Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters — Pacifica City Council, June 25, 2022 (part 7 of 10)

System, Page 6-21 Fig 6-3 Coastal Access Trail, and Page 6-28 Fig 6-4 Schools and Community Facilities Shows “GGNRA” as owner of the Pedro Point Headlands (and shows GGNRA as the owner of the city-owned Catlle Hill property).

Proposed Changes: Delete “GGNRA” under Pedro Point Headlands on this and other maps throughout the Draft General Plan and DEIR. The property is owned by the City of Pacifica and the State of California (California Coastal Conservancy). It is uncertain whether GGNRA will take title. Separate the cityowned Cattle Hill property from GGNRA property on Sweeney Ridge.

Page 6 ends

transfer of City-owned land on Pedro Point Headlands to an appropriate public or private land steward, and pursue land and/or trail easement acquisition if necessary to connect Headlands trails with the Coastal Trail in Pacifica.

Proposed Change: OC-I-15 Pedro Point Headlands. Complete the planned transfer of City-owned land on Pedro Point Headlands to an appropriate public or private land steward.
(Delete the rest of the sentence, as the necessary parcels have been acquired, as noted on Pages 6-9 and 6-17).

Page 6 ends

proposed trail or trail improvement
Proposed change: The restoration efforts of the Pacifica Land Trust Stewards have completed the trails as mapped, and they should be shown as "Existing Trails"
(Also, the Devil's Slide Trail should be shown as an "Existing Trail")

Page 6 ends

to an overlook point and to Pedro Summit. They are minimally improved, although the trailhead created with the opening of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel in 2014 has created a new public parking lot.

Proposed change: Trails at Pedro Point bring hikers from a trailhead on Highway 1 to an overlook point and to Pedro Point Summit. The trailhead created with the opening of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel in 2014 has created a new public parking lot. (Delete "They are minimally improved, although".)

Page 6 ends

GGNRA and the California Coastal Conservancy, support trail improvements on Pedro Point Headlands, and extension of these trails to the new trailhead at the north end of Devil’s Slide.

Proposed change: Pedro Point Headlands Trails. In coordination with GGNRA and the California Coastal Conservancy, support connection with the proposed Coastal Trail between Pedro Point Shopping Center and the Devil’s Slide.

Page 6 ends

expected under land steward management; new trails should provide coastal views from Pedro Beach
Proposed change: Trails provide coastal views. Access improvements expected upon completion of Coastal Trail segment from Devil's Slide to Pedro Point Shopping Center.

Page 6 ends

Headlands Detail: Headlands with steep cliffs. Limited trail access exists from trailhead at Highway 1. Proposed Improvement: Trail and access improvements expected under land steward management; new trails should provide coastal views.

Proposed changes:

Detail: Headlands with steep cliffs. Trails on the headlands provide coastal views. Informal trails provide access from the north end of the Devil's Slide Trail and from south end of Pedro Point Shopping Center.

Proposed Improvement: Access improvements expected as a result of proposed construction of the Coastal Trail between Pedro Point Shopping Center and the Devil's Slide north trailhead.

Page 6 ends

Headlands to a coastal overlook point. (See Point 27 on Figure 6-3.) Proposed change: Pedro Point Headlands. Improve access to trails on Pedro Point Headlands by supporting the Coastal Trail segment from Devil's Slide to Pedro Point Shopping Center. (See Point 27 on Table 6-5.) [[Note - Incorrect location for Point 27 - should be Table 6-5]]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Plan Update.

Sincerely,
John Keener
President of the Board of Directors, Pacifica Land Trust From: Mark Hubbell [ ]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: GP DEIR Question
[CAUTION: External Email]
Good day, Christian.

How can I view public comments already submitted on the General Plan DEIR? Greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Mark
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: Christine Boles [ ]
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 12:54 AM
To: _City Council Group [[email protected]]; Woodhouse, Kevin [[email protected]]; Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Wehrmeister, Tina [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]] CC: Berman, Lauren [[email protected]]; Hauser, Samantha [[email protected]]; Nibbelin, John [[email protected]]; Leal, David [[email protected]]; Godwin, James [[email protected]]; Domurat, George [[email protected]]; Ferguson, Alex [[email protected]] Subject: GP landslide map has still not been properly updated [CAUTION: External Email]
I was finally able to download the general plan documents after receiving several error messages about the city's lack of bandwidth. The first thing I wanted to do was look at the landslide/coastal erosion map.

I am copying the Council and Planning Commission as this relates to an article I wrote in the Tribune this week as well as private discussions I have had recently with two council members. It also relates to a project on the Planning Commission agenda for Monday the 10th on Talbot Avenue.

I have apparently been screaming into the void for over a year now...my letters, public comments, expert reports from scientists I sent you, mostly ignored. The Esplanade bluffs and Oddstad Boulevard where the kids died are still shown in white as not landslide/coastal erosion prone. I appreciate the new map of debris flow slides, but it does not reference the HDAI report that the city commissioned after the 475 landslides that winter of 1982 or consider all of these historic landslides.

Even some of the 9 major slides studied, like the one between Moana and Talbot are not included on either map. The recent landslide on Highway One is missing, which is a blockage of a major evacuation route. You have these records in your files; I just saw them recently as part of a document request. And the new 2021 USGS maps, which I also shared with planning staff recently, shows most of Pacifica in landslide prone zones. Your document page 8-5 references USGS maps from 19888 (yes 3, 8s) by the way.

There is some discussion of bluff erosion in the written text, but again the map does not match. And there have been many more properties that were forced to be removed in proximity to the shoreline than are mentioned, including at Linda Mar Beach, Rockaway and Manor that I know of.

I am so disappointed, and frankly, angry that the city after 40 years is apparently still not seriously considering our greatest environmental hazards. We must do better.

The Planning Commission is again reviewing the project on Talbot at their next meeting, which is asking for variances from HPD on up to 100% slope, near this historic landslide. How can Commissioners possibly do their jobs if we haven't given them accurate tools? Speaking of HPD, let me leave you with a couple of quotes I found recently in digging through newspapers from the 1970s when the HPD ordinance was being drafted and reviewed. There were 15 public hearings just for this one ordinance by the way, with a ton of community engagement and public comments. The ordinance was approved unanimously by both the Planning Commission and City Council.

11.17.71 Tribune
"Les Clark, Director of Community Development estimates that there are about 5400 acres of untouched land in Pacifica, 2800 of which are developable. The balance is on hillsides of 35% grade or more - too steep to develop....Preservation of steep land in excess of 35% grade is a top priority, said Clark. Such land should not be developed."

6.7.72 Tribune
At a Planning Commission hearing on June 1,1972, a developer complained about the proposed ordinance saying," 70 percent of the remaining land in Pacifica will have to remain undeveloped if this ordinance is approved."
Planning Commissioner Lee Forster replied,"You are finally getting the point. That is exactly what the citizens of Pacifica expect from this ordinance."
It begs the question as to whether the voices of Pacifica's citizens of today will be heard.

Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu
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: Reina Heinz [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:56 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: GP/DEIR Comments
Attachments: 2022_03_08_Heinz_Pacifica GP.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr.Murdock,
My public comments for the Pacifica GP and DEIR are attached.

Thank you,
--
Reina Heinz,
M.Sc. Human Dimensions of Natural Resources
(she/her/hers)
Consultant, WildAid
Principal, Blu Impact Alliance
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.

Date: March 8, 2022
TO: Christian Murdock, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Emailed to: [email protected]
Pacifica General Plan and DEIR
Dear Mr. Murdock,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Pacifica General Plan. As we seek a solution to become a more sustainable city, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to these documents. My comments on the General Plan (GP) Update and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are below. I was not able to review the complete set of documents given the immense size and scope, thus my comments focus primarily on the Conservation Elements of the GP and the Biological Resources section of the DEIR.

General Comments:
• The Environmental setting for the DEIR incomplete and out of date. Please update using the best available data and current technological practices.
o In particular, there seems to be omitted and/or outdated biological data – regarding species and vegetation.
o Hydrology and watershed maps are not up to date/not utilizing using best available tools (i.e. GIS layers).
• Many policies in the DEIR do not match the correspondingly numbered policies in the GP. Please update the DEIR to track with the GP for recirculation. • Land use maps in both the GP and DEIR are difficult to distinguish variation in color coding. • Please plan to review fire-prone areas and provide an updated fire map. Indicate potentially fire prone areas, highlighting those in the urban-wildland interface when new information becomes available.
• This fire risk topic also relates to wildlife corridors and the need to maintain habitat connectivity as related for viable mammal populations. Looking ahead climate change will affect changes in the way we view land. In this time of “extreme wildfires” (where one in 100-year fire burns out of control for more than several weeks) - set to increases by 50% by the middle and end of this century, we need to better plan for land use and development, especially with regards to protecting sensitive wildlife habitat. Please consider the following with respect to development and puma habitat:
o Wildlife zones are something we should be more concerned about. Particularly in a time when globally California is now one of the most fire prone places in the planet. o Unlike the areas of Hillsborough and neighboring cities in the northern region of the Santa Cruz mountains, Pacifica has better potential habitat sites for the Santa Cruz puma population which is the population we see here.
o It is well established that development affects habitat quality, habitat connectivity and reproductive behavior of pumas1,
2 and the subpopulation in Pacifica is genetically isolated and a provisionally listed species.
o Further development may force dispersal aged males to live in subquality habitat/zones.

7. Conservation (GP)
• Surface water/Groundwater/Wetlands pp.7-2 to 7-6
Why are minor creeks (such as Big Inch creek) omitted from the report? Big inch creek is an ephemerally flowing creek, serving as a potential seasonal wetland and source of season surface water, from the upslope watershed. Thus, I suggest including this example as a minor creek by indicating a creek icon in the hydrology map in Figure 7-3, especially as there is clear evidence bolstered by local knowledge that this creek supports wildlife such as deer. Alternatively, this example might be included as a seasonal wetland in the wetland section of water resources. • Figure 7-1: Hydrology Map p.7-3
It seems that the analysis of water resources could use more current and locally updated datasets as well as more up to date available technology. See prior question about minor creek inclusion. This hydrology and watershed map fails to use the most accurate and up to date data available.

Suggestions include updating watershed data delineations and drainage points using best practice techniques, the best available and appropriate technology on a regional or more granular level such as updated GIS layers - watershed boundary or hydrography dataset - from the US Geological Survey (USGS). There should be a note about potential watersheds in this map or in the wetlands section. • Wetlands p.7-5
The National Wetlands inventory does not take into account actual wetlands that have not been delineated. It should be required that pre-project approval as required by CEQA, in areas indicating potential habitat for unique flora or fauna a delineation be completed by a qualified biologist. • Stormwater 7-6
Where is the citation for this statement? ‘Overall, the City maintains 290,000 linear feet of storm drain pipes and 986 inlets.’3
• 7.2 Biological Resources Section. p. 7-16 to 7-24 of GP and corresponding sections in DEIR.

Suggested edits: Utilize this citation to update all fields with relevant information, especially plant communities and Wildlife Habitat descriptions. Mooney, H., & Zavaleta, E. (2016). Ecosystems of California. Univ of California Press.
• Riparian Mixed Hardwood p. 7-18 (18 of PDF)
Fix typo, (delete double line of the same text): “Areas with riparian mixed hardwood habitat occur Areas with riparian mixed hardwood habitat occur”
•
1 Wilmers CC, Wang Y, Nickel B, Houghtaling P, Shakeri Y, Allen ML, et al. (2013) Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma. PLoS ONE 8(4): e60590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060590 •
2Smith, J. A., Duane, T. P., & Wilmers, C. C. (2019). Moving through the matrix: promoting permeability for large carnivores in a humandominated landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 183, 50-58.

Specific Guiding & Policies:
• CO- I-3 Funding for Creek Maintenance. Establish funding mechanism to require property owners with land adjacent to creeks to pay proportionate share of creek improvement maintenance.

Should a funding mechanism require property owners with land adjacent to creeks to pay proportionate share? Creeks are a common pool resource and creative solutions are available that would allow the City of Pacifica to support property and landowners through co-financing such maintenance projects. For instance the city might qualify for (or support acess for owners to apply for) Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) programs as well as federal and state grant programs that are currently increasing in availability. See https://www.landcan.org/Grant-and-AssistancePrograms/.

Suggested edit: CO- I-3 Funding for Creek Maintenance. Establish a mechanism supporting collaborative funding solutions between the city and property owners with land adjacent to creeks to distribute the share of creek improvement maintenance.

Alternative edit: CO- I-3 Funding for Creek Maintenance. Establish a mechanism to support property owners with land adjacent to creeks to pay proportionate share of creek improvement maintenance.
• CO- I-4 Wetlands Preservation. Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Continue to require formal delineations (of) wetlands subject to State or federal regulations prior to any proposed development project in an area where potential wetlands have been identified. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.

Suggested edit: CO- I-4 Wetlands Preservation. Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Continue to require formal wetland delineations subject to State or federal regulations prior to project approval for any proposed development project in an area where potential wetlands have been identified.

Delineations should be completed in areas with indicator species presence (i.e. Arroyo willow) or any riparian zones where potential wetlands are present, and required prior to any permit or modification to property. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands. *See language in LU-I-29: A wetland survey conducted according to the requirements of Coastal Commission regulation 13577 (Title 14, California Code of Regulations) is required to delineate potential wetlands on the site as part of the development application and environmental review process.
• CO-G-7 – Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat.

Suggested Edit: CO-G-7 Protect Habitat for Special Status Wildlife and Vegetation. Conserve and protect native threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving suitable habitat important for the protection and persistence of these species.

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. • CO-I-26 –Protection of Biological Resources with New Development. Protect sensitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures:

Suggested Edit: CO-I-26 –Protection of Biological Resources with New Development and other earth disturbing site modifications. Protect sensitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures:
*This CO-I-26 policy should be added to the DIER.

Thank you for your consideration of the above comments.

Sincerely,
Reina Heinz, M.S. Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Resident of Pacifica
From: Stan Zeavin [ ]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 6:09 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]; O'Connor, Bonny [[email protected]]
Subject: GP/SPSP/DEIR
Attachments: Annual Grasslands -mg.docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
All,
Thanks for making the documents more easily accessible and for extending the deadline Attached is my second submission concerning Grasslands.

Margaret Goodale
naturalist
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.

Annual Grasslands Page 3.7-2 (page 490) of DEIR and Page 7-16 (187 of pdf) of General Plan
Edit as follows:

1. Remove inappropriate title “Annual Grasslands” and replace with the more accurate “Grasslands/Prairie”

2. Describe as follows:

Grasslands/Coastal Prairie in Pacifica occur at Milagra Ridge, Sweeney Ridge, Cattle Ridge, Mori Point, Aramia Point (formerly Rockaway Headland), San Pedro Valley Park, the San Pedro Mountain hills and Pedro Point Headlands and often grow in a mosaic with coastal scrub.

Over the past thirty years extensive work has been accomplished to protect, preserve and restore native, perennial grasses and forbs at Pedro Point Headlands (PPH), Aramai Point, Mori Point and Milagra Ridge. The Pedro Point Headlands restoration was supported by a grant awarded by California State Parks and Recreation Division to the Pacifica Land Trust to repair off- highway vehicle damage.

Grassland and prairie are being protected in other publicly managed lands as well.

Unprotected grassland/prairie remnants continue on Harmony 1, Rockaway Rock, the Quarry, Cattle Hill, along Fassler, Esplanade, Palmetto, and Fish and Bowl.

3. The following policy should be added: "With climate change, it is important to maintain both genetic diversity and carbon sequestration by protecting grassland/prairie remnants." That policy should be implemented by "Any grassland/prairie or scrub edge must be surveyed at the correct time of year by a botanist prior to any disturbance."
The following species are ranked as California Rare Plants in CalFlora and are present or likely to be present in Pacifica:

1. Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi, a dicot, is an annual herb that is native to California, and endemic (limited) to California. California Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere). Present Mori Point, Aramai Point

2. Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata, a dicot, is an annual herb that is native to California, and endemic (limited) to California.

California Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere).

3. Leptosiphon rosaceus, a dicot, is an annual herb that is native to California.

California Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1 (rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere).

4. Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri, a dicot, is a perennial herb that is native to California, and also found elsewhere in western North America. Present PPH California Rare Plant Rank: 2B.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in CA; common elsewhere)

5. Arabis blepharophylla, a dicot, is a perennial herb that is native to California, and endemic (limited) to California. California Rare Plant Rank: 4.3 (limited distribution).

Present PPH* and Milagra Ridge

6. Erysimum franciscanum, a dicot, is a perennial herb that is native to California, and endemic (limited) to California. California Rare Plant Rank: 4.2 (limited distribution)
Present PPH* and Milagra Ridge

7. Piperia michaelii, a monocot, is a perennial herb that is native to California, and endemic (limited) to California. California Rare Plant Rank: 4.2 (limited distribution).

Present PPH* and Aramai Point

3. Additional native species below are confirmed in Pacifica’s grassland/prairie communities according to inaturalist, Calflora and as compiled by *Kramer Botanical, Vascular Plant Species within the Pedro Point Headlands Trail Improvement and Restoration Project Area, February 2016. https://www.calflora.org//app/ipl?vrid=ce891&bloom=t
https://www.inaturalist.org/check_lists/3273-Mori-Point-CheckList?iconic_taxon=47126&without%5B%5D=page&without%5B%5D=q https://www.inaturalist.org/check_lists/5529-Milagra-Ridge-CheckList?iconic_taxon=47126&without%5B%5D=page&without%5B%5D=q From: Stan Zeavin [ ]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: GP/SPSP/DEIR
Attachments: MG-GP DEIR - seawalls.docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Council and Staff,
While our State certified LCP is sadly out of date, it remains our only real guide to coastal development.

Please note and respond to the points of inconsistency in the attached analysis.

Thank you,
Margaret Goodale
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. The new General Plan and DEIR must be consistent with Pacifica’s STATE CERTIFIED LCLUP.
• COASTAL ZONE LAND USE PLAN POLICIES of Pacifica’s State certified LCLUP specify the following:

Page C-8

23. New development … shall· be located … where it wi11 not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively,. on coastal resources.

26. New development shall:

2. (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.

Page C-19
GEOLOGY (Fairmont West)
A Seismic Safety and Safety Element policy prohibits the approval of new developments which require seawal1s as a mitigation measure. The· policy also states that projects should not be approved which eventually will need seawalls for the safety of the structures and residents.

Page C-25 (WEST EDGEMAR-PACIFIC MANOR., ,(AMENDED OcTOBER,24., 1984., #1-84).)

GEOLOGY
As with bluff:-top lands to the north of the "Dollar Radio Station" residence, coastal bluffs in this area are subject to a high· rate of wave erosion. This average rate is exceeded during winter storm conditions when high wave run up and heavy rains are present. During these periods, sloughage of the face of bluffs occurs typically in the form of vertical slabs.

The City's Seismic Safety and Safety Element requires the bluff setback to be adequate to accommodate a minimum 100-year event, whether caused by seismic, geotechnical, or storm conditions. The setback should be adequate to protect the structure for its design life. …
A Seismic Safety and Safety Element policy prohibits the approval of projects which require seawalls as a mitigation measure. The policy also states that projects should not be approved which eventually will need seawalls for the safety of the structures and residents.
• The new DEIR directly contradicts policy in the certified LCLUP as well as Coastal Act guidelines:

Doc p. 9 &10
New development that would require the use of seawalls or other shoreline alterations for protection either now or in the future shall not be permitted unless this would make the property undevelopable.

New coastline alteration is… permitted only where necessary to protect existing development or public resources, and must minimize adverse impacts to natural coastal processes. • The above two consecutive sentences contradict each other. • MUST ALSO DEFINE AND SPECIFY DATE OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT! ALLOWS ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD A WALL. Current Coastal Act specifies only development existing at the time of its adoption.

Page C-105
SHORELINE PROTECTION .AN) DRAINAGE STRUCTIRES
Erosion is a primary problem along the Pacifica coast. Studies by the U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers indicate that in many cases shoreline structures are not economically justified. (See LCP Background Report, Geology; General Plan Background Report, Geology). There are, however, ·a few areas in the City where shoreline protection may be necessary to protect major beach access or highly sensitive habitat. (See LCP Access Component Report, Local Beach Resources and Management). For these areas, and other areas where protection from hazards may be needed in the future,. the following conclusions are suggested:

Dumping and other unengineered erosion protection sha11 be prohibited. Existing unauthorized rubble or protective devices shall be removed prior to any additional development in such areas.

A qualified expert shall be engaged to analyze the impacts -0f proposed structures and prescribe appropriate mitigation, if necessary, prior to issuance of a,permit. Impact evaluation shall include methods to minimize alteration of natural migration' and ~eposition of sand on shorelines within the 1ittoral cell, sufficient engineering to protect threatened area, latera1 and (if appropriate) vertical beach access, and structures as well
• THE MITIGATION DETAILS FOR THE EXCEPTION
MENTIONED ON PAGE 9 OF THE NEW DEIR MUST BE
INCLUDED.

From: Andy Narraway [ ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:56 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: GPU: Calson Field Objection to rezoning
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Council Members of Pacifica.

I am writing to comment and to inform you that I vociferously oppose the rezoning of the Calson Field from Commercial Recreation to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

We, the majority of residents of Pedro Point, have for over a decade insisted that any residential buildings on this site would be both illegal and deleterious to the current residents of Pedro Point and Pacifica as a whole.

The various politicians over the last decade we entrusted with listening to us, their socalled constituents, have consistently shown a complete disregard for OUR opinions and have ignored us. Well, we have had ENOUGH. If you, the current members of the Council, will not listen to the residents, the taxpayers, the voters and even environmental experts then it will have to be resolved by litigation. We will not go away quietly and will fight this until you relent and confirm the wishes of the people involved and NOT one owner who wishes to profit at our expense.

In 2014, the residents of Pedro Point, hired experts and an attorney and they cited deficiencies in City's General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Proposed Land Use change did not pass, and the approved Land Use Designation remained Commercial Recreation. The DEIR (then) and now, fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Errors found by experts materially tied to the legal adequacy of the plan. The general plan land use designations are the heart of the plan; once a site is designated, applicants have certain development rights. Therefore it is essential that the City fully consider site values and constraints prior to re-designating sites, not after the site is re-designated. This GPU fails to do that, and the EIR fails to adequately or accurately assess impacts of the proposed re‐ designation of the Pedro Point Field site.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report in 2014 (and NOW) fails to recognize the parcels as an Environmentally-Sensitive habitat for Endangered Species.

In 2019, the neighborhood of Pedro Point asked for (and never received) a Neighborhood-Specific Study to consider the robust community input and evidence presented thus-far. This request was denied. Why?
If as you say, the vision and goals recommended in the GPU for a sustainable economy in Pacifica are to better leverage its coastal location and establish itself as a more successful tourist destination and call for more tourist-oriented retail districts… similar to other beachside communities along the Pacific coastline, well we have it: The Pedro Point field is directly adjacent to Linda Mar State Beach, wetlands and floodplains of San Pedro Creek (including endangered species habitat). It is also adjacent to a coastal visitor-serving commercial center (inclusive of multiple unique restaurants, surf shop, grocery store, coffee shop, etc.). Therefore, low-intensity “visitor-serving commercial” land use is an obvious alternative that the DEIR AND council should and MUST enact.

A “Conservation” (C) land zone would be the simplest solution for rectifying these previous errors and to avoid future litigation I would urge the council to KEEP the current CR zoning or change the land use to Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial but to change to a CRMU will mean years of lawsuits.

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: Camille Keating [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:00 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: GPU Draft Comment
Attachments: GPU RESPONSE.docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please find attached document of general plan update 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.

Thank you,
Camille Keating
Pacifica General Plan Update Feedback 3/7/22
Attn: Christian Murdock [email protected]
Thank you for the opportunity to give input to the long needed General Plan update.

I found the current draft and response timeline (even with extension) a bit daunting to read through and coherently understand.

With that being said, my focus fell in my immediate neighborhood, where I know best, the needs and idiosyncrasies to be addressed.

As a 40+ resident of Pedro Point on Shoreside drive, I have some questions, concerns and ideas surrounding the maps and clarity in wording regarding Pedro Point.

In order of appearance:

Page153 Figure 6.2/ page 157 Figure 6-3 Coastal Access and page 84 Fig 4-8 Pacifica Southwest
The wording on #25 MAP OF COASTAL ACCESS, AS WELL AS THE MAP 6-2 IS UNCLEAR AND LEADS TO FUTURE CONFUSION.

The maps and figures of the above pages have some discrepancy and do not clearly identify where the plan is "Improve segment of Coastal Trail along former Railroad berm" The proposal shows a trail, continuing from the current beach trail ending at the bridge of San Pedro Creek, towards and behind the Pedro Point Shopping Center, parallel with both the shopping center and the East side of "The Calson field" passed the narrow portion of San Pedro ave. in front of Anchor Inn, and linking to a public trailhead at the Devils Slide trail near Ace Hardware.

There is no need to encourage trail goers into several private properties, and away from the actual trail direction straight ahead of the San Pedro Bridge. Its mention to "Alongside the old railroad berm", alongside the (Calson) field property and continue towards the Pedro Point Headlands through an area "know as the Colt property" (pg. 84)
This seems like the continuation of an old plan that needs tightening up. The wording of "alongside the old Railroad berm" which is actually Shoreside drive, a private driveway should not be included at all.

Rather, the safest and most effective way to continue the trail IS TO PUT A SMALL CROSSWALK ON SAN PEDRO AVE. WEST TO EAST, JUST PASSED THE BRIDGE, ALOWING TRAIL-GOERS TO EITHER: 1)CONTINUE TOWARDS ACE HARDWARE AND ACCESS THE PUBLIC TRAILHEAD TO DEVILS SLIDE, OR 2)GO UNDER THE OLD

HIGHWAY ALONG THE CREEK TO ENTER LINDA MAR SHOPPING CENTER OR CONTINUE TO OLD COAST ROAD. This provides the most options, for a safe and easy straightaway crossing, with a clear view of cars, directly to the access point of Devils Slide trail with adequate for pedestrians. This section is already a "No parking" zone and has enough space to accomodate a clear pedestrian or bike lane to the trail.

As well, the segment under highway 1, is already used by many residents, from the south Linda mar area, connecting them from the L.M shopping center, Old Coast road, and Higgins trails. Therefore, it makes no sense to point trail-goers through multiple private properties in Pedro Point, and into cramped neighborhood area with limited sidewalks, to then cross the street near a blind turn @ Ace hardware.

Who would be responsible for the liability and maintenance of this proposed trail segment through multiple private properties?
Providing a cross walk area at the bridge at San Pedro allows for more safe connection to other trails and neighborhoods without impeding on private property owners, or pushing more unnecessary foot traffic into an already congested area. It keeps a continuity of Public City trail, on Public property, which can be more safely maintained and insured by the city. Both visually, and strategically, its pedestrian connectivity and straight away, makes more sense to any hikers looking to get from point A to point B.

Please see attached photo of (My) Proposed crossing area on San Pedro ave. (My proposed crosswalk area; safe straight away, clear sight, plenty of pedestrian access, options for continued connection to Linda Mar or Devils slide, out of Private Property.)

Page 97 ends

"Maintain Access beach along Shoreside drive"
It seems that the access point that is mentioned in LU-I-28 is actually referring to the San Pedro Creek Public access at Coast Hwy in the Pedro Point Shopping center.

This is the safest, most convenient, least impactful, and only public access south of the San Pedro Creek. Therefore, the public (especially visiting Public) should have clear signage directing them towards this access at the Creek .

Shoreside Drive is a privately owned driveway that enables it’s resident’s to access their homes by car and foot. Any access points from Shoreside drive, or houses to the beach are also private, and run closely along side the homes, for the use of the residents and are not to meant to handle public use.

Throughout the years, and especially negatively impactful during Covid, Shoreside residents were bombarded with an influx of beach goers, unclear of how or where to park and access the beach. People climbed up and between houses, used residents' private decks and paths as bathrooms, allowed kids and dogs to run THROUGH our homes and yards, left litter on the property and dangerously parked and blocked the one way narrow dirt driveway preventing ingress/egress. We were vocal of our concerns to the city during that time, and were given cones and temporary signage to alert visitors and protect our property with. We were also asked by Pacifica PD during beach closures to try and eliminate any arteries of access that might be used to get to the beach. It is a constant struggle.

This is a sensitive area vulnerable to the elements, lack of parking and to overuse.

Lack of signage near the Shopping center, and negligent trampling by visitors looking for access, adds increased liability and maintenance to our private driveway, not to mention creates hostile conflict between resident property owners, and beach visitors trying to find their way.

This is supported on Table 6-5; Coastal Access Points as "Private property with no access" but unclear on LU-I-28. I am glad to see that in OC-I-40 "Until such an entity agrees to be responsible for liability and maintenance of such access ways, they are not to be open for public use"
Please help clear up any future confusion by adding proper signage to the safely maintained and convenient Public Access at the Creek in the PP shopping center at

COAST HIGHWAY
PG. 97 LU-I-29 Undeveloped San Pedro ave.

I am opposed to any rezoning of this property at this time, without further study, updated EIR and traffic reports, and without broader neighborhood feedback. Until the safety (or lack of) for ingress and egress by current Pedro Point residents is addressed, the development of any portion of the "Calson Field" must be thoughtfully considered.

In March of 2014, a resident, Errol Chang was fatally shot on San Pedro ave by swat teams. For the entirety of the day, Pedro Point residents were stuck on either side, unable to access their homes or leave the point by car. This was a terrible scene on many levels. It also heightened our awareness, as to what happens in an emergency.

Whether it be a road blockage, or worse, a Fire, Tsunami, or earthquake evacuation, where all residents need to leave Pedro Point via San Pedro Ave, we are held hostage to our one way in and out neighborhood.

Until such considerations are met, I do not feel that the rezoning of "the Calson Field" to CRMU is acceptable with the number of homes/units it allows for. Nor do I feel it should become such a commercial draw, that exacerbates current traffic and parking on the point. We already have tight roads with little to no sidewalks facing overuse.

Whatever goes in at the field property should be small scale, and allow for a majority of open space to preserve the safety, and look and feel of Pedro Point, and have the least impact on current Pedro Point residents, as well as in the south end of Pacifica, to where the traffic bottlenecks along HWY1.

Pg. 159, Coastal Access #24 North Side PedroPoint Shopping Center #25 Ocean Shore Railroad Berm
This coincides with my concerns stated above regarding Shoreside drive #24 It is stated “ Improve new segment of Coastal Trail along former railroad berm”.

To where exactly are you referring? The berm once ran the length of the beach, and parts were taken down in the upgraded beach trail between Taco Bell and the old "Fassler house." Is this the area you are referring? It is unclear, though maps and some wording point to north of the Pedro Point Shopping Center. #25, "Ocean Shore Railroad Berm", also referred to as "Shoreside Drive" in other segments of this plan, are one in the same, so interchanging the names is confusing and lacks continuity and clarity. This is a privately owned DRIVEWAY with resident access only, but because of the wording of “Old Railroad berm”, the exact location and section of trail you are referring to is murky. This leaves room for interpretation, confusion, and sometimes anger from the frustrated public who lacks proper direction, signage, and etiquette, regarding treading through private property.

Lastly, On page 82 Figure 4-8 it lists two areas listed as either "View Corridor" or "Bluff top view points" in Pedro Point, that are both sensitive areas vulnerable to overuse, or on private property near eroding or unsafe bluffs. Both Shoreside drive/ Shelter Cove road, and Kent road / Blackburn Terrace. These areas when pointed out become an attractive nuisance to the already congested neighborhood, and liability to private property owners as people "searching for a view" tread over private property or sensitive habitat. On Shelter cove road and Shoreside drive about 10 years ago, a woman fell off of the cliff and died while overlooking the view.

More recently, in June of 2021, a young woman drove passed the resident safety cones placed at the end of Danmann, alerting of residents' parking area, in an attempt to drive her car off the cliff. When unsuccessful, due to hitting a fence put up by residents to protect this area, the woman jumped off of the cliff in the dark of night, a second attempt at suicide. Residents found her damaged car, and later, her near lifeless body at the bottom of the cliff. I was one of those residents. I along with my family stayed with the woman, and after rescue firefighters arrived and brought her broken body up the cliff after lying helpless for over 12 hours as the tide crept up to her. It was a haunting scene that will stay with me.

When you "advertise viewpoints" especially in areas that are private, and or not maintained by the city, you are inviting more attention to sensitive areas that would be better left un-broadcasted. With that said, I am glad to read that on Page 162 Policies OC-I-38-41 Impediments to Public Access, it states "prohibit restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands along the coast, EXCEPT WHERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY" and that "THE CITY MAY GRANT EXCEPTIONS TO THIS

REQUIREMNET WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS WOULD POSE A SAFETY RISK, OR THREAT TO FRAGILE RESOURCES, OR WHERE ADEQUATE ACCESS EXISTS NEARBY" Please take this into consideration when choosing to include privately owned, or sensitive or potential dangerous areas, and listing them unnecessarily as "View Corridor" or Bluff top Views." Again, No private entity should be made liable for maintenance or dangers caused by unwanted invitations to the public in the form of signage or listings and these areas SHOULD NOT BE PROMOTED.

In closing, I admire the work that has gone into bringing our General Plan to current times, and the consideration of public input. Beyond the natural beauty, it is the culture and soul of the area that is a drawing point for visitors and residents alike. I hope that careful planning and tasteful decisions are put in place to balance a need for sensible growth, and also retaining what we all appreciate about calling Pacifica home.

As a 40+year lifelong, and 80+ year multi generational resident of Pacifica, I want to see our beautiful coastal town championed by a foresight of thoughtful ideas put in place, from which we navigate future plans. I wish I had the capacity to give each area of the Draft my attention, as I care about each neighborhood's special characteristics, and the needs of our current residents. I will hope and trust that others heartfelt concerns, ideas and feedback will also be taken into careful attention.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Camille Keating
From: Henry Ruhnke [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 4:03 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject:

Attachments: Pacifica General Plan Public Review.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please find comment letter for the Draft General Plan.

Best regards,
Henry Ruhnke
Wald Ruhnke & Dost Architects LLP
Monterey CA 93940
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
Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Email: [email protected]
Re: Pacifica General Plan Public Review Draft

Dear Mr. Murdock,
Our office is working with the owner of the 3.48 acre undeveloped parcel (number 018-140-670) which fronts on the west side of Highway 1 situated between the Our Savior’s Lutheran Church and the Pacifica Pet Hospital. The current zoning of this parcel is C-2 and the 1980 General Plan identifies this parcel along with neighboring parcels to the north and south as commercial land use designations.

We have reviewed the Draft General Plan update and have noticed that parcel 018-140-670 is now shown as a “service commercial” land use while the other parcels to the north and south have been shown as “mixed use neighborhood 16-26 units per acre.” The “service commercial” land use is actually a downzoning of my client’s parcel since the existing C-2 zoning allows for more uses than the “service commercial” land use category. It seems inconsistent to keep parcel 018-140-670 as a commercial use while changing surrounding land-uses to mixed-use neighborhood. Furthermore, looking at the figure 4-3 in the Draft General Plan my client’s parcel appears to be a “spot zone” around mixed-use uses.

This letter is to request parcel 018-140-670 be changed in the Draft General Plan from “service commercial” use to “mixed-use neighborhood 16-26 units per acre.” Considering the City’s and State’s need for housing, identifying this parcel as mixed-use makes much more sense than the commercial “spot zone” as currently proposed.

Thank you for the consideration of our request.

Best Regards,
Henry Ruhnke
Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP
Monterey, CA
From: Pete Shoemaker [ ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Inconsistencies in Policy Numbering between DGP and DEIR Attachments: Policies errors DGP-DEIR.xlsx
[CAUTION: External Email]
The attached excel file contains all the information, plus a video link that describes my process and findings. Link is repeated here.

In summary, I looked at all 522 Policies, both Guiding and Implementing, in the DGP and checked their occurrences in the DEIR. I found that 168 of them were listed in error at least once in the DEIR, and many multiple times. By “error” I mean that the text does not match that of the same-numbered Policy in the DGP. That is an error rate of at least 32%, about one out of three.

Pete Shoemaker
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.

Tracking the Consistency of Policy Numbering between the DGP and There are 522 policies (Guiding and Implementing) listed in the General Plan, I checked every one of them against their counterpart in the DEIR, in all of th I found that 168 of them were listed incorrectly at least once in the DEIR, ma That is an error rate of at least 32%.

The data is listed here in the two following worksheets, one with all the raw This video explains my process in detail.

Video link
Pete Shoemaker
one with all the raw data and the other with errors only.

Listed in Policy Number Order (as occur in GP)
Policy in General Plan
ES Economic Sustainability
ES-G-1 Leverage Assets. Leverage Pacifica’s coastal location and unique assets as a primary means to strengthen the local economy, focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops, hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails.

ES-G-2 Maintain Fiscal Sustainability. Foster a fiscally healthy City government and enlarge the City’s revenue base as necessary to sustain and support the community.

ES-G-3 Promote a Positive Image. Promote a posi- tive image of Pacifica as a desirable place to work, live, and visit.

ES-G-4 Support Existing Businesses. Retain and foster the growth of existing Pacifica busi- nesses, and foster a positive relationship between the business community and the City government.

ES-G-5 Attract New Businesses and Jobs. Seek out new businesses that will employ and serve Pacifica residents, improving the City’s jobs/housing ratio.

ES-G-6 Ensure Environmental Protection. Ensure that economic development in Pacifica proceeds synergistically with environmen- tal protection.

ES-I-1 Town Center. Through a combination of mixed use land use designations/zoning, streetscape improvements, targeted public investment, and marketing strategies, pro- mote Palmetto Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented destination with shops and services for residents and visitors alike.

ES-I-2 City-Owned Catalyst Projects. Use city-owned properties as catalysts for new development in the Palmetto area and else- where in the city.

ES-I-3 Recycling Center Relocation. Work with Recology, Inc. to identify a new location for a recycling yard to free up land for visitor-based economic development.

ES-I-4 Increase Tourism. Prepare a multi-faceted program to encourage tourism, focusing on:

ES-I-5 Enhanced Visitor Node. Create a highly distinct visitor-oriented commercial and hospitality node at Rockaway Beach and on developable portions of the Rockaway Quarry site.

ES-I-6 Increase Accessibility. Improve accessibil- ity and transit into Pacifica by partnering with transit providers (BART, SamTrans, etc.) to increase frequency and visibility of service to and from San Francisco and other destinations in the Bay Area.

ES-I-7 Mixed Land Uses. Promote development of a broader mix of revenuegenerating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits.

ES-I-8 Shopping Center Performance Improve- ment. Support existing retail center property owners’ and tenants’ efforts to improve their sales and occupancy rate per- formance, as feasible.

ES-I-9 Fiscal Analyses Required. Require fiscal impact analyses for major development proposals requiring a General Plan amend- ment to assess citywide impacts and iden- tify any burden such projects might create for the City as well as viable mitigation.

ES-I-10 Pursue New Funding Sources. Continue to identify and pursue federal, State, and other grants for economic development, marketing, and incentives to recruit new businesses.

ES-I-11 Development Pays its Fair Share. Con- tinue to require new development to pay its fair share of needed community improve- ments.

ES-I-12 Maintain Impact Fee Schedule. Periodi- cally update the City’s impact fee sched- ule to ensure that fees are commensurate with the associated costs of facilities and services.

ES-I-13 Proportional Mix of Uses. Strive to achieve a balanced mix of retail and service uses in commercial centers and districts
ES-I-14 Broaden Business Marketing Efforts. Expand the City’s marketing efforts devel- oping a comprehensive marketing plan with tools and implementation strategies, focusing on targeted industries and busi- nesses.

Actions may include:

ES-I-15 Relationships with Business Organiza- tions. Maintain a strong working relation- ship with the Pacifica Chamber of Com- merce, as well as other local and regional business groups such as the Palmetto Busi- ness Association.

ES-I-16 “Shop Pacifica” Campaign. Create a “Shop Pacifica” campaign to support local businesses and decrease retail sales leakage.

ES-I-17 Signage and Wayfinding. Implement a unified, unique signage and wayfinding program for the City’s distinct commercial and attractions.

ES-I-18 Public Realm Improvements. Invest in streetscape and public space improvements to attract visitor-oriented development and improve Pacifica’s image and the quality of life for residents.

ES-I-19 Host New Events. Promote regionally recognized events as a means of increasing awareness of Pacifica as a destination and fostering a positive image of the City as a place to visit, reside, and conduct business.

ES-I-20 Create Gateways. Create visually notable “gateways” to Pacifica, following the same design theme as the signage and wayfind- ing program, at major roadways where they enter the city (SR 1 at the northern and southern ends of the city, and Sharp Park Road and Hickey Boulevard at SR 35).

ES-I-21 Shopping Center Upgrades. Support upgrading existing centers to create an environment more conducive to attracting a broader base of customers and tenants.

ES-I-22 New Business Organizations. Encourage formation of business organizations to rep- resent business districts or industry groups where there are no support organizations.

ES-I-23 Enterprise Development Program. Create an Enterprise Development Program to provide technical support for local start-up businesses.

ES-I-24 Loan Program for Business Support. Eval- uate the feasibility of maintaining a revolv- ing City loan program for local businesses needing temporary financial support.

ES-I-25 Childcare. Encourage development of accessible, affordable, and quality childcare facilities through the following mecha- nisms:

ES-I-26 Business-to-Business Transactions. Pro- mote strategies to increase local business- to-business commerce.

CD Community Design
CD-G-1 Identifiable City Structure. Reinforce a clear city structure, characterized by a progression of ridges, neighborhoods, and activity centers.

CD-G-2 Distinct Activity Centers. Create pri- mary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica (at and around the Park Mall site).

CD-G-3 Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods.

CD-G-4 Enhanced Mixed Use Areas. Create distinctive mixed-use areas by ensuring good building form and building-sidewalk interface, and providing pedestrian-ori- ented streets and public spaces.

CD-G-5 Hillsides and Prominent Ridgelines. Maintain development standards that ensure that new development does not detract from the visual qualities of Pacifica’s hillsides and visually prominent ridgelines.

CD-G-6 Scenic and Visual Amenities of the Coastal Zone. Protect the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities in the Coastal Zone by protecting landforms, vegetation, special communities, and important viewsheds.

CD-G-7 Views from Scenic Routes. Ensure that viewsheds from Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are preserved and enhanced. These views are an essential part of Paci- fica’s identity.

CD-G-8 Gateways. Create strong entrances and preserve the quality of experience of movement along primary travel routes, in particular along the coast.

CD-I-1 Primary Activity Centers. Create pri- mary activity centers, each distinguished through land use, built form, public realm enhancements, and signage.

CD-I-2 Neighborhood Activity Centers. Sup- port smaller-scale neighborhood centers at Pacific Manor and at and around the Park Mall site, enabling them to become walk- able, mixed use districts catering primar- ily to Pacifica residents.

CD-I-3 Sharp Park Specific Plan Design Standards and Guidelines.

Within the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, adhere to urban design standards guidelines out- lined in the Sharp Park Specific Plan to promote a walkable, pedestrian-oriented community center.

CD-I-5 High-Quality Multi-Family and Senior Housing. Support attached, multi-family, and senior housing that relates positively to the street and surrounding areas, is accessible on foot to community amenities including transit, shopping and services, and offers residents a range of amenities, and provide updated, illustrated Design Guidelines.

CD-I-6 Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate the creation of second units that contribute to the variety of available housing and do not disrupt neighborhood character. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address the integra- tion of accessory dwelling units into the neighborhood fabric.

CD-I-7 Commercial and Mixed Use Building Form. Seek to ensure that new commercial and mixed use development creates an attractive and humanscaled built envi- ronment. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address mixed use access, building form, the building- sidewalk relationship.

CD-I-8 Parking in Higher-Intensity Mixed Use Areas. Update parking standards to require parking areas to be located behind buildings, in the center of blocks, or tucked under development, and update the Design Guidelines to cover parking issues in higher-intensity, mixed-use areas.

CD-I-9 Parking Districts. Within mixed-use and commercial areas, establish parking dis-tricts that facilitate parking once to reach all destinations.

CD-I-10 New Public Spaces as Part of Redevelop- ment. Incorporate into the redevelopment of the City’s 2212 Beach Boulevard prop- erty; Eureka Square Shopping Center; and Park Mall and/or the Sanchez Branch Library site small new plazas or public gathering spaces.

CD-I-11 Minimize Visual Impacts of Hillside Development. Require new development to employ innovative site planning, engi- neering and design techniques that:

CD-I-12 Protection of Ridgelines. Protect visually prominent ridgelines from residential and commercial development.

CD-I-13 Hillside Preservation District Requirements. Continue to implement the requirements of the Hillside Preserva- tion District (HPD), including submis- sion of siting and grading plans. Update the HPD to ensure that all steep slopes are covered and that sites on other terrain are not included.

CD-I-14 Design Review. Continue to use Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed projects in Planned Development, Hill- side Development, and Special districts.

CD-I-15 Minimize Impacts of Coastal Devel- opment on Landforms.

Ensure that negative visual impacts resulting from new development in the Coastal Zone are minimized. In areas characterized by bluffs and landforms.

Strategies to imple- ment this policy include:

CD-I-16 Minimize Impacts of Coastal Devel- opment on Vegetation.

Continue to require that disturbance to vegetation be minimized in new development and that graded areas be promptly replanted with native vegetation.

CD-I-17 Headlands Special Area. In the Zoning Ordinance, update the Headlands Special Area for the Rockaway Headlands, to specify very low-intensity visitor-serving use such as hikers’ huts and kiosks. A view restaurant may be appro- priate if access can be created without harming biological or scenic resources.

CD-I-18 Rockaway Quarry Site. In the Zon- ing Ordinance, update and rename the Mori Point Special Area to facilitate visitor-serving development on the por- tion of the Quarry site determined to be appropriate for development.

CD-I-19 Trail Design on Coastal Headlands and Bluffs. Develop new trails on Pedro Point Headlands, the Rockaway Head- lands, the Quarry site uplands, and the Northern Coastal Bluffs in such a way that native vegetation is protected by lim- iting pedestrians to designated trails and preventing access by motorized vehicles.

CD-I-20 Underground Utilities. Continue to require underground utilities in all new development. Within scenic corridors, place lines underground or located there so they do not break the viewline of a roadway vista.

CD-I-21 Roadway Enhancements. Coordinate with Caltrans in an effort to ensure that future changes to the Coast Highway will also upgrade the appearance of the right- of-way.

CD-I-22 Scenic Corridor Plans. Seek grant funding to develop local scenic corri- dor plans for Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road.

CD-I-23 Scenic Corridor Plans. Seek grant funding to develop local scenic corri- dor plans for Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road.

CD-I-24 Other Scenic Trails. Improve pedes- trian routes along corridors that provide access to locations of significant scenic quality, recreation, historic and cultural importance in Pacifica.

CD-I-25 Vehicle Access Points. Maintain and improve existing scenic turnouts, public parking areas, access to regional parks, beaches and other recreation areas.

CD-I-26 Roadway Design. Ensure that any proposed new roads or modification to existing roads which traverse scenic areas minimize visual impacts to views from scenic routes.

CD-I-27 High-Quality Design at Key Points. Ensure that new development directly adjacent to Highway 1 in West and East Sharp Park helps to create a strong image of Pacifica’s cultural and civic core, and that new development in the Rockaway Quarry site has a visual quality that enhances the natural setting and draws travelers in from the highway.

CD-I-28 Highway Frontage Design Guide- lines. Update the Design Guidelines to provide direction on how new buildings relate to Highway 1, both in its freeway and highway configuration.

CD-I-29 Gateway Signage. Create unified gateway signage, for entrances along Highway 1, Sharp Park Road, Manor Drive, and Hickey Boulevard.

LU Land Use
LU-G-1 Coastal Development. Ensure that development maximizes beach and coastal open space access and is oriented as much as possible to each particular coastal envi- ronment in use, design, and intensity.

LU-G-2 Concentrated Development. Focus new development in or directly adjacent to already-developed areas, where it can be served by existing public services and where it will not have significant impacts on coastal or other resources.

LU-G-3 Future Residential Development. Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony with the surrounding natural setting.

LU-G-4 Higher-Density Housing. Locate higher-density housing outside of Coastal Vulnerability Zones and in accessible places close to community shopping areas and transportation.

LU-G-5 Commercial Area Revitalization. Facilitate the revitalization of shopping areas and the creation of distinct commer- cial districts in Pacifica, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.

LU-G-6 Compact Mixed Use Development. Facilitate compact mixed-use development on sites with good access to transit. Mixed- use development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or per- sonal service businesses.

LU-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habi- tat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.

LU-G-8 Changes in Density or Intensity of Land Use in Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Do not increase the density or intensity of land use designations beyond those indicated in the LCLUP for sites located within Coastal Vulnerability Zones.

LU-G-9 Citizen Participation. Continue broad- based citizen participation in the planning process.

LU-I-1 Zoning Consistency. Update the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map and apply zoning to all land within the City, consis- tent with General Plan and LCLUP poli- cies and land use designations.

LU-I-2 Land Divisions in the Coastal Zone.

LU-I-3 Coastal Development Permit Findings. For all development that requires a coastal development permit, continue to require written findings that it is consistent with all LCLUP policies and Implementa- tion Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

LU-I-4 Coordinate with the County to pro- tect the Urban Reserve.

LU-I-5 Density Ranges. Ensure that development is permitted within the allowable density range for the applicable land use designa- tions.

LU-I-6 Sphere of Influence Annexations. Permit annexation of unincorporated parcels on the condition that parcels will correspond to the Urban Reserve designation, includ- ing a minimum lot area of 1010 acres per dwelling unit. Contiguous parcels or units held by the same owner in the Sphere of Influence that do not conform to the mini- mum parcel lor lot size shall be required to merge pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Title 10.

LU-I-7 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. Protect lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities along the coastline. These include recreational attractions such as Pacifica Pier and Pacifica State Beach; the public golf course at Sharp Park; the San Francisco RV Park; and beaches acces- sible at no cost.

LU-I-8 Oceanfront Land for Recreational Use. Protect land adjacent to Sharp Park and Pacifica State Beaches for low-intensity recreational use.

Allowable uses should include recreation outfitters, campgrounds, rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or view restau- rants.

LU-I-9 Development Priority for Visitor- Serving and Recreational Uses.

Allow visitor-oriented uses as-of-right in all areas designated for VisitorServing Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Com- mercial, and all commercial or mixed-use districts within the Coastal Zone.

LU-I-10 Walkable and Transit-Oriented Development. Facilitate higherdensity, mixed use development at specific locations along the coastline where an active, pedes- trian environment is desired.

LU-I-11Coastal-Dependent Industry. Only allow new coastal-dependent industry if alternative locations outside the Coastal Zone are infeasible or more environmen- tally damaging or because to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare, and potential impacts to visual resources, sensitive species and habitat, water qual- ity are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

LU-I-12 Aquaculture. If oceanfront land is found to be suitable for coastaldependent aquaculture, give such use priority over non-coastal-dependent uses.

LU-I-13 Public Service Priorities. Ensure that existing and planned public works facilities accommodate needs generated by develop- ment or uses permitted over the planning period.

LU-I-14 Hillside Preservation. Update the Hillside Preservation District and the zon- ing map to ensure that all steep and sensi- tive terrain is subject to these regulations. The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4) should be used as a guide.

LU-I-15 Transfer of Development Rights. Amend the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to reflect the following changes:

LU-I-16 Density Bonus. Continue to facilitate housing affordable to moderate-, low- and extremely-low-income households by pro- viding a density bonus of up to 50 percent over the maximum allowed by zoning.

LU-I-17 Accessory Dwelling Units. Maintain the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that regula- tions governing accessory dwelling units conform with current State requirements.

LU-I-18 Parking Requirements. Update com- mercial and mixed use parking require- ments as appropriate based on best prac- tices. Provide for shared parking between commercial uses; car-sharing availability for residential uses, reductions for transit- accessible locations, and other strategies.

LU-I-20 Northern Coastal Bluffs. Maintain the Planned Development zoning district for the private, developable land on the northern coastal bluffs to allow for the consideration of development standards that consider the potential environmental and scenic resources on the site.

LU-I-21 Bowl Site. Establish appropriate zon- ing for the “Bowl” site along the east side of Palmetto Avenue in Fairmont West for Planned Development to ensure site plan- ning that clusters development, avoiding potential flooding or geotechnical hazards and protecting open space resources.

LU-I-22 Pacific Manor. Establish appropriate zoning for the Pacific Manor shopping dis- trict to facilitate Retail Commercial improve- ments and Mixed Use redevelopment.

LU-I-23 Esplanade. Establish appropriate zoning for privately-owned, undeveloped land on the west side of Esplanade Avenue to ensure minimal development consistent with the General Plan designation New development shall preserve the view corri- dor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way and shall be sited and designed to ensure that any proposed development could withstand erosion resulting from a 100-year seismic or storm event and in accordance with LCLUP Policy CR-I-44 and preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way.

LU-I-24 Northern Palmetto. Support the transition to low-intensity visitorserving commercial uses over time along the west side of Palmetto Avenue in northern West Sharp Park, and require improvement of the visual appearance of permitted older industrial uses when improvements are proposed to these uses.

LU-I-25 Rockaway Quarry Site. Enable the responsible development and environmen- tal conservation of the Quarry Site.

LU-I-26 Rockaway Beach. Facilitate contin- ued improvements in the Rockaway Beach district and promote infill development emphasizing active ground-floor and visi- tor-oriented uses and links to the Quarry site.

LU-I-27 Rockaway Headlands. Facilitate very low-intensity visitor-serving commercial use on the Headlands between Rockaway Beach and Pacifica State Beach. Main- tain the Coastal Trail connecting the two beaches. Any use on this site must recog- nize the limited opportunity for vehicular access.

LU-I-28 Pedro Point Shopping Center. Facili- tate improvements to the existing Shop- ping Center that result in an improved orientation to the coastal environment and that result in more efficient use of the property with regards to parking, while enhancing its appeal for both neighbor- hood residents and visitors. Maintain beach access along Shoreside Drive.

LU-I-29 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

LU-I-30 Pedro Point Upper Slopes. Maintain zoning for the upper slopes of Pedro Point to ensure that any new development is at a density appropriate to the steep slopes.

LU-I-31 Upper Monterey Road. Extend the Hill- side Preservation District zoning to steep sites along upper Monterey Road and limit new development to a density that is con- sistent with the Residential/Open Space/ Agriculture designation.

LU-I-32 Milagra Canyon. Ensure that land along Milagra Canyon south of Manor Drive occurs at a density consistent with the Open Space/Agriculture/Residential des- ignation, is clustered to minimize environmental impacts, and resulting open space is permanently preserved.

LU-I-33 Eureka Square. Facilitate high-quality redevelopment for the Eureka Square Shopping Center using policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

LU-I-34 Gypsy Hill. Require sensitive site planning in accordance with the Hillside Preserva- tion District for up-per portions of Gypsy Hill.

LU-I-35 East Fairway Park Hillside. Ensure con- sistency with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential designation on the slope above Fairway Park to ensure that any new devel- opment occurs at a very low density and meets standards of the Hillside Preserva- tion District.

LU-I-36 Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge. Ensure con- sistency with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential land use designation on Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge, as shown on the General Plan Land Use diagram, to ensure that new development is appropriate to the physical conditions and high scenic value of the ridge.

LU-I-37 Lower Cattle Hill. Any project proposed on Lower Cattle Hill should perform
LU-I-38 Lower Crespi Drive. Establish zoning provisions to facilitate compact, mixed-use redevelopment of older commercial and residential properties along lower Crespi Drive, consistent with the Mixed Use Cen- ter and Mixed Use Neighborhood designa- tions.

LU-I-39 Crespi Business Center. Protect existing land uses at the Crespi Business Center to support local employment and small busi- ness opportunities for residents. Ensure zoning allows the continuation of lightindustrial and research and development uses that would not generate significant noise and odors, or use significant quanti- ties of hazardous materials, that may be incompatible with mixed-use residential development on the site or nearby sites.

LU-I-40 Linda Mar Shopping Center and Park- and-Ride. Allow redevelopment of the Linda Mar Shopping Center with addi- tional commercial development along the Linda Mar Boulevard frontage. Rezone the north side of Linda Mar Boulevard to facil- itate mixed-use development, while also accommodating the existing park-and-ride use, and improving the pedestrian-transit interface.

LU-I-41 Linda Mar and Park Pacifica Hillsides. Rezone steep land in the Linda Mar and Park Pacifica hillsides consistent with the Open Space/Agriculture/Residential land use designation to be subject to the Hillside Preservation District.

LU-I-42 Park Mall Area. Facilitate mixed-use rede- velopment at the Park Mall and Sanchez Library sites and adjacent vacant land, with retail uses concentrated along Oddstad and Terra Nova Boulevards.

LU-I-43 Former Park Pacifica Stables. Ensure development of the former Park Pacifica Stables is consistent with the Open Space/ Agriculture/Residential land use designa- tion , to provide opportunities related to Pacifica’s natural setting, including con- tinuing equestrian use, or open space and minimal residential development.

LU-I-44 Shamrock Ranch. Coordinate with San Mateo County to ensure that any new development at Shamrock Ranch is clus- tered to preserve open space.

CI Circulation
CI-G-1 Comprehensive Circulation System. Create a comprehensive, multimodal transportation system with streets and highways; transit facilities; a continuous network of sidewalks and bicycle routes.

CI-G-2 Serve All Users. Plan, design, build, and maintain transportation improvements to support safe and convenient access for all users with priority for “complete streets” projects that facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use wherever possible.

CI-G-3 Safety. Make safety a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations.

CI-G-4 Level of Service (LOS) for all Modes of Travel. Assess the performance of the transportation system by measuring how well pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehi- cles as well as automobiles are able to move within and through the community.

CI-G-5 Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled by devel- oping higher-density, mixed use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and improving transit options and efficiency.

CI-G-6 Context Sensitivity. Plan, design, and build transportation improvements so that they respect the surrounding environment.

CI-G-7 Congestion on Highway 1. In con- sultation with Caltrans, seek solutions to ease the traffic congestion that occurs on Highway 1 near the Reina Del Mar, Fassler Avenue, and Linda Mar Boulevard inter- sections.

Strive for the greatest benefit with the least environmental impact possible.

CI-G-8 Congestion on Hickey and Skyline. Improve travel to and from Pacifica’s northern neighborhoods by easing conges- tion on Hickey Boulevard through coor- dinated signalization or other changes, and working with the County to improve operations on SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard).

CI-G-9 Coordination of Local and Regional Actions. Coordinate local transportation planning and improvements with State, Regional and County agencies to ensure consistency with the Regional Transporta- tion Plan, the Congestion Management Program, and other regional actions.

CI-G-10 Abandonment of Public Rights-of-Way. Ensure that abandonment or vacation of public rights-of-way does not adversely impact coastal access.

CI-G-11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Estab- lish trails, bike routes and pedestrian ame- nities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations, and fill in gaps in the existing network.

CI-G-12 Walkable Neighborhoods. Improve pedes- trian amenities to create more walkable neighborhoods, especially in mixed-use activity centers and around schools.

CI-G-13 Recreational Access. Provide recre- ational access to coastal resources and public open space in keeping with Paci- fica’s natural environment, with links to regional trails and bicycle corridors.

CI-G-14 Mobility for All Users. Create a safe and attractive pedestrian environment accessible for all users, particularly persons with disabilities, seniors, and younger resi- dents and visitors.

CI-G-15 Connections Across Highway 1. Enhance under- and overcrossings of Highway 1 for pedestrians and bikes to improve accessibility and connect neigh- borhoods to each other and to the coast.

CI-G-16 Coastal Trail and North-South Bike- way. Complete the Coastal Trail and the north-south bikeway from the north to south end of the City parallel to Highway 1, providing clear, safe and efficient means to traverse coastal Pacifica.

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 expan- sion of public transit services and facilities to improve public access and recreation opportunities along the coast.

CI-G-18 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Support TDM strategies to reduce congestion and single-occupant vehicle travel.

CI-G-19 Truck Movement and Quality of Life. Balance commercial goods movement with the health and quality of life priorities of the community.

CI-G-20 Private Parking. Ensure adequate off- street parking in all new development.

CI-G-21 Public and Visitor Parking. Facilitate beach and recreational use by providing safe and well-located public parking.

CI-G-22 Commuter Parking. Facilitate transit use by providing safe, welllocated park-and- ride lots.

CI-I-1 Connective Street Network. Require new streets created as part of new develop- ment to continue existing street patterns, and include stub access points to adjacent undeveloped areas.

CI-I-5 Streetscape in Mixed Use Areas. Require pedestrian-oriented amenities and design in visitor-oriented commercial and mixed use areas, including wider side- walks, curb bulb-outs at key intersections, outdoor seating, and public art.

CI-I-6 Block Size and Maximum Street Spacing. For new development at the Quarry site or Park Mall site, require streets to be designed to maximize connec- tivity for automobiles, cyclists, and pedes- trians, with blocks between 200 and 600 feet in length. Provide mid-block pedes- trian connections where blocks exceed 500 feet in length.

CI-I-7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Create and solicit input from a bicycle and pedestrian advisory commit- tees (BPAC) on planning and funding for transportation improvement projects.

CI-I-8 SR 1 Improvements Between Southof Fassler and North of Reina del Mar. Continue to work with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to improve operations along SR 1. Strategies could include instal- lation of a pedestrian overcrossing, allow- ing for safer grade-separated crossings of pedestrians.

CI-I-9 Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvements. Complete planned improvements to the Manor Drive overcrossing to facili- tate traffic movement across SR 1 for all modes.

CI-I-10 SR 35 Improvements. Work with San Mateo County to evaluate, design and implement improvements to SR 35 to relieve congestion along this roadway within Pacifica. Improvements that would mitigate regional growth may include adding an additional travel lane in either direction, or widening on the east side of the roadway only.

CI-I-11 SR 35 and Hickey Boulevard Intersection Improvements. Add signal timing optimi- zation to the SR 35 and Hickey Boulevard intersection.

CI-I-12 Paloma Avenue and Oceana Boulevard Improvements. Add signal control to the intersection of Paloma Avenue and Oceana Boulevard to improve pedestrian safety and facilitate traffic movement.

CI-I-13 Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive Intersection Improvements. Add signal control to the intersection of Hickey Bou- levard and Gateway Drive, with signal timing to facilitate traffic movement.

CI-I-14 Strategies to Reduce School-Related Peak Hour Auto Congestion.

Work with Pacifica School District and Jefferson Union High School District to promote adoption of staggered hours, car-pooling, and use of transit to reduce traffic conges- tion during peak hours.

CI-I-15 Multi-modal Level of Service (LOS) Per- formance Measures.

Develop performance measures for LOS for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users, based on the criteria in this chapter and on “best practices.” CI-I-16 LOS for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Transit Users. Strive to maintain LOS C or better for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users on all roadways, and impose mitigation measures as needed to achieve multi-modal service objectives.

CI-I-17 Vehicle Level of Service on Roadways Included in the Congestion Management Program. Accept an LOS E on SR 1 and SR 35, consistent with the C/CAG Con- gestion Management Program (CMP), in planning improvements.

CI-I-18 Vehicle Level of Service for Other Road- ways and Intersections.

For all roadways and intersections not included in the CMP network, strive to maintain LOS D for vehicles during peak periods. Allow level of service to exceed this threshold under the following circumstances:

CI-I-19 Interim Standard for Intersection of Linda Mar Boulevard and SR 1 and Hickey Boulevard and SR 35. Accept LOS F at the intersections of Linda Mar Boule- vard and SR 1 and Hickey Boulevard and SR 35 as an interim standard until feasible traffic improvements can be designed, funded and constructed.

CI-I-20 Monitor Traffic Congestion at Key Inter- sections and Roadway Segments. Periodi- cally monitor levels of service at intersec- tions and roadway segments where existing LOS is E or lower.

CI-I-22 Improvements for Existing Facilities. Maintain and upgrade local streets, side- walks, utilities, and other City infrastruc- ture in a manner that prevents deteriora- tion and corrects existing deficiencies.

CI-I-23 Design for Safety. Incorporate safety mea- sures in improvement designs for intersec- tions, roadways, pedestrians, transit, and bicycle facilities.

CI-I-24 Development on Unimproved Streets. Continue to require a Site Development Permit for development on lots with unim- proved streets to ensure off-site improve- ments meet City standards.

CI-I-25 Emergency Access. Require all develop- ers to incorporate emergency access needs consistent with Title 10 of the Municipal Code.

CI-I-26 Pedestrian-Oriented Street Improve- ments. Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations to improve pedestrian-oriented safety and comfort. Priority locations for pedestrian-oriented design improvements include:

CI-I-27 Sharp Park Specific Plan Streetscape. Complete and implement streetscape improvements in the Sharp Park Spe- cific Plan to widen sidewalks, provide bike lanes, landscaping, and make other improvements that will upgrade the appearance of the area and make it more attractive to pedestrians.

CI-I-28 Additional Pedestrian Facilities on Large Sites. Enhance the pedestrian net- work with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings as part of higher-intensity redevelopment of large sites.

CI-I-29 Safe Routes to Schools. Partner with Paci- fica School District and Jefferson Union School District to develop and implement a Safe Routes to Schools program.

CI-I-30 Universal Design. Require all pedes- trian facilities to be ADA compliant and accessible to persons with disabilities.

CI-I-31 Neighborhood Bikeways. Develop a system of bikeways connecting all neigh- borhoods to the City’s north-south path- way consistent with the Bicycle and Pedes- trian Master Plan.

CI-I-32 Class II Facility Design. Wherever Class II facilities are designated, make bike lanes at least 5 feet wide along local streets and at least 6 feet wide on arterials or highways. Separate Class II facilities from vehicle traffic with a solid stripe and mark them with bike lane symbols.

CI-I-33 Class III Facility Design. Demarcate Class III bicycle facilities by painting “sharrows” on streets, where appropriate.

CI-I-34 Signage Program. Develop and implement a signage program for the bikeway system in order to:

CI-I-35 Obstructions. Align designated bikeways to avoid obstructions such as light posts, signage, trees, and curb cuts, and relocate or modify these obstructions as necessary.

CI-I-36 Priorities for Improvements. Make desig- nated bicycle routes a priority for pavement repair, as needed, and for regular main- tenance to remove sand, gravel or other debris.

CI-I-37 Improved Bikeway Visibility. Use strate- gies to improve bikeway visibility, includ- ing but not limited to:

CI-I-38 Bicycle Lockers at Public Parking Lots. Replace existing bicycle lockers at the public parking lot on Crespi Drive, and add lockers at the parkand-ride lot on Linda Mar Boulevard.

CI-I-39 Bicycle Parking at Recreation Areas. Provide bicycle parking at the following locations where feasible:

CI-I-40 Bicycle Parking Requirements for New Development. Continue to require bicycle parking facilities in new non-resi- dential development.

CI-I-41 Bicycle Parking at Schools and Work- places. Work with the school districts and employers to provide adequate bicycle parking at all schools and workplaces with 30 or more employees.

CI-I-42 Bicycle Education. Distribute appropri- ate informational material to all schools in Pacifica in conjunction with bicycle educa- tion campaigns.

CI-I-43 Funding for Bicycle Facilities. Desig- nate a portion of the City’s annual street construction and improvement budget to fund bikeway design and construction, and continue to pursue potential funding from MTC and San Mateo County, as well as appropriate Federal and State programs.

CI-I-44 Eligibility Criteria for Improvements. Review eligibility criteria for funding for improvements from the State, to obtain additional funding for bicycle facilities.

CI-I-45 Service Optimization. Continue coor- dination efforts with transit agencies (i.e., SamTrans) to maintain transit service that is safe and efficient, provides convenient con- nections to high-use activity areas and key destinations outside the City, and responds to the needs of all passengers, including seniors, youth, and persons with disabilities.

CI-I-46 Improved Transit Stops. Work with transit agencies to improve transit stops and access to facilities.

CI-I-47 Park-and-Ride Locations and Attri- butes. Work with Samtrans to identify changes that would improve the conve- nience and functionality of Park-and-Ride facilities, and result in increased ridership.

CI-I-48 Transit-Oriented Development. Work with Samtrans to facilitate transit-oriented development on all or part of the Linda Mar Boulevard Parkand-Ride lot.

CI-I-49 Promotion of Transit Use. Promote transit use and reduce reliance on the pri- vate automobile in order to reduce conges- tion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve quality of life.

CI-I-50 Transportation Demand Management Measures. Incorporate conditions
CI-I-51 Local Transportation Services. Sup- port expanded funding for local transpor- tation services tailored to the schedules and destinations of students, seniors, and recreational visitors.

CI-I-52 Age-Friendly Community. Support mobility programs and improvements that enable mobility for all people, including seniors and people with disabilities.

CI-I-53 Truck Route Identification. Ensure that clear identifying signage is provided for trucks or SR 1 and SR 35.

CI-I-54 Parking Lot Design. Set standards for the size and design parking lots to minimize environmental impact.

CI-I-55 On-Street Parking. Revise the zoning code to preserve on-street parking by limit- ing the number and location of curb cuts.

CI-I-56 Off-Street Parking. Update parking requirements in the zoning code based on “best practices,” including provisions for reduced parking and, if acceptable, park- ing maximums.

CI-I-57 Shared Parking. Facilitate efficient use
CI-I-58 Accessible Parking. Require convenient and accessible parking facilities for persons with disabilities, consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

CI-I-59 Parking Districts. Within mixed-use and commercial areas, monitor parking sup- ply and availability and explore methods
CI-I-60 In-Lieu Parking Fees. Allow developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance.

CI-I-61 Environmental Benefits. Amend the Zon- ing Ordinance to establish “green” park- ing design standards that have multiple benefits, including photovoltaic panels to generate energy for parking lot lighting, and pervious paving to improve groundwa- ter recharge.

CI-I-62 New and Enhanced Trailhead Parking. Support GGNRA, the Coastal Conservancy and others in developing and enhancing new public parking for recre- ational users at Devil’s Slide and Shell- dance Nursery.

CI-I-63 Parking at Sharp Park Beach. Ensure that adequate and welllocated public park- ing is preserved for Sharp Park Beach, the Promenade and Pier as part of any rede- velopment of the City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property.

CI-I-64 Signage for Visitor-Serving Parking. Undertake a citywide program for improv- ing signs for public visitor-serving park- ing. This may include incorporating smart parking technology for high-demand park- ing lots to alert drivers to the location of available parking.

CI-I-65 Parking Enforcement. Continue to make parking enforcement a priority at public visitor parking areas.

OC Open Space and Community Facilities
OC-G-1 Development of City Parks. Create and enhance neighborhood and pocket parks and plazas to provide access to local recreational space to all Pacifica residents.

OC-G-2 Recreation Facilities. Enhance out- door recreation facilities and services in local parks, in coordination with youth and adult leagues and community groups with priority given to sports fields and off-leash dog play areas.

OC-G-3 Community Gathering Place. Cre- ate or enhance one or more public plazas or central gathering places where all Pacifica residents come together. This place or places should be connected with concentrated, mixed use areas.

OC-G-4 School Playfields. Continue to coop- erate with the school districts to make school play fields available for public use after school hours.

OC-G-5 Open Space Preservation. Pre- serve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety.

OC-G-6 Coastal Areas Suited for Water-Oriented Recreation. Continue to protect coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities.

OC-G-7 Trail System Expansion. Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 6-2.

OC-G-8 Coastal Access and Recreational Opportunities. Provide maximum coastal access and recreational oppor- tunities for all people consistent with public safety and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse, including access at each point identified on Figure 6-3.

OC-G-9 Management of Public Access. Regulate the time, place, and manner that public access is provided, based on such factors as topographic and site con- straints; the fragility of natural resources; public safety; and the privacy of adjacent residential uses.

OC-G-10 Distribution of Public Coastal Facilities. Continue to distribute public facilities, including parking areas or facil- ities, so as to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.

OC-G-11 Optimize Public Facilities. Ensure that public facilities are adequate to meet needs, and plan for opportunities that help to meet goals of school districts and the City.

OC-G-12 Community Services and Youth Activi- ties. Continue to provide services to seniors and oth-ers in need, either directly or through support to other organizations, and provide expanded options for youth in Pacifica.

OC-G-13 Cultural Facilities. Foster the expansion and creation of programs and facilities for the visual and performing arts and the study and appreciation of natural resources.

OC-I-1 Park Land Dedication or In-Lieu Fees. For new development, continue to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees to provide park land at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents.

OC-I-2 Park Development to Meet Park Standards. Develop new parks in a timely manner using in-lieu fees or land dedicated as part of new development, to ensure that Citywide park and recreation space is available to the community at a ratio of 6.4 acres per 1,000 residents by 2040.

OC-I-3 Community Use of School Grounds and Recreation Facilities.

Explore joint- use agreements and seek to strengthen these as needed to ensure community use of play areas and indoor recreation facili- ties at school sites.

OC-I-8 Sanchez Adobe Park. Work with San Mateo County to pursue development of a more park-like setting for the Sanchez Adobe while preserving historic and cultural resources, following the 2007 Master Plan.

OC-I-9 Parks as Part of Future Develop- ment. Create future public spaces, accessible to the community, as part of the redevelopment of publicly-owned sites and of larger privately-owned sites, including the Rockaway Quarry site, the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and the Milagra Canyon site.

OC-I-10 Pocket Park Opportunity Sites on Public Land. Explore opportunities to develop pocket parks on public land that is not otherwise needed as neighborhood gathering places and play areas.

OC-I-11 Parks Landscaping. Promote landscapes with native vegetation, which requires little maintenance, little water, makes good wildlife habitat, and is fire resistant, in landscaping of City parks.

OC-I-12 Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Depart- ment. Continue to support the varied activities of the Parks, Beaches and Rec- reation Department. Periodically review their activities to ensure that programs are meeting public needs.

OC-I-13 Public Access Improvements and Habitat Restoration. Support GGNRA in implementing habitat restoration and public access improvements at its park units in the Planning Area, including Sweeney Ridge, Milagra Ridge, Mori Point, and the Northern Coastal Bluffs.

OC-I-14 Cattle Hill. Complete the planned trans- fer of City-owned land on Cattle Hill to GGNRA to allow the National Park Ser- vice to coordinate park land management and trail access and improvements.

OC-I-15 Pedro Point Headlands. Complete the planned transfer of Cityowned land on Pedro Point Headlands to an appro- priate public or private land steward, and pursue land and/or trail easement acqui- sition if necessary to connect Headlands trails with the Coastal Trail in Pacifica.

OC-I-17 Sharp Park. Support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course, and support development of additional recreational uses in upland portions of the Park.

OC-I-18 Sharp Park and Pacifica State Beaches. Maintain partnership with the State of California in ownership and management of Sharp Park Beach and Pacifica State Beach, balancing public access with protection of habitat and shoreline conditions.

OC-I-19 Rockaway Beach.Ensure that public access to Rockaway Beach (from Points 17 and 19 through 20 on the Coastal Access map, Figure 6-3) is maintained.

OC-I-20 Partial Conservation with Develop- ment. On sites shown on Figure 6-1 as “Partial Conservation with Develop- ment,” require that highvalue open space be protected as part of any development.

OC-I-21 Development Strategies to Preserve Open Space. Continue to promote density-open space trade-offs, such as clustering development, transferring development rights from sensitive to less sensitive land, and dedication or protec- tion of open space through covenants or consecutive easements.

OC-I-22 Open Space Restoration. Continue to support local volunteer or community service organizations in implementing revegetation programs on the City’s greenbelts or elsewhere to reduce erosion potential and enhance the visual quality of these areas for adjacent neighborhoods.

OC-I-23 New Segments of California Coastal Trail in Pacifica. Create new trail seg- ments through Rockaway Quarry uplands and the Headlands as part of development or as separate Coastal Trail initiatives.

OC-I-24 Coastal Trail at Devil’s Slide and Between Pacifica and Devil’s Slide. Work with involved agencies and prop- erty owners to achieve a trail connection west of Highway 1 between Pedro Point Shopping Center and the Devil’s Slide north trailhead.

OC-I-25 Pedro Point Headlands Trails. In coordination with GGNRA and the California Coastal Conservancy, sup- port trail improvements on Pedro Point Headlands, and extension of these trails to the new trailhead at the north end of Devil’s Slide.

OC-I-26 Pedestrian Improvements on Pal- metto and Esplanade. Make sidewalk and streetscape improvements along Coastal Trail segments of Palmetto and Esplanade Avenues a priority.

OC-I-27 Lateral Ridge Trail Extensions. In coordination with GGNRA, pursue lateral ridge trail extensions, providing new connections between the Coast and Sweeney Ridge.

OC-I-28 Highway 1 Over-Crossing at Mori Point. Support the development of a new over-crossing between Shelldance Nursery and Mori Point, in coordination with GGNRA and Caltrans to enhance visitor facilities in Pacifica. As an interim alternative, strengthen signage and safe connections to the existing Sharp Park Golf Course undercrossing in the East Fairway Park neighborhood.

OC-I-29 Sharp Park Trail. Encourage GGNRA, San Francisco Recreation and Parks or others to create a new trail from Rifle Range Road to the Sweeney Ridge Trail to enhance recreational use of Sharp Park and provide public access in a wooded area unique in Pacifica.

OC-I-30 Harry Dean Trail. Improve and extend existing trails connecting City-owned parks and open spaces in Pacifica’s northern neighborhoods to reach Skyline Boulevard on the east and Westline Drive along the Northern Coastal Bluffs.

OC-I-32 San Pedro Valley Trail. Develop a pedestrian route between Pacifica State Beach and San Pedro Valley County Park through the Linda Mar and West Linda Mar neighborhoods, including enhance- ment of the San Pedro Terrace right-of- way; sidewalk improvements and signage along Rosita Road; and connections to the Sanchez Adobe and Old San Pedro Mountain Road.

OC-I-33 Enhanced Visitor Services at Shell- dance Nursery. Support the proposal for enhanced visitor services at the Shell- dance Nursery site, including an educa- tion/visitors’ center, additional parking, and better access, to be implemented by GGNRA.

OC-I-34 Hikers’ Huts and Related Ameni- ties. Support the development of hikOC-I-35 Signage and Wayfinding. Develop the overall image and accessibility of Pacifica’s natural assets, through a pro- gram of consistent and attractive signage for the trail system.

OC-I-36 Pacifica Parks and Trails Map and Guide. Develop a map of Pacifica’s parks and trails to support recreation activities, marketing and outreach efforts.

OC-I-37 Public Shoreline Access. Continue to ensure that new development does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where public access to the sea has been acquired through use or legis- lative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terres- trial vegetation.

OC-I-38 New Development and Coastal Access.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.

OC-I-39 Private Roads and Gates. Prohibit gates and other barriers designed to regulate or restrict access on private roads where such barriers have the potential to impede access to public trails and recre- ational areas.

OC-I-40 Maintenance of Public Coastal Access. Require a public or private entity to be responsible for required public access ways. Until such an entity agrees to be responsible for liability and main- tenance of such access ways, they are not required to be open for public use. Dedicated public access ways shouldbe designed to provide views as well as access connections to or along the shore.

OC-I-41 Impediments to Public Access. Prohibit restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands along the coast except where necessaryto protect public safety. Such restrictions include the installation of “private beach” and “private parking” signs, landscap- ing, and painting red curbs in the public right-of-way.

OC-I-42 Structures on Public Beaches. Limit structural development on public beachesto that which is necessary for publicaccess or safety, such as lifeguard towers,waste receptacles, or wheelchair accessways. Such development shall be able to be removed or relocated, and shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on public access, recreation, and coastal resources.

OC-I-43 Adjustment of Lateral Shoreline Easements. Require that new lateral shoreline easements, where required, automatically adjust as needed to move in response to changes to the shoreline (“rolling easements”).

OC-I-45 Fees and Time Restrictions. Ensure that public beaches and parks in the Coastal Zone maintain free and lower-cost user fees and parking fees, and minimize parking lot and beach curfews to the extent feasible in order to maximize public access and recreation opportuni- ties.

3.)
OC-I-47 Esplanade Bluff. Develop a small public park or viewing area and a trail on City-owned bluff top land along the 400-block of Esplanade Avenue (Point 5 on Figure 6-3), if such improvements are feasible.

OC-I-49 Beach Boulevard. Ensure that public access to the coast at the Promenade and Pier (Points 9 and 10 on Figure 6-3) is maintained and enhanced by redevel- opment at the City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard site, including continuation of public parking.

OC-I-50 Rockaway Beach. Ensure that public access to Rockaway Beach (from Points 17 and 19 on Figure 6-3) is maintained.

OC-I-51 Rockaway Headlands. On the Head- lands south of Rockaway Beach, create public access to coastal views (Point 20 on Figure 6-3).

OC-I-52 Pedro Point Headlands. Extend trails on Pedro Point Headlands to a coastal overlook point. (See Point 27 on Figure 6-3.) OC-I-53 Rockaway Quarry If a safe public route can be developed on the Quarry uplands, create coastal access along a new trail connecting Rockaway Beach with Mori Point, as part of a conservation proposal or new development.

OC-I-54 High-Quality Schools. Support Pacifica School District (PSD) and Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) in maintaining high-quality schools.

OC-I-55 School Site Reuse and Redevelopment. Identify appropriate future land uses for unused school sites that are compatible with existing neighborhoods.

OC-I-56 Linda Mar School. Encourage PSD to maintain Linda Mar school site to meet future needs and potential enrollment growth.

OC-I-57 Oceana High School. Encourage JUHSD to optimize the mission and space needs of the Oceana High School program.

OC-I-58 Civic Center. Continue to study the feasibility of developing a new City Hall or Civic Center to provide adequate space for long-term needs and enhance the City’s image.

OC-I-59 Beach Boulevard Property. Continue to pursue redevelopment of the City-owned Beach Boulevard property.

OC-I-60 Library/Learning Center. Support San Mateo County Library and local efforts to create a single, library/learning center that functions as a community gathering place.

OC-I-61 Library Site Reuse and Redevelopment. In the event that a new library is devel- oped, work with San Mateo County Library to identify appropriate future land uses for existing Library branch sites com- patible with surrounding neighborhoods.

OC-I-63 Senior and Community Services. Continue to use available funding sources to maintain and enhance the City’s Senior Services program, including meal ser- vices, transportation, and counseling. In addition, continue to support non-profit service providers in offering other needed community services.

OC-I-64 Medical Services. Encourage Seton Medical Center or other organization to provide an outpatient clinic in Pacifica.

OC-I-65 New Cultural Facilities. Support the location or relocation of cultural facilities as part of redevelopment of the Rocka- way Quarry site or in the West Sharp Park neighborhood, where such uses could generate economic benefits.

OC-I-66 Future Use of City Hall. Explore the possibility of attracting cultural uses to the current City Hall (the former Sharp Park schoolhouse), in coordination with development of a new City Hall.

CO Conservation
CO-G-1 Water Quality. Support the improve- ment of Pacifica’s water quality, includ- ing both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration
CO-G-2 Watershed Management. Recog- nize the interrelated nature of Pacifica’s hydrology system, its watersheds, and development in the Planning Area, and protect water resources through com- prehensive management of entire water- sheds.

CO-G-3 Maintain Creeks as a Resource. Ensure both access to and ecological functionality of the creek system in Pacifica.

CO-G-4 Retain Natural Processes. Enable natural processes to occur on developed sites, and utilize these processes to enhance the built environment and users’ experiences of it.

CO-G-5 Water Conservation. Work withthe NCCWD to meet water conserva- tion objectives as required by State law.

CO-G-6 Wastewater Treatment. Ensure that the City maintains adequate capacity to handle wastewater, and continue to expand wastewater recycling.

CO-G-7 Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Con- serve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status spe- cies by preserving critical habitat.

CO-G-8 Coastal Environment and Special Status Communities. Conserve and pro- tect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and special status communities, par- ticularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs.

CO-G-9 Creeks and Riparian Areas. Pro- tect year-round creeks and their riparian habitats.

CO-G-10 Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appro- priate trees and vegetation.

CO-G-11 Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect other potential ESHAs, high habitat value areas, and wildlife movement corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values.

CO-G-12 Preserve Agricultural Open Space. Promote the preservation of agricultural open space in the Planning Area.

CO-G-13 Improve Air Quality. Reduce emissions of ozone-producing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of Pacifica and Bay Area residents.

CO-G-14 Renewable Energy. Support the use and development of renewable energy through City purchasing, and facilitation of local renewable energy generation.

CO-G-15 Energy Conservation. Support efforts to reduce energy use by increasing energy efficiency in buildings and promoting awareness of energy use.

CO-G-16 Waste Reduction. Seek to reduce over- all solid waste by limiting packaging, controlling construction and demolition waste, and promoting composting and recycling.

CO-G-17 Historic and Cultural Sites. Con- serve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Paci- fica’s identity and character and increase public awareness and appreciation them.

CO-G-18 Ensure Mitigation. Require mitiga- tion for any new development that would adversely affect archaeological or paleon- tological resources.

CO-G-19 Environmental Justice. Strive to imple- ment processes and procedures that promote environmental justice in support of the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy.

CO-I-1 Creek Protection and Restoration. Maintain, protect, and restore Pacifica’s creeks, including San Pedro, Calera, San- chez, and Milagra creeks, as environmen- tal and aesthetic resources. Actions will include, but are not limited to:

CO-I-2 Improvement of Impaired Waterways. Strive to improve water quality in San Pedro Creek, which is listed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, and any other waterway that may be listed as impaired in the future.

CO-I-3 Funding for Creek Maintenance. Establish funding mechanism to require property owners with land adjacent to creeks to pay proportionate share of creek improvement maintenance.

CO-I-4 Wetlands Preservation. Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Con- tinue to require formal delineations wet- lands subject to State or federal regula- tions prior to any proposed development project in an area where potential wet- lands have been identified. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.

CO-I-6 Minimize Disruption of Dredging. Require any proposed dredging and spoils disposal to be planned and carried out in a way that will avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habi- tats.

CO-I-7 Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands. Ensure that any diking, fill- ing, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity.

CO-I-8 Continued Movement of Sediment CO-I-11 and Nutrients. Allow sediment removed
CO-I-9 Countywide Water Pollution Pre- vention Program. Continue to par- ticipate in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.

CO-I-10 Stormwater Discharge. Ensure compliance with the Municipal Regional Per- mit, the Construction General Permit, and the Construction Dewatering Permit, which regulate stormwater discharge from new and existing development.

CO-I-11 Protect Water Quality through Best Management Practices.

Continue to require the use of best management practices to reduce water quality impacts from construction and development. Measures include:

CO-I-12 Infrastructure and Water Quality. Ensure that the design and construc- tion of new infrastructure elements does not contribute to stream bank or hillside erosion or creek or wetland siltation, and incorporates site design and source control BMPs, construction phase BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize impacts to water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.

CO-I-13 Erosion Control. Manage erosion in the Planning Area, particularly in watershed areas, though on-site erosion control.

CO-I-14 Minimize Site Disturbance. Require use of best practices during development design and construction to preserve natu- ral resources, such as soil, trees, native plants, and permeable surfaces.

CO-I-15 Reduce Impervious Surfaces. Enable natural drainage by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on a development site, whenever feasible.

Techniques for on-site stormwater manage- ment include use of:

CO-I-17 Prevent Contaminated Runoff. Ensure that new parking lots and com- mercial development incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oil, grease, solvents battery acid, cool- ant, gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants from the site.

CO-I-18 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spills. Provide protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum prod- ucts, or hazardous substances in relation to any development of transportation of such materials.

CO-I-19 Water Supply. Support the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency in advocating for reliable and fairly priced water from the San Francisco regional water system.

CO-I-21 Water Recycling. Continue to sup- port implementation and expansion of NCCWD’s water recycling project, involving new pipes and pumping sta- tions, to allow treated wastewater from the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant to be used for irrigation of landscaped areas.

CO-I-22 Water Storage. Support the NCCWD in its efforts to provide adequate emergency water storage in Pacifica.

CO-I-23 Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Continue to monitor wastewater genera- tion rates so decision-makers are aware of the impacts on the treatment plant on new development, and plan for addi- tional capacity in advance of projected need.

CO-I-24 Sewer System Connections. Require all new development to be connected to the City’s sewer system.

CO-I-25 Sanitary Sewer Discharge. Ensure that discharges of treated wastewater from the Calera Creek Wastewater Recy- cling Plant continue to comply with the Sanitary Sewer System Permit.

CO-I-26 Protection of Biological Resources with New Development.

Protect sen- sitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures:

CO-I-28 Management of ESHA. If the area qualifies as an ESHA under the Califor- nia Coastal Act, the following regulations apply:

CO-I-29 Fencing. Any fencing or barriers located within riparian ESHAs or wild- life corridors shall permit the free passage of wildlife.

CO-I-30 Fuel Modification. Ensure that new development is sited and designed to minimize the need for fuel modifica- tion and vegetation clearance in order to avoid or minimize the disturbance or destruction of habitat and existing hydrology while still providing for fire safety as necessitated by the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program. Prohibit new development that would require fuel modification within ESHAs.

CO-I-31 Habitat Preservation. Require a habitat survey be prepared by a qualified bota- nist or biologist for any development pro- posed for the following areas, as shown in Figure 7-3.

CO-I-33 Construction during Nesting Season. If site work or construction occurs during the nesting season (Feb- ruary 1 through August 31), then preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to any site disturbance to ensure that no nests will be disturbed or destroyed during Project implementa- tion. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction activities, then the biologist shall create a no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around passerine nests and a 500 foot buffer around raptor nests. Work- free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the breeding season or until after the qualified biologist determines the young have fledged (usually late June through midJuly).

CO-I-34 Pre-Construction Bat Surveys. Pre- construction surveys for special-status and non-listed bat species will be per- formed by a qualified biologist if large trees (>4 ft. diameter at breast height) are to be removed or underutilized or vacant buildings are to be demolished. A no-dis- turbance buffer of 100 feet shall be cre- ated around active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes.

CO-I-35 Protection of the Californian Red- Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake during Construction. To mini- mize disturbance, require all gradCO-I-36 Invasive Plant Species. Prohibit the use of invasive plant species (i.e., any California Invasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC)-listed species with a status of high or moderate, or identified such as locally- threatened under the limited, alert, or watch status).

CO-I-37 Beach Grooming. Work with the State of California, GGNRA, and other partners in the management of beaches in Pacifica to ensure biological resources are adversely affected by beach groom- ing. Specifically, protect beach wrack (the piles of plant and animal debris that wash ashore), which plays an important role in the beach ecosystem.

CO-I-39 Heritage Trees. Update the Heritage Tree ordinance to improve ease of City administration and clarity for applicants and surrounding residents.

CO-I-40 Regulations and Incentives to Pre- serve Habitat. Ensure that sensitive or critical habitat is protected, maintained, enhanced, or restored.

Possible techniques include:

CO-I-41 Protection by Land Acquisitionor Conservation Easements.

Explore opportunities for public acquisition of land or conservation easements on par- cels not currently designated for Conser- vation that have significant habitat value.

CO-I-42 Public Land Management. Coordi- nate with GGNRA, State and County Parks, and the City and County of San Francisco to ensure that public open space lands are managed to optimize habitat protection for special status spe- cies while also providing for public access and other goals.

CO-I-43 Management of Public Coastal Access. Ensure regular public access, determining locations on a site-specific basis by considering:

CO-I-44 Regional Sediment Management. Participate in regional approaches to pro- tecting, enhancing and restoring coastal beaches and watersheds through the Cal- ifornia Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, with a goal of minimizing coastal erosion.

CO-I-45Cultural and Related Uses. Where agricultural and related uses exist, allow compatible uses to continue.

CO-I-47 Recreational Uses. Promote recre- ational uses, such as horse boarding and trail riding, which retain open space character while contributing to a visitor- based economy.

CO-I-48 Regional Cooperation. Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and other pub- lic agencies in implementing plans to achieve State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.

CO-I-49 Impact Guidelines. Use the BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines, to determine and mitigate project air quality impacts.

CO-I-50 Sensitive Receptors. Work with BAAQMD to develop and implement a Community Risk Reduction Plan to address the exposure of sensitive popula- tions to toxic air contaminant emissions in Pacifica.

CO-I-51 Construction Equipment. Require all construction equipment to be main- tained and tuned to meet appropriate EPA and CARB emission requirements.

CO-I-52 Dust Abatement. Require contractors to use best management practices to reduce particulate emissions and dust associated with construction activities.

CO-I-53 Transportation Control Measures. Ensure compliance with the most current Bay Area Clean Air Plan by implementing the Plan’s recommended Transporta- tion Control Measures.

CO-I-55 Green Building. Monitor the effective- ness of the California Green Building Code in bringing about energy efficiency in architectural design and building con- struction.

CO-I-56 Solar Orientation. When possible, require buildings to be oriented such that the use of passive and active solar strate- gies is maximized, in order to promote energy efficiency.

CO-I-57 Encourage Solar Power Generation. Promote use of passive and active solar devices such as solar collectors, solar cells, and solar heating systems in build- ings and parking areas by incentive pro- grams and streamlining review.

CO-I-58 Clean City Fleet. Establish City bud- get for clean fuels and electric or hybrid vehicles to replace and improve the exist- ing fleet of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.

CO-I-59 City Purchasing of Renewable Energy. Pursue opportunities for the City to lower the cost of purchasing and produc- ing renewable energy, such as through Peninsula Clean Energy or other energy provider at the best value to the City.

CO-I-60 Waste Collection. Periodically evalu- ate the City’s waste collection contract
CO-I-61 Waste Reduction and Diversion. Seek to continually reduce Pacifica’s output of solid waste and increase the proportion of waste diverted from landfills, setting targets and monitoring progress.

CO-I-62 Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings. Prepare and implement a plan to increase energy efficiency in existing public buildings. Measures may include:

CO-I-63 Wastewater and Water System Effi- ciency. Maximize the efficiency of City- operated wastewater treatment, water treatment, pumping, and distribution equipment.

CO-I-64 Outdoor Lighting. Establish outdoor lighting performance standards to mini- mize energy use while ensuring appropri- ate light levels.

These can be met by:

CO-I-65 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Con- tinue to evaluate development projects for their historical significance and pres- ervation value, using the criteria in the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

CO-I-67 Public Agency Support for Local Historic Sites. Seek support from public agencies, such as GGNRA, for local historic preservation programs for designated sites.

CO-I-68 Resource Impact Mitigation. Ensure that new development analyzes and avoids potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources by:

CO-I-69 Adaptive Reuse. Promote adaptive reuse of historic structures—preserving their original design and character—as an option for preserving sites that are threat- ened with demolition or degradation.

CO-I-71 Inclusive Engagement. Expand notification efforts for major policy documents and projects within Pacifica’s Coastal Zone to underrepresented communities outside of Pacifica.

CO-I-72 Removal of Barriers to Public Participation. Implement efforts to remove bar- riers that may prevent underrepresented communities from public participation opportunities. Efforts should be made to provide a welcoming, understandable and respectful atmosphere, and to be considerate of the timing, location, and accessibility of any meeting to accommo- date the underrepresented communities.

CO-I-73, 74 & 75
SA Safety
SA-G-1 Reduce Risk. Minimize risks of prop- erty damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.

SA-G-2 Development in Hazardous Areas. Protect new development in 100- year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones with flood damage prevention programs.

SA-G-3 Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Establish policies to minimize the risk to persons and property posed by potential sea level rise.

SA-G-4 Key Coastal Act Policies. The City of Pacifica adopts the following key policies derived from the Coastal Act to address coastal resilience:

SA-G-6 Contaminated Sites. Facilitate clean-up programs at contaminated sites, particularly on properties with the potential to develop or be reused for public purposes.

SA-G-7 Safe Disposal. Continue to promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education and awareness.

SA-G-8 Fire Prevention. Protect Pacifica resi- dents and businesses from potential wild- land fire hazards.

SA-G-9 Emergency Response. Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.

SA-G-10 Public Awareness. Support continuing public awareness of hazards, including avoidance, disaster preparedness, and emergency response procedures.

SA-G-11 Disaster Preparation. Make infrastruc- ture investments, enforce regulations, and disseminate information that will improve disaster response and recovery, with the goal of minimizing damage to people and property.

SA-I-1 Fault Zone. Continue to review projects located in identified fault zones subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. (See the Seismic Hazards map, Figure 8-1).

SA-I-2 Development in Hazardous Areas. Prohibit development in areas of mostly landslides or high or very high liquefaction risk as shown in Figure 8- 2, or on slopes steeper than 35 percent, unless detailed site investigations ensure that risks can be reduced to acceptable levels and the struc- ture will be protected for its design life.

SA-I-3 Real Estate Disclosure. Require real estate transactions, development approval processes, and property titles to declare known or suspected seismic or geologic hazards on a property, including Alquist- Priolo Fault Zones and areas suspected of high or very high risk of liquefaction, sub- sidence, or landslide.

SA-I-4 Code Enforcement. Continue to maintain and enforce appropriate stan- dards to ensure new development is designed to meet current safety standards associated with seismic activity.

SA-I-5 Seismic Rehabilitation Flagging. Iden- tify and catalogue structures that may be subject to serious structural damage in the event of a major earthquake, and provide information to property owners on ways to pay for rehabilitation or retrofit of existing buildings to minimize the potential for damage from an earthquake.

SA-I-7 Erosion Prevention. Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by revegetation or other acceptable methods.

SA-I-9 Maintain Restrictions on Hazardous Areas. Continue enforcing the existing Coastal Zone Combing District and Hill- side Preservation District regulations that restrict development in hazardous areas where access is impractical and areas prone to hillside and coastal erosion, landslides, seismic shaking, tsunami inundation, or flooding.

SA-I-10 Soil Study. Require any geotechnical studies to include study of expansive and creeping soils, as well as analysis of erosion, seismic, tsunami, and other geotechnical hazards and make recommendations, as warranted.

SA-I-11 Grading and Drainage Plans. Con- tinue to require a grading and drainage plan for proposed development requiring a coastal development permit and a grad- ing permit. The Plan should demonstrate how the project will maintain natural surface drainage and existing vegetation to the greatest extent feasible, by minimiz- ing alteration of natural topography and removal of existing trees and vegetation; stabilizing cut-and-fill surfaces with native vegetation; restricting the movement of heavy equipment and machinery; and other means. Prohibit development-related grading and vegetation clearance on slopes steeper than 35 percent. Driveways and utilities may be allowed in the case that there is no less environmentally damag- ing alternative for providing access to the building site.

SA-I-12 Bluff Drainage and Erosion. The City will pursue feasible funding mechanisms to investigate areas that may be significantly contributing to groundwater flows to the bluffs and determine whether improving drainage and/or reducing irrigation could reduce bluff erosion. Measures to improve drainage and reduce over-watering shall be communicated to the public and property owners as part of existing water conserva- tion outreach programs, and included as conditions on new development where applicable.

SA-I-13 Water Tank Rupture. Work with the NCCWD to determine areas potentially affected by flooding from ruptured water tanks in the event of a seismic event and inform property owners.

SA-I-14 Geologic Hazard Abatement District. Amend the Municipal Code to include provisions for formation of geologic haz- ards abatement district for coastal bluffs and hillside areas at risk of landslides in Pacifica to enable cooperative efforts among property owners for protection of coastal bluffs from erosion and improve- ment and maintenance of drainage and protective infrastructure.

SA-I-15 New Development in Coastal Zone. Continue to enforce provisions of the Cali- fornia Coastal Act requiring new develop- ment within the Coastal Zone to:

SA-I-16 Accessory Structures in Coastal Zone. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require new accessory structures within the Coastal Zone to be constructed so they can be easily relocated should they become threatened by erosion.

SA-I-17 Floodplain Management. Continue to manage floodplains through zoning, devel- opment requirements, and ordinances, and take other actions necessary, in order to remain within the National Flood Insur- ance Program SA-I-18 Flood Map Review. Periodically review maps prepared by FEMA and the State Department of Water Resources to identify changes in mapping of areas subject to flooding and amend the General Plan, Municipal Code or Local Coastal Program as warranted
SA-I-19 NDPES Enforcement. Enforce NPDES permits, as well as the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, to mitigate potential flooding risks by slowing the release of stormwater from development sites into drainage chan- nels.

SA-I-20 Flood Hazard Reduction. Continue to comply with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Municipal Code.

SA-I-21 Flood Insurance. Inform households and businesses located in floodprone areas about opportunities to purchase federal flood insurance.

SA-I-22 Flood Control Maintenance. Regu- larly maintain flood control structures, including, but not limited to drainage channels, pipes, culverts, and stream beds.

SA-I-24 Storm Drainage Impact Assessment. Require developers to provide an assess- ment of a project’s potential impacts on the local storm drainage system as part of the development review process.

SA-I-25 No Adverse Impact Approach. Update the Flood Hazard Reduction regulations to establish a “No Adverse Impact” standard to floodplain and coastal development.

SA-I-26 Tsunami Evacuation Zone. For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone, require use of low impact engineer- ing techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures.

SA-I-27 Critical Facilities Location. Site criti- cal public facilities including hospital and healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and fire stations, and emergency communications facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone and 100-year flood plains.

SA-I-28 Vulnerability Identification and Mapping. The City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones shall be mapped based on the best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. Mapping shall be updated as necessary to guide implementation of the LCP’s Coastal Resilience policies. Not- withstanding the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps, site-specific hazard mapping and assessment may be required as part of the individual development review process for properties within the City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones.

SA-I-29 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. The City shall implement its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies. Adaptation alternatives evaluated in the Adaptation Plan that are not specifically expressed in these Coastal Resilience poli- cies shall not be implemented without an amendment to the LCP, public notice, and opportunity for public input. The City shall monitor implementation and, consis- tent with Coastal Resilience Policy SA-I- 31, update the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan to strengthen public safety, preserve existing neighborhoods, assure local eco- nomic vitality, respond to climate change, promote environmental justice, implement the Coastal Act, and protect the public trust.

SA-I-30 Monitoring Shoreline Change. The City shall implement a monitoring pro- gram for sea level rise, beach width, bluff offset, flooding and storm damage, and other potential measures or triggers for guiding implementation of the Coastal Resilience policies. The monitoring pro- gram shall include yearly (minimum) shoreline and bluff edge surveys and also establish thresholds for reassessing the City’s Adaptation Plan.

SA-I-31 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Update. The City shall reassess its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resil- ience policies every five years or sooner SA-I-32 Shoreline Mitigation Program. Within three years of certification of the LCP Land Use Plan update, the City shall adopt a Shoreline Mitigation Program to address the coastal resource impacts of existing and future shoreline protection projects in the City. Special emphasis shall be placed on maintaining beaches and public access to and along the shoreline. The program will update the public access inventory of the LCP as necessary, include a coastal resource inventory and identify priority improvements for maintaining and enhancing coastal shoreline resources, particularly public access and recreation. The program will include enforceable mea- sures to achieve proportional mitigation of resource impacts identified in shoreline protection projects, including consider- ation of beach widths, sediment manage- ment plan actions, and monitoring. The program will identify potential funding sources for implementation of identified improvements. The program will include provisions for monitoring implementation and program updates as necessary. Until the adoption of a Shoreline Mitigation Program, coastal resource impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with SA-I-86.

SA-I-33 Adaptation Funding. The City will pursue feasible grant funding sources or new funding mechanisms, such as the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHADs) as supported by SA-I- 14, or securing FEMA and other federal or state adaptation and hazard mitigation funds, to finance adaptation strategies for public infrastructure.

SA-I-34 Transfer of Development Rights. Use the City’s transfer of development rights (TDR) ordinance to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones (sending sites) to receiving sites outside SA-I-35 Critical Transportation Infrastruc- ture. The City will pursue opportunities to preserve, protect, or relocate critical local transportation infrastructure, or provide alternative access, to mitigate against iso- lation and economic loss, and to ensure public safety.

SA-I-36 Hazard Prone Infrastructure. The City will preserve, protect, or relocate haz- ard prone infrastructure to maintain criti- cal services.

Preservation/protection in situ with shoreline armoring shall be required to meet the requirements of Policies SA-I- 82 and SA-I-83.

SA-I-37 Business Outreach. The City’s Eco- nomic Development Division shall provide non-financial assistance to businesses in evaluating options to promote business resiliency.

SA-I-38 High Water Program. The City will research and evaluate feasible new funding mechanisms to implement a program to record high water marks where feasible fol- lowing high-water events.

SA-I-39 Flood Ordinance Consistency. The City will review and amend as necessary the flood damage prevention ordinance to assure consistency with the updated poli- cies and ordinances of the LCP.

SA-I-40 LHMP Alignment. The City will coordinate its departments and programs to align the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the LCP to ensure proac- tive, coordinated and streamlined adapta- tion efforts and response to future coastal hazards. The City shall leverage FEMA funding opportunities for hazard mitiga- tion and other related funding mechanisms to implement the Sea Level Rise Adapta- tion Plan as expressed in the general and sub-area Coastal Resilience policies.

SA-I-41 Regional Sediment Management. Participate in regional approaches to pro- tecting, enhancing and restoring coastal beaches and watersheds through the California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, with a goal of minimizing coastal erosion.

SA-I-42 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 foot SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff
SA-I-43 Beach Nourishment (2 feet SLR or 260-foot offset from bluff toe to infra- structure). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (see artificial headlands concept in the Adaptation Plan) as described in SA-I-48, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance require- ments and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.

SA-I-44 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to private landowners to voluntarily transfer develop- ment potential as supported by SA-I-61.

Allow private property owners to main- tain existing or construct new shoreline protection structures if allowed pursuant to Policies SA-I-82 and SAI-83, and if con- sistent with prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the Califor- nia Coastal Act, and require mitigationof beach, public access and recreation and other coastal resource impacts, consistent with SA-I-32 or SA-I-85, as necessary.

SA-I-46 Beach Nourishment (0-1 foot SLR or 220-foot offset from bluff toe to infra- structure or development). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept) as described in SA-I-81, to reduce shoreline protection structure maintenance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.

SA-I-47 Shoreline Protection Structures (0-1 feet SLR or 70-foot offset from bluff toe to development or infrastructure). Private landowners may maintain, expand, or con- struct new shoreline protection structures to protect existing structures in danger from erosion, consistent with SA-I-31 and any prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.

SA-I-48 Beach Nourishment (0-2 feet SLRor 70-foot offset from bluff toe to devel- opment or infrastructure). Evaluate the feasibility of using beach nourishment, in conjunction with sand retention structures (artificial headlands concept), to reduce shoreline protection structure mainte- nance requirements and maintain beaches of at least 100 feet in width on average. If feasible and approved through a coastal development permit, secure funding and implement as soon as possible. Repeat as necessary. Mitigate all adverse impacts and monitor effectiveness over time.

SA-I-49 Flood Protection (1 feet SLR). Enable property owners to modify development structures (e.g., elevate a residence) to man- age impacts of wave run-up and overtop- ping of bluff face.

SA-I-50 Sharp Park Golf Course. Strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s maintenance of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm and armoring, consis- tent with the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commis- sion, including adaptation planning for the course, and protecting public access. The City of Pacifica shall strongly support the City and County of San Francisco’s ongoing maintenance of the berm even if Coastal Commission termination of autho- rization is triggered by the conditions of approval, or require construction of flood protection improvements by the City and County of San Francisco.

Extend the Beach Boulevard seawall to the Sharp Park Golf Course berm if consis- tent with Policies SA-I-82 and SA-I-83.

SA-I-52 Structure Elevation (0-2 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct shoreline protection structures if consistent with Policies SA-I-82 and SA-I-83 to limit wave overtopping unless beach nourishment strategies are effective in reducing wave run-up on the backshore. Elevate develop- ment structures if consistent with Policy SA-I-87 as necessary to mitigate flood damage, consistent with height limitations. Elevations of wave run-up and associated development thresholds shall be deter- mined via a site-specific study.

SA-I-53 Beach Nourishment (0-1 feet SLR). Pursue beach nourishment and sand reten- tion structures to reduce shoreline protec- tion structure maintenance requirements and provide beach resources. Encourage the City and County of San Francisco to nourish the beach fronting the Sharp Park Golf Course berm to maintain beach widths.

SA-I-54 Flood Protection (0 foot SLR). Evaluate and construct appropriate flood protection measures, which may include a Clarendon Road stormwater basin, pump station, and/or interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee, to protect homes and busi- nesses from existing fluvial storm flood hazard zone.

SA-I-55 Flood Protection (3 feet SLR). Evalu- ate the future need to construct a West Fairway Park stormwater basin, pump sta- tion, and interior Sharp Park Golf Course levee to protect western homes from future coastal/fluvial flood hazard zone.

SA-I-56 Shoreline Protection Structure Shore- line Protection Structures (0 feet SLR). Maintain existing or construct new shore- line protection structures along the north cove for public safety and hazard reduc- tion if consistent with Policies SA-I-82 and SA-I-83.

SA-I-57 Shoreline Protection (2-3 feet SLR, or when backshore toe is 100 feet from Highway 1). Coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate the need for a revetment or other appropriate shoreline protection for the Highway 1 embankment.

SA-I-58 Public Access (0 feet SLR). Plan and provide for enhanced public access, consis- tent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (SA-I-32).

SA-I-59 Beach Nourishment/Public Access
SA-I-60 Development Setbacks (ongoing). Implement new development shoreline set- backs consistent with SA-I-71.

SA-I-61 Transfer of Development Rights (ongoing). Provide an option to the private landowners of the Rockaway Headlands to voluntarily transfer development potential as supported by SA-I-34.

SA-I-62 Shoreline Protection (2 ft SLR or 100 foot offset from shoreline to infrastruc- ture). Evaluate beach conditions and con- sider future shoreline protection to protect existing parking structures and the exist- ing Linda Mar stormwater and wastewater pump station structures as necessary.

SA-I-63 Highway One Protection. Coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate options for pro- tecting Highway 1, if necessary.

SA-I-64 Beach Nourishment (2 ft SLR or
SA-I-65 Flood Protection (0 feet SLR). Ana- lyze need for floodwall along commercial property to manage flooding fromSan Pedro Creek under existing condi- tions with sea level rise allowance. Future flood studies that include climate-driven changes in precipitation should inform any floodwall design.

Floodproof Anza pump station (stormwater) to mitigate existing coastal storm flooding vulnerabilities to wave run-up.

SA-I-66 Flood Protection (2 feet SLR or 100- foot offset from shoreline to infrastruc- ture). Floodproof the Linda Mar pump stations (sewer and stormwater) to mitigate future coastal storm flooding vulnerabili- ties to wave run-up as necessary.

SA-I-67 Groundwater Management (0-2 feet SLR). Begin groundwater monitoring to determine needs for dewatering wells in the lowest portions of the West Linda Mar neighborhood.

SA-I-68 Flood Protection (2 feet SLR or 100- foot offset from shoreline to infrastruc- ture). Floodproof the Linda Mar pump stations (sewer and stormwater) to mitigate future coastal storm flooding vulnerabili- ties to wave run-up as necessary.

SA-I-69 Groundwater Management (0-2 feet SLR). Begin groundwater monitoring to determine needs for dewatering wells in the lowest portions of the West Linda Mar neighborhood.

SA-I-70 Technical Reports. Development proposed on the shoreline shall include coastal engineering, geomorphology and other relevant technical reports unless on- site hazards already identified in a recent Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map or assess- ment approved within the last five years are adequate for evaluating and ensuring com- pliance with the LCP, including through use of permit conditions to address any uncertainty. Reports shall SA-I-71 Siting and Design. New develop- ment on vacant shoreline property shall be sited and designed to be safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from
SA-I-72 Assumption of Risk by Private Land- owners. Permit approvals of development on the shoreline shall require the applicant to record a deed restriction requiring the owner to assume liability and indemnify and hold the City harmless and make other acknowledgments relating to the risks of development on the property.

SA-I-73 MHTL and Avoidance of Public Trust Lands. Applications for low-lying development adjacent to coastal waters shall include a Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) survey of the development site prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor based on field data collected within 12 months of the application sub- mittal (may be based on City monitoring survey data if collected by a licensed professional land surveyor). The survey shall be conducted in consultation with and approved by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff. Devel- opment shall be sited to avoid public trust lands for the approved duration of the project, unless otherwise authorized by the California State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission.

The City shall conduct new MHTL surveys every ten years or within one year of a new tidal datum epoch (an epoch is a 19-year tidal cycle used to calculate datums), seismic event in the project area greater than 5.5 magnitude, or significant relative rise in annual local mean sea level records.

SA-I-74 Bluff Face Development. Shoreline protection structures, grading, and land- form alteration on bluff faces are prohibited, except for the following:

SA-I-75 Minor Development in Shoreline Areas. Minor and/or ancillary develop- ment, including public trails, benches, gazebos, patios, etc., may be located sea- ward of a bluff or shoreline setback line provided that development is otherwise consistent with the LCP, does not create a hazard, does not use a foundation that can serve as a bluff retaining device, such as caissons, or that requires landform altera- tion, and that the development is removed or relocated by the landowner when threat- ened or in the event that portions of the development fall to the bluffs, beach or ocean.

SA-I-76 Substantial Modifications to Exist- ing Structures. When a proposed physi- cal improvement to an existing structure would constitute a Substantial Exterior Structural Modification (SESM), as defined, the portion of the project consti- tuting a SESM shall be undertaken consis- tent with the LCP and, if applicable, the Coastal Act, including but not limited to Policies SA-I-70 and SA-I-71. Any portion of the existing structure that remains and which is determined to be legally noncon- forming with an LCP standard, including bluff setbacks or other hazard criteria, shall not be modified to increase the degree of nonconformity.

SA-I-77 Protection of Private Property in Hazardous Areas. Where full adherence with all LCP policies, including for setbacks and other Coastal Resilienceand Natural Hazard avoidance measures, would preclude a reasonable economic use of the property as a whole, the City may allow the minimum economic use and/or development of the property necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. There is no taking that needs to be avoided if the proposed development constitutes a nui- sance or is otherwise prohibited pursuant to other background principles of property law (e.g., public trust doctrine). If develop- ment is allowed pursuant to this policy, it must be consistent with all LCP policies to the maximum extent feasible.

SA-I-80 Subdivision Limitations. Update the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the division of shoreline property that creates hazard- ous or unbuildable parcels due to erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidanceat the time of approval of the proposed development. Only allow new lots to be created if they can be developed without ever requiring shoreline protection for the development.

SA-I-81 Soft Shoreline Protection. Encourage the use of soft or natural shoreline protec- tion methods, such as dune restoration and beach/sand nourishment as alternatives to hard shoreline protection structures, such as revetments or sea walls. Soft shoreline protection devices shall be fully evaluated for coastal resource impacts, and shall only be approved if found consistent with the LCP and Coastal Act policies related to shoreline protection. Consider combining beach replenishment with groin construc- tion to maintain beaches and protect devel- opment (see subarea policies).

The beach nourishment program will include measures to protect water quality and to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize and mitigate) potential adverse coastal resource impacts, including biological resource impacts, from deposition of material, including measures such as sand compatibility specifications, restrictions on volume of deposition, timing or seasonal restrictions, and identification of environ- mentally preferred locations for deposits. The City will also consider developing an opportunistic sand program and evaluate how replenishment options may need to change over time with sea level rise.

SA-I-83 Existing Shoreline Protection Struc- tures. Except as may be otherwise pro- vided in the LCP sub-area policies, legally permitted shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained, as sup- ported by Section 30235 of the Coastal Act, subject to all coastal development permit requirements (including those associated with the construction of the structure and/ or prior repair and maintenance episodes) until the development they are protecting is removed or no longer requires shore- line protection structures, at which time the shoreline protection structure shall be reevaluated for consistency with the LCP and removed if no longer necessary. Activities considered “repair and mainte- nance” shall not result in any enlargement or extension of the shoreline protection structure, or any seaward encroachmentor impairment of public trust resources, and shall provide mitigation for any new coastal resource impacts not previously or otherwise mitigated, including through the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (SA- I32) and/or Policy SA-I-85. Other modi- fications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modifi- cation shall be considered to be an existing shoreline protection structure. This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.

SA-I-84 New Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, deep piers and cais- sons, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted consistent Section 30235 of the Coastal Act and with the LCP’s sub- area policies only when required to serve coastaldependent uses or protect exist- ing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shore- line sand supply.

SA-I-85 Authorization Limits of Shoreline Protection Structures.

Shoreline protec- tion structures shall only be authorized until the time when the existing struc- ture protected by such shoreline protec- tion structure: 1) is/are no longer present, or 2) no longer require(s) armoring. This policy shall not be applied to justify the removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Exterior Structural Modification.

SA-I-86 Mitigating Impacts of New Shoreline Protection Structures. New or recon- structed shoreline protection structures shall be sited and designed to avoid sensi- tive resources to the maximum extent feasible. Adverse coastal resource impacts shall be avoided, and where unavoidable shall be minimized and fully mitigated, including impacts on sand supply, beach area, public access (vertical access to the shore and horizontal access along the shore and blufftop) and recreational use (surfing, fishing, hiking, etc.), public trust lands and values, ecological function, water quality, shoreline aesthetics, and cultural resources. At a minimum, new shoreline protection structures shall:

SA-I-87 Monitoring Plan for New Shoreline Protection Structures.

Proposals for new, redeveloped/augmented or repaired shoreline protection structures shall include a monitoring plan that evaluates the condi- tion of the shoreline protection structure, conditions at the site and surrounding area, and whether the shoreline protection structure is still needed for protection. The plan shall require an inspection at least every five years to identify:

SA-I-88 Flood Risk Reduction. The City should, when appropriate, evaluate and pursue, floodproofing of infrastructure and other development in danger from pro- jected flooding by 2050. Allow and facili- tate (if feasible) private owners to flood- proof development structures, consistent with other LCP policies.

SA-I-90 Regional Support. Continue to support the hazardous waste collection, management, and inspection efforts of San Mateo County, the State, and the Water Resources Control Board.

SA-I-91 Response Time. Support efforts by NCFA to meet its response time standards throughout the City.

SA-I-92 Adequate Peak Load Water Supply. Work with the North Coast County Water District to maintain adequate water supply for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst case wild- land fire scenario, to be determined by the NCFA.

SA-I-93 Water Storage Locations. In evaluat- ing sites for new water storage facilities, place a priority on locations least subject to impacts from seismic activity and landsliding.

SA-I-94 Development Review. Review devel- opment proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and access by emergency responders, and vegetation clearances that do not impact ESHAs or wetlands.

SA-I-95 Plan Review in Fire-Prone Areas. Continue to request the North County Fire Authority participation in plan review of new buildings in potentially fire-prone areas
SA-I-96 Fire Prevention Inspections. Continue to require a fire prevention inspection of every permitted business and multi-family development covered by the North County Fire Authority.

SA-I-97 Fire Prevention Education. Continue educating the public about local fire hazard prevention programs. Work cooperatively with the North County Fire Authority to promote public awareness of fire safety and emergency life support.

SA-I-98 Vegetation Management. Promote and support the North County Fire Author- ity’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards.

SA-I-99 Multi-jurisdictional approach. Partici- pate in State or regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework to manage the wildland-urban interface.

SA-I-100 Rockaway Quarry service. Ensure that any new development at the Rockaway Quarry site is adequately served by public infrastructure, including fire and police services.

SA-I-101 Emergency Operations Plan. Update and maintain the City’s Emergency Plan, which provides adequate response to disasters, including emergency ingress and egress, and defines the expected roles of City, County, and regional agencies.

SA-I-102 Emergency Response Coordination. Develop effective mechanisms for a coor- dinated response to natural and man-made emergencies by:

SA-I-103 Emergency Access on New Roadways. Ensure that new roadways are developed in accordance with standards the Munici- pal Code. In all new development, require adequate access to be provided for emer- gency vehicles, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

SA-I-104 Areas that Lack Emergency Access. Develop a plan to widen critical rights-of- way that do not provide adequate clear- ance for emergency vehicles. For areas that are not feasibly accessible to emergency vehicles, develop a contingency plan for reaching and evacuating people in need of treatment.

SA-I-105 Regulatory Monitoring. Continue to monitor changes in the Federal Disaster Act and applicable State laws, keep City officials and residents aware of the impacts of these changes, and update the City’s Emergency Plan as necessary.

SA-I-106 Public Preparedness. Initiate periodic pub- lic information programs that explain the City’s emergency preparedness programs, including the emergency communications system, evacuation routes, and shelter locations.

SA-I-107 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Continue to maintain and update a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an implementation action for the Safety Element.

SA-I-108 Emergency Water Capacity. Work with the Water District to ensure that it has a plan and infrastructure for providing ade- quate water service and storage during and immediately after an emergency, including a major seismic event.

SA-I-109 Utilities. Require companies providing pub- lic utilities in Pacifica to have plans for re- establishing service in the event of a major seismic event or other natural disaster.

SA-I-111 School Outreach. Continue to partner with schools and youth organizations to conduct outreach and develop conflict resolution, and form pro-active and cre- ative community partnerships to enhance public safety.

SA-I-112 Periodic Evaluation. Periodically, evaluate police and fire services to ensure that the City is providing adequate protection in an efficient, costeffective manner.

SA-I-113 Critical Facilities Location. Do not locate structures necessary for protection of the public’s health and safety, public assembly, or emergency services in hazardous areas unless no reasonable alternative exists.

SA-I-114 Critical Facilities Operability. Take steps to ensure critical use facilities that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational dur- ing an emergency.

SA-I-115 Code Updates. Update City codes and ordinances dealing with public safety to comply with State law and reflect the lat- est information on hazards and mitigation strategie
NO Noise
NO-G-1 Coordination with Other Agencies. Continue to work with other agencies, airports and jurisdictions to reduce noise levels in Pacifica created by their operations.

NO-G-2 Acceptable Noise Environment. Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the environmental, health and safety needs of present and future residents of Pacifica.

NO-G-3 Sensitive Land Uses. Protect noise sensi- tive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise.

NO-I-1 Community Noise Level Standards. Use the Community Noise Level Exposure Standards, shown in Table 9-1, as review criteria for new land uses. Require all new development that would be exposed to noise greater than the “normally accept- able” noise level range to reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures.

NO-I-3 Best Available Control Technology. Require new, fixed noise sources (e.g. mechanical equipment) to use best avail- able control technology (BACT) to mini- mize noise and vibration.

NO-I-4 Mechanical Equipment for New Residen- tial Development.

NO-I-5 Noise Criteria for City Equipment. Develop noise criteria for new equipment purchased by the City.

NO-I-6 Construction Noise. Continue to limit hours for certain construction and demoli ion work to reduce construction-related noises.

NO-I-7 Noise from Highways and Buses. Work with Caltrans and Sam Trans to mitigate transportation-related noise impacts on residential areas and sensitive uses. This may include encouraging installation of sound barriers or bus stop relocation in selected locations.

NO-I-8 Airport Noise Disclosure Requirements. Update the Municipal Code to ensure that special disclosure requirements concern- ing airport noise refer to the most current CNEL noise contours developed for San Francisco International Airport.

NO-I-9 Airport Noise Abatement Program. Con- tinue to work with the airport in improv- ing and implementing its noise abatement program.

NO-I-10 Residential Sound Insulation Program. If the airport’s federallyapproved 65 dB CNEL annual noise contour is mapped within the City, request that the San Fran- cisco Airport’s Residential Sound Insula- tion Program allocate available federal and airport funding to sensitive, noiseaffected properties in Pacifica.

NO-I-11 Noise Ordinance. Update the noise ordi- nance to implement General Plan policies and noise standards.

NO-I-12 Noise Enforcement. Ensure staff respon- sible for noise control and enforcement are trained and equipped to enforce the City’s noise regulations.

Key: "a" = OK; "NF" = Not Found (text of Policy was not in DEIR) EIR page(s) where errors occur Notes
E-123
E-124
E-127
E-128
a
NF
a
a
NF

3.3-35
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
a
a
a
E-75, 3.9-19
E-75, 3.9-19
E-75
a
a
a
a
E-12, 3.1-21

3.1-21

3.1-22

3.1-22
a
a

3.1-23
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
E-80, 3.9-23
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
NF
NF
a
NF
NF
E-15
NF
E-17
NF

3.1-23
NF
a
NF
E-68, 3.1-27, 3.7-57
E-14
E-20, 3.1-33

3.1-33
E-35
NF
a

3.9-19
NF
NF
NF

3.9-21
a
a

3.1-27

3.1-28
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
E-78
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
a
a
a
NF
E-21
NF
E-21
NF
a
a
a
a
NF

3.1-24
E-18, 3.1-31
NF
a
a
a
a
a
NF
NF
NF
NF
a
a
a
a
a
a
E-23, 3-33
E-24,3-34, 3.4-55

3.12-37, Wildfire pg. 9, 10 (3.14-9)

3.12-37, Wildfire pg. 9 (3.14-9)
NF
NF

3.4-39
NF
E-33, E-35, E-106, 3.3-43, 3.12-37, 3.14-
10 (Pg. 10)
3-34, 3.4-39
3-34, 3.4-40
E-136, 3-34

3.14-10 (Wildfire 10)
NF
3-34
NF
3-45
3-45
3-45
3-46, 3.12-38, 3.14-10

3.4-39
3-35, 3.4-39
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
One number off for all these
NF
NF
NF
NF

3.4-42

3.4-42
NF
NF

3.4-42

3.4-42
NF
NF
NF
a
a
a
a
a
E-107, 3.12-38
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
NF
E-108, 3.12-39 (6.3 acres)
a
a
a
a
a
NF
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
NF
E-111
a
E-111, 3.12-41
NF
NF
a
a
a
a
NF
a
NF
a
a
a
a
E-113, 3.12-42
a
a
a
E-15, E-114, 3.1-24
E-15, 3.1-24
a
a
a
NF
NF
NF
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
E-117, 3.12-44
E-117, 3.12-44
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
E-117, 3.12-44 All off by 1 or 2
a
a
E-39, 3.5-23
E-52, 3.5-43
E-36, 3.3-35, 3.3-44, 3.4-54
a
a
a
E-81, 3.9-24
E-70, 3.7-62
a

3.3-24 All off by 1

3.3-32 All off by 1

3.4-44, 3.4-49 All off by 1
E-81, E-132, many… All off by 1
E-36, many… All off by 1

3.8-15 All off by 1
NF
E-65
NF
E-69, E-125, 3.12-53
NF

3.1-28, 3.4-46
a

3.1-28
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
E-52, many…
E-52, many… This text is labeled CO-I-22
E-52, many… This text is labeled CO-I-23
E-52, many…
Labeled correctly on E-44, incorrectly on E-52 and
others
E-132, 3.13-20
E-133, 3.13-20

3.6-39, 3.13-20
Numbering way off--many errors Sequence from here to CO-I-48 all off Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
a
a
a
E-131, 3.12-59
E-141, 3.14-15

3.14-15

3.14-15
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
Numbering way off--many errors
These listed in DEIR, not in GP
NF
a
a
E-48, 3.5-39
a
a
a
a

3.5-39
NF
a
NF
a
NF
NF
NF

3.14-20
a
NF
a
a
a
a
a
NF
a
NF

3.5-35
a

3.1-29
a
NF
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
NF
a
NF
NF
NF
NF
a
a
a
a
a
a
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF aa
NF aa
NF
NF
NF
NF

3.5-40
a
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF a
NF aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
a
E-56, 3.6-29
E-56, 3.6-29
NF
a
a
E-56, 3.6-29
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
E-91, 3.10-23
Errors Only, Sorted by Policy Number
Policy
CD-G-4 Enhanced Mixed Use Areas. Create distinctive mixed-use areas by ensuring good building form and building-sidewalk interface, and providing pedestrian-ori- ented streets and public spaces.