Agenda — Pacifica City Council, June 27, 2022 (part 6 of 8)

11.f
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 48.9 34.8 35.1 35.2 18.5 18.3 24.2 24.2 30.7 36.0 32.5 31.2 Movement LOS D C D D B B C C C D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 35.25 26.60 29.49 34.78
Approach LOS D C C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 30.50
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.686
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
4 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.649
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 17.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 4: Route 1 & Crespi Dr.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 45.00 45.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 95.00 155.00 100.00 100.00 140.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 1 2 0 0 1
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1256 78 170 707 60 349
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 314 20 43 177 15 87
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 1256 78 170 707 60 349
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 54 0 9 32 0 2
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 1202 78 161 675 60 347
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
5 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 12 18 0 10 18 0
Walk [s] 5 5 0 5 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Amber [s] 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Maximum Green [s] 60 60 60 60 60 60
Minimum Green [s] 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lead / Lag - - Lead - Lead -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 2,8 1,8
Signal Group 2 8 1 6 8 1
Control Type Permissiv Overlap Protected Permissiv Permissiv Overlap Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 9.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
6 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 363.11 13.40 58.43 75.04 42.75 190.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 14.52 0.54 2.34 3.00 1.71 7.61 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 236.90 7.44 32.46 41.69 23.75 105.91 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 9.48 0.30 1.30 1.67 0.95 4.24 Critical Lane Group Yes No Yes No No Yes
Lane Group LOS C A C A C B
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 22.73 4.32 27.51 5.46 26.93 15.81 X, volume / capacity 0.85 0.07 0.25 0.30 0.17 0.49
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.51 0.03 0.20 0.07 0.23 0.51 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.22 4.29 27.31 5.39 26.70 15.30 c, Capacity [veh/h] 1471 1078 670 2382 350 719
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3547 1583 3445 3547 1774 1583 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.41 0.68 0.19 0.67 0.20 0.45
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 33 54 16 54 16 36
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.50 0.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 0.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 80 80 80 80 80 80
Lane Group C R L C L R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
7 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 22.73 4.32 27.51 5.46 26.93 15.81 Movement LOS C A C A C B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 21.65 9.73 17.44
Approach LOS C A B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17.01
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.649
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
8 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.960
Level Of Service: E
Delay (sec / veh): 78.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 8: Route 1 & Fassler Ave/Rockaway Beach Ave.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 155. 100. 55.0 400. 100. 50.0 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestboun Northwestbound Southeastbound Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 34 155 3 328 896 40 9 22 782 87 13 27 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 9 390 1 82 224 10 2 6 196 22 3 7 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 34 155 3 328 896 40 9 22 782 87 13 27 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 56 0 8 39 0 2 0 16 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 34 150 3 320 857 40 7 22 766 87 13 27 Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
9 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 20 60 0 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
10 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 74.9 136 3.27 275. 446. 37.5 39.43 550.88 235.59 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 3.00 54.7 0.13 11.0 17.8 1.50 1.58 22.04 9.42 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 41.6 986. 1.82 168. 303. 20.8 21.90 389.12 138.93 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.67 39.4 0.07 6.75 12.1 0.83 0.88 15.56 5.56 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Lane Group LOS F F C E C C D E F
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 100. 117. 29.9 73.3 29.7 22.6 39.09 58.43 82.66 X, volume / capacity 0.77 1.15 0.00 0.85 0.54 0.05 0.06 0.93 0.85 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 24.0 69.5 0.00 5.09 0.27 0.03 0.04 5.19 12.05 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 76.0 48.4 29.9 68.2 29.4 22.5 39.04 53.24 70.61 c, Capacity [veh/h] 44 135 606 388 166 745 552 842 150
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 354 158 344 354 158 1836 2803 1738 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.07 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.47 0.47 0.30 0.30 0.09 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 4 60 60 18 74 74 47 47 14 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 Lane Group L C R L C R C R C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
11 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 100. 117. 29.9 73.3 29.7 22.6 39.0 39.0 58.4 82.6 82.6 82.6 Movement LOS F F C E C C D D E F F F
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 117.43 40.81 57.69 82.66
Approach LOS F D E F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 77.99
Intersection LOS E
Intersection V/C 0.960
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
12 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.943
Level Of Service: D
Delay (sec / veh): 46.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 9: Route 1 & Reina del Mar Ave.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 25.00 45.00 45.00 25.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100. 100. 50.0 175. 100. 55.0 425. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.00 12.0 0.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Westbound Northeastbound Southwestboun Southeastbound Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 123 0 308 5 230 177 122 115 72 4 53 0 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 31 0 77 1 577 44 31 288 18 1 13 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 123 0 308 5 230 177 122 115 72 4 53 0 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 123 0 308 5 220 177 122 111 72 4 53 0 Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
13 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 0 60 0 20 120 0 60 120 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 0 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag - - - Lea - - Lea - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 4 0
Control Type Split Split Split Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
14 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 429.78 409.82 14.6 170 143. 264. 417. 412. 134.11 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 17.19 16.39 0.59 68.1 5.75 10.5 16.7 16.4 5.36 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 290.11 274.07 8.14 135 79.9 160. 280. 276. 74.51 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 11.60 10.96 0.33 54.0 3.20 6.43 11.2 11.0 2.98 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes
Lane Group LOS F F F F B F B B F
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 90.75 91.39 120. 54.0 14.7 99.9 12.7 12.7 96.04 X, volume / capacity 0.90 0.90 0.45 1.03 0.18 0.86 0.47 0.47 0.64 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 11.01 11.65 26.1 18.9 0.08 13.5 0.28 0.30 7.35 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 79.74 79.74 94.2 35.1 14.6 86.4 12.4 12.4 88.69 c, Capacity [veh/h] 248 233 11 223 998 142 131 128 89
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1684 1583 177 354 158 177 186 182 1782 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.65 0.11 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.03 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.63 0.63 0.08 0.70 0.70 0.05 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 28 28 1 120 120 15 134 134 10 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 Lane Group C R L C R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
15 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 90.7 90.7 91.1 120. 54.0 14.7 99.9 12.7 12.7 96.0 96.0 96.0 Movement LOS F F F F F B F B B F F F
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 91.06 51.42 20.62 96.04
Approach LOS F D C F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 46.37
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.943
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CA.pdf
rkh civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
16 Scenario 10: 10 Cumulative AMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.710
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 30.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 3: Route 1 & Linda Mar Blvd./San Pedro Ave.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 45.00 45.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 60.0 100. 100. 290. 100. 100. 100. 100. 205. 210. 100. 170.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1
Lane Width [ft] 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestboun Northwestbound Southeastbound Name Route 1 Route 1 Linda Mar Blvd.

Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 32 435 123 765 661 179 161 90 408 150 130 34 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 8 109 31 191 165 45 40 23 102 38 33 9 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 32 435 123 765 661 179 161 90 408 150 130 34 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 1 5 7 55 2 15 5 12 41 18 13 1 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 31 430 116 710 659 164 156 78 367 132 117 33 Name Route 1 Route 1 Linda Mar Blvd.

Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
1 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 28 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 40 0 40 40 0 0 40 40 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 5 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,8
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 1 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
2 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 34.1 239. 229. 282. 178. 89.3 217.59 182.26 141. 117. 28.6 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.36 9.57 9.17 11.3 7.13 3.57 8.70 7.29 5.67 4.71 1.15 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 18.9 141. 134. 174. 99.0 49.6 125.67 101.25 78.7 65.4 15.9 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.76 5.67 5.37 6.98 3.96 1.99 5.03 4.05 3.15 2.62 0.64 Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Lane Group LOS D D D C B B D D D D C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 49.0 37.1 37.8 31.6 16.7 15.4 35.98 35.49 40.0 37.5 33.8 X, volume / capacity 0.57 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.43 0.26 0.75 0.79 0.71 0.59 0.18 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 8.93 4.54 5.18 2.27 0.19 0.20 3.49 2.76 4.39 2.46 0.45 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 40.1 32.6 32.6 29.3 16.5 15.2 32.49 32.74 35.6 35.0 33.3 c, Capacity [veh/h] 56 354 328 905 153 686 333 516 211 222 188 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 186 172 344 354 158 1805 2803 177 186 158 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.19 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.02 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 3 16 16 22 36 36 15 15 10 10 10 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Lane Group L C C L C R C R L C R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
3 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 49.0 37.3 37.8 31.6 16.7 15.4 35.9 35.9 35.4 40.0 37.5 33.8 Movement LOS D D D C B B D D D D D C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 38.12 23.70 35.68 38.32
Approach LOS D C D D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 30.33
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.710
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
4 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.667
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 12.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 4: Route 1 & Crespi Dr.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 45.00 45.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 95.00 155.00 100.00 100.00 140.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 1 2 0 0 1
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 939 58 385 1574 61 225
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 235 15 96 394 15 56
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 939 58 385 1574 61 225
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 62 2 6 70 2 11
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 877 56 379 1504 59 214
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
5 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 12 18 0 10 18 0
Walk [s] 5 5 0 5 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Amber [s] 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Maximum Green [s] 60 60 60 60 60 60
Minimum Green [s] 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lead / Lag - - Lead - Lead -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 2,8 1,8
Signal Group 2 8 1 6 8 1
Control Type Permissiv Overlap Protected Permissiv Permissiv Overlap Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 9.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
6 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 189.36 5.68 85.80 140.86 27.03 60.67 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 7.57 0.23 3.43 5.63 1.08 2.43 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 105.24 3.16 47.66 78.25 15.02 33.71 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 4.21 0.13 1.91 3.13 0.60 1.35 Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No Yes
Lane Group LOS B A C A B A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.27 3.92 20.66 7.52 18.49 9.00 X, volume / capacity 0.79 0.06 0.60 0.72 0.18 0.30
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.23 0.02 0.88 0.46 0.26 0.23 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 16.04 3.90 19.78 7.06 18.23 8.77
c, Capacity [veh/h] 1186 989 646 2184 332 742
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3547 1583 3445 3547 1774 1583 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.26 0.04 0.11 0.44 0.03 0.14 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.62 0.19 0.62 0.19 0.47
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 33 10 33 10 25
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.50 0.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 0.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 53 53 53 53 53 53
Lane Group C R L C L R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
7 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.27 3.92 20.66 7.52 18.49 9.00 Movement LOS B A C A B A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 16.50 10.10 11.02
Approach LOS B B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 12.15
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.667
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
8 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.906
Level Of Service: E
Delay (sec / veh): 55.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 8: Route 1 & Fassler Ave/Rockaway Beach Ave.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestboun Northwestbound Southeastbound Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 83 107 16 742 180 88 24 27 345 131 42 91 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 21 269 4 186 452 22 6 7 86 33 11 23 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 83 107 16 742 180 88 24 27 345 131 42 91 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 65 8 18 71 0 5 0 15 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 83 101 8 724 173 88 19 27 330 131 42 91 Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
9 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 20 60 0 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
10 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 159. 684. 18.4 506. 113 74.4 78.96 277.29 412.59 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 6.38 27.3 0.74 20.2 45.5 2.98 3.16 11.09 16.50 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 88.6 500. 10.2 352. 892. 41.3 43.87 170.28 276.29 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 3.55 20.0 0.41 14.1 35.6 1.65 1.75 6.81 11.05 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes
Lane Group LOS F D C E F B E E E
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 83.0 52.3 34.2 59.5 50.3 19.2 57.40 69.27 75.49 X, volume / capacity 0.80 0.92 0.03 0.90 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.87 0.91 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 13.1 3.68 0.02 4.02 13.4 0.06 0.37 6.06 14.10 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 69.9 48.6 34.2 55.5 36.9 19.2 57.03 63.21 61.39 c, Capacity [veh/h] 104 116 520 822 180 805 257 396 289 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 354 158 344 354 158 1820 2803 1716 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.22 0.51 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.15 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.51 0.51 0.14 0.14 0.17 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 9 49 49 36 76 76 21 21 25 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Lane Group L C R L C R C R C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
11 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 83.0 52.3 34.2 59.5 50.3 19.2 57.4 57.4 69.2 75.4 75.4 75.4 Movement LOS F D C E F B E E E E E E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 54.26 51.88 67.74 75.49
Approach LOS D D E E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 55.31
Intersection LOS E
Intersection V/C 0.906
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
12 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.855
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 26.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 9: Route 1 & Reina del Mar Ave.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.00 12.0 0.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Westbound Northeastbound Southwestboun Southeastbound Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 94 3 125 2 145 82 220 257 4 5 2 14 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 24 1 31 1 364 21 55 645 1 1 1 4 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 94 3 125 2 145 82 220 257 4 5 2 14 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 104 0 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 94 3 125 2 138 82 220 247 4 5 2 14 Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
13 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 0 60 0 20 120 0 60 120 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 0 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag - - - Lea - - Lea - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 4 0
Control Type Split Split Split Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
14 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 180.93 171.40 5.85 490. 42.9 299. 932. 933. 32.63 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 7.24 6.86 0.23 19.6 1.72 11.9 37.2 37.3 1.31 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 100.52 95.22 3.25 339. 23.8 187. 713. 714. 18.13 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 4.02 3.81 0.13 13.5 0.95 7.49 28.5 28.5 0.73 Critical Lane Group No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes
Lane Group LOS E E F B B E C C E
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 65.39 67.13 113. 18.2 11.1 63.8 24.0 24.1 62.92 X, volume / capacity 0.76 0.78 0.42 0.69 0.09 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.32 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 7.76 9.39 49.4 0.41 0.04 9.53 9.21 9.27 2.83 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 57.63 57.74 64.2 17.8 11.1 54.2 14.8 14.8 60.10 c, Capacity [veh/h] 151 137 5 211 943 251 136 136 65
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1744 1583 177 354 158 177 186 186 1583 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.41 0.05 0.12 0.69 0.69 0.01 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.14 0.73 0.73 0.04 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 11 11 0 77 77 18 95 95 5
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 Lane Group C R L C R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
15 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 65.3 65.3 66.9 113. 18.2 11.1 63.8 24.0 24.1 62.9 62.9 62.9 Movement LOS E E E F B B E C C E E E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 66.23 18.04 27.21 62.92
Approach LOS E B C E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 26.18
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.855
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 CP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
16 Scenario 15: 15 15 Cumulative PMPH
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.687
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 30.6
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 3: Route 1 & Linda Mar Blvd./San Pedro Ave.

Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 17 525 106 394 302 117 83 66 618 132 59 11 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 131 27 99 76 29 21 17 155 33 15 3 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 17 525 106 394 302 117 83 66 618 132 59 11 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 1 1 26 2 5 5 7 53 2 2 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 17 524 105 368 300 112 78 59 565 130 57 11 Name Route 1 Route 1 Linda Mar Blvd.

Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
1 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 28 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 40 0 40 40 0 0 40 40 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 5 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,8
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 1 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
2 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 18.5 250. 241. 162. 81.7 63.2 101.58 239.26 114. 47.5 8.62 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.74 10.0 9.66 6.49 3.27 2.53 4.06 9.57 4.58 1.90 0.34 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 10.3 149. 143. 90.2 45.3 35.1 56.44 141.66 63.6 26.3 4.79 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.41 5.99 5.73 3.61 1.82 1.41 2.26 5.67 2.55 1.06 0.19 Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Lane Group LOS D C D D B B C C D C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 49.0 34.7 35.1 35.3 18.5 18.3 24.26 30.81 36.1 32.6 31.3 X, volume / capacity 0.48 0.82 0.83 0.77 0.24 0.21 0.31 0.84 0.61 0.26 0.06 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 9.99 4.38 4.79 2.42 0.10 0.18 0.37 2.69 2.70 0.59 0.12 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 39.0 30.3 30.3 32.9 18.4 18.2 23.88 28.12 33.4 32.0 31.2 c, Capacity [veh/h] 35 393 371 514 125 559 475 735 218 229 194 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 186 175 344 354 158 1812 2803 177 186 158 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.01 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.12 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2 17 17 12 28 28 21 21 10 10 10 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Lane Group L C C L C R C R L C R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
3 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 49.0 34.9 35.1 35.3 18.5 18.3 24.2 24.2 30.8 36.1 32.6 31.3 Movement LOS D C D D B B C C C D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 35.31 26.65 29.54 34.87
Approach LOS D C C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 30.56
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.687
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
4 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.651
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 17.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 4: Route 1 & Crespi Dr.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 45.00 45.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 95.00 155.00 100.00 100.00 140.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 1 2 0 0 1
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1256 80 174 707 61 354
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 314 20 44 177 15 89
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 1256 80 174 707 61 354
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 54 2 13 32 1 7
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 1202 78 161 675 60 347
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
5 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 12 18 0 10 18 0
Walk [s] 5 5 0 5 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Amber [s] 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Maximum Green [s] 60 60 60 60 60 60
Minimum Green [s] 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lead / Lag - - Lead - Lead -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 2,8 1,8
Signal Group 2 8 1 6 8 1
Control Type Permissiv Overlap Protected Permissiv Permissiv Overlap Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 9.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
6 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 370.20 14.21 60.83 77.16 44.18 194.99 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 14.81 0.57 2.43 3.09 1.77 7.80 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 242.51 7.90 33.79 42.87 24.54 109.28 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 9.70 0.32 1.35 1.71 0.98 4.37 Critical Lane Group Yes No Yes No No Yes
Lane Group LOS C A C A C B
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.16 4.41 27.82 5.53 27.25 15.95 X, volume / capacity 0.86 0.07 0.26 0.30 0.17 0.49
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.54 0.03 0.20 0.07 0.23 0.51 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.62 4.38 27.62 5.46 27.02 15.43 c, Capacity [veh/h] 1468 1077 678 2384 353 724
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3547 1583 3445 3547 1774 1583 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.41 0.68 0.20 0.67 0.20 0.46
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 34 55 16 55 16 37
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.50 0.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 0.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 81 81 81 81 81 81
Lane Group C R L C L R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
7 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.16 4.41 27.82 5.53 27.25 15.95 Movement LOS C A C A C B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 22.04 9.93 17.61
Approach LOS C A B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17.29
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.651
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
8 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.962
Level Of Service: E
Delay (sec / veh): 78.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 8: Route 1 & Fassler Ave/Rockaway Beach Ave.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestboun Northwestbound Southeastbound Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 34 156 3 328 900 40 9 22 782 87 13 27 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 9 391 1 82 225 10 2 6 196 22 3 7 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 34 156 3 328 900 40 9 22 782 87 13 27 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 61 0 8 43 0 2 0 16 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 34 150 3 320 857 40 7 22 766 87 13 27 Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
9 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 20 60 0 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
10 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 74.9 138 3.27 275. 448. 37.5 39.43 550.88 235.59 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 3.00 55.2 0.13 11.0 17.9 1.50 1.58 22.04 9.42 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 41.6 994. 1.82 168. 305. 20.8 21.90 389.12 138.93 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.67 39.7 0.07 6.75 12.2 0.83 0.88 15.56 5.56 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Lane Group LOS F F C E C C D E F
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 100. 119. 29.9 73.3 29.7 22.6 39.09 58.43 82.66 X, volume / capacity 0.77 1.15 0.00 0.85 0.54 0.05 0.06 0.93 0.85 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 24.0 71.1 0.00 5.09 0.27 0.03 0.04 5.19 12.05 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 76.0 48.4 29.9 68.2 29.4 22.5 39.04 53.24 70.61 c, Capacity [veh/h] 44 135 606 388 166 745 552 842 150
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 354 158 344 354 158 1836 2803 1738 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.07 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.47 0.47 0.30 0.30 0.09 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 4 60 60 18 74 74 47 47 14 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 Lane Group L C R L C R C R C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
11 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 100. 119. 29.9 73.3 29.7 22.6 39.0 39.0 58.4 82.6 82.6 82.6 Movement LOS F F C E C C D D E F F F
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 119.03 40.80 57.69 82.66
Approach LOS F D E F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 78.67
Intersection LOS E
Intersection V/C 0.962
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
12 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.945
Level Of Service: D
Delay (sec / veh): 46.8
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 9: Route 1 & Reina del Mar Ave.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.00 12.0 0.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Westbound Northeastbound Southwestboun Southeastbound Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 123 0 308 5 231 177 122 115 72 4 53 0 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 31 0 77 1 579 44 31 289 18 1 13 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 123 0 308 5 231 177 122 115 72 4 53 0 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 123 0 308 5 220 177 122 111 72 4 53 0 Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
13 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 0 60 0 20 120 0 60 120 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 0 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag - - - Lea - - Lea - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 4 0
Control Type Split Split Split Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
14 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 429.78 409.82 14.6 171 143. 264. 419. 414. 134.11 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 17.19 16.39 0.59 68.5 5.75 10.5 16.7 16.5 5.36 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 290.11 274.07 8.14 135 79.9 160. 281. 277. 74.51 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 11.60 10.96 0.33 54.3 3.20 6.43 11.2 11.1 2.98 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes
Lane Group LOS F F F F B F B B F
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 90.75 91.39 120. 54.9 14.7 99.9 12.7 12.7 96.04 X, volume / capacity 0.90 0.90 0.45 1.03 0.18 0.86 0.47 0.47 0.64 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 11.01 11.65 26.1 19.7 0.08 13.5 0.29 0.30 7.35 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 79.74 79.74 94.2 35.1 14.6 86.4 12.4 12.4 88.69 c, Capacity [veh/h] 248 233 11 223 998 142 131 128 89
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1684 1583 177 354 158 177 186 182 1782 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.65 0.11 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.03 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.63 0.63 0.08 0.70 0.70 0.05 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 28 28 1 120 120 15 134 134 10 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 Lane Group C R L C R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
15 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 90.7 90.7 91.1 120. 54.9 14.7 99.9 12.7 12.7 96.0 96.0 96.0 Movement LOS F F F F F B F B B F F F
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 91.06 52.22 20.62 96.04
Approach LOS F D C F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 46.81
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.945
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PA.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
16 Scenario 14: 14 C+PA
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.711
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 30.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 3: Route 1 & Linda Mar Blvd./San Pedro Ave.

Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 32 435 123 766 662 179 161 90 410 150 130 34 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 8 109 31 192 166 45 40 23 103 38 33 9 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 32 435 123 766 662 179 161 90 410 150 130 34 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 1 5 7 56 3 15 5 12 43 18 13 1 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 31 430 116 710 659 164 156 78 367 132 117 33 Name Route 1 Route 1 Linda Mar Blvd.

Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
1 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 28 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 40 0 40 40 0 0 40 40 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 5 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,8
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 1 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
2 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 34.2 239. 229. 283. 179. 89.6 217.71 183.60 142. 118. 28.7 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.37 9.59 9.19 11.3 7.16 3.58 8.71 7.34 5.69 4.73 1.15 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 19.0 142. 134. 175. 99.4 49.7 125.75 102.00 78.9 65.6 15.9 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.76 5.68 5.39 7.01 3.98 1.99 5.03 4.08 3.16 2.63 0.64 Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Lane Group LOS D D D C B B D D D D C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 49.2 37.2 37.9 31.6 16.8 15.4 35.94 35.55 40.1 37.6 33.9 X, volume / capacity 0.57 0.81 0.82 0.85 0.43 0.26 0.75 0.79 0.71 0.59 0.18 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 8.95 4.55 5.19 2.27 0.19 0.20 3.43 2.76 4.43 2.48 0.46 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 40.2 32.6 32.7 29.4 16.6 15.2 32.51 32.78 35.7 35.1 33.4 c, Capacity [veh/h] 56 354 328 906 153 686 334 518 210 221 188 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 186 172 344 354 158 1805 2803 177 186 158 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.19 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.02 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 3 16 16 22 36 36 16 16 10 10 10 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Lane Group L C C L C R C R L C R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
3 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 49.2 37.4 37.9 31.6 16.8 15.4 35.9 35.9 35.5 40.1 37.6 33.9 Movement LOS D D D C B B D D D D D C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 38.22 23.75 35.70 38.45
Approach LOS D C D D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 30.39
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.711
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
4 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.673
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 12.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 4: Route 1 & Crespi Dr.

Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 45.00 45.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 95.00 155.00 100.00 100.00 140.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 1 2 0 0 1
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 939 60 392 1574 63 235
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 235 15 98 394 16 59
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 939 60 392 1574 63 235
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 62 4 13 70 4 21
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 877 56 379 1504 59 214
Name Route 1 Route 1 Crespi Drive
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
5 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Rest In Walk No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 12 18 0 10 18 0
Walk [s] 5 5 0 5 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Amber [s] 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Maximum Green [s] 60 60 60 60 60 60
Minimum Green [s] 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lead / Lag - - Lead - Lead -
Auxiliary Signal Groups 2,8 1,8
Signal Group 2 8 1 6 8 1
Control Type Permissiv Overlap Protected Permissiv Permissiv Overlap Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 9.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
6 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 189.45 5.89 87.74 141.08 27.97 63.94 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 7.58 0.24 3.51 5.64 1.12 2.56 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 105.30 3.27 48.74 78.38 15.54 35.52 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 4.21 0.13 1.95 3.14 0.62 1.42 Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No Yes
Lane Group LOS B A C A B A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.27 3.93 20.77 7.52 18.54 9.09 X, volume / capacity 0.79 0.06 0.61 0.72 0.19 0.32
Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.23 0.03 0.92 0.46 0.27 0.24 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 16.05 3.90 19.85 7.06 18.26 8.84
c, Capacity [veh/h] 1187 989 646 2185 332 742
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3547 1583 3445 3547 1774 1583 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.26 0.04 0.11 0.44 0.04 0.15 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.62 0.19 0.62 0.19 0.47
g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 33 10 33 10 25
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.50 0.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 0.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 53 53 53 53 53 53
Lane Group C R L C L R
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
7 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.27 3.93 20.77 7.52 18.54 9.09 Movement LOS B A C A B A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 16.47 10.16 11.08
Approach LOS B B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 12.18
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.673
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
8 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.907
Level Of Service: E
Delay (sec / veh): 55.9
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 8: Route 1 & Fassler Ave/Rockaway Beach Ave.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Northeastbound Southwestboun Northwestbound Southeastbound Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 83 108 16 742 181 88 24 27 345 131 42 91 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 21 272 4 186 454 22 6 7 86 33 11 23 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 83 108 16 742 181 88 24 27 345 131 42 91 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 75 8 18 78 0 5 0 15 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 83 101 8 724 173 88 19 27 330 131 42 91 Name Route 1 Route 1 Fassler Ave. Ro Be
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
9 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 20 60 0 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 40 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lea - - Lea - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
10 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 161. 697. 18.6 512. 115 75.1 80.02 280.30 418.10 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 6.46 27.9 0.74 20.5 46.2 3.00 3.20 11.21 16.72 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 89.7 512. 10.3 357. 907. 41.7 44.46 172.57 280.71 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 3.59 20.4 0.41 14.3 36.3 1.67 1.78 6.90 11.23 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes
Lane Group LOS F D C E F B E E E
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 84.0 52.8 34.4 60.3 50.8 19.3 58.13 70.15 76.81 X, volume / capacity 0.80 0.93 0.03 0.90 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.87 0.91 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 13.2 3.76 0.02 4.07 13.6 0.06 0.38 6.13 14.64 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 70.7 49.1 34.4 56.2 37.2 19.2 57.75 64.01 62.17 c, Capacity [veh/h] 103 117 524 821 181 809 257 395 289 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 177 354 158 344 354 158 1820 2803 1716 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.31 0.01 0.22 0.51 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.15 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.51 0.51 0.14 0.14 0.17 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 9 50 50 36 78 78 21 21 26 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 Lane Group L C R L C R C R C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
11 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 84.0 52.8 34.4 60.3 50.8 19.3 58.1 58.1 70.1 76.8 76.8 76.8 Movement LOS F D C E F B E E E E E E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 54.81 52.44 68.60 76.81
Approach LOS D D E E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 55.92
Intersection LOS E
Intersection V/C 0.907
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
12 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.856
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 26.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 2010
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 9: Route 1 & Reina del Mar Ave.

No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.00 12.0 0.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Lane Configuration
Approach Westbound Northeastbound Southwestboun Southeastbound Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 94 3 125 2 146 82 220 258 4 5 2 14 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 24 1 31 1 367 21 55 646 1 1 1 4 Other Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 94 3 125 2 146 82 220 258 4 5 2 14 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 94 3 125 2 138 82 220 247 4 5 2 14 Name Re de Route 1 Route 1 Calera WRP
Volumes
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
13 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 0 60 0 20 120 0 60 120 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 0 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag - - - Lea - - Lea - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 5 2 0 1 6 0 0 4 0
Control Type Split Split Split Prot Per Per Prot Per Per Split Split Split Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 12.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
14 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 182.52 172.90 5.87 498. 43.1 301. 944. 946. 32.91 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 7.30 6.92 0.23 19.9 1.73 12.0 37.8 37.8 1.32 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 101.40 96.06 3.26 345. 23.9 188. 724. 725. 18.28 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 4.06 3.84 0.13 13.8 0.96 7.56 28.9 29.0 0.73 Critical Lane Group No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes
Lane Group LOS E E F B B E C C E
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 65.94 67.69 114. 18.3 11.1 64.3 24.3 24.4 63.44 X, volume / capacity 0.76 0.78 0.42 0.69 0.09 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.32 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 7.83 9.47 49.5 0.41 0.04 9.60 9.44 9.50 2.84 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 58.11 58.22 64.7 17.9 11.1 54.7 14.9 14.9 60.59 c, Capacity [veh/h] 150 136 5 211 946 250 137 136 65
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1744 1583 177 354 158 177 186 186 1583 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.41 0.05 0.12 0.69 0.70 0.01 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.14 0.74 0.74 0.04 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 11 11 0 78 78 18 96 96 5
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 Lane Group C R L C R L C C C
Lane Group Calculations
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
15 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 65.9 65.9 67.4 114. 18.3 11.1 64.3 24.3 24.4 63.4 63.4 63.4 Movement LOS E E E F B B E C C E E E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 66.79 18.13 27.51 63.44
Approach LOS E B C E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 26.41
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.856
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
RKH Report File: \...\20190901 C+PP.pdf
RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering
Vistro File: \...\20190901.vistro
11/6/2021
16 Scenario 16: 16 C+PP
570 Crespi Drive
Version 2021 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

11.f
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) C. Traffic Analysis Worksheets

11.f
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) TRIP GENERATION RATE* TRIP GENERATION VOLUME
TZ LAND LU A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR

USE ADDRESS CODE SIZE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL 12 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 220 19 DU 0.12 0.40 0.52 0.45 0.26 0.71 2 8 10 8 5 13 17 Medical Office 720 3.165 KSF 2.55 0.72 3.27 1.13 2.90 4.03 8 2 10 4 9 13 11 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Adobe Drive 220 7 DU 0.13 0.42 0.54 0.50 0.29 0.79 1 3 4 3 2 6 14 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 801 Fassler Ave. 220 24 DU 0.12 0.39 0.51 0.44 0.26 0.69 3 9 12 10 6 17 10 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Hillside Meadows 220 36 DU** 0.12 0.39 0.50 0.42 0.24 0.66 4 14 18 15 9 24 13 Single Family Detached Harmony @ One 210 4 DU 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 1 2 3 2 1 4 15 Single Family Detached Oddstad Way 210 3 DU 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 1 2 2 2 1 3 16 Single Family Detached Higgins Way 210 125 DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.01 23 70 94 79 47 126 22 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 220 6 DU 0.13 0.42 0.55 0.51 0.30 0.80 1 3 3 3 2 5 23 Fast Casual Restaurant 930 3.050 KSF 1.39 0.68 2.07 7.00 5.73 12.73 4 2 6 21 17 39 24 Single Family Detached Pacifica Highlands 210 54 DU 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.66 0.39 1.04 10 30 40 35 21 56 25 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 220 89 DU 0.11 0.37 0.48 0.38 0.22 0.60 10 33 43 34 20 53 26 Small Office 712 1.760 KSF 1.59 0.33 1.92 0.78 1.67 2.45 3 1 3 1 3 4 27 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 930 Oddstad Blvd. 220 70 DU 0.11 0.37 0.49 0.39 0.23 0.61 8 26 34 27 16 43 * Source: ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition, © 2019
570 Crespi Drive
Pacifica
Vehicle Trip Generation

PROJECT
1300 Danmann Ave
Cabrillo Highway

BACKGROUND

CUMULATIVE
570 Crespi Drive
November 5, 2021

11.f
Packet Pg. 1122
Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Residential Vehicle Trip Distribution
AM Peak Hour
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
10 PURPOSE Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E Total 11 Work 47% 44.0% 2.0% 1.0% 47.0%
16 Errands/Shopping 21% 4.0% 10.0% 2.0% 5.0% 21.0%
22 School 19% 5.0% 8.0% 6.0% 19.0%
Social/Rec. 13% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 13.0%
Total 100% 57.0% 8.0% 6.0% 15.0% 4.0% 4.0% 6.0% 0.0% 100.0% AM Peak Hour
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
12 PURPOSE Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E Total 13 Work 47% 44.0% 2.0% 1.0% 47.0%
14 Errands/Shopping 21% 10.0% 5.0% 4.0% 2.0% 21.0%
15 School 19% 5.0% 8.0% 6.0% 19.0%
24 Social/Rec. 13% 5.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 13.0%
25 Total 100% 64.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 4.0% 14.0% 3.0% 6.0% 100.0% AM Peak Hour
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
27 PURPOSE Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E Total Work 47% 7.0% 10.0% 30.0% 47.0%
Errands/Shopping 21% 10.0% 5.0% 4.0% 2.0% 21.0%
School 19% 19.0% 19.0%
Social/Rec. 13% 5.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 13.0%
Total 100% 15.0% 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 3.0% 16.0% 3.0% 49.0% 100.0% PM Peak Hour
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
10 PURPOSE Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E Total 11 Work 33% 30.0% 2.0% 1.0% 33.0%
16 Errands/Shopping 36% 11.0% 15.0% 5.0% 5.0% 36.0%
22 School 10% 6.0% 4.0% 10.0%
Social/Rec. 21% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% 21.0%
Total 100% 48.0% 6.0% 4.0% 22.0% 6.0% 7.0% 7.0% 0.0% 100.0% PM Peak Hour
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
12 PURPOSE Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E Total 13 Work 33% 30.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 33.0%
14 Errands/Shopping 36% 16.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 36.0%
15 School 10% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0%
24 Social/Rec. 21% 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 21.0%
25 Total 100% 52.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 6.0% 16.0% 5.0% 5.0% 100.0% AM Peak Hour
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
27 PURPOSE Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E Total Work 47% 3.0% 7.0% 23.0% 33.0%
Errands/Shopping 21% 16.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 36.0%
School 19% 3.0% 7.0% 10.0%
Social/Rec. 13% 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 21.0%
Total 100% 22.0% 3.0% 0.0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% 5.0% 30.0% 100.0% Commercial Trip Distribution
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
17 Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E

55.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 15.0% 100.0%
TZ 1 2 3 4 5 18 19 20
23 Route 1 N LM School LMB E LM SC Route 1 S Crespi SC Pedro Pt. SC Fassler E 26 30.0% 30.0% 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0%
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE

11.f
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Date
Submitted Location APN Project Name Type
New
Housing
Units
Project
Area Description Permits Required Developer/Agent Status Staff 12/21/2015 10,11 & 14 Oddstad Way
022-055-140, 022-
056-140, and 022-
056-150 3 Single-Family homes
Single-Family
Residential 3
5,040 s.f., 6,210
s.f., 19,392 s.f.

Construct 3 new units each on
separate lot Site Development Permit Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Application Incomplete CM 11/7/2017 119 Berendos Ave 018-114-140
Single Family Residence
Addition
Single-Family
Residential 0
Addition to a SFR that would
expand a non conformity Use Permit Ellis Schorchiot (650-343-3452) Building Permit issued RA 12/5/2018 Bayview Road-Calera Terrace 022-062-550 Benda-Spenker Residence Single Family
Residential 1 26,055 s.f.

Construct a 2878 sf single family
residence with a two car garage and
a 679 sf accessory dwelling unit with
a one car garage Site Development Permit Javier Chavarria (650-355-0615) Reviewing Application
for Completeness RA
5/7/2018 Vespero Avenue 018-103-070 TBD Vespero Residential 1 1.34 ac Construct a 3,411 sf single family
residence with a 840 sf attached
garage and 178 sf front porch Permit for Site Development Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Application Incomplete RA 1/24/2020 501 Santa Cruz Terrace
022-052-170,
180,190,250 new SFD Residential 1 20,700
Construct a new approximately 3500
sf single family residence. Permit for Site Development Patrick Mora, Architect (415-431-
8601) Application Incomplete HG
12/7/2020 TBD Berendos 022-330-150 New SFR with ADU
Single-Family
Residential 2 1.011 acres New SFR on vacant lot
General Plan Amendment, Use
Permit, Site Development
Permit
Jose Barba (Brian Brinkman, Mike
Panesi)
Application Complete.

Public hearing date
TBD CM
12/28/2020 TBD Amapola 018-160-090 New SFR
Single-Family
Residential 1 3.82 acres New SFR
Site Development Permit, Use
Permit Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Application Incomplete CM 3/9/2021 TBD Coast Highway
018-140-640, 018-
140-650, State
Parcel 28797 Pacifica Highlands
Single Family
Residential 54 61.84 acres
Construct a new 54-unit single
family dwelling residential
development
Tentative Subdivision Map,
Rezoning Henry Runkhe (831) 649-4642
Reviewing Application
for Completeness BOC
6/14/2021
500 Old County Road/ 250
Rockaway Beach Ave. (f.k.a. 519
Nick Gust Way) 022-024-290 Fairfield Inn and Suites Hotel N/A .74 acres New Master Sign Program for a
Hotel.

Sign Permit, Site Development
Permit, Coastal Development
Permit David Ford (510-387-0546)
Hearing Date
Tentatively Scheduled BOC
8/30/2021 TBD Coast Highway
018-140-660, 018-
140-300, 018-140-
220 TBD Cabrillo Highway Mixed Use Project 89 2.713 acres Construct a new mixed use building
with 89 residential units and 1,760 sf
of commercial space Site Development Permit Chad Converse (628) 210-7833 ext. 2 Preliminary Application,
Pending Standard
Application BOC
10/7/2014 505 San Pedro Ave. 023-072-010
Norcal Surf Shop
Development of Vacant Lot
Commercial, Mixed
Use, Covered Skate
Park, Parking and
Storage 2
37,273 s.f.;
12,000 sf
building; 5,000
s.f. skatepark
Construct 3 Buildings for Retail,
Storage and Mixed Use Space,
Covered Skate Park, 2 Garage
Spaces and Open Parking Shawn Rhodes (650-207-6508) Other RA 9/20/2017 110 Olympian Way 023-039-010
Erosion Control mesh on
Bluff
Single-Family
Residential N/A 7,000 s.f.

Install an erosion control mesh and
bluff-top paving
Coastal Development Permit
(Emergency) Jacob Patrick (970-319-9688) Application Incomplete CM 4/12/2018 5200 Coast Hwy 022-191-190
Taco Bell Outdoor Seating
with Alcohol Service Commercial N/A 1,112 sf
Establish outdoor seating with
alcohol service at an existing
restaurant Use Permit Dan Kramer (415-795-2327) Building Permit Issued RA 6/19/2019 316 San Pedro Ave 023-018-220
Single-family Residence
Addition
Single-family
Residential 0 5,000 s.f.

Construct a 360 s.f. addition to
existing 815 s.f. single-family
residence Coastal Development Permit Lawton Smith 650-784-9380 Building Permit Issued CM 9/13/2019 1300 Danmann
023-013-010 & 023-
013-020 1300 Danmann Mixed Use Project 6 14,551 s.f.
6 new apartments on top of 3,050
s.f. of commercial space
Site Development Permit, Use
Permit, Coastal Development
Permit, Sign Permit, Parking
Exception San Pedro Valley, LLC Other HG
10/16/2019 277 Kent Road 023-013-030
New Single Family
Residence
Single-family
residential 1 3,516
Demolisth an existing SFD & one
car garage and construct a new
SFD with detached one-car garage
and carport.

Site Development Permit,
Coastal Development Permit San Pedro Valley, LLC Building Permit Issued HG 12/9/2019 246 Sterling Ave 023-038-360
Addition to Single Family
Residence
Single-family
Residential 0 5,0000 s.f.

Construct an approximately 500 s.f.
addition to an approximately 1000
s.f. single family dwelling. Coastal Development Permit David Hirzel Building Design Pending Building
Permit Submittal CM
Pacifica State Beach - Pedro Point
15 22
23 25
26 24

11.f
Packet Pg. 1124
Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Date
Submitted Location APN Project Name Type
New
Housing
Units
Project
Area Description Permits Required Developer/Agent Status Staff 1/24/2020 211 Olympian Way 023-038-350
New Single Family
Residence with attached
ADU
Single-family
Residential with
ADU 1 12,500 s.f.

Construct an approximately 3,000
s.f. single family dwelling, 600 s.f. 3-
car garage and 850 s.f. attached
ADU. Coastal Development Permit Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Application Incomplete CM 2/27/2020 1490B Grand Ave. 023-022-040 Remodel and Addition Single-family
Residential 0
Remodel and addition at front of
primary residence Coastal Development Permit Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Building Permit Issued CM 1/13/2021 110 Blackburn Terrace 023-032-210 New detached ADU Single Family
Residential 1 10,300 s.f.

Replace existing nonconforming
cabin with new ADU Coastal Development Permit Marana Zeleznock (415-378-8711) Application Incomplete BOC 2/16/2021 1515 Grand Ave. 023-024-290
Addition to Single Family
Residence
Single Family
Residential 0 7,500 s.f.

Construct a 1,255-sf first-story
addition and an 804-sf second-story
addition to an existing 1,168-sf onestory single-family residence Coastal Development Permit Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Pending Building
Permit Submittal CM
5/13/2021 204 Olympian 023-039-110 Landscaping
Single Family
Residential 0 14,000 s.f.

Construct landscaping on a property
with an existing single family
residence. Coastal Development Permit Mayberry Workshop (415-797-2248) Reviewing Application
for Completeness JG
8/13/2019 204 Sterling 023-038-330
Garage Addition to Single
Family Residence
Single Family
Residence 0 5,000 s.f.

Construct a 2 car garage in front of
the existing residence on site.

Coastal Development Permit,
Variance Brian Brinkman (650-922-7993) Application Incomplete RA 7/8/2021 TBD Olympian (100-block) 023-037-030
Single-family residence with
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
Single Family
Residential 2 7,289
Construct new three-story 3,372-sf
single-family residence with
detached garage and 434-sf ADU. Coastal Development Permit San Pedro Valley, LLC (650-303-
0495)
Reviewing Application
for Completeness JG
7/28/2015 1335 Adobe Dr. 023-222-080 Adobe Court Townhomes Townhome
Residential 7 18,750 s.f.

Construct seven townhome units
ranging from 2200-2800 s.f. on a
vacant lot
Site Development Permit, Use
Permit, Tentative Subdivision
Map
Bert Martinez of Kotas/Pantaleoni
Architects (415-495-4051, x-217)
Pending Building
Permit Submittal CM
5/13/2019 1320 Adobe Dr. 023-221-110 New Daycare Daycare N/A 22,500 s.f.

Convert existing office space into a
new childcare daycare Use Permit John Ha (408-892-0477) Application Incomplete HG 9/14/2015 Adobe @ Higgins Way 023-361-160 Hillside Meadows Single-family
(reduced setbacks)
with ADUs 18 6.8 acres
Rezone to P-D zoning, subdivide,
and develop 18 dwelling units (9 2-
unit buildings) with attached ADUs.

Rezoning, Development
Permit, Tentative Subdivision
Map, Specific Plan JC Engineering (650-355-0615) Application Incomplete CM 1/28/2016 570 Crespi Dr. 022-162-310 Mixed Use Project
Condos &
Commercial 9 42,773 s.f.
9 condo units on top of 3,191 s.f. of
commercial
Site Development Permit, Use
Permit, Rezone, Subdivision
(Condo)
Stuart Welte, EID Architects (650-793-
2856)
Pending Environmental
Review HG
2/17/2016
Lot 7, Harmony at One
Subdivision 022-150-510 Harmony at One Lot 7
Single-Family
Residential 1 56,624 s.f.

Construct one new single-family
residence Specific Plan Javier Chavarria (650-355-0615) Application Incomplete CM 2/17/2016
Lot 8, Harmony at One
Subdivision 022-150-520 Harmony at One Lot 8
Single-Family
Residential 1 90,665 s.f.

Construct one new single-family
residence Specific Plan Javier Chavarria (650-355-0615) Application Incomplete CM 2/17/2016
Lot 9, Harmony at One
Subdivision 022-150-530 Harmony at One Lot 9
Single-Family
Residential 1 82,168 s.f.

Construct one new single-family
residence Specific Plan Javier Chavarria (650-355-0615) Application Incomplete CM 7/14/2017
Lot 3, Harmony at One
Subdivision 022-150-470 Harmony at One Lot 3
Single-Family
Residential 1 62,562 s.f.

Construct a one-story single-family
residence with 4,278 sq. ft. floor
area Specific Plan Javier Chavarria (650-355-0615)
Pending Building
Permit Submittal CM
3/22/2018 (near) 1307 Redwood Way 023-551-510
Verizon Wireless WCF -
Lockhaven Drive Wireless Facility N/A N/A
Install a canister antenna and
associated equipment on an existing
utility pole in the Public Right of Way Use Permit
Jacob Olander, Modus LLC (415-989-
1102)
Pending Building
Permit Submittal BOC
3/23/2020 East of Higgins Way
023-291-040; 023-
350-040 Linda Mar Woods
Mix of Housing
Types (Single-family,
duplex, flats, ADUs) 125 58.3 acres
Subdivide and obtain authorization
to construct up to 125 dwelling units
of varied types to be determined by
future permit applications; annex
parcel into City of Pacifica.

Development Permit, Tentative
Subdivision Map JC Engineering (650-355-0615) Application Incomplete CM 3/17/2021 580 Crespi Drive 022-162-390 Crespi Center Condo conversion N/A 2.3 acres Condo conversion of an existing
commercial building Tentative Subdivision Map Mark Heavey (415) 250-7550 Reviewing Application
for Completeness CM
Linda Mar
10 12
13 13
13 13
11 16

11.f
Packet Pg. 1125
Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Date
Submitted Location APN Project Name Type
New
Housing
Units
Project
Area Description Permits Required Developer/Agent Status Staff 8/10/2021
Lot 5, Harmony at One
Subdivision 022-150-490 Harmony at One Lot 5
Single-Family
Residential 1 55,620 s.f.

Construct a one-story single-family
residence with 2,950 s.f. floor area
and 1,290 s.f. garage Specific Plan
Adam Libert and Maryanna Saenko
(617-480-1546)
Reviewing Application
for Completeness CM
8/17/2021 1219 Galvez Dr. 023-281-290 1219 Galvez Dr.

Single-Family
Residential N/A 5,665 s.f.

Construct a one-story, 373 sf
addition to a single-family residence
with a reduced rear setback Minor Modification David Hirzel (650-201-0440) Application Incomplete ZC 2/23/2018 (near) 1450 Terra Nova Blvd 022-310-300
Verizon Wireless WCFTerra Nova Blvd. Wireless Facility N/A N/A Install a 4' canister antenna above
7' pole extension, and associate
euipment on an existing wooden
utility pole in the public row. Use Permit
Jacob Olander, Modus LLC (415-989-
1102)
Pending Building
Permit Submittal RA
9/3/2019 Barton Place 023-710-120 Barton Place Rezone Vacant Lot N/A 8.5 Acres Application to rezone and amend
GP land use designation
General Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, Subdivision Jerry Clements (650-964-6172) Application Incomplete CM 4/15/2020 930 Oddstad Blvd. 023-672-600
Pacifica School District
Workforce Housing Project
Multi-Family
Workforce Housing 70 11.4 acres
Rezone to P-D zoning, resubdivide,
and develop multi-family workforce
housing project for school district
employees.

Development Agreement,
Rezoning, Development Plan,
Specific Plan, Subdivision Ken Klebanoff (415-720-9236) Pending Environmental
Review CM
4/2/2021 650 Cape Breton
018-170-060, 022-
320-200, 022-320-
240 650 Cape Breton Use Permit N/A 109 Acres Use permit for church use. Use Permit Raymond Frank (650)387-8307 Other CM 10/1/2019 4000 Palmetto Avenue 009-402-260-250 The Bowl Vacant Lot 20 4.35 Construct a 20-unit multi-family
residental development on a 4.35
acres vacant lot.

Coastal Development Permit,
Site Development Permit
Mike Banducci, Warmington Land
Association II LP (925)866-6700 Application Incomplete BOC 11/27/2019 4009 Palmetto Ave 009-402-270 New Apartments Vacant Lot 4 10,446sf Construct 4-unit apartment building
on vacant lot
Site Development Permit,
CDP, Variance
Suren Nayantai
[email protected] Application Incomplete BOC
1/13/2020 340 Waterford 009-058-040 Waterford Mixed-use Vacant Lot 5 9,574 SF Construct 1,636 SF ground floor
commercialarea with 5 condo
residential units above in a 3 story
bldg.

Site Development Permit, Use
Permit, Parking Exception,
Varience, Tentative
Subdivision map
Marc Ojanen, Ojanen Chiou Architects
LLP (415) 398-3002
Pending Building
Permit Submittal CM
Statuses Explained:

Preliminary Application,
Pending Standard
Application
Reviewing Application
for Completeness
Application Incomplete
Application Complete.

Public hearing date TBD
Pending Environmental
Review
Hearing Date Tentatively
Scheduled
Pending Appeal Period
Appeal Filed. Pending
Appeal Hearing
Pending Building Permit
Submittal
A new application or a resubmittal was received and staff is currently reviewing it for completeness.

Staff reviewed the application and it was determined incomplete. The applicant was requested to resubmit additional information.

Staff reviewed the application and it was determined complete. A public hearing date is to be determined.

The application is complete and the project is subject to environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental review process must be substantially completed prior to identifying an appropriate public hearing date.

A tentative hearing date has been identified. Email the staff member assigned to the project or call 650-738-7341 for more information.

The Planning Commission or City Council adopted a resolution on the project and the decision is subject to a local and/or state level appeal period. Email the staff member assigned to the project or call 650-738-7341 for more information.

A party has filed an appeal on the action of the Planning Commission. The appeal will be presented to City Council for determination. Email the staff member assigned to the project or call 650-738-7341 for more information.

The project received its necessary approval(s) and is awaiting for the applicant to submit for a Building Permit.

Park Pacifica
Fairmont West
A preliminary application for a housing development project seeking vesting rights pursuant to SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) was submitted to the Planning Department. Applicant shall provide a complete development application no more than 180 days after the preliminary application to retain vested rights. 27 11.f
Packet Pg. 1126
Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 2013 AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS

REINA DEL MAR AVE FASSLER AVENUE CRESPI DRIVE LINDA MAR BLVD

SEA BOWL LANE
180 R 3 R 95 R
R T L 2518 T R T L 1842 T R 4 R R L 75 R R T L 532 T
2820 296 0 90 0 L 2698 2884 1004 8 8 30 L 1875 1393 9 1384 T 1388 1067 260 49 807 T 882 1345 723 41 69 7 L 634 1330 L 138 6 71 3 1213 1298 L 549 38 26 19 728 T 381 650 L 198 501 570 L 314 90 42 4 274 T 1120 L T R T 701 L T R T 452 T 201 L T R
R 72 R 48 R 55
4494 4276 1778 1841 2173
7:30-8:30 AM ROCKAWAY BEACH 7:30-8:30 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 7:15-8:15 AM 2019 AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS

REINA DEL MAR AVE FASSLER AVENUE CRESPI DRIVE LINDA MAR BLVD

SEA BOWL LANE
177 R 3 R 105 R
R T L 2204 T R T L 1502 T R 0 R R L 78 R R T L 524 T
2516 308 0 123 5 L 2386 2355 766 22 7 34 L 1539 0 0 0 T 0 1549 347 60 1202 T 1280 1219 565 59 78 17 L 646 1311 L 122 4 53 0 1240 1217 L 320 87 13 27 891 T 0 836 L 161 735 780 L 368 130 57 11 389 T 1117 L T R T 857 L T R T 675 T 300 L T R
R 72 R 40 R 112
4185 3678 2523 2326
8:00-9:00 AM ROCKAWAY BEACH 8:00-9:00 AM 8-9 AM 8:00-9:00 AM 2013 PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS

REINA DEL MAR AVE FASSLER AVENUE CRESPI DRIVE LINDA MAR BLVD

SEA BOWL LANE
98 R 18 R 169 R
R T L 1465 T R T L 1233 T R 23 R R L 73 R R T L 484 T
1648 171 4 98 4 L 1567 1688 372 27 28 54 L 1305 1158 17 1141 T 1164 941 180 39 761 T 834 995 393 91 151 57 L 710 2846 L 260 12 4 7 2684 2742 L 844 83 25 81 1926 T 1722 1337 L 400 976 1653 L 784 118 110 19 876 T 2579 L T R T 1817 L T R T 937 T 706 L T R
R 7 R 81 R 163
4709 4663 2903 2390 3245
5-6 PM ROCKAWAY BEACH 4:30-5:30 PM 4:45-5:45 PM 5-6 PM 4-5 PM 2019 PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS

REINA DEL MAR AVE FASSLER AVENUE CRESPI DRIVE LINDA MAR BLVD

SEA BOWL LANE
82 R 8 R 116 R
R T L 1386 T R T L 1012 T R 0 R R L 56 R R T L 430 T
1525 125 3 94 2 L 1470 1473 330 27 19 83 L 1103 0 0 0 T 0 1091 214 59 877 T 933 929 367 78 156 31 L 577 2698 L 220 14 2 5 2573 2548 L 724 131 42 91 1846 T 0 1883 L 379 1563 1533 L 710 132 117 33 848 T 2474 L T R T 1736 L T R T 1504 T 659 L T R
R 4 R 88 R 164
4411 4291 3089 2993
4:45-5:45 PM ROCKAWAY BEACH 4:15-5:15 PM 4:15-5:15 PM 4:30-5:30 PM

11.f
Packet Pg. 1127
Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Observations of traffic flow on Route 1 were made by RKH on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, between Reina Del Mar Avenue on the north and Linda Mar Boulevard on the south from 7 a.m. until 9 a.m.

Route 1 & Reina Del Mar Avenue. Signal cycle lengths were on the order of 300 seconds, but queues on Reina Del Mar Avenue cleared each cycle. There was some pedestrian activity crossing Route 1 from the east side to the west side where there is a SamTrans bus stop. Queues of traffic turning left from Route 1 into Reina Del Mar Avenue cleared each cycle.

Route 1 & Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue. Signal cycle lengths were observed at around 140-170 seconds depending on pedestrian activity. There were infrequent pedestrian movements observed crossing Route 1 west to east. Side street and turning queues, with the exception of traffic approaching on Fassler Avenue, appeared to clear each cycle.

Route 1 & Crespi Drive. Signal cycle lengths varied from a low of 52 seconds to a high of 95 seconds with the average around 75 seconds depending on pedestrian and vehicular demand.

Queues of traffic on Crespi Drive cleared each cycle as did the dual left turns from southbound Route 1onto Crespi Drive. Heavy right turn traffic northbound Route 1 onto Crespi Drive. (Possible traffic using Roberts Road to get around excessive queues on Route 1.) Route 1 & Linda Mar Boulevard/San Pedro Avenue. Signal cycle lengths ranged between 65 and 75 seconds with the average being around 65 seconds. Queues on all four approaches to the intersection cleared with each cycle. Pedestrian activity was nil. There was no queue in the northbound direction that backed up from the Crespi Drive intersection.

Queues on northbound Route 1 south of the Fassler/Rockaway intersection varied in length, none ever extending as far back as the Crespi intersection. The average queue length appeared to be on the order of 2,000 feet. There were times during the peak hour that queues from the Reina Del Mar intersection extended through the Fassler/Rockaway intersection.

11.f
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica

HOURLY ACCUMULATION OF PARKING - WEEKDAYS

LAND USE LU CODE
RESIDENTIAL: 220 19 Multifamily units
OFFICE: 720 Medical/Dental Office

COMMERCIAL PEAK

USE GLFA, KSF DEMAND
OFFICE 3.165 5 ITE Parking Generation, 5th Ed.

RESIDENTIAL PEAK

USE DU DEMAND
MULTI-FAMILY 3 4 ITE Parking Generation, 5th Ed.

GUEST PARKING 4 Zoning Code Required
Total 8

HOUR OFFICE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL
6-7 90% 0 7 7
7-8 12% 77% 1 6 7
8-9 43% 56% 2 4 7
9-10 88% 45% 4 4 8
10-11 99% 40% 5 3 8
11-12NN 100% 37% 5 3 8
12NN-1PM 83% 36% 4 3 7
1-2 74% 36% 4 3 7
2-3 94% 37% 5 3 8
3-4 93% 43% 5 3 8
4-5 86% 45% 4 4 8
5-6 54% 55% 3 4 7
6-7 66% 0 5 5
7-8 73% 0 6 6
8-9 77% 0 6 6
9-10 86% 0 7 7
10-11 92% 0 7 7
11-12MN 97% 0 8 8

PERCENTAGE OF PEAK

HOUR PARKING ACCUMULATION, SPACES

11.f
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 0123456789
HOUR
6-77-88-9
9-10
10-11 11-12NN 12NN-1PM
1-22-33-44-55-66-77-88-9
9-10
10-11
OFFICE

RESIDENTIAL
TOTAL

11.f
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 :

January 12, 2022
Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City Of Pacifica, Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Subject: Final Initial Study for the 570 Crespi Drive Project Dear Mr. Murdock:

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 570 Crespi Drive Project (SCH #2021120126) was released for public review from December 8, 2021, through January 10, 2022. The City of Pacifica did not receive any comment letters regarding the IS/MND during the public comment period. Thus, changes to the Draft IS/MND are not warranted and it should be considered the Final IS/MND. Attached to this memorandum is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, which presents all required mitigation measures, as well as the implementation schedule and monitoring agency for each measure.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this document, please feel free to contact me at (916) 372-6100, or via email at [email protected].

Best Regards,
Rod Stinson
Vice President
phone. (916) 372-6100 1501 Sports Drive, Suite A Sacramento, CA 95834 fax. (916) 419-6108 www.raneymanagement.com
Attachment 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

11.g
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 570 Crespi Drive Project 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022 570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2022
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require Lead Agencies to adopt a program for monitoring the mitigation measures required to avoid the significant environmental impacts of a project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) ensures that mitigation measures imposed by the City are completed at the appropriate time in the development process.

The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 570 Crespi Drive Project are listed in the MMRP along with the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure, the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign-off that the mitigation measure has been implemented.

11.g
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
IV. Biological Resources
Special-Status and Migratory Birds
IV-1. To ensure compliance with protections for migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, the measures outlined below shall be implemented prior to the commencement of construction activities. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval.

1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 1 through January
31), no pre-construction surveys or other mitigation
measures are necessary.

2. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the identified work area and a buffer zone (see #3, below).

The survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work. If no nesting or breeding activity is observed, work may proceed without restrictions. To the extent allowed by access, all active nests identified within 76 meters (m) (250 feet [ft]) for raptors and 33 m (100 ft) for other protected bird species shall be mapped.

3. For any active nests found near the construction limits (76 m [250 ft] for raptors and 33 m [100 ft] for other protected bird species), the project biologist shall make a
determination as to whether or not construction activities are likely to disrupt reproductive behavior. If it is determined that construction is unlikely to disrupt breeding behavior, construction may proceed. If it is determined that
construction may disrupt breeding, the no-construction
buffer zone shall be expanded; avoidance is the only
mitigation available. The ultimate size of the noNot more than two weeks prior to the initiation of
work, if construction
activities are scheduled to
occur during the breeding
season (i.e., February 1
through August 31).

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
CDFW
USACE

11.g
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
construction buffer zone may be adjusted by the project biologist based on the species involved, topography, lines of site between the work area and the nest, physical
barriers, and the ambient level of human activity. For
raptors, the project biologist shall contact CDFW and/or the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management for
guidance regarding site evaluations and buffer
adjustments.

If it is determined that construction activities are likely to disrupt raptor breeding, construction activities within the noconstruction buffer zone may not proceed until the project biologist determines that the nest is long longer occupied.

4. If maintenance of a no-construction buffer zone is not practicable, active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to document breeding and rearing behavior of the adult birds. If it is determined that construction activities might cause nest abandonment, work should cease until
the project biologist determines that the nest is no longer occupied. For raptors, the CDFW and/or the USFWS
Division of Migratory Bird Management should be contacted for guidance.

IV-2(a). Prior to the start of any construction activities, a temporary sediment and debris barrier shall be installed on the southern limit of the construction area that slopes toward the arroyo willow and emergent wetland habitat. The fence also will double as a wildlife exclusion fence during construction. The fence shall consist of standard construction silt fence material with a height of 36 inches.

The lower six inches of fence material shall either be folded toward the construction side of the fence and weighted down with soil or sandbags, or backfilled in a trench; with both methods, the purpose is to completely contact the surface so that water and sediment will not flow under it, and wildlife will not enter the work area from the wetland. The barrier shall be maintained throughout the duration of the construction period. Evidence of compliance with this measure Prior to the start of any
construction activities.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department

11.g
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to the start of any construction activities.

IV-2(b). A qualified biologist, or a designated representative who has been trained by a qualified biologist, shall inspect the area inside of the sediment and debris barrier for special-status species every day before construction activities commence. If any special‐status species are found, the qualified biologist shall be immediately contacted [if the survey was conducted by the designated representative], construction activities shall not be allowed to start, and the USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted on an appropriate course of action. Such action could include leaving the animal alone to move away on its own or the relocation of the animal to an area outside of the construction area. Evidence of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department.

Daily, before construction
activities commence,
throughout the duration of
the construction period.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
CDFW
USFWS
IV-3. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other construction activities, the applicant shall obtain permit authorization, as determined by USACE, to fill waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (Section 404 Permit) from USACE.

The Section 404 Permit application shall include an assessment of directly impacted, avoided, and preserved acreages of waters of the U.S. Mitigation measures may be developed as part of the Section 404 Permit to ensure no net loss of wetland function and values, although the USACE may not require compensatory mitigation for the loss of less than 1/10 acre of wetlands, or for the loss of streams or other open waters. Final mitigation requirements shall be developed in consultation with USACE. A copy of the Section 404 Permit issued for the project shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to commencement of grading,
excavation, or other construction activities.

Prior to initiation of grading,
excavation, or other
construction activities.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
USACE
IV-4. If required and prior to initiation of grading, excavation or other construction activities, the project applicant shall submit to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board an application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements for Projects Involving Discharge of Dredged and/or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The project Prior to initiation of grading,
excavation, or other
construction activities.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water
Quality Control Board

11.g
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
applicant shall be responsible for conducting all project activities in accordance with the permit provisions outlined in the applicable permit. A copy of the Water Quality Certification or waiver issued for the project shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to commencement of grading, excavation, or other
construction activities.

IV-5. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a qualified arborist shall survey the on-site trees and evaluate which trees are protected under Title 4, Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code, and the project applicant shall obtain Heritage Tree Removal Authorization from the City of Pacifica Planning Commission for any heritage trees to be removed, work within the dripline of any heritage tree, or substantial trimming of any heritage tree. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall complete planting of any replacement trees required as part of the Planning Commission’s heritage tree removal authorization or other authorizations. In addition, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a tree protection plan prior to the approval of heritage tree removal authorizations or other authorizations in accordance with the City Municipal Code, Sections 4-12.02 through 4-12.11, and prior to commencement of any construction activity shall implement any tree protection measures identified to protect trees which will not be removed during construction.

Prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit.

City of Pacifica
Planning Commission
V. Cultural Resources
V-1. If any potentially historic resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of cultural deposits, such as historic privy pits or trash deposits, are found once ground disturbing activities are underway, all work within the vicinity of the find(s) shall cease, the find(s) shall be immediately evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and the City’s Planning Department shall be notified of the find(s). If the find is determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, as determined by the qualified archeologist, contingency funding and a time allotment to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be made available (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). Work may continue During construction
activities and included via
notation on improvement
plans and building permit
plans.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department

11.g
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 6
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
on other parts of the project site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place (Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087).

The requirements of this mitigation measure shall be included via notation on all project improvement plans and building permit plans for review and approval by the City of Pacifica Planning Department.

V-2. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, further excavation or disturbance of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall not occur until compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) and (2) has occurred. The Guidelines specify that in the event of the discovery of human remains other than in a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation at the site or any nearby area suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has been notified to determine if an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, then, within 24 hours, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will notify the most likely descendants who may recommend treatment of the remains and any grave goods. If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after notification by the Native American Heritage Commission, or the landowner or his authorized agent rejects the recommendation by the most likely descendant and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide a measure acceptable to the landowner, then the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the human remains and grave goods with appropriate dignity at a location on the property not subject to further disturbances. If human remains are encountered, a copy of the resulting County Coroner report noting any written consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission shall be submitted as proof of compliance to the City During construction
activities and included via
notation on improvement
plans and building permit
plans.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
San Mateo County
Coroner
Native American
Heritage Commission

11.g
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 7
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
of Pacifica Planning Department.

VII. Geology and Soils
VII-1. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated January 2016, and the Response to
Geotechnical Peer Review, dated April 30, 2020, prepared for the proposed project by GeoForensics, Inc. are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.

Prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit.

City of Pacifica
Director of Public
Works/City Engineer
City of Pacifica Chief
Building Official
Qualified Geotechnical
Engineer
VII-2. Implement Mitigation Measure VII-1. See Mitigation Measure VII1.See Mitigation Measure VII-1.

VII-3. In the event that paleontological resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during construction activities all ground disturbing activities shall immediately halt and a qualified paleontologist shall be procured to evaluate the discovery for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The qualified paleontologist shall provide the City of Pacifica Planning Department with a report detailing the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources for review and approval by City Planning staff prior to recommencing construction.

During construction
activities.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
IX-1. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities on the northern portion of the project site, the project applicant shall complete an analysis of on-site soils to determine whether substantial concentrations of soil contaminants are present above the applicable direct exposure Environmental Screening Prior to initiation of grading,
excavation, or other
ground-disturbing activities
on the northern portion of
the site.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
San Mateo County
Environmental Health

11.g
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 8
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
Levels (ESLs) set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If contaminants are not detected above applicable ESLs, then further mitigation is not required. If contaminants are detected above the applicable ESLs, then the soils shall be remediated by off-hauling to a licensed landfill facility. Such remediation activities shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste contractor (Class A) and contractor personnel that have completed 40-hour OSHA
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER) training, and overseen by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division. The results of soil sampling and analysis, as well as verification of proper remediation and disposal, shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica Planning Department for review and approval.

Services Division
IX-2. Implement Mitigation Measure IX-1. See Mitigation Measure IX1. See Mitigation Measure IX-1.

IX-3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall demonstrate compliance with the 26-foot access road width, or obtain Fire Marshall approval of an Alternative Methods and Materials request by the NCFA to deviate from the 26-foot access road width requirement for the Project.

Prior to the issuance of a
building permit.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
City of Pacifica Fire
Marshall
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
X-1. During construction, the contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, which may include but are not necessarily limited to the following practices, or other BMPs identified in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook and in the City’s Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges:
• Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary
revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas;
• Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
During construction
activities and included via
notation on project
Improvement Plans.

City Engineer

11.g
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 9
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways shall be covered or treated with nontoxic soil stabilizers;
• Exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular
construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways shall be enclosed or covered;
• The contractor shall ensure that no earth or organic
material will be deposited or placed where such materials may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough,
lagoon, or body of standing water;
• The following types of materials shall not be rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters:
concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, and heavily chlorinated water; and
• Grass or other vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.

The applicable BMPs shall be included via notation on the project Improvement Plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit.

X-2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the proposed project, the project applicant shall execute and record a Maintenance Agreement addressing future maintenance of the stormwater treatment measures required to comply with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. The Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City Attorney’s Office.

Prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for
any component of the
proposed project.

City Engineer
City Attorney’s Office
X-3 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the proposed project, the project applicant shall install all required stormwater treatment measures, and demonstrate full compliance with the stormwater treatment plans prepared for the proposed project. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

Prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for
any component of the
proposed project.

City Engineer

11.g
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning 570 Crespi Drive Project 10
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
570 Crespi Drive Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Agency Sign-Off
XIII. Noise
XIII-1. Pile driving shall be prohibited during construction of the proposed project. Compliance with such shall be ensured by the City of Pacifica Planning Division.

During construction
activities.

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
XVII. Transportation
XVII-1. Implement Mitigation Measure IX-3. See Mitigation Measure IX3.See Mitigation Measure IX-3.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2. See Mitigation Measures V1 and V-2. See Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.

11.g
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (4980 : Appeal of Planning

11.h
Packet Pg. 1142
Attachment: Attachment H - Appeal Form (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

11.i
Packet Pg. 1143
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

11.i
Packet Pg. 1144
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Project Zoning Summary
Parcel #: 022-162-310, 022-162-420
Location: 540 & 570 Crespi Drive Pacifica, CA 94044
Current Zoning: M-1
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Lot Area (SF): 72,984 S.F.

1.68 Acres
Development Standards per Article 11, C-2 Commecial District and Article 24, Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards. Required: Proposed C-2 Clustered
Housing
Minimum Lot Area (SF) 5,000 72,984
Min Lot Area: 2000 sf per Dwelling Unit: 30,000
Minimum Lot Width (Feet) 50 135
Minimum setback:

Front None 10'
Side None 10'
Rear None 235'-2"
Distance Between Buildings 10' 25'
Maximum Height (Feet) 35' 35'
Landscape and open space reqirements: (see A-1.20 for additional detailed Information) Min Landscape Area: 10% 7,298 7,953.00
Private Open Space 2,790 10,412.37
Usable Open Space 13,350 16,015.67
Proposed Required BMR
BMR Units (15% -8 units or More) 19 Units 3.00 2 (Unit A2 & C2) Proposed Floor Area Total
Bldg A - Commercial (SF) 3,165
Bldg A - Residential (3 Flats)(SF) 3,692
Bldg B - Residential (6 Townhomes)(SF) 16,196
Bldg C - Residential (6 Townhomes)(SF) 20,643
Grand Total 43,696
Required Parking (Sec 9-4.2818) & Parking Report on sheet GB-3.1 Thru GB-3.3 - See full 248 Page Traffic Report Parking # Req'd
Per
Sec 9-4.2818
Parking # Req'd
Per
Parking Report
Parking Provided on
Site
Parking Provided Shared
on Community Center
Site
Residential Townhouses 36.00 32.00 36.00 0
Mixed Use [email protected]/1 bdrm unit 6.00 4 Per report page 23 6.00 0 Mixed Use Building - Commecial @1/300 SF 11.00 4 Per report page 23 5.00 17 Per report page 23 Total Parking: 53 40 47 64
Compact Parking (20% of total allowed) 0 0
Accessible parking (per 15-40 = 2 req'd) 2 2 2 3
EV parking stall 1 1 1 1
EV charging station 2 2 2 2
* Total mixed use parking, incl, 3 offsite. See Parking Report ARCHITECT: EID Architects
Environmental Innovations in Design
412 Olive Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2225
Phone: (650) 226-8770
Mobile: (650) 793-2856
Email: [email protected]
OWNER:

Brendan Murphy
P.O. Box 301
San Mateo, CA 94401
Phone: (650) 401-3642
Mobile: (650) 430-5200
Fax: (650) 342-4915
Email: [email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:

GENERAL CONTRACTOR:

T.B.D.

Phone:

Mobile:

Email:

TRAFFIC/PARKING:

RKH Civil and Transportation Eng.

BIOLOGY

WOOD BIOLOGICAL
GEOTECHNICAL:

Daniel Dyckman
561-D Pilgrim Dr.

Foster City, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 349-3369
Mobile: ()
Email: [email protected]
ARBORIST:

CIVIL ENG.:

Cliff Bechtel & Associates
901 Waltermire St.

Belmont, CA 94002
Phone: (650) -
Mobile: (650) 333-0103
Fax: (650) 637-1059
Email: [email protected]
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

GeoForensics
TBD
P.O. Box 1569
El Granada, CA 94018
Phone: (415) 254-4835
Mobile:

Email: [email protected]
Address
Phone:

Mobile:

Email:
837 Columba Lane
Foster City, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 212-0837
Mobile: (415) 420-3150
Email: [email protected]
SURVEYOR:

B&H Surveying
Dan Bishop
901 Waltermire St.

Belmont, CA 94002
Phone: (650) 637-1590
Mobile:

Email: [email protected]
Advanced Tree Care
P.O.Box 5326
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 839-9539
Mobile: (650) 537-0172
Email: [email protected]
Michael Callan
63 Bovet Rd. #314
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: (650) 372-9220
Mobile: (650) 888-9029
Fax: (650) 372-9219
Email: [email protected]
SITE LIGHTING:

CAL LIGHTING
Patrick London
4000 Executive Pkwy, Ste 350
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 925.575.4233
Mobile:

Email: [email protected]
570 CRESPI DRIVE

DRAWING INDEX

VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAM
540 & 570
CRESPI DR.

PACIFICA, CA
COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL: ZONE M-1 (C-3) PROPOSE TO RE-ZONE TO C-2

TYPE V-B CONSTRUCTION
PLANNING PERMIT # 2016-004
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: TBD
APN# 022-162-310, 022-162-420
LOT AREA: 72,984 SF (1.68 ACRE)
Jurisdiction - Town of Pacifica

ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH 2016 CRC, CBC, CPC, CMC, CEC and 2016 California Energy Code, PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL LOCAL AMENDMENTS / ORDINANCES, and ALL LOCAL SUB-TRADE CODES. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, REFER TO GB SHEETS.

DEFERRED SUBMITTALS FOR THIS PROJECT INCLUDE:

ROOF TRUSSES, FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE ALARMS, EVSE (electric vehicle charging stations), SPECIAL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED:

DRILLED PIERS, HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE, FIELD WELDING, HIGH STRENGTH SHEAR WALLS.

PROJECT DATA SUMMARY #1
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES:
• RE: DWG'S. A-1.12a AND A-1.12B AND TM-54 AND NORTH COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS . • AN N.F.P.A. 13 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS SHALL BE PROVIDED @ COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND COMMON AREAS AT MULTI FAMILY DWELLINGS AN N.F.P.A. 13 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM COMPLYING WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS. • A FIRE DEPARTMENT ROADWAY ACCESS SERVING DWELLING/STRUCTURE WHOSE EAVES LINES ARE 30 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 24 FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED LINEAR WIDTH. THESE ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS FIRE LANES. ACCESS ROADS SHALL MEET FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS FOR SURFACE TYPES; ALL WEATHER, DISTANCE; NOT EXCEED 150 FEET IN LENGTH WITHOUT AN APPROVED TURNAROUND, WEIGHT LOADS; 75,000 LB. MINIMUM, TURN RADIUS; RADII OF 22.5 INSIDE AND 37.5 OUTSIDE MEASURED FROM THE SAME POINT, GRADES; NOT TO EXCEED 10 PERCENT, CROSS GRADE, INTERSECTIONS AND TURNAROUNDS SHALL BE LEVEL (MAXIMUM 5%) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CROWNING FOR WATER RUN-OFF AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE; 13.5 MINIMUM.

GEOTECHNICAL NOTE:
• THE GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND ROUGH SITE GRADING, AT- GRADE

FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS, SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE CONTROL SYSTEMS, SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT LEAST 48 HOURS ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF ANY GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE

CONSTRUCTION AND SHOULD BE PRESENT TO OBSERVE AND TEST, AS NECESSARY, THE EARTHWORK, FOUNDATION, AND DRAINAGE INSTALLATION PHASES OF THE PROJECT.

PROJECT DATA SUMMARY #2
MECHANICAL NOTE:
• ALL PERMANENT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS MOTORS, COMPRESSORS, PUMPS, AND COMPACTORS WHICH IS DETERMINED

BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO BE A SOURCE OF STRUCTURAL VIBRATION OR STRUCTURE-BORNE NOISE, SHALL BE SHOCK MOUNTED IN INERTIA BLOCKS OR BASES AND/OR VIBRATION ISOLATORS IN A MANNER APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

Re: Sustainability:
a) Near zero energy Architectural design;
b) LED lighting with variety of color spectrum for optimal light color rendition at Indoor/outdoor,
Commercial/Retail/Residential, plaza/pathway,
landscape/building highlighting;
c) Advanced Framing;
d) Reduced Thermal bridging assemblies;
e) Low fly-ash concrete;
f) Recycled Rebar;
g) Hydrophobic U-stucco, with superior Thermal, Fire, Water, Acoustic properties;
h) Translucent Roofing;
i) High quality, Low-E, low glare, fenestration;
j) Rainwater Filtration Roofing assembly;
k) PV Solar arrays;
l) Sun Shading devices on South and West fenestration;
m) High percentage of open space;
n) Enhanced pedestrian and cyclist paths;
o) Increased connectivity of neighborhood paths, plazas, and bicycle parking not reliant on El Camino Real r.o.w.;
p) More comfortable streetscape promenade experience to invite greater likelihood for non-vehicular travel;
q) Permeable paving and expansive, drought tolerant
landscaping for increased groundwater infiltration to earth; r) Eco-balanced vegetation and soil mixtures to foster
pollenating songbirds, animals, and insects;
The Architect will provide professional services of this under California Architect license number C-26427.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
A New Vibrant & Sustainable Mixed Use Community
A unifying theme throughout the project will be the use of sustainable materials and energy efficient technologies. Green building has become more and more mainstream in recent years, thus homeowners and businesses increasingly seek the high level of quality, natural beauty, economic and health benefits that sustainable design and construction entail. Our green design approach is particularly suitable for a community that includes a fifteen percent (15%) affordable housing component.

While all residents of this sustainable community will enjoy lower utility bills (utility bills are reduced by as much as 90% in zero energy homes), this significant monthly savings will be particularly meaningful to low and moderate income residents. The health benefits of sustainable design, such as better indoor air quality resulting from the use of no or low VOC paints and adhesives, are another advantage for sensitive populations. Green Design will support a thriving retail community, as restaurant owners and shopkeepers benefit from reduced utility bills and customers return again and again to enjoy pleasant, daylight-filled spaces.

The retail component of the project will include cutting-edge commercial applications of energy efficient and recycled building materials. Some of the features envisioned for this component include solar electric power systems, high efficiency heating and cooling systems, energy efficient lighting systems, radiant roof barriers, low E windows, solar window shading, and increased insulation and thermally wrapped building envelopes, low VOC interior finishes and recycled building materials and flooring.

The residences will include features such as electric power, high efficiency water heating, structured plumbing with recirculating pumps, high efficiency furnaces with Energy Star thermostats, low E windows, increased insulation, thermally wrapped building envelope, advanced HVAC design, tight ducting, Energy Star appliances, water saving fixtures, high efficiency lighting and ceiling fans.

Landscape elements throughout the entire project will include a variety of drought tolerant native California plants, satellite-controlled irrigation systems (where feasible), porous paving and local materials. Vegetation has been selected to compliment this particular drought tolerant, low water use, natural ecosystem.

Architectural Design
The architectural style for the project is Eco-Functionalism. The project incorporates many ecologically friendly components and synthesizes them in a functional and attractive manner.

PROPOSED SCOPE OF GREEN DESIGN
"GREEN" & COASTAL CHARACTER
COPYRIGHT © 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE P A C I F I C A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 4 4

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
4/8/2022 8:08:36 AM
COVER SHEET A-0.0 04/08/2022
Sheet No Sheet Name
Architectural
A-0.0 COVER SHEET
A-0.2A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A-0.51 Render 1
A-0.52 Render 2
A-0.53 Render 3
A-0.54 3D VIEWS 1 - OVERALL
A-0.55 3D VIEWS 2 - GROUND LEVEL
A-0.70 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS
A-1.11a SITE PLAN
A-1.12a AUTO TURN EXHIBIT
A-1.12b FIRE FLOW REQUUIREMENTS
A-1.13 POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL PARKING EXHIBIT
A-1.14 WETLAND BOUNDARY DELINEATION
A-1.15 SITE ELEVATIONS
A-1.16 SITE ELEVATIONS
A-1.17 PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING STUDY
A-1.18 SITE PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING FIXTURE SPEC SHEETS
A-1.20 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE - SITE PLAN
A-1.21 PROPOSED AREA BLOCK DIAGRAM 1ST FLOOR
A-1.22 PROPOSED AREA BLOCK DIAGRAM 2ND FLOOR
A-1.23 PROPOSED AREA BLOCK DIAGRAM 3RD FLOOR
A-1.24 PROPOSED AREA BLOCK DIAGRAM ROOF
A-3.1 BLDG A - COMMERCIAL - FLOOR PLANS
A-3.2 BLDG A - COMMERCIAL - ROOF PLAN
A-3.3 NOT USED
A-3.4 NOT USED
A-3.5 BLDG A - COMMERCIAL - ELEVATIONS NORTH & SOUTH
A-3.6 BLDG A - COMMERICAL - ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST
A-3.7 BLDG A - COMMERCIAL - SECTIONS 1
A-3.8 BLDG A - COMMERICAL - SECTIONS 2
A-4.1 BLDG B - MULTIFAMILY WEST - 1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLANS A-4.2 BLDG B - MULTIFAMILY WEST - 3RD & ROOF FLOOR PLANS SHEET REVISIONS:
1 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - JUNE 06, 2019
2 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - JUNE 13, 2019
3 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - SEPT. 13, 2019
4 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - NOV. 27, 2019
5 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - JAN. 20, 2020
6 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - NOV. 30, 2020
7 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - JAN. 05, 2021
8 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - MAR. 10, 2021
8 Sheet No Sheet Name
A-4.3 BLDG B - MULTIFAMILY WEST - ELEVATIONS NORTH & SOUTH A-4.4 BLDG B - MULTIFAMILY WEST - ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST A-4.5 BLDG B - MULTIFAMILY WEST - SECTIONS 1
A-4.6 BLDG B - MULTIFAMILY WEST - SECTIONS 2
A-5.1 BLDG C - MULTIFAMILY EAST - FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-5.2 BLDG C - MULTIFAMILY EAST - THIRD AND ROOF DECK FLOOR PLAN
A-5.3 BLDG C - MULTIFAMILY EAST - ELEVATIONS NORTH & SOUTH A-5.4 BLDG C - MULTIFAMILY EAST - ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST A-5.5 BLDG C - MULTIFAMILY EAST - SECTIONS 1
A-5.6 BLDG C - MULTIFAMILY EAST - SECTIONS 2
A-6.1 COLORS AND MATERIALS
A-6.2 COLORS AND MATERIALS
A-7.1 TRASH / RECYCLING ENCLOSURE
A-7.2 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
GB-3.1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
GB-3.2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
GB-3.3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
Civil
TM-0 TITLE AND TENTATIVE MAP
TM-1 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TM-2 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
TM-3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
TM-4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
TM-5 UTILITY PLAN
TM-6 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
TM-7 CIVIL DETAILS
Landscape
L1.1A PLANTING PLAN
L1.1B PLANTING PLAN
L2.0 IRRIGATION PLAN
L2.5 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS
Total Sheets: 61 (REVISED - APRIL 27, 2021) 8

11.i
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 4688 sf
12'-0"
15'-0"
16'-0"
R28'-0"
15,622 + 4,510/43,560 = 0.46 ac.

AWS-2
AWS-1 3,379 SF/43,560 = 0.07 ac.
10,638 SF /43,560 = 0.24 ac.

FEM-1
65° 26' 00"

57.13'
S
E
40° 16' 00"
555.61'
S W
40° 16' 00"
543.30'
N E
40° 16' 00"
525.40'
S W
65° 26' 00"

83.13'
N
W
5 3° 01' 0
0"
8 0.16'
S
E
5 3° 01' 0
0"
5 5.0
9'
S
E
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
17 18 16
19 20
21 22
04 02 01 03
14 13
15 23
24 25

CRESPI DR VI E

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK SIDEWALK

DECK WALKWAY
5'-6"
N40°16'00"E 4'-0"
543.30'
S53°01'00"E

80.16'
S40°16'00"W
525.40'
N
65 °2
6'00"W

83.13'

50.00 NEW ENTRY DRIVE

EXISTING EXIT/ENTRY DRIVE
EV

BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS
HC
VAN

SUNRISE
29° South East
7:20 12/21
31° North East
4:49 6/2
EA
1 ST
SUNSET
29° South West
19:31 6/21
31° North West
16:52 12/21
WEST

29.5°

75.5°
Magnetic North
GM
CO
CO
SD
TELE
W
W
W
W
TELE
W
W
HC
VAN
RAMP
UP
11'-2 3/128"
87 SF
Utility Room
103

BUILDING A -
UNIT AC-2
101

BUILDING A -
UNIT AC-2
100
57 SF
Utility Closet
103
106 SF
All Gender
Restroom
103
144 SF
Common
Area Lobby
104
2,123.65
SF
789.63 SF
Elevator
UP
3,313 sq./ft.

BUILDING A - RETAIL / OFFICE
SLOPE 1%
SLOPE 1%
33,372.65
SF

VACANT /

UNDEVELOPED AREA

TO REMAIN
Site Area Legend
BLDG A
BLDG B
BLDG C
Grasscrete

HARDSCAPE
Landscape
TRASH

VACANT / UNDEVELOPED AREA TO
REMAIN
3,308.60
SF
BLDG A
7,046.30
SF
BLDG C
240.01
SF
TRASH
5,539.33
SF
BLDG B
15,409.29
SF

HARDSCAPE

SUNRISE
29° South East
7:20 12/21
31° North East
4:49 6/2
EA
1 ST
SUNSET
29° South West
19:31 6/21
31° North West
16:52 12/21
WEST

29.5°

75.5°
Magnetic North
189.89 SF
7 246.08 SF
8 262.39 SF
9 359.91 SF
10 312.52 SF
11 534.64 SF
12 308.11 SF
13 21.15 SF
14 1,085.02
SF
15 692.79 SF
16 UNIT AC-2
UNIT AC-1
2,279.29
SF
17 4.05 SF, Typ of 16

1.76 SF, Typ of 13
435.35 SF
40 12.00 SF
42 12.00 SF
43 12.00 SF
44 12.04 SF
45 13.65 SF
46 12.38 SF
47 12.30 SF
48 12.38 SF
49 12.38 SF
50 12.30 SF
51 12.00 SF
41 NOTE:

USABLE OPEN SPACE & LANDSCAPE

COVERAGE CALCULATIONS DO NOT

INCLUDE ANY LOT AREA WITHIN VACANT /
UNDEVELOPED AREA.

12.38 SF
52 12.14 SF
53 12.91 SF
54 16.12 SF
55 19.69 SF
56 18.78 SF
65 506.91 SF
69 404.46 SF
70 COPYRIGHT © 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE P A C I F I C A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 4 4

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER DATE
4/7/2022 7:13:06 PM
A-1.20

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE
04/08/2022 - SITE PLAN
1" = 20'-0"
1 Site Plan
Landscape Coverage
Number Area
69 506.91 SF
70 404.46 SF
7 189.89 SF
8 246.08 SF
9 262.39 SF
10 359.91 SF
11 312.52 SF
12 534.64 SF
13 308.11 SF
14 21.15 SF
15 1,085.02 SF
16 692.79 SF
17 2,279.29 SF
18 4.05 SF
19 1.76 SF
20 4.05 SF
21 1.76 SF
22 4.05 SF
23 1.76 SF
24 4.05 SF
25 1.76 SF
26 4.05 SF
27 1.76 SF
28 4.01 SF
29 4.05 SF
30 1.76 SF
31 4.05 SF
32 1.76 SF
33 4.05 SF
34 1.76 SF
Area - Private Open Space
Unit Name Area
Open Space
UNIT A1 BALCONY 395.00 SF
UNIT A2 - BMR BALCONY 131.75 SF
UNIT A3 BALCONY 395.00 SF
UNIT B1 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT B1 ROOF DECK 444.06 SF
UNIT B2 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT B2 ROOF DECK 444.06 SF
UNIT B3 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT B3 ROOF DECK 444.06 SF
UNIT B4 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT B4 ROOF DECK 444.06 SF
UNIT B5 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT B5 ROOF DECK 444.06 SF
UNIT B6 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT B6 ROOF DECK 444.06 SF
UNIT B7 BALCONY 368.67 SF
UNIT B7 ROOF DECK 442.71 SF
UNIT C1 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C1 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C2 - BMR BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C2 - BMR ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C3 - BMR BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C3 - BMR ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C4 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C4 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C5 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C5 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
Usable open space includes the private open space for
each unit, plus the landscaped area that meet the
requirement of a 10' x 4' minimum dimension.

REFER TO SHEETS A-1.22 THRU A-1.24 FOR PRIVATE OPEN

SPACE DIAGRAMS
Required: 13,350 SF
Provided:

Private Open Space 10,412.37 (2,790 req'd)
Landscape Open Space: 5,602.63
Total Usable Open Space: 16,015.00 SF
Minimum landscaped area: ten (10%) percent "Landscaping" shall mean plant and inorganic materials installed on the site to produce a pleasant aesthetic effect and to complement the structures constructed upon the site.

Landscaping Required: 10% of lot area, = 7,298 sf.

Usable open space. The minimum required usable open space, exclusive of all structures, shall contain an area having a slope of not more than ten (10%) percent and a minimum area per unit as follows: (1) Townhouses: 750 square feet per unit; and (2) All other forms of clustered housing: 450 square feet per unit.

Usable Open Space Required: (750 x 16) + (450 x 3) = 13,350 Square Feet Private open space. Each unit within the project shall have an appurtenant private patio, deck, balcony, atrium, or solarium with a minimum area of 150 square feet, except that a studio or one-bedroom unit shall be allowed to have a minimum area of 130 square feet. Such space shall be designed for the sole enjoyment of the unit owner, shall have at least one duplex weatherproofed electrical convenience outlet and shall have a shape and size which would allow for optimal usable space. Such space shall be at the same level as, and immediately accessible from, a room within the unit. 16 townhomes x 150 + 3 flats x 130 = 2,790
"Usable open space" shall mean common or private outdoor living, recreation, domestic use, or landscaping. Such area may be on the ground or on a roof, porch, deck, court, or balcony. Off-street parking areas or driveway and/or exit corridors shall not be included as usable open space. Any separate area to qualify under this definition shall be a minimum of four (4′) feet by ten (10′) feet. Usable open space shall not have a slope of more than ten (10%) percent.

Article 11 C-2 Development Requirements:

Article 24 Clustered Housing Requirements:

Landscape Open Space
Number Area
7 189.89 SF
8 246.08 SF
9 262.39 SF
11 312.52 SF
12 534.64 SF
15 1,085.02 SF
16 692.79 SF
17 2,279.29 SF
Total
Landscape
5,602.63 SF
Landscape Open Space areas are
Landscape areas that meet the
requirement to be counted as
common open space, and are
sumarizes separately here. They are
also included in the Total Landscape
Coveraage calculations to the right.

Article 2 Definitions:

Usable Open Space
The Landscaped area calculation
includes the planed areas of the
developed site but does not include
the vacant undeveloped area of the
natural state to the rear of the project.

Landscape Area:

Required, 10% 7,298.30
Provided: 7,953.59
equals 10% of total lot area, or
22% of developed lot area.

Vacant Undeveloped
Area 33,372.65
Combined, the Landscape coverage
plus the Vacant Undeveloped
Area equals 41,326.24 sf, or 56.6% of
the total lot area.

Landscape Coverage
Landscape Coverage
Number Area
35 4.05 SF
36 1.76 SF
37 4.05 SF
38 1.76 SF
39 4.05 SF
40 435.35 SF
41 12.00 SF
42 12.00 SF
43 12.00 SF
44 12.00 SF
45 12.04 SF
46 13.65 SF
47 12.38 SF
48 12.30 SF
49 12.38 SF
50 12.38 SF
51 12.30 SF
52 12.38 SF
53 12.14 SF
54 12.91 SF
55 16.12 SF
56 19.69 SF
58 4.01 SF
59 1.76 SF
60 4.05 SF
61 1.76 SF
62 4.05 SF
63 1.76 SF
64 4.05 SF
65 18.78 SF
Total
Landscape
7,953.59 SF
Area - Private Open Space
Unit Name Area
UNIT C6 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C6 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C7 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C7 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C8 BALCONY 242.00 SF
UNIT C8 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
UNIT C9 BALCONY 385.00 SF
UNIT C9 ROOF DECK 249.10 SF
10,412.37 SF

11.i
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-6"MIN.

WALKING SURFACE
2" SQ. HOLLOW STL. TOP RAIL
2"x1 1/2" HOLLOW STL. BOTTOM RAIL
1/8" DIA. STRANDED STL CABLE
SPACED SO THAT A 4" DIA.

OBJECT CANNOT PASS THROUGH
3 1/2" 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX. 4" MAX.
1" Wx1/8" THK STEEL STIFFENER
3/4" X 2" STEEL BALUSTER

REQUIRED GUARDS SHALL NOT

HAVE OPENINGS THAT ALLOW
PASSAGE OF A SPHERE 4" IN
DIAMETER PER CRC R312.1.3. 6"
6"
5'-6"
6" CONCRETE WALL PER
STRUCTURAL DETAILS (TYP.)

PREVIOUS PAVEMENT SECTION

SLOPE TO DRAIN
DRIP THROUGH BOADWALK, 1X6
TIMBERTECH AZEK OR EQ. ; VINTAGE

COLLECTION COASTLINE COLOR WITH
HIDDEN STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS.

POWDER COATED FLAT STEEL POSTS AND TOP
RAIL WITH CABLES; FEENLEY CABLES OR EQ.
(E) WETLANDS OR

ARROYO WILLOW AREA
2x FASCIA BD.

PROPOSED GRADE
CORTEN STL. PLATE INTERPRETIVE SIGN

BOLTED TO RAILING BAR

WETLAND

DELINEATION LINE
4'-0"
DRIP THROUGH BOADWALK, 1X6
TIMBERTECH AZEK OR EQ. ;

VINTAGE COLLECTION COASTLINE

COLOR WITH HIDDEN STAINLESS
STEEL FASTENERS.

ARROYO WILLOW
AREA UNDER 2'-6"

ARROYO WILLOW
AREA

PROPOSED GRADE
2x FASCIA BD.

BOTH SIDES
1 23
4 567

E F G H
8910

PLANTER

PLANTER PLANTER

PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER

PLANTER

PLANTER
PLANTER N40°16'00"E
543.30'
S53°01'00"E

80.16'
S40°16'00"W
525.40'
N65°26'00"W

83.13'

50.00 NEW ENTRY DRIVE

EXISTING EXIT/ENTRY DRIVE

CRESPI DRIVE
EV

SUNRISE
29° South East 7:20 12/21
31° North East 4:49 6/21 EAST
SUNSET
29° South West
19:31 6/21
31° North West
16:52 12/21
WEST

29.5°

75.5°
Magnetic North
(E) ONE STORY BUILDING
(PACIFICA COMMUNITY CENTER)
(E) ONE STORY BUILDING
(COMMERCIAL)
65° 26' 00" 57.13'
S
E
40° 16' 00"
555.61'
S W
40° 16' 00"
543.30'
N E
40° 16' 00"
525.40'
S W
65° 26' 00" 83.13'
N
W
53° 01' 00"

80.16'
S
E 53° 01' 00"

55.09'
S

E CRESPI DRIVE
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
17 16

DROP-OFF AREA
18 19
20 21
22 PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER

PLANTER

BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS
HC
VAN
04 03 02 01
R28'-0"
CO
TELE
W
W
W
W
HC
VAN

RAMP UP
U
CO
CO
W
W
TELE
W
W
(E) PARKING LOT
(PACIFICA COMMUNITY CENTER)

NEW DRIVEWAY
15'-0"
15'-0"
16'-0" TYP.
7'-6" TYP.
12'-0"
15'-0"
16'-0"

PROPERTY ENTRANCE SIGN - LIT FROM WITHIN LINEAR LOW LEVEL LED ON A

PHOTOCELL FOR NIGHT TIME LIGHTING

ADDRESS, ORIENTATION SIGN
213'-7" 153'-11"
P

WETLAND

DELINEATION LINE

EXISTING

ARROYO WILLOW

BOUNDARY LINE

NW S NON-JD

BOUNDARY LINE
P P

AREA OF ARROYO

WILLOW TO BE RELOCATED
784 SF.

PLANTER

PROPOSED

ADDED AREA OF

ARROYO WILLOW
448 SF.

PLANTER PLANTER

PROPOSED

ADDED AREA

ARROYO WILLOW
800 SF.

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
LEGEND OF ARROYO WILLOW AREAS:

PROPOSED

ADDED AREA

PROPOSED AREA

TO RELOCATE

PROPOSED

ADDED AREA

ARROYO WILLOW
308 SF.

EXISTING AREA TO
REMAIN
1556 SF.
784 SF.

ARROYO WILLOW SUBTOTAL: 3306 SF.
1750 SF.

EXISTING AREA 2603 SF.
(27 % INCREASE) 14 13
15 DECK WALKWAY

GRASSPAVE,
RE: CIVIL
DWG'S.

GRASSPAVE, RE: CIVIL
DWG'S.

UP 87 SF
Utility Room
103
BUILDING A - UNIT AC-2
101 11'-2 3/128"
BUILDING A - UNIT AC-2
100

BUILDING A - RETAIL / OFFICE
57 SF
Utility Closet 103
106 SF
All Gender Restroom
103
144 SF
Common Area Lobby
104
2,123.65 SF
789.63 SF
Elevator
1 2
3 4
5678
C B A
SLOPE 1%
SLOPE 1%
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
4688 sf
5'-6"
3'-0"

DECK WALKWAY DECK WALKWAY DECK WALKWAY
5'-6"
4'-0"
(E) WOOD FENCE

WETLAND

DELINEATION LINE

WETLAND

DELINEATION LINE
(JURISD. WETLAND)
(E) CL FENCE
(E) WOOD FENCE
GATE
NON-JURISD.

ORNAMENTAL TREES
SP-3
SP-2
SP-1

EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
18" RISER

WITH ATRIUM BASKET GRATE
RIM 10.0
INV 8.0
EXISTING 24" SD PER

CITY EQUALIZATION PROJECT
PLANS (SHEET C-60)
57 INCH SD PER CITY MAPS
CONNECT TO EXISTING 24" SD

PER CITY REQUIREMENTS
12 INCH HDPE
S=2% MIN.
(E)CITY BIOTREATMENT AREA
S = 2% MIN.

NOTE:

RE: TM-03 FOR ADDITIONAL

UTILITY INFORMATION
UP 87 SF
Utility Room
103
BUILDING A - UNIT AC-2
101 11'-2 3/128"
BUILDING A - UNIT AC-2
100

BUILDING A - RETAIL / OFFICE
57 SF
Utility Closet 103
106 SF
All Gender Restroom
103
144 SF
Common Area Lobby
104
2,123.65 SF
789.63 SF
Elevator BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG A
1 A-1.14
NOTE:

RE: CIVIL & LANDSCAPE
DWG'S. FOR PERMEABLE
PAVING MATERIALS.
3 A-1.14
2 A-1.14
1 A-1.14 6"
6"
3'-0"
6" CONCRETE WALL PER
STRUCTURAL DETAILS (TYP.)

PREVIOUS PAVEMENT SECTION

SLOPE TO DRAIN
DRIP THROUGH BOADWALK, 1X6
TIMBERTECH AZEK OR EQ. ; VINTAGE

COLLECTION COASTLINE COLOR WITH
HIDDEN STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS.

POWDER COATED FLAT STEEL POSTS AND TOP
RAIL WITH CABLES; FEENLEY CABLES OR EQ.
(E) WETLANDS OR

ARROYO WILLOW
AREA
2x FASCIA BD.

PROPOSED
GRADE
OPTIONAL CORTEN STL. PLATE INTERPRETIVE

SIGN BOLTED TO RAILING BAR

WETLAND

DELINEATION LINE
COPYRIGHT © 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE PACIFICA, C A L I F O R N I A 94044
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS in DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE . PALO ALTO CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
04/08/2022

DELINEATION
WETLAND BOUNDARY A-1.14

11.i
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 543.30' 525.40'
S53°01'00"E N40°16'00"E

80.16' N65°26'00"W S40°16'00"W 83.13'
15 FL=11.17 RIM=14.54 W A A A A C B C C B C C G2 G2 1 G2 V C G2 V1 G2 C G2 G2 1 G2 V G2 G2 G2 G2 G3 G2 G3 TELE WW GM UTELE W W A A A A A A G2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 5 5 2 2 5 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 77 7 9 9 9 7 3 3 88 8 8 8 8 33 8 8 8 4 8 48 8 8 8 4 8 4 3 5 5 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 101010101010 22 3 3 101010 10 10 10 101010101010101010101010 10 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22222222222222222 222222 2 222222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 22 2 1 11 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 33 1 1 12 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 555 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 33 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 5 3 1 1 3 1 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 3 4 9 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 9 5 5 5 5 2 2 5 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 5 2 3 3 3 7 9 2 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 3 7 9 8 8 8 7 8 8 4 3 8 4 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 12 5 12 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 33 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 7 3 8 4 3 7 8 4 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 2 33 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 1 11 1 2 5 3 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 55 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 9 5 8 5 5 5 4 8 7 5 5 5 3 5 5 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 777777777 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 121212 12 12 12 12 10"TREE (2)4"TREE 6"TREE6"TREE 8"TREE 7"TREE 33"PINE 35"/30"/36"/34" 39"CYPRESS 12"CYPRESS 14"CYPRESS 16"CYPRESS 20"CYPRESS 10"CYPRESS 2 3 46"/26"/18"/12"5 35"CYPRESS6 60"CYPRESS4 1 1 CYPRESS CLUSTER CYPRESS CLUSTER BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING A BUILDING D VACANT TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AREA (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT(N) PARKING (N) PARKING (N) PARKING MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) PARKING GRASSPAVE (N) PARKING GRASSPAVE (E) WILLOW ARROYO AREA WETLAND DELINEATION LINE WETLAND DELINEATION LINE 1 07/23/19 M.C. L1.0 DATE: APRIL 28, 2022 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LANDSCAPE PLAN TITLE: SHEET NO: PLAN LANDSCAPE REVISIONS

MIXED USE PROJECT
540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA 2 10/28/19 M.C. 3 12/02/20 M.C. 3 3 3 4 04/28/22 M.C. 4 4 11.i Packet Pg. 1148
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 543.30' 525.40'
S53°01'00"E N40°16'00"E

80.16' S40°16'00"W
15 W
A
A
A
A
C
B
C
C
B
C
C G2 G2
1 G2
V
C G2
V1 G2
C G2 G2
1 G2
V G2 G2 G2 G2 G3 G2 G3 GM
W
W G2
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 2 5 5
2 2 5
2 5
2 2
2 2 2
2 2 3 3
3 3
7 7
7 9 9 9
7 3
3 8
8 8
8 8
8 3
3 8
8 8
4 8
4 8
8 8 8
4 8
4 3
5 5 12
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 33
3 3
3 3 101010101010
2 2
3 3 101010 10 10 10 101010101010101010101010 10 10
2 2
2 2 2
2 2 22 2 22 22
2 2 2
2 2 22 2 2
2222222222
2 222
222
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
8 8
8 2
3 3
3 3
4 3
4 4 3
4 3
3 3
3 3
1 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4
3 3
3 1
1 1
2 2
1 3
2 2
3 2 1
3 2
5 1
V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 5 1 1
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 2
3 3
1 3
3 2
2 5
3 1
1 3
1 3
5 5
4 9
4 4 4 4
2 4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4
9 9 9
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 9
5 9
5 5 5 5
2 2 5
2 3
2 2 5
2 2 2 2 3 3
2 5
2 3 3 3
7 9
2 3
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
7 9 9 9 9 9
7 9
3 7
9 8 88
7 8
8 4
3 8
4 8
4 8
8 8
8 8
4 8
8 4
8 4
8 8 8
8 8 8
4 12
5 12
3 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
4 3
7 8
4 3
7 8
4 9
8 9 9
9 9
9 8
9 9
9 9
9 9
5 9 9
9 9 9 9
3 3
5 5 1
5 3
5 5
5 1
5 2
2 3
3 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 1
2 3
3 5
5 5
5 3
5 2
1 5
1 3
3 5
4 5
4 9
8 4
8 7
9 9 9
9 8
8 88
7 7
777777777
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 33"PINE 35"/30"/36"/34" 2 39"CYPRESS 3 46"/26"/18"/12"5 35"CYPRESS6 60"CYPRESS4 1 1 CYPRESS CLUSTER CYPRESS CLUSTER (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT C R E S P I D R I V E (N) BUILDING POSTS *PER ARCH. DWGS. OUTLINE OF (E) HOUSE TO BE REMOVED (E) ADJACENT BUILDING (N) HANDICAP PARKING (N) PARKING (N) PEDESTRIAN PAINT STRIPING (N) ADDRESS / ORIENTATION SIGN (N) COLORED CONCRETE WALKWAY (E) CURB / GUTTER (E) CONCRETE (N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPRON (E) UTILITY VAULT *SEE CIVIL DWGS. (N) PARKING (N) PARKING (N) COLORED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) (N) BICYCLE STORAGE BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING A (N) PEDESTRIAN PAINT STRIPING (N) COLORED CONCRETE WALKWAY (N) COLORED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) HANDICAP PAINT STRIPING (N) BUILDING POSTS (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE *SEE ARCH. DWGS. (N) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY ACCESS *SEE CIVIL DWGS. (N) FLOWERING TREES 5' 5' 10'-0"
10'-0"
SETBACK LINE (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (N) NATIVE BIOSWALE GRASS (N) NATIVE WILLOW PLANTINGS (N) NATIVE GRASS (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (E) TREES TO BE REMOVED (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) PLANTING AREAS (N) LIVING WALL PER ARCH PLANS (N) LIVING WALL PER ARCH PLANS (N) LIVING WALL PER ARCH PLANS (N) FLOWERING TREES (N) DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVER (N) DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVER (N) NATIVE EVERGREEN (N) MAILBOXES *SEE ARCH DWGS (N) CONCRETE STEPPING PADS (N) WATER METERS LOCATION (N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK / CURB *INSTALL PER CITY (E) UTILITY COVERS (N) FIRE SERVICE BACKFLOW (E) UTILITY VAULT W/ SYNTHETIC STONE BOULDER COVER LIMIT OF AT&T VERIFY BY POT HOLING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (N) ELECTRIC VEH. PARKING (N) HANDICAP RAMP *SEE CIVIL DWGS (N) CONCRETE SWALE *SEE CIVIL DWGS (N) PLANTING AREAS UNDERGROUND VAULT, SIDEWALK STDS *SEE CIVIL DWGS. *SEE CIVIL DWGS. DEVICE AREA PER CIVIL DWGS. (N) PARKING SPACES (N) BOULDERS (N) BOULDERS (E) SIGNS (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) PARKING (N) COLORED CONCRETE WALKWAY (N) COLORED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) (N) WOOD DECK PATHWAY (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (N) GRASSPAVE *SEE CIVIL DWG'S (N) GRASSPAVE *SEE CIVIL DWG'S (N) DRIVEWAY STONE (E) WILLOW ARROYO AREA TO REMAIN (N) NATIVE ARROYO WILLOW PLANTINGS (#12) (N) NATIVE ARROYO WILLOW PLANTINGS (#12) (E) CYPRESS TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) CYPRESS TREE TO REMAIN (E) CYPRESS TREE TO BE REMOVED TREES (E) DEAD PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) CYPRESS TREE TO BE REMOVED 1 6/30/20 M.C. L1.1A DATE: SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" PLANTING PLAN TITLE: SHEET NO: PLAN LANDSCAPE REVISIONS

MIXED USE PROJECT
540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 13, 2022 GENERAL NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE PROPOSED WORK PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ON SITE ALL GRADES, PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WATERPROOFING AND UNDERGROUND PIPING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. ALL DISCREPANCIES OR PROBLEMATIC SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS WORK MAY INCLUDE LANDSCAPING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NEW CURB DRAINS, AND PARKING STRIP. 4. FINISHED GRADES SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED TO PREVENT ANY STANDING WATER. ALL HARDSCAPE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM GRADE OF 2% UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. JUTE MESH EROSION CONTROL NETTING SHALL BE USED ON ALL 3:1 OR GREATER SLOPES & STAKED APPROPRIATELY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR EXISTING TREES BY INSTALLING TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE TREES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE DRIPLINE. IN THE EVENT THAT TREE ROOTS OVER 6" ARE DISCOVERED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE CONTACTED. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, & OTHER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS / DOCUMENTS FOR WORK IN RELEVANT AREAS. 7. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY MAKE SITE OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION BUT SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED TO SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION ONSITE. PLANTING NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER. 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES, WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH IS RECOMMENDED. 5. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS. 6. PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMPOST & 95% EXISTING SOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 7. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. 8. RESIDUAL WEED PRE-EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 9. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS SITE MAP BUILDING B BUILDING C BLDG. VACANT

A TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AREA BUILDING D SCOPE OF WORK SCOPE OF WORK 1 1
1 1
1 1
2 12/02/20 M.C.
2 2
2 2 *SEE CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCS/PLANS
2 3 04/15/22 M.C.
3 3
3 3
3 11.i
Packet Pg. 1149
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 15 FL=11.17 RIM=14.54 W G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G3
TELE WW GM UTELE W W A A A A A A B G2 4 4 4 4 4 77 7 9 9 9 12 3 33 3 3 2 10 10 10 10101010 222222 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 22 2 1 11 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 33 1 1 12 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 V 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 555 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 33 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 5 3 1 1 3 1 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 7 3 4 3 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 9 9 3 2 33 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 1 11 1 2 5 3 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 3 5 5 9 9 9 7 7 777777777 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12"CYPRESS 14"CYPRESS 16"CYPRESS 20"CYPRESS 10"CYPRESS 46"/26"/18"/12"5 6 60"CYPRESS4 CYPRESS CLUSTER (N) (N) PARKING BUILDING B (N) PEDESTRIAN PAINT STRIPING (N) COLORED CONCRETE WALKWAY (N) COLORED CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) (N) BUILDING POSTS (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE *SEE ARCH. DWGS. (N) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY ACCESS *SEE CIVIL DWGS. 5' 10'-0" (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (N) NATIVE WILLOW PLANTINGS (N) NATIVE GRASS (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (N) LIVING WALL PER ARCH PLANS (N) LIVING WALL PER ARCH PLANS (N) DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVER (N) MAILBOXES *SEE ARCH DWGS (N) CONCRETE STEPPING PADS LIMIT OF AT&T VERIFY BY POT HOLING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (N) HANDICAP RAMP *SEE CIVIL DWGS (E) CONCRETE PATH (N) PLANTING AREAS (N) ASPHALT PARKING (E) CONCRETE PATH (N) PEDESTRIAN CROSS WALK STRIPING (N) PLANTING AREAS (N) PLANTING AREAS (E) DRIVEWAY (E) CYPRESS TREE TO REMAIN LAWN *RETROFIT (E) IRRIGATION SYSTEM C R E S P I D R I V E (E) CYPRESS TREE TO BE REMOVED (2) (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (E) CONCRETE CURB (E) CYPRESS TREE TO REMAIN (E) LAWN (E) LAWN (E) LAWN (E) CONCRETE WALKWAY (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (E) SIGNAGE (E) CYPRESS TREE TO REMAIN (E) UTILITY VAULTS (N) HAND PARKING SPACE PARKING SPACES (N) ASPHALT ENCLOSURE (N) TRASH COMMUNITY CENTER (E) UNDERGROUND VAULT, (E) LIGHT (E) ARBOR TO REMAIN (E) PATH (E) SIGNS (E) LIGHTS (E) PATIO BUILDING (N) PLANTINGS (N) FLOWERING CRAPE MYRTLE TREES (E) CONCRETE CURB *SEE CIVIL DWGS. (N) BOULDERS (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) DRIVEWAY ASPHALT (N) FLOWERING TREES (N) BOULDERS (E) PATH (N) FLOWERING TREES (E) CONCRETE CURB *SEE CIVIL DWGS. (E) CONCRETE CURB *SEE CIVIL DWGS. (N) BOULDERS (N) BOULDERS (N) 6'-0" STEEL / (N) PARKING SPACES (E) UTILITY VAULTS (E) WATER METERS (N) BOULDERS (N) PLANTINGS (E) LAWN (N) BOULDERS (N) BOULDERS (E) SIGNS (N) BOULDERS (N) EVERGREEN HEDGE (E) CONCRETE CURB *SEE CIVIL DWGS. WIRE MUSH FENCING (N) CYPRESS TREE TO MATCH (E) (E) LANDSCAPE AREA (E) LANDSCAPE AREA (E) LANDSCAPE AREA (E) PARKING LOT (E) DRIVEWAY (E) PARKING LOT (N) COLORED CONCRETE PATHWAY (E) WILLOW ARROYO AREA (N) NATIVE ARROYO WILLOW PLANTINGS (#12) (N) NATIVE ARROYO WILLOW PLANTINGS (#12) (E) CYPRESS TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) CYPRESS TREE TO REMAIN (E) CYPRESS TREE TO BE REMOVED 1 00/00/00 M.C. L1.1B DATE: SCALE: 1" = 16'-0" PLANTING PLAN TITLE: SHEET NO: PLAN LANDSCAPE REVISIONS

MIXED USE PROJECT
540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 27, 2020 IRRIGATION NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL RETROFIT THE EXISTING IRRIGATION TO ADJUST SPRAY HEADS IN LAWN AREAS AND INSTALL DRIP TUBING TO ALL OTHER AREAS SHOWN TO BE NEWLY PLANTED ON THIS PLAN. EXISTING VALVES AND FILTERS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THEY ARE IN GOOD WORKING AS WELL AS THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PLANTING NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER. 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES, WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH IS RECOMMENDED. 5. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS. 6. PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMPOST & 95% EXISTING SOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 7. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. 8. RESIDUAL WEED PRE-EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 9. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. 11.i Packet Pg. 1150
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) W GM W (N) TIMER/ CONTROLLER (N) BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE (N) WATER METER LOCATION (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING (N) LIVING WALL DRIP (N) LIVING WALL DRIP (N) LIVING WALL DRIP (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING 2MX 1 7 MX MX6MX 5MX 14 MX 13 MX 12 MX11 MX 20 MX 19 MX 21 MX (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING 22 MX 23 MX 24 MX 25 MX 26 MX27 MX28 MX 4MX3MX 1-1/2" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE 1-1/2" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE 1-1/2" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE 1-1/2" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE 1-1/2 PVC SCHEDULE 40 MAINLINE 1-1/2 PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE *WITH 4" SLEEVING 1-1/2 PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE *WITH 4" SLEEVING 1-1/2" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE *WITH 4" SLEEVING BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING A C R E S P I D R I V E 17 MX 18 MX 8MX 9MX (N) 'NETAFIM' SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING L2.0 DATE: SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" IRRIGATION PLAN TITLE: SHEET NO: PLAN IRRIGATION REVISIONS

MIXED USE PROJECT
540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA FILTER / PRESSURE REGULATOR FEBCO 825Y REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY PVC SCH 40 SLEEVING IRRIGATION LEGEND DESCRIPTION PVC SCH 40 LATERAL PIPING PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE IRRITROL 100 SERIES CONTROL VALVE SHUT-OFF VALVE SYM UNDER ALL PAVING / WALLS AS NEEDED PER MFR'S SPECS SIZING TBD BY CONTRACTOR W/ GLOBE VALVE W/ SHUT-OFF VALVES BRASS BALL VALVE REMARKS SEE PLAN FOR SIZING WEATHERMATIC SMARTLINE SERIES CONTROLLER W/ WEATHER STATION HOSEBIB 30" TALL BRASS LINE & FIXTURE 60-100 -- 60-100 60-100 - 175 max. PSI 30-55 10-30 60-100 RAINBIRD XERI-BUBBLER SPIKE *NOT SHOWN 15-30 AS NEEDED, SEE DETAIL - INSTALL PER MFR'S SPECS GPM----- .02-.22 ------ NETAFIM TECHLINE CV DRIPLINE SIZING TBD BY CONTRACTOR NETAFIM TECHLINE CV (SUBSURFACE) DECEMBER 1, 2020 M2 HYDROZONE # / WATER USE (VL, L, M, or H) (VL)-VERY LOW, (L)-LOW etc. 11.i Packet Pg. 1151
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

MIXED USE PROJECT
540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA L2.5 DATE: TITLE: SHEET NO: DETAILS NOTES / REVISIONS WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE THESE PLANS COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN. WEATHERMATIC SMART CONTROLLER B SCALE: NTS SMARTLINE SL4800 CONDUIT 24v AC CONTROLLER POWER SUPPLY WIRES GROUND WIRE SLW10 WEATHER STATION CONDUIT 115v AC *WALL-MOUNT RAIN STAT WIRES *OPTIONAL MASTER VALVE WIRE *OPTIONAL COMMON NEUTRAL WIRE PUMP CIRCUIT WIRES *OPTIONAL VALVE CONTROL WIRES *ONE PER VALVE EXPANSION COILS WATERPROOF CONNECTIONS CONTROL VALVE NOTE: ALL ELECTRICAL WORK TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODES *12-48 ZONES EMITTER / EMITTER SPACING G SCALE: NTS EMITTER / LARGE SHRUB SMALL SHRUB 1/2" - 3/4" POLY TUBING 1/4" DISTRIBUTION TUBING *STAKED 1/2" - 3/4" POLY TUBING 5'-0" MAX. LENGTH BUBBLER BUBBLER OR TREE 1/4" DISTRIBUTION TUBING *STAKED 5'-0" MAX. LENGTH NOTES: 1. SPACE EMITTERS TO CREATE AN EVEN WET ZONE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE CANOPY OF ALL NEW SHRUBS, NEW TREES, & EXISTING 2. PLACE EMITTERS AS TO AVOID AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IRRIGATING OAK TREES & ANY OTHER EXISTING, MATURE NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS. IMMATURE NON-NATIVE EXISTING TREES. CONTROL VALVE C SCALE: NTS FINISHED GRADE VALVE BOX WATERPROOF WIRE CONNECTIONS IRRITOL 100 SERIES CONTOL VALVE PVC MALE ADAPTER PVC SCH 40 SxT ELL PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE *6" LONG PVC LATERAL LINE *ANGLE TO CORRECT DEPTH W 450 ELL'S TYP BRICK PEA GRAVEL *12" DEEP PVC SCH 80 PIPE COMMON & CONTROL WIRES TO CONTROLLER MAIN LINE PIPING W/ FITTING NOTE: ALL ELECTRICAL WORK TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODES FEBCO 825Y REDUCED REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY A SCALE: NTS 12" MIN. PRESSURE ASSEMBLY FINISHED GRADE NOTE: REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY TO BE INSTALLED PER MFR'S FEBCO PRV SERIES PRESSURE REGULATOR *AS NEEDED BRASS WYE-FILTER *100 MESH SCREEN SHUT-OFF VALVE *BOTH SIDES BRASS UNION *BOTH SIDES RISER PIPE *COPPER TYPE 'K' OR BRASS SPECS & APPLICABLE CODES IRRIGATION NOTES 1. THE CONCEPTS ON THE IRRIGATION PLAN ARE SCHEMATIC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE FULL EXTENT OF WHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY BASED ON ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. 2. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SUPERSEDE ANY SPECS ON THESE PLANS / DETAILS. 3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL USE PRESSURE REGULATORS AS NEEDED TO KEEP ALL COMPONENTS WITHIN OPTIMAL PSI RANGE, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 4. CONTROLLER TYPE SHALL BE A SMART CONTROLLER. RAIN SENSORS AND / OR WEATHER STATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED. 5. CONTROLLER SHALL BE SET TO IRRIGATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8PM AND 10AM. CONTROLLER SHALL BE SET TO IRRIGATE DEEPLY AND LESS FREQUENTLY TO ENCOURAGE DROUGHT RESISTANT ROOT GROWTH. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE TO BE DETERMINED BY AUDITOR / CONTRACTOR. 6. PIPING BETWEEN THE WATER METER AND A REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE BRASS OR COPPER TYPE 'K'. 7. THE BOTTOM OF THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE INSTALLED MIN. 12" ABOVE THE GROUND. 8. A 100 MESH FILTER SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE MAINLINE BEFORE THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY. 9. VALVES SHALL BE HOUSED IN WEATHER-PROOF PLASTIC BOXES, WITH LOCKABLE LIDS MARKED WATER. 10. CONTROL WIRE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH WATERPROOF PLASTIC WIRE NUTS. 11. MAIN SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN, BURIED 12" - 16" DEEP. 12. LATERAL SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR, BURIED 9" - 12" DEEP. 13. FLEXIBLE POLY PIPE TO BE 12" -34", DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR . ALL 14" FLEXIBLE DISTRIBUTION LINES TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 5'-0" IN LENGTH & ARE TO BE STAKED. 14. BUBBLERS SHALL BE SPACED TO CREATE AN EVEN WET ZONE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE CANOPY OF ALL NEW SHRUBS, NEW TREES & EXISTING IMMATURE NON-NATIVE TREES. BUBBLERS SHALL BE PLACED TO AVOID AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IRRIGATING OAK TREES & ANY OTHER EXISTING, MATURE NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS. 15. HOSE BIBS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON GALVANIZED STEEL RISERS 30" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. SECURE TO A #4 STEEL BAR DRIVEN 18" INTO SOLID GROUND. 16. CHECK VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL DOWNHILL DRIPLINE & DISTRIBUTION LINE. 17. RISER HEIGHT IN LAWN AREAS SHALL BE 4". RISER HEIGHT IN MEADOW AREAS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE 12". THE RISERS FOR SPRINKLERS ON SLOPES SHALL BE SET APPROXIMATELY PERPENDICULAR TO THE PLANE OF THE SLOPE. 18. IF LOCATION OF A SUPPLY LINE INTERFERES WITH THE DRILLING OF THE PLANT HOLES, THE PLANT HOLES SHALL BE LOCATED AS TO CLEAR THE SUPPLY LINES. 18. ALL LINES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY FLUSHED OUT PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF VALVES, SPRINKLERS, EMITTERS, & OTHER TERMINAL FITTINGS. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE PROPER COVERAGE AND PREVENT WATER RUN-OFF AND EXCESS SPRAY. 20. ALL SPRAY AND DRIP ZONES TO BE MIN. 5'-0" AND PREFERABLY 10'-0" AWAY FROM OAK TREE TRUNKS. SPRAY HEAD & BODY D SCALE: NTS FINISH GRADE HUNTER MPR40 BODY HUNTER MP ROTATOR W/ CHECK VALVE HUNTER PRO-FLEX TUBING, (2) HSBE-050 ELBOWS & (1) MARLEX STREET ELBOW SWING JOINT: LATERAL TEE OR ELL LATERAL PIPE SPRAY NOZZLE NOTE: LAWN SPRAY RISER: 6" POP-UP MEADOW SPRAY RISER: 12" POP-UP FINISHED GRADE POP-UP MICROSPRAY F SCALE: NTS XERI-POP MICROSPRAY 1/2" or 3/4" POLY TUBING 1/4" SELF-PIERCING BARB CONNECTOR 1/4" DISTRIBUTION TUBING NOTE: LAWN SPRAY RISER: 6" POP-UP MEADOW, SHRUB SPRAY RISER: 12" POP-UP DRIPLINE SAMPLE LAYOUT E SCALE: NTS AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE PLUMBED TO PVC OR POLY EXHAUST HEADER TECHLINE TEE TECHLINE DRIPLINE *CENTERED ON BERM TECHLINE DRIPLINE TECHLINE START CONNECTION AIR / VACUUM RELIEF PLUMBED TO TECHLINE AT EACH HIGH POINT SUPPLY HEADER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITH DISC FILTER AND PRV SOIL BED SPACING TECHLINE MULCH FINISHED GRADE PER SOIL CONDITIONS DRIPLINE MALE ADAPTER DECEMBER 16, 2019

11.i
Packet Pg. 1152
Attachment: Attachment I - Revised Project Plans (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) May 11, 2022
Christian Murdock, ACICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica, Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: 570 Crespi Drive Development Proposal
Response to Peer Review of Wetland Clarification Letter Dear Christian:

This letter responds to questions and comments in the peer review of my recent memo to you dated April 8, 2022, concerning the extent of wetlands near the southern boundary of the two parcels that comprise the project site, and in relation to the location of a proposed emergency overflow riser (i.e., drain inlet), and the City’s drainage easement located along the southern boundary. The peer review was prepared by Madrone Ecological Consulting and raised three key points:

1. Wetland delineation data forms. The requested data forms are attached. The technical information that supports my conclusions in the memo also are included in the data forms, but the data forms also include additional details mentioned in the peer review, such as percent cover of each plant species, percent of the soil colors in each soil slayer, and information on the hydrology for all three data points.

2. Equipment used to establish the wetland boundary. The location of the wetland boundary line, wetland delineation sample points, and backyard fence line shown on Sheet A-1.14 were determined in the field by measuring tape and compass using the corner post of the City’s cyclone fence enclosing the Wet-Weather Equalization Basin as a known reference point. These actual dimensions and bearings were provided to the project architect and rendered at scale in CAD.

Because of the small scale of the survey area and the dense vegetation canopy, this was as accurate as sub-meter GIS for establishing the location of the sample points and resultant boundary line in relation to the proposed riser location.

3. Map contents. The map was prepared in response to your request for more detailed information regarding the riser’s location in relation to potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Immediately following a conference call with the applicant and architect on April 1, 2022, you and I spoke further about your needs and my proposed approach to resolve these questions. I believe we agreed on the map that was prepared and submitted, focusing on the southwest corner of the property where the riser was proposed, and specifically showing the relation of the riser to the more refined wetland boundary.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (415) 254-4835.

WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
P.O. Box 1569
El Granada, CA 94018
[email protected]
www.wood-biological.com

11.j
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Wood Biological Consulting
2 Sincerely,
Chris Rogers
cc: Brendan Murphy, Eamon Murphy, Stuart Welte

11.j
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Applicant/Owner: State:

Investigator(s):

Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): <1
Subregion (LRR): Lat:

Soil Map Unit Name:

X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No X
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)

1. 2. (A)

3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)

1. 2.

3. 4. x 1 =

5. x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =

1. x 5 =

2. Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Yes X
Non-hydric vegetation dominates sample location. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis; FACW) extend over sample point from plants rooted in area mapped as wetland.

Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5 Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:

Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
265
305
53 68
=Total Cover
Rubus ursinus
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:

Myoporum laetum
Salix lasiolepis
Yes
=Total Cover
1 2 No
Project/Site: 570 Crespi Drive
LRR A, MLRA 4B
NWI classification:

Dominant
Species?
60 50
10 UPL

37.595511
UPL
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
-122.500189 Datum:

Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill complex 0-5% slopes none Long:
2m
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? No S10 T4S R6W
CA SP-1
concave
Section, Township, Range:

0.0%
)
2m )
Phoenix canariensis
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 0
Sampling Date:

Sampling Point:

Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
4/4/2022
Brendan and Eamon Murphy
Chris Rogers
terrace
City/County: Pacifica / San Mateo
10 Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20 Multiply by:
20 Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 No
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

UPL species
FACW species
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
98 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:

Remarks:
5 FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU

4.49 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
2m
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size:

Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
FACW Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
No criteria are met.

Indicator
Status
0 2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
1 UPL
Herb Stratum
Oxalis pes-caprae
0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No
No
2 2m
5 Remarks:

ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

11.j
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
100
100
Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X
?
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X

2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.

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

Remarks:

Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Shallow depression between backyard that was filled within drainage easement and berm at edge of City's parking lot. No evidence of ponding or inundation for long duration.

No
No
No
Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
Depth Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 3/4
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-6
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:

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

Coarse gravelly fill from backyard expansion, construction of wet weather equalization basin, or historic.

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-18
SOIL SP-1
coarse gravelly fill with 50% 2.5Y 3/3
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

11.j
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Applicant/Owner: State:

Investigator(s):

Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): <1
Subregion (LRR): Lat:

Soil Map Unit Name:

Yes No X
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)

1. 2. (A)

3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)

1. 2.

3. 4. x 1 =

5. x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =

1. x 5 =

2. Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No
3 2m
30 Remarks:

Indicator
Status
1 2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:

Zantedeschia aethiopica
UPL
Herb Stratum
1 No
Oxalis pes-caprae
1 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
2m
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size:

Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Slight topographic rise at back of expanded backyard. Criteria not met.

Remarks:
31 FACU species
FAC species
No
OBL species
FACU

3.26 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Amphilophium buccinatorium
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
98 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
1 UPL
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
20 Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
120
Multiply by:
40 Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

UPL species
FACW species
Sampling Date:

Sampling Point:

Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
4/4/2022
Brendan and Eamon Murphy
Chris Rogers
terrace
City/County: Pacifica / San Mateo
none
Long:
2m
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? No S10 T4S R6W
CA SP-2
concave
Section, Township, Range:

50.0%
)
2m )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 1
Project/Site: 570 Crespi Drive
LRR A, MLRA 4B
NWI classification:

Dominant
Species?
20 20 FACW

37.597490
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
-122.500134 Datum:

Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill complex 0-5% slopes
(Plot size:

Salix lasiolepis Yes
=Total Cover
OBL
2 No
Non-hydric vegetation dominates sample location. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis; FACW) extend over sample point from plants rooted in area mapped as wetland.

Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
30 Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:

Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
15 176
3 54
=Total Cover
Rubus ursinus
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

11.j
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
100
98 98 2 C M
Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) ?
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X SOIL SP-2
Coarse gravelly clay; inclusions (not redox) of 10YR 3/2 Sandy clay loam
Prominent redox concentrations
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:

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

Coarse gravelly fill from backyard expansion.

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 9-15
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

2.5Y 3/2
10YR 5/6
Color (moist)

7.5YR 5/8
0-9
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey

2.5Y 3/2
Matrix
Texture
15-18 Sandy
Depth Redox Features
Remarks:

Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Slight topographic rise against back backyard fence. No hydrology indicators. The sample point likely experiences periods of inundation or saturation following significant storm events, but it is not a persistent condition.

No
No
No
Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

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

2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

11.j
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Applicant/Owner: State:

Investigator(s):

Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): <1
Subregion (LRR): Lat:

Soil Map Unit Name:

Yes x No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)

1. 2. (A)

3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)

1. 2.

3. 4. x 1 =

5. x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =

1. x 5 =

2. Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8. X

9. 10.

11. Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Yes x
Non-hydric vegetation dominates sample location. Willow canopy extends over sample location from plants rooted in area mapped as wetland.

Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
15 Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:

Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
0 180
0 75
=Total Cover
Rubus ursinus
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:

Salix lasiolepis Yes
=Total Cover
Project/Site: 570 Crespi Drive
LRR A, MLRA 4B
NWI classification:

Dominant
Species?
60 60 FACW

37.597518
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
-122.500056 Datum:

Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill complex 0-5% slopes none Long:
2m
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? No S10 T4S R6W
CA SP-3
concave
Section, Township, Range:

50.0%
)
2m )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 0
Sampling Date:

Sampling Point:

Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
4/4/2022
Brendan and Eamon Murphy
Chris Rogers
terrace
City/County: Pacifica / San Mateo
60 Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
60 Multiply by:
120
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

UPL species
FACW species
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
65 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:

Remarks:
15 FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU

2.40 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
2m
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size:

Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
All three criteria are met.

Indicator
Status
1 2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Herb Stratum (Plot size:
0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No
2m
15 Remarks:

ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

11.j
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
100
48 2 C M
X
Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X
X
X
X
?
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No

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

Remarks:

Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Ground slope to north where standing water is accumulated. Seaonal high water table and evidence of long duration saturation and/or inundation.

No
No
No
Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
15-20
Depth Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist)

2.5Y 3/2
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)

2.5YR 3/6
0-6
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

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

Native soil, not fill (urban land/orthents) as mapped. Evidence of hydric soil resulting from long duration saturation and/or inundation.

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-15
SOIL SP-3
Silty clay, organic; roots and worms.

Gravelly clay; 45% 2.5Y 4/2, 5% 10YR 2/1
groundwater
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

11.j
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) April 8, 2022
Christian Murdock, ACICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica, Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: 570 Crespi Drive Development Proposal
Clarification of Wetland Boundary in Southern Part of Project Site Dear Christian:

This letter clarifies the extent of wetlands near the southern boundary of the two parcels that comprise the project site, and in relation to the location of a proposed emergency overflow riser (i.e., drain inlet), and the City’s drainage easement located along the southern boundary. The location of the inlet was shown on Tentative Map Sheet TM-3 (dated 1/21/21) which was included in the project submittal to the City and evaluated as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

However, that location is within an area that meets the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. Installation of the riser within the wetlands could trigger the need for regulatory permits from federal and state regulatory agencies.

My original wetland delineation map and report, completed prior to the project submittal, focused on the location and extent of jurisdictional wetlands toward the northern portion of the project site, where the objective was to avoid impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed residential development project. The wetland delineation followed the rigorous federal protocol for establishing a jurisdictional wetland boundary, including documentation of vegetation, soil and hydrological conditions based on multiple sample points. The results of the delineation guided the applicant to develop a design footprint that did not encroach on the northern wetland boundary. In the southern portion of the project, which is dominated by dense and often impenetrable willow scrub, the extent of wetlands was extrapolated based on the presence of willow wetlands elsewhere on the site, and on the neighboring City’s Community Center and WetWeather Equalization Basin parcel. The project study area boundary also was less precise with respect to the actual parcel boundary, again because the priority for impact avoidance was focused on the wetland boundary closest to the proposed buildings.

An alternative location for the riser is now proposed by the applicant close to the southwest corner of the project site, as shown on the attached Sheet A1.14. Upon inspection, I agree that this is an appropriate location for the emergency riser because it would avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.

On March 31 and April 4, 2022, I evaluated vegetation, soil and hydrological conditions in the southwest corner of the project site (the City’s parcel) to more precisely determine the boundary between jurisdictional and non-jurisdiction areas. Consistent with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
P.O. Box 1569
El Granada, CA 94018
[email protected]
www.wood-biological.com

11.j
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Wood Biological Consulting
2 wetland delineation methodology, I documented conditions at three sample locations, SP-1, SP-2 and SP-3, also shown on Sheet A1.14, which also shows the location of the jurisdictional boundary, and the wooden backyard fence for several homes on Anza Avenue. The technical results of these samples are summarized below.

The proposed location of the emergency riser is located in portion of the City’s drainage easement that was established for the purpose of conveying surface and subsurface stormwater toward the pump station near the beach. The riser would be consistent with that objective, would provide a benefit to the proposed project as well as to the adjacent residential properties, and would not interfere with other established uses of the easement. The new proposed location of the riser also would not result in any temporary or permanent impacts to wetland habitat.

Sample Point SP-1 is at the location of the proposed emergency riser within the City’s existing drainage easement, next to the wooden backyard fence and close to the existing underground storm drain. The location is in a small depression that will facilitate drainage. The dominant vegetation is Ngaio tree (Myoporum laetum; UPL1 ), an invasive non-native species that is not a wetland indicator. California blackberry (Rubus ursinus; FACU) and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pescaprae; no indicator, presumed UPL) also are located in the immediate vicinity of the sample point. These species do not meet the criterion for wetland vegetation. Branches from nearby arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis; OBL) extend over this site from plants that are rooted nearby, as mapped in the original wetland delineation.

The soil in this location is a clay loam consisting of a dark surface horizon (0-6 inches; 10YR2/1) lacking redoximorphic features. The lower horizon consists of pale yellow coarse gravelly clay (6- 18+ inches; 10YR3/4 and 2.5Y3/3), with angular gravel that suggests its origin is either fill or overburden placed when the neighboring yards were extended into the easement. The soil does not exhibit indicators of prolonged inundation or saturation, and is presumed not to be hydric (i.e., not a wetland soil).

To the east of SP-1, a slight rise of 1 to 2 feet separates the proposed riser location from the area where wetland hydrology is apparent as prolonged inundation and soil saturation supporting the willow-dominated portion of the project site. The sample point likely experiences periods of inundation or saturation following significant storm events, but it is not a persistent condition.

None of the three criteria (vegetation, soil or hydrology) are met, therefore, Sample Point SP-1 is non-jurisdictional.

Sample Point SP-2 is located on the slight topographic rise described above. The vegetation cover is dominated by arroyo willow extending to the fence line but not rooted at the sample point, California blackberry, Mexican blood trumpet vine (Amphilophium buccinatorium, a garden escape; no indicator, presumed UPL). Bermuda buttercup and calla lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica; OBL) are 1 Plant species are classified according to their probability of occurring in jurisdictional wetlands: Obligate wetland (OBL) – almost always occurs in wetlands (>99% probability); Facultative wetland (FACW) – usually occurs in wetlands (67-99%), but occasionally in non-wetlands (1-33%); Facultative (FAC) – equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (33-67%); Facultative upland (FACU) – usually occurs in nonwetlands (67-99%), but occasionally occurs in wetlands (1-33%); Obligate upland (UPL) – almost always occurs in non-wetlands (>99%).

11.j
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Wood Biological Consulting
3 present at 1-2% cover each. In the absence of dominant wetland indicator species, the vegetation criterion is not met.

The ground surface is relative bare, with yard waste debris. Soil at SP-2 is also likely fill material, with a pale yellow gravelly clay surface horizon (0-9 inches; 10YR5/6) with inclusions of darker organic-enriched material (10YR3/2). Below this is a transitional stratum of coarse gravelly clay (9- 15 inches; 2.5YR3/2). Below 15 inches, the soil transitions to sandy clay, possibly the cut and fill orthents that are mapped in the Soil Survey report. The color is pale yellow (2.5Y3/2) with up to 2% redox concentrations (7.5YR5/8) indicating periodic endosaturation from seasonal high groundwater. Although the deeper horizon indicates influence from nearby areas of prolonged saturation, the overall profile at this sample point does not conform to the hydric soil criteria.

The location adjacent to the wooden backyard fence line is slightly higher in elevation than the area of prolonged inundation and soil saturation supporting the willow-dominated portion of the project site to the north. The sample point likely experiences periods of inundation or saturation following significant storm events, but it is not a persistent condition.

None of the three criteria (vegetation, soil or hydrology) are met, therefore, Sample Point SP-2 is non-jurisdictional.

Sample Point SP-3 is located in the middle of the arroyo willow thicket, approximately 20 feet north of the wood fence. Vegetation, soil and hydrology conditions differ markedly from SP-1 and SP-2. Willow trees and shrubs at this location support a dense canopy, and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. California blackberry also is present, but no other plants species are in the understory; the ground covered with accumulated branches and decomposing plant debris.

The soil is native (not fill), and exhibits hydric characteristics: from 0-6 inches, it is black organic enriched silty clay (10YR2/1); from 6-15+ inches, it is saturated gravelly clay (2.5Y3/2 and

2.5Y4/2), with 5% dark inclusions (10YR/2/1) of illuviated clay and/organic matter, and distinct redox concentrations of 2.5Y3/6. This soil meets the hydric soil definition of “Redox Dark Surface”2 at sample point SP-3.

Groundwater was at 15 inches. The ground slopes slightly to the north, where standing water was accumulated at the surface, providing a clear indication of the seasonally high water table that supports the willow-dominated wetland in the majority of the southern part of the project site.

The hydrology criterion is met at sample point SP-3.

All three wetland criteria are met at SP-3, therefore the site is jurisdictional. 2 U.S. Department of Agric., Nat. Res. Consv. Serv. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils.in the United States.

Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

11.j
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Wood Biological Consulting
4 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (415) 254-4835.

Sincerely,
Chris Rogers
cc: Brendan Murphy, Eamon Murphy, Stuart Welte

11.j
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 248 | Citrus Heights, CA 95610 | (916) 822-3230 | madroneeco.com Memo
To:

From:

Date:

Subject:

Rod Stinson/Raney Planning and Management, Inc.

Sarah VonderOhe/Senior Biologist
24 May 2022
570 Crespi Wetland Clarification Letter
Rod:

At your request, Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC has reviewed the letter dated 8 April 2022 from Wood Biological Consulting and the 11 May 2022 response to our review of the 8 April 2022 letter. At issue is an area that appears to have previously considered a wetland in the biological documentation for the project. Now Wood has further inspected the area and determined that in their opinion, the riser will be placed in an upland. Further clarification should be provided in order to substantiate this determination.

1. There are no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation data forms provided. Much of the information provided in the letter could be used to complete the data forms, but there is still data lacking, percent cover of each plant species, percent of the soil comprised of each soil color in each layer, or any information regarding wetland hydrology for the first two data points. In short, Wood has not provided all of the information required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers minimum standards for acceptance of aquatic resource delineations. From the data available to Madrone in the letter, it appears likely that Wood has properly analyzed the data and correctly used it to determine wetland/upland status at the data points.

Update: In the May letter, the delineation forms were provided and appear consistent with the wetland determinations in the April letter.

2. The letter does not state what type of equipment was used to create the line between wetland and upland and locate it on the project map. It could have been digitized on an aerial photograph, bringing into question how accurate an assessment of impacts associated with the riser could be.

Update: the mapping was completed with a compass and tape measure from a known point.

Although unconventional, there is no reason to believe it could not work to use this method.

3. The map provided with the memo could be clearer and we suggest that it only show the original and refined boundary of the wetlands without the land use/impacts overlaid.

Update: there was a project specific reason the map was prepared as it was.

In summary, Madrone’s review was only with respect to the riser area in question and Wood’s use of the data provided in the memo to assess wetland vs. upland status. We did not visit the site or take data of our own to determine the accuracy of the data in the field.

11.k
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Attachment K - City Peer Review of Updated Wetlands Delineation (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 1 | Page
Brendan Murphy
Bayworks Construction, Inc.

P.O.Box 301
San Mateo, CA 94401
Site: 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
Dear Brendan,
At your request I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the Heritage trees around the property. A new construction is planned, prompting the need for this tree protection report.

This report supersedes previous reports dating back to 2018. Since the first report was generated in December 7, 2018, more trees have been added to the scope of the report, some trees have grown and become Heritage trees, some trees have declined and others have completely died.

Method:

Heritage trees are defined as any trees within the City of Pacifica, exclusive of eucalyptus, which have a trunk with a circumference of fifty (50”) inches (approximately sixteen (16”) inches in diameter) or more, measured at twenty-four (24”) inches above the natural grade.

The location of the Heritage trees on this site can be found on the plan provided by you. Each tree is given an identification number. The trees are measured at 24 inches above ground level (DBH or Diameter at Breast Height). A condition rating of 1 to 100 is assigned to each tree representing form and vitality on the following scale:
1 to 29 Very Poor
30 to 49 Poor
50 to 69 Fair
70 to 89 Good
90 to 100 Excellent
The height and spread of each tree is estimated. A Comments section is provided for any significant observations affecting the condition rating of the tree.

A Summary and Tree Protection Plan are at the end of the end of the survey providing recommendations for maintaining the health and condition of the trees during and after construction.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call.

Sincerely
Robert Weatherill
Certified Arborist WE 1936A

11.l
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 2 | Page
Tree Survey
Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments
1 Monterey cypress 35.1”/30.3”/36.7”/34.3” 60/50 60 Fair health and condition Cupressus macrocarpa Unmaintained, large tree with
multiple trunks from grade. Multiple
limb failure on south side of canopy
Heritage
2 Monterey pine 33.8” 30/25 0 Dead
Pinus radiata Heritage
3 Monterey cypress 39.0” 50/30 50 Fair health and condition, Cupressus macrocarpa Unmaintained, trimmed for
PG and E. Heritage
4 Monterey cypress 60” 50/50 40 Poor health and condition, declining Cupressus macrocarpa Unmaintained, large tree with some large dead wood and broken limbs
Heritage
5 Monterey cypress 46.3”/26.1”/18.2”/12.6” 50/60 60 Fair health and condition Cupressus macrocarpa Unmaintained, large tree with
multiple trunks from grade. Heritage
6 Monterey cypress 35.2” 30/40 60 Fair health and condition, Cupressus macrocarpa Unmaintained. Heritage
7 Monterey cypress 12.6/10.2” 20/20 60 Good health, fair condition, Cupressus macrocarpa multi stemmed at grade
Heritage
8 Monterey cypress 48.7” 35/40 60 Fair health and condition, topped Cupressus macrocarpa and raised up. Full of dead wood.

Heritage
9 Monterey cypress 38.2” 30/30 60 Fair health and condition, topped Cupressus macrocarpa and raised up. Full of dead wood.

Heritage
10 Monterey cypress 34.0” 30/30 60 Fair health and condition, topped Cupressus macrocarpa and raised up. Full of dead wood.

Heritage
11 Monterey cypress 25.5” 20/25 40 Poor health and condition, thin Cupressus macrocarpa canopy and full of dead wood.

Heritage
12 Hollywood juniper 10 at 4 to 5” diameter 18/20 70 Good health and condition, multi Juniperus ‘Hollywood’ trunked at grade. Heritage
13 Monterey cypress 25.5” 25/30 60 Fair health and condition, topped Cupressus macrocarpa and raised up. Full of dead wood.

Heritage

11.l
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 3 | Page
Summary:

The trees on the site are mostly coastal native trees in varying health and condition. The trees can be seen in the attached photos.

Tree # 1 is a large Heritage Monterey cypress. The tree has not been maintained for many years and is in fair health and condition. It has multiple trunks from grade, the canopy is thick and healthy but has collapsed on the south side of the tree. The tree is located in the middle of the lot at the front of the property. The proposed construction will be at the front of the property to preserve the natural swale and wildlife area at the rear of the property; therefore, this tree will be removed. Its location and the location of the proposed construction can be seen on the attached drawing.

Tree # 2 is dead and should be removed.

Tree # 3 is a Heritage Monterey cypress at the front corner of the property. The tree is in fair health and condition but poorly located. The tree has many broken branches, and the canopy has been heavily pruned on one side to accommodate PG and E. This tree should be removed but it has been requested to be retained and protected during construction.

Tree # 4 is a Heritage Monterey cypress located on the adjacent property. The tree is in poor health and condition and is located very close to the proposed construction. The tree may not survive construction but all attempts to work around the tree and keep it alive will be made.

Tree #s 5 and 6 are Heritage Monterey cypresses in fair health and condition but have not been maintained for many years. Both trees will be removed.

Tree # 7 has become a ‘Heritage’ Monterey cypress since the project began. The tree is very close to a utility vault and will be removed
Tree #s 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are Heritage trees that will be retained and should be protected during construction.
7 Heritage trees will be removed; there should be a tree replacement plan to accommodate the loss of canopy on this site.

11.l
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 4 | Page
Tree # 1: Monterey Cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 5 | Page
Tree # 2: Monterey Pine

11.l
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 6 | Page
Tree # 3: Monterey Cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 7 | Page
Tree # 4 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 8 | Page
Tree # 5 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 9 | Page
Tree # 6 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 10 | Page
Tree # 7 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 11 | Page
Tree # 8 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 12 | Page
Tree #s 9 and 10 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 13 | Page
Tree # 11 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 14 | Page
Tree # 12 Hollywood juniper

11.l
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 15 | Page
Tree # 13 Monterey cypress

11.l
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 16 | Page
Location of existing Heritage trees, proposed tree removals and Tree Protection Zones

11.l
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 17 | Page
Tree Protection Plan

1. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) should be defined with protective fencing. This should be cyclone or chain link fencing on 11
/2” or 2” posts driven at least 2 feet into the ground standing at least 6 feet tall.

Normally a TPZ is defined by the dripline of the tree. This can be reduced to edge of proposed curb and edge of proposed construction as shown on the drawing in a thick red line in accordance with Type I Tree Protection as outlined and illustrated in image 2.15-1 and 2 (6) .

2. Any pruning and maintenance of the trees shall be carried out before construction begins. This should allow for any clearance requirements for both the new structure and any construction machinery. This will eliminate the possibility of damage during construction. The pruning should be carried out by an arborist, not by construction personnel. No limbs greater than 4” in diameter shall be removed.

Tree # 4 will require the removal of one large (greater than 4” in diameter) main scaffold limb back to the trunk to accommodate the new construction. This should be done prior to construction. The pruning should be carried out by an arborist, not by construction personnel.

All trees that will be retained require some level of maintenance. The pruning should be carried out by an arborist, not by construction personnel prior to construction.

11.l
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 18 | Page

3. Any excavation in ground where there is a potential to damage roots of 1” or more in diameter should be carefully hand dug. Where possible, roots should be dug around rather than cut.(2).

Any excavation within the TPZ should be done by hand under Arborist supervision.

Any excavation beneath the canopy of Tree # 3 should be done by hand, no roots greater than 2” in diameter should be cut. The pavement within the TPZ of Tree #3 should be constructed with permeable media such as pavers or gravel to enable percolation of water and oxygen to the root system.

Edge of curb should be no closer than 3 feet from face of the trunk of the tree, to prevent any damage to the base of the trunk of the tree
The proposed new parking spaces within the dripline of Tree # 4 should be constructed with permeable media such as pavers or gravel to enable percolation of water and oxygen to the root system.

The proposed area between the trunk of the tree and the proposed new building within the drip line of the tree should be constructed with permeable media such as pavers or gravel to enable percolation of water and oxygen to the root system.

Balcony footings within the TPZ of Tree # 4 should be piers where the first 2 feet of each pier within the TPZ should be located and hand dug to avoid any conflict with roots.

Tree #s 3 and 4 should be deep root fertilized with 600 gallons of 22 14 14 fertilizer prior to breaking ground to encourage healthy new root growth.

4. If roots are broken, every effort should be made to remove the damaged area and cut it back to its closest lateral root. A clean cut should be made with a saw or pruners. This will prevent any infection from damaged roots spreading throughout the root system and into the tree.(2)

5. Do Not:.(4)
a. Allow run off or spillage of damaging materials into the area below any tree canopy. b. Store materials, stockpile soil, park or drive vehicles within the TPZ of the tree. c. Cut, break, skin or bruise roots, branches or trunk without first obtaining permission from the city arborist.
d. Allow fires under any adjacent trees.
e. Discharge exhaust into foliage.
f. Secure cable, chain or rope to trees or shrubs.
g. Apply soil sterilants under pavement near existing trees.

6. Where roots are exposed, they should be kept covered with the native soil or four layers of wetted, untreated burlap. Roots will dry out and die if left exposed to the air for too long.(4)

11.l
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 19 | Page

7. Route pipes into alternate locations to avoid conflict with roots.(4)

8. Where it is not possible to reroute pipes or trenches, the contractor is to bore beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring shall take place no less than 3 feet below the surface of the soil in order to avoid encountering “feeder” roots.(4)

9. Compaction of the soil within the dripline shall be kept to a minimum.(2) If access is required to go through the TPZ of a protected tree, the area within the TPZ should be protected from compaction either with steel plates or with 4” of wood chip overlaid with plywood.

10. Any damage due to construction activities shall be reported to the project arborist or city arborist within 6 hours so that remedial action can be taken.

11. Ensure upon completion of the project that the original ground level is restored.

11.l
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 20 | Page
Glossary
Canopy The part of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs.(2) Dripline The width of the crown as measured by the lateral extent of the foliage.(1) Genus A classification of plants showing similar characteristics.

Species A Classification that identifies a particular plant.

Standard Height at which the girth of the tree is measured. Typically 4 1/2 feet above height ground level
References
(1) Matheny, N.P., and Clark, J.P. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas.

International Society of Arboriculture,1994.
(2) Harris, R.W., Matheny, N.P. and Clark, J.R.. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Vines. Prentice Hall, 1999. (3) Carlson, Russell E. Paulownia on The Green: An Assessment of Tree Health and Structural Condition. Tree Tech Consulting, 1998.
(4) Extracted from a copy of Tree Protection guidelines. Anon (5) T. D. Sydnor, Arboricultural Glossary. School of Natural Resources, 2000 (6) D Dockter, Tree Technical Manual. City of Palo Alto, June, 2001

11.l
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 21 | Page
Certification of Performance(3)
I, Robert Weatherill certify:
* That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal is stated in the attached report and the Terms and Conditions; * That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
* That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and are based on current scientific procedures and facts;
* That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events;
* That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; * That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.

I further certify that I am a member of the International Society of Arboriculture and a Certified Arborist. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for over 20 years.

Signed
Robert Weatherill
Certified Arborist WE 1936a
Date: 6/3/22

11.l
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Advanced Tree Care 540 and 570 Crespi Dr, Pacifica
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 3, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________ 22 | Page
Terms and Conditions(3)
The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to consultations, inspections and activities of Advanced Tree Care :

1. All property lines and ownership of property, trees, and landscape plants and fixtures are assumed to be accurate and reliable as presented and described to the consultant, either verbally or in writing. The consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information.

2. It is assumed that any property referred to in any report or in conjunction with any services performed by Advanced Tree Care, is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations, and that any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. Any existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded.

3. All reports and other correspondence are confidential, and are the property of Advanced Tree Care and it’s named clients and their assignees or agents. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply any right of publication or use for any purpose, without the express permission of the consultant and the client to whom the report was issued. Loss, removal or alteration of any part of a report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.

4. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned in those reports and correspondence. Advanced Tree Care and the consultant assume no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. The consultant assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tree or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client.

5. All inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without dissection, excavation, probing, boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report. No warrantee or guarantee is made, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or the property will not occur in the future, from any cause. The consultant shall not be responsible for damages caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems.

6. The consultant shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or attend court by reason of this appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by the consultant or in the fee schedules or contract.

7. Advanced Tree Care has no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability of the information contained in the reports for any purpose. It remains the responsibility of the client to determine applicability to his/her particular case.

8. Any report and the values, observations, and recommendations expressed therein represent the professional opinion of the consultants, and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding to be reported.

9. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches, or other graphic material included in any report, being intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys, unless otherwise noted in the report. Any reproductions of graphs material or the work product of any other persons is intended solely for the purpose of clarification and ease of reference.

Inclusion of said information does not constitute a representation by Advanced Tree Care or the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information.

11.l
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City of Pacifica
City Clerk’s Office
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Attn: City Clerk
Record Without Fee
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383
Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(DA-4-21, File No. 2016-004)

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND

CRESPI BREAKWATER, LLC
Effective Date:

11.m
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-iARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................. 2 ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM ............................................................................ 5

2.1 Effective Date ........................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Initial Term of Agreement ..................................................................................... 5

2.3 City Representations and Warranties..................................................................... 6

2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties........................................................... 6 ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY................................................................. 7

3.1 Vested Rights......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Applicable Law...................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Development Timing ............................................................................................. 8

3.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies.................................................................... 8

3.5 Life of Project Approvals....................................................................................... 9

3.6 Developer’s Right to Rebuild ................................................................................ 9

3.7 State and Federal Law............................................................................................ 9 ARTICLE 4 FEES ......................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Impact Fees............................................................................................................ 9

4.2 Processing Fees...................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Other Agency Fees............................................................................................... 10

4.4 Connection Fees................................................................................................... 10 ARTICLE 5 PUBLIC BENEFITS............................................................................................... 10

5.1 Affordable Housing Obligations.......................................................................... 10

5.2 Driveway Lease ................................................................................................... 10

5.3 Community Center Improvements....................................................................... 10

5.4 Wetlands Interpretive Signage............................................................................. 11

5.5 City of Pacifica Business License........................................................................ 11

5.6 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation.................................................................... 11 ARTICLE 6 ANNUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................... 11

6.1 Annual Review..................................................................................................... 11

11.m
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-iiARTICLE 7 COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION...................................................... 12

7.1 Subsequent Approvals ......................................................................................... 12

7.2 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals. ........................................... 13 ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS................... 13

8.1 Amendment by Written Consent ......................................................................... 13

8.2 Major Amendments to Agreement....................................................................... 13

8.3 Minor Amendment............................................................................................... 14

8.4 Requirement for Writing...................................................................................... 14

8.5 Subsequent CEQA Review.................................................................................. 14 ARTICLE 9 INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE ....................................................................................... 14

9.1 Insurance Requirements....................................................................................... 14

9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless............................................................................. 14

9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge ....................... 15 ARTICLE 10 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE ..................................................... 15

10.1 Assignment .......................................................................................................... 15

10.2 Successive Assignment........................................................................................ 16 ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION............................................................................ 16

11.1 Mortgagee Protection........................................................................................... 16

11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated .................................................................................... 16

11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee ........................................................................... 17

11.4 No Supersedure.................................................................................................... 17 ARTICLE 12 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION ........................................................ 17

12.1 Breach and Default .............................................................................................. 17

12.2 Withholding of Permits........................................................................................ 17

12.3 Termination.......................................................................................................... 18

12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition ............................................. 18

12.5 Legal Actions....................................................................................................... 18

12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative................................................................. 18

11.m
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-iii12.7 No Damages......................................................................................................... 18

12.8 Resolution of Disputes......................................................................................... 19

12.9 Surviving Provisions............................................................................................ 19 ARTICLE 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 19

13.1 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land................... 19

13.2 Notice................................................................................................................... 19

13.3 Permitted Delays.................................................................................................. 20

13.4 Counterparts......................................................................................................... 20

13.5 Waivers................................................................................................................ 20

13.6 Construction of Agreement.................................................................................. 21

13.7 Headings .............................................................................................................. 21

13.8 Severability .......................................................................................................... 21

13.9 Time is of the Essence ......................................................................................... 21

13.10 Extension of Time Limits .................................................................................... 21

13.11 Signatures............................................................................................................. 21

13.12 Entire Agreement................................................................................................. 21

13.13 Estoppel Certificate.............................................................................................. 21

13.14 Recordation of Termination................................................................................. 22

13.15 City Approvals and Actions................................................................................. 22

13.16 Negation of Partnership ....................................................................................... 22

13.17 No Third Party Beneficiaries............................................................................... 22

13.18 Governing State Law ........................................................................................... 22

11.m
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-4-21)
This Development Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of the Effective Date, is entered into by and between the City of Pacifica, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Crespi Breakwater, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”). Developer and City may be referred to individually in this Agreement as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

R E C I T A L S
A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs and risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”) which authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement establishing certain development rights in the property.

B. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, the City Council of the City of Pacifica enacted Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) section 9-4.5001 et seq. (“Development Agreement Regulations”), which authorize the execution of development agreements and set forth the required contents and form of those agreements. The provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the City’s Development Agreement Regulations are collectively referred to herein as the “Development Agreement Law.” C. Developer is the owner of that certain real property located at 570 Crespi Drive in the City of Pacifica (“Developer Property”). Developer has concurrently entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale (Including Joint Escrow Instructions) (“Purchase Agreement”) to purchase a portion of 540 Crespi Drive from the City of Pacifica to develop the Project as described below (“Acquisition Property”). The Acquisition Property is a portion of a larger City property on which the City’s Community Center is located, the remainder of which will be retained by City for public purposes (“Community Center Parcel”). The Developer Property and the Acquisition Property are described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and may be collectively referred to as the “Property.” D. Developer, with City’s consent and consistent with the terms of the Purchase Agreement, has submitted applications to the City for a General Plan Amendment (GPA-096- 19), Rezoning (RZ-194-16), Zoning Text Amendment (TA-116-19), Development Agreement (DA-4-21), Site Development Permit (PSD-811-16), Use Permit (UP-076-16), Parking Exception (PE-183-19), Sign Permit (S-129-19), Tentative Subdivision Map (SUB-233-16), and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization to develop 19 residential units, including three and only three below market rate units, (“Residential Project”) and approximately 3,100 square feet of commercial space (“Commercial Space”) on the Property (“Project”). The Residential Project shall consist of both flats and townhome products, as shown in more detail in the Existing Approvals, as defined in Recital G below.

E. City and Developer have reached mutual agreement on the terms of this Agreement and Purchase Agreement and desire to voluntarily enter into this Agreement to

11.m
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 2 facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth herein.

F. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) has been prepared and adopted for the Project. As required by CEQA, the City has adopted written findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) on , pursuant to Resolution No. .

G. Prior to or concurrently with approval of this Agreement, the City will take numerous actions in connection with the development of the Project on the Property. The approvals and development actions described herein are collectively referred to as the “Existing Approvals”: (1) General Plan Amendment; (2) Rezoning; (3) Zoning Text Amendment; (4) Site Development Permit; (5) Use Permit; (6) Parking Exception; (7) Sign Permit; (8) Tentative Subdivision Map; and (9) Heritage Tree Removal Authorization.

H. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and PMC section 9-4.5006. The City has reviewed and evaluated this Agreement in accordance with the Development Agreement Law and found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the Development Agreement Law and the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in the General Plan.

I. On the City Council introduced Ordinance No.
(“Enacting Ordinance”) approving this Agreement and authorizing its execution, and adopted that Ordinance on .

A G R E E M E N T
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and other valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1

DEFINITIONS

1.1 Definitions.
“Affiliated Party” is defined in Section 10.1.
“Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement between City and Developer, including all Exhibits hereto.
“Applicable Law” is defined in Section 3.2.
“Assignee” is defined in Section 10.1.
“Assignment” is defined in Section 10.1.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources

11.m
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 3 Code section 21000, et seq., as amended from time to time. “CEQA Guidelines” means the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq.), as amended from time to time. “Changes in the Law” is defined in Section 3.7.
“City” means the City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Pacifica. “City Manager” means City’s City Manager or his or her designee. “City Parties” means and includes City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, contractors and representatives.
“Claims” means liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
“Commence Construction” shall be deemed to have occurred when the Developer has begun vertical construction as evidenced by an approved foundation City inspection. “Connection Fees” means those fees charged by City on a citywide basis or by a utility provider to utility users as a cost for connecting water, sanitary sewer, and other applicable utilities, except for any such fee or portion thereof that constitutes an Impact Fee, as defined below.
“Default” is defined in Section 12.1.
“Developer” means Crespi Breakwater, LLC, and its permitted successors and assigns. “Development Agreement Law” is defined in Recital B.
“Development Agreement Regulations” is defined in Recital B. “Development Agreement Statute” is defined in Recital A. “Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement becomes effective as determined under Section 2.1.
“Enacting Ordinance” refers to the Ordinance identified in Recital P. “Exactions” means exactions that may be imposed by the City as a condition of developing the Project, including requirements for acquisition, dedication or reservation of land; and obligations to construct on-site or off-site public and private infrastructure improvements such as roadways, utilities or other improvements necessary to support the Project, whether such exactions constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with environmental review of the Project, or impositions made under Applicable City Regulations.

For purposes of this Agreement, Exactions do not include Impact Fees.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 4 “Existing Approvals” means and includes those permits and approvals for the Project granted by City to Developer as of the Effective Date as set forth in Recital G. “Extension Term” is defined in Section 2.2.1.
“General Plan” means the City of Pacifica’s General Plan, as amended from time to time.
“Impact Fees” means the monetary amount charged by City in connection with a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of mitigating the impacts of the development project or development of the public facilities related to the development project, including, any “fee” as that term is defined by Government Code section 66000(b). For purposes of this Agreement, a fee that meets both the definitions of an Impact Fee and an Exaction will be considered to be an Impact Fee. “Initial Term” is defined in Section 2.2.
“Litigation Challenge” is defined in Section 9.3.
“Major Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.
“Minor Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.
“MND” is defined in Recital F.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage, deed of trust, security agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the Developer’s rights under this Agreement
“Mortgagee” means the holder of any Mortgage, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage holder.
“Municipal Code” means and refers to the City of Pacifica’s Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.
“New City Laws” means and includes any ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, official policies, standards, specifications, guidelines or other regulations, which are promulgated or adopted by the City (including but not limited to any City agency, body, department, officer or employee) or its electorate (through their power of initiative or otherwise) after the Effective Date.
“Notice of Breach” is defined in Section 12.1.
“Other Agency Fees” is defined in Section 4.3.
“Other Agency Subsequent Approvals” means Subsequent Project Approvals to be obtained from entities other than the City.
“Permitted Delay” is defined in Section 13.3.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 5 “Planning Commission” means the City of Pacifica Planning Commission. “Processing Fees” means all fees for processing development project applications, including any required supplemental or other further environmental review, plan checking and inspection and monitoring for land use approvals, design review, grading and building permits, General Plan maintenance fees, and other permits and entitlements required to implement the Project, which are in effect at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for, and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing. “Project Approvals” means the Existing Approvals and all Subsequent Approvals. “Project” is defined in Recital D.
“Property” is defined in Recital C.
“Subdivision Map Act” means California Government Code sections 66410 through 66499.58, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Subsequent Approvals” is defined in Section 7.1.
“Term” means the Initial Term plus any Extension Term, if such Extension Term is granted under the terms of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 2

EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM

2.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the later of (1) the date that is thirty (30) days after the date that the Enacting Ordinance is adopted, or (2) the date this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties. The Effective Date is inserted at the beginning of this Agreement.

2.2 Initial Term of Agreement. Unless earlier terminated, the “Initial Term” of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on the earlier of (1) the three year (3) anniversary of the Effective Date, or (2) Developer’s satisfaction of all obligations contained herein.

2.2.1 Extension of Initial Term. At the request of Developer, the Initial Term of this Agreement shall be extended from the date of expiration of the Initial Term until the date which is two (2) years following the expiration of the Initial Term (“Extension Term”), provided that at the end of the Initial Term: (a) Developer is not, at the time, in Default of any of its obligations hereunder following notice and expiration of applicable cure periods, including the requirement to Commence Construction; (b) Developer is diligently making progress on the construction of the Project; (c) the applicable Developer warranties and representations in Section 2.4 below continue to be true and correct; and (d) no event has occurred which with the passage of time or giving of notice or both would constitute a Default by Developer hereunder. Following the expiration of the Term, or the earlier completion of development of the Project and satisfaction of all of Developer’s obligations in connection therewith and under this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 6 2.2.2 Memorandum of Extension. If the Extension Term is granted, City and Developer agree to execute, acknowledge and record in the Official Records of San Mateo County a memorandum evidencing approval of the Extension Term.

2.2.3 Termination of the Agreement. In the event the Purchase Agreement is terminated or Developer fails to purchase the Acquisition Property, this Agreement shall automatically be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect.

2.3 City Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Developer that, as of the Effective Date:

2.3.1 City is a municipal corporation, and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City under this Agreement.

2.3.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of the City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action and all necessary approvals have been obtained.

2.3.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.

During the Term of this Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause of any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.3 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Developer.

2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties. Developer represents and warrants to City that, as of the Effective Date:

2.4.1 Developer is duly organized and validly existing California limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of California, and is in good standing and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to own property interests and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of Developer under this Agreement.

2.4.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the necessary performance of the obligations of Developer hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary action and all necessary shareholder approvals have been obtained.

2.4.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of Developer and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.

2.4.4 Developer has not (a) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (b) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Developer’s creditors; (c) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; (d) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; or (e) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 7 During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.4 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City.

ARTICLE 3

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY

3.1 Vested Rights. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Property and the Project in accordance with and subject to the Existing Project Approvals, the Subsequent Project Approvals, Applicable Law and this Agreement, which shall control the permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height and size of buildings on the Property.

3.2 Applicable Law. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the limitations, reservations and exceptions contained in this Agreement are intended to reserve to City all of its police power that cannot be so limited. Notwithstanding the foregoing reservation of City, it is the intent of City and Developer that this Agreement be construed to provide Developer with rights afforded by law, including but not limited to, the Development Agreement Statute. Therefore, the laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of City applicable to the development of the Property and/or the Project shall be (collectively, “Applicable Law”):

3.2.1 Those rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of the City set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement, including without limitation Section 3.1 above;

3.2.2 With respect to matters not addressed by and not otherwise inconsistent with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, those laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations, timing and manner of construction, densities, intensities of uses, heights and sizes, requirements for on- and off-site infrastructure and public improvements, in force and effect on the Effective Date, except as set forth in section 3.1 above;

3.2.3 New City Laws that relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;

3.2.4 New City Laws that revise City’s uniform construction codes, including City’s building code, plumbing code, mechanical code, electrical code, fire code, grading code and other uniform construction codes, as of the date of permit issuance, provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;

3.2.5 New City Laws that are necessary to protect physical health and safety of the public; provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;

11.m
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 8 3.2.6 New City Laws that do not conflict with this Agreement or the Project Approvals, provided such new City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; and

3.2.7 New City Laws that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to the limitations set forth above, but only to the extent that such New City Laws are accepted in writing by Developer in its sole discretion.

3.3 Development Timing. Developer shall phase and construct the Project within the timeframes set forth below:

3.3.1 Developer shall obtain a building permit to construct the Commercial Space prior to, or concurrently with, issuance of a building permit for the Residential Project. In no event shall City issue a building permit for any portion of the Project prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Commercial Space.

3.3.2 Developer shall Commence Construction of the Commercial Space prior to, or concurrently with, Commencement of Construction of any other portion of the Project, but no later than two years from the Effective Date, subject to a Permitted Delay.

3.3.3 Developer shall complete construction of and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the entire Project, including the Commercial Space, prior to the date that is twenty-four (24) months from the Commencement of Construction of the Commercial Space subject to extension due to a Permitted Delay; provided, however, such 24-month time period shall be extended by the City for up to 6 months upon the written request of Developer if, in City's reasonable determination, Developer has made substantial progress toward completion of construction of the Project prior to the expiration of such initial 24-month period.

3.3.4 Except as set forth above, since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. The City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of development resulted in a lateradopted initiative restricting the timing of development prevailing over such parties’ agreement, it is the desire to avoid that result by acknowledging that, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, Developer’s vested rights under this Agreement include the right to develop the Property and the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion, subject to the terms, requirements and conditions of the Project Approvals and this Agreement.

3.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that other governmental or quasi-governmental entities not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property and the Project and that this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. City shall reasonably cooperate with Developer in Developer’s effort to obtain such permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Property and/or the Project; provided, however, City shall have no obligation to incur any costs, without compensation or reimbursement, or to amend any City policy, regulation or ordinance in connection therewith.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 9 3.5 Life of Project Approvals. The term of any and all Project Approvals shall automatically be extended for the longer of the Term or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approval. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, any vesting or tentative maps heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Project or the Property shall be extended for the Term (and may be subject to other extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act).

3.6 Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild portions of the Project at any time within the Term should it become necessary due to any casualty, including natural disaster or changes in seismic requirements. Such renovations or reconstruction shall be processed as a Subsequent Project Approval consistent with all prior Project Approvals and Applicable City Law. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to all design, density and other limitations and requirements imposed by this Agreement, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, Applicable City Law, and the requirements of CEQA.

3.7 State and Federal Law. As provided in Section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, this Agreement shall not preclude the applicability to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in State or Federal laws or by changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies of special districts or other governmental entities, other than City, created or operating pursuant to the laws of the State of California (“Changes in the Law”). In the event Changes in the Law prevent or preclude, or render substantially more expensive or time consuming, compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this Agreement, the City and Developer shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended, or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with Changes in the Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City or Developer from contesting by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) the applicability to the Project any such Changes in the Law. If Changes in the Law preclude or substantially prevent or preclude, or render substantially more expensive or time consuming, performance of this Agreement in a manner that makes the Project economically infeasible, Developer, in its sole and absolute discretion, may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to City.

ARTICLE 4
FEES

4.1 Impact Fees. Developer shall pay any and all Impact Fees imposed by City that are in place as of the Effective Date, at the rate in effect of the time of building permit issuance. In addition, City may impose and Developer shall comply with those Exactions required by this Agreement and the Project Approvals.

4.2 Processing Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Processing Fee, City may charge and Developer agrees to pay any and all Processing Fees which are in effect on a City-wide basis at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for, and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 10 4.3 Other Agency Fees. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from collecting fees from Developer that are lawfully imposed on the Project by another agency having jurisdiction over the Project, which the City is required to collect pursuant to Applicable Law (“Other Agency Fees”).

4.4 Connection Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased connection Fee, City may charge and Developer shall pay any Connection Fee that is lawfully adopted.

ARTICLE 5

PUBLIC BENEFITS

5.1 Affordable Housing Obligations.

5.1.1 Construction of Below Market Rate Units. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the Project, Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, in a form approved by the City, in its discretion, providing among other things for the provision of three units as ownership Below Market Rate Units in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, PMC section 9-4.4700 et seq., as to construction and restriction of ownership units, as may be amended (the “Below Market Rate Units”). The Below Market Rate Units shall be provided as follows: (1) one flat restricted to low-income households; (2) one townhome restricted to low-income households; and (3) one townhome restricted to moderate-income households. In addition, one townhome Below Market Rate Unit shall be provided in each building. Developer may not pay an in-lieu fee to meet the requirements in this Section 5.1.1.

5.1.2 Affordable Housing Contribution. Developer shall make a payment in the amount of $240,000.00, subject to annual adjustment based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index beginning one year after the Effective Date (“Affordable Housing Contribution”) toward the development of affordable housing in the City. The Affordable Housing Contribution shall be paid to City prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project.

5.2 Driveway Lease. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project, Developer shall enter into a license agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City in its discretion, for the use of the City’s driveway located on the Community Center Property. Among other things, the license agreement shall set forth the financial terms, with Developer’s, or its successor-in-interest, payment to City in the amount of $7,700 per year, increased annually as of the Effective Date of this Agreement pursuant to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area.

5.3 Community Center Improvements. Developer shall make the following improvements to the Community Center as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: (1) add 7 parking spaces to the location between the driveways; (2) construct a dropoff location in front of the Community Center; (3) improve the landscaping along Crespi Drive; and (4) add 10parking spaces to the eastern driveway area (“Community Center Improvements”). The Community Center Improvements shall be completed in a good and

11.m
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 11 workmanlike manner according to plans and specifications to be approved by City. The Community Center Improvements must be completed to the satisfaction of City prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

5.4 Wetlands Interpretive Signage. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, Developer shall install educational/interpretative signage on the portion of the Developer Property on which wetlands are located. The location, content and materials of the signage must be approved by City prior to installation.

5.5 City of Pacifica Business License. Developer, at its expense, shall obtain and maintain a City of Pacifica business license at all times during the Term, and shall include a provision in all general contractor agreements for the Project requiring each such general contractor to obtain and maintain a City of Pacifica business license during performance of the work of construction.

5.6 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation. Developer shall use good faith, diligent efforts to the extent allowed by law to require all persons and entities providing bulk lumber, concrete, structural steel and pre-fabricated building components, such as roof trusses, to be used in connection with the construction and development of, or incorporated into, the Project, to (a) obtain a use tax direct payment permit; (b) elect to obtain a subcontractor permit for the job site of a contract valued at Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more; or (c) otherwise designate the Property as the place of use of material used in the construction of the Project in order to have the local portion of the sales and use tax distributed directly to City instead of through the county-wide pool. Developer shall instruct its general contractor(s) for the Project to, and cause such general contractor(s) to instruct its/their subcontractors to, cooperate with City to ensure the local sales/use tax derived from construction of the Project is allocated to City to the fullest extent possible. To assist City in its efforts to ensure that such local sales/use tax is so allocated to City, Developer shall on an annual basis provide City with such information as shall be reasonably requested by City regarding subcontractors working on the Project with contracts in excess of the amount set forth above, including a description of all applicable work and the dollar value of such subcontracts. City may use such information to contact each subcontractor who may qualify for local allocation of use taxes to City.

ARTICLE 6

ANNUAL REVIEW

6.1 Annual Review.

6.1.1 Purpose. As required by California Government Code section 65865.1 and PMC section 9-4.5009, City and Developer shall review this Agreement and all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement with respect to the development of the Project every twelve (12) months to determine good faith compliance with this Agreement. Specifically, City’s annual review shall be conducted for the purposes of determining compliance by Developer with its obligations under this Agreement. Each annual review shall also document: (a) the status of the Project development, and (b) any extension of the Initial Term of this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.2.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 12 6.1.2 Conduct of Annual Review. The annual review shall be conducted as provided in this Section 6.1.2. By December 1st of each year, Developer shall provide documentation of its good faith compliance with this Agreement during the calendar year, and such other information as may reasonably be requested by the Planning Director. If the Planning Director finds good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall be notified in writing and the review for that period shall be concluded. If the Planning Director is not satisfied that Developer is performing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Planning Director shall prepare a written report specifying why the Developer may not be in good faith compliance with this Agreement, refer the matter to the City Council, and notify Developer in writing at least fifteen (15) business days in advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the City Council. This notice shall include the time and place of the City Council’s public hearing to evaluate good faith compliance with this Agreement, a copy of the Planning Director’s report and recommendations, if any, and any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceeding. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing at which Developer must submit evidence that it has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The findings of the City Council on whether Developer has complied with this Agreement for the period under review shall be based upon substantial evidence in the record. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or there are significant questions as to whether Developer has complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Council, at its option, may continue the hearing and may notify Developer of the City’s intent to meet and confer with Developer within thirty (30) days of such determination, prior to taking further action. Following such meeting, the City Council shall resume the hearing in order to further consider the matter and to make a determination regarding Developer’s good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

In the event City determines Developer is not in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, City may give the Developer a written Notice of Breach, in which case the provisions of Section 12.1, below, shall apply.

6.1.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. Failure of City to conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor shall Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct an annual review.

ARTICLE 7

COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

7.1 Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Existing Approvals, will be necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project (“Subsequent Approvals”). The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, the following: amendments of the Existing Approvals, grading permits, building permits, design review permits, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, lot line adjustments, site plans, development plans, land use plans, building plans and specifications, parcel maps and/or subdivision maps, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the

11.m
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 13 foregoing. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the City shall not impose requirements or conditions upon the development and construction of the Project that are inconsistent with the Existing Approvals and the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

7.2 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals.

7.2.1 Timely Submittals by Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot begin processing applications for Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use diligent good faith efforts to (a) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder; and (b) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and other materials required under Applicable Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals.

7.2.2 Timely Processing by City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate applications and Processing Fees for any pending Subsequent Approval, City shall, to the full extent allowed by Applicable Law, promptly and diligently, subject to City ordinances, policies and procedures regarding hiring and contracting, commence and complete all steps necessary to act on Developer’s currently pending Subsequent Approval applications including: (a) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance, additional staff and/or staff consultants for concurrent, expedited planning and processing of each pending Subsequent Approval application (Developer shall pay such costs at cost plus 10% for administrative costs incurred); (b) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (c) acting on any such pending Subsequent Approval application.

ARTICLE 8

AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS

8.1 Amendment by Written Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein (including Section 6.1 relating to City’s annual review and Section 12.1 relating to termination in the event of a breach), this Agreement may be terminated, modified or amended only by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or their successors in interest or assignees and in accordance with the provisions of Government Code sections 65967, 65867.5 and 65868.

8.2 Major Amendments to Agreement. Any amendment to this Agreement which affects or relates to (a) the Term; (b) permitted uses of the Property; (c) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of the use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be deemed a “Major Amendment” and shall require giving of notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Any amendment which is not a Major Amendment shall be deemed a “Minor Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by Applicable Law, require notice of public hearing before the Parties may execute an amendment

11.m
Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 14 hereto. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a Major Amendment or a Minor Amendment.

8.3 Minor Amendment. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to review and approve amendments to this Agreement provided that such amendments are not Major Amendments.

8.4 Requirement for Writing. No modification, amendment or other change to this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing which refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties or their successors in interest.

8.5 Subsequent CEQA Review. In the event that any additional CEQA documentation is legally required for any discretionary Subsequent Approval, then the scope of such documentation shall be focused, to the extent possible consistent with CEQA, on the specific subject matter of the Subsequent Approval, and the City, at Developer’s expense, shall conduct such additional CEQA review as expeditiously as possible.

ARTICLE 9

INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF

LEGAL CHALLENGE

9.1 Insurance Requirements. Developer shall procure and maintain, or cause its contractor(s) to procure and maintain, until the earlier of (a) the expiration of this Agreement; or (b) the completion of the Project, a commercial general liability policy in an amount not less than two million ($2,000,000) combined single limit, including contractual liability together with a comprehensive automobile liability policy in the amount of one million ($1,000,000), combined single limit. Such policy or policies shall be written on an occurrence form, so long as such form of policy is then commonly available in the commercial insurance marketplace. Developer’s insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII or a rating otherwise approved by the City in its sole discretion. Developer shall furnish at City’s request appropriate certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder, and City Parties shall be named as additional insured parties in such policies. The certificate of insurance shall contain a statement of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify City of any material change, cancellation or termination of the coverage at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of any such material change, cancellation or termination (ten (10) days advance notice in the case of cancellation for nonpayment of premiums) where the insurance carrier provides such notice to the Developer. Coverage provided hereunder by Developer shall be primary insurance and shall not be contributing with any insurance, selfinsurance or joint self-insurance maintained by City, and the policy shall contain such an endorsement. The insurance policy or the endorsement shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City.

9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City Parties from and against any and all Claims, including Claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, resulting directly or indirectly from the development or construction of the Project by or on behalf of Developer,

11.m
Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 15 and/or from any other acts or omissions of Developer under this Agreement, whether such acts or omissions are by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, except to the extent such Claims arise from the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of City or City Parties.

9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge. City and Developer shall cooperate in the defense of any court action or proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, or the Project Approvals (“Litigation Challenge”), and the Parties shall keep each other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements that may prevent the communication of such information. To the extent Developer desires to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, (a) Developer shall take the lead role defending such Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice; (b) City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be separately represented by the legal counsel of its choice in any such action or proceeding with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by Developer; (c) Developer shall reimburse City, within ten (10) business days following City’s written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during the course of such litigation, all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with the Litigation Challenge, including City’s administrative, legal, and court costs and City Attorney oversight expenses; and (d) Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City Parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees or cost awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation. Any proposed settlement of a Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment or modification of this Agreement or any Project Approvals, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by City in accordance with Applicable Law, and City reserves its full legislative discretion with respect thereto. If Developer opts not to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, City shall have no obligation to do so.

ARTICLE 10

ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE

10.1 Assignment. Because of the necessity to coordinate development of the entirety of the Property pursuant to plans for the Project, particularly with respect to the provision of on- and off-site public improvements and public services and benefits, certain restrictions on the right of Developer to assign or transfer its interest under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, are necessary in order to assure the achievement of the goals, objectives and public benefits of the Project and this Agreement. Developer agrees to and accepts the restrictions set forth in this Section 10.1 as reasonable and as a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to sell or transfer its fee interest, or ground lease its interests in the Property, in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, company, corporation or other entity (any of the foregoing, an “Assignee”) subject to the written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided that Developer may assign its rights under this Agreement without the consent of City to any corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other entity which is controlling of,

11.m
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 16 controlled by, or under common control with Developer, and “control,” for purposes of this definition, means effective management and control of the other entity, subject only to major events requiring the consent or approval of the other owners of such entity (“Affiliated Party”).

Developer shall provide the City with written notice of any proposed transfer or assignment of Developer’s rights or obligations hereunder (each, an “Assignment”) at least thirty (30) days prior to such Assignment. Each such notice of proposed Assignment shall be accompanied by evidence of Assignee’s agreement to assume Developer’s obligations hereunder. Developer shall pay the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed Assignment, including the costs incurred by the City Attorney’s Office. If City consents to such Assignment, a written assignment and assumption agreement, in a form approved by City, shall be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County. Assignee shall succeed to the rights, duties and obligations of Developer only with respect to the parcel or parcels, or portion of the Property so purchased, transferred, ground leased or assigned, and Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to any remaining portions of the Property retained by Developer and not assigned.

10.2 Successive Assignment. In the event there is more than one Assignment under the provisions of this Article 10, the provisions of this Article 10 shall apply to each successive Assignment and Assignee. This Article 10 does not apply to sale and/or rental of the residential units or the Commercial Space.

ARTICLE 11

MORTGAGEE PROTECTION

11.1 Mortgagee Protection. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit Developer, at its sole discretion, from granting one or more Mortgages encumbering all or a portion of Developer’s interest in the Property or portion thereof or improvement thereon as security for one or more loans or other financing, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of Mortgagee who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the deed of trust or mortgage within ten (10) days after its recording in the official records of San Mateo County; provided, however, that Developer’s failure to provide such document shall not affect any Mortgage, including without limitation, the validity, priority or enforceability of such Mortgage.

11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee (including one who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall have any obligation to construct or complete construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any use except in full compliance with this Agreement and the other Project Approvals nor to construct any improvements thereon or institute any uses other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise under the Project Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 11.2, all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the other Project Approvals shall be binding

11.m
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 17 upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of any person or entity, including any Mortgagee, who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof.

11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City agrees to use its diligent, good faith efforts to deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any Notice of Default given to Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Default. If a Mortgagee is required to obtain possession in order to cure any Default, the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee is attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, but in no event may this period exceed 120 days from the date the City delivers the Notice of Default to Developer.

11.4 No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article 11 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision or public improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article 11 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 11.3.

ARTICLE 12
DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION

12.1 Breach and Default. Subject to Permitted Delays or by mutual consent in writing, and except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, breach of, failure, or delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a “Default.” In the event of any alleged Default of any term, condition, or obligation of this Agreement, the Party alleging such Default shall give the defaulting Party notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged Default and the manner in which the Default may be satisfactorily cured (“Notice of Breach”).

The defaulting Party shall cure the Default within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach, provided, however, if the nature of the alleged Default is non-monetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not diligently prosecuted to completion, then no additional cure period shall be provided. If the alleged failure is cured within the time provided above, then no Default shall exist and the noticing Party shall take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a Default shall exist under this Agreement and the non-defaulting Party may exercise any of the remedies available under this Agreement.

12.2 Withholding of Permits. In the event of a Default by Developer, or following notice of breach to Developer pursuant to Section 12.1 above and during the cure period provided therein, upon a finding by the Planning Director that Developer is in breach, City shall have the right to refuse to issue any permit or other Subsequent Approvals to which Developer would otherwise have been entitled pursuant to this Agreement until such Default or breach is cured. This provision is in addition to and shall not limit any actions that City may take to enforce the conditions of the Project Approvals.

11.m
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 18 12.3 Termination. In the event of a Default by a Party, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving notice of intent to terminate pursuant to Government Code section 65868 and regulations of City implementing such section. Following notice of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review in the manner set forth in Government Code section 65867 and City regulations implementing said section. Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the City Council, a Party alleging Default by the other Party may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to the other Party. Termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12.9.

12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition. If City issues a Project Approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by Developer in the future, and if Developer then fails to satisfy such condition, City shall be entitled to specific performance for the purpose of causing Developer to satisfy such condition.

12.5 Legal Actions.

12.5.1 Institution of Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies and subject to the limitation of damages in Section 12.7, a Party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Any such legal action shall be brought in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California, except for actions that include claims in which the Federal District Court for the Northern District of the State of California has original jurisdiction, in which case the Northern District of the State of California shall be the proper venue.

12.5.2 Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by Developer against City, service of process on City shall be made by personal service upon the City Clerk of City or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by City against Developer, service of process on Developer shall be made by personal service upon John R. Hansen, Developer’s registered agent for service of process, or in such other manner as may be provided by law.

12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by a Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same Default or any other Default by the other Party, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.

12.7 No Damages. In no event shall a Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages, including without limitation, actual, consequential or punitive damages, for any Default under this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to a Party for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other

11.m
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 19 Party under the terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, obligations to pay attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the other Party.

12.8 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving the Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law, a Party shall, at the request of another Party, meet with designated representatives of the requesting Party promptly following its request. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this Section 12.8 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer, City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to in writing by the parties to such meetings.

12.9 Surviving Provisions. In the event this Agreement is terminated, neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of Developer set forth in Article 9.

ARTICLE 13

GENERAL PROVISIONS

13.1 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land. Except as otherwise more specifically provided in this Agreement and subject to the limitations on assignment set forth herein, this Agreement and all of its provisions, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations, shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as provided in Government Code section 65868.5.

13.2 Notice. Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be given in writing and directed to the City and Developer as follows:

If to the City: City Clerk
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Telephone: 650-738-7300
with a copy to: City Attorney
City of Pacifica
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900

11.m
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 20 Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510-273-8780
If to Developer: Crespi Breakwater, LLC
Attn: Eamon Murphy and Brendan Murphy
Telephone:
with a copy to: Michael K. Brown
200 Pringle Ave, Suite 400
Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
Telephone: 925-943-5000
Notices are deemed effective if delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, or commercial courier, with delivery to be effective upon verification of receipt. Any Party may change its respective address for notices by providing written notice of such change to the other Parties.

13.3 Permitted Delays. Performance by either of the Parties of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of “Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable control of a Party caused by (a) calamities, including without limitation earthquakes, floods, and fire; (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or terrorist acts; (d) strikes or other forms of material labor disputes; (e) shortages of materials or supplies; or (f) vandalism. A Party’s financial inability to perform or obtain financing or adverse economic conditions generally shall not be grounds for claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the Permitted Delay within thirty (30) business days after the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim. If notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after the commencement of the cause, the period shall commence to run only thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice. The period of Permitted Delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing performance. In no event shall any Permitted Delay extend the Term of this Agreement.

13.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

13.5 Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, any failures or delays by any Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies, or deprive any such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. A Party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any condition or breach of this Agreement by the other Party, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. Consent by one Party to any act by the other Party shall not be deemed to imply

11.m
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 21 consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts in the future.

13.6 Construction of Agreement. All Parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting; and (f) “days” means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise.

13.7 Headings. Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement.

13.8 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a specific situation, is found to be invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part for any reason, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement would be defeated by loss of the invalid or unenforceable provisions, in which case any Party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to the other Party.

13.9 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. All references to time in this Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California.

13.10 Extension of Time Limits. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent in writing of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

13.11 Signatures. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of Developer and the City. Each Developer Party shall be jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the other Developer Party.

13.12 Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including all exhibits attached hereto, each of which is fully incorporated herein by reference), integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, representations and statements, and all prior written agreements, understandings, representations, and statements are terminated and superseded by this Agreement.

13.13 Estoppel Certificate. Developer or its lender may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the City requesting the City to certify in writing that: (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect; (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or modifications; and (c) Developer is not in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, to describe therein the nature and extent of any such Defaults. Developer shall pay, within thirty (30) days following receipt of

11.m
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 22 City’s invoice, the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed estoppel certificate, including the costs expended by the City Attorney’s Office in connection therewith. The Planning Director shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. The form of estoppel certificate shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. The Planning Director shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following Developer’s request therefor. Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by tenants, transferees, investors, partners, bond counsel, underwriters, bond holders and Mortgagees. The request shall clearly indicate that failure of the City to respond within the thirty-day period will lead to a second and final request.

Failure to respond to the second and final request within fifteen (15) days of receipt thereof shall be deemed approval of the estoppel certificate.

13.14 Recordation of Termination. Upon completion of performance of the Parties or termination of this Agreement, a written statement acknowledging such completion or termination shall be recorded by City in the Official Records of San Mateo County.

13.15 City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise or the context requires otherwise.

13.16 Negation of Partnership. The Parties specifically acknowledge that the Project is a private development, that no Party to this Agreement is acting as the agent of any other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the businesses of Developer, the affairs of the City, or otherwise, or cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise.

13.17 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement.

13.18 Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its choice of law provisions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY:

CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation
By: ________________________________
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
[Signature must be notarized]

11.m
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 23 ATTEST:

By: ________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
DEVELOPER:

Crespi Breakwater, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Its: _________________________________
[Signature must be notarized]
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Its: _________________________________
[Signature must be notarized]

11.m
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use 1 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 12:49 PM
To: Wehrmeister, Tina; Murdock, Christian
Cc: Nibbelin, John; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David
Subject: Planning Meeting:
[CAUTION: External Email]

TO: Dir. Wehrmeister, Asst. Dir Murdock, Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Kremer
SUBJ: Item 1. Project at 570 & part of 540
This is a perfect place for a mixed use project.

My comment is probably off target, but, Why can’t the developers be guided to propose a project that actually helps the goals of the city with respect to badly needed housing? Why must we always bow down to projects that seek excessive profit rather than appropriate plans for the site and City? I know this is naive, but wouldn't all but the developers agree that some plan with at least 50% of residential units made up of 25% Affordable + 25%BMR would make more sense and be appropriate for this city? The role of mixed-use to take advantage of infill has so many benefits, but the real legal mandates are always shortchanged in proposals reaching the city. THREE BMRs? ⣬⣭⣮⣯ Can’t we do more than the minimum with the most appropriate land? Incentives? Fees?
Thanks for your hard work and late nights!
-- Jim
James Kremer
Pacifica, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Gail Benton Shoemaker
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comments on Items 10 and 11 on City Council Agenda 5/9/22 [CAUTION: External Email]

Hello City Council and Staff,
Below are comments (in bold) on Items 10 and 11 for tonight’s City Council Meeting.

Item 10- Introduction of an Ordinance to approve Text Amendment TA-121-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Ordinance to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences) on April 18, 2022.

Please approve the extension of the Growth Control Ordinance to protect the Hillside Preservation District and Agricultural zoning.

Item 11-
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominimum subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status:

Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).

Regarding Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, the Planning Commission approved a three to one replacement ratio as mitigation for Heritage Trees on the private property, but they were not informed about trees on City property that that will become part of the development once the City property is sold. Please ensure that there is the same replacement ratio for any City trees being removed and that there are protection plans for City trees retained in or near the development.

Thanks, Gail Benton Shoemaker

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

11.n
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 10:43 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Public Comment Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin
Subject: Public comment, Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal Attachments: Boles letter re. Crespi project 5.8.22.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear City Council and Mr. Murdock,
Please see attached letter noting my technical concerns about this project, thank you.

I also believe the appeal process is fatally flawed with no communication with the appellant Margaret Goodale about project changes or hearing delays beyond the 60 days.

When I questioned the earlier appeal hearing delay City Manager Woodhouse responded "The City is scheduling a hearing within 60 days as required by the PMC. As you may recall from your appeal of the Lot 3 Harmony at One project, an applicant and appellant may mutually agree along with the City to hear an appeal after the 60 day period." In this case the staff report recommends changing the date beyond the 60 day period and yet Margaret Goodale was not consulted. There was no mutual agreement. This is highly unusual and possibly illegal. I look forward to hearing from the City Attorney tomorrow night.

Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
DATE: May 8, 2022
TO: Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro-Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Council Member Beckmeyer
Council Member O’Neill
Council Member Vaterlaus
Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director
RE: Agenda Item 11 – 570 Crespi Project Questions
Dear Mayor Bier and Council Members and Mr. Murdock,
I spent a few hours reviewing the project at have a few concerns about discrepancies and omissions I have found in the project plans and technical reports. As the sale of city owned property is essential to the project as designed, I would think it would be in the city’s best interests to fix these errors before the approval of the project so as not to show favoritism to this developer. As the project is currently being revised by the applicant, I would suggest sending it back to planning and having these issues corrected along with the other changes to the wetland and site drainage.
1) The arborist report has only reviewed the three trees on the property this developer owns, trees labeled 1, 2 and 3 below. They are missing the large heritage trees on the lot they intend to purchase, and several on the city community center parcel that will all be affected by the construction of the buildings and proposed new driveway. See Google Earth view below with project footprint overlaid.

I believe all the trees with question marks will need to be removed for the proposed construction.

None of this is addressed in the staff report and none of this was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing.
2) I understand the Planning Department informed Gail Shoemaker of Tree City Pacifica that the 60 inch cypress nearest Crespi would remain, but the applicant’s drawings are internally inconsistent. I

11.n
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

11.n
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
3) The survey is missing topographic information for the city property, including the parcel to be sold.

Notice how grade lines 9 and 10 stop at a 90 degree angle to city property. It appears that only the front (north end) of the lots were surveyed for the driveway work. The existing grades are important to understand in terms of the drainage and amount of fill, and also in terms of impacts to the wetland.
4) The architectural elevations and sections do not clearly show the existing or proposed grades at the rear of the building – the building appears to be floating in space. The civil drawings show the buildings sitting on 5.5’ of fill at the rear, which will need to be retained with concrete walls.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

11.n
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
6) The architectural plans are missing a lot of room names, using question marks instead. This is highly unusual for documents going into the public records and should be fixed. 7) I know from experience on our own home that Pacifica does not allow doors to swing into the minimum required space for parking stalls. I would suggest adding dimensions so that it is clear that code compliant parking is provided.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
I also have a few questions.
a) The Planning Commission deliberated at length about the impacts the project’s lack of adequate parking might have on community center parking with the shared driveway. If ADU’s are subsequently allowed to be built in the lower floor garages the impacts could be disastrous. Please confirm how this would be addressed.
b) The Planning Commission that reviewed this project in an earlier study session initially was very protective of a minimum amount of commercial space versus residential, and also protective of not wanting to create a zoning change variance that would also impact other C-2 zoned properties. These are strategic financial and tax revenue decisions with long term implications for the city. Has the analysis of comparative revenue and outlay of city services between commercial and residential been done to assess the reasoning in allowing these variances? 8) I’d also like to request an explanation of the process by which the city decides to sell our precious community assets. I was told by a former Council Member that she thought the sale of city property needed to first be offered to a non-profit. Is that true, and if so, has that been done? Has the decision to sell this particular land been finalized? Have Pacificans been given opportunities to comment on this sale or suggest other possible uses such as building much needed affordable housing? Thank you!
Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
Principal
CC. Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

11.n
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan <c >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 2:44 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Public Comment Subject: Public comment, Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal [CAUTION: External Email]

Re:

I am writing today in support of Margaret Goodale’s appeal of the proposed development of 19 new homes on 570 Crespi.

I am also a parent of two children at Cabrillo School, a second-grader and a Kindergartener. The proposed development is kitty-corner to Cabrillo School across Crespi Drive, which already faces severe traffic constraints. Any development approved by the City should include:

1. A detailed traffic study conducted by an independent consultant which builds upon existing studies and includes direct outreach to the entire school community. If this large development is allowed to move forward, traffic calming measures must be paid for by the developer. At a minimum, during the duration of construction, a traffic calming and safety mitigation plan must be utilized. In addition, Cabrillo parents should be granted temporary, 20- minute parking access or passes to alleviate the known parking shortage around Cabrillo School.

2. The sale of public land to private development interests without a substantial allocation for affordable housing units or a substantial space for child-friendly spaces be reconsidered, especially in light of the Child Care Crisis also affecting families in Southern Pacifica.

Traffic Calming
I chose to attend Cabrillo School because it is the school closest to my home, and envisioned biking to school most mornings. Unfortunately, I, like many other parents, have found that accessing Cabrillo school from the west is simply not safe.

In June 2012, Alta Planning + Design, with funds from the San Mateo County Office of Education, found that 77% of families drive their children to school by car, with only 7% walking, and 2% biking. The most frequently-cited reasons were 1) Unsafe Intersections, 2) Speeding Traffic Long Route, and 3) Too much traffic along the route.

The report can be accessed from the Pacifica School District Website as well as here:
https://sites.google.com/a/pacificasd.org/saferoutespacifica/home/cabrillo The report made several recommendations to improve the safety for families to reach their school. Unfortunately, many of these recommendations have not been implemented. Specifically the report included a recommendation to “Take steps to establish the existing Community Center parking lot as a park-and-walk” at page 9-1. This could be accomplished at almost no cost, and reduce the dangerous conditions at Cabrillo School, particularly during pickup and drop-off. In addition, given the foreseeable construction-related delay which will be ongoing at this site, a paid crossing guard, paid by the developer, must be included during the very peak traffic times while construction is ongoing. Peak traffic times are 8 am to 8:30 every morning, and between 1pm and 1:30 Wednesday afternoons, when the entire school community enjoys its early-out days and children are playing in front of the school.

More recently, school administrators have also highlighted the insufficient parking around Cabrillo (see below). Adding this large development at an impacted intersection will only compound an already unsafe access problem.

Public Lands Sold for Private Profit
Currently, Pacifica has no public staffed spaces where minors can engage safely, supervised. The Pacifica Community Center, which in most cities includes families, is effectively open only to seniors in Pacifica, aside from what was once a

11.n
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

11.n
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

11.n
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Coffey, Sarah
Subject: Fw: Monday May 9 appeal date change questions
[CAUTION: External Email]

Please enter the following into the public record.

Margaret Goodale, Appellant
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Stan Zeavin < >
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Mary Bier <[email protected]>; Tygarjas Bigstyck <[email protected]>; Mike O'Neill <[email protected]>; Sue Beckmeyer <[email protected]>; Sue Vaterlaus <[email protected]>; Sarah Coffey <[email protected]>; Kevin Woodhouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022, 10:37:23 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Monday May 9 appeal date change questions
Christian,
The Staff report recommends commencing the hearing, taking public comments, then continuing the hearing. To what purpose is continuing the hearing? If, at the hearing, the city attorney or city manager or council say no to raising new issues about the new information, then the hearing should not be continued and the appeal should be heard on the existing record without the new information.

Before the Monday, May 9, hearing please clarify the hearing process and answer my questions. • Will ALL comments, including those of the applicant and appellant, be limited to two-three minutes?
• Is there any possibility that at the direction of the City Manager, Attorney or Council the opportunity to speak the Appeal may be removed after this May 9 hearing?

As I understand your reply, the full, actual Appeal hearing will occur in the future. Is that correct? • The statement "you, the applicant, and the public will be able to provide additional public comments" suggests that all comment could be limited to the usual 2-3 minutes in the future.

Please clarify.

Your message said, "The City is still awaiting more information," but because I have only just received the applicants' proposed revision from you, and because, since I am starting now and not back in April when the information was available to the City and could have been communicated to me, unfortunately, I have plans that cannot be changed and cannot commit to the June 13 date.

I can agree to a continuance if:

1. A mutually agreeable hearing date can be found that allows adequate time to review all revisions and reports

11.n
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 2 2. There is an agreement that I will be allowed to amend the Appeal to add any additional grounds that may arise from the plan revisions

3.The City agrees to notify me immediately upon receipt of new materials and provide me copies of them.

Thank you,
Margaret Goodale
On Friday, May 6, 2022, 01:37:20 PM PDT, Murdock, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Margaret,

I am glad you asked clarifying questions about the appeal process so you can be best prepared on Monday. As indicated in the staff report, the City is still awaiting more information which it needs to thoroughly analyze the appeal and thus the recommended action is to continue the hearing. Given that recommendation, the Council will open the public hearing to allow you, the applicant, and the public to appear and ideally provide comments on the continuance recommendation. We encourage comments to be focused on the continuance and not the project itself although comments on any project aspect can be made. Should the Council follow staff’s recommendation, the appeal hearing will be continued to June 13, 2022, at which time the appeal will be heard, the public hearing will be reopened and you, the applicant, and the public will be able to provide additional public comments.

I’m happy to provide you information related to the applicant’s proposed revision. You can access those files at this link:
https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/fl/X6FaYvFo2s.

Regards,

Christian

11.n
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 4 From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:26 PM
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Coffey, Sarah <[email protected]> Cc: Bier, Mary <[email protected]>; Bigstyck, Tygarjas <[email protected]>; Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]>; Beckmeyer, Sue <[email protected]>; O'Neill, Mike <[email protected]> Subject: Monday May 9 appeal date change questions

[CAUTION: External Email]

Christian and Sarah,
Given the wording in the Proposed Action and MC Sec. 9-4.3603, please respond to and clarify the following questions immediately.

9. PROPOSED ACTION: Open the public hearing, take any public comment, and move to continue the public hearing to a date specific of June 13, 2022.

Sec. 9-4.3603. - Council action.

The Council shall render its decision within sixty (60) days after the filing of the appeal provided for in Section 9-4.3602 of this article.

From the staff report: “Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) section 9-4.3208, after considering an appeal, the Council may approve, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.” A continuance of the hearing is not one of the options offered by the Code. There is a legal question whether the CC can continue it without everyone’s concurrence. Is my consent in fact required?
The Staff report recommends commencing the hearing, taking public comments, then continuing the hearing. How can I be expected to present my appeal when I don’t know what the revised project is? Please clarify these questions before the hearing:

11.n
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 5 1. Why haven’t I been provided with copies of the revisions? And why was I only notified of it now when they were filed almost a month ago (on April 11, per staff report). A decision to agree or not to agree to continuance is impossible without more information.

2. When the hearing is opened, am I expected to present my full appeal then, or can I make comments about the process without using my appeal time? It would be grossly unfair for me to have to use any of my 10 minutes when I haven’t even seen the new project.

3. The only fair thing to do under the circumstances is to send the project back to the PC.

That would open up a new appeal opportunity after the PC reviews it again. In that case my appeal fee should be returned or applied to the new appeal. If a second appeal is forced, the fee should be waived.

4. These process issues must be clarified before the hearing begins, so that I don’t have to use precious appeal time on it.

Please, the City Clerk and City Attorney must figure this out ahead of time and notify me to prevent further wasted time.

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

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

11.n
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:01 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Coffey, Sarah
Subject: comment on agenda item 11, May 9, 2022 from Margaret Goodale Attachments: mg-570 Crespi comments.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]

Please enter the long comment attached into the public record for the May 9 council meeting unless you have already done so.

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

11.n
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 5/6/2022 Comments on Lake Mathilde wetland, 570 Crespi
Honorable Mayor, Council, and staff,
First I am not opposed to a project at the 570 Crespi site.

I simply request that the buildings now proposed be set back from the wetland. Please remove two units from Building C and create a protective buffer.

In this 2013 photo you see a healthy wetland before the ground water was drawn down for construction of the EQ basin. In many years water reached the blue line shown. The red line approximates the southern edge of new construction.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Grubbing out the willows in 2015 revealed the extent of open water that year but released all the carbon that had been sequestered there for many years.

This past March, responding to Pacifica’s new GP/DEIR, California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended the following:
“ CDFW strongly recommends the City of Pacifica adopt riparian buffer zones into its zoning to prohibit development adjacent to streams, creeks, rivers (including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral), wetlands, ponds, and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Additionally, these buffer areas will help to protect water quality and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species.”

The wetlands shown here were delineated by Wood Biological, Monk and Associates, and Geoforensics, three consultants hired by the developers, to study vegetation and soils.

Everything below the red line falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Clean Water Act Permits 404 and 401 must be obtained.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) The staff report for the planning commission said, “The entire wetland is estimated as 0.9 acres. “The proposed project is anticipated to disturb and, possibly, fill, up to 0.77-acre of wetlands.“
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44508.73&BlobID=19258 Nearly half the entire project area is wetland, but the same report said, “No distinctive features are present on-site.” BUT wetlands are distinctive! And just 12% of the wetland may be left undisturbed for this new project.

This new project is more than double the size of the previous project and commissioners were told: “The maximum development potential of the subject site would include up to 36 residential dwelling units based on its 72,984 sf site area” (which includes the adjacent city parcel of public land).

Only nine units were proposed behind a commercial building fronting Crespi when this project was originally discussed. In 2016 a study session requesting feedback and public comment was held for commissioners.

Today nineteen units are planned. Three below market units will be built above the commercial building.

From the sidewalk to the immediate edge of the identified wetland fill will be added in order to fit the sixteen condos behind the commercial building. Because the land slopes down into the wetland, to change the grade to be more level with the sidewalk, developers will need about 6’ of fill at the south (left) end of the buildings. Construction activity will occur past the end of

11.n
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) the buildings. Plans say, “A temporary sediment and debris barrier will be installed on the southern limit of the construction.”
But where will it go? The southern limit of the construction site is at the seasonal wetland.

A construction berm is promised to keep construction off the wetland, but it will necessarily be inside the wetland. Construction will inevitably encroach on the wetland. And the ditching to install the emergency overflow drain at the southwest border 10’ elevation will add disturbance far beyond the construction barrier.

During the major rainfall events predicted for the future, the full storage capacity of the wetland marked in aqua could be utilized if buildings were set back to create a buffer.

Commissioners were told that “all the potentially significant impacts of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance…” and therefore the project is exempt from CEQA. But

11.n
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) according to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, even temporary fill of wetlands requires a permit.

To quote the Water Board: “These projects involve the removal or placement of soil, sediment, and other materials in or near water bodies and require Corps permits under Clean Water Act Section 404.” And a 401 Water Quality Certification Further, to obtain a permit, an applicant must show clearly that the project is the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”
For a City to find a least damaging alternative that is practicable requires public engagement.

The entire process for this current very complex plan was worked out with staff behind closed doors over more than five years.

Neither the public nor any of the current planning commissioners ever had the benefit of a study session to consider the big changes. The staff report tells us, “As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.”
But wetlands are complex living ecosystems. You really can’t mitigate the disturbance of all but 12% of this tiny wetland. Its disturbance is a significant impact, and, importantly, NO restoration or maintenance is offered.

We need a more transparent process.

Approving this new project involves the SALE of PUBLIC LAND and has been accomplished with minimal public discussion. None of the public’s concerns about the school community, trees on the site, the neighborhood, potential flooding, or adequate affordable housing have been explored. We need to look realistically at what could be the best and highest use of this public land.

Our Pacifica General Plan echoes the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook and the City’s Municipal Regional Permit and says that “ no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where such materials may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water”
How is that possible with the construction at the immediate edge of the wetland? Pacifica’s GP also nods to CDFW Code Section 1600-1616. saying:
“Typically, no new grading or development at any site is allowed within 20 feet of the edge of riparian vegetation.”
A usual standard for protection of wetlands is a minimum of “fifty feet separation from the edge of the finished construction to the wetland.”

11.n
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Our GP policy CO-I-4 titled Wetlands Preservation states specifically, “If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.”
HERE at Crespi the impacts are entirely avoidable.

GP 3.7-53
The Pacifica Strategic Plan Goal Number 1 is to “preserve and enhance Pacifica’s natural resources and open space to ensure an ecologically vibrant community.” So, please, let’s look for and consider the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”
The less damaging alternative would be to simply remove or relocate two units from the east building. Allow the wetland room to expand and contract as wetland waters naturally do depending on the weather.

Transparency is certainly a goal we all value. Let’s insist that our City proceed that way.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Margaret Goodale

11.n
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 9:10 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Coffey, Sarah
Subject: comment from Margaret Goodale on Agenda item 11, May 9 City Council [CAUTION: External Email]

The following information needs to be considered by the City’s CEQA consultant and staff in determining CEQA compliance.

1. Jurisdictional delineation, and wetland habitat impact assessment, are totally different, noninterchangeable methods for different purposes.

2. Wetland (CWA 404) jurisdictional determination (JD) process: Consultants can only prepare proposed, preliminary jurisdictional delineations. Only through the 404 permit process can the can the ACE determine the boundaries. Jurisdiction does not equal significance.

City staff would not have expertise on wetlands impacts or jurisdiction, so they really aren't in a position to arbiter.

3. Wetland impact assessment. The issue should be simple from a CEQA perspective. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is a jurisdictional wetland area or not, or where the JD boundary is in any given year. It has to do with ecological impacts to wetland habitat or ecosystem functions. Impacts don't follow jurisdictional boundaries. Jurisdictional wetland boundaries only determine where federal permits are needed or not for placing fill. Purely legal. They don't have any relationship to impact assessment or habitat quality assessment,

So the City's compliance with CEQA on wetland impacts should set aside the pointless, official-sounding JD focus, and concentrate on a meaningful analysis of a wetland impact assessment - what the impacts and mitigation are. That includes how the wetlands interact with the adjacent non-wetland habitat and the gradients between them. That assessment doesn't depend on where the legal boundaries between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands are in any given year (they shift!).

Thank you for seriously considering this new information.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 10:07 AM
To: _City Council Group; Public Comment
Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian; Nibbelin, John; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David
Subject: My Comments on CC 570 Crespi Project 5/9/22 mtg [CAUTION: External Email]

TO: City Council
City Manager
Planning Commissioners
[email protected]
From: Jim Kremer
Date: May 5, 2022
RE: My Comments on 570 Crespi Project 5/9/22 mtg
Dear City:

I will be out of town and will miss the meeting. I just saw in the agenda that the item will be continued until June, but you will take public comment 5/9 as planned. So I’m sending this, and may send a revised one later – I’m continuing my consideration too ͧͨͩͪ. This is my comment on what I knew up to today –
I wish to start by affirming that this parcel is an ideal place for a development much like the one being proposed. It is city owned, centrally located in a mixed use part of town. It would seem an ideal place for a residential and commercial mix.

However, I have three serious concerns:
• The project encroaches on a real wetland, perhaps a struggling one, but that is exactly what protections are for. I see no evidence that the City or the Developers are taking the environmental importance and regulatory requirements seriously. I see pushing the limits and avoiding sensible or required regulatory steps. As an professor specializing in ecosystems ecology, this is my big concern. (OK, yes I am a marine ecologist, but still … ∜∝∞∟∠∡∢ সহ঺঻)
• Deed restrictions on affordable units is great & important. But so few affordable and none at lower income levels? How can this be justified with public City owned land? I believe the City could negotiate and even provide incentives to reach a more appropriate mutually acceptable plan, or at least we must try!
I know that Ms. Goodale’s Appeal is pending, and I hope the Council seriously reconsiders.

I urge the Council after due deliberations, to send the Project back to the Planning Commission for further review, including better wetlands oversight, and pressure to add more housing of the kind that Pacifica is under legal obligation to approve.

Now, I would like to itemize some of the concerns that seem most compelling:
•Numerous factual, substantive and compelling concerns argue against this project in this form; I have seen Margaret Goodale’s talking points, and I cannot emphasize enough their relevance and implications. • The wetland is not inconsequential. It is historically well documented and has been reduced by encroachment and lack of care, and deserves to be restored. It can be a gem in our city.
• The entire wetland currently is just under an acre (0.9 ac) and it is a significant part of the project parcel area. In this proposal is it possible that more than 85% of the wetland may be disturbed or filled? That should not be allowed. • If an ACOE Wetland permit is required, isn’t it illegal to circumvent it? • Asserting that this project does not require CEQA compliance is hard to imagine. Better documentation if this is the case would help public acceptance.
• While everyone fears an EIR, doing one responsibly would provide guidelines that the developers could work within and know that they were doing it right. It IS ESHA habitat and that should be confronted directly. If the city is accepting developer assertions and looking the other way, that is unacceptable.
• This revised project neither is the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” as required for the ACOE permit, nor a proper use of Pacifica’s precious publically owned land. • A number of proposed governance policies in the draft General Plan seem to expressly prohibit the impact on the wetland. • Did the developer offer the wetland back to the city, where it could be a conservation easement? This is a good idea.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 2 • Responsible care of the wetland could involve formal agreements for restoration on sensitive environmental maintenance.

Please ensure that changes are made to the plan to enforce real protections of this small, struggling wetland. Paraphrasing The Lorax: Who speaks for the marsh? You must.
(I really am on your side on this one, we just need to get it right! I am pleased the continuance gives time to reconsider and improve the environmental sensibility. The developers will still make a tidy profit! It is spectacular location, location, location.) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Summer Lee < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 11 refer back to planning and refund appeal fees [CAUTION: External Email]

The Crespi project, because there are project revisions, should be sent back to the planning commission and appeal fees refunded.

The appellant has not been given the opportunity to agree to missing the 60-day requirement of a City Council decision on the appeal, which would be tonight.

Additionally, the new information could change the basis of the appeal and the appellant should be allowed to amend her appeal.

According to the staff report (quoted below), the city is waiting on new information about a revision of a proposed project. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission, then appealed.

Procedurally, the new information and project revision should void the previous approval and require a new hearing and either approval or denial of the revised project. If approved, then the appellant can file a new appeal.

From the staff report:
"Due to the Applicant’s submittal of new information following preparation of the IS/MND and Planning Commission review and approval of the Project, staff engaged the City’s CEQA consultant to prepare a peer review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation. Staff’s review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation and Applicant’s responses thereto are ongoing and will require additional time to complete.”
"As noted above, review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation is ongoing. Until the review is finished, staff cannot provide an assessment and recommendation on the Project revision for City Council consideration as part of the Appeal.”
Many thanks for your consideration,
Summer Lee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Peter Loeb < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:36 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 11: refer back to Planning Commission or let appellant amend appeal [CAUTION: External Email]
According to the staff report (quoted below), the city is waiting on new information about a revision of a proposed project. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission, then appealed. Procedurally, the new information and project revision should void the previous approval and require a new hearing and either approval or denial of the revised project. If approved, then the appellant can file a new appeal.

If the City Council does not return the project to the Planning Commission for a new hearing, then at the very least the appellant should be allowed to amend her complaint to address the revised project.

From the staff report:
"Due to the Applicant’s submittal of new information following preparation of the IS/MND and Planning Commission review and approval of the Project, staff engaged the City’s CEQA consultant to prepare a peer review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation. Staff’s review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation and Applicant’s responses thereto are ongoing and will require additional time to complete.”
"As noted above, review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation is ongoing. Until the review is finished, staff cannot provide an assessment and recommendation on the Project revision for City Council consideration as part of the Appeal.”
Peter Loeb
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

11.n
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Attachment N - Public Comments (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Conduct Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Annual Report from the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District as modified by City Council, Approving the Program Expenditures, and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2021-22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Conduct the Public Hearing
2) Rule on Oral and Written protests, if any; and
3) Adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, as amended, and continuing the assessments levied in 2021-22 without change in Fiscal Year 2022-23.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:

Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City. The Pacifica BID was established under the authority of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, which does not require identifying a "managing agency." Many Bay Area Cities with BIDs established under the same law manage their BID operations internally. However, the City Council has previously appointed the Chamber of Commerce as the BID Managing Agency. Currently, the Advisory Committee consists of but is not limited to one representative from each of the hotels, the managing director of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center, and one representative from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

On May 13, 2022, the Chamber of Commerce filed the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) report with the City Clerk. The report was presented to the City Council with the resolution of intent to continue the BID program and levy the annual assessments for the fiscal year 2022-23.The report included projected resources and uses for FY 2022-23. There were no proposed changes in the boundaries of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District. The proposed assessment is intended to continue at $1.00 per room per day occupancy. It is estimated to generate $70,000 in revenues for the BID activities in FY2022-23 plus an estimated rollover funds of $977.30 from the current fiscal year. The Pacifica Chamber of Commerce will continue to serve as the Managing Agency for the BID at the proposed annual administrative fee of $35,000 or 50% of the projected FY2022-23 BID assessment.

At the meeting on May 23, Council directed staff and Chamber representatives to hold a 12 Packet Pg. 1243
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
meeting with the hotel representatives and Council liaisons to the Economic Development Committee to seek clarifications for proposed FY22-23 BID activities, reduce duplication, achieve collaboration and request modifications to the BID report. Staff held this meeting on June 1, 2022. During the meeting, some hotel representatives seemed to be unaware of the above-mentioned City programs that would directly benefit hotels or the VisitPacifica website access issues. In addition, the Chamber continued expressing security concerns about granting the City's professional Marketing consulting firm access to the VisitPacifica platform. Staff clarified that the City's standard practice requires substantial professional and general liability coverage from all their contractors, and these concerns would be covered. The Chamber requested to meet with City staff and the City Consultant again to discuss the collaboration and access to the website. This meeting took place on June 9, 2022. During the meeting on June 9, City staff provided clarification to marketing programs, specifically the elements that will directly benefit BID members, discussed collaborative working guidelines, and staff re-submitted a detailed request for the City consultant’s access to VisitPacifica website, and social media for content posting and outreach.

At the City Council meeting on June 13, Council reviewed and discussed the revised BID Annual Report and made the following modifications:
• Modify Exhibit F item #1 to read as follows “The City, Chamber of Commerce, and a quorum of the BID will meet quarterly to discuss performance, alignment of performance measures, and gather information to report back to the City Council at mid-year”. • Delete Exhibit G in its entirety. Exhibit G does not include an associated budget, therefore, should not be included. Alternatively, Exhibit G will be brought back for updates and discussion during the mid-year meeting.
• Modify Exhibit F by removing table item #5 “BID/rep/Marketing Consultant” and the corresponding reference in Exhibit H(4).

The City intends to build greater collaboration and coordination of efforts with the BID to identify correlated key performance measures and better align available resources, unify marketing efforts toward the same goals of promoting Pacifica as an overnight destination, assist hotels with improving their occupancy rates throughout the year, and, as a result of these efforts, improve the hospitality industry and local economy in general.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
"Fiscal Sustainability" includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no significant fiscal impact associated with this action, except for the City's administrative cost of processing BID pass-through payments that the City collects. The City collects no fee for administering the BID.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - BID report G-H 2022-2023 updated (PDF)
Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment (DOCX) 12 Packet Pg. 1244
Pacifica Chamber of Commerce
PR/Marketing/Website Proposal for 2022-2023 EXHIBIT F

1. As part of the BID management team’s responsibilities, the group will act as the project managers for all of the proposed (and approved) marketing initiatives as outlined in the below options: They will work with the Chamber of Commerce’s BID representative and the City’s 3rd party marketing consultant, CDA, to ensure the implementation of the strategic plans that compliments the Chamber’s and City’s initiatives to promote Pacifica as a travel destination, therefore, increasing hotel occupancy.

The City and a quorum of BID members and the Chamber of Commerce will meet quarterly to discuss alignment of performance measures and gather information to report back at mid-year to the City Council.

2. Website (step 1) - Complete additional tabs for blogs and sub-pages pages a. Cost = $8,500
i. continued maintenance of City’s “Shop Local” and “Workation” campaigns, to also include: Beach Bites Bingo, E-gift card, etc.
ii.supplemental support for sub-domain pages created by CDA (City 3rd Party Marketing Consultant):

3. Website (step 2) - maintain organic content to position Pacifica atop of Google search results (SEO)
a. Cost = $375/month ($4,500/yearly)

4. Retain website consultant for Step 2: Carol Camacho (website manager) a. Rate: $35/hr ( average $250/mo or $3000/yr)

5. Continuing blog creations or reposting blogs with substantive content (photos, things to do, hotel updates, shop local, features) in order to keep things fresh and interesting. a. Cost = $1000/yr

6. Social Marketing/paid campaign, for example: additional cost for boost post on Facebook, sponsored links on Instagram, etc.
a. Costs = $1000/yr

7. Continue to work with influencers, travel writers and multi-media individuals/organizations to continue to promote Pacifica as a travel destination.

8. Advertising: VIA and Pacifica Anchor Magazine
a. Cost = $11,000

9. Visit Pacifica (robust) digital campaign with SF Media Company (ex. SF Bucketlisters & Do The Bay)
a. Cost = $7,000

10. Request BID membership participation with SF Travel to attract media and market to specific tourists groups (ex. Europeans and Asians)

12.a
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID report G-H 2022-2023 updated (5044 : BID Approval) a. Cost = inclusive in Chamber of Commerce’s BID representative service.

11. Design annual events pitch to media with hotels as focal point for “making it a weekend” a. Cost = inclusive in Chamber of Commerce’s BID representative service.

12. Re-establish quarterly press releases that link back to website a. Cost = inclusive in Chamber of Commerce’s BID representative service service.

12.a
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID report G-H 2022-2023 updated (5044 : BID Approval) Additional Marketing Plan of Actions for 2022-2023 EXHIBIT G As the first order of business and plan of action for moving with all proposed marketing initiatives in 2022, the priority is to maintain the VisitPacifica.com website and pursue multiple avenues to increase hotel room occupancy by targeting specific, demographically concentrated populations that would benefit from local “staycation” options.

1. Public Relations (PR)
-Hosting media
-Monthly press releases
-Wellness media/influencer FAM
-Traveler Podcast
-Best of Investing Radio Promo
-Host individual influencers

2. Social Media
-Feature blog posts (for continued SEO and content creation) -Advertising on all platforms (*Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) -Hotel News/re-branding/promotions/etc.
-Scavenger Hunt to solicit additional 3rd party photos and content -Upgrade the media pages with new photos and updated media placement links

3. Advertising
-VIA Magazine
-Pacifica Anchor
-California Tourism
-SF Media Company (*SF Bucketlisters & Do The Bay)

4. Website
-Continue to update all pages with new information and content -Monthly blog post features: Feature story of Pacifica (monthly) -Update hotel information
-Refresh photos
-Add page(s) as needed
-Develop an interactive and engaging campaign with social channels to drive traffic to the website and bookings for hotels.
-Review quarterly analytics to compare ROI from previous campaigns

12.a
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID report G-H 2022-2023 updated (5044 : BID Approval) Pacifica Chamber of Commerce
Marketing Action Plan Projected Budget for 2021-2022 EXHIBIT H Recommended Action Person Responsible Budget Timeframe

1. Website Web Consultant, hosting, SEO $17,000 Yearly

2. SF Bucketlisters (*SF
Media Co. and Do The
Bay)
BID rep $7000 Pending BID approval

3. VIA & Pacifica Anchor
Magazine
BID rep $11,000 Pending BID approval

4. Blogsite Upkeep Web Consultant $1,000 Yearly

5. Other BID rep/Marketing Consultant TBD Ongoing
Total $36,000

12.a
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID report G-H 2022-2023 updated (5044 : BID Approval) RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CONFIRMING THE

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE HOTEL BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROVING THE

HOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT'S PROGRAM OF EXPENDITURES, AND ASSESSING THE LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AT THE SAME RATES LEVIED IN FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 WITHOUT CHANGE
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S. in 2004 creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City; and WHEREAS, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District has been operating and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City continuously since 2004, including Fiscal Year 2021-22; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36533, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Committee has prepared and filed with the City Clerk an annual report regarding the BID's operations that proposes to continue the program and assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same amount as levied for the Fiscal Year 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-2022 which confirmed receipt of the Original and Revised Annual Report and declaring the City Council’s intent to continue the BID program and levy the annual assessments for fiscal year 2022-2023; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2022 the City Council held a public hearing wherein it made the following modifications to the Revised Annual Report:

1. Removed Exhibit G from the Annual Report [supplement provided in the Additional Meeting Materials for Agenda Item #12 on June 13, 2022]

2. Amended Item 1 – Exhibit F to add, “The City and a quorum of BID members and the Chamber of Commerce will meet quarterly to discuss alignment of performance measures and gather information to report back at mid-year to the City Council.”

3. Removed Line 5 from the budget in Exhibit F and the corresponding reference in Exhibit H (4).

WHEREAS, City Council now desires to approve an amended annual report (“Amended Annual Report’) at a public hearing to take place on June 27, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. held via video/teleconference with no physical location open to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N-25-20 and N-29-20 which suspend certain requirements of the

12.b
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment (5044 : BID Approval) Brown Act and allowing for public participation and public comment as detailed in the meeting agenda to be published within 72 hours in advance of the meeting date; and; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk gave notice of the public hearing by publishing in a newspaper of general circulation at least seven days before the public hearing and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice and Resolution No. 29-2022 to all affected businesses as required by California Streets and Highways Code section 36534; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the City Council heard and considered all protests against the Fiscal Year 2022-23 levy of assessments for the BID, and the rules and procedures used in receiving and considering protests complied with those set forth in the California Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525, 36534 and 36535; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this Resolution to confirm the Advisory Committee's report as modified by City Council and continue the program and assessments as levied in Fiscal Year 2021-22 at $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City without change for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in and form a part of this resolution.

2. Approval of Report and Program of Expenditures. The Annual Report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Committee, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, that was filed with the City Clerk on June 11, 2022 and modified by City Council at the meeting on June 13, 2022 and approved by the City Council by Resolution No.29-2022, is hereby confirmed as submitted and the program of expenditures is hereby approved for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

3. Annual Assessment. The City hereby levies and will collect assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same rate of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City of Pacifica as levied in Fiscal Year 2022-23, without change.

4. Effective Date and Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution. The Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.
* * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

12.b
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment (5044 : BID Approval)

Mary Bier, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

12.b
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment (5044 : BID Approval)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.

A Transactions and Use Tax is a General Tax that requires a 2/3 majority vote of the City Council (4 out of 5 Councilmembers) to be placed on the ballot and a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the voters to pass. Tonight's action by the City Council, if adopted, would place the proposed revenue measure before the voters of the City of Pacifica for their consideration.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
(650) 738-7409
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND:

At the May 23, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council received and discussed public opinion research findings on potential local revenue options available to the City, community priorities and perspectives. The Council provided unanimous direction to the City Manager to develop a draft ordinance and related documents to place a ½ cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Measure on the November 2022 General Election Ballot and return to City Council 13 Packet Pg. 1252
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
to consider such actions at a Council meeting in June 2022.

DISCUSSION:

Previous to the City Council’s direction on May 23rd, the City Council had been presented information at the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, as part of the Vision 2025 & Beyond Fiscal Sustainability Study, about the City’s long-term financial forecast. That information showed a significant projected structural deficit for the City, and a variety of revenue measures requiring voter approval that could be considered to help close the deficit and maintain the current level of City services.

Projected Structural Budget Shortfall
The City Council’s direction from May 23rd meeting focused on the ½ cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Measure as being the most feasible to maintain City services because it is estimated to increase annual revenues by $2.6 million and the City faces a structural deficit increasing from approximately $2.7 Million for FY 2023-24 to $3 Million for FY 2029-30.

Attachment 1 shows the 10-year Financial Forecast presented to Council during Budget Session #1 on April 11, 2022 (note that the estimates have been refined during budget development since April 11 and are now showing a structural budget shortfall estimated at $2.7 million for the 2023-24 fiscal year).

Local Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax
The City currently receives one percent of the local Bradley-Burns Sales and Use Taxes from the State which generates about $2.6 Million per year in General Fund revenues.

Cities in California may impose local add on taxes that are added to the statewide "base".

Transactions and Use (Sales) Taxes are implemented through a voter-approved ballot measure.

As of January 1, 2020, there were 321 transactions and use tax districts in California, of which 62 are countywide and 259 are in cities. According to estimates from HdL, the City's Revenue Consultant, if Pacifica were to adopt a Local Transactions & Use (Sales) Tax of one-half cent it would generate approximately $2.6 Million per year.

Cities In San Mateo County With Local Transaction and Use (Sales) Taxes There are 8 cities in San Mateo County that have adopted Transaction and Use (Sales) Taxes.

Cities with 1/2 Cent Transaction and Use (Sales) Taxes are Belmont, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. They are summarized in the table below:

City Rate Effective Date Expires
Belmont 0.50 4/1/2017 3/31/2047
Daly City 0.50 4/1/2021
East Palo Alto 0.50 4/1/2017
Redwood City 0.50 4/1/2019
San Bruno 0.50 4/1/2020
South San Francisco 0.50 4/1/2016 3/31/2046
Burlingame 0.25 4/1/2018
San Mateo 0.25 4/1/2010 3/31/2048
13 Packet Pg. 1253
Pacifica City Council 3
June 27, 2022
Limits on Local Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax in San Mateo County State law provides that combined rate of all Transactions and Use (Sales) Taxes imposed part in any county may not exceed a total of 2 percent. Previously adopted transactions and use (sales) taxes at the county level mean that the Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax proposed for the City of Pacifica cannot exceed ½ cent per dollar.

Differences Between The 1% Sales Tax and a Transactions and Use Tax The State levies and collects the local 1% Bradley-Burns Sales Tax and Use Tax. This is considered to be a “place of sale” tax that is generally allocated to the jurisdiction where the sale is negotiated, or the order is taken.

With a Local Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax (TUT), as is being proposed in the attached Resolution and Ordinance, the TUT is allocated to the jurisdiction where the goods are delivered or placed into use. For most transactions, TUT revenue is allocated to the place where the buyer takes possession of the purchased good. The City can expect to receive transactions tax revenue from normal sales tax generating businesses like retail stores and restaurants. Both residents and visitors alike will pay the transactions tax on purchases that they consume or take possession of at the place of business within the City. In addition, any purchases shipped or delivered into the City from other places (business, medical and industrial supplies, construction materials, catalog and internet purchases, furniture, appliances, bulk fuel, etc.) will generate additional transaction tax revenue.

Vehicle purchases are a key exception. As the transaction tax relates to registered vehicles, boats and motorcycle purchases, the tax will only be paid by City residents and businesses regardless of where the purchase is made. Therefore, if a Pacifica resident purchases a vehicle from an auto dealer inside or outside the City, the auto dealer will collect and remit the City’s transaction tax. TUT revenue from vehicle sales goes to the local government where the vehicle is registered, regardless of where the buyer takes possession of it.

In Pacifica, a number of purchases by residents (including online sales and vehicle purchases) occur outside the City resulting in what some refer to as "sales tax leakage". This explains why a 1/2 cent TUT in Pacifica generates a similar amount of revenue as the 1 cent Bradley Burns Sales Tax ($2.6 Million per year).

Placing a General Revenue Measure on the Ballot
A Local Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax is a General Tax that would require a 2/3 majority vote of the City Council (4 out of 5 Councilmembers) to be placed on the ballot and a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the voters to pass.

By law, a General Tax may only be placed on the ballot when there is a City Council election, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the City Council. California Constitution Article XIII C Section 2(b) governs this requirement, which restricts the placement of such a measure during such election years. For Pacifica, the next opportunity after 2022 to place a General Tax on the ballot would be November 2024.

Community Input
Recent community engagement gauged community priorities for maintaining vital local services.

The following outlines current preliminary needs and priorities identified by the Pacifica Community for using additional funds if the City Council places a local revenue measure on the November 2022 ballot. The City would use this nonexclusive listing of needs and priorities to 13 Packet Pg. 1254
Pacifica City Council 4
June 27, 2022
guide its spending allocations, should the measure be enacted.

Community Identified Needs and Priorities
Public Safety
Maintain 911 fire, police, medical emergency response times and essential public safety services that keep our community safe, including local fire protection and regular neighborhood police patrols. Maintain storm drains to prevent flooding.

Protect Unique Resources
Keep pollution and trash off local beaches, protect coastal, help- prevent coastal erosion, , and continue funding seawall maintenance and inspection to protect homes and livelihoods.

Parks & Recreation
Keep parks, playgrounds, and trails well-maintained for current and future generations to enjoy.

Preserve open space. Maintain youth and senior recreational programs and opportunities that help kids and families be healthy.

Roads Safety
Make essential repairs and pave streets and roads, repair potholes, provide safe routes to school for children. Address traffic congestion.

Economic Development
Attract and retain local businesses and jobs to promote a robust local economy.

Fiscal Stability & Vital Local Services
Maintaining fiscal stability such as offsetting revenue shortfalls to protect local control and preventing cuts to vital local services.

Proposed Pacifica ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax The resolution (Attachment 2) places the ordinance (Attachment 3) on the ballot for consideration by voters in the City of Pacifica.

If adopted by the City Council, the voters would be presented with the following ballot question to consider the ordinance:

Shall the measure establishing a ½ ¢ sales tax for general government use to maintain the City of Pacifica’s vital services, such as police, fire, medical 9-1-1 emergency response; keeping pollution / trash off beaches; attracting / retaining jobs/businesses; street paving; storm drain maintenance to prevent flooding; preventing coastal erosion, and generating approximately $2,600,000 annually for 9 years, with regular financial audits, independent citizens’ oversight, and requiring funds be used locally, be adopted? If adopted by voters, the ordinance would have the following key features:

1. It would impose a transactions and use tax of one-half of one percent in accordance with applicable provisions of state law (Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxations Code).

2. In accordance with state law, the City of Pacifica would be required to enter into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to collect and administer the tax.

3. Under the ordinance, the tax would begin being collected at the beginning of the first quarter that is at least 110 days after certification of the election results (slated for 13 Packet Pg. 1255
Pacifica City Council 5
June 27, 2022
April 1, 2023), and would be in effect for nine years total, and would sunset unless extended by voters at a subsequent election.

4. The ordinance would require that the proceeds resulting from the transactions and use tax shall be deposited into the city’s general fund and become subject to the same audit requirements as other general fund revenue. Any auditor’s report shall include an accounting of the revenues received from the transactions and use tax and shall be presented to the city council and made available for public review.

5. Additionally, the Council would be required to establish a citizens’ oversight committee to review the revenue and expenditure of funds generated by the tax.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

If a revenue measure is not placed on the November 2022 General Election ballot by the City Council and approved by the voters to close the upcoming gap in revenues compared to projected expenses, the City Manager will be tasked to submit recommendations for additional budget cuts. These cuts would significantly reduce the City’s organizational capacity and, as a result, a reduction in service levels and operations.

For illustrative purposes, and as presented at the May 23rd Council meeting, the impact of a $2.7 Million deficit spread equally across all City Departments would be as follows:

Personnel cost is the largest City expense. The following list shows the average salary and benefits costs for various classifications:
• Firefighter: $154,300
• Police Officer: $145,400
• Maintenance Worker: $134,700
• Management Analyst II: $159,200
An analysis of the above deficit distribution based on the above average salary and benefit levels reveals that the following number of positions, and associated service levels, would need to be reduced to close the deficit (for illustrative purposes only, as actual expenditure reductions 13 Packet Pg. 1256
Pacifica City Council 6
June 27, 2022
and personnel cuts are unlikely to be made evenly across-the-board depending on Council policy guidance).
• General Gov’t: 2 positions
• Police: 5 positions
• Fire: 3 positions
• Planning/Building: 2 positions
• Public Works: 2 positions
• Parks, Beaches, Recreation: 2 positions
These levels of personnel reductions would severely hamper the City’s ability to provide the current level of programs and services delivered to the Pacifica community. A 2019 staffing comparison study for the City showed that Pacifica’s staffing levels are an average for all departments of 23% lower than comparably sized cities in the area.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item advances the Vision 2025 & Beyond program and furthers the City Council’s Strategic Goals and the City’s efforts towards Fiscal Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If the City Council moves forward with a Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Ordinance for the November 7, 2022 ballot and the revenue measure is approved by the voters, the proposed 1/2 cent transactions and use tax will generate approximately $2,600,000 in additional annual revenue. This revenue will help address the City's projected General Fund deficit of $2.7 Million in the 2023-24 fiscal year.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - 10 Year Forecast - City of Pacifica General Fund - April 2022 (PDF) Attachment 2 - Resolution Placing Transactions and Use Tax on Ballot (DOCX) Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Half Cent Transactions and Use Tax (DOCX) 13 Packet Pg. 1257
Pacifica City Council 7
June 27, 2022
13 Packet Pg. 1258

REVENUE
2021-2022
Revised
Budget
2022-2023
Prelim. Base
Budget
2023-2024
Projected
2024-2025
Projected
2025-2026
Projected
2026-2027
Projected
2027-2028
Projected
2028-2029
Projected
2029-2030
Projected
2030-2031
Projected
2031-2032
Projected
Property Tax $ 14,273,769 $ 15,065,100 $ 15,667,700 $ 16,294,400 $ 16,946,200 $ 17,624,000 $ 18,329,000 $ 19,062,200 $ 19,824,700 $ 20,617,700 $ 21,442,400 Vehicle License Fees 3,688,130 5,097,400 5,301,300 5,513,400 5,733,900 5,963,300 6,201,800 6,449,900 6,707,900 6,976,200 7,255,200 Sales Tax 3,017,753 3,108,300 3,201,500 3,297,500 3,396,400 3,498,300 3,603,200 3,711,300 3,822,600 3,937,300 4,055,400 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,695,073 1,712,000 1,754,800 1,798,700 1,843,700 1,889,800 1,937,000 1,985,400 2,035,000 2,085,900 2,138,000 Utility Users Tax 1,868,218 1,905,600 1,953,200 2,002,000 2,052,100 2,103,400 2,156,000 2,209,900 2,265,100 2,321,700 2,379,700 Other Taxes 2,976,138 3,029,400 3,105,100 3,182,700 3,262,300 3,343,900 3,427,500 3,513,200 3,601,000 3,691,000 3,783,300 Department/Program Revenues 8,546,745 7,176,200 7,319,700 7,466,100 7,615,400 7,767,700 7,923,100 8,081,600 8,243,200 8,408,100 8,576,300 Transfer In-Other 2,150,898 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 2,150,900 Excess ERAF 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 Grants 178,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARPA 4,610,518 4,610,505 - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Revenue $ 43,093,242 $ 44,043,405 $ 40,642,200 $ 41,893,700 $ 43,188,900 $ 44,529,300 $ 45,916,500 $ 47,352,400 $ 48,838,400 $ 50,376,800 $ 51,969,200

EXPENDITURES
2021-2022
Mid-Year
Revised
Budget
2022-2023
Preliminary
Base Budget
2023-2024
Projected
2024-2025
Projected
2025-2026
Projected
2026-2027
Projected
2027-2028
Projected
2028-2029
Projected
2029-2030
Projected
2030-2031
Projected
2031-2032
Projected
Salaries And Benefits $ 26,825,795 $ 28,242,000 $ 29,177,189 $ 30,248,132 $ 31,376,328 $ 32,565,718 $ 33,820,542 $ 35,145,368 $ 36,545,111 $ 38,025,066 $ 39,590,936 Material/Supplies/Maintenance 3,248,698 3,418,100 3,459,326 3,502,568 3,546,350 3,590,679 3,635,563 3,681,007 3,727,020 3,773,608 3,820,778 Contract Services 7,828,046 7,617,500 7,796,438 7,991,348 8,191,132 8,395,910 8,605,808 8,820,953 9,041,477 9,267,514 9,499,202 Debt Service 1,959,943 2,072,081 2,158,906 2,195,487 2,260,592 2,471,425 2,529,025 2,554,121 2,398,126 1,379,640 1,370,527 Op. Transfers Out 139,727 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 Total Annual Operating Expenditures $ 40,002,209 $ 41,489,681 $ 42,731,859 $ 44,077,536 $ 45,514,402 $ 47,163,732 $ 48,730,938 $ 50,341,450 $ 51,851,734 $ 52,585,828 $ 54,421,443 Capital Transfers $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total General Fund Expenditures $ 43,002,209 $ 41,489,681 $ 42,731,859 $ 44,077,536 $ 45,514,402 $ 47,163,732 $ 48,730,938 $ 50,341,450 $ 51,851,734 $ 52,585,828 $ 54,421,443 GF Structural Surplus/Deficit 91,033 2,553,724 (2,089,659) (2,183,836) (2,325,502) (2,634,432) (2,814,438) (2,989,050) (3,013,334) (2,209,028) (2,452,243) Pct. of GF Revenues 0.21% 5.80% -5.14% -5.21% -5.38% -5.92% -6.13% -6.31% -6.17% -4.39% -4.72% Projected Ending Fund Balance $ 16,592,406 $ 19,146,130 $ 17,056,471 $ 14,872,636 $ 12,547,133 $ 9,912,701 $ 7,098,263 $ 4,109,213 $ 1,095,879 $ (1,113,149) $ (3,565,392) Non-Spendable and Assigned $ 9,158,516 $ 9,142,568 $ 9,266,786 $ 9,401,354 $ 9,545,040 $ 9,709,973 $ 9,866,694 $ 10,027,745 $ 10,178,773 $ 10,252,183 $ 10,435,744 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 7,433,890 $ 10,003,562 $ 7,789,685 $ 5,471,282 $ 3,002,093 $ 202,728 $ (2,768,431) $ (5,918,532) $ (9,082,894) $(11,365,332) $(14,001,136) Unassigned balance as % of Op. Exp. 18.6% 24.1% 18.2% 12.4% 6.6% 0.4% -5.7% -11.8% -17.5% -21.6% -25.7% Total Available Reserves (Unassigned +
10% Policy Designation) 11,734,111 14,152,530 12,062,871 9,879,036 7,553,533 4,919,101 2,104,663 (884,387) (3,897,721) (6,106,749) (8,558,992) Available balance as % of Op. Exp 29.3% 34.1% 28.2% 22.4% 16.6% 10.4% 4.3% -1.8% -7.5% -11.6% -15.7% City of Pacifica
Long Term Financial Forecast Table and Assumptions
General Fund
Attachment 1

13.a
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Attachment 1 - 10 Year Forecast - City of Pacifica General Fund - April 2022 (5039 : Notice for

LONG TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS
The long-term financial model features a set of assumptions for both revenues and expenditures based on conservative projections. The scenario presented represents conservative levels of revenue based on information available now. These projections are preliminary, staff will further refine the figures included in this report as part of the FY 2022-23 Base Budget presentation on May 9, 2022.

Revenue Assumptions

1. Property Tax assumes a 6% annual increase, per assumptions used by HdL, the City's 3rd party tax consultant. This is in line with the past years’ collections and consistent with the anticipated increases in the assessed market value of recently sold properties.

2. Vehicle License Fees (VLF) is tied to property tax growth and so also assumes a conservative 4% annual increase. The FY2022-23 Base Budget includes a backfill of $1.2 million currently owed by the State. However, there are still legislative uncertainties around allocation of VLF and potential threat to Excess ERAF revenues.

3. Sales Tax assumes a 3% increase for FY2022-23 based on recent projections by HdL projections (City’s Sales Tax advisor) and a 3% in the following years considering local economic recovery from the pandemic and continuing growth in online sales.

4. Transient Occupancy Tax assumes a modest 1% increase for the next fiscal year and a 2% increase after that, assuming a gradual return to pre-pandemic travel.

5. Utility Users Taxes (UUT) also assumes a modest 2% increase for the next fiscal year and thereafter, based in increase in utility rates and demand.

6. Other Taxes include Business License, cannabis operations tax. Cannabis Tax showed slight decline at mid-year due to slower than expected business activity. The preliminary forecast includes a moderate 3.5% or $30,000 increase over the midyear estimates.

7. Departmental or Program revenues include building, planning and other permits, recreation revenues, and rentals. This category is projected to increase by 2% based on the current service activity level that is anticipated to continue.

8. No changes were assumed for the General Fund portion of ERAF, which will continue funding the Disaster Fund as per previously approved Council policy, leaving only $88K in General Fund to provide local non-profit grants. Also, nor new ongoing Grants were anticipated as part of the Base..

9. The Operating Transfer In/Out category also remains the same. However, this figure is likely to change once the new Cost Allocation Plan is complete.

Expenditures Assumptions

1. Salaries and Benefits (S&B) projections include the same base level full-time equivalent count citywide and assume an ongoing 2% annual increase in the employee compensation in the future years, consistent with the current Memoranda Of Understanding (MOU) terms and provisions. Other S&B assumptions include the following:
a. FY 2022-23 includes an additional increase due to implementing the second year of the new MOU agreements.

13.a
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Attachment 1 - 10 Year Forecast - City of Pacifica General Fund - April 2022 (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure b. FY 2022-23 assumptions restore the amended FY 2021-22 Budget cuts (including $279K cost-savings resulting from the budgeted delay in filling vacancies) that were done to make the FY2021-22 impacts of new MOU provisions cost-neutral after the original adoption of the budget. c. The Projections also include an anticipated increase in the City’s contribution towards the unfunded liabilities of $0.6M for FY2022-23 and $0.4M in FY2023-24 as per CALPERS Actuarial Reports.
d. The FY2023-24 projections remove all Limited-Term positions, including those funded by ARPA.
e. The FY2023-24 Projections eliminate the one-time 1% Bonus pay funded by ARPA that part of the new labor agreements that went into effect in FY2021-22.

2. Materials, Supplies, and Maintenance Category assumes a very modest 1.25% increase that partially accounts for inflation.
a. FY 2022-23 assumptions restore the amended FY 2021-22 Budget reductions, including $136K operational cost-savings measures implemented by departments this year to make the FY2021-22 impacts of new MOU provisions cost-neutral.
b. FY 2022-23 Projections include reductions related to one-time COVID prevention and sanitation uses of $120K funded by ARPA

3. Contractual Services Category assumes a 2.5% annual increase applied to most City contracts to account for regular CPI increases and inflation. a. FY 2022-23 assumptions restore the amended FY 2021-22 Budget reductions, including $173K in departments’ operational cost-savings measures to make the FY2021-22 impacts of new MOU provisions cost-neutral.
b. FY 2022-23 Projections are reduced by $460K related to Economic recovery, homelessness, and other one-time uses funded by ARPA

4. Debt Service Expense Category is projected in accordance with the City’s updated debt service schedule and includes the new Civic Center debt financing.

5. Operating Transfers Category remains the same for the future years. However, staff will be changing the accounting allocation as part of the Base Budget development for the internal funds to accurately account for the insurance premiums in the General Liability and Worker Compensation funds. This will likely increase the General Fund transfers out to these funds.

6. Capital Transfers Category. The Financial Outlook does not assume any ongoing General Fund contribution towards the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, some General Fund contribution for CIP is likely to be required every year based on the Council’s strategic priorities and discretion.

13.a
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Attachment 1 - 10 Year Forecast - City of Pacifica General Fund - April 2022 (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA PLACING ORDINANCE NO.____, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ADOPTING CHAPTER 19, “TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX” OF TITLE 3 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE A ½ CENT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ON BALLOT FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; REQUIRING PREPARATION OF AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING BALLOT ARGUMENTS WHEREAS, Pacifica's parks, beaches, coastline, well-maintained trails, and recreation opportunities are what makes our city unique; and
WHEREAS, the City must protect these resources for current and future generations to enjoy; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to maintain vital local services and protect local control with funding that cannot be taken by the State to address community needs and priorities; and WHEREAS, Pacifica is vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal erosion and we must help protect our residents, homes, and livelihoods; and
WHEREAS, Pacifica has the worst-rated roads in the Bay Area and the city must make essential repairs and fix potholes immediately to keep the community safe and improve traffic congestion before they become more dangerous and more expensive to fix; and WHEREAS, Pacifica's parks and recreation programs and recreation opportunities help our city's kids grow up healthy and are why many families choose to live in Pacifica; and WHEREAS, without additional local revenue, the City may be forced to contract out fire and police protection and road maintenance to the County or other agency, losing the ability to provide these vital services directly to residents; and WHEREAS, the measure requires strict accountability provisions, including independent citizen oversight with public disclosure of all spending, mandatory financial audits, and public reports to the community; and
WHEREAS, a general municipal election will be held in the City of Pacifica on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for the purpose of electing three City Council members for a full term of four years, for Districts 2, 3, and 5; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution Article XIIIC, Section 2(b) requires that any proposed general tax to be submitted to voters at a general municipal election; WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has authority, pursuant to Revenue and Tax Code section 7285.9 et seq. to propose the levy of a transactions and use tax to be adopted by a majority vote

13.b
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution Placing Transactions and Use Tax on Ballot (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure of qualified voters provided that it is first approved by at least two-thirds vote of all members of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica directed staff to undertake the preparation of Ordinance No. ___, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting Chapter 19, ‘Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax’ of Title 3 of the Pacifica Municipal Code”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Elections Code section 9222 to submit the proposed ordinance directly to the voters at the general election to be held on November 8, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Pacifica does resolve and order as follows:

Section 1. Approval of Ordinance and Placement of Ordinance No. __ on Ballot.

Pursuant to California Revenue and Tax Code section 7285.91 and Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves Ordinance No. __ and directs the submission of Ordinance No. ___ for a vote by the qualified electors of the City of Pacifica. The ballot question shall be as follows:

Shall the measure establishing a ½ ¢ sales tax for general government use to maintain the City of Pacifica’s vital services, such as police, fire, medical 9-1-1 emergency response; keeping pollution / trash off beaches; attracting / retaining jobs/businesses; street paving; storm drain maintenance to prevent flooding; preventing coastal erosion, and generating approximately $2,600,000 annually for 9 years, with regular financial audits, independent citizens’ oversight, and requiring funds be used locally, be adopted? YES
NO
This measure shall be designated by letter by the County of San Mateo elections official. If a majority of qualified electors shall vote in favor of the Ordinance, it shall be deemed enacted and shall read as provided in Exhibit “A”.

Section 2. Call for Election and Acknowledgment of Consolidated Election. In accordance with Elections Code 10403, the City Council hereby calls for an election regarding the above measure and directs that such election be consolidated with all city, county, and statewide elections occurring on November 8, 2022. The election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code section 10418.

Section 3. Notice of Measure. In accordance with Section 12111 of the Elections Code, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the election on the measure to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City of Pacifica. The City Clerk may request that the County elections official prepare and publish the required notice.

13.b
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution Placing Transactions and Use Tax on Ballot (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure

Section 4. Submission of Ballot Arguments and Impartial Analysis. (a) Pursuant to Elections Code section 9280, the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 29, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. (b) Pursuant to Elections Code section 9286(b), arguments in favor of or against the measure shall be submitted to the City Clerk on or before August 19, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. If the City Clerk receives more than one argument for and/or against, the priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control. Direct arguments shall not exceed three hundred (300) words and shall be signed by not more than five (5) persons.
(c) Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure, which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against it, and copies of the argument against it to the authors of the argument in favor. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it seeks to rebut.
(d) Rebuttal arguments shall be controlled by the provisions of Elections Code section 9285. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be August 29, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words and shall be signed by not more than five (5) persons; those persons may be different persons than the persons who signed the direct arguments.

Section 5. Environmental review. The City Council finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment are not defined as a “project” under CEQA.

Section 6. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution.

Section 7. Certification, Necessary Acts. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified Resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County elections official, and is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary

13.b
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution Placing Transactions and Use Tax on Ballot (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure to place the measure on the ballot and to cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

13.b
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution Placing Transactions and Use Tax on Ballot (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure

EXHIBIT
A

13.b
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution Placing Transactions and Use Tax on Ballot (5039 : Notice for General Election - Ballot Measure

Page 1 ends

Pacifica City CouncilJune 27, 2022

Pacifica City Council
June 27, 2022