated policies. In one case just in the DEIR, a specific policy is cited throughout the DEIR with 2 different ID codes. For example:

LU-I-14 “Hillside Preservation. Update the Hillside Preservation District and the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations. The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4 of the proposed General Plan) should be used as a guide.” [p E-15, E-78, E-104, E-142, 3.9-21.] LU-I-12 “Hillside Preservation. Update the Hillside Preservation District on the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations. The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4 of the General Plan) should be used as a guide.” [p E-68, 3.1-27, 3.7-57, 3.12-36, 3.14.19.] Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 5 -p E-37 (pdf p39) Deferred planning. Policy CO-I-54 Climate Action Plan is referred to, and 5 bullets propose future goals to be done. Why are these actions deferred? Baseline inventory of sources, projected emissions by city operations, feasible reduction measure sand – most of all - an implementation plan – all these seem appropriate PARTS of the planning process that the GP is about.

These would properly be done ahead and included, so they only need updating into the future. To put this off obviates our chance to get ahead of the curve! (Same policy also on p.3.3-35 (p317) in Table

3.3-5.
-p.3.1-19 (p 217) Confusing process sequence. in Impact Summary: “following the adoption of the proposed project the proposed project, the specific plan in zoning ordinance, as well as other safety policies and regulations, will be amended to ensure consistency with the proposed project.” The EIR seems to take total precedence. It must be approved and then the rest brought into compliance. But the construction of this EIR is weird, and so how can this work? Citizens have NO IDEA of what is happening, given the preeminent 1000 pg document they can’t review or understand? -Assertions stated but not explained. Policies listed in EIR & GP as reducing the impact significance are stated but not these assertions are not explained and justified. Inability to search text in PDF as released badly complicates finding place where this might be explained, but in the GP where text can be searched also came up empty for any discussion that might offer justification.

Example: I sought to understand how the Policies in Table ES-3 in DEIR were explained with respect to their benefits claimed in the EIR. I followed one example, policy LU-G-2. This policy is stated in Table ES-3 of DEIR (p E-134, pdf p 14) but search fails to return any mention elsewhere. Of course, it is there, but very hard to find because the search works only in the headings and tables – of the EIR only– not in the explanatory text. Interestingly, each specific policy is also listed verbatim in the GP, yet a text search there for the Policy also comes up empty. I was unable to find any explanatory justification there either.
-sec 3.14 “p6” (real p. 778) Incorrect statement. Local Hazard Mitig Plan: states “Pacifica’s …SMC MHMP …updated 2021…identifies City’s hazards”. That doc’s draft Fire Hazard map was empty and DID NOT identify any hazard in the City as incorrectly stated here; and despite being shown that the map in the draft, this map was NOT updated in the final MHMP. I’ve heard that the MHMT is just a tool to facilitate funding. OK, but it is incorrect to cite that error here.

Later substantive discussion (p. 781ff) refers repeatedly to the MJ-LHMP which had minimal discussion of Fire Hazard due to the vacuous Map, so these should be checked for similar inaccuracy. -sec 3.9, p3.9-11 (pdf p586) Misleading statement of HPD intent. Although sec 3 is “Visual Resources” the justification for HPD in that ¶ is NOT limited to that benefit, as the paragraph now reads. The text of the HPD code states: [Intent is to:] “b. Help protect people and property from all potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides”. This really should be be identified as the primary goal of HPD and certainly not omitted entirely. The paragraph as written does not represent the emphasis of the HPD intent accurately. This is misleading, even in a section on Visual Resources. Note: Land Use sec. p4-13 (p74) does state this better referring to Ch 3 & 8.

3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -EIR - I focused on this
• Missing content. No mention of wildlife friendly fencing, requested in NOP (EIR p 489). >> CRLFrog, which is specifically mentioned in NOP, has many errors and discrepancies:
• Inconsistent spelling: “red legged frog” is misspelled, this spelling does not appear elsewhere in sec.

3.7, it is often spelled “red-legged frog” or “Red-Legged Frog”. Citations have to follow source., but the doc should be consistent
Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 6 • Inconsistencies between Figs, & between Figs and text & Factual assertions Fig. 3.7-3, p3.7-17 Figure errors:
(Note: in G.P. Fig 7-3, p7-19, EXACTLY SAME MAP figure but “Pacific” is not misspelled!?) a) Pacific Ocean misspelled;
b) CRLF habitat not shown in Sharp Park Golf
Course, & other places yet specifically mentioned
elsewhere.
c) Missing source specification. CRLF has been
widely discussed in Golf Course preservations, and is
shown in GGNRA public info signs for the area.

Fig. 3.7-4, p3.7-23 (p512) Another depiction of habitats, including CRLF a) CRLF habitat shows differently from Fig. 3.7-3, here with many specifics. b) Key box does not match symbol on map.

KEY BOX: Zone marking in map (1 or many)
≠
p 3.7-50 (p538) Inconsistency. Text of the EIR asserts the presence of CRLF in Sharp Park and Mori Pt, BUT these habitat are not shown in Fig. 3.7-3 p.7-17 (p506) Table 3.7-1 is missing although this Table is cited 3 times in Ch. 3.7. Perhaps the mention of CRLF on p3.7-21 (PDF p509) is intended? but it is not a real table, and not identified as it. E.g. see mention on p3.7-33 (PDF p521) where the table appears in a list “Special-Status Plants & animals.” IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY - EIR
Citation of Sources are mostly incomplete. (This comment applies to the GP also, and was included in those comments as well.)
This is so pervasive and important, I feel I need to justify my criticism. The convention employed in GP & EIR would be unacceptable in any peer-reviewed journal, or in agency funding proposals.

While abbreviated citations may be included inline in text or figures (e.g.: Kremer and Nixon, 1975), every one should appear later in a list complete with details for the full source (e.g. document title, date, authors, journal or agency). In all these docs, however, abbreviated parenthetic citations are not fully cited later, and the list of references does not even include items cited in the body of the document at all. This is not only unconventional, but unacceptable, as the actual source of fundamental information is not knowable. Specifically:

Throughout the GP &EIR footnotes are given in text, or for Tables and Figures, that do not specify the actual source in sufficient detail. Example: neither “Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021” in Table 1-1 (p1-4), or “San Mateo County, 2019” for map Figure 7-4 (p7-43) gives the specific actual source. If D&B have a document that the map was based on, that exact document should be cited whether inline, by footnote, or later in an itemized list of citations. The citation is not in the Bibliography, anywhere I looked, certainly not for Ch. 3.7 Biol. Res.

A citation “IPCC, 2018” may be barely adequate, although probably not, since certainly the IPCC published more than one document in a given year, so the one being cited is unknowable. But “City of Pacifica, 2012” is insufficient–what does this even refer to? Similarly, reference to “Dyett and Bhatia, 2019” are simply not sufficiently informative. This general problem compromises virtually ALL tables and figures, and many text footnotes.

Notice that “City of Pacifica, 2012” is listed twice in GP REFERENCES on p R-1 & only for sec 2. Economic Sustainability and sec 4. Land Use but not for sec 7. Conservation where Table 7-5, Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 7 p7-42 (pdf p213) uses this phrase. How can the same vague citation be adequate for these different topics?
So, “REFERENCES” in the GP and “BIBLIOGRAPHY” Ch 6 in the EIR include some that were used but not cited elsewhere? The source information for all the maps and tables and footnotes appear only inline (where it is insufficiently specific). Adding full citations for all to the appropriate sections of both (probably all 3) documents is needed. However, it is more confused. Some in the final list ARE cited in the text body. See p 3-1-16 ftnt 2 is “San Mateo County, San Mateo County General Plan General Land Use Background Chapter, Page 7.1” and this exact citation appears in BIBLIO including the partial italicization and BOTH have no year. Repeatedly, however, “San Mateo County, 2021” or “County of San Mateo, 2009”, or other years iare given as a source for figures (3.1-1, 3.1-3, ) in this and other sections (3.2-1, …). Which one is in BIBLIO, which are not? Not using “best available data”? No recent references are cited for especially time-sensitive technical Sections (3.4, 3.5, 3.6 & 3.7). I compiled all citations from the entries in the Ch. 6 (p849-862). There are no references since 2013. Oh my. While it is true that inline footnotes and “Source” blocks in Figures and Tables are not even included in the lest in EIR Ch. 6, they almost all are cited in an inadequately. I didn’t include them in my graph.

Climate sources are especially inadequate. For Climate, an especially time-sensitive topic for current range of predictions of sea-level rise, the most recent reference is 2014. The most recent IPCC publication is the 4th Assessment Report in 2007 that was “accessed July, 2013” (p6-3) Another IPCC doc from 2008 is a Synthesis for the 2007 report (p6-4). The 5th Assessment Report (2014) was not cited, and 6th Report some of which was dated 2021 are not either. Old forecast data are not useful basis for planning. I am aware that we want to pay special attention to explicit guidelines that the State Coastal Act gives on sources acceptable for risk assessments. I’m not sure what their current positions are.

Citations with problems: (just the ones I stumbled across…) Sec 3.5 Hydrology & Flooding p6-4
• typo: year is not 3013! Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (COCAT), State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance Document, also available online http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/2013_SLR_Guidance_Update_FINAL1.pdf, March 3013 update.

Plan Comments - James Kremer Feb. 21, 2022 p. 8 • Listed twice. Coastal Environments, Tsunami risks in the City of Pacifica, California: A probabilistic approach, final Report by Hany Elwany June 2007
• Stops mid citation (p6-6, pdf p853] Cowardin, Carter, Golet and LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and…
• Out of order. Last 5 references cited in Biol. Res bibio p6-11 (pdf p 858) Larson…Sparling • No date, citation incomplete (& out of order). USFWS 5-year review of San Francisco garter snake • Not the title in BIBLIO. “Sec 3.6 Geology Soils & Seismic Risk” p3.6-1 (pdf p446) Not the title in BIBLIO. “Geology & Seismicity” is there p6-11 (pdf p858), AFTER Biol. Res (sec 3.7) So the section is out of place in BIBLIO.

V. Typos & Nit-picks - EIR
-p. E-2 typo: “the proposed General Plan includes seven the seven elements” p. 1-9 Intro (pdf p157) Redundant sentence. TIMEFRAME ¶ has 3 sentences, the last of which is redundant.
p. 3.1-4, Fig. 3.1-1 (p. 202) Map drafting error. Beach fill pattern does not agree with that used on Linda Mar Bch?
p 3.1-12 (p 210) Misleading assertion. LUP is not technically under CCC review; last correspondence in the public record the CCC says the document is NOT suitable for consideration since the city has not responded to the earlier CCC requests & stipulations.
p 3.1-14, Fig 3.1-3, (p 212) Map drafting error. “Sandy Beach” is not indicated at Pac St Bch.?! (& this is the fill pattern used in the Fig. 3.1-1 but incorrectly noted) -- Possible Map error. Ridgelines seem incomplete? Are there none in Milagra, North Pacifica, or south near the southern border?
p 3.1-17 (p 215). Impact Criterion 2 of Significance is worded unclearly. This may be “boiler plate” but the terminal phrase is ambiguous. “…adopted for the purpose…effect;” Who adopted? – the City or the other agency?
sec 3.14 Wildfire - entire section repeated nearly ver batim, starting real PDF p751 & 776. 2nd is a bit different & looks like it is the right one?
sec 3.14 non-standard section numbering: pages omit the section, i.e “1,2,3,4...). Should use 3.14-1, etc. sec 3.14 “p2” (real p. 751) Typo: Fig (Fire Threat) should be 3.14-1 not 3.14-2 . This Fig. ref is correct in the redundant section following (p776).
sec 3.14 “p7” (p. 779) Ungrammatical sentence under SIGNIF CRITERIA: “Implementation…have an impact..if located…in zones, it would:” =run-on sentence p3.3-56 (p 336) Footnote 2 dated “2012” is either very old, or a typo for 2021 the previous note. This affect the next citations too, both of which are ibid and referring to the same very old ref.. p3.4-5 GHGs (p340) Poorly worded 1st sentence of ¶2: “remains under debate” is a poor choice of words. Better to say “remains subject to poorly understood uncertainty, so predictions must consider a range.” This is not debate, it is science.
p3.4-7 (p342) The first 2 of 3 bullet points are nearly irrelevant for Pacifica. This is someone’s copied boiler-plate - is that what we paid for?
p3.4-23 (p358) Both footnote citations are incorrect. FN34 does not agree with Biblio citation p6-2, (p849) in title or year; FN34 year disagrees–“US D of E 2014” is shown as 2013 in Biblio (p6-3) (p1013) http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ END of DEIR comments
From: Bradley Angel
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 7:15 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]; Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
CC: ; jean turk [ ]
Subject: Comments on Draft EIR for General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan Attachments: Comments on Pacifica General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Please confirm receipt of these comments, thanks.

Please also notify us of any and all opportunities for public comment on the EIR and plans.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

March 7, 2022
To: City of Pacifica
Christian Murdock, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California 94044
Email: [email protected]
From: Bradley Angel and Jean Turk, , Pacifica, CA 94044 Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan
An Environmental Impact Report is supposed to evaluate the potential impacts of the City of Pacifica’s General Plan and the Sharp Park Specific Plan. While the Draft EIR contains a lot of information and provides some good analysis, parts of it are deficient and fail to fully evaluate some potential negative and significant impacts of the two plans.

As 21-year Pacifica residents, homeowners and taxpayers, we agree with the broad goal of the general planning process to “create economic development,” “support sustainable practices,” and “preserve open space.” Very importantly, the plan must protect our quality of life as the City strives to increase tourism and economic development. The City must do better than it has it recent years to protect the quality of life and preserve what makes Pacifica a great place to live.

Open Space Preservation and Trail System Expansion – and becoming a tourist destination We strongly support Open Space Preservation. However, we have concerns about the draft plan’s reference to “allowing limited development” in areas that should remain open space. The ocean, beaches and hills of Pacifica are integral to our community’s identify. Our open spaces and environment need to be preserved in reality, not just in words in an EIR or plan.

Since the pandemic, the beach and area along Beach Boulevard have seen an enormous increase in visitation by people coming to our community. Unfortunately, the City has not kept up with the resulting litter, illegal dumping, parking congestion, and increased traffic including on neighborhood streets including where we live. The EIR must address and provide solutions for these negative and significant impacts.

Sustainable Development and Practices, including better zoning to protect the health and well-being of residents
We fully support green building and sustainable development. We also support planning that takes into consideration the reality of rising sea levels caused by climate change. Rising sea levels need to be considered in all planning and permit decisions.

Pacifica should also work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Rising Sea Levels and Beach Boulevard area development including Hotel Concept We applaud the City for generally taking the threat posed by sea level rise caused by climate change seriously, but unfortunately not seriously enough. As the State of California’s scientists project that sea levels may rise up to 7 ½ feet by the end of the century (California Coastal Commission) it is an invitation to economic disaster and makes no sense to propose a hotel at the site of the former wastewater treatment plant. Beach Boulevard frequently is flooded, with waves increasingly crashing into the street and even onto the properties of Beach Boulevard homes.

The City should explore a more appropriate use of that property such as a modest ocean-front seafood restaurant or food-truck space that would not have the size, footprint or infrastructure that a hotel would have.

In west Sharp Park, the failing shoreline protection (aka “seawall”) has not been reinforced, and the vulnerable infrastructure behind it has not been moved. Instead of proposing to scale back allowable development to mitigate existing and future inevitable risks, these planning documents recommend increased intensity and also promoting the tallest buildings Pacifica has ever allowed. Some of these four- to five-story buildings, suggested for affordable housing, would be located north of San Jose Avenue, which is a mere block away from the most vulnerable section of shoreline in West Sharp Park. This does not meet the standards for sustainable development – and, if built, would pass the buck to those who have risked their livelihoods to live or try to build a business based on the city’s lack of transparency.

Sharp Park Specific Plan Visualization
The visualization developed by consultants of what Palmetto and adjacent buildings might look like is a portrayal of ugly, box architecture with zero architectural and cultural appeal.

We totally oppose the idea for tall, multi-story buildings higher than what is currently in existence. We do not need, and do not want, four or five story buildings in our neighborhood. E do not want high density buildings. This would completely change the character of the neighborhood in a terrible way, adding eyesores, blocked views, and congestion.

Affordable Housing and Diversity
Pacifica needs substantially more truly affordable housing. As home prices and rental prices in Pacifica continue to soar, our community is becoming yet another San Francisco area community that is no longer accessible to low income and working class people and families.

Proposing building more housing without rent control will make the goal of a sustainable and affordable community impossible to achieve.

The goal of population diversity is truly at risk. Pacifica already lacks racial diversity, and the cost of housing is an enormous obstacle to a truly diverse community.

Land Use, Appropriate Zoning, Code Enforcement, Environmental Reviews The Plan must ensure that the City start properly managing and properly regulating land use. For example, an active Recology facility is located on our residential street, Pacific Avenue and has been a source of concern for many residents.

City staff was unable to provide us with copies of any use or operating permit the facility might have – and we were told there were none. It also appears that the Recology facility never underwent any environmental review despite emissions into the environment and despite being located on a residential street.

There has been little to no oversight of their operations despite their operations frequently constituting a nuisance and emitter of pollutants into our neighborhood.

Up until a few years ago, Recology regularly had their trucks line up in front of our homes. The trucks would illegally idle their engines, and the facility manager curiously claimed she was not aware of the laws restricting and regulating idling. It was only after we documented the idling, filed complaints with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, complained directly to the facility manager, and threatened to take legal and public action to shut the facility that the idling stopped. Where was the City?
However other problems continued, including noxious odors from operations inside their facility and on the public sidewalk. In the last two months the problem has improved somewhat due solely to our complaints to the City and Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Recology often has used the public sidewalk as a place they use for their business operations.

Employee and company vehicles have often been parked partially on the sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street – clearly a safety hazard. Last year Recology had a truck sized container on Palmetto just south of Pacific Avenue for many months, blocking the view for motorists when turning from Pacific onto Palmetto. Did Recology apply for and receive a permit to leave this on the public street for months? I am sure residents are not allowed to use the public street and block the public sidewalk for their own purposes as an ongoing practice.

In addition, Recology was able to get away with not maintaining the corner landscaping on Palmetto and Pacific Avenue. For almost a year it was essentially an abandoned, weed covered lot, despite Recology’s promise to the city to maintain the lot as part of neighborhood improvements in exchange for the public relations signage. It was only after we complained to the Mayor and City Council that the company finally cleared the weeds. It is obvious the city looks the other way when it comes to Recology, favoring a big corporation over the health and well-being of residents.

The Draft EIR fails to address the reality of these types of situations and identify potential and actual significant negative impacts.

The City’s Plan and Zoning ordinance should learn from these problems and prohibit industrial activities on residential streets and require environmental reviews for businesses that have the potential to impact the community and environment.

To show that it is serious about protecting community health and sustainability while supporting businesses and economic development, the City should work with Recology to relocate the Pacific Avenue facility to a more appropriate location.

As the City Plan calls for increased economic development, this must be accompanied by proper environmental review, proper permitting processes with opportunities for public participation, enforcement against violations of permits or other laws, and appropriate siting of businesses to avoid negative impacts on the health and well-being of residents.

Recreational Opportunities and Activities for Youth
We support increased opportunities, activities and facilities for the youth of our community.

From: Andrew Meiman [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:27 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046) [CAUTION: External Email]
Christian Murdock
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica
Dear Mr. Murdock,
We have lived on Pedro Point for 17 years, raising our kids here, and enjoying all the natural beauty and outdoor recreation that Pacifica, and Pedro Point in particular, provides.

Unfortunately, the GPU and the Draft EIR threaten those very items that make the Point special.

We disagree with the Land Use designation change for the Pedro Point Field to Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU). It will negatively impact the quality of life for us and our family in many ways.

Additionally, as long-term residents of Pacifica who plan to live here the rest of our days, I don't want the City, or my community, to be stuck with the costs and impacts of a housing development built on a wetland next to a rising sea.

We fully support the comments of Pedro Point Community Association and the many other community members from the neighborhood and beyond that recommend a more appropriate land use designation such as Low-Intensity Visitor Serving Commercial.

Sincerely,
Andrew and Margo Meiman
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

From: Richard Campbell [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:42 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on Pacifica General Plan Environmental Review Attachments: Comments on Draft Pacifica General Plan EIR.Campbell.2022.03.08.docx [CAUTION: External Email]
Christian,
Please find attached my comments on the Draft General Plan.

Thank you,
Rich
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

Rich Campbell
, Pacifica CA 94044
March 8, 2022

VIA EMAIL
Christian Murdock, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Email: [email protected]
RE: City of Pacifica General Plan (GP) Update and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Christian Murdock:

Planning for a City that the State wishes to grow by nearly 2,000 homes (i.e., the Regional Housing Needs Allocation) necessitates careful consideration of a wide variety of environmental issues, including water supply. The City must take into consideration, and provide itself the flexibility, to limit water consumption for new development so that it does not over-build relative to available water supply.

The City’s environmental review of the General Plan should involve a review of NCCWD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which NCCWD. The City environmental review should reflect a consideration of projected water supplies in NCCWD’s recently updated 2020 UWMP, released in June of 2001, as part of this new General Plan.

In the draft General Plan, the City indicates it will undertake a planning and community engagement process to update the Housing Element and accommodate its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA 6) of 1,892 housing units following adoption of the other required elements of the General Plan. Adoption of a Housing Element to reflect RHNA 6 must occur by January 31, 2023. The City must do more now to link the available supply of water, and projected water shortages discussed in the 2020 UWMP, to the Housing Element under development as well as the current 5th Cycle RHNA (RHNA 5) currently in effect.

NCCWD acknowledged in its 2020 UWMP (pg. 3) that:

This Plan provides information specific to water management and planning by the District. However, water management does not happen in isolation; there are other planning processes that integrate with the UWMP to accomplish urban planning.

Some of these relevant planning documents include relevant city and county General Plans, District Water Master Plans, recycled water facility plans, integrated resource plans, Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, and others. This Plan is informed by and helps to inform these other planning efforts. In particular, this Plan utilizes information contained in General Plans, climate action plans, local hazard mitigation plans, and local and regional water resource plans to the extent data from these plans are applicable and available.
(Emphasis added.) Yet, the City does not acknowledge this 2020 UWMP, nor address water supply, or even make mention of NCCWD. NCCWD has it right: The City must integrate water management to effectively accomplish urban planning. To not do so, particularly as we head into year three of a megadrought of unknown duration, is the definition of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Whether the City acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner is measured by what the City knew at the time the General Plan (and the Housing Element) is adopted. And the City is aware of the possibility of significant shortfalls in water supply from the 2020 UWMP. Thus, the availability of adequate waters supply to accomplish the City’s land use and housing goals must be addressed as part of its environmental review.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
/s/
Rich Campbell
(Former City of Pacifica Planning Commissioner - 2007 – 2020) From: Richard Grassetti [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 3:12 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
CC: ;
Subject: Comments on Pacifica GP Update EIR
Attachments: 2022 Grassetti DEIR 3-8.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Attached are our comments regarding the General Plan Update EIR. Please acknowledge receipt and feel free to contact me if you have any questions on them. thanksRichard
Richard Grassetti
Grassetti Environmental Consulting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

Mr. Christian Murdock
Deputy Planning Director
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
March 8, 2022
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT
Dear Mr. Murdock:

Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECo) is submitting this comment letter on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA). As Principal of GECo, I have prepared these comments based on my 40 years of experience preparing and reviewing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents.

A copy of my CV is attached.

Summary of Findings
The PPCA requested a thorough evaluation of the potential effects of the General Plan Update (“GPU” or “the Project”) on the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site (“the Site” or “San Pedro Avenue Site”). This letter identifies deficiencies in the General Plan Update Draft EIR (“DEIR”) with respect to the Site. It is based on my reading of the proposed GPU and DEIR, as well as a review of sensitive resources and hazards from available sources. General deficiencies are described first, followed by some specific comments on the adequacy of technical analyses.

Under CEQA, the GPU DEIR must focus not only on the direct impacts, but also on the secondary effects that will follow from adoption of the General Plan update (CEQA Guideline 15146). The City is not relieved from considering reasonably foreseeable impacts of the Project on specific parcels, including the Site here.

Given the voluminous information provided by experts on the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site, including extremely detailed evidence presented in the California Coastal Commission 2020 Staff Report on the Rhodes Mixed Use Development (“CCC Staff Report”) proposed for the Site, this GPU and DEIR must consider that information, submitted herewith.

The land use designations are the heart of the General Plan. Because the General Plan serves as “the constitution for all future developments” within the City once a Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 2
March 8, 2022
land use for a site is designated, applicants have certain development rights.

Therefore it is essential that the City of Pacifica (“City”) fully consider environmental values and constraints prior to re-designating parcels, not after a parcel is redesignated. This GPU fails to do that, and, as detailed below, the DEIR fails to adequately or accurately assess impacts of the proposed re-designation of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

Inadequacy of Project Description
The DEIR must present a clear and stable project description. The DEIR’s project description is inadequate because it fails to narratively or graphically identify which specific areas/parcels would be re-designated or changed by the Project. Instead, the DEIR focuses solely on general buildout numbers, as if site conditions were uniform throughout the City.) This failure makes it very difficult for the reader to understand how various areas of the City would be affected by implementation of the proposed Project.

DEIR Land Use Chapter 3.1 does include a very small- scale map of existing land use designations, which, critically shows the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site land use designation as “Commercial” but omits consideration that the Site is zoned “Commercial Recreation”. The General Plan states, “The land directly west of the Pedro Point Shopping Center was identified as a commercial recreation site in the previous General Plan, and has been zoned for general commercial uses.” By failing to include this information, the DEIR does not serve its informational disclosure requirement. The public should not be forced to ferret out information and connect the dots to understand the Project and its impacts. This combination of incomplete and incorrect information renders the DEIR Project Description useless as the basis for determining impacts of the proposed GPU.

Given the limited number of sites proposed for designation changes in the GPU, the DEIR should clearly identify them narratively and graphically, and include discussion of reasonably foreseeable impacts and mitigations to those sites.

Further, the DEIR project description compares the Project to the existing plan, but does not provide the necessary information on existing on-the-ground conditions from which to conduct the impact assessment. With limited exceptions, CEQA does not permit plan-to-plan analyses. Per the CEQA Guidelines (Section. 15126.2) “In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced.” In order to adequately evaluate environmental impacts, the DEIR must identify which parcels are undeveloped, what their existing physical condition is, and how conditions would change with reasonably foreseeable development allowed under the proposed Project. The actual impacts would be the difference between the existing undeveloped state and full development of a site under the new designation.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 3
March 8, 2022
Inadequate Project Objectives
The DEIR’s stated Project Objectives (pp. 2-9 and 2-10) are so general and vague that they cannot be effectively used to fulfill their primary purpose, namely to guide development and assessment of an adequate range of alternatives. This deficiency is reflected in the Alternatives chapter (p. 4-2), which substitutes three different “criteria” for use in developing and selecting project alternatives (although those criteria are similarly vague and generic).

Inadequacy of Impact and Mitigation Discussion
The DEIR fails to disclose that the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site is currently zoned commercial recreation, with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2, which means that total development footage cannot exceed 20% of the site area. This current designation promotes non-intensive recreational use of the Site, retaining most of the Site in open space. If, for example, a 2-story recreational facility were constructed, only 10%of the San Pedro Avenue Site would be disturbed, and sensitive resources and environmental hazards on the remainder of the Site could be avoided.

The GPU would re-designate the Site as Coastal Residential Mixed Use, which would allow housing or commercial uses at an FAR of 0.5 (DEIR Figure 2.1-2 and table 2.3- 1). That FAR does not include roads or parking, which could result in further environmental impacts. The DEIR fails entirely to address potential Project impacts at this Site, and never even mentions the Site in its impact analyses.

For most topics, the DEIR only provides over-generalized statements of impacts, lists plan policies, and then assumes – without explanation - that the policies would effectively reduce all impacts to less-than-significant levels, without any analysis of the pre-policy impact or the actual applicability and effectiveness of the policies to the impact. In contrast, for traffic, the DEIR does conduct an intersection-specific assessment. This shows that it is possible for the DEIR to conduct a site-level analysis for the areas where changes in land use are proposed. The DEIR should be revised to conduct those analyses for all of the resource categories.

In short, the DEIR fails to go through CEQA’s required steps of first disclosing impacts and whether those impacts are potentially significant, and only then discussing proposed mitigation measures including their feasibility. As the court stated in Trisha Lee Lotus v. Department of Transportation:
“The purposes of Section 21801 are that there be some evidence that the alternatives or mitigation measures in the EIR were considered by the decision-making agency and, as the Supreme Court stated in a similar situation, that there be a disclosure of the analytic route the…. agency traveled from evidence to action.” And, “The EIR does not, however, include any information that enables the reader to evaluate the significance of these impacts.” (p.13) “Caltrans compounds this omission by incorporating the Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 4
March 8, 2022
proposed mitigation measures into its description of the project and then concluding that any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant. As the trial court held, the “avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures”, as they are characterized in the EIR, are not “part of the project”. By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA.” (p. 15).

Here, the proposed changes in land use designations would cause the loss of biological resources, recreational resources, and flood storage from the Site. The DEIR must first disclose and analyze those impacts, determine the significance of each impact, and then discuss whether and how general plan policies and mitigation would reduce the impact. The applicability of policies must be identified, as well as their effectiveness. If policies are assumed to be mitigation, then they must be presented in a manner that assures their implementation on any particular site.

California courts have made it clear1 that cities are not obligated to implement all of the General Plan’s policies applicable to a site, therefore the GPU’s proposed policies cannot be assumed to mitigate for development of a site under the GP. Further, applicable measures must be included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

At a planning level, a more effective, enforceable, monitorable, mitigation would be to change the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site land use designation to Open Space or retain the 0.2 FAR Commercial-Recreation designation, rather than the proposed intense 0.5 FAR designation.

However, given CEQA’s requirement to compare impacts of a project (or plan) to existing on-the-ground conditions, impacts of development even at an FAR of 0.2 must be assessed, and mitigated to the extent feasible. This is particularly important given CEQA’s infill exemptions. It is likely that, for some of the sites, no additional CEQA review will occur, and the impacts will not be addressed at all. This DEIR’s lack of detailed analysis would allow the City to play a shell game in deferring analysis that may never occur, and thereby fails to meet CEQA’s purpose of full disclosure.

In summary, the DEIR fails to address the impacts of land use changes proposed under the GPU because it concludes that GPU policies would mitigate any undisclosed impacts. In essence, the DEIR claims that the Project would mitigate itself – despite the fact that there may be significant unmitigable impacts of

1 An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." [Citation.]’ [Citation.] State law does not require perfect conformity between a proposed project and the applicable general plan...." ( Friends of Lagoon Valley, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 817, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.)
Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 5
March 8, 2022
implementing the proposed land use designations on a given site, as is the case for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

A City may approve a project if it “substantially complies” with the planning policies – full compliance is not required. This means that assuming full implementation of policies is a best-case scenario, not a likely scenario as required for CEQA review.

Also, many of the plan policies are couched in language such as “to the extent feasible”, “strive to”, “study”, “consult with”, ‘coordinate with” and similar vague, non-committal terms that fail to assure that mitigation will be implemented or, if implemented, will be successful in reducing a project’s impacts to a less-thansignificant level. There are numerous examples of this in the Plan, including Policies CO-G-3, CO-I-1, CO-G-4, CO-I-19-23, SA-I-29, SA-I-109, SA-I-12, and many, many more. In addition, as can be seen in these examples and many others, in many cases, the City relies on policies that assume mitigation by other agencies and jurisdictions over which it has no control. Under CEQA mitigation measures must include performance standards, rather than just aspirational goals or deferred studies. The DEIR must also translate these policies to enforceable measures before it can consider any potentially significant impacts to have been mitigated to less than significant.

The City is required to comply with SB379 as stated in Chapter 1.2, General Plan Requirements: “Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Legislation (SB 379)…requires the safety elements of general plans to be reviewed and updated to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies.” SB379 further requires the identification of hazard zones that can serve as mitigation areas for said hazards.

Despite this requirement, the GPU and the DEIR fail to identify any properties in Pacifica for such mitigation. It is also insufficient to only set “Coastal Resiliency Policies” but not designate appropriate resiliency sites/areas; areas like the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would qualify to be designated as hazard mitigation sites due to its many hazard vulnerabilities and ESHA designation.

In addition to rendering the DEIR inadequate, these omissions subvert the basic purpose of planning, which is to plan so that appropriate land uses can be located so as to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Rather than plan for sensitive sites such as the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site, as detailed below, the City is proposing to adopt non-protective land uses (at the Site, Coastal Residential Mixed Use) and then use general policies (full compliance with which is not mandatory) relying mostly on deferred studies to reduce impacts. This approach (and the underlying DEIR) is inadequate because it uses magical thinking - in theory, the plan policies reduce all impacts to less than significant in spite of on-the-ground evidence to the contrary – rather than evidence-based analyses.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 6
March 8, 2022
Criteria of Significance/Topics Addressed
As detailed in specific comments below, the DEIR fails to focus its impact analysis to reasonably foreseeable types of impacts. Instead, the impacts are just the same questions in the standard Initial Study checklist. This is an EIR, not an Initial Study.

This DEIR is required to identify and focus on impacts of importance, not the items in the CEQA Initial Study checklist. For example, impacts and mitigation measures should be called out for each special-status species that may be affected by buildout of the plan.

Specific Comments
We have reviewed the Land Use, Hydrology, Geology, Recreation, and Alternatives sections of the DEIR with respect to CEQA adequacy. Our comments on those sections are summarized below. We understand that biological resources issues are addressed under separate cover in an expert letter from Dr. Peter Baye, coastal ecologist. The general issues of lack of adequate impact/mitigation analyses, as detailed above, apply to all sections; some representative specific examples of these deficiencies that appear in the sections that we reviewed in detail are presented below.

Biological Resources
As noted in a letter submitted separately by Dr. Peter Baye, the site is valuable habitat for a number of special status species. In addition, habitat values and flooding hazards for the adjoining Rhodes development site, which extend onto the San Pedro Avenue Site, are presented in painstaking detail by expert technical specialists in the California Coastal Commission’s Staff Report for the proposed development of that site (CDP Application 2-19-0026, dated 2/18/2021), which was never referenced or considered in this DEIR. Willful omission of this critical information on its face renders this DEIR invalid.

This DEIR does not accurately disclose the San Pedro Avenue Site’s conditions as part of the environmental setting, disclose project impacts, nor discuss the effectiveness of plan policies as mitigation.

For example, Figure 3.7-3 in the Biological Resources chapter shows this Site as having no sensitive or critical habitat values, yet evidence by Dr. Peter Baye as well as that provided by the Coastal Commission’s expert biologists shows that it does have sensitive species and habitats. The CCC Staff Report for the adjacent Rhodes project site considers that entire site to be an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (“ESHA”), and similar habitat exists on the San Pedro Avenue Site, making it likely that that Site also would be ESHA. Similarly, the DEIR focuses on the National Wetlands Inventory while excluding detailed wetlands mapping of this Site, thereby rejecting on-the-ground analyses in favor of large-scale remote mapping (see Figure

3.7-2). The CCC Staff Report on the Rhodes site further identifies the undeveloped Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 7
March 8, 2022
San Pedro Avenue Site as “likely wetlands” (see Figures 1a and 1b, on p. 134 of the CCC Staff Report).

Similarly, as described in the CCC Staff Report, a California Red Legged Frog (“CRLF”) was found in the drainage separating the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site from the Rhodes site, and would clearly have important habitat on the San Pedro Avenue Site (see CCC Staff Report Figure 2, on p. 134). Further, given that the frog was found at the upstream end of the drainage on the Site, and likely traveled up that drainage to the point where it was encountered, it is likely that a much greater portion of the San Pedro Avenue Site is CRLF habitat than shown on that figure.

The lower portion of San Pedro Creek also has been found to be habitat for the special-status tidewater goby (see Baye report referencing Sutter and Kinziger, 2019). This habitat may be adversely affected by contaminated runoff that would result from development of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. This impact also must be addressed in the DEIR.

Finally, the proposed site designation fails to meet CCC policies, as summarized in the 2020 Staff Report for the denied Rhodes Project (emphasis added):
“In short, the portion of the site within the Commission’s permitting jurisdiction is all ESHA and undevelopable for the proposed range of uses and structures. Although some provisions in the LCP allow for reductions to habitat buffers in the event that the buffer renders the site undevelopable, in this case it is the actual ESHA area that is affected by development (and not the buffer from it), and the City has approved development in the portion of the property that is within its jurisdiction and subject to the LCP. The Commission finds that there is no location on the site that is outside of ESHA and sufficient to protect the habitat, as required by the Coastal Act, and, as such, there aren’t siting and design conditions available to the Commission to correct this Coastal Act inconsistency. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed project inconsistent with the Coastal Act’s sensitive habitat protection requirements cited above, requiring project denial.” Given the evidence already provided to the City that much, if not all, of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site is environmentally sensitive habitat and likely qualifies as an ESHA, the DEIR must investigate to what extent those conditions exist on the Site. It is entirely possible that the whole Site is ESHA, and therefore should be designated as such in the General Plan. Alternatively, designating it for residential mixed-use development likely assures a significant environmental impact will occur, and the DEIR must disclose those potential impacts. It should be noted that this is not a disagreement among experts, as the DEIR provides NO evidence supporting its finding that the proposed land use designation for that Site would not result in a significant impact, and the City is in receipt of substantial evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 8
March 8, 2022
Land Use Environmental Setting
Chapter 3.1, overall: The list of General Plan Policies that purportedly reduce impacts fails to describe how or to what degree impacts are reduced. Please add this analysis for Impacts 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and 3.1-3, considering that not all General Plan policies are required to be implemented by the City.

With respect to the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site please address the clear non-compliance of the GPU’s high intensity land use designation with the policies of promoting wetlands preservation (CO-I-4), minimizing impacts of coastal development on vegetation (CD-I-16), Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection (LU-I-13), Open Space Preservation (OC-G-5), Protection of Creeks and Riparian Areas (CO-G-9), Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas (CO-G-11) , and Protection of Biological Resources with New Development (CO-I-26). Please revise the land use designation for consistency with the policies.

As noted in its Staff Report for Application CDP-2-19-00262, the California Coastal Commission has declared areas adjacent to the Rhodes property as an ESHA, Further, the July 7, 2014 comments of ecologist Dr. Peter Baye are that the seasonal wetlands at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and the zone bordering the CRLF habitat of the swale meet the definition of ESHA. Dr. Baye has provided additional evidence of the suitability of much of the Site as CRLF habitat in his March 2022 letter. Dr. Baye further provides substantial evidence that development of the site may adversely affect the special-status tidewater gobi which occurs at the lower end of San Pedro Creek. Please revise the land use designation for consistency with Verification of ESHA (CO-1-27) and Management of ESHA (CO-I-28), and Habitat Preservation (CO-I-31).

Chapter 3.1 also needs to be revised to address potential land use incompatibilities.

As written there is no assessment of any potential incompatibilities of proposed new land uses with existing nearby uses. For example, the DEIR does not disclose if intense residential development of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site will have noise or traffic incompatibilities with surrounding residential land uses. The DEIR also does not disclose if intense residential development of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would displace flood storage, important habitat, or recreational uses of the Site.

Geology, Soils, and Seismic Risk
CEQA Guideline 15126.2(a) states, “The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected…..Similarly, the EIR should evaluate any potential significant impacts of locating development in other areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas) as identified in authoritative hazard

2 CCC Denial of CDP-2-19-0026, Exhibit 11 at
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/3/F16a/F16a-3-2021-exhibits.pdf Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 9
March 8, 2022
maps, risk assessments, or in land use plans addressing such hazard areas.” As described below for both geology and hydrology, this DEIR fails to conduct these required assessments.

Figure 3.6-1: The undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site appears to include areas of Very High and Medium liquefaction potential (DEIR Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). It also may be subject to impacts from coastal erosion, as described on DEIR p. 3.6-14 and elaborated upon in the CCC’s Staff Report for the adjacent Rhodes site. Yet the GPU’s land use designation seems oblivious to these threats, and the DEIR fails to analyze these reasonably foreseeable potential Project impacts.

Impacts 3.6-1 and 3.6-3: The DEIR provides no analysis of the potential impacts of proposed land use designations shown in the GPU land use map.

It also fails entirely to address whether and how the listed general policies will reduce impacts such as those identified above for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site to less-than-significant levels and then inexplicably finds the impacts to be minimal. The DEIR just lists the policies and concludes that the impacts would be less than significant. There’s a big difference between reducing impacts, which is what the policies are aimed at, and reducing them to a less-than-significant level.

The DEIR must be revised to analyze the impacts of the proposed changes in land use compared to existing conditions.

Further, please provide monitorable, enforceable mitigation for these potentially severe impacts on the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. The proposed policies mostly involve future studies, which do not suffice as mitigation, particularly in the absence of express performance standards. Please note that Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts do not ensure mitigation, but rather just shift funding responsibilities for mitigation from the City to buyers of subject properties.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Hydrology and Flooding section introduction states that the section analyzes water resources “in relation to the location of projects comprising the buildout of the Proposed Project [General Plan].” (DEIR p. 3.5-1). However no such analysis is included relative to those projects.

The DEIR also states, “San Pedro Creek has a history of flooding in the Linda Mar area,” (p. 3.5-8) but the DEIR provides no information on flooding at the sites where land use is proposed to intensify substantially as a result of the GPU. The PPCA has provided the City with photos of the Site entirely flooded to a depth of several feet, indicating that substantial flooding has occurred on the Site. This flooding occurred again in the 2021-2022 rainy season. The City has been provided with evidence (attached hereto and submitted by PPCA under separate cover) that the Site has been frequently flooded by San Pedro Creek, the adjacent hillsides, is subject to flooding under projected sea level rise, and is subject to tsunami hazards.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 10
March 8, 2022
The 2014 DEIR for the Pacifica General Plan Update at Figure 3.5-1 showed the Site is subject to flooding from tsunami runup. However, without explanation, that figure has been omitted from this DEIR. Why was this figure deleted? As noted in the DEIR and the CCC Staff Report, tsunami runup is a hazard that will only worsen with sea level rise.

As detailed in the CCC Staff Report on the adjacent Rhodes project site, “With respect to coastal hazards, the site would be subject to potential future impacts from the combination of shoreline retreat, sea level rise, wave runup, and inundation. As proposed, the structures are not sufficiently sited and designed to avoid such problems, and the northernmost building includes a basement structure, all of which would be subject to flooding over the expected life of the development. “
“… Commission staff geologist Dr. Joseph Street estimates that with 6.6 feet of sea level rise, wave runup with the 100-year storm could extend about 170 feet inland of the shoreline (i.e., of MHTL) across the beach and flatter ground near San Pedro Creek, northeast of the project site. This provides a more conservative estimate of potential storm wave runup beyond the future shoreline position. If 170 feet of horizontal wave runup distance is added to the projected future shoreline position (with 5.7 or 6.6 feet of sea level rise), the seaward portion of the project site (where Building 1 is proposed which includes the two-story surf shop on the first floor, office and storage space on the second floor, and a 3,500 square-foot basement subgrade) would be affected by wave runup within the 100-year analytic period referenced by the LCP.
“Another option to approximate the future wave runup hazard risk to the site is to add projected sea level rise to the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation. Adding the medium-high risk scenario sea level rise projection (+5.6 to +6.9 feet by 2090-2100) to the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation of the VE zone (representing areas within the 1% annual chance coastal floodplain which have additional hazards associated with storm waves) where the proposed project is located (i.e., at +17 feet elevation) yields a rough estimate of the future 100-year flood elevation in the range of +22.5 to +24 feet NAVD88. Given the existing elevations at the project site (+16 to +21 feet) and the elevations of the topographic lows adjacent to the project site (+16 to +17 feet NAVD88), it is thus possible that future flood elevations in this range affect at least a portion of the project site toward the end of the project life. At the very least, additional, more detailed analysis would be needed to rule out this possibility.”
The San Pedro Avenue Site is lower than the adjacent Rhodes project site, rendering it even more likely to be impacted from coastal flooding hazards. This should have Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 11
March 8, 2022
been considered in planning for Site development in the GPU, as well as in determining impacts in the DEIR.

Because the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site is located in the Coastal Zone, designation of the Site must be assessed for compliance with Coastal Commission policies with respect to flooding and sea level rise. The Commission’s draft polices state that LCP’s must integrate sea level rise into planning, using a maximum rise of

6.3 feet, which is based on the best available science as identified in the CCC Staff Report on the adjacent Rhodes project site. The Coastal Commission Guidance is that coastal hazard risks should be avoidable, wherever feasible. Increasing development density on an undeveloped site subject to sea level rise and other coastal hazards is the opposite of this Coastal Commission Guidance. The DEIR fails to even mention this impact.

The DEIR Hydrology discussion fails to even disclose, much led address, the tsunami and sea-level-rise flooding related hazards associated with this Site (see, for example, DEIR Figure 3.5-1, which shows the Site as having no flooding hazards), in spite of detailed evidence of those hazards provided by the California Coastal Commission’s experts. The DEIR consistently ignores on-the-ground analyses, in favor of less-accurate generic mapping, rendering the document inadequate.

In the 2014 DEIR for that General Plan Update, the Hydrology section included an impact on sea level rise (Impact 3.5-6). Inexplicably that impact, as well as Impact

3.5-7 in the 2014 DEIR, have been deleted, leaving a jump from Impact 3.5-5 to 3.5-8 in the 2022 DEIR. Given that the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would be subject to extreme flooding from sea level rise and that runoff to and from the project Site would aggravate that flooding (see CCC comments), this issue must be addressed in the stormwater runoff and flooding discussions of this Project and DEIR.

Also, designating this Site for development is in clear violation of sea-level-rise policies in the General Plan Update itself. The fact that the City is willing to adopt a land use plan that is inconsistent with the policies in the very same plan shows that the policies are not effective mitigation.

As mitigation, please revise the land use element of the Project to eliminate the density increases in these areas and respond to the real hazards by reducing densities instead. The DEIR – by suggesting unenforceable policies that conflict with the underlying land use as mitigation measures - does not comply with CEQA requirements for mitigation, which must be both enforceable and verifiable, and must actually mitigate the impact.

Public Services and Recreation
The draft general policies state that access to coastal areas shall be maximized. Yet, this Project would eliminate an informal access trail to the beach, as documented in a set of photos and maps attached to our previous comments. The DEIR entirely Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 12
March 8, 2022
omits coastal access outside of designated parks from its impact analysis. The Project’s impacts on access through the Site are not disclosed in this DEIR.

Alternatives
As described previously, the DEIR fails to provide clear objectives as required by CEQA. This makes it impossible to determine if the range of alternatives in the DEIR is appropriate. This deficiency is compounded because project alternatives must reduce impacts compared to the Project and, as detailed above, the DEIR fails to adequately address potential impacts of the Project on nearly all topics.

Further, it appears that the alternatives addressed in Chapter 4 are merely planning options and not actual CEQA alternatives. In fact, the three criteria on DEIR p. 4-2 state that the alternatives were selected to, “bracket the range of choices that have the broadest support from the community”, apparently without specific consideration of their potential environmental impacts.

There is no location-specific analysis of flooding in this DEIR alternatives chapter, which results in inaccurate statements that the no-project alternative would increase flood hazards compared to the proposed Project. Certainly this is false at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. More generally, why wouldn’t ongoing flood-improvement projects continue with or without the project? Planning Issues
As noted above, the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use land use designation at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would subject increased densities of people to geologic and hydrologic hazards, in non-conformance with both City and LCP policies. Further, sensitive ecological resources would be adversely affected, which also undercuts and fails to comply with the policies regarding those resources. As noted in the DEIR’s Project Description, the Site’s current Commercial Recreation land use designation is most similar to the GPU’s proposed Visitor Serving Commercial (VC) designation. The VC designation, “allows uses that create public access to the coastal setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions: campgrounds, rustic lodging, concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites, and similar uses. Development may occur up to a 0.20 FAR, but must have an overall very low-intensity character on sites of more than one acre.

Buildout is assumed at 0.05 FAR, recognizing the large land areas and minimal buildings expected to support recreational uses.” (DEIR, p. 2-14.) It is clear that, given the Site location and constraints, the GPU’s policies as applied at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site can only be met by applying the Conservation (C) General Plan designation and associated zoning because of the onsite hazards and identified ESHA.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 13
March 8, 2022
Conclusions
The DEIR fails entirely as an informational disclosure document because of its assumptions that plan policies would equate to mitigation and its failure to actually analyze the effectiveness and likelihood of implementation of those policies.

Further, with respect to the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site, the DEIR ignores voluminous substantial evidence of major flooding hazards and ecological sensitivity of the Site. While an EIR may choose between conflicting experts’ opinions, if they are all supported by evidence, it cannot fail to disclose evidence contrary to its own conclusions, which, with respect to both flooding and biological resources on the Site, are entirely unsupported by either evidence or analysis.

It is my professional opinion that, given the extent of the flaws detailed above, which reflect only a partial review of the DEIR’s technical sections, this document does not meet CEQA requirements for full disclosure of potential impacts of the proposed project. The DEIR will require substantive revisions - to the project description; environmental baseline; reassessment of potentially adverse biological resources, hydrologic, geologic, and recreational impacts; identification of mitigations; and a revised alternatives analysis – to comply with CEQA
Addressing the deficiencies cited above are especially critical because of the potential for “infill” residential projects to be permitted under CEQA exemptions for such projects as permitted under CEQA Guideline Sections 15182, 15183, and 15183.3. While this DEIR promises further site-specific CEQA review, it is possible that for some developments, no such review could occur. In those cases, given the analytical deficiencies in this DEIR, the impacts will not be assessed in any CEQA document. This sort of CEQA “shell game” would deprive the public and decisionmakers of meaningful information and input in the environmental review process.

The DEIR anticipates Initial Studies and Negative Declarations for future compliance with CEQA, but contends that it is not required to currently assess Project level impacts. (DEIR, p. 44.) Such an assertion violates one of CEQA’s prime policies; the prohibition against ignoring foreseeable impacts for later analysis is clearly proscribed by CEQA. Laurel Heights. Cases citing Laurel Heights continue to disapprove of program or plan-level EIRs that defer impact analysis: “tiering is not a device for deferring the identification of significant environmental impacts that the adoption of a specific plan can be expected to cause.” California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 623-25.

Therefore, it is my professional opinion that the entire DEIR should be rewritten and recirculated for public review. The current approach of setting plus policies equals mitigation should be discarded and the impacts of the proposed land use changes should be carefully evaluated. Please feel free to contact me at 510 849- 2354 if you have any questions regarding the comments herein.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 14
March 8, 2022
Sincerely
Richard Grassetti
Principal
Grassetti Environmental Consulting
Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 15
March 8, 2022
Attachment A: Grassetti Qualifications
Richard Grassetti

PRINCIPAL
Expertise • CEQA/NEPA Environmental Assessment

Principal Professional Mr. Grassetti is an environmental planner with 40 Responsibilities years of experience in environmental impact analysis, project management, and regulatory compliance. He is a recognized expert on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
processes. He also has served as an expert witness on
CEQA and planning issues. Mr. Grassetti regularly conducts peer review and QC/QA for all types of environmental
impact analyses, and works frequently with public
agencies, citizens groups, and applicants. He has managed the preparation of over 80 Federal and state environmental impact assessment documents, as well as numerous local
agency planning and permitting documents. Mr. Grassetti also has prepared over 300 technical analyses for these documents. He has analyzed the environmental impacts of a wide range of projects including infrastructure
improvements, ecological restoration projects, waste
management projects, mixed-use developments, energy
development, military base reuse projects, and recreational facilities. In addition to his consulting practice, Mr.

Grassetti regularly conducts professional training
workshops on NEPA and CEQA compliance, and was a
lecturer for over 15 years at California State University, East Bay, where he taught the University’s class on
environmental impact assessment.

Professional Services • Management and preparation of all types of environmental impact assessment and documentation
for public agencies, applicants, citizens groups, and
attorneys
• Peer review of environmental documents for technical adequacy and regulatory compliance
• Expert witness services
Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 16
March 8, 2022
• Assisting clients in Federal and California environmental impact assessment process compliance
• Preparation of technical analyses for impact assessments • Preparation of project feasibility, opportunities, and constraints analyses, and mitigation monitoring and
reporting plans
Education University of Oregon, Eugene, Department of Geography, M.A., Geography (Emphasis on Fluvial Geomorphology and
Water Resources Planning), 1981.

University of California, Berkeley, Department of
Geography, B.A., Physical Geography, 1978.

Professional 1992-Present Principal, GECo Environmental Experience Consulting, Berkeley, CA
1994-2012 Adjunct Professor, Department of
Geography and Environmental
Studies, California State University,
East Bay, Hayward, CA
1988-1992 Environmental Group Co-Manager/
Senior Project Manager, LSA
Associates, Inc. Richmond, CA
1987-1988 Independent Environmental
Consultant, Berkeley, CA
1986-1987 Environmental/Urban Planner, City of
Richmond, CA
1982-1986 Senior Technical Associate -
Hydrology and Geology -
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.

San Francisco, CA
1979-1981 Graduate Teaching Fellow,
Department of Geography, University
of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Professional Member and Past Chapter Director, Association of Affiliations and Environmental Professionals, San Francisco Bay Chapter Certifications Member, International Association for Impact Assessment Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 17
March 8, 2022
Publications
and Presentations Grassetti, R. Understanding Environmental Impact Assessment – A Layperson’s Guide to Environmental Impact Documents and Processes. 2002 (Revised 2011)
Grassetti, R. Round Up The Usual Suspects: Common
Deficiencies in US and California Environmental Impact
assessments. Paper Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

May 2004.

Grassetti, R. Developing a Citizens Handbook for Impact Assessment. Paper Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment Conference, Marrakech, Morocco.

June 2003
Grassetti, R. CEQA and Sustainability. Paper Presented at Association of Environmental Professionals Conference,
Palm Springs, California. April 2002.

Grassetti, R. and M. Kent. Certifying Green Development, an Incentive-Based Application of Environmental Impact
Assessment. Paper Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment Conference, Cartagena, Colombia.

May 2001
Grassetti, Richard. Report from the Headwaters: Promises and Failures of Strategic Environmental Assessment in
Preserving California’s Ancient Redwoods. Paper Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment
Conference, Glasgow, Scotland. June 1999.

Grassetti, R. A., N. Dennis, and R. Odland. An Analytical Framework for Sustainable Development in EIA in the USA.

Paper Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand. April 1998.

Grassetti, R. A. Ethics, Public Policy, and the Environmental Professional. Presentation at the Association of
Environmental Professionals Annual Conference, San Diego.

May 1992.

Grassetti, R. A. Regulation and Development of Urban Area Wetlands in the United States: The San Francisco Bay Area Case Study. Water Quality Bulletin, United Nations/World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Surface and Ground Water Quality. April 1989.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 18
March 8, 2022
Grassetti, R. A. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, An Overview.

Journal of Pesticide Reform. Fall 1986.
1986, 1987. Guest Lecturer, Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 19
March 8, 2022
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SEMINARS
Mr. Grassetti has conducted numerous CEQA and NEPA compliance seminars for entities including:
• Alameda County Waste Management Authority
• San Francisco County Transportation Authority
• West Bay Sanitary District
• North Coast Resource Management, Inc.
• Element Power Company
• Tetra Tech Inc.
• Impact Sciences Inc.
• Northwest Environmental Training Center (over 10 workshops) • California State University East Bay (14 years teaching Environmental Impact Assessment)
PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTS (partial list)
Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project EIR. GECo managed preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the restoration of a large area of former marsh and open channel near Ferndale in Humboldt County. The project includes creation of a new seven-mile-long river channel and a 400-acre wetland restoration. Major issues include biological resources, land use, hydrology/flooding, and construction impacts (noise, air quality, traffic.). Client: Humboldt County Resource Conservation District.

Aramburu Island Shoreline Protection and Ecological Enhancement Project Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of an Initial Study for a proposal by the Audubon Society to stabilize the shoreline and improve bird and seal habitat on the 34-acre Aramburu Island site in Marin County. Major issues include biological resources, hydrology/flooding, and construction impacts. Client: Wetlands and Water Resources.

Forward Landfill Expansion Project EIR. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of an EIR for a 170-acre expansion of the Forward Landfill in San Joaquin County. This is the third EIR that Mr. Grassetti, has prepared for this landfill over a period of 15 years.

Major issues include air quality, health and safety, biological resources, and traffic.

Client: San Joaquin County Community Development Department.

San Francisco PUC WSIP Projects. Mr. Grassetti assisted in the preparation of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Water Supply Improvement Project Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 20
March 8, 2022
Program EIR, as well as two other CEQA documents for smaller projects under that program. Major issues include hydrology, water supply, and fisheries. Client: Water Resources Engineering/Orion Associates.

Parsons Slough Project CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti is managing preparation of an expanded Initial Study for a tidal sill (dam) project to reduce scour in Parsons Slough, an arm of the ecologically sensitive Elkhorn Slough. This IS may lead to either an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Major issues include fisheries, marine mammals, water quality, aesthetics, and construction issues (noise). Client: Vinnedge Consulting/ Elkhorn Slough National Estuary Reserve.

Hamilton Wetlands/Todds Road CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of the CEQA Initial Study for an alternative access road for truck traffic to the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration Project to reduce the project’s potential noise impacts. Major issues included noise, biological resources, and cultural resources.

Client: California State Coastal Conservancy.

San Francisco Bay Water Trail Program EIR. Mr. Grassetti assisted in the preparation of the EIR for a “water trail” for small non-motorized boats throughout San Francisco Bay. The project involves designation of 115 access sites as well as policies for stewardship and education. Major issues include disturbance of birds, marine mammals, water quality, historic resources, and wetlands. Client: California State Coastal Conservancy.

Dutch Slough Restoration Project/Oakley Community Park EIR. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of the EIR for a 1400-acre wetland restoration and 80-acre community park on former diked lands in Oakley. Major issues include fisheries, water quality, historic architectural resources, and wetlands. Client: California State Coastal Conservancy.

Vineyard RV Park Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of the Initial Study for an expansion of a mobile home park in Solano County near Vacaville. Major issues included flooding, biological resources, and traffic. Client:

Vineyard RV Park.

Pinole Creek Restoration Project Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared the CEQA Initial Study for a 2.5-mile long creek restoration project in the City of Pinole. Major issues included biological resources, flooding, and water quality. Client: City of Pinole.

Knobcone Subdivision Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of an Initial Study for a 5-unit subdivision in Richmond. Major issues include geologic hazards and biological resources. Client: City of Richmond.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 21
March 8, 2022
Baxter Creek Restoration Project CEQA Consulting. Mr. Grassetti assisted City of El Cerrito staff in the preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed Baxter Creek Restoration Project. Client: City of El Cerrito.

West of Fairview Subdivision Supplemental EIR. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of a Supplemental EIR for a 700-unit residential development in Hollister. Major issues include traffic, biology, and utility services. Client: City of Hollister.

American Canyon Initial Studies. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of two initial studies for commercial and warehouse projects in the City of American Canyon.

Major issues include traffic, biological resources, and geology. Client: City of American Canyon.

Pelandale-McHenry Specific Plan. Mr. Grassetti prepared the Specific Plan for an 80-acre residential/commercial development in Modesto. Major issues included land use, traffic, and provision of adequate infrastructure. Client: Meritage Homes Monte Cresta Roadway Extension Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study/Negative declaration for a roadway extension in San Juan Hills area of the City of Belmont. Major issues included slope stability and growth inducement. Client: City of Belmont
Bethel Island Water Supply Project. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study for a proposed new water supply system for the community of Bethel Island in Contra Costa County. Major issues included growth inducement, archaeological resources, and biological resources. Client: Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District.

San Francisco Bay Estuary Invasive Spartina Control Project EIR/EIS and Addendum. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of the programmatic EIR/EIS on a plan to control invasive cordgrasses throughout the San Francisco Bay. Major issues included endangered species, visual resources, water quality, and human health and safety. Mr. Grassetti subsequently prepared an addendum for the addition of a new herbicide to the Spartina Control Program. Client: California State Coastal Conservancy.

Aptos Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study for the replacement of a storm-damaged sanitary sewer pipeline in Santa Cruz County. Major issues included cultural resources and biological resources.

Client: Harris and Associates.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Supplemental EIR. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of a Supplemental EIR for an 1100-acre mixed-use project in the City of Dublin. Major issues included traffic, biological resources, public services, noise, and air quality.

Clients: Shea Homes and Braddock and Logan Services.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 22
March 8, 2022
Consolidated Forward Landfill Project EIR Update. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of an EIR for the expansion and consolidation of the Forward Landfill and the Austin Road Landfill near Stockton, CA. Major issues include toxics, water quality, traffic, biological resources, and air quality. Client: San Joaquin County Community Development Department.

Pleasanton IKEA Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared a Draft Initial Study for a proposed new 300,000 sq. ft. IKEA store in Pleasanton. Major issues included biology, traffic, and visual resources. Client: IKEA Corporation.

Central Contra Costa Household Hazardous Waste Facility Studies: Mr. Grassetti assisted Central Contra Costa Sanitary District staff in the preparation of a Planning Study and subsequent CEQA Initial Study on feasibility, siting, and environmental issues associated with the development of a Household Hazardous Waste collection program and facility in Central Contra Costa County. Client: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.

Southwest Richmond Flood Control Project IS. Mr. Grassetti prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed flood control project in the City of Richmond. Client: City of Richmond.

Wickland Oil Martinez Tank Farm Expansion Project EIR Management. Mr.

Grassetti served as an extension of City of Martinez Planning Department staff to manage all aspects of the preparation of the CEQA review for a 2,000,000-barrel expansion at Wickland's Martinez oil storage terminal. We prepared the NOP, RFP, assisted in consultant selection, and managed the consultant preparing the EIR on this project. Client: City of Martinez.

Austin Road Landfill Expansion Project EIR Update. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Supplemental EIR updating a 1994 EIR for the expansion of the Austin Road Landfill near Stockton, CA. Major issues include water quality, traffic, biological resources, and air quality. Client: San Joaquin County Community Development Department.

Wayside Road Sewer Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed new sewer system in the Wayside Road area of Portola Valley. Client: West Bay Sanitary District Los Trancos Woods Sewer Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed new sewer system in the Los Trancos Woods area of Portola Valley. Client: West Bay Sanitary District Arastradero Road Sewer Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed new sewer system in the Arastradero Road area of Portola Valley. Client: West Bay Sanitary District Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 23
March 8, 2022
Lower Orinda Pumping Station Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for renovating or relocating a wastewater pumping plant in Orinda, CA. Client: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.

Shell Martinez Breakout Tanks Project Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study for two proposed new wastewater storage tanks at Shell's Martinez Manufacturing Complex. Major issues included air quality, odors, and visual impacts.

Client: City of Martinez.

Shell Martinez Biotreater Facility Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for a proposed new biotreater facility for Shell's Martinez Manufacturing Complex wastewater treatment plant. Major issues included water quality, wetlands, growth-inducement, and cumulative impacts. Client: City of Martinez.

Vallejo Solar Power Plant Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared a CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration for a proposed photovoltaic array intended to power a water pumping plant in the City of Vallejo. Major issues included land use compatibility and visual quality. Client: City of Vallejo.

Ranch on Silver Creek CEQA Consulting. Mr. Grassetti prepared the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and other CEQA compliance tasks for a large residential/golf course project in San Jose. Client: Sycamore Associates.

Morgan Hill Ranch Initial Study Analyses. Mr. Grassetti prepared the Hydrology, Geology, and Hazardous Materials analyses for the Morgan Hill Ranch Mixed Use Project Initial Study. Client: Wagstaff and Associates.

East Bay MUD Water Conservation Study. Mr. Grassetti conducted the field portion of a major water conservation survey for the East Bay MUD service area. Client:

Water Resource Engineering.

East Bay MUD Pipeline CEQA Analyses. Mr. Grassetti prepared technical analyses for two EIRs regarding proposed new East Bay MUD pipeline in Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Calaveras Counties. Client: Uribe & Associates.

Sunnyvale Landfill Power Plant CEQA Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study for a proposed landfill gas-fueled power plant at the Sunnyvale Landfill in Santa Clara County. Recommendations for mitigation and further environmental review were prepared. Client: 3E Engineering.

Fremont Redevelopment Project Hydrologic Analysis. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrology section for an environmental impact report for four redevelopment projects in Fremont. Client: Wagstaff and Associates.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 24
March 8, 2022
Ostrom Road Landfill Hydrologic Analysis. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrology section for an environmental impact report on the proposed vertical expansion of an existing Class II landfill in Yuba County. Client: ESA Associates.

Pinole Portion of the Bay Trail Hydrologic, Geologic, and CEQA QA/QC Analyses.

Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrologic and geologic analyses for a CEQA Initial Study on a half-mile segment of the Bay Trail in the City of Pinole. Mr. Grassetti also provided CEQA process consulting services on this project. Client: Placemakers.

Kennedy Park Master Plan Hydrologic and CEQA QA/QC Analyses. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrologic analyses for an environmental impact report on a proposed park master plan in the City of Napa. Client: Placemakers.

U.S. Navy Bay Area Base Closure and Re-Use Environmental Studies. Mr. Grassetti assisted in the NEPA/CEQA review process for US Navy Base Closures and Re-Use for the San Francisco Bay Area. Work tasks include CEQA compliance overview, internal peer review, quality control reviews, and preparation of technical analyses. Specific projects are summarized below:

Mare Island Naval Shipyard EIR/EIS Studies. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrology section of the EIR/EIS on the shipyard closure and reuse program, conducted a peer review of the geology section, and conducted QA/QC review of the entire EIR/EIS. Client: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center EIR/EIS Studies. Mr. Grassetti conducted a CEQA/NEPA quality control and peer review of the EIS/EIR prepared for disposal and reuse of the Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center EIS/EIR in the City of Oakland.

Client: Tetra Tech, Inc.

NAS Alameda EIR/EIS Studies. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrology section of EIR/EIS on reuse of the Naval Air Station, conducted a peer review of the geology section, and conducted QA/QC review of the entire EIR/EIS. Client: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Naval Station Treasure Island EIR/EIS Studies. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrology section of the EIR/EIS on reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island, conducted a peer review of the geology section, and conducted QA/QC review of the entire EIR/EIS. Client: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard EIR/EIS. Mr. Grassetti assisted in the responses to comments and peer review of the EIR/EIS for the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. Client: Uribe and Associates.

Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate. Mr. Grassetti conducted overall internal peer reviews of several drafts of the EIR/EIS for reuse of the former Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate in Richmond, CA. In addition, he prepared the Noise, Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 25
March 8, 2022
Socioeconomics, and Cultural Resources sections of the EIS/EIR. Client: Uribe and Associates.

CEQA/NEPA PEER REVIEWAND EXPERT WITNESS CONSULTING PROJECTS Jackson State Forest CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a detailed analysis of the CEQA adequacy of the California Department of Forestry’s EIR on a new management plan for the 40,000 acre Jackson State Forest. Major issues included forestry practices, water quality, and biological resources. Client: Dharma Cloud Foundation Los Angeles Airport Arrival Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment NEPA Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and expert declarations regarding the adequacy of the NEPA Environmental Assessment for rerouting of flight paths for aircraft arriving at Los Angeles International Airport. Major issues included adequacy of assessment of noise effects on traditional cultural practices of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Client: Law Offices of Alexander & Karshmer.

St Mary’s College High School Master Plan Peer Reviews. Mr. Grassetti conducted peer reviews of two Initial Studies for proposed expansions of a high school. Major issues included noise and traffic. Client: Peralta Perk Neighborhood Association.

Lawson’s Landing EIR Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted detailed per reviews of numerous CEQA documents for the proposed master plan for the Lawson’s Landing mobile home park and campground in Marin County. Client: Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.

Coaches Field Initial Study Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti Conducted a peer review of a proposed lighted ballfield project in the City of Piedmont. Mr. Grassetti’s review resulted in the Initial Study being withdrawn and an EIR being prepared. Client: Private Party.

Metropolitan Oakland International Airport Development Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review and assisted in the preparation of comments and ultimately successful litigation regarding the proposed expansion of Metropolitan Oakland International Airport. Major issues included noise, cumulative impacts, and alternatives selection/analyses. Client: Law Office of John Shordike.

San Francisco International Airport Environmental Liaison Office Consulting. Mr.

Grassetti conducted various internal peer review tasks associated with environmental studies being prepared for SFIA’s proposed runway expansion. Client: LSA Associates, Inc.

El Cerrito Lumber Yard CEQA Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted an internal peer review for an Initial Study on a controversial parcel in the City of El Cerrito. Client: City of El Cerrito.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 26
March 8, 2022
Sausalito Marina CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and critique of an EIR for a proposed new marina in Sausalito. Client: Confidential Sausalito Police and Fire Station CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and critique of an EIR for a proposed new public safety building in Sausalito. Client:

Confidential
Napa Verison Tower CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti conducted a peer review and critique for a cellular telephone tower in the City of Napa. Client: Confidential.

Morongo Mining Projects Environmental Reviews. Mr. Grassetti provided CEQA, NEPA, and technical consulting to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding two aggregate mines adjacent to their reservation in Riverside County, CA. Client: Law Office of Alexander & Karshmer.

Napa Skateboard Park Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted a peer review and critique for a neighborhood association on a proposed skateboard park in the City of Napa. Client:

Confidential.

Headwaters Forest Project EIR/EIS Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted an expert review of the CEQA and NEPA adequacy and technical validity of EIR/EIS on the Headwaters Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, Sustained Yield Plan, and land purchase. Clients:

Environmental Law Foundation; Environmental Protection and Information Center, and Sierra Club.

Global Photon Fiber-Optic Cable EIR Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti assisted in a third-party peer review of an EIR on a proposed offshore fiber-optics cable. Client: Tetra Tech, Inc., and California State Lands Commission.

Coachella Valley Water Management Plan CEQA Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti assisted a consortium of Coachella Valley Indian Tribes in reviewing CEQA documents on the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan. Client: Consortium of Coachella Valley Tribes.

Salton Sea Enhanced Evaporation System Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti reviewed the draft IS/EA for a spray project to evaporate excess return flow water from the Salton Sea. Client: Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

Santa Rosa Home Depot CEQA Peer Review: Mr. Grassetti conducted a peer review and provided expert testimony regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report and associated technical studies for a proposed Home Depot shopping center in Santa Rosa. Client: Redwood Empire Merchants Association.

Mitsubishi Mine CEQA Litigation Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted a review of legal briefs regarding the adequacy of CEQA analyses for a proposed mine expansion in San Bernardino County. Client: Law Offices of Thomas Mauriello.

Alamo Gate Permitting Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review and prepared expert testimony and correspondence regarding the adequacy of CEQA and land use Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 27
March 8, 2022
permitting and studies for a proposed gate on Las Trampas Road, which would preclude vehicular access to a regional park staging area. Client: Las Trampas Trails Advocates.

Cambria Condominiums Environmental and Planning Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared expert reviews of the potential environmental effects and Local Coastal Plan compliance of a proposed condominium development in Cambria, San Luis Obispo County. Client:

Law Office of Vern Kalshan.

Mariposa County Planning Policy Reviews. Mr. Grassetti conducted a review of proposed alterations to the Mariposa County General Plan for CEQA compliance. Client:

Dr. Barton Brown.

Gregory Canyon Landfill Environmental Processing Review. Mr. Grassetti was retained to review the environmental permitting and CEQA analyses for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill in northern San Diego County. Procedural issues include landfill siting requirements and CEQA process compliance. Technical issues include cultural resources, hydrology, endangered species, traffic, and health and safety. Client: Law Offices of Alexander & Karshmer and Pala Band of Mission Indians.

Otay Ranch Development CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared an expert review of the Environmental Impact Report for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch project in San Diego County in connection with ongoing litigation. Major issues were CEQA compliance, compliance with the California planning process, biological impacts, cumulative impacts, and alternatives. Client: Law Offices of Charles Stevens Crandall.

Punta Estrella Chip Mill Environmental Report Compliance Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a review of a proponent’s environmental report for a proposed wood chip mill in Costa Rica to determine compliance of documentation with U.S. environmental standards and policies. Major compliance issues included US Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act standards, NEPA standards, and adequacy of overall impacts analysis. Client:

Scientific Certification Systems.

Carroll Canyon Burn Facility CEQA Compliance Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a CEQA process review for a proposed Negative Declaration on a planned contaminated-earth burning facility in the City of San Diego. Client: Law Offices of William Mackersie.

Monterey Bay Marine Lab CEQA Compliance Review: Mr. Grassetti assisted attorneys in review of a CEQA Negative Declaration, NEPA Environmental Assessment, and associated documents for the relocation of the Monterey Bay Marine Laboratory. Issues included the effectiveness of mitigation to cultural and biological resources, the appropriateness of the Negative Declaration versus an EIR, and other CEQA issues. Client: Law Offices of Alexander & Karshmer.

Monterey Ground Water Ordinances CEQA Compliance Review. Mr. Grassetti provided expert CEQA consulting services to attorneys regarding the appropriateness of Monterey County's CEQA processing of proposed ground water ordinances. Client: Salinas Valley Water Coalition.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 28
March 8, 2022
Jamestown Whistlestop CEQA Adequacy Review. Mr. Grassetti performed an expert review and assisted in successful litigation regarding an Initial Study for a proposed mini mall in Jamestown, Tuolumne County. Client: Law Offices of Thomas Mauriello.

Sunrise Hills Environmental Impact Report Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review of the applicability of the EIR for a proposed 200-unit residential development in Sonora, Tuolumne County. Major issues include grading, erosion, water quality, biological impacts, and visual quality. Client: Sylva Corporation.

Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report Review. Mr.

Grassetti performed a review of an EIR for a major new shopping center in Sonora, Tuolumne County. Major issues included geologic and hydrologic impacts. Findings were presented to the Sonora City Council, and pre-litigation assistance was provided. Client:

Citizens for Well Planned Development.

Blue Oaks Residential Development CEQA Studies Review and Critique. Mr. Grassetti performed several tasks related to a proposed residential development in western Tuolumne County. Tasks included review of County CEQA procedure, review of Initial Study, review of Draft EIR, and coordination with attorneys. Client: Western Tuolumne County Citizens Action Group.

Yosemite Junction Project CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a review and critique of a proposed Negative Declaration for a 40-unit outlet mall in Tuolumne County, California.

The Negative Declaration was subsequently denied and the project application rescinded.

Client: Sylva Corporation.

Sonora Mining Corporation CEQA Review/Expert Witness Services. Mr. Grassetti conducted a review and critique of CEQA compliance for the proposed expansion of Sonora Mining Corporation's Jamestown Gold Mine in Tuolumne County, California.

Client: Law Office of Alexander Henson.

Save Our Forests and Rangelands Expert Review and Witness Services. Mr. Grassetti provided expert review, consulting services, and expert witness testimony on CEQA issues for a successful legal challenge to an EIR and Area Plan for 200,000 acres in the Central Mountain Sub-region of San Diego County. Client: Law Offices of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Specthrie, & Lerach.

Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 29
March 8, 2022

Attachment B: CCC Rhodes Report and Selected Figures
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE:

FAX:

WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
Filed: 12/7/2020
Action Deadline: 6/5/2021
Staff: JKN-SF
Staff Report: 2/18/2021
Hearing Date: 3/12/2021

STAFF REPORT

CDP APPLICATION
Application Number: 2-19-0026
Applicant: Shawn Rhodes
Project Location: Undeveloped property located west of the Pedro Point Shopping Center and northeast of San Pedro Avenue (505
San Pedro, APN 023-072-010) in the City of Pacifica.

Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use commercial and residential development including: (1) a 6,475-square foot two-story building with a surf shop on the first floor, office and storage space on the second floor, and a 3,500-square foot
basement for storage; (2) a 3,010-square foot two-story building for storage and surf board shaping; and (3) a 3,346- square foot two-story building with retail on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor; (4) a 4,730-square foot skate park; (5) a 24-car parking lot; and (6) related development.

Staff Recommendation: Denial

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use commercial and residential development on a 37,538 square-foot parcel on San Pedro Avenue, west of Highway 1 and south of Pacifica State Beach. Specifically, the proposed development would include a 6,475 square-foot two-story surf shop with office, storage space and basement (building #1); a 3,010 square-foot two-story building for storage and surf board shaping (building #2); a 3,346 square-foot two-story mixed-use building with retail on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor (building #3); a skate park; 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

and a 24-car parking lot. The project site is a split coastal development permit (CDP) jurisdiction, long and narrow parcel that is approximately 60 feet in width, with the portion of the parcel in the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction located nearest the shoreline and the portion in the City of Pacifica’s jurisdiction located inland of that. The Applicant did not agree to a consolidated CDP process, and thus went through the City’s permitting process before submitting the subject CDP application to the Coastal Commission. As such, the City authorized a CDP for the portion of the proposed development that is within its CDP permitting jurisdiction, which includes building #3 and a portion of the parking area. The rest of the project is the subject of this CDP application to the Commission. In addition to the subject CDP, there is one open violation case related to this parcel, corresponding to an existing unpermitted wooden skate ramp.

The project site is subject to significant development constraints, including the presence of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) and wetlands immediately adjacent to and running along the western perimeter of the property, as well as the potential for coastal hazard impacts over time. With respect to habitat issues, the site is located immediately adjacent to an unnamed watercourse that constitutes both federal and state delineated wetlands, that serves as habitat for California red-legged frog, and that constitutes ESHA for these reasons. The Commission’s staff ecologists have evaluated the ESHA area, which extends over the entirety of the site, and thus all of the proposed development is located within ESHA. The proposed development is not an allowed use in ESHA, and would lead to significant disruption and degradation of ESHA resources, and thus is not approvable under the Coastal Act.

With respect to coastal hazards, the site would be subject to potential future impacts from the combination of shoreline retreat, sea level rise, wave runup, and inundation. As proposed, the structures are not sufficiently sited and designed to avoid such problems, and the northernmost building includes a basement structure, all of which would be subject to flooding over the expected life of the development. Finally, the proposed project does not include any open view corridors, employs large massing with limited articulation, and does not provide for adequate parking facilities (which could impact onstreet public shoreline parking in the area).

As a result, the project cannot be found consistent with the ESHA, wetlands, hazards, viewshed, or public access policies of the Coastal Act. Further, the fundamental ESHA inconsistencies mean that there aren’t conditions available that could modify the development to be consistent. Thus, the project requires denial. In such a case, the Coastal Act requires the Commission to evaluate whether such a denial might lead to taking of private property without compensation. Staff does not believe that a taking would be engendered in this case. Specifically, as indicated above, the City has already authorized building #3 (i.e., the 3,346-square foot two-story mixed-use building with retail on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor) within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, and thus the Applicant has an allowed economic use of the site that is sufficient to address investment backed expectations for the site, including accommodating the only residential development proposed. Thus, the Commission can deny the CDP application without danger of a takings in staff’s view, and thus protect 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

the ESHA and wetland habitat area as required by the Coastal Act. The motion to implement staff’s recommendation is found on page 4 below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MOTION AND RESOLUTION................................................................................ 4

2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS ....................................................................... 4 A. Project Location .................................................................................................... 4 B. Project Background .............................................................................................. 5 C. Project Description ............................................................................................... 5 D. Standard of Review............................................................................................... 6 E. Biological Resources............................................................................................ 6 F. Coastal Hazards................................................................................................... 13 G. Visual Resources................................................................................................. 17 H. Public Access ...................................................................................................... 19 I. Violation................................................................................................................ 21 J. CEQA..................................................................................................................... 22 K. Takings ................................................................................................................. 22

3. APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 28 A. Substantive File Documents.............................................................................. 28 B. Staff Contact with Agencies and Groups......................................................... 28

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Site Photos
Exhibit 3 – City-Approved Project Plans
Exhibit 4 – City of Pacifica Final Local Action Notice
Exhibit 5 – Wetland Delineation
Exhibit 6 – Coastal Commission comment letters to City
Exhibit 7 – Peter Baye Biology Memo dated May 4, 2005
Exhibit 8 – Peter Baye Biology Memo dated July 7, 2014
Exhibit 9 – Photographic Documentation of CRLF
Exhibit 10 – CNDDB Field Survey Report
Exhibit 11 – Commission Staff Ecologist memo
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

1. MOTION AND RESOLUTION
Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, deny a coastal development permit (CDP) for the proposed development. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a NO vote on the following motion. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the CDP and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Commissioners present.

Motion: I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit Application Number 2-19-0026 as proposed by the applicant, and I recommend a no vote.

Resolution to Deny CDP: The Commission hereby denies Coastal Development Permit Number 2-19-0026 and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the development will not be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Approval of the permit would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant adverse effects of the development on the environment.

2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
A. Project Location
The proposed project is located at 505 San Pedro Avenue, west of the Pedro Point Shopping Center and northeast of San Pedro Avenue in the Pedro Point neighborhood, which is just south of Pacifica State Beach, in the City of Pacifica in San Mateo County (see location map in Exhibit 1). The undeveloped property is a narrow and long parcel (600 feet long by almost 60 feet wide) that is approximately 0.86 acres (37,538 square feet) and relatively flat with the exception of a downslope at the northern end of the property. Immediately to the west of the property lies an unnamed watercourse, and on the northern end of the site there is a stand of arroyo willows. An abandoned railroad berm lies to the north of the property on the seaward side of the stand of willows, and this berm provides a topographic separation between the subject site and Pacifica State Beach and the ocean.

The City of Pacifica Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) designates the site as Commercial, which allows for a variety of potential commercial uses, including visitor-serving commercial, retail commercial, office, heavy commercial, and light industrial. The LCP then zones the site Community Commercial/Coastal Zone (C-2/CZ), which allows for a range of commercial and visitor-serving uses, and also allows one or more residential units in the same building as a commercial use when located entirely above the ground floor.

The Pedro Point neighborhood is described in the LCP as providing a mix of visitor and neighborhood commercial uses, with a strong residential base. Existing development in 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

the area consists of the adjacent Pedro Point Shopping Center immediately to the east; a mix of commercial and residential to the south across San Pedro Avenue; Pacifica State Beach to the north; and a large, 1.48-acre vacant parcel to the west directly across from the adjacent watercourse.

B. Project Background
Prior to submission of this CDP application, Commission staff provided comment letters1 to the City and Applicant describing the split CDP jurisdiction that applied to the site and concerns about the watercourse and thus the potential for sensitive coastal resources to be on or proximate to the site. In addition, Commission staff provided comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project,2 again raising habitat concerns, specifically with regard to identification of wetlands, required development buffers, and the potential for the presence of sensitive species, including explicitly requesting that the Applicant complete a one-parameter wetland delineation at that earlier stage in the permitting process.

As noted above, the property spans both Coastal Commission and City of Pacifica CDP jurisdictions. Both Commission and City staff recommended a consolidated CDP process, whereby the Commission would process a CDP for the entire site. However, the Applicant did not agree to the consolidated process. As such, on November 5, 2018, the City approved a CDP for the portion of the proposed project within its jurisdiction, along with various other discretionary permits required by the City.3 City staff has indicated that all of these permit approvals may need to be amended if the Commission’s action does not align with that of the City.

C. Project Description
City-Approved CDP
The City’s approved CDP only authorizes the southernmost portion of the proposed project that is within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction: namely Building #3 and a portion of the proposed parking lot (see Exhibit 3).
4 Building #3 is a proposed 3,346-
square foot two-story mixed-use building with retail space on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor.
1 Dated May 13, 2010, October 30, 2014, and May 8, 2015 (see Exhibit 6). 2 Dated May 1, 2018 (see Exhibit 6).
3 These City permits were originally authorized through November 5, 2020. On November 4, 2020, the City authorized a one-year extension (to November 5, 2021) pursuant to provisions in the local conditions of approval. Although Commission staff informed the City that there were significant habitat concerns related to the site, and that staff was tentatively intending to recommend denial of the CDP application applicable to the Commission’s jurisdiction, the City concluded that there was no material change in the circumstances regarding the City’s original approval, and extended the authorization through November 5, 2021.
4 The City’s approval also included other local but non-CDP discretionary approvals, including a Site Development Permit, Use Permit (to allow residential on the second floor of the mixed-use building), Parking Exception (to allow reduced parking capacity of 24 parking spaces), Sign Exception, and a Heritage Tree Removal Authorization.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Coastal Commission CDP Application
Two of the proposed buildings (Buildings #1 and #2) and the skate park are located within the Commission’s jurisdiction. As referenced on the project plans, Building #1, the northernmost building, would be set back approximately 15 feet from the western property line and ranging between approximately 60-100 feet from the northern property line, with the proposed building footprint extending into the arroyo willow thicket.

Building #1 is a proposed 6,475 square-foot two-story building with a surf shop on the first floor, office and storage space on the second floor, and a 3,500 square-foot basement for additional storage space. The proposed 4,730 square-foot skate park would be immediately adjacent to the southern end of Building #1 and would be both fenced and roofed. It is proposed to be set back approximately 10 feet from the western property line. Building #2, at the southern end of the skate park, is a proposed 3,010 square-foot two-story building intended to be used for additional storage and surf board shaping, set back approximately 10 feet from the western property line and adjacent to the 24-car parking lot. The Applicant also proposes a paved pedestrian pathway fronted by a retaining wall immediately adjacent to and along the full extent of the western property line, spanning both the City and Coastal Commission jurisdictions, which would connect San Pedro Avenue to an existing coastal access pathway from the northern end of the Pedro Point Shopping Center to Pacifica State Beach. See Exhibit 3 for the proposed project plans.

D. Standard of Review
As noted above, this proposed project spans both Coastal Commission and City of Pacifica CDP jurisdictions. The standard of review for the portion of the proposed development within the Coastal Commission’s permitting jurisdiction (i.e., the subject of this CDP application) is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, although the Commission may also consider the policies of the City of Pacifica’s certified LCP as non-binding guidance.

E. Biological Resources
Applicable Coastal Act Provisions
The Coastal Act provides protection for sensitive habitat areas, including those that are considered to be on and offshore marine resources, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), including as follows:
30107.5. “Environmentally sensitive area” means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
30231.The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
30233.
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps.
(3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines.
(5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation.

Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for these purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems.
(c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. (…)
(…)
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

LCP Policy Guidance
The City of Pacifica LCP emphasizes the Coastal Act’s protections for wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas and provides additional guidance on the creation of buffers from such sensitive habitat areas, and allowable uses within buffer areas, including as follows:

LUP Page C-99. A wetland is defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes. In certain types of wetlands, vegetation is lacking and soils are poorly developed or absent. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep water habitats.

LUP Policy 18. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.

IP 9-4.4302 Definitions. … (f) “Buffer” shall mean an area of land adjacent to primary habitat, which may include secondary habitat as defined by a qualified biologist or botanist, and which is intended to separate primary habitat areas from new development in order to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the San Francisco garter snake and wetlands habitat areas.

IP Section 9-4.4403 Habitat Preservation. (a) Intent. The provisions of this section shall apply to all new development requiring a coastal development permit in the CZ District and shall be subject to the regulations found in Article 43, Coastal Zone Combining District. The intent of these provisions is to protect, maintain, enhance and restore the following types of environmentally sensitive habitat as identified in the LCP Land Use Plan…
(c) Survey Contents. All habitat surveys shall include, at a minimum, the following information: …
(4) Delineation of all wetlands, streams, and water bodies; 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

(5) Direct and indirect threats to habitat resulting from new development; (6) Delineation of the secondary habitat buffer area to be provided along the periphery of the primary habitat; and
(7) Mitigation measures to reduce impacts and to allow for the long-term maintenance of environmentally sensitive habitats.
(e) Development Standards for Wetlands and Wetland Buffer Areas. The following minimum standards shall apply to a wetlands and wetlands habitat area.
(1) No new development shall be permitted within a recognized wetlands habitat area;
(2) Limited new development may be permitted within a recognized wetlands habitat buffer area subject to the following standards: … (iv) Public access through wetlands shall be limited to low-intensity recreational, scientific, or educational uses. Where public access is permitted, it shall be strictly managed, controlled, and confined to designated trails and paths as a condition of project approval; (v) Alteration of the natural topography shall be minimized; (vi) Runoff and sedimentation shall not adversely affect habitat areas; (vii) Alteration of landscaping shall be minimized unless the alteration is associated with restoration and enhancement of wetlands; … (ix) New development adjacent to the buffer shall not reduce the biological productivity or water quality of the wetlands due to runoff, noise, thermal pollution, or other disturbances;
(x) All portions of the buffer shall be protected pursuant to Section 9-

4.4308, Permanent Environmental Protection;
(xi) Potential impacts identified in the habitat survey shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance where feasible; and
(xii) Mitigation measures identified in the habitat survey shall be considered and made conditions of project approval where necessary to mitigate impacts
(3) In the event that new development is not possible because the size of the buffer has rendered the site undevelopable, the buffer may be reduced in width if it can be demonstrated that a narrower buffer is sufficient to protect 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

the habitat and new development may be permitted subject to standards established in (e)(2) above.

IP Section 9-4.4308 Permanent Environmental Protection. (b) Findings. The Director, the Planning Commission, or the City Council may determine that the proposed development is required to include a continuous and binding land use restriction through either a deed restriction, easement, offer of dedication, or other conveyance, as a condition of project approval based on any of the following findings: … (2) Such a restriction is necessary to protect sensitive coastal resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat, open space, and view corridors…
Analysis
Both the Coastal Act and the LCP, as guidance, emphasize the need to protect sensitive habitats within the coastal zone, including wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). In communication with the City of Pacifica, Coastal Commission staff expressed concerns going back over a decade with regard to potential impacts of development on the habitats located on and adjacent to the subject site, indicating that any proposed development should consider measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts on the adjacent unnamed watercourse, which most likely would meet the one-parameter definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act, and stating that a one-parameter wetland delineation should be conducted (see comments in Exhibit 6).

Despite the recommendation to conduct a one-parameter wetland delineation at an earlier stage in the process, a delineation of the site and adjacent drainage channel was not prepared for this project until November 2019, after the City of Pacifica had already approved a local CDP for the portion of the project located in their CDP jurisdiction. 5 This delineation showed that the adjacent watercourse that runs along the western edge of the subject property constitutes areas of both federal and state wetlands, with the state wetlands spanning the full length of the watercourse, thus comprising the entire length of the subject property’s western boundary. On the northern end of the property, the federal and state wetlands encompass an approximately 0.096-acre arroyo willow thicket that partially extends onto the subject property and takes up approximately

0.048-acres at the northern border of the subject property (see delineation of these features in Exhibit 5). The federal and state wetlands present onsite include arroyo willow thicket, perennial rye grass fields, small-fruited bulrush marsh, smartweed patch, the flow channel, and the wetted watercourse channel.

During an initial assessment of the project-related biological information, Commission staff ecologist Dr. Lauren Garske-Garcia identified for the Applicant that the Commission typically applies a minimum wetland buffer of 100 feet. Examining the sitespecific circumstances associated with the property known at that time, Dr. Garske indicated that the minimum possible justifiable wetland buffer, if appropriately mitigated, 5 The delineation was prepared for the Applicant by Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC as part of the CDP application to the Coastal Commission.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

would be 50 feet from the edge of the arroyo willow thicket and 25-feet from the remainder of the state wetlands that comprise the entire length of the drainage channel along the property’s western edge. The Applicant submitted revised plans in response to this feedback, however, the revised plans did not adhere to these buffer minimums and continued to propose development within this already reduced buffer area. After further research in response to the Applicant’s updated submittals and, while Commission staff and the Applicant were in further discussions regarding the ESHA and wetland buffers, interested parties provided information documenting the presence of California red-legged frog in the watercourse area.

California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; “CRLF”) is a California special-status species and a federally-listed threatened species due to loss and degradation of habitat, predation, and human disturbance. CRLF are known to occur in San Pedro Creek, which is connected to the subject watercourse by a culvert on the northern end of the parcel, near the arroyo willows. As such, Dr. Garske-Garcia, along with consulting reports that she reviewed, considered the site in question to have moderate potential for CRLF upland habitat and watercourse use, which extends the full length of the property along the western edge (see Exhibit 5). However, Dr. Garske-Garcia also recognized the degraded state of the subject parcel and adjacent watercourse as relatively unfavorable when compared to nearby habitats, and no published record had appeared documenting CRLF at this location. Subsequently, Commission staff received documentation from multiple Pacifica residents, including from a San Francisco State University ecologist, in April 2020 demonstrating positive observation of more than one CRLF, including time-stamped photographs from various dates in April showing as many as five CRLF at the same location at one time (see Exhibit 9). In addition, Commission staff received letters written by local biologist Peter Baye (dated May 4, 2005 and July 7, 2014) that report ongoing observations of CRLF at the location over a sustained period of time (see Exhibits 7 and 8).

Altogether, this evidence points to the watercourse area as being used by CRLF more than just a single frog passing through, and the information provided and reviewed indicates that the area is used as CRLF aquatic and/or dispersal habitat. While the Applicant’s consultant argues that the location is unlikely to provide “consistent, stable long-term habitat for [CRLF] over time,” CRLF does not have to carry out its full life cycle in the watercourse area itself for the area to have ecological value for this sensitive species. Dr. Garske-Garcia consulted with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) on this matter, and CDFW confirmed that the information received by the Commission in April was valid, including the species identification. USFWS did not have the 2005 Peter Baye record available digitally but indicated it was likely available in their hard files; however, USFWS staff was not surprised by the recent observations and provided information on recent CRLF observations from nearby San Pedro Creek.

In short, the watercourse running adjacent to the subject parcel constitutes part of a larger habitat corridor for CRLF. In addition, the watercourse likely also supports several other species as a habitat corridor, as it remains green throughout the seasons and compared to adjacent parcels, and connects to San Pedro Creek, the shore, the Pacific 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Ocean, a large open space to the west, and a major forested area. Although there have been recent development encroachments, the watercourse provides a connection across the landscape capable of supporting species including birds and small mammals. The Coastal Commission consistently finds this type of important and vulnerable habitat to be an ESHA due to the rarity of the physical habitat and its important ecosystem functions, including that of support for sensitive species, as found in this case by Dr. Garske-Garcia. Thus, the drainage channel adjacent to this site is considered ESHA under the Coastal Act. In addition, per Dr. Garske-Garcia’s advice (see Exhibit 11, page 11), Commission staff also concludes that the arroyo willow thicket, as well as the small-fruited bulrush marsh both constitute ESHA, and would recommend a buffer of 50 feet at these locations as well6.

Coastal Act Section 30240 and LUP Policy 18 prohibit non-resource dependent development within ESHA, prohibit any development in ESHA that would significantly disrupt habitat values, and prohibit any development in areas adjacent to ESHA that would significantly degrade those ESHA areas. In addition, Coastal Act Section 30231 protects the biological productivity of coastal streams and wetlands. According to Lief Gould, the USFWS biologist for this region, the USFWS would typically recommend a 300-foot dispersal corridor around similar occupied CRLF habitat. Considering all this and applying a 300-foot corridor (i.e., where the area within the corridor constitutes ESHA due to its CRLF habitat functions), Dr. Garske-Garcia determined that the subject property is all ESHA, and that no level of precaution could avoid the loss of habitat with the proposed project. Even if the 300-foot corridor were centered on the watercourse, it would extend across and beyond the subject parcel. In addition, Dr. Garske-Garcia believes that the 300-foot corridor is the minimum that is acceptable for protecting this ESHA as required by the Coastal Act and that a reduced corridor width is not appropriate. The proposed development in ESHA is not a resource-dependent use and it would significantly disrupt habitat values. As a result, the proposed project is inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240. In addition, and for similar reasons, the proposed project is also inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30231 and 30233.

In short, the portion of the site within the Commission’s permitting jurisdiction is all ESHA and undevelopable for the proposed range of uses and structures. Although some provisions in the LCP allow for reductions to habitat buffers in the event that the buffer renders the site undevelopable, in this case it is the actual ESHA area that is affected by development (and not the buffer from it), and the City has approved development in the portion of the property that is within its jurisdiction and subject to the LCP. The Commission finds that there is no location on the site that is outside of ESHA and sufficient to protect the habitat, as required by the Coastal Act. And, as such, there aren’t siting and design conditions available to the Commission to correct this Coastal Act inconsistency. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed project inconsistent with the Coastal Act’s sensitive habitat protection requirements cited above, requiring project denial.
6 At this point however, these buffer recommendations are moot since the entirety of the site constitutes ESHA and are constrained regarding allowable development because of that determination. 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

F. Coastal Hazards
Applicable Coastal Act Provisions
The Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risks to life and property, assure stability and structural integrity, not contribute to instability, and not rely on shoreline protection in order to be safe from hazards. Section 30253 states:
30253. New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. … LCP Policy Guidance
The City of Pacifica LCP establishes several requirements for new development to address coastal hazards, including that new development shall minimize risks to life and property, assure stability and structural integrity, and maintain safety and stability over time, including in relation to 100-year storm events and over the anticipated design life of the development, defined by the LCP as generally a 100-year analytical time frame, including:

LUP Policy 26 (Coastal Act Section 30253). New development shall:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard.
(b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

LUP Definition of Net Developable Area. The portion of a site determined by a geologist to remain usable throughout the design life of the project and determined to be adequate to withstand a 100-year hazard event.

LUP Definition of Design Life. The time span during which the designer expects the development to safely exist, generally 100 years.

IP Section 9-4.4404(a) Geotechnical Suitability. Intent. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all new development requiring a coastal development permit in the CZ District and shall be subject to the regulations found in Article 43, Coastal Zone Combining District. The intent of these provisions is to minimize risks to life, property, and the natural environment by ensuring geotechnical suitability for all development.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

IP Section 9-4.4404(c)(6) Geotechnical Suitability. All geotechnical surveys shall, at a minimum, include the following information: Mitigation measures demonstrating that potential risks could be reduced to acceptable levels.

IP Section 9-4.4404(d)(3) Geotechnical Suitability. The density of new development shall be based on the net developable area, as established in the required geotechnical survey.

Further, the LCP requires that new development be designed to avoid coastal resource impacts, including to prevent impacts from armoring on natural shoreline processes such as sand supply, and prohibits armoring to protect new development, including:

IP Section 9-4.4406(c) Development Standards. The following standards apply to all new development along the shoreline and on coastal bluffs. (2) Shoreline Protection: Consistent with the City’s Seismic Safety and Safety Element, new development which requires seawalls as a mitigation measure or projects which would eventually require seawalls for the safety of the structures shall be prohibited, unless without such seawall the property will be rendered undevelopable for any economically viable use.

LUP Policy 23 (Coastal Act 30250(a)). New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous within, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources…
Analysis
Taken together the Coastal Act and the certified LCP, as guidance, require new development to minimize risks to life and property while ensuring stability and structural integrity without contributing significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area (Coastal Act Section 30253, LUP Policy 26). Coastal Act Section 30253, IP Section 9-4.4406(c), and LUP Policies 23 and 26 also provide that new development that would rely on shoreline armoring is prohibited and that adverse impacts of shoreline armoring to coastal resources be avoided, lessened, and mitigated for where unavoidable. In sum, the Coastal Act and LCP require that new development minimize risks to life and property in areas of high coastal hazards, that new development be set back adequately to accommodate a 100-year storm event and ensure stability for the design life of the development, which per the LCP is generally a 100-year period,7 and prohibit development that would require a seawall to ensure stability during its anticipated lifetime.
7 Where the policy requires such stability for the expected life of the structure, which the LCP states is the time frame in which the designer expects the development to safely exist, generally 100 years. 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

The subject site is located approximately 375-feet from the shoreline, outside of the present-day designated FEMA flood zone. Per the Applicant’s topographic survey and project plans, ground elevations at the seaward end of the site range from +16 to +21 feet NAVD88,8 and the finished floor elevation of the most seaward building (proposed Building #1) would be at +20.5 feet NAVD88 with the associated basement at +10.7 feet NAVD88. In other words, the project would include components that are just 7.52 feet above mean sea level. The highest proximate elevation seaward of the subject property is an abandoned railroad berm at about +25 feet NAVD88, which could provide some flood protection for the site. However, this berm is not continuous, and is breached at its eastern end by an access road (Halling Way, at an elevation of approximately +16 feet NAVD88) for the beachfront homes north of the project site. Additionally, the stream bank along San Pedro Creek east of the project site is at an elevation of approximately +17 feet NAVD88. Thus, there is the potential for flood waters to flow from the ocean or San Pedro Creek, through the break in the berm and onto the subject property at some times.

The March 12, 2019 coastal hazards analysis prepared by the Applicant’s consultant (GeoSoils) included a wave runup analysis indicating that wave runup could exceed the highest elevation level at the seaward end of the site (+21 feet NAVD88) under a future scenario with 6.3 feet of sea level rise. This elevation is higher than the finished floor elevation of the most seaward building, but the GeoSoils report assumes that the railroad berm would not be overtopped and would protect the project site from flooding.

However, the analysis did not consider whether wave runup along the lower elevation access road could affect the project site. The GeoSoils analysis (and a supplemental analysis dated August 20, 2019) also examined future flooding, wave runup, and shoreline retreat projections from the USGS CoSMoS models, with up to 175 cm (5.7 feet) of sea level rise. These analyses found that inundation and wave runup would not affect the site, and that inland migration of the beach would not impinge on the site based on shoreline retreat projections. However, in interpreting the CoSMoS results the analyses did not recognize that the flooding projection tool does not allow for future shoreline retreat and erosion beyond the line of existing development and/or shoreline protection,
9 which in this case is the row of existing structures along Shoreside Drive seaward of the railroad berm (see Exhibit 2). Thus, these flooding projections may underestimate future flooding and wave runup at the project site and do not represent a scenario in which the railroad berm is absent and is not being relied on for the protection of new development, inconsistent with Coastal Act and LCP requirements.

Commission staff used a separate CoSMoS shoreline retreat tool that takes into account future shoreline retreat and erosion. This tool indicates that the shoreline (the mean high tide line (MHTL)) could retreat to a position inland of the railroad berm and to within about 40 feet of the site under scenarios of 3.3 feet (1 meter) of sea level rise or 8 NAVD stands for North American Vertical Datum, and generally corresponds to mean lower low water (MLLW) for the current tidal epoch (NAVD88 corresponds to the 1983-2001 tidal epoch). Thus, the seaward portion of the site is roughly 16.82 feet above mean sea level. 9 Erikson, L.H., Barnard, P.L., O’Neill, A.C., Vitousek, S., Limber, P., Foxgrover, A.C., Herdman, L.H., and Warrick, J., 2017. CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 2 Southern California Bight: Summary of data and methods. U.S.

Geological Survey. http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7T151Q4.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

greater.
10 Under such conditions, the subject property could potentially be subject to wave uprush and flooding.

As a rough approximation to account for the potential combined impacts of inundation, wave runup, and shoreline retreat, GeoSoils (August 2019) added 60 feet of horizontal wave runup distance to the projected CoSMoS shoreline position (with 5.7 feet of sea level rise), and concluded that the project site would still not be at risk. However, this estimate of horizontal runup distance was based on CoSMoS-projected runup onto the steep slope of the railroad berm, not across the gentler slope of the beach or the flatter ground surrounding the project site. Using a similar approach, Commission staff geologist Dr. Joseph Street estimates that with 6.6 feet of sea level rise, wave runup with the 100-year storm could extend about 170 feet inland of the shoreline (i.e., of MHTL) across the beach and flatter ground near San Pedro Creek, northeast of the project site. This provides a more conservative estimate of potential storm wave runup beyond the future shoreline position. If 170 feet of horizontal wave runup distance is added to the projected future shoreline position (with 5.7 or 6.6 feet of sea level rise), the seaward portion of the project site (where Building 1 is proposed which includes the two-story surf shop on the first floor, office and storage space on the second floor, and a 3,500 square-foot basement subgrade) would be affected by wave runup within the 100- year analytic period referenced by the LCP.

Another option to approximate the future wave runup hazard risk to the site is to add projected sea level rise to the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation. Adding the medium-high risk scenario sea level rise projection (+5.6 to +6.9 feet by 2090-2100) to the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation of the VE zone (representing areas within the 1% annual chance coastal floodplain which have additional hazards associated with storm waves) where the proposed project is located (i.e., at +17 feet elevation) yields a rough estimate of the future 100-year flood elevation in the range of +22.5 to +24 feet NAVD88. Given the existing elevations at the project site (+16 to +21 feet) and the elevations of the topographic lows adjacent to the project site (+16 to +17 feet NAVD88), it is thus possible that future flood elevations in this range affect at least a portion of the project site toward the end of the project life. At the very least, additional, more detailed analysis would be needed to rule out this possibility.

In summary, the analysis by GeoSoils found that the project site would be safe from flooding and wave runup; however, the GeoSoils analysis was not based on conservative assumptions for erosion of the railroad berm. Under more conservative assumptions, coastal hazards could impact the subject property within the anticipated life of the proposed development, and therefore the project has not minimized risk as required by the Coastal Act. Thus, modifications to the project would be needed in order to be consistent with the Coastal Act. First, the development would need to be designed to protect from flooding to +23 to +24 feet NAVD88 (e.g., through elevation, floodproofing, or a combination of the two), in order to ensure that the project would be 10 With 5.7 feet (175 cm) of sea level rise, the shoreline position could retreat to within 65 feet of the project site; with 6.6 feet (200 cm) of sea level rise, the shoreline could retreat to about 40 feet from the project site.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

safe from hazards for the full extent of its anticipated life without relying on existing or future shoreline protection. If sufficient elevation or floodproofing is not integrated into the design, adaptation options are needed to ensure that the building can be modified or adapted in the future to minimize flood risk.

Second, as currently proposed, the northernmost and thus most seaward building (Building #1) contains a 3,500-square foot basement for additional storage space. As there is shallow groundwater present, sea level rise could impact the groundwater elevation, which could result in flooding of the structure even sooner. As such, the basement component would need to be eliminated from the proposed development to achieve consistency with the Coastal Act. And third, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project for CEQA purposes called for specific structural recommendations that consider the tsunami risks to the site, which would need to be incorporated into the proposed development to achieve Coastal Act consistency.

In short, there are a range of project modifications and adaptation options that could be applied here to minimize risks from geologic or flood hazards. However, the project must be denied because it cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act’s habitat requirements, and thus the Commission does not here require these project changes.

Thus, although corrections would be possible absent the habitat inconsistencies, the Commission finds the proposed project has not minimized risks from geologic or flood hazards, and, as a result, it is not consistent with the Coastal Act’s coastal hazards avoidance requirements as cited above.

G. Visual Resources
Applicable Coastal Act Provisions
The Coastal Act provides that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are resources of public importance that must be protected, and that new development is required to protect public views and be designed to be visually compatible with the surrounding area. Section 30251 states:
30251. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

LCP Policy Guidance
The LCP reiterates the Coastal Act’s protection of the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas and emphasizes the need for commercial development in the Pedro Point – Shelter Cove neighborhood (i.e., where the project is located) to be oriented to its 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

coastal setting and compatible with the surrounding character, including through small scale and rustic design, including:

LUP Policy 24 (Coastal Act 30251). The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.

Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

LUP Pg. C-54 (“Pedro Point – Shelter Cove”). Although located very near the shoreline, neither the buildings nor the uses orient to their coastal setting… There are several coastal planning issues to be dealt with in the preparation of a land use plan for this neighborhood: … 3. The problems of orientation and appearance of the commercial areas…
LUP Pg. C-56 (“Pedro Point – Shelter Cove”). Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area.

Analysis
Together, the Coastal Act and the LCP, as guidance, provide that new development must be sited and designed to protect public coastal views as well as to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. Due to geographic specificity, LCP language is particularly relevant guidance with regard to setting and character, and the LCP specifically indicates that commercial development in the Pedro Point – Shelter Cove neighborhood should be small scale and rustic, and better oriented to the coastal setting. The proposed development includes three two-story buildings, each of which is proposed to be stucco siding with only limited building articulation (see simulations in Exhibit 3). The proposed buildings include multiple windows but overall are fairly boxy in appearance and lack architectural details that would reduce the perception of visual massing from the street and neighborhood. While the development is adjacent to existing commercial buildings to the east, it abuts a vacant field to the west and is otherwise surrounded by residential structures that are smaller in scale.

The project as proposed would also maximize site coverage, provide limited open view corridors not oriented to the coast, and is not small-scale or rustic as stipulated by the LCP. As a narrow parcel that separates commercial from residential development, and that is adjacent to the old railroad berm and shoreline, proposed development should be designed to visually bridge this transition between the different uses, including in terms of its effect on the shoreline viewshed associated with the adjacent beach. As such, in order to be consistent with the Coastal Act, the buildings would need to be sited and designed to limit the amount of development on-site, include open view corridors to the coast and ocean, reduce massing, and incorporate more rustic architectural details and 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)