Pacifica City Council
June 25, 2022

PLANNING
Competitive Evaluation System Determination
Competitive $29.00
Non-Competitive $29.00
Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Full Packet $130.00
Planning Commission Agenda
Picked-up or stamped envelopes provided $22.00
Mailed by the City $7.00
Planning Commission Minutes
Picked-up or stamped envelopes provided $197.00
Mailed by the City $29.00
Planning Commission Agenda or Minutes
Email $115.00
General
Planning and Planning Related Documents Actual Cost of
Reproduction
Code Books or Other Technical Manuals Publisher's Cost + 10% Handling Fee
General Research Fee $180, plus actual
material cost
A-5
Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
City Attorney's Review of Projects and Permits Hourly cost of Contract Attorney
Processing of all development applications; hourly cost plus materials $180.00 Study Sessions. Commercial projects or the commercial portion of a mixed-use project that received final building inspection approval shall be entitled to a refund. If the projects is 50% commercial, they should get a 50% refund for the study session; hourly cost plus materials.
$180.00
Business License Request for zoning consistency and Building and Fire Dept Inspection $180.00 Home Occupation Permits $180.00
Minor Modifications and Other Administrative Permits; hourly cost plus actual material cost.
$180.00

PUBLIC WORKS
Encroachment permits and inspection; hourly charge rate basis $180.00 Sidewalk repair and street openings by private contractor; hourly charge rate basis $180.00 Publication vending machine permit $413.00
City Maps Per Page Fee
Black $4/square foot
Color $5/square foot
Photocopies Per Page Fee
8 1/2" x 11"; $0.25/black; $1.00/color Per Page Fee
8 1/2" x 14"; $0.50/black; $1.50/color Per Page Fee
11" x 17"; $1/black; $2/color Per Page Fee
24" x 36" or larger; $20/black; $25/color Per Page Fee
Engineering Standard Drawing
Picked up Per Page Fee
Mailed (Regular mail -Series 100) Per Page Fee
Mailed (Regular mail -Series 200) Per Page Fee
Mailed (Regular mail -Series 300) Per Page Fee
Beach Parking
Annual Permit $65.00
Day Pass $8.00
Four Hour Pass $4.00
General
Heritage tree removal, destruction, or substantially trim $271.00 General Engineering Development Application Reviews; hourly charge $180.00 A-6
Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Final Subdivision Map Checking. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum. All costs for contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost and may require additional deposit.
$1800 initial deposit
$180/hour
Certificate of Compliance, notices of violation, property mergers, parcel map waivers, minor boundary line adjustments, reversions to acreage, and parcel map checking $2,250 initial deposit $180/hour
Street/curb openings by utilities; hourly charge $180.00 per hour Right of Way/Street Vacations. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum. All costs for contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost and may require additional deposit.
$1,800 initial deposit
$180/hour
Street Excavation Handbook $30.00
Block Party / Barricade Rental $118.00
Barricade Rental $7/pair;
$50 refundable deposit
per 10 barricades
Surface Mining and Reclamation Annual Inspection Fee; hourly charge $300.00 and $180.00 Violation (found during inspection) $412.00

BUILDING
Building Standards Administrative Fee $1 per $25000
Education Fee $2 per permit
General Plan

0.005% of construction
value
Archive Fee $15
Plan Check fee 65% of Permit Fee
SMIP ( C ) 0.00028 of valuation
SMIP (R ) 0.00013 of valuation
Building Permit Fee (Based on Dollar Valuation)
$0-500 TBD
First $500 $51.50
$501-$2000
First $500 $51.50
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof $3.61
$2001-$25000
First $2000 $105.58
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $15.45
$25001-$50000
A-7
Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
First $25000 $460.93
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $14.42
$50001-$100000
First $50000 $821.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $8.24
$100001-$500000
First $100000 $1,233.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $7.21
$500001-$1,000,000
First $500000 $4,117.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $6.18
$1,000,001 and above
First $1,000,000 $6,692.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $5.15
(N) Residential Bldg; cost per square foot $0.10
Electrical Services (<=200 AMP); cost for each $40.30
Electrical Services (<200 to 1000 AMP); cost for each $81.10 Electrical Services (<1000 AMP); cost for each $164.20
Residential Appliances; cost for each $6.30
(N) Multi-Family Bldg; cost per square foot $0.10
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees; cost for each $32.60 Misc Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors; cost for each $24.10 Light Fixtures (First 20 fixtures); cost for each $1.45 Light Fixtures (Addititional fixtures); cost for each $1.00 Power Apparatus (Up to and including 1) $6.30
Power Apparatus (Over 1 and not over 10) $16.30
Power Apparatus (Over 10 and not over 50) $32.60
Power Apparatus (Over 50 and not over 100) $65.60
Power Apparatus (Over 100) $98.40
Receptacles, Switch & Light Outlets (First 20 fixtures); cost for each $1.45 Receptacles, Switch & Light Outlets (Addititional fixtures) $1.00 Electrical Permit Issuance; cost for each $32.00
Electrical Permit Issuance (Special Cases) $11.30
Mechanical
Furnace (<=100k BTU) $22.00
Furnace (>100k to 500k BTU) $26.90
Appliance Vents $10.70
A-8
Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=3hp or 100k BTU) $20.80 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=15hp or 500k BTU) $38.40 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=30hp or 1000k BTU) $52.70 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=50hp or 1750k BTU) $77.50 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (>=50hp or 17500k BTU) $77.50 Hood $16.80
Air Handlers (<=10k CFM) $16.80
Air Handlers (>10k CFM) $26.80
Evaporative Cooler $16.80
Vent Fan (Single Duct) $11.20
Vent System $16.80
Incinerators (Residential) $16.80
Incinerators (Comm) $16.80
Miscelaneous Mechanical $16.80
Mechanical Permit Issuance $32.00
Mechanical Permit Issuance (Special Cases) $11.40
Plumbing
Fixtures & Vents; $10.40
Fixtures & Vents (Repair/Alteration) $10.40
Cesspool $14.50
Sewage Disposal System $56.65
Grease Interceptors $9.90
Rainwater systems $14.50
Water Piping $14.50
Water heater $14.50
Public Spa $86.00
Gas Piping $7.40
Public Pool $129.30
Private Pool $86.00
Private Spa $86.00
Sewer $22.10
Backflow $14.50
Backflow device over 2" $14.50
Miscellaneous Plumbing $14.50
Plumbing Permit Issuance; cost for issuing each permit. $32.00 Plumbing Permit Issuance (Special Cases). For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been cancelled or finalized. $11.30
Miscellaneous
Inspection. Hourly with a minimum 30 minutes. $114.30
Permits. Hourly with a minimum 30 minutes. $118.50
A-9
Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
ANIMAL CONTROL Fees shall be consistent
with those charged by
the San Mateo County
Division of Animal
Control Services. For a
list of those fees,
contact the County of
San Mateo at (650) 363-
4220.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - SEWAGE CONNECTION FEES
The sewage connection fee is based on a number of project specific factors; Please call the Wastewater Dept. (650) for your exact charge.

The average sewage connection fee for a new Single Family Residence is approximately:
$3,200
The average sewage connection fee for a new Mixed-use Commercial Building is approximately:
$15,000.00
Inspection and Review Charges $150/hour
A-10
October 11, 2021
Sylvia Targ, Coastal Planner
North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
455 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subj: Response to Filing Letter for City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Certification Draft (File No. LCP-2-PAC-20-0036-1)
Dear Ms. Targ:

The City of Pacifica (“City”) is in receipt of California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) filing letters dated June 26, 2020 (“Filing Letter No. 1”) and January 12, 2021 (“Filing Letter No. 2”) in relation to the City’s comprehensive Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”) update submitted to CCC on June 12, 2020 (CCC File No. LCP‐2‐PAC‐20‐0036‐1). Filing Letter No. 2 established a deadline of July 12, 2021, for the City to respond to Filing Letter No. 2. The City appreciates the extension that you approved on June 3, 2021, to extend the deadline to October 11, 2021, in light of the CCC’s delays in responding to the City’s request for public records.

Please accept this cover letter and attachment as the City’s response to Filing Letter No. 2. The City’s response, outlined in greater detail in Attachment 1, is intended to meet the CCC’s requirements to deem the proposed amendment submitted (i.e., filed) and to enable the CCC to subsequently schedule the amendment for a Commission hearing.

Thank you in advance for your review and assistance with the City’s filing. Please contact me via email at [email protected] should you have any questions about this submission.

Regards,
Christian W. Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
Attachments

1. LCLUP Certification Draft Third City Submittal

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-2506
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer

MAYOR PRO TEM
Mary Bier

COUNCIL
Mike O’Neill
Sue Vaterlaus
Scenic Pacifica Tygarjas Bigstyck
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Planning Director
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”) Certification Draft Response to Filing Letter No. 2, dated January 12, 2021 “Third City Submittal”
City of Pacifica October 11, 2021
PDF Page
Number

1. City Responses to Filing Letter No. 2 .............................................................................. 5

2. Areas of Change – 1980 LCLUP Designations (Appendix A) ......................................... 13

I. CITY RESPONSES TO FILING LETTER NO. 2

INTRODUCTION
The following sections have been prepared in response to the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) filing letter, dated January 12, 2021 (“Filing Letter No. 2”), sent to the City of Pacifica (“City”) in response to its transmittal of the Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”) amendment and the City’s response to the CCC filing letter dated June 26, 2020 (“Filing Letter No. 1”). The CCC has assigned File No. LCP-2-PAC-20-0036-1 to the City’s application. Other coordination documents referenced in the responses below include the “First City Submittal,” which refers to the City’s first submittal of the LCLUP amendment to the CCC on June 12, 2020 and the “Second City Submittal” refers to the City’s response to Filing Letter No. 1, submitted on December 23, 2020. The sections below have been organized to match those contained in the Filing Letter No. 2 unless otherwise noted. The City’s responses are organized to respond to the required content of a local coastal program (“LCP”) submittal to the CCC described in 14 CCR § 13552.

The City’s point-of-contact for any questions related to this document is Deputy Planning Director Christian Murdock ([email protected]).

SECTION 1
The CCC’s comments in this section request a full description of the LCLUP amendment, including • key policy changes between the currently certified LUP and the proposed LCLUP update; • the City’s reasoning behind the proposed policy changes; and • how the proposed policy changes are consistent with the Coastal Act.

The CCC’s comment further notes that “the full proposed LCLUP, which the resubmittal references in response to this request, does not satisfy this requirement.” The comment references a cover letter and policy comparison provided by the City of Half Moon Bay (“HMB”) as an example.

General City Response: As first noted in the Second City Submittal on December 23, 2020, the City maintains that the requested information in this section exceeds the requirements of 14 CCR § 13552 for the contents of an LCP amendment submittal, and in some cases cannot feasibly be provided by the City. The requirements for submission of an LCP amendment are those contained in 14 CCR § 13552 and the City’s LCLUP amendment should be accepted for filing after the City provides the information required therein.

Response to CCC’s full description and key policy changes requests: As stated in the Second City Submittal, the City is unclear as to the adopted regulation requiring the “full description of the amendment” and additional components requested by the CCC in Section 1 of the CCC’s Second Filing Letter such as a “description of key policy changes between the currently certified LUP and the proposed LCLUP update.” There is no requirement in 14 CCR § 13552 for an LCP amendment submittal to contain a full description of the amendment, including description of the key policy changes between the currently certified LUP and the proposed LCLUP update. Rather, it requires that the City to provide “all policies, plans, standards, objectives, diagrams, drawings, maps, photographs, and supplementary data,

related to the amendment in sufficient detail to allow review for conformity with the requirements of the Coastal Act and, for implementation plans, the certified land use plan.” 14 CCR § 13552, Subsection (b).

The CCC has not cited to any relevant authority to justify its request in this Section 1. The City remains unclear what other description of the LCLUP amendment must be provided other than the amendment itself as required by Subsection (b) of 14 CCR § 13552. The provisions of 14 CCR § 13553 require that “an amendment to a certified LCP … together with all necessary attachments and exhibits shall be deemed ‘submitted’ after having been received and found by the executive director of the Commission to be in proper order and legally adequate to comply with Public Resources Code Section 30510(b).” Public Resources Code Section 30510(b) provides that a proposed LCP amendment must contain, “in accordance with guidelines established by the commission, materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review.” The guidelines established by the CCC for the submission of LCP amendments are those contained in 14 CCR § 13552.

The City has provided a consolidated document that contains the entirety of the comprehensive LCLUP amendment that is intended to replace the existing certified LCLUP in its entirety (this information may be found in Section 2 of Attachment 1 of the First City Submittal (PDF p. 17 through 239). That information, combined with this Third City Submittal and the information in the First City Submittal and Second City Submittal, provides materials “sufficient for a thorough and complete review” as required by Public Resources Code Section 30510(b). Therefore, the City maintains that it has provided information sufficient to satisfy the requirements in Subsection (b) of 14 CCR § 13552 and respectfully requests that the CCC remove this request as a basis to withhold acceptance of the City’s LCLUP amendment application as being submitted in accordance with 14 CCR § 13553.

Response to CCC’s reasoning behind the proposed policy changes request: As stated in the Second City Submittal, the City is unclear as to the adopted regulation requiring “the City’s reasoning behind the proposed policy changes.” The CCC did not cite to any relevant authority in the Second Filing Letter.

The requirements for submittal of an LCP amendment are those contained in 14 CCR § 13552. There is no requirement in 14 CCR § 13552 to describe the reasoning for any provision contained in an LCP amendment submittal. Moreover, as described in the Second City Submittal (Attachment 1, PDF p. 6), it is infeasible for City staff to ascertain the intent of the Local Decision Makers after-the-fact considering the complexity and interrelatedness of the proposed LCLUP amendment, and the varying individual reasons each decision maker would have had when making their individual decisions to support the LCLUP amendment.

Instead of citing relevant authority to justify its request in this Section 1, the CCC staff referenced the policy comparison table and cover letter prepared by HMB and submitted to the CCC with its recent comprehensive LCLUP amendment as an example. City staff reviewed HMB’s policy comparison table and cover letter and found that neither provides HMB’s reasoning behind the proposed policy changes.

The provisions of 14 CCR § 13553 require that “an amendment to a certified LCP … together with all necessary attachments and exhibits shall be deemed ‘submitted’ after having been received and found by the executive director of the Commission to be in proper order and legally adequate to comply with Public Resources Code Section 30510(b).” Public Resources Code Section 30510(b) provides that a proposed LCP amendment must contain “in accordance with guidelines established by the commission, materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review.” The guidelines established by the CCC for the submission of LCP amendments are those contained in 14 CCR § 13552.

The CCC has not cited to any guidelines established by the CCC that require an LCP amendment submittal to contain the “reasoning behind the proposed policy changes.” Moreover, the reference material from HMB provided by the CCC does not include the information requested from the City, and suggests inconsistent application of filing requirements to different jurisdictions. Therefore, the City maintains that it has provided information sufficient to satisfy the requirements in Subsection (b) of 14 CCR § 13552 and respectfully requests that the CCC remove this request as a basis to withhold acceptance of the City’s LCLUP amendment application as being submitted in accordance with 14 CCR § 13553.

Response to consistency with the Coastal Act request: As stated in the Second City Submittal, the City understands the information requested in this item to be consistent with the requirements of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 which provides that the LCP amendment submittal shall include “[a]n analysis that meets the requirements of Section 13511 or an approved alternative pursuant to Section 13514 and that demonstrates conformity with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act.” The City reads these as two separate requirements: first, an analysis that meets the requirements of Section 13511 (or an approved alternative) (“first requirement”); and, second, an analysis that demonstrates conformity with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act (“second requirement”). The City provided the following analysis in response to this comment and the second requirement of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 in the Second City Submittal (Attachment 1, PDF p. 6-7).

The CCC did not provide any feedback as to why or how the City’s analysis addressing the second requirement of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 in the Second City Submittal is inadequate or what additional information is necessary to complete the analysis. Rather, CCC staff referenced the policy comparison table and cover letter prepared by HMB and submitted to the CCC with its recent comprehensive LCLUP amendment as an example. City staff reviewed the policy comparison table prepared by HMB and found the table lists the origin of each “Final Draft Policy Language” provision but does not analyze the proposed policies for Coastal Act consistency. The cover letter also does not provide an analysis of Coastal Act consistency.

City staff also submitted a Public Records Act request to the CCC for comprehensive LCLUP submittals received within the last five years to better understand what other jurisdictions have provided in response to this requirement. Records provided by the CCC appeared to be incomplete but included some correspondence with the City of Pacific Grove, City of San Clemente, and City of Santa Barbara.

However, City staff’s review found no applicable examples in the documents provided by the CCC.

Neither the HMB materials referenced by CCC staff nor the records provided by CCC staff in response to the City’s Public Records Act request provided examples of a Coastal Act consistency analysis required by Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552. The apparent absence of such an analysis submitted by other jurisdictions suggests an inconsistent application of filing requirements to different jurisdictions.

Unless further guidance is provided by CCC staff describing what is necessary to complete this analysis addressing the second requirement of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552, or an applicable example from another jurisdictions is provided, the City insists it has fulfilled the requirement and respectfully requests that the CCC remove this request as a basis to withhold acceptance of the City’s LCLUP amendment application as being submitted in accordance with 14 CCR § 13553.

SECTION 2
The CCC’s comments in this section request a map “showing both existing and proposed land use designations to demonstrate which areas are proposed to change,” and acknowledges the City has previously provided maps showing proposed land use designations.

City Response: The requirements for submission of an LCP amendment are those contained in 14 CCR § 13552. The City has previously provided maps of proposed land use designations “related to the amendment in sufficient detail to allow review for conformity with the requirements of the Coastal Act” as required by Subsection (b) of 14 CCR § 13552. Therefore, the City maintains it has provided information sufficient to satisfy the requirements in Subsection (b) of 14 CCR § 13552 and respectfully requests that the CCC remove this request as a basis to withhold acceptance of the City’s LCLUP amendment application as being submitted in accordance with 14 CCR § 13553.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City had in its files a map meeting the informational requirements requested by the CCC and has provided this map for CCC reference (see Appendix A to this Third City Submittal).

SECTION 3
The CCC’s comments in this section request “an analysis that meets the requirements of Section 13511 or an approved alternative pursuant to Section 13514 and that demonstrates conformity with Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act, including an analysis of the potential significant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal resources and on public access to or along the coast, due to existing and potentially allowable development proposed in the LCLUP update.” It further states that the Second City Submittal “references entire LCLUP chapters, which does not satisfy this requirement,” and refers City staff to an example letter provided by HMB as part of that jurisdiction’s recent LCP amendment submittal.

City Response: As stated in the Second City Submittal, the City understands the information requested in this item to be mostly consistent with the requirements of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 which provide that the LCP amendment submittal shall include “an analysis that meets the requirements of Section 13511 or an approved alternative pursuant to Section 13514 and that demonstrates conformity with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act.” However, Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 does not include the additional language inserted by CCC staff in this comment: “including an analysis of the potential significant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal resources and on public access to or along the coast, due to existing and potentially allowable development proposed in the LCLUP update.” This language is found elsewhere, as described below.

Additionally, as described in the City’s response in Section 1 of this letter, the City reads the requirements of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 as two separate requirements; the first requirement being an analysis that meets the requirements of Section 13511 (or an approved alternative) and the second requirement being an analysis that demonstrates conformity with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act. The City previously confirmed compliance with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act (see Second City Submittal, Section 3, PDF p. 5-6), thus fulling the second requirement of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552. Accordingly, the City respectfully requests that the CCC remove this request as a basis to withhold acceptance of the City’s LCLUP amendment application as being submitted in accordance with 14 CCR § 13553. The remainder of this response addresses the first

requirement of Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552: an analysis that meets the requirements of Section 13511 (or an approved alternative pursuant to Section 13514).

Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 directly references 14 CCR § 13511. A review of 14 CCR § 13511 finds that the analysis is required to be a part of the LCP itself (“the local government … shall include the following in the scope of the LCP…”). Thus, a Section 13511 analysis is not a standalone analysis as suggested by CCC staff in this comment. Furthermore, there is only one reference to cumulative impacts that is applicable to LCPs in 14 CCR § 13511. Subsection (a) of 14 CCR § 13511 provides that, as part of its consideration of policies contained in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 concerning specific coastal resources, hazard areas, coastal access concerns, and use priorities among others, the LCP “shall include an analysis of the potential significant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal resources and on public access to or along the coast, due to existing and potentially allowable development proposed in the LCP…”
The comments from CCC staff do not provide specific feedback on the City’s response or the provisions contained in the LCP amendment submittal. Rather, the CCC staff comment states generally that references to entire LCLUP chapters does not satisfy this requirement, and refers the City to a letter prepared by HMB and submitted to the CCC with its recent comprehensive LCLUP amendment. City staff is confused by this comment because 14 CCR § 13511 expressly requires this information to be contained within the scope of the LCP. Not only is the example letter from HMB not a part of the LCP, but it does not appear to contain any specific analysis in accordance with 14 CCR § 13511, and rather summarizes a variety of proposed policies in HMB’s LCLUP amendment.

City staff again refers CCC staff to the First City Submittal. Chapter 4, Environment and Resource Protection of the LCP Amendment (First City Submittal, Attachment 1, Section 2, PDF p. 114 through 148) analyzes environmental resources in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica and includes measures to protect them from the impacts of development. City staff also directs CCC staff again to Chapter 3, Public Access and Recreation (ibid., PDF p. 70 through 113), which analyzes existing and recommended public access to meet the needs of residents and visitors of the Coastal Zone in Pacifica, and includes policies to protect and enhance public access to and along the coast from impacts associated with development.

Other provisions within the submitted LCLUP amendment also contain information and analysis to satisfy the requirements of a Section 15311 analysis. The comprehensive LCLUP amendment submitted by the City includes numerous strategies to concentrate development in areas of existing development with public service availability which will also protect coastal resources, maximize public access, and achieve other goals of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specific strategies include but are not limited to the following:
• The LCLUP amendment reinforces the clear distinctions between areas of preserved open space (nearly 50 percent of the Planning Area) and established neighborhoods. The City’s strategies to concentrate development in areas of existing development with public service availability include:
o Increasing Density in West Sharp Park: West Sharp Park is an area of existing development with public service availability. This established coastal neighborhood provides various benefits to the City and visitors to the coast, including naturally affordable housing, various types of coastal access, visitor-serving commercial, and lowcost recreation. Additionally, this neighborhood has more direct access to public

transportation, major circulation routes, and commercial and recreational areas than many other areas of the City.

In Chapter 2, Land Use and Development (First City Submittal, Attachment 1, Section 2, PDF p. 34 through 69) of the LCLUP amendment, areas of West Sharp Park currently designated for Commercial and Mixed Use land uses would be re-designated to Mixed Use Neighborhood (“MUN”), which increases the potential for concentrated residential development in two ways: 1) it increases the land use residential density currently allowed under Commercial (maximum of 22 units per acre with no minimum density) and Mixed use (16 to 21 units per acre) to a greater density range under MUN (16 to 26 units per acre); and 2) MUN provides flexibility for development of the residential units as it accommodates residential as either a vertical or horizontal mixed use. The flexibility for the form of mixed-use development, as opposed to the strict requirement that it be located within the same building as a commercial use in the 1980 LCLUP, will enable improved protection of coastal resources including but not limited to coastal neighborhood character.

Additionally, the City’s old wastewater facility site (2212 Beach Blvd.), which is a large lot located in West Sharp Park, is currently designated for Public and Semi Public (no residential) and Medium Density Residential (10 to 15 units per acre). Under the LCLUP amendment, the site would be re-designated to Mixed Use Center (“MUC”; 30 to 50 units per acre), which further increases the opportunities for concentrated development in West Sharp Park and encourages visitor-serving commercial. MUC also provides flexibility for development of the residential units as it accommodates residential as either a vertical or horizontal mixed use, as discussed above for the MUN land use designation.
o Transfer of Development Rights: The transfer of development rights program (Policy NH-I-2) in Chapter 5, Natural Hazards (ibid., PDF p. 150 through 172) provides a means to remove development rights from parcels subject to coastal hazards by transferring those development rights in the form of increased density for new residential and mixed use development to other areas more appropriate for development. • The LCLUP amendment includes policies for the protection of water quality; protection of sensitive habitat on land; protection of natural shorelines; maintenance of land and water for resource-based uses including fishing and farming; protection of cultural resources; and protection of scenic and visual resources. The City’s strategies to protect coastal resources include:
o Updated mapping and policies: Updated maps in Chapter 4, Environmental and Scenic Resources (ibid., PDF p. 114 through 148) would support protection of environmentally sensitive habitat area (“ESHA”), visual resource areas, and public access and recreations areas, as well as avoidance of environmental hazard areas. o ESHA: Other Chapter 4, Environmental and Scenic Resources policies such as the verification of ESHA policy (Policy ER-I-23) would require that a habitat survey be conducted by a qualified botanist or biologist. Additionally, management of ESHA policy (ER-I-24) would require appropriate buffers around ESHA.

• The LCLUP amendment discusses and provides policies to preserve, protect and improve various coastal access types, including beach, bluff top, and view access. The City’s strategies to maximize public access include:
o Vehicle access points: Policy ER-I-58 in Chapter 4, Environmental and Scenic Resources would require maintenance and improvement of existing scenic turnouts, public parking areas, access to regional parks, beaches and other recreation areas. o Management of Public Coastal Access: Policy ER-I-37 in Chapter 4, Environmental and Scenic Resources would provide criteria to ensure regular public access should be made on a site-specific basis and encourage innovative access management techniques, include but are not limited to, agreements with private organizations that would minimize management costs and the use of volunteer programs. o Shoreline Mitigation Program: Policy CR-I-5 in Chapter 6, Coastal Resilience (ibid., PDF p. 174 through 203) would require the City to adopt a Shoreline Mitigation Program to address the coastal resource impacts of existing and future shoreline protection projects in the City. 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 • Other strategies to meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in Pacifica’s LCLUP amendment, include:
o Buildout and public works capacity review: In Chapter 2, Land Use and Development (ibid., PDF p. 34 through 69), the LCLUP amendment includes an analysis of potential buildout at the 2040 planning horizon. The LCLUP amendment also reviews existing infrastructure capacity and anticipated infrastructure demands for the 2040 planning horizon. This review identifies that potential growth under the LCLUP amendment would likely be supported by existing water and sewer infrastructure through the 2040 planning horizon. The LCLUP amendment identifies Highway 1 as the most critical vehicle congestion occurring in Pacifica’s Coastal Zone, where certain intersections and roadway segments currently operate at LOS E or F during peak periods. The City’s policy is to limit further deterioration of traffic conditions by evaluating the significance of impacts of new development on highway congestion, and requiring mitigation to maintain, if possible, LOS D for City streets.
o Environmental Justice: In Chapter 3, Public Access and Recreation (ibid., PDF p. 70 through 113), the LCLUP amendment includes Policy PR-I-28 to ensure that Pacifica’s LCP actions implement processes and procedures that promote environmental justice in support of the CCC’s environmental justice policy. Other related policies in the LCLUP amendment include requirements for providing lower cost overnight accommodations, tribal consultation, and low-cost public access and recreation opportunities.

Until CCC staff provides further guidance about what is necessary to complete the analysis required by Subsection (d) of 14 CCR § 13552 (i.e., Section 13511 Analysis), the City respectfully requests that the CCC remove this request as a basis to withhold acceptance of the City’s LCLUP amendment application as being submitted in accordance with 14 CCR § 13553.

SECTION 4
The CCC’s comments in this section request a discussion of the LCLUP amendment’s relationship to and effect on the City’s certified implementation plan (IP), including details of any inconsistencies or gaps that exist between the LCLUP amendment and the currently certified IP that will need to be addressed in a subsequent update to the IP.

The CCC’s comment letter also requests how the City will respond in situations where there are inconsistencies between the LCLUP amendment and IP, detailing an example where the City’s current IP provides different triggers and standards for certain environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) analyses.

City Response: The information requested in this section corresponds most closely to the required information in Subsection (f) of 14 CCR § 13552, which provides that the LCP amendment submittal shall include “an indication of the zoning measures that will be used to carry out the amendment to the land use plan (unless submitted at the same time as the amendment to the land use plan).” As stated in the Second City Submittal, the City’s certified IP would not be directly affected by the LCLUP amendment submitted in the First City Submittal. The City intends to submit an LCP amendment to amend the IP to conform with and implement the Certification Draft LCLUP subsequent to its certification by the CCC.

Until future certification of such IP amendment, the City’s certified IP would remain in place.

With respect to the example provided by CCC, the City would implement Policy ER-I-21, requiring a biological resource assessment to be conducted for any development within 300-feet of creeks, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas (i.e., apply the most protective requirement). While Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.4403(b) would not trigger the assessment in some instances, compliance with Policy ER-I-21 would still be required to achieve LCP consistency and application of the policy, although containing different provisions than those in the IP, would not be inconsistent with PMC Section 9-4.4403(b). Similarly, just as they are applied currently, ESHA buffers would be established to the most conservative applicable buffer requirement, whether is it is established by the LCLUP or another regulatory agency buffer. Development would be required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations to achieve LCP consistency. As noted above, the City intends to submit an LCP amendment to amend the IP subsequent to CCC certification of the submitted LCLUP amendment.

SECTION 5
The CCC’s comments in this section indicate that the City did not incorporate a number of edits and feedback provided by CCC staff into the LCLUP amendment submitted for CCC certification, and that CCC staff expects to suggest a significant number of modifications as the LCLUP certification process progresses.

City Response: City staff notes this comment and looks forward to continued work with the CCC staff to determine the precise content of the City’s LCLUP consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30500(c).

APPENDIX A
Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
San Pedro
Valley
County
Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge
(GGNRA)

FASS L ER
AV E

TERRA NOVA BLVD
LINDA
MAR
BLVD

ODDSTAD
BLVD

GRAND AVE

ROCKAWA Y
BEACH
AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR

CREPSI DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

S H AR P PARK RD

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

AVALON DR

M ILA GRADR MONTEREY RD IVERNESS
DR

NELSON AVE

OLD COAST HIGHWAY

ADOBE DR

BEACH BLVD

HICK E Y BLVD
Pacific Ocean
Devil's Slide Tunnel
Coastal Zone Boundary
General Plan Planning Area Boundary
City Limits
Open Space Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Utilities
Public & Semi-Public
Greenbelt
Prominent Ridgelines
Special Area
Sandy Beach
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Rockaway
Beach
Sharp Park
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
20 ACRES

ESPLANADE DR
Local Coastal Land Use Plan
Areas of Change (1980 General Plan)
Unimproved Right-of-Way
Highways
Existing Streets
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415)
FAX: (415)
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
Filed: 12/7/2020
Action Deadline: 6/5/2021
Staff: JKN-SF
Staff Report: 2/18/2021
Hearing Date: 3/12/2021

STAFF REPORT

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

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

Staff Recommendation: Denial

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

articulation that would enable it to appropriately protect public views and to be visually compatible with the surrounding shoreline area and neighborhood.

In short, there are a range of project modifications that could be applied to help limit such range of public view impacts. However, the project must be denied because it cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act’s habitat requirements, and thus the Commission does not here require these project changes. Thus, although corrections would be possible absent the habitat inconsistencies, the Commission finds the proposed project has not been sited and designed in a manner that adequately protects public views and character, and, as a result, it is not consistent with the Coastal Act’s public view requirements as cited above.

H. Public Access
Applicable Coastal Act Provisions
The Coastal Act provides that maximum opportunities for public recreational access shall be provided, including in new development projects, taking into account considerations including the location of existing public accessways and parties responsible for maintenance of new public accessways, including:
30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. 30212(a). Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.

LCP Policy Guidance
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

The LCP further highlights that public recreational access to the coast must be maximized:

LUP Policy 25 (Coastal Act 30252). The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.

IP Section 9-4.4300 (c) Purpose. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.

IP Section 9-4.4400 (g) Purpose. Maximize public access to and along the shoreline, while protecting the established rights of private property owners… Analysis
The project includes a proposed public recreational access pedestrian pathway spanning the length of the site from south to north, abutting the western property line, along and adjacent to the unnamed watercourse. The walkway would lead from San Pedro Avenue and connect to an existing coastal access pathway at the northern end of the site, near the Pedro Point Shopping Center, leading to Pacifica State Beach. The pathway is proposed to be paved with concrete and covered in artificial sod. As it is located along the western property line, where there is a downslope and significant grade change down to the adjacent watercourse, a concrete retaining wall and wood railing is proposed along the western property line. As such, the pedestrian walkway would not be set back from the property line and is located in ESHA, as previously described.

The only way that access pathways are allowed in ESHA is if they are low-key recreational features that require a location within the resource in order to function at all as an interpretive facility. The pathway in this case does not meet those criteria, including as it proposes hardscape that would significantly disrupt the habitat resources (e.g., as opposed to a pervious pathway absent hardscape that minimizes alteration of natural topography). Therefore, while the intent of the pedestrian walkway would be aligned with Coastal Act public access provisions, its proposed implementation would not be consistent with Coastal Act habitat requirements, and, as such, the proposed walkway cannot be approved in its current form.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

In addition, the proposed development is required by the LCP to have 50 parking spaces (47 spaces for the commercial area and 3 spaces for the residential units).

However, the City approved a parking exception for the subject development to reduce the required parking to 26 spaces (24 spaces for the commercial area and 2 spaces for the residential units). The Pedro Point neighborhood already experiences highly constrained parking, and there are ongoing conflicts between nearby businesses and public access parking for the beach. Public access parking issues in this neighborhood were recently discussed by the Commission for CDP 2-19-0586 with regard to parking fees at the nearby Pacifica State Beach parking lot, and a CDP application was recently submitted to the Commission to allow for proposed pay parking machines in the parking lot adjacent to the subject site. In short, there are already public access parking deficits in the project area, and at a minimum, the project site needs to account for and accommodate all of its parking needs onsite to avoid exacerbating those issues, including the potential for site users to occupy scarce on-street public parking spaces.

As such, a reduction in required parking at this location is inappropriate given existing constraints, and thus the proposed development does not provide adequate parking facilities and would be inconsistent with the public recreational access policies of the Coastal Act.

Again, it would likely be possible to apply project modifications to help address such parking impacts. However, the project must be denied because it cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act’s habitat requirements, and thus the Commission does not here require these project changes. Thus, although corrections would be possible absent the habitat inconsistencies, the Commission finds the proposed project has not been sited and designed in a manner that adequately protects public recreational access, and, as a result, it is not consistent with the Coastal Act’s public recreational access requirements as cited above.

I. Violation
A violation of the Coastal Act exists on the subject property including, but not limited to, a wooden skate ramp that was constructed and is operating on the subject property without benefit of a CDP (V-2-21-0002). The CDP application proposes to remove the unpermitted skate ramp and redevelop the subject parcel. If the skate ramp were to be removed, that would resolve this Coastal Act violation. However, Commission staff is recommending denial of the proposed project; if the project is denied, the unpermitted skate ramp will remain. In that case, Commission enforcement staff will address this violation accordingly.

Although development has taken place prior to submission of a CDP application, consideration of the development of the proposed CDP was made by the Commission solely based upon the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Commission review and action on this CDP does not constitute a waiver of any legal action with regard to the alleged violation, nor does it constitute an implied statement of the Commission’s position regarding the legality of any development undertaken on the subject site without a CDP, or that all aspects of the violation have been fully resolved. Accordingly, 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

the Applicant remains subject to enforcement action for engaging in unpermitted development.

J. CEQA
Section 13096(a) of the Commission’s administrative regulations requires that Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit application be supported by a finding showing that the application, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, is consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15042 states that “[a] Responsible Agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of that part of the project which the Responsible Agency would be called on to carry out or approve.”
The City of Pacifica, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared and certified an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project in 2018. The Coastal Commission, acting as a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the project. The findings in the staff report also address and respond to all issues pertaining to significant adverse environmental effects that were raised in public comments received prior to preparation of the staff report.

The Commission incorporates its findings on inconsistency with the Coastal Act at this point as set forth in full. As discussed above, the proposed development is inconsistent with various, applicable policies of the Coastal Act, and is denied on that basis. Section 21080(b)(5) of CEQA, as implemented by Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, provides that CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Accordingly, the Commission’s denial of this project represents an action to which CEQA, and all requirements contained therein that might otherwise apply to regulatory actions by the Commission, does not apply.

K. Takings
As discussed above, the proposed project is fundamentally inconsistent with the sensitive resources, coastal hazards, visual resources, and public access policies of the Coastal Act and certified LCP. In other words, applying Coastal Act policies to the proposed project requires denial of the CDP application. If and when the Commission denies a project, however, a question may arise as to whether the denial results in an unconstitutional “taking” of the applicant’s property without payment of just compensation. Coastal Act Section 30010 addresses takings and states as follows:

The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this division is not intended, and shall not be construed as authorizing the commission, port governing body, or local government acting pursuant to this division to exercise their power to grant 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

or deny a permit in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use, without the payment of just compensation therefore. This section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or the United States.

Consequently, although the Commission is not a court and may not ultimately adjudicate whether its action constitutes a taking, the Commission must assess whether its action might constitute a taking so that the Commission may take steps to avoid it. If the Commission concludes that its action does not constitute a taking, then it may deny the project with the assurance that its actions are consistent with Section 30010.

In addition, the Commission has the authority, under Section 30010, to approve some level of development otherwise inconsistent with Coastal Act policies in order to avoid a “taking”.
11 In this situation, the Commission finds that the Applicant’s proposed project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and that a denial would not constitute a taking, as the City approved a building and associated parking in the portion of the property within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction. Therefore, the Applicant has a right to develop the City-approved project (Building #3), and, as such, the Commission’s denial does not constitute a taking.

General Takings Principles
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”12 Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation…has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”
The idea that the Fifth Amendment proscribes more than the direct appropriation of property is usually traced to Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon ((1922) 260 U.S. 393).

Since Pennsylvania Coal, most of the takings cases in land use law have fallen into two categories (see Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519, 522-523). First, there are the cases in which government authorizes a physical occupation of property (see, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419). Second, there are the cases in which government merely regulates the use of property (Yee, supra, 503 U.S. at pp. 522-523). A taking is less likely to be found when the interference with property is an application of a regulatory program rather than a physical appropriation (e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n. v. DeBenedictis (1987) 480 U.S. 470, 488-489, fn. 18). The Commission’s actions here would be evaluated under the standards for a regulatory taking.

In takings cases, the United States Supreme Court (“Court”) has identified two circumstances in which a regulatory taking might occur. The first is the “categorical” 11 See, for example, Beach & Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 272; and Surfrider Found. v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 257–58. 12 The Fifth Amendment was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (see Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago (1897) 166 U.S. 226).
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

formulation identified in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1014. In Lucas, the Court found that regulation that denied all economically viable use of property was a taking without a “case specific” inquiry into the public interest involved (Id.). The Lucas court emphasized, however, that this category is extremely narrow, applicable only “in the extraordinary circumstance when no productive or economically beneficial use of land is permitted” or the “relatively rare situations where the government has deprived a landowner of all economically beneficial uses” or rendered it “valueless” (Id. at pp. 1016-1017 [emphasis in original]) (see Riverside Bayview Homes, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 126 [regulatory takings occur only under “extreme circumstances”]).13
The second circumstance in which a regulatory taking might occur is under the threepart, ad hoc test identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. (Penn Central) v. New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124. This test generally requires an examination into the regulation’s economic impact, its interference with reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. (Id. at p. 134; Ruckelshaus v.

Monsanto Co. (1984) 467 U.S. 986, 1005). In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, the Court again acknowledged that the Lucas categorical test and the threepart Penn Central test were the two basic situations in which a regulatory taking might be found to occur.
14 Final Government Determination
Before a landowner may seek to establish a taking under either the Lucas or Penn Central formulations, however, it must demonstrate that the takings claim is “ripe” for review. This means that the takings claimant must show that government has made a “final and authoritative” decision about the use of the property.15 Premature adjudication of a takings claim is highly disfavored, and the Supreme Court’s cases “uniformly reflect an insistence on knowing the nature and extent of permitted development before adjudicating the constitutionality of the regulations that purport to limit it” (Id. at p. 351).

Except in the rare instance where reapplication would be futile, the courts generally require that an applicant resubmit at least one application for a modified project before it will find that the taking claim is ripe for review (e.g., McDonald, supra).

In this case, although the Commission denies the project proposed by the Applicant, the City-approved development within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, Building #3, a two-story mixed-use building, is already authorized to be constructed on this site.

Alternatively, the Applicant could withdraw the City CDP and resubmit a CDP to the Commission for consolidated permit processing, with a revised, reduced scope project 13 Even where the challenged regulatory act falls into this category, government may avoid a taking if the restriction inheres in the title of the property itself; that is, background principles of state property and nuisance law would have allowed government to achieve the results sought by the regulation (Lucas, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 1028-1036).
14 See id. (rejecting Lucas categorical test where property retained value following regulation but remanding for further consideration under Penn Central). 15 See, for example, Williamson County Regional Planning Com. V. Hamilton Bank (1985) 473 U.S. 172; and MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo (1986) 477 U.S. 340, 348. 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

that better considers the coastal resource constraints on the parcel. Therefore, this denial is not a final adjudication of potential development within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and the Applicant is unlikely to be successful in arguing that the Commission’s denial is a taking because the takings claim is not “ripe.” Development Allowed to Avoid a Taking
The Commission interprets Section 30010, together with the Lucas decision, to mean that if Commission denial of the project would deprive an applicant’s property of all reasonable economic use, the Commission may be required to allow some development even if a Coastal Act or LCP policy would otherwise prohibit it, unless the proposed project would violate background principles of state property and nuisance law (e.g. if it constitutes a nuisance under state law). In complying with this requirement, however, a regulatory agency may deny a specific development proposal, while indicating that a more modest alternative proposal could be approved, and thus assure the property of some economically viable use.

As described above, the subject parcel is designated commercial, which allows for visitor-serving, commercial uses. The parcel is currently vacant, with the exception of a wooden skateboard ramp. As the parcel is within split CDP permitting jurisdiction, the City of Pacifica approved a CDP for the southernmost proposed building within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, referred to as Building #3 on the project plans. This building is a 3,346-square foot two-story, mixed-use building containing retail space on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor. Because residential development at this location is a conditional and discretionary use under the LCP, the City also approved a Use Permit to conditionally allow for the residential use to be located on the second floor, above a commercial, visitor-serving use. Thus, as the Applicant has the required City approvals to construct the building within the City’s CDP jurisdiction on this subject parcel, under the Lucas takings analysis, the Commission’s denial of the project would not be found to constitute a taking.

Taking under Penn Central
Although the Commission has already determined that the City’s approval of the building within the portion of the parcel that is in the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction constitutes an economic use on this property and thus avoids a categorical taking under Lucas, a court may also consider whether the permit decision would constitute a taking under the ad hoc inquiry stated in Penn Central. This ad hoc inquiry generally considers the extent of the applicant’s property interest, the regulation’s economic impact, the regulation’s interference with reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.

Property Interest
In the subject case, the Applicant purchased the property (APN 023-072-010) for $353,508 on April 26, 2011. On October 12, 2011, a Grant Deed was recorded as document number 2011-127592 in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo’s Recorder’s Office, effectively transferring and vesting fee simple ownership to the Applicant.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectations
In this case, the Applicant’s expectation that he could develop some type of structure on the property was both a reasonable and investment-backed expectation. The Applicant purchased the 37,538 square-foot (or 0.86-acre) property for $353,508 in 2011. It was zoned then as it is now for visitor-serving commercial uses, not as open space. At the same time, the Applicant should also have been aware that the parcel was adjacent to a watercourse, and that such watercourses also include additional development constraints via the Coastal Act and the LCP. And, in fact, the Applicant was aware of these issues inasmuch as he had had conversations with Commission and City staff prior to acquisition regarding such development constraints as it affected his property (see also below). Thus, the Applicant did have an investment-backed expectation that he had purchased developable property, albeit one that was encumbered by a coastal resource likely to require project modifications, and his investment reflected that future development could likely be accommodated on some portion of the subject parcel, but that such development would need to address potential coastal resource constraints, primarily associated with the unnamed watercourse bordering the site.

The question remains whether the Applicant had an investment-backed expectation to construct three two-story buildings, a skate park, a graded pathway with retaining wall, and a parking lot. In order to analyze this question, one must assess, from an objective viewpoint, whether a reasonable person would have believed that the property could have been developed for the Applicant’s proposed use, taking into account all the legal, regulatory, economic, physical, and other restraints that existed when the property was acquired.

When the Applicant purchased the property in 2011, there was no existing development on the site. The property was zoned for visitor-serving commercial uses, as is the adjacent property to the east. The adjacent property on the inland side of the subject lot was developed with commercial buildings. The adjacent property on the seaward side of the subject lot was vacant. Farther seaward, as well as to the south of the subject lot, were residential buildings. Thus, the property was zoned for visitor-serving uses and was located near both visitor-serving commercial and residential uses.

In communication with the City of Pacifica and Applicant, 16 including communications
prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property, Coastal Commission staff expressed documented concerns in 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2018 with regards to potential impacts of development on the habitat resources located on and adjacent to the subject site, indicating that any proposed development should consider measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts on the adjacent watercourse area, which most likely would meet the one-parameter definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act, and stating that a oneparameter wetland delineation should be conducted. See Exhibit 6 for prior communications from Coastal Commission staff related to the subject site and site constraints.
16 Personal telephone communications between Commission staff and Applicant between May 2010 and May 2018.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

At the time, Commission staff was not aware of the degree of wetlands and/or habitat resources present at the site because there had been no analysis and no wetland delineation, but the Applicant could have availed himself through the due diligence purchasing process to Commission reports to help understand the site constraints more clearly, including in consultation with City and Commission staff, but he did not. In fact, it was not until November 2019 that the Applicant finally provided the wetland delineation that was long advised, which delineation precipitated discovery more precisely of the constraints that affect this site, as described now in this report.

Consequently, while the Applicant may have had a reasonable investment-backed expectation that he had purchased a lot that could be developed, it was not reasonable to assume that the site could be developed to the extent the Applicant proposes, which in effect would develop the entirety of the site, encroach into required sensitive habitat, and develop all the way up to the bank of a watercourse that he was on notice could contain protected wetlands and sensitive species. In short, while investment-backed, the Applicant’s expectation in this regard was not reasonable.

Economic Impact
The Penn Central analysis also requires an assessment of the economic impact of the regulatory action on an applicant’s property. Although a landowner is not required to demonstrate that the regulatory action destroyed all of the property’s value, the landowner must demonstrate that the value of the property has been very substantially diminished.
17 If the Commission were to deny the Applicant the right to all development on the property as a whole, consistent with the requirements of the LCP and the Coastal Act, then the Applicant could argue that the economic impact of the Commission’s action was significant enough to constitute a taking. However, in this instance, due to the City’s prior authorization for one of the three proposed buildings that is located within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, the Applicant has the right to develop the proposed building within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, granting him ability to gain some economic benefit from his property. As such, while this decision does not allow for further development on the subject property and is not precisely the development proposed by the Applicant, the right to develop one two-story, mixed-use building provides for an economic use of the property.

Character of the Government Action
This final prong of the Penn Central test , namely the character of the government’s action, has been downplayed in recent years.18 Nevertheless, it is still part of the Penn 17 See, for example, Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc., supra, (citing William C. Haas v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F. 2d 1117 (diminution of property’s value by 95% not a taking)); and Rith Energy v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2001) 270 F. 3d 1347 (applying Penn Central, court finds that diminution of property’s value by 91% not a taking).
18 See, for example, Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 529 (governmental action that substantially advances a public purpose alone does not insulate the government from a takings claim).

See also Lewyn, Michael, Character Counts: The “Character of the Government Action” In Regulatory Takings Actions, 40 Seton Hall L. Rev 597, 599 (2010) stating that Lingle holds that the existence of a 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Central analysis, and the Coastal Commission advances a legitimate public interest when it regulates various uses according to the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, specifically protection of coastal resources. With the Coastal Act, the Legislature sought to protect natural resources and the ecological balance of the coastal zone while allowing for future development consistent with the Act’s policies (see, for example, Coastal Act Sections 30001(b), (c), and (d)).

Conclusion
The Commission finds that the project as proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and the certified Pacifica LCP and must therefore be denied. The Commission also finds, however, that the City’s CDP authorization for the portion of the proposed project that is within the City’s CDP jurisdiction provides for an economic use of the site.

Further, given the significant impacts to coastal resources that would result from approval of the project, the inconsistencies with the Coastal Act described above, as well as legitimate questions as to whether there are alternatives to the proposed project currently before the Commission that would minimize impacts to coastal resources, the Commission finds that it is premature to approve any development located in the Commission’s retained CDP jurisdiction area in order to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property at this time. Specifically, this denial is not a final determination by the Commission of the potential for development overall on this site, as it does not preclude the Applicant from withdrawing the City-approved project and resubmitting a new CDP to the Commission for consolidated permit processing as originally recommended and applying for some other development or use of the overall site, such as a smaller-scale development that more carefully addresses the applicable Coastal Act and LCP policies, in particular as they relate to ESHA, wetlands, coastal hazards, public views, and public recreational access. The Commission, therefore, denies the proposed project because it is inconsistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and denial of this project will not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property.

3. APPENDICES
A. Substantive File Documents19
GeoSoils Sea Level Rise & Coastal Hazard Analysis, dated March 12, 2019 GeoSoils Supplemental Memo, dated August 20, 2019
B. Staff Contact with Agencies and Groups
City of Pacifica
USFWS
valid public purpose standing alone may not justify an otherwise problematic regulation (emphasis in original).
19 These documents are available for review from the Commission’s North Central Coast District office.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415)
FAX: (415)
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
2-19-0026 (RHODES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT)
MARCH 12, 2021

EXHIBITS
Table of Contents

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Site Photos
Exhibit 3 – City-Approved Project Plans
Exhibit 4 – City of Pacifica Final Local Action Notice
Exhibit 5 – Wetland Delineation
Exhibit 6 – Coastal Commission comment letters to City
Exhibit 7 – Peter Baye Biology Memo dated May 4, 2005
Exhibit 8 – Peter Baye Biology Memo dated July 7, 2014
Exhibit 9 – Photographic Documentation of CRLF
Exhibit 10 – CNDDB Field Survey Report
Exhibit 11 – Commission Staff Ecologist memo
505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE – PROJECT LOCATION MAP
City of Pacifica, San Mateo County
Pacifica
State Beach
San Pedro
Creek
Shelter
Cove
Old Railroad
Berm
Project Site
Drainage
Channel
2-19-0026
Exhibit 1

505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE – SITE PHOTOS
Drainage
Channel
Project Site
Drainage
Channel
Project Site
Old Railroad
Berm
Old Railroad
Berm
2-19-0026
Exhibit 2

505 SAN PEDRO AVE., A.P.N. 023-072-010, PACIFICA

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NORCAL SURF SHOP

RADIANT HEATING BOILER RHB
BLDG #3 FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS A2.3PARTIAL SITE PLAN 4 OF 5 A1.4 A2.2 SKATEPARK & BLDG #2 FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS
BLDG #1 FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS A2.1PARTIAL SITE PLAN 3 OF 5 A1.3PARTIAL SITE PLAN 2 OF 5 A1.2 NEW SITE OF NORCAL SURF SHOP. DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING DATA
PROJECT COMMON ADDRESS:
505 SAN PEDRO AVENUEPACIFICA, CA 94044
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
023-072-010C-2
ZONING:
7,941 SQ.FT. / 37,538 SQ.FT. = 21.15%

PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE
BRIAN BRINKMAN - DRAFTING / 3D RENDERINGS
13,081 SQ.FT. / 37,538 SQ.FT. = 34.85%

SMOKE DETECTOR SDDOWNSLOPE INDICATIONSHOWER HEAD
2% SLOPE
+ 8'-0"
- CEILING HEIGHT
1 GRIDLINE IDENTIFICATION
1 DETAIL NUMBERSHEET ON WHICH IT OCCURSREVISION CLOUDREVISION NUMBER ----

SECTION CUT, DETAIL NUMBERSHEET ON WHICH IT OCCURS

SYMBOLS
A1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN

DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENTLY VACANT LOT FOR

PROJECT SCOPE

TITLE SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL / CIVILA0.0

WNDW WINDOW
WEIGHT WTWATER RESISTANT WRWATERPROOF WPWITHOUT W/OWIDTH BY HEIGHT W x HWATER HEATER WHWOOD WDWATER CLOSET WCWITH

W WEST, WASHER, OR WATERW/

VERTICAL

UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERT

TYPICAL TYPTELEVISION TVTOP OF PAVEMENT TPTOP OF WALL TOWTOP OF SUBFLOOR TOSTOP OF PLATE TOPTOP OF TOTHICK THKTELEPHONE TELTOP OF CURB TOCTO BE DETERMINED TBDTONGUE AND GROOVE T & GTRANSFORMER

TTILE, TREAD, TOP, OR

SYMMETRICAL

SS SANITARY SEWERSTL STEELSTOR STORAGESTRUCT STRUCTURALSUB SUBCONTRACTORSUBFLR SUBFLOORSW SHEAR WALLSYM SQUARE

SB SETBACKSCHED SCHEDULESD SMOKE DETECTOR OR STORM DRAINSF SQUARE FEET OR SQUARE FOOTSH SHOWER HEADSHT SHEETSHWR SHOWERSHTG SHEATHINGSIM SIMILARSL SLIDINGSPEC SPECIFICATIONSQ SOUTH

RAG RETURN AIR GRILLERD ROOF DRAINREF REFRIGERATORREINF REINFORCED OR REINFORCEMENTREQ'D REQUIREDREV REVISIONRM ROOMRO ROUGH OPENINGROW RIGHT-OF-WAYS

RADIUS RPOINT OR PRESSURE TREATED PTPAIR PRPLYWOOD PLYWDPLATE OR PROPERTY LINE PLOPPOSITE

OFF OFFICEOPNG OPENINGOH OVERHANGO/H OVERHEADOPP

OVERFLOW DRAIN

OA OVERALLOC ON CENTEROD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OR
OVEN
NTO

S NOT TO SCALE
(N) NEWN/A NOT APPLICABLENA NOT AVAILABLENIC NOT IN CONTRACTNOM NOMINALNR NON-RATEDNSF NET SQUARE FEET

NORTH N

LAM LAMINATELAV LAVATORYLT LIGHTMAX MAXIMUMMECH MECHANICALMFR MANUFACTURERMH MANHOLEMIN MINIMUMMISC MISCELLANEOUSMLDG MOULDINGMTD MOUNTEDMTL METAL

LINEN CLOSET

HDWD HARDWOODHT HEIGHTHORIZ HORIZONTALHR HOURINSUL INSULATIONINT INTERIORJT JOINT OR JOINT TRENCHLINEN HEADER

HC HANDICAPHDR

GYPSUM BOARD GYP BDGRADE GRGLASS GLGARBAGE DISPOSAL GDGENERAL CONTRACTOR GCGALVANIZED GALVGAUGE GG
GA
AS

FOOTING FTGFOOT OR FEET FTFIREPLACE FPFLUORESCENT FLUORFLOOR FLFINISH FINFINISHED FLOOR FFFOUNDATION FOUNDFLOOR DRAIN FDFLOOR AREA RATIO FARFORCED AIR UNIT FAU

FURN FURNACE

EXTERIOR EXTEQUIPMENT EQPTENGINEER ENGELEVATION ELEVELECTRICAL ELECEACH (E) EXISTINGEA

DRAWING DWGDISHWASHER DWDOWNSPOUT DSDOOR DRDOWN DNDIMENSION DIMDIAMETER DIADEGREES DEGDEPARTMENT DEPTDOUBLE DDDBL
RYER

CONTINUOUS CONTCONCRETE CONCCOLUMN COLCLEAN OUT COCONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CMUCLOSET CLSTCEILING CLGCENTERLINE CLCATCH BASIN CBCABINET

A/C AIR CONDITIONERAFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOORAPPROX APPROXIMATEASF ABOVE SUBFLOORAS ABOVE SLABBLDG BUILDINGBLK BLOCKBLKG BLOCKINGBM BEAMBOT BOTTOMCAB

ANCHOR BOLT
# NUMBEAB
R
AT @

ABBREVIATIONS

PROJECT DIRECTORY

APPLICANT

SERVICE COMPANY

NORCAL SURF SHOP SHAWN RHODES

CONTACT TELEPHONE

PROJECT INFORMATION
37,538 SQ.FT. LOT SIZE

DRAWING INDEX
TO CONSIST OF NEW 2-STORY SURF SHOP BUILDING
16,516 SQ.FT. / 37,538 SQ.FT. = 44.00% PAVED AREAS3,500 SQ.FT.3,500 SQ.FT. 1ST FLOOR LEASABLE AREA A1.1 PARTIAL SITE PLAN 1 OF 5

JOEL BALDWIN EARTH INVESTIGATIONS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

PATRICK KOBERNUS THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES BIOLOGICAL REPORT WITH STORAGE BASEMENT, SKATEPARK ENCLOSEDWITH CHAINLINK FENCING AND A ROOF, STORAGEBUILDING (2 STORIES) FOR SURFSHOP, 2 PARKINGLOT AREAS, 2-STORY BUILDING WITH RETAIL SPACE AT LOWER LEVEL AND 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE,AND VARIOUS AREAS OF LANDSCAPING.

OWNER - RICK LEE -
BLDG #1 ELEVATIONS A3.1
BLDG. #1 - NORCAL SURF SHOP

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
4,730 SQ.FT.

SKATEPARK

ENCLOSED FOOTPRINT
1,540 SQ.FT.

BLDG. #2 - STORAGE BUILDING FOR SURF SHOP

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
1,540 SQ.FT. 1ST FLOOR STORAGE AREA2,516 SQ.FT.

BLDG. #3 - RETAIL SPACE WITH 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
422 SQ.FT. GROSS LEASABLE AREA (RETAIL - 1ST FLOOR)1,077 SQ.FT. LIVING AREA (RESIDENTIAL UNIT #1)113 SQ.FT. DECK AREA (RESIDENTIAL UNIT #1)24 UNCOVERED + 2 COVERED = 26

PARKING
# OF SPACES ON SITE
PARTIAL SITE PLAN 5 OF 5 A1.5
2,975 SQ.FT. 2ND FLOOR LEASABLE AREA6,475 SQ.FT. GROSS LEASABLE AREA1,470 SQ.FT. 2ND FLOOR STORAGE AREA3,010 SQ.FT. GROSS STORAGE AREA503 SQ.FT. 1ST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL GARAGE AREA159 SQ.FT. 1ST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREA124 SQ.FT. 2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREA900 SQ.FT. LIVING AREA (RESIDENTIAL UNIT #2)237 SQ.FT. DECK AREA (RESIDENTIAL UNIT #2) SKATEPARK & BLDG #2 ELEVATIONS A3.2BLDG #3 ELEVATIONS A3.3 736 SQ.FT. LOCKERS/RENTALS FOOTPRINT107 SQ.FT. GARBAGE/RECYCLING ENCLOSURE FOOTPRINT374 SQ.FT.

LANDSCAPED/ NATURALVEGETATION AREAS

ARTIFICIAL SOD AREA
161 SQ.FT. 1ST FLOOR RETAIL/OFFICE STORAGE AREA
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS A0.1
M/A5/S/R3/U TYPE OF OCCUPANCIES:

BUILDING CODE DATA
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VBBEARING AND NON-BEARING
1-HOUR
WALLS (LESS THAN 5' FROMPROPERTY LINE):OPENINGS NOT PERMITTED LESS THAN 3' FROMPROPERTY LINENUMBER OF STORIES: 2ALL WORK TO CONFORM TO 2013 CBC, CFC, CPC, CMC, CEC, 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, AND 2013 CGBC UTILITY PLAN C3.01GRADING PLAN C2.01EXISTING CONDITIONS C1.01SWMP C4.01

FIRE NOTES
* FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED AT EACH PROPOSED BUILDING, UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. INSTALL PER NFPA 72.* FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL BE MONITORED PER 2013 CFC.* SMOKE DETECTORS AND CARBON MONITORS REQUIRED PER 2013 CBC.* KEY BOX REQUIRED (TO BE APPLIED FOR THROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT).* PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS REQUIRED.* CLEARLY VISIBLE ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED.* UTILITY IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED.* DOORS SHALL BE EASILY OPENABLE IN ONE MOTION WITHOUT SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, KEY, ORE EFFORT PER 2013 CBC.

USE OF THUMB OPERATED DEADBOLTS PROHIBITED, UNLESS INTEGRATED WITH LATCH. * EXIT SIGNS AND EMERGENCY ILLUMINATION REQUIRED PER 2013 CBC.

MIKE O'CONNELL O'CONNELL DESIGNS HYDROLOGY STUDY / DESIGN A0.0

TITLE SHEET
SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING

SOUTH FROM JUST TO THE NORTH

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND

DRAINAGE CULVERT FROM THE NORTH

VIEW OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE

PROPERTY FROM SAN PEDRO AVENUE

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING

SOUTHWEST FROM BEHIND THE

EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER

VIEW OF THE NORTHERN END OF THE

PROPERTY AND BEYOND, LOOKING

FROM THE EAST

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING

NORTHEAST FROM ACROSS SAN

PEDRO AVENUE
A0.1

PHOTOS OF
SITE
SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A1.0

OVERALL SITE
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"

$

OVERALL SITE PLAN
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A1.1
PARTIAL SITEPLAN 1 OF 5
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
PARTIAL SITE PLAN 1 OF 5
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A1.2
PARTIAL SITEPLAN 2 OF 5
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
PARTIAL SITE PLAN 2 OF 5
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A1.3
PARTIAL SITEPLAN 3 OF 5
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
PARTIAL SITE PLAN 3 OF 5
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A1.4
PARTIAL SITEPLAN 4 OF 5
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
PARTIAL SITE PLAN 4 OF 5
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A1.5
PARTIAL SITEPLAN 5 OF 5
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
PARTIAL SITE PLAN 5 OF 5
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

STORAGE




*$/:$7(56725$*(7$1.)25
&2//(&7('5$,1:$7(5
7<3[

5$',$17+($7,1*%2,/(50$1,)2/'6(7&
7<3

3266,%/(/2&$7,212)62/$5(48,30(17
83 (/(9$725

OPEN TO ABOVE
(/(9$725
%8,/7,1',63/$<6


 
 






 











ACCESSIBLE

RESTROOM
COVERED "PORCH"
:,1'2:',63/$<&$6(
6725$*(/2&.(56

RENTALS

ARTIFICIAL SOD
)/$73$7,2:$/.:$<
:$/.,1*3$7+
7<3


:$/.,1*3$7+
7<3

/$1'6&$3,1*
/$1'6&$3,1* 723$7+72%($&+

RETAIL SPACE RETAIL SPACE

ACCESSIBLE

RESTROOM
287'2256+2:(5



 



83 83 '1


:,1'2:',63/$<&$6(
/$1'6&$3,1*

 3523(57</,1(
685)%2$5'6:(768,76
)25*(1(5$/5(17$/
/223:$9(67</(
%,&<&/(5$&.
'1

OPEN TO BELOW

SHORT BOARDS
/21*%2$5'6/21*%2$5'6
/21*%2$5'6
/21*%2$5'6
:(768,76%2$5'%$*6 OFFICE / STORAGE OFFICE / STORAGE

FLAT ROOF DECK


 
 








 
 
 







6.</,*+7$%29(
7<3[

DECK
















 
 







3523(57</,1(
(/(9$725
'1

 


 

&20326,7,21$63+$/7522),1*6+,1*/(6
7<3


[
6.</,*+7
7<3[

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
345 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A2.1
BLDG #1FLOOR ANDROOF PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #1 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #1 ROOF PLAN
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3
Pa
ge 13 of 18











ARTIFICIAL SOD

FENCED IN / COVERED

SKATE PARK

STORAGE
ROOM
UP

VIEWING
ROOM/
LOUNGE
ENTRY
3266,%/(/2&$7,212)
62/$5(48,30(17
&+$,1/,1.)(1&,1*
7<3


52//,1*&+$,1/,1.'28%/(*$7(

52//83(/(&75,&
*$5$*('225



3523(57</,1(

6(&21'$5<(;,7
&+$,1/,1.'28%/(*$7(

ROOF OVER SKATE PARK

BOARD SHAPING ROOM


STORAGE












 

 




 
 


BOARD SHAPING ROOM
&20326,7,21$63+$/7522),1*6+,1*/(6
7<3






 
 
 
 62/$53$1(/672%(,167$//('21 522)62)%/'*$1'6.$7(3$5. ),1$//$<2877%' &20326,7,21$63+$/7522),1* 6+,1*/(6 7<3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A2.2

SKATEPARK &
BLDG #2FLOOR ANDROOF PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2
1ST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$

SKATEPARK ROOF PLAN&
BLDG #2 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #2 ROOF PLAN
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

RETAIL SPACE
1-CAR
GARAGE
1-CAR
GARAGE

RETAIL OFFICE /

STORAGE SPACE




 
 

























GARBAGE







 




COVERED DRIVEWAY /

VEHICULAR

PASS-THROUGH













3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
$5&+('23(1,1* $5&+('23(1,1* $5&+('23(1,1*
$5&+('23(1,1*
$5&+('23(1,1*
















 RESIDENTIAL UNIT 2
RESIDENTIAL UNIT 1
DECK
DECK
DN








































OPEN TO
BELOW

 



 



BEDROOM

BATHBATH

BEDROOM

LNDRY LNDRY

 


 


 
 
 

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A2.3
BLDG #3FLOOR ANDROOF PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #3 ROOF PLAN
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 20.2'
BLDG #1 BASEMENT F.F. = 10.7''
T.O. PLATE = 31.2'
BLDG #1 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 33.2'
T.O. PLATE = 45.2'
BLDG #1 T.O. ROOF = 52.5'
“


62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*/$+$%5$
&2/25:$506$1'
7<3

:$/.,1*3$7+$/21*6,'(2)
3523(57<
7<3

[5(':22'32676
7<3


+,*+%$1'2)7 *5(':22'
6,',1*
“
$%29())2)%/'*

BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 20.2'
BLDG #1 BASEMENT F.F. = 10.7''
T.O. PLATE = 31.2'
BLDG #1 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 33.2'
T.O. PLATE = 45.2'
BLDG #1 T.O. ROOF = 52.5'
“


62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*/$+$%5$
&2/25:$506$1'
7<3

&29(5('325&+:$57,),&,$/
62')/225
3$57,$//<&29(5('1')/225'(&.
$//0,1+,*+*8$5':$//62)
'(&.672%(678&&26,',1*/$
+$%5$&2/256($'$<
7<3

%/'*6 %(<21'
7<3

/2&$7,212)6,*1$*()25
125&$/685)6+23

:$//02817('/(77(56

&2%%/(6721(%($&+52&.
3/$17(5:$//6%(1&+6($7,1*
[5(':22'32676
7<3

BLDG #1 T.O. ROOF = 52.5'
T.O. PLATE = 45.2'
BLDG #1 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 33.2'
T.O. PLATE = 31.2'
BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 20.2'BLDG #1 BASEMENT F.F. = 10.7'' “

62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*/$+$%5$&2/25:$506$1'
7<3

:$/.,1*3$7+$/21*6,'(2)
3523(57<
%(<21'

7<3

“
72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;
678&&26,',1*$70,1+,*+
:$//62)'(&.6/$+$%5$
&2/256($'$<
7<3

2')(1&,1*
7<3

[5(':22'32676
7<3
&08:$//$7(;7(5,25:$//62)6725$*(/2&.(56$1'
5(17$/6
7<3


+,*+%$1'2)7 *5(':22'
6,',1*“
$%29())2)%/'*
&2%%/(6721(%($&+52&.
3/$17(5:$//6%(1&+6($7,1*
BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 20.2'
BLDG #1 BASEMENT F.F. = 10.7''
T.O. PLATE = 31.2'
BLDG #1 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 33.2'
T.O. PLATE = 45.2'
BLDG #1 T.O. ROOF = 52.5'
“


62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*/$+$%5$
&2/25:$506$1'
7<3

$57,),&,$/62'$5($%(+,1'
%/'*
:$/.:$<$/21*%/'*6
“
72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

/2&$7,212)6,*1$*()25
125&$/685)6+23

:$//02817('/(77(56

[5(':22'32676
7<3


+,*+%$1.2)7 *5(':22'
6,',1*“
$%29())2)%/'*
SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
4 5
PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
8 04/10/17 BLDG #1 MINOR EXTERIOR CHANGES
A3.1
BLDG #1ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #1 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #1 NORTHEAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
BLDG #1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION

$
BLDG #1 NORTHWEST ELEVATION
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

BLDG #2 T.O. ROOF = 45.8'
T.O. PLATE = 40.2'
BLDG #2 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 30.2'
T.O. PLATE = 29.2'
BLDG #2 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 17.2'
“


72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*
7<3
&+$,1/,1.)(1&,1*
7<3
&21&5(7(3/$17(5:,7+
/$77,&(6&5((1:$//6
:$/.,1*3$7+$/21*6,'(2)
3523(57<
7<3

BLDG #2 T.O. ROOF = 45.8'
T.O. PLATE = 40.2'
BLDG #2 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 30.2'
T.O. PLATE = 29.2'
BLDG #2 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 17.2'
“


72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

%/'*%(<21'
62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*
7<3

:22'3/$17(56:,7+/$77,&(
6&5((16$1'5(':22'
3(5*2/$$%29()253/$17('
9,1(6
7<3

BLDG #2 T.O. ROOF = 45.8'
T.O. PLATE = 40.2'
BLDG #2 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 30.2'T.O. PLATE = 29.2'
BLDG #2 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 17.2'
“


72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

%/'*%(<21'
62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*
7<3

BLDG #2 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 17.2'
T.O. PLATE = 29.2'
BLDG #2 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 30.2'
T.O. PLATE = 40.2'
BLDG #2 T.O. ROOF = 45.8'
“


72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

62/$5522),1*6+,1*/(6
678&&26,',1*
7<3

&+$,1/,1.)(1&,1*
7<3

5(':22')(1&,1*
7<3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A3.2

SKATEPARK &
BLDG #2ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$ SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2

NORTHWEST ELEVATION
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2

NORTHEAST ELEVATION
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'
T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'
:$/.,1*3$7+$/21*6,'(2)
3523(57<
7<3

“
72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

&20326,7,21$63+$/76+,1*/(522),1*
678&&26,',1*
7<3

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'
T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'
“
72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

&20326,7,21$63+$/76+,1*/(522),1*
678&&26,',1*
7<3

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'
“
72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

&20326,7,21$63+$/76+,1*/(522),1*
/2&$7,212))8785(6,*1$*()255(7$,/63$&(

:$//02817('/(77(5,1*

678&&26,',1*
7<3

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'
“
72
/2:(67$'-
*5$'(


0$;

&20326,7,21$63+$/76+,1*/(522),1*
678&&26,',1*
7<3

$5&+('23(1,1*$79(+,&8/$53$667+528*+

7<3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

NORCAL SURF SHOP
A.P.N. 023-072-010
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SHEET TITLE:
3 4
5 PROJECT SCOPE:

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOT 03/31/14 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET 2 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/16/14
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/14
6 04/13/15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7 01/20/16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A3.3
BLDG #3ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #3 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
BLDG #3 NORTHEAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

$
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
BLDG #3 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION

$
BLDG #3 NORTHWEST ELEVATION
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

Scenic Pacifica
lncorporated Nov. zz, 1957

CITY OF PACIFICA
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
1800 Francisco Blvd. . Pacifica, California 94044-2506
. www.citvofpacifica.orq
Efl ME
November20,2018

VIACERTIFIED MAIL
MAYOR
John Keener

MAYOR PROTEM
Sue Vaterlaus
couNctr
Sue Digre
Mike O'Neill
Deirdre Martin
t8
Califomia Coastal Commission
Attn: Patrick Foster, Coastal Planner
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Attachments: E ResolutionofApprovalwithconditions X StatrReport(s) EI Meeting Path of Portola L769. San Francisco Bay
RE: Coastal Development Permit CDP-346-,|4, 505 San Pedro Avenue (APN 023.072.010) Pursuant to CoastalAct Section 30603(d), Coastal Commission Regulations Section 13571, and Pacifica Zoning Code Section 9-

4.4304(n), this notice will serve to confirm that the City of Pacifica approved the above-referenced Coastal Development Permit, and to fumish the following additional information:

APPLICANT NAMUADDRESS:Shawn Rhodes,5460 Coast Highway, Pacifica, CA 94M4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:(Note:A portion of the site is located within the CoastalCommission's permit jurisdiction;however, the following description is applicable to the prolect as a whole.) File No. 2014-002- Construction of firee buildings and associated improvements as follows: Building #1 - two-story surf shop building for retail sales, surfboad rentals, lockers, and office/storage space with a stonage basement and outdoor shower; Building #2 - two-story building for storage and surboard shaping attached to a covered skatepark enclosed by an open-work fence; Building #3 - two-story mixed-use building with retail space and office/storage on the ground floor and two residential unib on the second story; Off-street parking area for 24 uncovered car spaces and two garage spaces on the first floor of Building #3 for the residential unib above with the rcquest for a reduction in off-street parking and covered parking requirements; and, removal of two heritage trees.

DECISION: The subject permit was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica on November 5, 2018, based on the required findings contained and adopted in the resolution of approval.

APPEAL PROCEDURES: The appeals prccess may involve the following:
t (nil X The local appeal period ended on 1111512018, and no appeal was filed; or, n The permit was appealed to and decided by the City Council, exhausting the local appeals prccess. .srlrF I The project lS within the Appeals Zone and the permit lS appealable to the State of Califomia Coastal Commission if the appeal is made in writing to the Coastal Commission prior to the close of business on the 10th working day from the date of receipt of this notice by the Executive Director of the Commission. For additional information, contact the Califomia Coastal Commission, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219, (4151 or,
tr The project is NOT in the Appeals Zone and the permit is NOT appealable to the Coastal Commission.

Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Pacifica Planning 94044, (650)
Tina Wehrmeister
Planning Director
D

FINAL LCCAL
ACT!Ci.{ NOTICE
I Project

REFERENCE
2-19-0026
Exhibit 4

505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE, PACIFICA

WETLAND DELINEATION
PREPARED FOR:

Shawn Rhodes
PREPARED BY:

Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC
1410 31st Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
November 2019
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Table of Contents

1. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 1

2. SETTING ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3

2.3 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket.................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Coastal Brambles.......................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.3 Eucalyptus Grove ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.4 Kikuyu Grass Sward ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.5 Monterey Cypress Stand.............................................................................................................. 7

2.3.6 Ornamental .................................................................................................................................. 7

2.3.7 Perennial Rye Grass Fields ........................................................................................................... 7

2.3.8 Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh........................................................................................................ 8

2.3.9 Smartweed Patch ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.10 Upland Mustards and Ruderal Forbs......................................................................................... 8

2.4 SOILS .......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 HYDROLOGY............................................................................................................................... 8

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................................................. 10

3.2 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................................. 13

3.2.1 U.S Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2 California Coastal Commission................................................................................................... 13

3.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................... 14

3.2.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board ...................................................................................... 14

3.3 DELINEATION METHODS........................................................................................................... 15

3.4 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................. 15

3.5 FIELD SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 15

3.5.1 Vegetation Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 15

3.5.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 16

3.5.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 FEDERAL WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION .................................................................... 16

3.6.1 Acreage Calculations.................................................................................................................. 17

3.7 STATE WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION........................................................................ 17

4. RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 FEDERAL WETLANDS................................................................................................................. 18

4.1.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................. 20

4.1.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 20

4.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 20 2-19-0026 Exhibit 5

4.2 STATE WETLANDS..................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (ESHA)............................................................ 21 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 21

5. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES .......................................................................... 24

5.1 REPORT PREPARATION............................................................................................................. 24

5.2 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 24

APPENDICES

1. Wetland Determination Data Forms……………………………………………………...A-1

2. Representative Photographs………………………………………………………………B-1

3. Soils Survey Map...……………………………………………………………………….C-1

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Project Location and Study Area…………………………………………………………....5

2. Federal and State Wetland Delineation Map……...…………………………...…………..19

LIST OF TABLES

1. Total acreage of wetland areas within study area……………………………………………18

2. Setback distances for proposed project and state and federal wetlands………………...……22 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 1

1. SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a formal delineation of waters of the United States, including wetlands, at an undeveloped property (drainage channel) adjacent to 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, California (APN 023-72-010). The property drainage channel is within an unaccepted city of Pacifica Right of Way. The purpose of the delineation of the drainage channel is to assist the California Coastal Commission in identifying the type and extent of waters subject to federal and state jurisdiction and to inform potential impacts from future development of the adjacent property at 505 San Pedro Avenue.

Fieldwork was performed by Coast Ridge Ecology staff biologists in September and October 2019 using the routine determination method described in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual, in incorporation with the USACE 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Wetland vegetation types were mapped in the field using a Trimble GeoExplorer unit on September 18, October 21, and October 25, 2019.

Field data was analyzed to determine a wetland boundary. A total of 0.088 acres of potentially jurisdictional federal wetlands (i.e. three-parameter) are present within the study area and may be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. A total of 0.248 acres of potentially jurisdictional state wetlands (i.e. oneparameter) are present within the study area, and may be subject to jurisdiction under the California Coastal Commission. Wetland areas within the study area are composed of freshwater wetlands dominated by water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), and perennial rye grass (Festuca perennis). These wetlands are all located within portions of the channel bottom of the drainage channel, with the exception of the one-parameter Arroyo willow wetlands on the north side of the drainage channel, which extend up the channel bank. Appendix A provides completed data sheets for the study area. Appendix B provides representative photographs.

The drainage channel feature adjacent to the property at 505 San Pedro Avenue is a man-made constructed feature, that is highly degraded due to construction and ongoing maintenance of a City of Pacifica sewer line that runs underneath the feature. The channel has been used as an illegal dumping area for decades and refuse such as gas cans, mattresses, appliances, plastic garbage, concrete rubble, bricks, and other refuse are present within the channel and buried within the soil.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 2 In the city of Pacifica, construction projects within the coastal zone are regulated through the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). The City regulates construction projects through the LCLUP, to bring projects into conformance with the California Coastal Act of 1976.

The LCLUP states that “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”. The California Coastal Commission has required buffers of 100 feet from the edge of riparian vegetation in areas where such buffers are feasible. However, it is not unusual for the Commission to allow smaller buffers in urbanized areas where the existing land use patterns do not allow for increased riparian buffer areas.

Based on the existing condition of the drainage channel, and the setback distances, the proposed project would not present a source of physical, chemical or biological disturbance to the wetland habitats including the arroyo willow stand (AW-1). Additional measures to ensure the channel is not impacted by construction activities would include planting of native plant species suitable for the boundary area adjacent to the channel, and installation of appropriate erosion/ sediment controls such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, and erosion control blankets along the top of the bank.

These measures would be suitable to protect the resource and improve the quality of this resource.

Any economic use of the subject property would result in a reduction of the recommended 100- foot buffer because of the proximity of any development on the property to wetland habitat. The CCC has established precedent by issuing permits allowing even more intensive uses that resulted in direct impacts to sensitive coastal resources, consistent with the mandate of Coastal Act § 30010 that prevents taking of private property without compensation (see CCC Appeal Numbers A-2-SMC-11-040 & A-2-SMC-11-041 concerning a controversial project near Half Moon Bay that was ultimately approved).

These conclusions should be regarded as preliminary and subject to verification by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers prior to performing any work that would impact wetland resources on site.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 3

2. SETTING

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The study area encompasses approximately 1.6 acres of land located at 505 San Pedro Avenue (project site) and the drainage channel adjacent to the property in Pacifica, California. The applicant (Shawn Rhodes) is proposing to develop the parcel at 505 San Pedro Avenue, which is

0.86 acres. The adjacent drainage channel is 0.74 acres. The drainage channel is located to the west of the property within an unaccepted city right of way. This delineation was conducted to provide additional information on the drainage channel, in response to California Coastal Commission letter dated July 2, 2019 regarding Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application Number 2-19-0026 (construction of a mixed-use scheme, including three buildings, a skate park, and a parking lot in Pacifica.

The site is bordered by the Pedro Point Shopping Center to the East, San Pedro Avenue to the south, and residential properties to the north. The area is highly developed, and the property is surrounded by residential and commercial developments on all sides. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 210 feet to the northwest. Topography on the project site is variable, as is located on an elevated berm-like feature. The top of the berm runs southwest-northeast through the approximate center of the property, and slopes downwards towards the drainage channel on the west side and the shopping center on the east side. Elevations at the study area range from approximately 14 to 23 feet. Figure 1 shows the project boundaries and location. Photographs of the project site can be found in Appendix B.

The drainage channel was created most likely as an irrigation ditch for farming prior to the 1950’s. The City of Pacifica constructed a sewer line below the channel, with sewer manholes in two locations within the channel, at some point later (in the 1960’s possibly). The channel bed and banks are categorized as ‘urban’ soil type due the history of disturbance to the channel and its location adjacent to a 5-acre commercial shopping center and parking lot. Urban runoff from the local community of Pedro Point flows into the channel which then empties through a culvert and into San Pedro Creek on the north side of the 505 San Pedro Avenue property.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property (APN 023-72-010) is located on San Pedro Avenue in Pacifica, California. The property is 0.86 acres in size (37,273 ft.2) and is located on the west side of Highway 1 in the Pedro Point area. The site is located within the coastal zone and is subject to the City of 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 4 Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The property is zoned as commercial and is within the Pedro Point – Shelter Cove Land Use Plan Area, and is outside of any special areas delineated in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Pacifica, 1992). The site is a narrow, rectangular strip of land (755 feet long x 55 feet wide) and is bounded by San Pedro Road on the south, a drainage channel and open field on the west, a strip mall/shopping area to the east and a parking lot on the north. San Pedro Creek and the Pacific Ocean are located further to the north, and northwest of the parking lot. The surrounding area is single family residential homes and small businesses.

The project intends to develop a currently vacant lot into commercial and residential buildings.

The development will consist of a 2-story surf shop building with storage basement (3,500 ft2 ), a
skatepark enclosed within chain-link fencing and a roof (4,730 ft2), a 2-story storage building for the surf shop (1,540 ft2), 2 parking lot areas (16,513 ft2), a 2-story building with retail space at the lower level and 2 residential units above (2,516 ft2 ), and various areas of landscaping (7,302
ft2). The project would be constructed within an upland area that is behind an existing shopping center, and would include a public access easement (pedestrian trail) that would extend along the western boundary of the site, along the top of bank of an adjacent drainage channel. The project area and adjacent drainage channel have been heavily disturbed by grading activities in the past.

The adjacent drainage channel would not be directly impacted by the proposed project.

This wetland delineation was conducted on the adjacent drainage channel, which is designated as an unaccepted right of way (identified as ‘Chester Way’) on the most current San Mateo County Assessor’s parcel map.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 5 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 6

2.3 VEGETATION
Vegetation at the study site (drainage channel) can be categorized into several different natural communities based upon plant species composition. The boundaries between communities can be distinct, or can change gradually over an area. Due to the semi-developed nature of the project site, vegetation types in this analysis are based upon, but do not strictly follow, species alliances described by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Manual of California Vegetation. Natural communities on the site include arroyo willow thicket, coastal brambles, eucalyptus grove, kikuyu grass sward, Monterey cypress stand, perennial rye grass fields, smallfruited bulrush marsh, smartweed patch, upland mustards/ruderal and ornamental.

2.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket
The arroyo willow thicket community is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). This plant community is found within the drainage at the northeast terminus of the drainage. It is comprised of dense arroyo willow trees. Arroyo willows are a facultative wetland (FACW) plant, found more frequently in wetlands than outside of them.

2.3.2 Coastal Brambles
The coastal brambles plant community is characterized as being heavily dominated by brambles (Rubus sp.). Within the study area, this plant community is primarily made up of dense California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) vines, with the ornamental species multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and California privet (Ligustrum ovalifolium) occasionally present at lower densities.

The coastal brambles plant community is found along the banks of the drainage channel, sometimes extending into the channel itself. California blackberry is a Facultative plant (FAC), found equally often in wetland and upland habitats. Multiflora rose and California privet are considered upland species (UPL). Due to the prevalence of dominant upland species within this habitat, it is not considered a wetland.

2.3.3 Eucalyptus Grove
Two groves of mature blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) trees are present at the western and southwestern portions of the study area. Large blue gum trees make up the overstory of this community, while the understory is primarily composed of eucalyptus duff and English ivy (Hedera helix). Blue gum is an upland (UPL) species, and English ivy is considered a Facultative Upland (FACU) species more likely to be found in upland habitats. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 7

2.3.4 Kikuyu Grass Sward
Swards of the invasive Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) are present within the bottom of the drainage channel. These areas are completely dominated by Kikuyu grass with no other vegetation present. This species is considered a Facultative Upland (FACU) plant, being found more often in upland habitats. The presence of Kikuyu grass indicates that there is unlikely to be significant soil inundation (and thus wetland habitat) in this portion of the drainage channel.

2.3.5 Monterey Cypress Stand
One stand of Monterey cypress (Hesperocyperus macrocarpa) is present within the study area along the western bank of the channel. Vegetative cover within this stand is entirely made up of Monterey cypress, as the density of the trees prevents any understory vegetation from growing beneath them. Monterey cypress is ranked UPL.

2.3.6 Ornamental
The ornamental vegetation community is made up of non-native ornamental plant species that are not widespread enough in natural areas to possess a community designation. Within the study site, areas of ornamental vegetation are dominated by garden nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), English ivy (Hedera helix), or cape ivy (Delairea odorata). Where present, each species provides nearly 100 percent of the vegetative cover. These areas heavily dominated by non-native vegetation are primarily found along the eastern bank of the drainage channel. All of these plants are considered upland species.

2.3.7 Perennial Rye Grass Fields
This plant community is dominated by perennial rye grass (Festuca perennis). Individual curly and green dock (Rumex crispus/Rumex conglomeratus) plants are also present at lower densities.

Perennial fescue is a Facultative wetland plant (FAC), equally likely to be found inside or outside of wetland habitats. Curly dock is also a FAC plant, while green dock is considered a FACW plant.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 8

2.3.8 Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
This plant community is dominated by small-fruited bulrush (Scripus microcarpus). One small patch of these plants is present within the drainage channel, where they make up 100 percent of the vegetative cover. Small-fruited bulrush is an Obligate wetland species (OBL), only being found within wetland habitats.

2.3.9 Smartweed Patch
This plant community is primarily dominated by smartweed (Persicaria sp.). Within the study area, this community is dominated by water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia), a wetland obligate species (OBL). Other plant species observed growing beneath and around the smartweed include silverweed cinquefoil (Potentilla anserina), dock (Rumex sp.), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). These plants are only found within the wetter portions of the drainage channel.

2.3.10 Upland Mustards and Ruderal Forbs
This plant community is dominated by non-native mustards and other invasive species. Within the study area, this habitat is heavily dominated by wild radish (Raphanus sativus), which dominates the vegetative cover along the eastern bank/berm and upland portions of the site.

Small patches of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) can also be found within this community. These plants are designated as upland (UPL) species.

2.4 SOILS
Only one soil type is present within the study area: Urban land. Urban land is defined by the USDA NRCS as areas where 85% or more of the ground surface is covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other structures (USDA SCS 1991). Appendix C provides a soils map of the study area.

2.5 HYDROLOGY
The project site consists of a vacant lot and does not contain any watercourses or wetland habitats. Aquatic features within a 100-meter radius of the project site include the Pacific Ocean, San Pedro Creek (approximately 75 meters northeast of the site), and an intermittent drainage channel on the west side of the project site
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 9 The drainage channel was created most likely as an irrigation ditch for farming prior to the 1950’s. At some point later (in the 1960’s possibly), the City of Pacifica constructed a sewer pipe that runs below the open channel for most of the channel’s length. Two sewer manholes are located in the channel bottom. During rain events, urban stormwater runoff from the local community of Pedro Point flows into the channel which then empties through a culvert into San Pedro Creek to the north side of the property.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 10

3. METHODOLOGY
This wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the USACE 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual along with the USACE 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. A Level 3 Determination (i.e., a combination of onsite inspection and aerial review) was conducted as defined in the Wetland Delineation Manual.

The location of the project site is within the boundary zone between the Arid West Region and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. The climatic conditions and vegetation in Pacifica overlaps with what is described in both supplements. Both regional supplements include coastal areas, and a reasonable justification could be made to support the use of either supplement. The Western Mountains regional supplement was chosen as the appropriate manual based on vegetation and climate; including the following:

Arid West: Generally hot and dry with long summer dry season. Average annual precipitation mostly <15”, except along the coast. Most precipitation falls as rain.

Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast: Cooler and more humid with a shorter dry season.

Average annual precipitation mostly >20” except near the coast. Much of the annual precipitation falls as snow, particularly at higher elevations.

Average annual precipitation in Pacifica is approximately 32”1. Due to heavy fog during the summertime especially, the amount of water available to vegetation is much greater due to fog drip.

3.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following section provides key definitions of terms used in this report that are relevant to the delineation of wetlands and other waters of the US.

Waters of the United States: Title 33, Chapter II, Part 328.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines waters of the United States as:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 1 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 11 (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
a. which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
b. or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
c. or which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4); (6) Territorial seas; and
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (1) through (6).

Federal Definition of Wetlands: In Title 33, Chapter II, Part 328.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations, wetlands are defined as: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” For the purposes of a USACE wetland delineation, an area must meet three diagnostic environmental characteristics in order to be considered a wetland. These three characteristics include the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

Hydrophytic Vegetation: The USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual describes hydrophytic vegetation as “sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. The vegetation occurring in a wetland may consist of more than one plant community (species association). Emphasis is placed on the assemblage of plant species that exert a controlling influence on the character of the plant community, rather than on indicator species.”
Hydric Soil: Defined by the USACE Western Mountains Supplement as “a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of saturation or inundation for more than a few days…These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods.” 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 12 Wetland Hydrology: The USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual describes wetland hydrology as “all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively.”
Navigable Waters of the United States: Title 33, Chapter II, Part 329.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines navigable waters of the U.S. as “those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for us to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.” For the purposes of a USACE jurisdictional determination, navigable waters of the United States are considered Traditionally Navigable Waters.

Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): Title 33, Chapter II, Part 328.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines the OHWM as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter or debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area.”
Mean High Water (MHW): Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), which regulates certain activities in navigable waters of the U.S., defines the landward limit of Section 10 jurisdiction as the Mean High Water (MHW) mark. The MHW mark, with respect to ocean and coastal waters, is defined as: “The line on the shore established by the average of all high tides. It is established by survey based on available tidal data (preferably averaged over a period of 18.6 years because of the variations in tide). In the absence of such data, less precise methods to determine the mean high water mark are used, such as physical markings, lines of vegetation or comparison of the area in question with an area having similar physical characteristics for which tidal data are readily available.”
In the case of non-tidal waters regulated by the RHA, the MHW is defined as the OHWM.

State Definition of Wetlands: The State defines wetlands more broadly than the federal wetlands program by recognizing that wetlands may have evidence of only one of the three federal parameters. The State definition also conforms to the USFWS definition:
"Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 13 predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year" (Cowardin, 1979).

Additionally, for the purposes of identifying Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) regulated by the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Act of 1976 further specifies that wetlands are:
“Land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats” (CCR Title 14, Section 13577).

Although the State definition may require only a single parameter to establish the presence of wetlands (and ESHA), in practice, such decisions are based on a case-by-case interpretation of data that either support or disprove the presumption of whether wetlands are indicated by a single parameter.

3.2 REGULATORY SETTING

3.2.1 U.S Army Corps of Engineers
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. USACE also regulates dredging, filling, and construction activities in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Activities involving dredged or filled materials require a Section 404 permit, and/or a Section 10 permit, issued by the USACE. Section 404 projects may be authorized under general permits, also known as nationwide permits, or may require individual permits in the case of more complex projects that exceed the threshold for impacts under the nationwide permits.

3.2.2 California Coastal Commission
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) exercises jurisdiction over development activities within the coastal zone. In the city of Pacifica, construction projects within the coastal zone are regulated through the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). The City regulates construction projects through the LCLUP, to bring projects into conformance with the California Coastal Act of 1976.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 14 The project site is within the Pedro Point/ Shelter Cove Land Use Plan area, and is not located within a designated environmentally sensitive wetland area (LCLUP 1992). However, in the Plan Conclusions section, under Development Near Wetlands and Creeks; the LCLUP states:
“Riparian vegetation along all intermittent and year-round creeks shall be protected, enhanced and restored where feasible, and buffer zones required.”; And; “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”

3.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates projects that will:
(1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake; or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. (Section 1602, California Fish and Game Code)
To complete projects which will affect these characteristics of any river, stream, or lake, within the state of California, projects must apply for a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1600 Series Permit). The jurisdictional boundary of the CDFW typically follows the top-of-bank or the outermost edge of riparian vegetation adjacent to the regulated stream, river, or lake.

3.2.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has authority over projects that could result in negative impacts to waters of the State and wetlands. The RWQCB, defines “waters of the State” as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters within the boundaries of the State of California (Cal. Water Quality Control, Division 7, January 2011). In addition, it defines “water quality control” as the regulation of any activity that may affect the quality of the waters of the State, and includes the prevention and correction of water pollution and nuisance.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of State waters. Regulated discharges include any substances associated with human habitation that are harmful to the aquatic environment, including stormwater runoff associated with construction projects and other activities that could discharge soil, pollutants, or other materials into waters of the State. Projects that could produce pollutants or discharge into waters of the state must apply for a Section 401 Certification from 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 15 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that any discharges will be in compliance with California’s water quality standards.

3.3 DELINEATION METHODS
This wetland delineation was conducted through the analysis of aerial photography, historical records, and other relevant data sources, as well as an onsite survey to characterize vegetation, soils, and hydrology.

3.4 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to the field survey, aerial photographs were reviewed for current and historical data on lake levels and vegetation. Soil types were assessed using the online USDA Natural Resource Conservation Science Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2019). Historical and current land use data was accessed from various sources, including historical aerial photographs (UCSB 2019).

3.5 FIELD SURVEY
The field delineation for the study area was conducted by Patrick Kobernus of Coast Ridge Ecology on October 21, 2019. Wetland vegetation was mapped by P. Kobernus and CRE Biologist Greg Pfau on September 18, 2019. Weather conditions at the time of the field visits included clear skies, temperatures in the 70’s (ºF), and no wind. The onsite inspection evaluated the three parameters that identify and delineate the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands, including (1) the dominance of wetland vegetation; (2) the presence of hydric soils; and (3) hydrologic conditions that result in periods of inundation or saturation on the surface from flooding or ponding.

Survey methods follow the protocol outlined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual for Areas Less Than Five Acres in Size. GPS coordinates of each sample location were recorded in the field with a Trimble GeoExplorer 6000 series unit. Vegetation, soils and hydrology data were taken at each of these points. The completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains Region are located in Appendix A.

3.5.1 Vegetation Data Collection
Vegetation data was collected at each sample point taken during the field survey. As per the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regional Supplement, plants in the tree stratum are defined as woody plants with a diameter three inches or more at breast height (DBH). Saplings/shrubs are defined as woody plants with a diameter of less than three inches DBH, and herbs are defined as non-woody plants regardless of size. Species type and percent dominance of each species was recording at each sample point.

The USACE National Wetland Plant List was used to determine the wetland indicator status of 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 16 plants observed in the study area. Wetland indicator status refers to the probability that a plant will occur within a wetland or upland area. The indicator status categories are defined as follows:
• Obligate (OBL): almost always occurs in wetlands
• Facultative wetland (FACW): usually occurs in wetlands, sometimes may occur in uplands
• Facultative (FAC): equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands • Facultative upland (FACU): usually occurs in uplands but may occasionally occur in wetlands
• Obligate upland (UPL): almost never occurs in wetlands • No indicator (NI)/ No status (NS): no indicator or status assigned due to lack of information
The presence of hydrophytic vegetation data was then determined using the dominance test and prevalence index described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Western Mountains Regional Supplement.

3.5.2 Soils
Soil pits were taken at each of the eight sample point sites. Soil pits were excavated to the maximum depth possible and soil color and texture was assessed and recorded onto the Western Mountains data sheets. Soil color was determined by matching samples to Munsell Soils Color Charts (Munsell Colors 2000). Soils were then assessed for hydric features described in the Western Mountains Regional Supplement, such as the presence of redoxomorphic concentrations, mucky soils or hydrogen sulfide odor.

3.5.3 Hydrology
Hydrology at each of the sample points was assessed based upon the USACE Western Mountains, Valleys, And Coast Region hydrology guidelines. Positive hydrological indicators include the presence of a visible water table, saturation and/or muck, water marks or drift deposits.

3.6 FEDERAL WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
A preliminary wetland boundary line, based on the 3-parameter wetland definition was determined based on data points and vegetation mapping. Based upon the location of wetland versus non-wetland sample points, the wetland boundary was determined to correspond to specific discrete locations within the channel bottom (Figure 2). 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 17

3.6.1 Acreage Calculations
The area for each individual vegetation polygon within the wetland boundary was calculated in ArcMAP 10.2. All vegetation areas were then added to obtain a total area for wetlands within the study area.

3.7 STATE WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
The state definition of wetlands requires only a single parameter to be met in order to indicate the presence of wetlands. Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology were used to determine the state upland wetland boundary.

Areas of wetland vegetation were identified and mapped using a Trimble GeoExplorer 6000 unit.

Vegetation units were mapped based upon the dominant species.

Areas of hydric vegetation were defined using the dominance test, and by assessing the indicator status of the dominant species. Vegetation defined as obligate or facultative wetland by the USACE National Plant List was mapped as wetland vegetation.

Wetland acreage was determined using the methods described in Section 3.6.1 Acreage Calculation.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 18

4. RESULTS

4.1 FEDERAL WETLANDS
A total of 0.088 acres of potential federally jurisdictional wetlands occur within the delineation study area. Table 1 provides the calculations for the total acreage for wetland areas within the study area. Jurisdictional areas lie within the vegetated central portions of the drainage channel.

These areas are within the primary flow of the channel, where the soil remains saturated even after water is no longer visible at the surface. Wetland areas are represented by sample points A2 and A4 within the study area. Figure 2 provides an illustration of potentially jurisdictional wetlands within the study area. Appendix B provides representative photographs of the sample points and study area.

TABLE 1: TOTAL ACREAGE OF WETLAND AREAS WITHIN STUDY AREA Wetland Type Federal State
Area (acres) Area (sq ft) Area (acres) Area (sq ft)
Arroyo Willow Wetland
AW-1
Perennial Rye Grass Wetland
PR-1 0.010 437.146 0.001 35.026
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
BM-1 0.003 116.769 0.003 120.651
Smartweed Wetland
SW-1 0.012 508.292 0.004 161.820
SW-2 0.019 833.803
SW-3 0.019 844.048 0.022 963.699
subtotal
Ephemeral Channel
FC-1
Wetted Channel
WC-1 0.017 722.949
Total 0.248 10803.370
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

FC-1
A1
A2
A4A3
AW-1
SW-3
SW-2
SW-1
WC-1
PR-1
BM-1
Figure 2: Federal and State Wetlands
Legend
Site Parcel Boundary
Delineation Point
Waters of the State/State Wetland
Wetted Channel
Federal Wetlands
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Perennial Rye Grass Fields
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Smartweed Patch
State Wetlands
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Perennial Rye Grass Fields
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Smartweed Patch
Flow Channel
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, CA
0 20 40 80 120 160
Feet
±
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 20

4.1.1 Vegetation
Freshwater wetlands on the study site are composed of a variety of plant species. Areas with the greatest water availability, at the northern end of the drainage, are dominated by arroyo willow and small-fruited bulrush. Wetlands within the primary flow of the channel are dominated by water smartweed and perennial rye grass, with curly and green dock also present at lower densities. Silver weed cinquefoil (Potentilla anserina) (OBL) can also be found here beneath the smartweed.

4.1.2 Soils
Within the wetland sample points, soils tended to be dark brown and homogenous with a color matrix of 10YR 3/1 at sample points A2 and A4; and 5YR 3/2 at sample point A1; and 5YR 3/3 at sample point A3. Soil texture ranged from sandy loam at sample points A1, A3, and A4 to sandy clay loam at sample point A2. Several unusual soil compositions were noted at the study site within the channel, due to the site being graded in the past, and the site used as an illegal dumping area. Within each of the sample point areas, concrete rubble, brick, plastic and metal refuse were present on the soil surface and/or within the soil. Soils determined to be wetland soils were based on one indicator (redox dark surface), likely due to a lack of ponding in the channel during most times of year. In addition, dark parent materials and the fact that the drainage feature has only been in existence for a few to several decades likely limits the formation of more hydric soil indicators.

4.1.3 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology indicators at sample points A2 and A4 included mud cracks at the surface of the channel bottom (Photo 9 in Appendix B). No other hydrology indicators were present. No ordinary high water mark was visible in the channel, likely due to a lack of flow through the channel at most times of year.

4.2 STATE WETLANDS
A total of 0.248 acres of potential state jurisdictional wetlands occur within the delineation study area. The acreage of state wetlands exceeds that of the federal wetlands since determination state wetlands is based upon only one parameter (hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soils or wetland hydrology) rather than the presence of all three required by the federal wetland definition. Table 1 provides the calculations for the total acreage for state and federal wetland areas within the study area.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 21 The entire portion of the channel exhibiting hydrology features was mapped and designated as FC-1. This area qualifies as a state wetland due to hydrology and soil indicators, but vegetation is either lacking or composed of upland plant species in many places. Areas where the hydrophytic vegetation is dominant within the channel satisfy the criteria for federal wetlands.

4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (ESHA)
The CCC defines an ESHA as an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities.” (California Coastal Act §30107.5).

The CCC Guidelines contain definitions for specific types of ESHAs, including: wetlands, estuaries, streams and rivers, lakes, open coastal waters and coastal waters, riparian habitats, other resource areas, and special-status species and their habitats. For the purposes of this report, ESHAs include any areas that may meet the definition of any ESHA defined by the CCC guidelines or the City of Pacifica LCLUP. A “special-status natural community” is a natural habitat community that is unique in its constituent components, restricted in distribution, supported by distinctive soil conditions, considered locally rare, potentially supporting specialstatus plant or wildlife species, and/or that receives regulatory recognition from municipal, county, state, and/or federal entities such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Within the study area, the arroyo willow stand is consistent with the description of Arroyo willow thickets (61.201.01 – Salix lasiolepis), which is listed by CDFW as sensitive plant community. This species is common in coastal California and does not have a rarity ranking. However, based on this classification and that it is often associated with riparian habitat, the arroyo willow stand, would be considered an ESHA. Discrete portions of the drainage channel where one or more wetland parameters are present would also be considered an ESHA.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect, temporary or permanent impacts to wetlands, other waters, or any ESHA’s. The drainage channel feature adjacent to the property at 505 San Pedro Avenue appears to be a man-made constructed feature, that is highly degraded due to construction and ongoing maintenance of a City of Pacifica sewer line that runs underneath the feature. The channel has been used as an illegal dumping area for decades and refuse such as gas cans, mattresses, appliances, plastic garbage, concrete rubble, bricks, and other refuse are present within the channel and buried within the soil. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 22 The project as proposed would create a retaining wall and public access easement (pedestrian trail) along the western property boundary, and the following setbacks from the wetlands are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2. STATE AND FEDERAL WETLANDS AND SETBACK DISTANCES FROM PROPOSED PROJECT AT 505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE, PACIFICA, CA
From Retaining Wall/Trail From Structures (approximate) Name Wetland Type
Distance to
closest point(ft)
Distance (ft) max
to near edge
Distance to closest
point (ft)
Distance (ft) max to
near edge
AW-1 Federal Wetland 4.10 13.34 32.9 84.7
AW-1 State Wetlands 0.00 0 29.31 63
BM-1 Federal Wetland 12.47 13.7 26.9 33.67
BM-1 State Wetland 6.16 10.5 23.17 31.5
FC-1 State Wetland 6.35 18.45 19.4 26.3
PR-1 State Wetland 10.86 12.8 23.46 26.19
PR-1 Federal Wetland 12.79 15.7 26.36 28.18
SW-1 State Wetland 2.31 7 15.31 19.95
SW-1 Federal Wetland 5.52 10.4 17.85 25.59
SW-2 Federal Wetland 8.51 21.4 20.61 33.4
SW-3 State Wetlands 0.00 6.13 8.67 18.64
SW-3 Federal Wetland 7.66 12.3 20.9 24.5
WC-1 State Wetland 0.00 5.5 10.06 22
The LCLUP states that “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”. The California Coastal Commission has required buffers of 100 feet from the edge of riparian vegetation in areas where such buffers are feasible. However, it is not unusual for the Commission to allow smaller buffers in urbanized areas where the existing land use patterns do not allow for increased riparian buffer areas.

Based on the existing condition of the drainage channel, and the setback distances, the proposed project would not present a source of physical, chemical or biological disturbance to the wetland habitats including the arroyo willow stand (AW-1). Additional measures to ensure the channel is not impacted by construction activities would include planting of native plant species suitable for the boundary area adjacent to the channel, and installation of appropriate erosion/ sediment controls such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, and erosion control blankets along the top of the bank.

These measures would be suitable to protect the resource and improve the quality of this resource.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 23 Any economic use of the subject property would result in a reduction of the recommended 100- foot buffer because of the proximity of any development on the property to wetland habitat. The CCC has permitted more intensive uses that resulted in direct impacts to sensitive coastal resources, consistent with the mandate of Coastal Act § 30010 that prevents taking of private property without compensation (see CCC Appeal Numbers A-2-SMC-11-040 & A-2-SMC-11- 041)2 concerning a controversial project near Half Moon Bay that was ultimately approved). 2 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/12/W18a-12-2013.pdf 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 24

5. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES

5.1 REPORT PREPARATION
Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC
1410 31st Ave
San Francisco, CA 94122
Field work and report preparation were completed by Patrick Kobernus (Senior Biologist) and Greg Pfau (Associate Biologist).

5.2 REFERENCES
Commercial Development for Norcal Surf Shop 505 San Pedro Ave., A.P.N. -23-072-010, Pacifica. Project Plans dated: 01/20/2016.

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.

US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

ERDC/EL TR-10-03. May 2010.

CNPS. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; searched on October 21, 2019. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 25 Lichvar, R.W, D. L. Banks, W. N. Kirchner and N. C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Available online at http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/# . Accessed on September 17, 2019.

Munsell Soil Color Charts Year 2000 Revised Washable Edition. 2000. Munsell Color. Grand Rapids, MI.

Sawyer, John; Keeler-Wolf, T.; and Evans, J., 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed October 21, 2019.

United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Science (USDA SCS). 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov . October 21, 2019.

UCSB, 2019. University California Santa Barbara, California Aerial Photography by County (On-Line Library). Accessed October 25, 2019.
https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos/california-aerial-photography-county Wood Biological Consulting. 2019. One-Parameter Wetland Delineation for the Proposed Norcal Surf Shop Mixed-use Development, San Mateo County, California. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page A-1

APPENDIX A
Wetland determination data forms
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: NorCal Surf Shop City/County: Pacifica, SMC Sampling Date: 10/21/2019 Applicant/Owner: Shawn Rhodes State: CA Sampling Point: A1 Investigator(s): Patrick Kobernus Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 50 Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 37.595406 Long: -122.506549 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:

Delineation is being done at request of CA Coastal Commission and potential wetland area is adjacent to, but not on, applicant’s property.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Ligustrum ovilifolium 20 Y -NS2.

3. 4.

5. 20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Delairea odorata 15 N -NS2. Persicaria amphibia 10 N OBL

3. Urtica dioica 5 N FAC

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.
30 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Rubus ursinus 50 Y FACU

2. 50 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 5YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x
Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Uniform color to soil, combined with urban fill (concrete, brick, and other refuse)

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

No hydrologic indicators present.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: NorCal Surf Shop City/County: Pacifica, SMC Sampling Date: 10/21/2019 Applicant/Owner: Shawn Rhodes State: CA Sampling Point: A2 Investigator(s): Patrick Kobernus Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel bed Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 37.595406 Long: -122.506549 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:

Delineation is being done at request of CA Coastal Commission and potential wetland area is adjacent to, but not on, applicant’s property.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Persicaria amphibia 35 Y OBL

2. Rubus crispus 55 Y FAC

3. Scirpus microcarpus 5 N OBL

4. Potentilla anserina 5 N OBL

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/1 100
Sandy clay
loam
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) x Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Uniform color to soil, combined with urban fill (concrete, brick, and other refuse)

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
x Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes x No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes x No Depth (inches):

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: NorCal Surf Shop City/County: Pacifica, SMC Sampling Date: 10/21/2019 Applicant/Owner: Shawn Rhodes State: CA Sampling Point: A3 Investigator(s): Patrick Kobernus Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 100 Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 37.594600 Long: -122.507276 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:

Delineation is being done at request of CA Coastal Commission and potential wetland area is adjacent to, but not on, applicant’s property.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size:
10 m r )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status

1. Eucalyptus globulus 60 Y -NS2.

3. 4.
60 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Tropaeolum majus 65 Y UPL

2. Conium maculatum 5 N FAC

3. Zantedeschia aethiopica 5 N -NS4. Solanum nigrum 15 N FACU

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Rubus ursinus 10 N FACU

2. 10 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 5YR 3/3 100 Sandy loam
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x
Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Uniform color to soil, combined with urban fill (concrete, brick, and other refuse)

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

No wetland hydrology indicators present
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: NorCal Surf Shop City/County: Pacifica, SMC Sampling Date: 10/21/2019 Applicant/Owner: Shawn Rhodes State: CA Sampling Point: A4 Investigator(s): Patrick Kobernus Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel bed Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 37.594600 Long: -122.507276 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:

Delineation is being done at request of CA Coastal Commission and potential wetland area is adjacent to, but not on, applicant’s property.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2m r )

1. Persicaria amphibia 40 Y OBL

2. Plantago major 5 N FAC

3. Sonchus asper 5 N FACU

4. Raphanus sativus 5 N -NS5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.
55 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/1 100 Sandy loam
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) x Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Uniform color to soil, combined with urban fill (concrete, brick, and other refuse)

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
x Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Electrical cable under channel, bricks, concrete rubble in soil. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page B-1

APPENDIX B
Representative Photographs
Figure 1. Drainage channel, with Eucalyptus trees. Photo date: 09/18/2019.

Figure 2. Drainage channel with brambles, north end. Photo date: 09/18/2019. 2-19-0026 Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page B-2
Figure 3. Drainage channel and bank with Eucalyptus, Rumex, Kikuyu grass and Tropaeolum plants. Photo date: 09/18/2019.

Figure 4. Drainage channel with blackberry and grass vegetation. Photo date: 09/18/2019. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page B-3
Figure 5. Top of berm, (505 San Pedro Ave. property) looking north. Photo date: 09/18/2019.

Figure 6. Top of berm, (505 San Pedro Ave. property) looking south. Photo date: 09/18/2019. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page B-4
Figure 7. Wetted channel on south end. Photo date: 09/18/2019.

Figure 8. Drainage channel (data point A4 and sewer line manhole). Photo date: 10/21/2019. 2-19-0026 Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page B-5
Figure 9. Channel bottom near data point A2 showing mud cracks. Photo date: 10/21/2019.

Figure 10. Channel bottom. Data point A2. Photo date: 10/21/2109. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page C-1

APPENDIX C
Soil Survey Map
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Soil Map—San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California (Drainage Channel adjacent to 505 San Pedro Avenue)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/19/2019

4160830 4160860 4160890 4160920 4160950 4160980 4161010 4161040 4161070 4161100 4161130 4160830 4160860 4160890 4160920 4160950 4160980 4161010 4161040 4161070 4161100 4161130 543420 543450 543480 543510 543540 543570 543600 543630 543420 543450 543480 543510 543540 543570 543600 543630 37° 35' 46'' N
122° 30' 29'' W
37° 35' 46'' N
122° 30' 20'' W
37° 35' 36'' N
122° 30' 29'' W
37° 35' 36'' N
122° 30' 20'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
020 40 80 120
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,530 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 29, 2019—Jun 5, 2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California (Drainage Channel adjacent to 505 San Pedro Avenue)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/19/2019

2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 121 Orthents, cut and fill, 0 to 15
percent slopes

5.1 43.0%
124 Orthents, cut and fill-Urban
land complex, 5 to 75
percent slopes

0.2 2.0%
131 Urban land 6.3 54.0%
138 Beaches 0.1 1.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 11.7 100.0%
Soil Map—San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California Drainage Channel adjacent to 505 San Pedro Avenue
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/19/2019
2-19-0026 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 5

f
Page I of 1
Horrisberger, Christina
From: Renee Anahda [rana/
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:14 PM
To: Horrisberger, Christina·
Cc: y onguines, Raymond
Subject FW: APN 023--072-010 Study Session
Christlna,
It appears you didn't receive my comments (originally sent on May 13th). Please see the forwarded message below. Sorry for any inconveniences. Thank you.

From: Renee Ananda
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:49 PM
To: '
Cc: Renee Ananda
Subject: APN 023-072-010 Study Session
Hello Christina,
This is a follow-up to our conversation (on Monday 5110) re, the applicant's (Shawn Rhodes') preliminary proposal to construct a·z-story commercial-residential unit, a surf shop, and storage shop (a total of 3 structures) and a skate board park on a vacant tot west of San Pedro Point Shoppfng Center. The plans we received are preliminary and serve for early discussions of what would be required for the potential development project.

Please note my preliminary comments below:

The site is located within the Coastal Zone. ft appears that a majority of the site is in an area under the retained jurisdiction the Coastal Commission. The applicant w1fl need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commissic>n.

The Commission is concernecvabout the development's consistency with the Coastal Act (particularly Chapter 3, Article 6., Developmen!),JhJ_fefore potential imi:,,mt~.lo b. lological resourcesJcoaslaf views, public access to_the coast (1.e., public beaches), and its visuaf·compat1b11ity With the character ot"the surrounding area. /l"he applicant should include an analysis of traffic that would be generated by the development and assocfated impacts to vehicular public access to the coastJ
The design of the proposed project should consider measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts to the adjacent wetlands and drainage area, as these most likely nneet the definition of a wetlands under the Coastal Act. The applioant should provide an evaluation. of the proposed/potential development's impact on biological resources localed on and adjacent to the site.

These comments do not preclude additional comments Commission staff may have on the proposal, as planning and permitting processes progress.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with comments. RTA , ,5/19/2010
2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415)
FAX: (415)
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Kathryn F arb stein
Assistant Planner
City of Pacifica
1800 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA
94044
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR
May 8, 2015
Subject: Commission Staff Comments on Development Review Coordination for Proposed Project at 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, CA
Dear Ms. Farbstein:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Development Review Coordination materials for the proposed development of a 2 story retail building plus basement, covered skate park, 2 story storage building, parking lol am12 story mixed use building with 2 residential units at 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, CA. The proposed development will cover approximately 13,000 square feet on the 37,000 square feet lot with the surf shop totaling 3,500 square feet, the storage building totaling 1,540 square feet and the retail/residential building totaling 2,516 square feet.

The development also proposes a total of26 parking spaces-24 uncovered spots and 2 covered spots.

Coastal Commission Staff has previously sent comments on this development proposal (see attached May 13,2010 email from Renee Ananda and my email from October 30, 2014) citing concerns regarding the proposed development's potential impacts to biological resources, public views, access to the coast, compatibility with surrounding development, and to traffic.

Specifically, our concerns consist of the proposed project's potential impacts to the sensitive biological resources present and associated with the intermittent stream that bmmds the western edge of the subject parcel, potential flooding and geotechnical issues, hardscape protection concerns regardingform of the proposed installation of rip rap on the banks of the intermittent stream, the appropriateness of residential use on this parcel and finally, future parking and access conflicts with the adjacent shopping center use. In addition, Commission Staff raised jurisdictional issues in our previous comments because it appears the subject parcel is located within a split jurisdiction between the City and Coastal Commission coastal permit jurisdiction, either requiring the applicant to apply for two separate coastal development permits or a consolidated permit handled by the Commission (with permission from the applicant and the City).

With regard to biological resources, the 2005 biological report prepared for the subject property found that given the parcel's close proximity to San Pedro Creek, California red-legged frogs 1 2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

(CRLF) are likely to be "present and breeding within the immediate area of the surrmmding property," along the high quality habitat of the creek. The subject site is constrained by the presence of the drainage, on the western edge of the parcel that the 2005 biological report by Thomas Reid Associates determined was likely to provide a dispersal corridor for CRLF, especially given the drainage's proximity to San Pedro Creek. This drainage was deemed an "intermittent stream" in the biological report. Because of the presence of this drainage, it is also likely that the adjacent upland habitats may provide refugia for CRLF and upland areas to aestivate. Because of the parcel's constrained shape, it is unlikely the development could be adequately buffered from the drainage in order to avoid sensitive habitat impacts. LCP Policies protect intermittent streams, requiring that such streams shall be "protected, enhanced and restored where feasible"; also requiring that adequate buffer zones be identified to protect habitat areas associated with the stream. LCP Policy C-99 requires that in general, a buffer of at least I 00 feet measured from the outward edge of the vegetation would be appropriate, unless such a buffer is deemed uunecessary. Because the proposed development will immediately abut the drainage edge, and the upland habitats are proposed to be removed for future development or paved over, this proposed project does not confonn to the LCP policies protecting sensitive habitats.

With regard to geotechnical issues, plans dated October 7, 2014 proposed rip rap be installed along the ban1c of the drainage per the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer. The current plans appear to remove this aspect of the development but still propose to install a concrete curb wall with wood railing at the drainage edge. LCP Policies found on page C-1 05 state that since erosion is a problem in Pacifica, a report by the United States Army Corps of Engineers found that in many cases shoreline [protection] structures are not economically justified and would be allowable to protect on1y "major beach access or highly sensitive habitat." Further, if such protections are allowed as part of any development LCP Policy C-1 05 requires that a qualified expert should analyze and propose mitigation for such structures. Further, LCP Policy C-1 01 requires that development in habitat support areas, such as on the banks of this stream, carmot disrupt habitat and must minimize erosion. Given these limitations and the development's proximity to the drainage which provides flood storage capacity for the surrounding areas, it is unclear how the proposed development will be protected from flooding and erosion. Commission Staff has seen no analysis of flooding impacts to the proposed development including without the use of streambank alteration, but such an analysis would be required given the development's proximity to the drainage at the western edge of the parcel and its association with San Pedro Creek.

Finally, with regard to the development's, size, scope, intensity and type of use, Conunission Staff has concerns that locating new residential and other mixed-use/retail development so close to the already existing shopping center may have traffic impacts on the already-impacted Highway I in this area, and subsequent impacts to public access to the coast. No traffic analysis has been shared with Coastal Commission staff. In addition, the parcel is zoned C-2 "Conununity Conunercial District," which conditionally allows residential uses only when they are located entirely above the ground floor. Residential development in C-2 zones is further controlled by a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 2,000 square feet. Further, development in the C-2 zones located in the Coastal Zone that propose a new use other than visitor-serving commercial use, require a Use Permit determination that demands "an analysis of the balance of visitor-serving commercial uses with other commercial uses, and consistency with the individual neighborhood narratives and the plan conclusions and other relevant policies of the ... Land Use 2 2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

Plan" (per Implementation Plan Sec. 9-4.1 002). The proposed development, if allowable at all given the biological and potential flood resource concerns, would need to be designed to fit the individual narrative of the neighborhood and other requiremeots of the LUP that are specific to the Pedro Point neighborhood.

If you have any questions regarding these comments or wish to discuss the project further, please contact me at
Sincerely,
Stephanie Rexing, Coastal Planner
Encl. May 13,2010 Email
October 30,2014 Email
3 2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

Response to Comments
505 San Pedro Avenue Project
June 2018
6 Letter 2
2-2
2-1
2-5
2-3
2-7
2-6
2-8
2-4
2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

Response to Comments
505 San Pedro Avenue Project
June 2018
7 2-8
Cont’d
Letter 2
Cont’d
2-9
2-19-0026
Exhibit 6

ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

1 MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Browning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SFWO, Sacramento From: Peter Baye, Ph.D., coastal plant ecologist
Date: 4 May 2005
SUBJECT: Documentation of California red-legged frog occurrence at Pedro Point, Pacifica, San Mateo County
Jim, I am reporting to USFWS directly the attached documentation of a California redlegged frog population at Pedro Point. The site is a drainage ditch in an historic floodplain of Pedro Creek, recently proposed for residential development. The site is somewhat isolated from Pedro Creek by Highway 1, a road, buildings, and parking lots, but has drainage connections to the mouth of the creek.

LOCATION: Pedro Point Road opposite Grand Avenue, Pedro Point, Pacifica, San Mateo County. Southeast corner of Calson/”Archdiocese” Pedro Point Field.

SETTING: Drainage ditch through blue gum windbreak between commercial shopping plaza and mown grassy field with seasonal wetlands, approximately 0.25 mi from Pedro Creek. See photo attached.

HABITAT CONDITIONS: Road drainage ditch and culvert fed by seasonal to perennial seeps in hillslopes of developed residential area and historic blue gum/Monterey pine plantation. Blue gum-shaded pool less than 3 m diameter, up to 25 cm deep currently, minimal vegetation; mostly flood-deposited sand and silt; abundant non-native wetland vegetation downstream, but no perennial ponds or cattail/tule marsh.

OBSERVED OCCURRENCE: 3 Adult CRLF observed; one within culvert, one at pool edge of concrete culvert support, one submerged at depth of 10 cm. No tree frogs present in pool, but present in downstream portions of ditch system. Photos attached of two CRLF, one highly visible, one obscure (submerged silhouette). Visual observation and photos 5/3/05. Multiple aural detections of diving frogs April; no visual detections in turbid water.

No egg masses observed within visible upper 10 cm of water column.

NEARBY OCCURRENCES: Other confirmed CRLF observations in last 2 years at mouth of Calera Creek (Quarry), with San Francisco garter snake, approx 1.5 mile north. Likely 2-19-0026
Exhibit 7

ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

2 occurrence in Pedro Creek floodplain wetlands, perennial freshwater marsh. Garter snakes (likely San Francisco ssp.) also present in residential area gardens, yards.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Residential development proposed for adjacent field; likely to require improved drainage. Drainage problems of adjacent Pedro Road may require repair work; some recently implemented.
(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) Culvert and scour pool with lobe of flood sediment. (b) Detail of pool and sack-concrete dam. Adult CRLF head emergent at edge of sack-concrete, next to woody debris (sticks) at extreme left. 5/3/05.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 7

ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

3 Figure 2. Adult California red-legged frog at edge of sack-concrete dam of culvert. 5/3/05 2-19-0026
Exhibit 7

ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

4 Figure 3. Submerged silhouette of second CRLF in pool. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 7

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 1 Lee Diaz July 7, 2014
Associate Planner
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044

SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Pacifica General Plan Update Project – SCH No. No. #2012022046
Dear Mr. Diaz,
The comments below regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project (DEIR) are submitted on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association, but represent my independent, best professional judgment.

I have reviewed the DEIR sections relevant to assessment of biological resources, land use policies, and selected relevant portions covering hydrology and geology for CEQA compliance and for LCP amendment compliance with the Coastal Act. I have also conducted site visits of the Pedro Point field (also “undeveloped San Pedro Ave site” and described as “vacant” in the DEIR, General Plan and Local Coastal Plan documents) in all seasons since 2000.

My qualifications to provide expert comments are based on nearly 35 years of professional work in coastal wetland and terrestrial ecology, with over 20 years in San Francisco Estuary wetlands, including long-term direct knowledge of the estuarine wetlands, special-status species, and diked baylands in the project area. A statement of my qualifications is attached hereto as Attachment A.

My comments focus on the potentially adverse environmental impacts of proposed changes in the land use designation of the Pedro Point neighborhood. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 2 Summary of Comments

1. Environmental Baseline: The DEIR provides contradictory information about the vegetation of the Pedro Point field, asserting that it supports “northern coastal scrub”, an upland vegetation type absent in the grassy field, and that it supports wetlands. The field supports seasonal wetlands. The DEIR fails to disclose the importance of these wetlands in terms of the environmental setting of San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands in the Coastal Zone (the field is the last remaining historical floodplain of the lower San Pedro Creek Valley that has not been developed in the Coastal Zone) and the local distribution of ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas) supporting California red-legged frogs.

2. Biological Impacts to Wetlands and Special-status Species: The DEIR fails to analyze any biological impacts caused by conversion of the existing Pedro Point field to a land use designation of “Coastal Residential Mixed Use development”. The DEIR fails to programmatically assess impacts at a neighborhood-specific level as it did in the 1980 General Plan, and it fails to consider general impacts of residential development on extensive seasonal wetlands and ESHA in and around the field. The proposed land use change for the field is likely to cause significant impacts to wetlands, wildlife, and special-status species for which no feasible mitigation has been identified, and for which no feasible mitigation probably exists.

3. Land Use Impacts. The DEIR fails to analyze land use impacts caused by changing the land use of the field from a general “Commercial” use (1980 General Plan) to a more specific and different “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” designation. This change for the field’s designated land use causes significant impacts (conflicts with) to the City’s own land use policies and numerous Coastal Commission land use policies that cannot be mitigated, and are not mitigated by the vague, programmatic mitigation measures cited in the DEIR.

4. Conclusion. The DEIR fails to disclose important biological resources, and their distribution and relationship to other biological resources and communities in the environmental setting of lower San Pedro Creek. This precludes meaningful public comment and DEIR analysis of significant impacts to biological resources and land use policies that are likely to occur. The DEIR should be recirculated to correct the flawed environmental baseline and defective impact analysis, and should identify reasonable alternatives that either lessen significant impacts, or are otherwise environmentally preferable.

1. Environmental Baseline
The DEIR presents inconsistent and erroneous biological baseline description of the existing conditions of the Pedro Point field and its vicinity. The errors, omissions, and contradictory environmental baseline description results in erroneous conclusions that the project (General Plan) will have no significant biological impacts. Neighborhood-specific assessments of proposed General Plan land use changes are lacking for Pedro Point, its field, and for the DEIR in general. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 3 Assessment of biological and land use impacts to the Pedro Point neighborhood requires reference to existing physical and biological environmental conditions (2014; approximately the time of the EIR’s notice of preparation), and the existing land use designations from the 1980 General Plan. The existing biological conditions of the Pedro Point field – the last undeveloped lowland open space within the historical floodplain of San Pedro Creek – is inaccurately and inconsistently represented in the DEIR’s figures and text. These errors result in underestimation of significant biological impacts, as discussed below.

1.1 Mapped DEIR Wetlands, Vegetation and Habitats – physical and biological baseline The DEIR provides contradictory and confused (and confusing) information about the existing biological conditions of the Pedro Point field. Figure 3.7-1 (Vegetation; DEIR p. 3.7-3) maps most of the field in the color-code (pale olive green) corresponding with “Northern Coastal Scrub” (an upland vegetation type associated with coastal hillslopes and bluffs), and part of the field color-coded gray as “urban” land use but overlapping with the “wetlands” symbol. This is contradictory and erroneous environmental baseline information. There are in fact no stands of northern coastal scrub vegetation at all within or around the Pedro Point field. The shrubs on the railroad berm are ornamental non-native plantings. No part of the field is “urban” cover type, as misrepresented in the figure; no paved or developed areas with structures exist in the field. Figure 3.1-1 shows the “Existing land use” color-coded gray as “Vacant/Undeveloped”, which is also inconsistent with “urban” land use, but consistent with “wetlands”. The map also misrepresents mixed ornamental, non-native, and native coastal bluff scrub vegetation northwest of the field as “beach/intertidal” habitat. The two major color-coded map units for the Pedro Point field, “urban” and “northern coastal scrub” are incorrect.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 4 Excerpted section of Figure 3.7-1 of the DEIR “Vegetation” map (above) showing Pedro Point field with paper streets between Dannman and San Pedro Ave. The setting within the Draft Local Coastal Plan (2014) as represented as “Undeveloped San Pedro Ave Site”, is shown in a portion of Figure 4.8 (left).

Only one map symbol (pattern) for the vacant/undeveloped Pedro Point field in Figure 3.7-1 is accurate: “wetlands” classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory at coarse scale, as shown also in DEIR figure 3.7-2. The Pedro Point field itself is dominated by non-native grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plants, including seasonal wetland and non-wetland vegetation. Both maps omit the distinct seasonal and perennial wetlands of the drainage swale at the east end of the field, which drain to San Pedro Creek through a series of culverts. The drainage swale wetlands, the wetland connectivity to San Pedro Creek mouth, and the extensive perennial wetlands (Freshwater Marsh) of San Pedro Creek are entirely missing from the vegetation map of Figure 3.7-1.

Other errors describing habitat and vegetation are evident in the DEIR’s descriptions of existing conditions in the coastal zone. For example, the DEIR confuses coastal strand (beaches and dunes) with coastal bluff scrub, and states that the plant sea-rocket (Cakile maritima) is a dominant species of “coastal bluff scrub”. Sea-rocket is a non-native species common on sand beaches and low foredunes (like those 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 5 of Pacifica State Beach), but does not occur at all in coastal bluff scrub in Pacifica or elsewhere, let alone as a dominant species. The description of coastal bluff scrub combines species that simply do not occur together in natural or disturbed environments of Pacifica.

1.2. Wetland classification of the Pedro Point field and vicinity: existing conditions Based on my recent and past site visits, I know that the existing vegetation of the Pedro Point field consists of predominantly annual and perennial, herbaceous, non-native seasonal wetland and upland grassland vegetation. Seasonal wetland grassland occupies a mosaic of depressions, ditches, and swales.

Mesic grassland (seasonally wet but lacking a prevalence of wetland indicator plants) occupies portions of the higher elevation zones of the site, primarily to the southwest corner. The wetland depressions are indicated by seasonally high density of toad rush (Juncus bufonius, FACW, facultative-wet indicator in arid west), co-occuring with European ryegrass (Festuca perenne; syn. Lolium perenne; FAC, facultative wetland indicator in arid west) and buck’s-horn plaintain (Plantago coronopus; FACW, facultative-wet indicator in arid west). Some of the wettest depressions support populations of Lilaea scilloides (flowering quillwort). Flowering quillwort is evident only in the wettest years when pools stay flooded for many weeks or months. Accurate wetland plant identification and measurement of the seasonal wetland patches at this site are possible only during winter to spring months. Desiccation, disturbance (trampling, mowing, discing) eliminates or degrades wetland vegetation and precludes accurate identification in fall and summer. Similarly, accurate assessment of wetland hydrology is feasible only during the rainy season, during and within two weeks following major rainfall events.

The USFWS classification of Pedro Point Field wetlands shows wetlands distributed over approximately all of the site, as shown in DEIR Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2. Past and current National Wetland Inventory (“NWI”) maps consistently apply wetland classifications to approximately all of the field. Two current classifications of the field’s wetlands include the codes “PEMah” and “PUSCh”, both “palustrine” (freshwater emergent, non-tidal) seasonal, and consistent with the seasonally flooded hydrology associated with surrounding berms. The “U” (unconsolidated shore) probably is associated with intermittent unvegetated (disced, vegetation disturbed) conditions. The NWI wetland mapping of the field broad-brush treatment of prevailing past wetland distribution, but the precision of the NWI wetland type boundaries is not precise enough for the DEIR to represent as “existing conditions” in 2014 CEQA assessment. In my professional opinion, “wetlands” meeting the jurisdictional criteria for Coastal Commission (“Commission”) policies, and classification as “wetland” under the Cowardin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS) system, are in fact present and widely distributed over the Pedro Point field today, despite past unauthorized ditching and drainage activities (see wetland history, below).

Despite DEIR’s inclusion of NWI mapped wetlands in some figures, the DEIR fails to apply the NWI wetland mapping and classification (as well any current field reconnaissance observations to update or verify them) to any meaningful biological assessment of potential wetland impacts of land use 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 6 designation changes to the field, and assessment of alternatives. The DEIR fails to assess the extent and distribution of the field’s seasonal wetlands (meeting Cowardin/California Coastal Commission wetland criteria) in relation to land use changes proposed. The DEIR does not consider the accuracy or distribution of the (old) NWI wetland maps based on existing field conditions. Specifically, the DEIR does not analyze whether the field’s wetlands are localized or extensively distributed in the field, so it cannot analyze whether it is even feasible to designate a coastal residential mixed-use development without committing the City’s General Plan to significant wetland impacts, in conflict with its own land use policies and Coastal Act policies.

Further, because of the DEIR’s omissions about wetland impacts, comparison of alternatives will lack relevant information about feasible land use alternatives that may avoid or minimize wetland impacts, and which may be environmentally preferable. Examples of environmentally preferable alternatives consistent with City and Coastal Act policies include existing “Commercial” land use (with and without “Commercial-Recreation” zoning) compatible with low-intensity visitor-serving commercial recreation/tourism-promoting uses; or “Conservation” - all of which are consistent with City policies for tourism destination, avoidance of natural hazards, wetland conservation, and consistency with recreational, scenic values that Coastal Act policies give priority over residential development.

1.3. Wetland jurisdiction and CEQA
The DEIR cites multiple state and federal wetland jurisdictions. With respect to assessment of biological impacts to wetlands, USFWS (NWI, Cowardin wetland classification), California Coastal Act, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife wetland policy definitions are applicable because these are fundamentally based on habitat, hydrogeomorphic features, and ecological functions. In contrast the narrowest federal definition (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency; USACE/EPA) under the Clean Water Act is specifically limited to legal wetland definition for jurisdiction over authorization of discharges of earthen fill regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE/EPA wetland definition contains federal exemptions and policy disclaimers that are not relevant to biological impact assessment under CEQA, and it is a narrower and more exclusive definition that is likely to underestimate the extent of habitat-based or hydrogeomorphic definitions appropriate for impact assessment.

The California Coastal Act Section 30231 defines a wetland as:
…lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 7 Similarly, the Cowardin (USFWS, NWI) wetland classification uses a general broad definition of wetlands:

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.

California Coastal Act jurisdictional wetlands criteria in the California Code of Regulations at 14 14 CCR Section 13577 establish a “one-parameter definition” that only requires evidence of a single wetland parameter to establish wetland conditions, in contrast with federal wetlands criteria under the Clean Water Act:

Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts…
The Commission’s one-parameter definition is similar to the USFWS wetlands criteria, which state that wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:
(1) at least periodically the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

In contrast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency use a three parameter definition for delineating wetlands under Clean Water Act jurisdiction, which is relevant only in context of USACE permit authorization for discharges of fill in jurisdictional waters of the United States. The USACE definition is narrower than those of the Coastal Commission (relevant to LCP) and USFWS (relevant to wetland impact assessment under CEQA, not limited to fill discharges and subject to federal exemptions irrelevant to CEQA).

The City’s wetland policies (Land Use; DEIR p. 3.1-21) cite both USACE/EPA and Coastal Commission wetland definitions. CO-I-5, CO-I-6 cites both, and CO-I-8 cites State (CDFW/CCC) wetlands only. The narrower USACE/EPA definition is relevant only to those land use policy elements that specifically cite it in context of wetland fill permits. The USACE/EPA jurisdictional wetlands are not the proper standard for determining consistency of GPU consistency with Coastal Act wetlands policies, or wetland impacts under CEQA. This should be corrected in the EIR, or else the EIR will not provide accurate conclusions about Pedro Point field land use impacts regarding wetlands in context of CEQA or Coastal Act policies.

1.4. Special-status species and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA): California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) environmental baseline 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 8 California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii; CRLF) occur in the freshwater marsh drainage swale bordering the Pedro Point Field along its eastern edge. I reported their presence to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered Species Program in 2005. If the DEIR preparers had consulted properly with state and federal wildlife agencies, or local residents, about the local distribution of special-status or other wildlife species, this information would have been available to include in the DEIR. The DEIR, however, failed to disclose the local sub-population of CRLF in the drainage swale bordering the field, and its relationship with the population of the lower San Pedro Creek wetland complex.

I have observed adult red-legged frogs are most often observable basking along muddy or prostrate grass banks near the culverts draining San Pedro Avenue at the southeast corner of the field. The perennial moisture in this swale provides year-round hydration habitat for CRLF, as well as foraging and potential breeding habitat. CRLF breeding is indicated by intermittent local population increases in redlegged frogs here, most notably in 2010. Foraging activities of CRLF likely extend to adjacent nonwetland flats (rich in invertebrate prey) in the field during moist, foggy nighttime and early morning conditions. I am not aware of protocol nighttime surveys for California red-legged frog conducted either in the freshwater marsh swale adjacent to the field, or in the field itself. The vicinity of the freshwater marsh swale and field are a complex of foraging, basking, dispersal, and breeding wetland and upland habitat for California red-legged frogs. It thus also meets criteria for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) under California Coastal Commission regulations. The DEIR fails to include this information about CRLF at and in proximity to the field.

In addition, the DEIR fails to analyze the potential adverse, significant impacts to CRLF from the proposed land use changes. Land use designations that would foreseeably increase the intensity of land use, such as the proposed redesignation to allow residential development or other substantial increases in the built environment, may have significant direct and indirect impacts on CRLF. The proposed residential mixed-use development of the field would likely (a) substantially reduce available nocturnal foraging habitat for CRLF (food and prey base impacts to growth and survival; (b) increase contaminant loads in the drainage swale due to runoff from driveways, roads, and backyard sources of pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, and detergents (reproductive impacts); (c) increase peak flow velocities in the swale during major storm runoff events (juvenile mortality impacts).

Not only has the DEIR not assessed such impacts, it has not identified feasible programmatic mitigation measures. Feasible mitigation for ESHA/California red-legged frog habitat and frog populations must include measures to (a) avoid and minimize “take” of individual frogs, (b) avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF habitat; and (c) provide adequate buffer zones to minimize adverse effects of incompatible adjacent land uses. The spatial structure of CRLF mitigation aligned with the freshwater marsh swale bordering the field may substantially constrain the feasibility of some incompatible land use designations, especially any that increase runoff, contaminants or pesticides, predator pressure on CRLF, 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 9 or reduce the extent or quality of potential productive nighttime foraging habitat. The Bolsa Chica court decision [Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court 71 Cal. Ap.4th 493, 507] confirmed that the Coastal Act requires that ESHA be avoided and buffered from development impacts and that providing compensatory mitigation alone is insufficient as ESHA mitigation.

Intermittent breeding habitat of California red-legged frogs in freshwater marsh swale bordering the southeast corner of the field, near roadside culverts. An adult CRLF is shown at the concrete base of foundation culvert on August 20, 2006, after the field ditch connections were breached to the swale north of this pool. CRLF frequently bask in the western muddy or grassy banks of this pool in wet (non-drought) years.

1.5. Wetland context and cumulative impacts: environmental setting of Pedro Point The DEIR also omisrepresents the existing environmental setting and context of the wetlands of the Pedro Point field. The field’s wetlands are represented as completely isolated from any other significant wetlands or potential wetland-dependent endangered species habitats. See Figures 3.1-1, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and

3.7-3, all of which fail to show the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands and their riparian wetland habitat, vegetation and hydrological connections with Pedro Point field and its wetlands. The San Pedro Creek stream mouth wetlands, however, are shown as red-legged frog habitat (marsh, creek, and riparian vegetation) in Figure 3.7-1, but without their wetland connections to the Pedro Point field and drainage swale wetlands. The omission of the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands in the Coastal Zone is either arbitrarily selective or at least inconsistent in the DEIR: the riparian corridor and wetlands upstream of Highway 1, outside the coastal zone, are represented in Figure 3.7-1 and 3.7-4, but not in Figure 3.7-2.

This error of selective omission of wetlands in the project vicinity appears to be due to the DEIR’s failure to critically interpret and update National Wetlands Inventory map with even cursory examination of readily available current aerial or satellite imagery of San Pedro Creek mouth (e.g., Google Earth), or field reconnaissance surveys of the conspicuous restored freshwater marsh there. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 10 Figure 3.7-2, “National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands”, completely fails to represent the perennial freshwater emergent marsh and freshwater streams of San Pedro Creek mouth as they existed at the time of the DEIR’s notice of preparation, and as they have existed for about a decade. The DEIR cannot uncritically transfer NWI map data without checking for errors of omission due to outdated data layers.

The NWI wetland classification (Cowardin USFWS classification system) provides sufficient clear wetland criteria to identify the obvious wetlands (cattail and tule marsh vegetation 6 to over 10 feet tall with standing water) at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. This marsh is clearly known to the City of Pacifica, which was the local partner in the project that restored it.

The adjacent San Pedro Creek mouth freshwater marsh is very significant as an environmental setting of the seasonal wetlands of the Pedro Point field. Ecological connectivity (wildlife corridors for wetland-dependent wildlife) exists between the creek mouth marsh and the field, provided by the drainage swale wetlands (not currently channelized; infilled with sediment and wetland vegetation) consisting of willow swamp (riparian scrub) and freshwater marsh dominated by broadleaf wetland forbs and grasses.

The environmental setting and potential Project and cumulative impacts to wetlands at the Pedro Point field are related to their hydrogeomorphic setting and historical origins and development. The preagricultural “natural” condition of the field was freshwater nontidal marsh within the floodplain of San Pedro Creek (San Pedro Valley lowlands). The modern field was part of complex of freshwater marsh and swamp (alder-willow) surrounding Lake Mathilda (the freshwater lagoon outlet of San Pedro Creek prior to channelization), behind the barrier beach (San Pedro Beach). The rich organic fine-grained alluvial soils were converted to agricultural cropland (artichoke fields) by draining and ditching in the late 19th century. The field apparently persisted with either low-intensity agricultural use (grazing, haying) into the 1950s or early 1960s when Linda Mar was extensively developed. Some fill was placed on at least portions of the field in recent decades, but differential subsidence in the flat to very gently sloping (<2%) field maintained depressional microtopography (shallow swales, pools) to the present day.

I have observed the Pedro Point field since the year 2000 in all seasons. Wet (saturated to seasonally flooded) depressions in the field persisted for weeks to months, supporting typical seasonal wetlands grasslands dominated by ryegrss, toad rush, buck’s-horn plaintain in winter-spring months. In addition, a regionally rare vernal pool/pond plant, the flowering quillwort (Lilaea scilloides) occurred in local abundance in several pools. In January, 2006, the current landowner and assistants manually excavated diagonal ditches and side-cast fill (ditch spoils) across the field, apparently with the intent of draining the field. In August 2006, mechanical equipment breached wide gaps in the berm between the field and the adjacent drainage swale marsh. These drainage activities were apparently completed without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit or authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Despite the 2006 drainage ditching and subsequent maintenance and repeated discing of the field, depressional wetlands have persisted and re-emerged (due in part to differential settlement and choking of 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

Peter R. Baye Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 11 ditches) in the field. The ditching appears to have reduced the duration and extent of wetland hydrology, but significant wetland areas remain widely distributed across most of the field, including the original seasonal wetland plant community.

Excerpt of U.S. Coast Survey map of San Francisco Peninsula, 1869, based on 1850s topography: San Pedro Creek Valley and beach, now Linda Mar. Approximate location of San Pedro Field (Calson/former Archdiocese property) in red shows the relationship of the modern field wetlands to the historical valley floodplain wetland complex.

Parallel horizontal hatched lines indicate freshwater marsh. Stippled shoreline area indicates sandy beach, dune, washover. Fine horizontal hatching is open freshwater (Lake Mathilda; historical Pedro Creek Lagoon, drained for agriculture 19th century). Irregular circles/dots within marsh = wooded freshwater swamp (alder, willow). No scale.

Extensive seasonal flooding of
the Pedro Point Field during the
transition between the historical
agricultural era (derelict or lowintensity agricultural use) and suburban development of Linda
Mar in San Pedro Valley
lowlands (background), likely
1950s-early 1960s. View to
E/SE. The eucalyptus and
Monterey cypress trees at the
fenceline correspond the mature
trees present today along the
drainage swale at the east end of
Approximate
location modern
San Pedro Field flats

SAN PEDRO
VALLEY

FRESHWATER
MARSH

FRESHWATER MARSH
(horizontal hatching)

FRESHWATER SWAMP
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8