Agenda packet, regular meeting — Pacifica City Council, July 11, 2022 (part 22 of 24)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3662 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 22 Detail of Pedro Point field foot trail connection to the public access walkway to privately owned beach (with public access) across the historic railroad berm. 2013 Google Earth image.

Proposed coastal residential mixed-use development may potentially eliminate or significantly impair existing long-established public access from San Pedro Avenue to the public shore. This could be mitigated by requirements to provide public access easements along existing trails or equivalent efficient alignments (similar travel distance, slopes, road access points), but the DEIR proposed no mitigation or policy that would ensure such mitigation. The impact and mitigation for this Coastal Act policy were not assessed in the DEIR. There are no military needs, fragile coastal resources, or existing agriculture to provide exemptions for this policy.

Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and Development Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.

PEDRO POINT FIELD
stairs
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 22 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3663 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 23 The Pedro Point field is separated from the ocean only by the railroad berm, and in its original condition (backbarrier floodplain marsh) it was “oceanfront”, with line of sight to the ocean over the low barrier beach. According to Pedro Point long-term residents, the field has been used for recreation for years prior to and during the current land ownership. Recent recreational uses include children’s games, domestic animal feeding and observation (former llama and emu enclosure along the toe of the railroad berm), ball sports, playground activities extending from the adjacent Pedro Point firehouse playground, and dog walking. The field is suitable for these established recreational uses, and is suitable for other recreational uses as well.

Proposed Coastal Mixed Use Residential land use changes could eliminate, reduce, or substantially interfere with long-established recreational uses of the oceanfront land. This impact is not assessed in the DEIR. The feasibility of mitigation for this impact is not assessed, and no mitigation is proposed.

Recreational uses that depend on extensive area or open scenic views may not be feasible to mitigate with small parks enclosed by development.

Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.

The proposed change in land use from an open field (compatible with public access, coastal views, and recreation) to a mixed-use private residential development would conflict with this coastal act policy.

This would be a significant impact that, by definition, could not be mitigated. General industrial or commercial development of the field would also conflict with this policy. Commercial development by agriculture including public access and visitor-serving commerce (such as a coastal berry farm, pumpkin farm with visitor-serving amenities), in contrast, would not conflict with this policy. No mitigation is feasible for this conflict, by definition of “priority” of land uses cited in the policy.

Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA); adjacent developments (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 23 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3664 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 24 The field contains extensive seasonal wetlands (winter-saturated and temporarily flooded depressional wetlands and drainage swales, ditches). The perennial wetlands of the drainage swale at the east end of the field supports California red-legged frog habitat and is typically occupied by a population (see comments in this letter, above). The seasonal wetlands and the zone bordering the frog habitat of the swale meet the definition of ESHA. Residential and mixed use commercial development would likely eliminate, significantly reduce, or degrade existing wetlands and ESHA on the site. Since the field is the last undeveloped lowland floodplain of San Pedro Creek within the Coastal Zone that is available for wetland restoration and enhancement, it is infeasible to mitigate impacts to these wetlands off-site; compensatory mitigation is not available for the red-legged frog populations in lower San Pedro Creek in the coastal zone. The DEIR failed to assess impacts to this Coastal Act policy or propose any feasible mitigation for it. The only feasible mitigation for this policy impact would be avoidance of impacts by not applying the residential mixed use land use designation.

Section 30242. Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (l) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. (emphasis added)
The Pedro Point field was historically prime agricultural land, but was abandoned. Nonetheless, renewal of prime agricultural use of the field is potentially feasible (physically and economically) and could be integrated with visitor-serving recreational and economic development aligned with the new coastal trail to Devil’s Slide. The original prime agricultural soils are present beneath shallow fill. The site is suitable for coastal commercial visitor-oriented berry farm or produce farm and related recreational or visitorserving uses (viz. Half Moon Bay to Davenport). Renewed agricultural use combined with tourism, some recreational uses, or eco-tourism may be compatible with conservation of seasonal wetlands and specialstatus wildlife if properly designed. The DEIR failed to consider feasible alternatives compatible with this section.

Section 30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.

The Pedro Point field is former prime agricultural land (historic artichoke farm) on rich alluvial soils (drained marshland). The soils have been degraded by placement of fill, but may be remediated by either 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 24 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3665 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 25 removal of fill or addition of soil amendments to restore agricultural productivity similar to farms on the marine terraces and valleys along the San Mateo Coast south of Pacifica. There are no other potential highly productive historic farmland soils left in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica. Residential development of the field would conflict with this policy that requires the protection of long-term soil productivity. This impact was not assessed or mitigated in the DEIR.

Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The Pedro Point field is the last undeveloped lowland (floodplain) in the Coastal Zone of San Pedro Creek’s watershed that retains the original overall floodplain topography and visual character of the historic farms that dominated the valley. All other valley lowlands have been developed in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica, including the Salada Valley (the historical Salada Valley farmland has been developed, drained and filled, with only the deepest lagoon bed remaining as a wetland). The visual character of the adjacent historic railroad berm is dependent on the contrast between the steep relief of the berm and the adjacent lowland flats of the field. Residential development (with or without “pocket parks”) would not protect the scenic and visual qualities of the field and adjacent historic berm. Residential development of the field would fully fill the lowland open space visual character of Pedro Point. This would conflict with the policy.

Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. […]
Most of the Pedro Point field lies approximately 15-17 feet in elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL), only about 3-5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. In addition, the 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 25 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3666 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 26 alluvial soils (historical wetland) of the field have the same relative liquefaction (earthquake shaking) potential as diked bay muds and marshes in San Francisco Bay, like those that underlie filled San Francisco peninsula baylands. (Witter, Robert C., Keith L. Knudsen, Janet M. Sowers, Carl M.

Wentworth, Richard D. Koehler, and Carolyn E. Randolph. 2006. Maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1; shown in Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014, Figure 5.1). This condition contrasts with relatively low risk of liquefaction affecting residential and commercial development in adjacent lands built over bedrock. Structural (residential or commercial) development of the field may cause significant conflicts (impacts) with this section. In contrast, this section would be potentially compatible with recreational or other low-intensity commercial development or agricultural redevelopment of the field. The DEIR failed to analyze alternative land use designations compatible with this section.

Similarly, placing additional residential development in the last undeveloped floodplain area within the coastal zone of San Pedro Valley – currently able to function as a flood detention and storage basin when San Pedro Creek is at extreme high flood stage during extreme high tides – would conflict with this land use policy (Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014 p. 5-19). The intensity, frequency, and significance of this land use policy conflict would likely increase as sea level rises, and as intense storm frequency increases with climate change. In addition, the field lies within a Tsunami evacuation area of the Coastal Zone (Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014, Figure 5.3). Flooding, liquefaction, sea level rise impacts, increasing over time as indicated by the draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use plan (2014) demonstrate the conflict between this Coastal Act policy and the proposed land use change for Pedro Point field.

Section 30255 Priority of coastal-dependent developments Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate, coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.

Residential development itself is not fundamentally “coastal dependent”, even if the land use designation nomenclature is “Coastal Residential Mixed Use”. “Coastal” as a modifier does not denote any essential distinction in the nature of residential development, but merely describes its location in the coastal zone.

Other types of commercial development based on recreational access to the shoreline or the distinctive coastal climate (e.g., surfer recreational events, coastal agritourism like berry farm stands with berry farming) would have priority over residential development at this location. Residential development would conflict with this policy. In addition, development within wetlands as defined in the Coastal Act 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 26 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3667 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 27 (whether or not they meet federal wetland criteria for fill authorization under the Clean Water Act) would conflict with this policy.

City of Pacifica Land Use Policy Impacts
The DEIR’s proposed change in land use for the Pedro Point field also conflicts (and thus causes a significant land use policy impact) with the City’s own policy on Wetlands Conservation:
p. 3.1-22 CO-I-8 Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands. Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game must be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, or nature study, according to the California Coastal Act.

The “functional capacity” of the existing wetlands at the Pedro Point field and adjacent to them are dependent on their geographic setting and landscape position – their relationship to San Pedro Creek (offchannel flood velocity refuge; population buffer for California red-legged frogs; infiltration and groundwater recharge potential; flood detention and flood peak attenuation) and other hydrogeomorphic and ecological functions (red-legged frog nocturnal foraging habitat potential; shorebird storm refuge and roost sites). There are no other undeveloped historic floodplain locations within the lower San Pedro Creek valley, let alone the Coastal Zone, where loss or degradation of these functions could be compensated by wetland restoration Residential development of the field would likely have a significant impact on existing wetlands of the site and its vicinity, and without any feasible mitigation identified.

This City policy is also vague and unenforceable as mitigation for wetland impacts because: (a) it does not cite or define the scope or meaning of the jargon of wetland “functional capacity”; (b) it does not identify any geographic setting within Pacifica for ‘functional capacity” (on-site or off-site/withinwatershed) and (c) it fails to cite or provide any meaningful criteria for what constitutes maintenance or enhancement of “functional capacity”. Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife does not delineate or identify coastal wetlands as a service to local governments. The Department and the Coastal Commission use approximately the same wetland indicator criteria for determination of wetlands, but the agencies themselves generally do not conduct wetland delineations. The policy is also misleading as proposed policy-level mitigation in the DEIR because potential wetland fill in context of proposed land use designation changes in the DEIR do not involve restoration, nature study, or public facilities. The DEIR identifies wetlands at the Pedro Point field exactly where it proposes private mixed use residential and commercial development as the new land use designation. This “alteration” does not meet the criteria cited in the policy, and does not involve “enhancement” of functional capacity if the wetlands must be filled or drained for residential or commercial development. The land use designation proposed basically conflicts with this policy, and appears to be an unmitigated significant impact, since no feasible 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 27 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3668 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 28 mitigation is identified. Furthermore, the DEIR alleges that no mitigation is even required because it wrongly asserts that there is no impact.

3.0 Conclusions
The DEIR fails to provide adequate analysis of potential impacts and feasible mitigation measures for the proposed land use changes at the Pedro Point field, compared with (a) existing conditions; (b) existing land use designations under the General Plan/LCP, and (c) alternatives that are environmentally superior and compatible with Coastal Act policies. Because the DEIR is fundamentally inadequate, after such revisions, the DEIR should be recirculated for further public review.

Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Peter Baye
Cc: Pedro Point Community Association
Law Offices of Brian Gaffney APC
Richard Grassetti
California Coastal Commission

2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 28 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3669 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412

(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 29 ATTACHMENT A – STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS - Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.

I am a coastal ecologist and botanist with over 30 years of professional and academic experience. My Ph.D. research in coastal ecology (University of Western Ontario, Canada, Department of Plant Sciences, 1990) was followed by a career in applied ecology in California. I worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, where I served as a senior environmental scientist and regulatory project manager conducting endangered species consultation, wetland jurisdictional determinations, wetland assessments, preparing Environmental Assessments and managing joint NEPA/CEQA Environmental Impact Statements/Reports. My Corps regulatory projects included sites adjacent to Port Sonoma (Sonoma Baylands, Carl’s Marsh). Subsequently I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where I prepared endangered species recovery plans (including comprehensive plans covering all of Marin Baylands and tidal marshes) and endangered species biological opinions. I was a contributing author and participant in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report (Goals Project 1999), its companion volume on Bayland species and community profiles (2000), and its 2014 update (in preparation), for which I developed many Marin bayland recommendations. I have developed or substantially contributed to estuarine wetland restoration and management plans for many Marin coastal wetland sites, including some adjacent to the plan area: Corte Madera Baylands Conceptual Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy, prepared by The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and ESA PWA (specific focal area: Corte Madera Ecological Reserve marshes); Aramburu Island, Richardson Bay (with Wetlands and Water Resources) and wetland restoration projects at Bahia, Novato (with ESA-PWA) and Bolinas Lagoon (Kent Island, with William Carmen & Associates).
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8

Page 29 of 29 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3670 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

! #$$"$"

2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 1 of 8 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3671 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 2 of 8 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3672 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 3 of 8 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3673 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 4 of 8 ends

13.k
Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

!
!! &
"%
"&

"%
'

#$
.,$.,.,5%/1%04

$ )

.,.,,1-5(-225&
$.,.,,1-5(-243&
$.,.,,1-5(-24/&.&
$.,.,,1-5(-231&.&
$
.,.,,1-5(-253&.&
$.,-5,.,.(13/2&0&

&

%&#

$%#
%!!
%"
%&#$
!(!'#!
#!
!
%
$%
&#*%#!&#
(
%#"
!'#$&#'*%

#
$%"!%!(
%%*"#$$%#
$! %$

#

%
$%#
"

%%#
$% %
##
$!#($%&"! %!%
$! "#!"#%*%
%
!"
!#$!" #
)%
! !#*!&!'#%!

*$ ""*$!
$%
%!!

##%
----- Forwarded Message -----
Subject: Red-legged Frogs
May 19, 2020
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 5 of 8 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3675 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
!$
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 6 of 8 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3676 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
"$
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9

Page 7 of 8 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3677 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
#$
36D>Ā2#Ā1A@6<D9
artist - naturalist - photographer
-)-Ā/@F6Ā1B=E9
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
Pa
ge 8 of 8

13.k
Packet Pg. 3678 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM,

GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
VOICE (415) 904- 5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV

MEMORANDUM
FROM: Lauren Garske-Garcia, Ph.D. – Senior Ecologist
TO: Julia Koppman Norton – North Central Coast District Analyst Jeannine Manna – North Central Coast District Manager
Dan Carl – North Central Coast District Deputy Director Jessica Reed – North Central Coast Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: 505 San Pedro, Pacifica (APN 023-72-010): Ecological Resources DATE: January 25, 2021
Documents Reviewed:
x California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), latest query: January 10, 2021. x Coast Ridge Ecology. Biological Resources Assessment for APN 023-72-010. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; March 2015. x Coast Ridge Ecology. 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica Wetland Delineation. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; November 2019. x Coast Ridge Ecology. Letter to Shawn Rhodes RE: Observed Change of Flow Conditions of Drainage Channel Adjacent to the Pedro Point Shopping Area and the Proposed NorCal Surf Shop Mixed-Use Development Project, San Mateo County, California. CDP Application 2-19-0026; June 13, 2020. x Live Oak Associates, Inc. Letter to Nick Pappani RE: Biological Resources Assessment Peer Review for the Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop project, located in the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (PN 2110-01); January 19, 2017.
x Thomas Reid Associates. 2005a. Biological Assessment Report. APN (023-72-10) Pacifica, CA 94044. For Compliance with San Mateo County Local Coastal Program Policies. Prepared for Rick D Lee and Richard Lee. August 2005.
x Thomas Reid Associates. 2005b. Site Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog. APN (023-72-10) Pacifica, CA 94044. For US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office. Prepared for Rick D Lee and Richard Lee. August 2005.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 1 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3679 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 2 x Wood Biological Consulting. One-Parameter Wetland Delineation for the Proposed NorCal Surf Shop Mixed-Use Development, San Mateo County, California (CDP Application 2-19-0026). Prepared for Shawn Rhodes, 5460 Pacific Coast Highway, Pacifica, CA 94044; May 14, 2019.

The North Central Coast District has requested a technical analysis of the ecological resources that could be adversely impacted by proposed development at 505 San Pedro Avenue in Pacifica, California (APN 023-72-010).

The project would almost entirely cover the approximately 600-ft long by less than 60 ft-wide parcel with several buildings, a skate park, parking, and pedestrian pathways. The parcel is bounded by Halling Way and a strip mall to the east, San Pedro Avenue to the south, a drainage and an open field to the west, and to the north, a footpath leading to the southern reach of Pacifica State Beach (Figure 1). The adjacent drainage intermittently conveys water, including from westward San Pedro Avenue to a culvert at the northern end of the subject parcel, which connects to the mouth of San Pedro Creek on the opposite side of a shopping center parking lot, approximately 270 feet to the east. Importantly, the parcel is divided between jurisdictions, with approximately one third nearest the sea occurring within the Commission’s retained jurisdiction and the remainder nearest San Pedro Avenue within the City’s jurisdiction – the applicant did not elect to pursue a consolidated permit and the City approved a permit for the portion of the project in its jurisdiction in 2018. The following analysis addresses the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application submitted to the Commission and my conclusion is summarized on page 12.

History
Since May 2010, when the applicant preliminarily sought consultation with Commission staff, staff has consistently identified concerns regarding wetlands and other biological resources both on and adjacent to the project site. In a letter dated May 8, 2015 to the City of Pacifica concerning review coordination for the proposed project, staff cited a 2005 biological report that characterized the drainage as an intermittent stream, that California red-legged frogs (CRLF) were likely present and breeding in the area surrounding the property, and that the drainage likely served as a dispersal corridor from nearby San Pedro Creek. In the 2015 letter, staff concluded that the proposed project would not conform to Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies protecting sensitive habitats. In May 2018, staff commented on the project’s Initial Study/Minimum Negative Declaration (IS/MND)1 and again
reiterated concern for both wetlands and sensitive species that may be affected, specifically citing concern for CRLF use of the drainage as a corridor and its movement across adjacent areas including the subject parcel. The City’s response largely dismissed these concerns2
and since that time, staff has continued to reiterate them to the applicant.

Following review of several submitted documents, initial desktop research, and having made an informal roadside visit to the site in March 2019, I and several District staff met with the applicant and their representatives on-site on October 3, 2019. During this visit, ecological concerns were again discussed at length. 1 Email from Patrick Foster, Coastal Commission Analyst, to Christian Murdock, Senior Planner at City of Pacifica RE: 505 San Pedro CEQA Document. May 1, 2018.
2 City of Pacifica. 2018. Response to Comments: 505 San Pedro Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Public Review Draft – Agency Comments. June 2018.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 2 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3680 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 3 Wetlands
The 2005 biological report referenced in the Commission staff 2015 letter regarded the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel as an intermittent stream and the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) maps it as part of a natural fluvial drainage sourcing from across San Pedro Avenue and the forested area behind existing development (Figure 2). The drainage receives flows from the Pedro Point neighborhood, which primarily enter through a culvert directly east of the subject parcel and flow northward until meeting San Pedro Creek. A scour pool has formed at the mouth of the culvert, next to the roadside, and water generally ponds for some distance thereafter, even well after seasonal flows cease (Figure 3). During larger flows, surface water continues along the full length of the drainage paralleling the subject parcel and exits through a culvert largely obscured by the willow thickets at its north end, which daylights within a restoration area on City land for a short distance, enters another culvert, and then flows into San Pedro Creek on the other side of the San Pedro Shopping Center. Aerial imagery shows that throughout the year, the drainage remains largely green with vegetation even when surrounding areas dry out (Figure 4).

Despite suggestions that the drainage be characterized as a stream, I believe it is more accurately treated as wetlands for several reasons. First, while there may be intermittent seasonal surface flows along the length of the drainage between San Pedro Avenue and the northern willow thickets, the scour pool near San Pedro Ave appears to remain a largely wetted feature year-round, while mid-way ponding and flow beyond this is more seasonal, and in the area furthest north, limited to the largest flows. Second, apart from the planted windbreak along the western side of the drainage, which is above the banks and/or normal extent of flows, the drainage largely lacks the multi-strata structure of a typical riparian corridor; instead, the vegetation is primarily composed of an herbaceous layer with some vines and brambles along the eastern bank. Third, the presence of emergent vegetation typical of wetlands (e.g., willows and bulrush) has reportedly increased over time despite the drainage’s relatively degraded state, suggesting the persistence of subsurface water.3 Fourth, a previous biological
assessment report references delineated three-parameter wetlands within the drainage totaling approximately

0.02 ac (Thomas Reid Associates 2005a). Fifth, as detailed in a 2014 comment letter provided by Dr. Peter Baye to the City regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project, this area was historically a complex of freshwater marsh and alder-willow swamp surrounding what was once Lake Mathilda, a freshwater lagoon outlet of San Pedro Creek prior to its channelization and infill to support the development observed today.4
Finally, the project’s 2018 IS/MND regarded the drainage as a man-made intermittently flowing swale that would be exempt from creek protections under the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and asserted that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on sensitive resources even though it acknowledged that the drainage would meet the Coastal Commission definition of a wetland (and despite the lack of a proper delineation at that time).5 Wetlands are protected under the Coastal Act by several policies including §30231, which emphasizes the importance of protecting and enhancing water quality and states:

Biological productivity; water quality
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes 3 Baye, P. 2014. Letter to City of Pacifica RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project – SCH #2012022046. 29pp
4 Baye, P. 2014. Ibid.
5 City of Pacifica. 2018. 505 San Pedro Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Public Review Draft. April 2018. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 3 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3681 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 4 appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

Another key policy is §30233, which limits the allowance of direct impacts to wetlands to specified situations, requires that such action would constitute the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, and that the impact is minimized and mitigated for:

Diking, filling or dredging; continued movement of sediment and nutrients (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(l) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities… Wetland Delineations
In May 2019, the applicant submitted a wetland delineation to inform the proposed project’s potential to impose adverse impacts on wetland resources, both on the subject parcel and in the adjacent drainage. This delineation had several issues and shortly following our site visit in October 2019, a second delineation was completed; the delineation dated November 2019 has since been used as a basis for technical analysis. Despite having been completed outside of the wet season when wetlands are best detected and delineated, all three wetland parameters were present in at least some areas6
and six different wetland types were identified within the drainage channel, characterized as: arroyo willow thicket, perennial rye grass, small-fruited bulrush marsh, smartweed, ephemeral channel, and wetted channel. Two of these have been mapped on the subject parcel itself (a small area of smartweed within the City’s jurisdiction and a large portion of the arroyo willow wetlands at the

6 United States Army Corp of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands, based upon the presence of all three parameters (hydrology, vegetation and soils), totaled 0.088 ac; Coastal Commission wetlands, based upon the presence of at least a single parameter, totaled 0.248 ac. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 4 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3682 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 5 northern end, in the Commission’s jurisdiction). Of note is that the increase in area delineated in 2019 relative to what was reported from 2005 (Thomas Reid Associates 2005a) supports observations also made by Dr. Baye that wetland areas have expanded at this location.7
According to estimates provided in the analysis of the November 2019 wetland delineation, the proposed development would occur inside the wetland boundary at the arroyo willow thickets where a retaining wall to support an existing earthen berm and proposed pedestrian pathway along the full length of the subject parcel would be constructed. Figure 5 illustrates that the retaining wall would in fact encroach roughly 20 ft into the willows and directly remove wetland habitat; however, the project fails to qualify as an allowable use under Coastal Act §30233 and moreover, the willow stand also qualifies as ESHA (see next section). Elsewhere along the length of the drainage, the retaining wall would be sited no more than 11 ft from the delineated Commission wetlands while the buildings and other development features would sit between 9 and 30 ft of the wetland boundaries at their nearest points.

Wetland Buffers
Typically, staff recommends at minimum 100-ft buffers surrounding wetland habitats to adequately protect them from the many impacts that they may experience due to adjacent development. Such impacts can include altered drainage patterns and runoff, noise, debris, visual disturbance to wildlife, and inadvertent trampling. In some situations, reduced buffers have been recommended after taking into consideration wetland quality, the surrounding landscape, habitat functions, and the wetland’s susceptibility to various impacts; however, buffers sufficient to provide meaningful protection are still generally required.8 Here, based on the information available
to us prior to April 2020, including a lack of records affirming concerns for sensitive species use, I have advised that with the proposed BMPs and additional project modifications to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and to protect water quality, that wetland buffers might be reduced to no less than 25 ft along most of the drainage except where delineated by willow thickets and bulrush marsh. Around the willow thickets and bulrush marsh, which constitute arguably robust features providing relatively more habitat value and support for other species (e.g., complex shelter, refuge, foraging), my recommendation was a minimum 50-ft wetland buffer. Further informing my recommendation is that the willow thickets and bulrush marsh are characterized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as sensitive natural communities that qualify as ESHA (see discussion below). These recommended wetland buffers are reflected in Figure 5 except around a small patch of smallfruited bulrush marsh, which would extend further onto the subject parcel than as depicted.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Coastal Act §30107.5 defines environmentally sensitive [habitat] areas as:
… any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

Rarity determinations for habitats and species are made by CDFW, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and are used to support Coastal Commission ESHA

7 Baye, P. 2014. Ibid.
8 For example, see: Blackman and O’Connell (A-2-PAC-15-0046) where wetland buffers surrounding a willow stand were reduced to 50 ft, or Trask (A-1-DNC-07-036) where wetland buffers surrounding emergent vegetation were reduced to a minimum 68 ft. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 5 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3683 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 6 determinations.9 An ESHA determination may also be made on the basis of an area constituting ‘especially valuable habitat’ where it is of a special nature and/or serves a special role in the ecosystem, such as providing a pristine example of a habitat type or supporting important ecological linkages.

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

This is notably more restrictive than the preceding wetland policies, as it limits uses of ESHA to those dependent upon it and requires protection from not only direct impacts, but also indirect impacts that may result from adjacent development.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Arroyo Willow Thickets
The arroyo willow thickets located at the northern end of the subject parcel and continuing into the adjacent drainage are classified by CDFW as a natural vegetation community. Although the broader alliance Arroyo Willow as a whole is not considered rare, the more specific association characterized by stands exclusively composed of the namesake species, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), is represented at this site and is considered sensitive.10 While this association does not presently have a rarity ranking, CDFW guidance is to treat communities designated as sensitive, whether or not they are ranked, with comparable protections. Under the Coastal Act, the arroyo willow thickets delineate as a wetland on the basis of their facultative wetland indicator status and therefore, must be treated as wetlands under Coastal Act §30233 rather than as ESHA under §3024011; however, the sensitive natural community status gives weight to the ecological significance of the thickets and is reflected in my more protective buffer recommendation of 50 ft relative to that for other wetlands at this site (except smallfruited bulrush marsh), as detailed above. Though not documented at this location, sensitive species such as the saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa; CA Species of Special Concern) are known to use willow thickets as breeding habitat and many birds and smaller animals use them more generally.

Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Similar to the arroyo willow thickets, the small-fruited bulrush marsh identified in the wetland delineation is characterized by CDFW as a sensitive natural community. Specifically, the alliance Small-Fruited Bulrush has a state rarity ranking of S2 indicating that is considered imperiled within the state and at high risk of extirpation.

The association characterized by stands exclusively composed of the namesake species, small-fruited bulrush

9 CDFW defines natural communities, animals, and plants with a global or state ranking of 1, 2, or 3 as rare and the CCC typically finds these to be ESHA. CCC also typically considers plant and animal species listed by the federal and state endangered species acts (ESA and CESA, respectively) and/or identified under other special status categories (e.g., California Species of Special Concern), and/or identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as ‘1B’ and ‘2’ plant species as constituting ESHA. 10 Explanation of alliance vs. association; see Arroyo Willow Thickets alliance (CaCode: 61.201.00) and Salix lasiolepis association (CaCode:

61.201.01) in California Sensitive Natural Communities list (version: September 9, 2020) – accessible online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline. 11 Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 493 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 6 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3684 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 7 (Scirpus microcarpus), is represented at this site and though unranked, is considered sensitive.12 The species is an obligate wetland indicator and like the arroyo willow, is necessarily treated under wetland policies but warrants the protection of a 50-ft buffer due to its ecological significance. Species such as the California red-legged frog (see below) frequently use bulrush habitat for breeding.

Sensitive Wildlife
California Red-Legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is federally-listed as threatened and recognized by the state as a Species of Special Concern, is state-ranked as S3 indicating that it is considered vulnerable, and is the official state amphibian.13 It is the largest native frog in the western United States and is frequently associated with freshwater emergent wetlands, marshes, and riparian corridors throughout the central California coast but can also inhabit lagoons, ephemeral water bodies, stock ponds, and man-made drainages as well as drier habitat types within the wetter and cooler coastal fogbelt. CRLF uses both aquatic and upland habitat, the former for refuge and breeding, and the latter for foraging, dispersal, and aestivation. Breeding habitat is often characterized by perennial bodies of water with emergent vegetation providing structural complexity such as cattails, bulrush (see above), or dense riparian cover; however, sub-optimal habitats with little to no emergent vegetation and/or that periodically dry out are also known to be used.14 Dispersal habitat is generally considered to be areas within 1-2 miles of breeding areas, and can include forests, grasslands, coastal scrub, root masses formed by brambles or thickets, and oak woodlands in addition to those already named above.15 CRLF movement across habitat tends to peak during rainy periods and can vary widely among individuals.

CRLF breeding occurs from November to April. Reproduction rates tend to be highly variable and responsive to climate conditions (e.g., drought vs. wet years). Individuals may remain at breeding sites year-round or disperse to neighboring areas. Along the central coast, the species is particularly mobile and has been documented traversing areas that would not otherwise be expected, especially during wet conditions.16 CRLF has a diverse diet, which changes throughout its life cycle. Early in its life, it is believed to primarily consume algae, diatoms and detritus.17 As it matures, terrestrial and aquatic insects tend to make up the largest fraction of its diet, although larger frogs have been documented as consuming smaller invertebrates, including the smaller Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris sierra), which is also common throughout this region.18 CRLF are considered diurnal but primarily forage at night.

12 See Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh alliance (CaCode: 52.113.00) and Scirpus microcarpus association (CaCode: 52.113.01) 13 California Assembly Bill 2364, approved June 28, 2014 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2364 14 USFWS. 2004. Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); Proposed Rule. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol 69. No. 71: 19620-19642. 15 Fellers, G. 2005. Rana draytonii Baird and Girard, 1852b California red-legged frog. Pages 552-554 in M. Lannoo (editor). Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press. Berkeley, California; CWHA database 16 Bulger, JB, NJ Scott Jr. & RB Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110(1): 85-95. 17 Fellers, G. 2005. Ibid. 18 Hayes, MP & MR Tennant. 1985. Diet and feeding behavior of the California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (Ranidae). The Southwestern Naturalist 30(4): 601-605; Fellers, G. 2005. Ibid. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 7 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3685 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 8 Key threats to CRLF are recognized as habitat loss, urban encroachment, and the introduction of non-native species such American bullfrogs that can compete with CRLF for habitat as well as prey upon them. Several introduced freshwater fish species are also known prey on CRLF. Herbicide and pesticide use as well as disease may be other significant threats to CRLF, as has been documented for many amphibians around the globe.19 Prior to April 2020, we were unaware of any records affirming the presence of California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) at the subject parcel or its immediate surroundings although it has been well-documented at nearby San Pedro Creek.20 While I and the consulting reports I had initially reviewed for this project considered the species to have at least a moderate potential to occur given records from the nearby creek, there has also been recognition of the degraded state of the subject parcel and adjacent drainage as relatively unfavorable when compared to nearby habitat opportunities. No published record had appeared in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) beyond the creek’s main channel, the project’s IS/MND, or the other known reports for the location that staff generally relies upon. In addition, recent neighboring developments within the City’s jurisdiction along San Pedro Avenue had truncated the drainage’s corridor extension to more forested areas in the south and potential foraging, aestivation, and dispersal areas to the east (Figure 2). As such, my recommendations had focused on the wetlands and ensuring that appropriate measures would be taken during construction, in the off chance a frog was encountered.

On April 18, 2020, Commission staff received a report and accompanying photo from Pedro Point resident and San Francisco State University ecologist, Michael Vasey, documenting the presence of CRLF in ponded water at the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel six days prior.21 I was able to validate that the animal in the photo (Figure 6a) was a CRLF based upon diagnostic markings that were clearly visible and advised Dr. Vasey to submit his documentation to CDFW for further validation and inclusion to the CNDDB; District staff informed the applicant of this new finding. On April 24, another Pedro Point resident, Sheila Harman, contacted staff on behalf of herself and Jon Harman, with additional reports of having observed as many as four CRLF at the same location at one time and provided both time-stamped photos and a video also showing the surrounding location in relation to San Pedro Avenue to confirm this (Figure 6b-c)

22. She also commented that this was the first time in the past seven years that they had observed CRLF at the site, indicating previous but undocumented observations. On April 28, Dr. Vasey communicated with staff again, indicating that he and the Harman’s had now seen as many as five CRLF at a time in the drainage ditch along San Pedro Avenue and the pool just past the culverts feeding into the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel at 505 San Pedro Avenue.23 He also relayed a 2014 comment letter he had discovered through conversation with Peter Baye, another ecologist working along the central coast. This letter is referenced above in the discussion on wetlands.24
Dr. Baye’s 2014 letter provides important insights specific to CRLF, the surrounding area, and the drainage itself.

19 Davidson, EW, M Parris, JP Collins, JE Longcore, AP Pessier, & J Brunner. 2003. Pathogenicity and transmission of chytridiomycosis in tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum). Copeia 2003(3): 601-607. 20 CNDDB records for Occurrence Number 652 cover the lower half-mile of San Pedro Creek since 2002, when a total of 5 frogs were recorded from approximately 0.2 mi north of the subject parcel; reports since 2014 have more frequently detailed occurrences, including as many as 129 frogs caught in June-October in 2014 and notes that that adults were observed year-round in 2015. Egg masses were documented in 2014 and 2015.
21 Vasey, M. (personal communication, April 18, 2020)
22 Harman, S. (personal communication, April 24-29, 2020) 23 Vasey, M. (personal communication, April 29, 2020)
24 Baye, P. 2014. Ibid.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 8 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3686 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 9 He presents information on CRLF not found in the research various parties had conducted, including reporting having observed CRLF at the drainage over different seasons since at least 2005 and having submitted an official report to USFWS in 2005.25 Dr. Baye specifies that his observations have occurred regularly at the drainage and that CRLF have been most frequently found in the ponded, perennially wet area [scour pool] nearest San Pedro Avenue, the location neighborhood residents made reports from in April 2020. He hypothesizes that these animals may represent a local sub-population with a relationship to the lower San Pedro Creek wetland complex and that this perennially wet area may be breeding habitat given his observations of intermittent local population fluctuations and observation of other habitat requirements being immediately proximate, including the large field just west of the drainage. He also states that he believes this area would qualify as ESHA. Dr. Baye’s report goes on to note that CRLF was apparently absent throughout the drought period beginning in 2012 through the time of his report in 2014. As the drought ended in the winter of 2017, it is not all the surprising that the applicant’s consultants would not have observed CRLF at the site when conducting the biological assessments in 2015 (Coast Ridge Ecology) or January 2017 (Live Oak Associates) as the area was just coming out of drought status.26 I reached out to colleagues at CDFW and the USFWS in May 2020 to further investigate whether there was any other unpublished CRLF occurrence information, either from the drainage or otherwise nearby apart from San Pedro Creek. CDFW staff at the Biogeographic Branch were able to confirm that Dr. Vasey’s April 2020 CNDDB submission appeared to be valid, including the species identification; since then, his record has been processed and officially incorporated to the state database (Figure 2). USFWS staff from the Bay-Delta Regional Office indicated that while they did not have the 2005 record submitted by Dr. Baye available digitally, it was likely that it has been held as a paper file that cannot be accessed readily due to constraints imposed by the current pandemic. Nonetheless, they were not surprised by the contemporaneous observations and were able to provide comments on recent observations from nearby San Pedro Creek27 as well as advise that ESA Section 10 permitting may be necessary and that recommended habitat corridors for CRLF are typically 300 ft, which is consistent with Commission decisions elsewhere along this part of the coast.28 In response to the discovery of CRLF in April 2020 at the drainage channel, the applicant’s consultant at Coast Ridge Ecology (2020) has observed that significantly more water appears to be flowing through the drainage now than during their initial assessment in 2015. Notably, 2015 would have been several years into a drought (stage 3:
extreme drought) whereas conditions were less severe in 2020 (stage 1: moderate drought), so this might be reasonably expected.
29 The consultant speculates that the differences could be a result of supplemental water inputs from nearby residential properties but does not provide any evidence thereof or consider alternative explanations (including relative drought conditions). They also express doubt concerning CRLF’s ability to have moved from San Pedro Creek into the drainage and suggest that they may have been “assisted by humans (i.e. planted in the drainage)”. They consider the area “isolated” without acknowledging the dispersal range and known movement patterns of the species, particularly in the coastal fogbelt, where culverts connect the drainage channel directly to a City restoration area and ultimately, San Pedro Creek only 300 ft away from the north end of

25 Baye, P. 2005. Letter to United States Fish and Wildlife Service RE: Documentation of California red-legged frog occurrence at Pedro Point, Pacifica, San Mateo County. May 4, 2005.
26 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information for January 2017 27 For example: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Consultation Letter to United States Army Corps of Engineers RE: Formal Consultation on the San Pedro Terrace Project in San Mateo County, California. Reference #08ESMF00-2017-F-1370. April 5, 2018. 28 UC Santa Cruz Marine Science Campus - Coastal Long Range Development Plan. January 2017. 344pp. 29 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information for March 2015 and April 2020 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 9 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3687 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 10 the subject parcel. Though these avenues of dispersal are perhaps not the most idyllic, the species is capable of having used any variety of these. Finally, the consultant argues that the location is unlikely to provide “consistent, stable long-term habitat for [CRLF] over time” and that it would likely be considered a population sink. However, CRLF is known to use (and require) a mosaic of habitat types across the landscape and we cannot ignore that the species has been documented using this location intermittently for decades, even in the absence of focused study.

Moreover, it is not necessary for CRLF to carry out its full life cycle in the drainage for the area to have ecological value for this sensitive species.

In August 2020, I reached out to Dr. Baye to inquire whether he had a copy of his 2005 report to the USFWS, which had been referenced in his 2014 letter. He was able to forward this report to staff, including photos of CRLF, thus providing additional information that had not been otherwise available through standard data searches or inquiries during the pandemic. On May 4, 2005, Dr. Baye reported to USFWS having observed three adult CRLF at the [scour] pool adjacent to San Pedro Avenue on the previous day, at the southern end of the drainage ditch directly adjacent to the subject parcel. He also states that he had observed “multiple aural detections of diving frogs in April” and indicates that water turbidity limited visual detections but “no egg masses were observed within the visible upper 10 cm of water column.” Figure 7 is excerpted from Dr. Baye’s report and also appears in his 2014 letter to the City.

In the course of my research, I also sought out the biological assessment report from 2005, which had been referenced in the May 8, 2015 staff letter to the City regarding review coordination for the proposed project.

Although such reports are generally considered outdated after five years for the purposes of evaluating current conditions at a site, they can be informative in the context of habitat change as well as documenting patterns of use (or likely use). Where data is limited and/or species may not be readily detected, historical reports can be especially helpful. In this situation, I located not only the biological assessment report (Thomas Reid Associates 2005a) but also discovered a site assessment specifically for CRLF (Thomas Reid Associates 2005b). Both 2005 reports had been intended to inform a different project at the same location, which would have restored habitat over approximately 60% of the subject parcel including the willow thickets and upland areas to be contiguous with the then-planned wetland restoration at San Pedro Creek. Concerning CRLF, while the species was not explicitly confirmed on-site by these two reports, it was regarded that “there is a high potential for them to be present within proximal aquatic habitats… [including] the drainage ditch adjacent to the property as a traveling corridor or nearby upland areas for aestivation” and the consultants recommended “that this report be submitted to the [USFWS]” for further consultation, though it remains unclear whether it ever was. The proposed restoration was apparently anticipated to benefit CRLF among other species.

The recent repeated daytime observations of multiple CRLF at the roadside end of the drainage indicates that even in the absence of formal surveys, the area has been functioning as habitat for more than an individual transient CRLF. Consideration of this, the multiple reported occurrences of CRLF at the drainage since at least 2005, and the concurrence of information from colleagues at partner resource agencies informs my revised opinion that CRLF occurrence here is not a moderately hypothetical possibility but in fact, a demonstrated pattern of use. Given the connection to San Pedro Creek, including by way of the underground culvert, the observations of CRLF near San Pedro Avenue, wetlands, and evidence of the drainage’s role as a green corridor year-round, the full length of the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel should be considered habitat. In addition, because CRLF requires not only wetted areas but also makes use of upland habitats for foraging, dispersal, and estivation, this habitat is very likely extends to adjacent upland areas on either side of the drainage. Though we cannot presently delineate the full extent of CRLF use in these areas without protocol-level surveys, we can interpret that at a 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 10 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3688 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 11 minimum, the drainage itself constitutes ESHA and is likely functioning as a habitat corridor for this species between San Pedro Creek and upland areas.

Habitat Corridors
The drainage running adjacent to the subject parcel arguably constitutes a habitat corridor for CRLF but additionally, likely supports several other species moving across the landscape as well. As evident from the timeseries of aerial imagery (Figure 4), the drainage remains relatively green throughout the seasons and as compared to adjacent parcels. It also connects to San Pedro Creek (through culverts), the shore, and the Pacific Ocean in the north; a large open space to the west; historically, to spaces in the east beyond the subject parcel (i.e. the parcel due east of Halling Way, along San Pedro Avenue); and to a major forested area to the south, which again connects to San Pedro Creek, though this connection was somewhat fragmented by recent development.

Despite the more recent encroachments of development, it remains that the drainage provides a connection across the landscape capable of supporting many species including birds and small mammals that may be less affected by some of these interruptions. For example, birds move primarily by line of sight rather than on-theground conditions and while raptor nests have not been observed in the trees immediately along the drainage, the forested area to the south is better-suited for such and the large open space just west of the drainage provides excellent conditions for foraging on fossorial rodents and small reptiles; raptors have been regularly observed using the area.30 These same small animals (and others) are likely to find refuge within the drainage relative to sun, wind, and predator exposure where surrounding areas are paved, mowed, or otherwise devoid of vegetation. During my brief roadside visit in March 2019, I observed a duck resting among ponded waters of the drainage (Figure 3e) indicating that waterfowl also use the shaded and wetted area at least occasionally. Small mammals such as skunks, raccoons, and coyote would all be likely to make use of the drainage area as well.

In addition, the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project identifies a major natural landscape block beginning in Pacifica and extending south through the San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties coast and mountains (Figure 8).31 It also recognizes “small” natural areas (defined as < 2000 ac), with one of approximately 140 ac occurring some 800 ft south of the project site, in the forested area that has already been discussed (Figure 9). All of this emphasizes the especially valuable role of the drainage in facilitating connections across a semi-developed landscape, from the shore and creek mouth to forested areas inland, as well as open spaces that can function as upland habitat and foraging grounds, and I recognize it as a habitat corridor rising to the level of ESHA.

ESHA Delineation & Buffers
The sensitive natural communities of Arroyo Willow Thickets and Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh both constitute ESHA in addition to wetlands, as delineated in the November 2019 wetland delineation report. As stated above in the wetlands section, buffers of 50 ft should be applied to these two areas.

As a federally-threatened and California Species of Special Concern, the California red-legged frog qualifies for Coastal Act protection under ESHA policies. Thus, the revelation that CRLF does, and has, in fact occurred at this location necessitates consideration of habitat beyond that of the wetlands. With the limited documentation available, it is not possible to precisely delineate boundaries for CRLF habitat but we can observe that there is no

30 eBird records for the area include white-tailed kites, golden eagles, sharp-shinned hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and red-tailed hawks – www.ebird.org
31 Spencer, WD, P Beier, K Penrod, K Winters, C Paulmann, H Rustigian-Romsos, J Strittholt, M Parisi and A Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation and California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. 313 pp. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 11 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3689 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 12 biological argument that would exclude CRLF from the subject parcel or limit its movement to the narrow drainage immediately adjacent. Provided the species ecology, including dispersal and foraging patterns along the central coast, I expect it will readily use nearby upland areas and move freely with little regard for topography or substrate. Given the USFWS recommendation of providing CRLF with at least a 300-ft dispersal corridor where it is known, we can conclude that even if this width was centered on the drainage, it would extend across and beyond the subject parcel well to the east (Figure 5); therefore, I find that the entire subject parcel constitutes CRLF ESHA and that this extends some yet-to-be-defined distance beyond the parcel. No buffer recommendation is provided since it is irrelevant in the absence of an outer habitat limit from which to apply.

Habitat corridors are increasingly critical to preserve as natural lands are converted and encroached upon by development; however, their delineation can be challenging since each species will use the space differently.

Often, riparian areas are treated as corridors with the outermost extent of riparian vegetation being recognized as the edge, from which buffers are then applied to ensure that wildlife movement in and out of riparian cover is protected for some distance. In this case, it is clear that the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel is part of a larger network connecting different habitats but its boundaries are less well-defined by a canopy than riparian areas and it is likely somewhat more permeable within the landscape mosaic. Because we know that CRLF is almost certainly using the drainage as a corridor but cannot clearly define the bounds of such use with the data available, the same determination must transfer to the EVH-based ESHA – I find that the subject parcel is part of a general habitat corridor ESHA, which extends some yet-to-be-defined distance beyond the parcel. No buffer recommendation is provided since it is irrelevant in the absence of an outer limit from which to apply.

In conclusion, I find that the subject parcel includes wetlands, Arroyo Willow Thicket ESHA, California redlegged frog ESHA, and habitat corridor ESHA. These sensitive habitat resources are continuous with the immediately adjacent drainage, which additionally includes Small-fruited bulrush marsh ESHA. The boundaries of at least some of these sensitive resources extend beyond both the drainage and subject parcel, resulting in the entire subject parcel necessarily being recognized as ESHA in addition to the wetlands that have also been delineated there.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 12 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3690 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 13 Figure 1a: 505 San Pedro Avenue parcel (approximated in yellow) as situated in the broader surrounding landscape, and b: relative to specific features including the adjacent drainage (approximated by dashed white arrow), scour pool (red asterisk), and willow thickets. restored wetlands
forested area,
minor drainages
open field
(grassland, likely
wetlands)
willow
thickets
*
restored wetlands
open field
(grassland, likely
wetlands)
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 13 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3691 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 14 Figure 2: CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Viewer display of the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) stream layer and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records surrounding the subject parcel (yellow box). CARI data shown as blue lines, including the drainage immediately west (left) of the parcel and San Pedro Creek (far right). Red thatching represents areas with known occurrences of California Red-Legged Frog.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 14 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3692 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 15 Figure 3: Photos from site visits in March and October 2019, showing seasonal variation in drainage conditions – a-b: culvert running parallel to San Pedro Avenue, immediately west of the drainage and subject parcel; c-d: from San Pedro Avenue, facing north with scour pool in foreground; e-f: from San Pedro Avenue, facing northnorthwest into drainage (note Eucalyptus wind break on left (west) before open field and subject parcel on right (east), and duck (white circle) using drainage as resting area in e); g: from western side of drainage, looking south towards San Pedro Avenue (note continuation of tree canopy into forested area south of San Pedro Avenue). a b
c d
subject parcel
subject parcel
San Pedro Ave
San Pedro Ave
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 15 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3693 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 16 z
f
e
g
subject parcel
field
subject parcel
field
subject parcel
field
(forest)
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 16 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3694 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 17 Figure 4: Subset of larger aerial time series (2002-2020) of the subject parcel (yellow box) and the surrounding landscape, showing wet versus dry season patterns of vegetation. Note how the drainage immediately adjacent to the subject parcel consistently provides a green corridor and effectively links San Pedro Creek with the open field to the west while providing a valuable secondary connection to the forested habitat south of the site.

May 2003
December 2003
City wetland restoration
not yet completed
City wetland restoration
not yet completed
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 17 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3695 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210
125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 18 May 2010
September 2003
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 18 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3696 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210
125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 19 April 2020
July 2020
recently developed parcels & interrupted tree canopy
recently developed parcels & interrupted tree canopy
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 19 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3697 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 20 Figure 5: Delineated single-parameter wetlands (solid green lines) and approximate wetland buffers (dashed green lines) relative to proposed project. Note that 50-ft buffer was drawn around the willow ESHA but should also extend slightly further south around some small-fruited bulrush marsh ESHA, which would further overlap with the proposed footprint, even as potentially modified (red lines). * small-fruited
bulrush marsh ESHA
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 20 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3698 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 21 Figure 6a: CRLF as observed at San Pedro Avenue on April 12, 2020 by Michael Vasey, Sheila Harman and Jon Harman (photo credit: Jon Harman); b-d: CRLF as observed at San Pedro Avenue on April 23, 2020 by Sheila Harman. Individual CRLF circled in white for visibility.

a b
c d
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 21 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3699 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 22 Figure 7a: From San Pedro Avenue, looking northeast, view of scour pool in drainage with subject parcel as grassy area immediately behind the fence, and b: CRLF observed in scour pool by Peter Baye. Photos by Peter Baye, as submitted to USFWS in May 4, 2005 letter.
a
b
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 22 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3700 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 23 Figure 8: Excerpt from California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project displaying the San Mateo-Santa Cruz Counties coastal corridor (within red box). The project location in Pacifica is approximately located at the black arrow, near the northern edge of the extent. Areas in green represent connected stretches of habitat and the yellow-brown spectrum represents areas that would ideally be added to provide better linkages. The Pedro Point area is among those areas identified as valuable additions to improving connections through this corridor.

Approximate
site location
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 23 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3701 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 24 Figure 9: CNDDB display of the Pedro Point area in Pacifica, with CRLF occurrences observed in thatched red areas and finer-scale features identified as particularly valuable by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project in solid green. The proposed project site (yellow bar) is largely covered by the upper two CRLF occurrences and is situated to link multiple habitats across the landscape mosaic, including riparian, wetland, forest, and grassland.

GRASSLAND &

WETLANDS

RIPARIAN
FOREST

CEHC FEATURE

CEHC FEATURE
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11

Page 24 of 24 ends

13.k
Packet Pg. 3702 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3/3/22, 9:06 AM Mail - William.Leo Leon - Outlook
https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/id/AQQkADAwATMwMAItZmNiMi1hZjNiLTAwAi0wMAoAEACoAUllP52KTKf94K%2BNWXBu 1/1 Re: Endangered Species & Habitat, Photo Link
William.Leo Leon < >
Mon 8/16/2021 4:51 PM
To: Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>; Wehrmeister, Tina <[email protected]>; Sue Vaterlaus <[email protected]>
Cc: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Bigstyck, Tygarjas <[email protected]>; Ray Donguines <[email protected]>
Bcc: Cherie Chan < >; Carlos Davidson < >; Brian Gaffney < >; Kris Geiger < >
Hello Mr. Woodhouse, Honorable Mayor Vaterlaus and All, I am writing to inform you of good news and a matter of concern. The good news, this Sunday August 15, 2021 while walking on San Pedro Avenue, I found and photographed a population of adult Red-legged frogs and Red-legged frog Tadpoles in a small pond that is located between the Calson Field Property and Hauling Way. The concern I have, there is no protective barrier and it is near a busy street.

I understand this body of water and its wetlands was the subject of a recent project considered by the California Coastal Commission. It is situated near and behind Pedro Point Shopping Center and abuts San Pedro Avenue to the South. Post and cable systems are in use in sensitive habitat areas at various places in Pacifica. This area is compact and, in my opinion, would benefit from a simple barrier.

I am willing to donate the cost of materials for the installation of a Post and Cable barrier.

Please consider my offer and let me know what the City of Pacifica can do to protect this valuable biological resource and endangered species.

Here's a link to the photos: Pedro Point Pond, San Pedro Ave. Aug 15, 2021 Respectfully, Leo
William Leo Leon

13.k
Packet Pg. 3703 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
Filed: 12/7/2020
Action Deadline: 6/5/2021
Staff: JKN-SF
Staff Report: 2/18/2021
Hearing Date: 3/12/2021

STAFF REPORT

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

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

Staff Recommendation: Denial

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3704 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3705 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 7 ends

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3706 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3707 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 9 ends

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3708 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 10 ends

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

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

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3709 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 11 ends

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

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3710 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 12 ends

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3711 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Paciÿca
Pier
Milagra R i dg e (GGNRA )
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t (GGNRA )
Sha r p Pa r k
Sw e en e y
Ridg e
(GGNRA )
Sa n P ed ro Val le y
C ou n ty Pa r k
Pe d ro Poi n t
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Paciÿca
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu°s
(GGNRA)
(SFPUC )
Watersh e d
Pe n i n sul a
O cea n
Pac iÿ c

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

BEACH BLVD

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

SKYLINE BLVD

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Dev i l’s S l ide Tunne l
SOURCE: Critical Habitat for ˜reatened &
Endangered Species, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
2015; Steelhead Critical Habitat - Coast, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA), 2005; California
Dept of Forestry, 2005; California Dept of Fish &
& Wildlife, 2005; California Native Plant Society,
2005; U S Geological Survey, 2005; City of Paciÿca,
2020; San Mateo County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Milagra Ridge and Sharp Park/Sweeney Ridge
*100-400 foot wide corridor needed between
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Planning Area
City Limits
Urban and Non Urban Land
with Little or No Habitat Value
Wildlife Movement Corridor*
˜ reatened by Fragmentation
High Habitat Value/
Other Sensitive Areas
California Red-legged Frog
Steelhead
Critical Habitat
Sensitive Habitat Areas
Potential Environmentally
Critical Habitat
Sensitive and
Figure 3.7-3:

13.k
Packet Pg. 3712 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Pac
Ocean Devil’s Slid e Tunnel
Figure 4-3:

Potential
Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat
Areas
0 1/2 1 1/4
MILES
2 Coastal Zone
City Limits
Planning Area
SOURCE: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 201;
National Marine Fisheries Service, 20;
National Park Service, 200; 64%"'PSFTU
4FSWJDF

California Natural Diversity
Database, 209; California Native Plant
Society, 20; California Dept of Fish &
Game, 20; FEMA, 20; ESA,

City of PBDJGJDB
20; San Mateo County,
209; Dyett & Bhatia, 201.

Critical Habitat
Steelhead
California Red-Legged Frog
Pier
Sha rp Pa rk
Golf Course
Mori P oint (GGNRA )
Pe dro P oint
H ead lan ds
(GGNRA)
Sharp Park Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Beach
Northern Coastal
(GGNRA)

OLD COAST HWY

E AV TO TE LM PA

BRADFORD WAY

FAIRWAY DR

BEACH BLVD

GRAND AVE

ESPLANADE AVE

SEASIDE
DR
San Pedro Creek
Potential ESHA
/PUF5IFQSFMJNJOBSZEFMJOFBUJPOPG&4)"CPVOEBSJFTEPFTOPU JODMVEFBOFYIBVTUJWFDPNQJMBUJPOPGUIFIBCJUBUBSFBTUIBUNFFUUIF &4)"EFGJOJUJPO4JUFTQFDJGJDCJPMPHJDBMFWBMVBUJPOTBOEGJFME PCTFSWBUJPOTTIBMMCFSFRVJSFEUPJEFOUJGZ&4)"TBOEPUIFSTQFDJBM TUBUVTSFTPVSDFTUIBUNBZOPUIBWFCFFOJODMVEFEJOUIFMJUFSBUVSF BOEEBUBCBTFSFWJFX

13.k
Packet Pg. 3713 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 7-19
Pacica
Pier
Milagra R i dg e (GGNRA )
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t (GGNRA )
Sha r p Pa rk
Sw e en ey
Ridg e
(GGNRA )
Sa n P ed ro Val le y
C ou n ty Pa rk
Pe d ro Poi nt
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
(SFPUC )
Watersh ed
Pe nin sul a
O cea n
P a cif ic

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

BEACH BLVD

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

SKYLINE BLVD

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
SOURCE: Critical Habitat for reatened &
Endangered Species, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
2015; Steelhead Critical Habitat - Coast, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA), 2005; California
Dept of Forestry, 2005; California Dept of Fish &
& Wildlife, 2005; California Native Plant Society,
2005; U S Geological Survey, 2005; City of Paci
ca,
2020; San Mateo County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Milagra Ridge and Sharp Park/Sweeney Ridge
*100-400 foot wide corridor needed between
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Planning Area
City Limits
Urban and Non Urban Land
with Little or No Habitat Value
Wildlife Movement Corridor*
reatened by Fragmentation
High Habitat Value/
Other Sensitive Areas
California Red-legged Frog
Steelhead
Critical Habitat
Sensitive Habitat Areas
Potential Environmentally
Critical Habitat
Sensitive and
Figure 7-3: Figure 7-3: Sensitive and
Critical Habitat

13.k
Packet Pg. 3714 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Comments 1 | P a g e
DATE: March 2, 2022
To: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and 2022 Draft EIR for the GPU Comments
Dear Mr. Murdock, I am writing to point out specific areas where information in the LCLUP and General Plan Update are inconsistent and/or missing, and need to be corrected for the public and decision makers to understand the impacts of the Project.

1. Sensitive and Critical Habitat
• GPU Figure 7-3, Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas • 2022 Draft EIR Figure 3.7-3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat • 2020 LCLUP Figure 4-3, California Coastal Commission, Staff Report 2-18-21 CDP Application 2-19-0026
In reviewing these Figures, I noticed inconsistency and omissions with areas described in the Figures as:

A. Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) B. Critical Habitat: California Red-legged Frog
C. Other Sensitive Areas: 1. High Habitat Value/Threatened by Fragmentation

2.Wildlife Movement Corridor

2. Inconsistencies:

A. Neither GP Figure 7-3 nor 2022 Draft EIR Figure 3.7-3 show California Red-legged Frog listed under Critical Habitat as shown in Figure 4-3 at Laguna Salada (Sharp Park Golf Course) and Mori Point (GGNRA).

B. Neither GP Figure 7-3, 2022 Draft EIR Figure 3.7-3 or Figure 4-3 show 1) Sensitive and Critical Habitat at the undeveloped field adjacent to San Pedro Avenue, or 2) the unnamed Waterway that runs from San Pedro Avenue and eventually connects to San Pedro Creek.

Instead, GP Figure 7-3 and 2022 Draft EIR Figure 3.7-3 show the undeveloped field adjacent to San Pedro Avenue designated as Urban and Non-Urban Land with Little or No Habitat Value.

Figure 4-3 shows no designation of either Potential ESHA or Critical Habitat for the undeveloped field adjacent to San Pedro Avenue.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3715 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Comments 2 | P a g e

3. Omission of Potential ESHA and Critical Habitat Information Possessed by the City.

Neither GP Figure 7-3 nor 2022 Draft EIR Figure 3.7-3 nor the narrative discussions within the documents consider the studies, statements and the decision of the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”), which found the undeveloped area adjacent to San Pedro Avenue to contain ESHA and the unnamed waterway to be considered as Waters of the United States.

Furthermore, this CCC delineation showed that the adjacent watercourse that runs along the western edge of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site constitutes areas of both federal and state wetlands, with the state wetlands spanning the full length of the watercourse, thus comprising the entire length of the San Pedro Avenue property’s western boundary. See Pages 6- 12: California Coastal Commission, Staff Report 2-18-21, CDP Application 2-19-0026:

Both the Coastal Act and the LCP, as guidance, emphasize the need to protect sensitive habitats within the coastal zone, including wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs).

In communication with the City of Pacifica, Coastal Commission staff expressed concerns going back over a decade with regard to potential impacts of development on the habitats located on and adjacent to undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, indicating that any proposed development at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site should consider measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts on the adjacent unnamed watercourse, which most likely would meet the one-parameter definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act, and stating that a one-parameter wetland delineation should be conducted (see comments in Exhibit 6).

Despite the CCC recommendation to conduct a one-parameter wetland delineation at an earlier stage in the process, a delineation undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and adjacent drainage channel was not prepared for this project until November 2019, after the City of Pacifica had already approved a local CDP for the portion of the project located in their CDP jurisdiction.

This delineation showed that the adjacent watercourse that runs along the western edge of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site constitutes areas of both federal and state wetlands, with the state wetlands spanning the full length of the watercourse, thus comprising the entire length of the western boundary, undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site. On the northern end of the property, the federal and state wetlands encompass an approximately 0.096-acre arroyo willow thicket that partially extends onto the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and takes up approximately

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

During an initial assessment of the project-related biological information, Commission staff ecologist Dr. Lauren Garske-Garcia identified for the Applicant that the Commission typically applies a minimum wetland buffer of 100 feet. Examining the site-specific circumstances associated with the property known at that time, Dr. Garske indicated that the minimum possible justifiable wetland buffer, if appropriately mitigated, would be 50 feet from the edge of the arroyo willow thicket and 25-feet from the remainder of the state wetlands that comprise the entire length of the drainage channel along the property’s western edge. The Applicant submitted

13.k
Packet Pg. 3716 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Comments 3 | P a g e
revised plans in response to this feedback; however, the revised plans did not adhere to these buffer minimums and continued to propose development within this already reduced buffer area.

After further research in response to the Applicant’s updated submittals and, while Commission staff and the Applicant were in further discussions regarding the ESHA and wetland buffers, interested parties provided information documenting the presence of California red-legged frog in the watercourse area. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; “CRLF”) is a California special-status species and a federally-listed threatened species due to loss and degradation of habitat, predation, and human disturbance. CRLF are known to occur in San Pedro Creek, which is connected to the unnamed watercourse by a culvert on the northern end of the parcel, near the arroyo willows. As such, Dr. Garske-Garcia, along with consulting reports that she reviewed, considered the site in question to have moderate potential for CRLF upland habitat and watercourse use, which extends the full length of the property along the western edge (see Exhibit 5). However, Dr. Garske-Garcia also recognized the degraded state of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and adjacent watercourse as relatively unfavorable when compared to nearby habitats, and no published record had appeared documenting CRLF at this location.

Subsequently, Commission staff received documentation from multiple Pacifica residents, including from a San Francisco State University ecologist, in April 2020 demonstrating positive observation of more than one CRLF, including time-stamped photographs from various dates in April showing as many as five CRLF at the same location at one time (see Exhibit 9). In addition, Commission staff received letters written by local biologist Peter Baye (dated May 4, 2005 and July 7, 2014) that report ongoing observations of CRLF at the location over a sustained period of time (see Exhibits 7 and 8).

Altogether, this evidence points to the watercourse area adjacent to the San Pedro Avenue site as being used by CRLF more than just a single frog passing through, and the information provided to the City of Pacifica and the CCC indicates that undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site is used as CRLF aquatic and/or dispersal habitat. While the Applicant’s consultant argued that the location is unlikely to provide “consistent, stable long-term habitat for [CRLF] over time,” CRLF does not have to carry out its full life cycle in the watercourse area itself for the area to have ecological value for this sensitive species.

Dr. Garske-Garcia consulted with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S.

Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) on this matter, and CDFW confirmed that the information received by the CCC in April was valid, including the species identification.

USFWS did not have the 2005 Peter Baye record available digitally but indicated it was likely available in their hard files; however, USFWS staff was not surprised by the recent observations and provided information on recent CRLF observations from nearby San Pedro Creek.

In short, the watercourse running adjacent to the San Pedro Avenue site constitutes part of a larger habitat corridor for CRLF. In addition, the watercourse adjacent to the San Pedro Avenue site likely also supports several other species as a habitat corridor, as it remains green throughout the seasons and compared to adjacent parcels, and connects to San Pedro Creek, the shore, the Pacific Ocean, a large open space to the west, and a major forested area. Although there have been recent development encroachments, the watercourse provides a connection across the

13.k
Packet Pg. 3717 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Comments 4 | P a g e
landscape capable of supporting species including birds and small mammals. The Coastal Commission consistently finds this type of important and vulnerable habitat to be an ESHA due to the rarity of the physical habitat and its important ecosystem functions, including that of support for sensitive species, as found in this case by Dr. Garske-Garcia. Thus, the drainage channel adjacent to this site is considered ESHA under the Coastal Act. In addition, per Dr.

Garske-Garcia’s advice (see Exhibit 11,Page 11), Commission staff also concluded that the arroyo willow thicket, as well as the small-fruited bulrush marsh both constitute ESHA, and would recommend a buffer of 50 feet at these locations as well. .

According to Lief Gould, the USFWS biologist for this region, the USFWS would typically recommend a 300-foot dispersal corridor around similar occupied CRLF habitat. Considering all this and applying a 300-foot corridor (i.e., where the area within the corridor constitutes ESHA due to its CRLF habitat functions), Dr. Garske-Garcia determined that the subject property is all ESHA, and that no level of precaution could avoid the loss of habitat with the proposed project.

Even if the 300-foot corridor were centered on the watercourse, it would extend across and beyond the subject parcel. In addition, Dr. Garske-Garcia believes that the 300-foot corridor is the minimum that is acceptable for protecting this ESHA as required by the Coastal Act and that a reduced corridor width is not appropriate. The undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site is in ESHA, is development which is not a resource-dependent, would significantly disrupt habitat values. As a result, development of undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site was found inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240. In addition, and for similar reasons, the proposed project is also inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30231 and 30233.

In short, the portion of the San Pedro Avenue site within the Commission’s permitting jurisdiction is all ESHA and undevelopable for the proposed range of uses and structures.

Although some provisions in the LCP allow for reductions to habitat buffers in the event that the buffer renders the site undevelopable, in this case it is the actual ESHA area that is affected by development (and not the buffer from it), and the City has approved development in the portion of the property that is within its jurisdiction and subject to the LCP. The CCC found that there is no location on the part considered in undeveloped San Pedro Avenue for development, outside of ESHA and sufficient to protect the habitat, as required by the Coastal Act. And, as such, there aren’t siting and design conditions available to the Commission to correct this Coastal Act inconsistency. Therefore, the CCC found the proposed project inconsistent with the Coastal Act’s sensitive habitat protection requirements cited above, requiring project denial.

At this point however, these buffer recommendations are moot since the entirety of the site constitutes ESHA and are constrained regarding allowable development because of that determination.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3718 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Comments 5 | P a g e
Considering all of the facts present, I hereby request that the City of Pacifica correct and update its relevant documents, in both the GPU, the LCLUP and the 2022 Draft EIR, to accurately reflect what is currently known about the location and designation of places with Sensitive and Critical Habitat and Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Especially, as it relates to the undeveloped lands and waterway adjacent to San Pedro Avenue in Pedro Point.

Respectfully,
William “Leo” Leon
Pacifica CA 94044
Attachments
Figures: 3.7.3 & 7.3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat
Figure 4.3 ESHA LCLUP,
F16a CCC Report,
CCC Report Exhibits: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
Email, August 16, 2021 CRLF

13.k
Packet Pg. 3719 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law]; Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Woodhouse, Kevin; _City Council Group; Wright, Greg
Subject: General Plan hearing urgent questions
[CAUTION: External Email]

Can someone please explain what is happening with the General Plan Planning Commission hearing? There was no announcement in the Tribune last week as is common for Planning Commission hearings and today’s Tribune says it will happen in person at the Council Chambers on June 1st when the council voted Monday to suspend in person meetings.

I also have questions which I had asked of staff on Sunday the 22nd which have not been answered.

See screenshot below.

Thank you for your response Tygar. Could you please ask how many pages the DEIR responses to comments totals, and how many pages of the GP and SPSP have been modified? ? A normal process would be to read and study the responses from the consultants, and then to go back and analyze the GP and SPSP in light of those responses. A release on Wednesday only gives a week for all this work, and this is a holiday weekend when many people, including myself, are traveling. As much as I care about Pacifica, my son's 22 years of hard work leading to his college graduation next Sunday takes priority.

There was no notice in this week's Tribune either, which is really unusual, as all Planning Commission items are typically noticed two weeks ahead of time. According to the latest Connect with Pacifica announcement, planning commission public comments will only be accepted on June 1st. Is that only one public comment for all the documents? Or will they be broken down and agendized to allow for comments on different sections? I know there has been a lot of talk with the recent goal setting and budget of increasing public engagement, and I have to ask you and Mary whether you think this meets those goals. These are really important documents that define our city's future for the next 20-40 years and the public should be allowed to have a voice in front of the planning commissioners, whose backgrounds and training typically allow them to understand these technical issues more than most council members who have not served in this capacity. We've been waiting 40 years, why can we not wait a few weeks to do this right? There should be enough information here to be able to start working on the critical Housing Element update concurrently. I do not understand the rush.

It breaks my heart when I think of all the public input that was allowed for the sole topic of our Hillside Preservation Ordinance, which can be read in less than 10 minutes. 14 public hearings with public comments at each one. What has changed in our governance that the public voice working in partnership with the city is treated as of such low value?
I appreciate any clarifications you may be able to get from staff since this is not agendized for discussion at tomorrow's meeting.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3720 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 Christine Boles, Architect
‐‐
Christine
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3721 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 12:25 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; _City Council Group; Berman, Lauren; Leal, David; Hauser, Samantha; Wright, Greg; Godwin, James; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex Cc: Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law]; Woodhouse, Kevin
Subject: Re: General Plan hearing urgent questions
[CAUTION: External Email]

Christian,
It is my opinion that the meeting should be delayed so that the correct meeting notification information can be given to the public in various formats. Not everyone is subscribed to the city's email updates, and not everyone is on social media. I have also heard from some people who submitted formal written comments that they never received the email notice you sent out last Friday, including a former Planning Commissioner. I believe this may be improper too as all "interested parties" should be contacted directly and given at least 10 days notice.

I would also like to ask the City Attorney to confirm whether this notice complies with the general requirements for public notifications and also the requirements for EIRs per California Code Title 14 Section 15088.

I have CC'd back in the City Council and Planning Commissioners as they should have a say in these decisions. The Mayor and Council members represent the public after all and should have the final say as to whether they feel their constituents are well represented by these decisions and processes. These are critical documents that the entire population of Pacifica should be able to weigh in on with the Planning Commissioners who are better suited to address and answer the technical issues in the documents. Even if it's legal, is it right that this hearing gets less notification than a residential remodel coming before the Planning Commission? The optics are not good and it certainly does not meet the Council's Goals of increased public engagement.

You also did not answer my question about whether the Planning Commission meeting agenda will be broken up so that we can discuss and make comments on the EIR, GP and SPSP separately? Or is staff's intention that the public is limited to one 2-3 minute comment on the entire plan update? There is so much important information in each of these documents and many residents and agencies spent a considerable amount of time researching and writing letters to try to improve the documents. Hopefully the updates incorporated our feedback, but at this point we don't know.

Please allow the public to partner with you to help you make these documents better so that they can properly serve all of us for the next decades. We need to be properly notified and we need to be given time to review the city's responses. I'd still like to know how many pages there are of responses to comments and how many pages of plan documents have been changed.

Can the Planning Commissioners even read and digest this much new information plus new comment letters coming in over the next week?
Thank you,
Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044

13.k
Packet Pg. 3722 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 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 On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:29 AM Murdock, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:

Christine,
The 6/1 Planning Commission meeting will occur via Zoom. As you noted, the City Council decided on 5/23 that public health conditions warranted a shift to Zoom meetings effective immediately for the City Council and commissions/committees. This shift occurred after publication of the legal ad for the 6/1 Planning Commission meeting in the San Mateo Daily Journal on 5/21 and after the point at which the City could request the Pacifica Tribune to pull the courtesy ad scheduled for publication in the 5/25 edition. I apologize for the confusion. City staff is working to address the change in meeting venue to the best of its ability, but some factors such as publication timelines for the Pacifica Tribune newspaper are beyond the City’s control.

Regards,
Christian

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]

From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Berman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Domurat, George <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Alex <[email protected]>; Godwin, James <[email protected]>; Hauser, Samantha <[email protected]>; Leal, David <[email protected]>; Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law] <[email protected]>; Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Public Comment

13.k
Packet Pg. 3723 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 <[email protected]>; Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>; _City Council Group <[email protected]>; Wright, Greg <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan hearing urgent questions

[CAUTION: External Email]

I also have questions which I had asked of staff on Sunday the 22nd which have not been answered.

See screenshot below.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3724 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 It breaks my heart when I think of all the public input that was allowed for the sole topic of our Hillside Preservation Ordinance, which can be read in less than 10 minutes. 14 public hearings with public comments at each one. What has changed in our governance that the public voice working in partnership with the city is treated as of such low value?
I appreciate any clarifications you may be able to get from staff since this is not agendized for discussion at tomorrow's meeting.

Christine Boles, Architect

‐‐
Christine
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3725 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Ringuette, Oceane@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal
Subject: RE: Notice of Public Hearing on 6/1/2022 - Plan Pacifica - General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan
Attachments: FW: NOP - Pacifica GP Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan - Comments; CCC Comment Letter 2018.08.31.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2018.10.19.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2019.11.22.pdf; Pacifica LCP Post-Consultation Draft Letter 2020.02.19.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2018.08.29.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2020.02.19.pdf; General Plan Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan - DEIR Comments.msg
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Christian,
Thanks for notifying us about the Public Hearing for the City’s General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan. I’ve attached our prior correspondence on this matter, all of which we would like to be incorporated into the comment record for the project. Broadly, to reiterate previous comments, the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan must be consistent with the certified LCP. As the LUP update has been submitted to the Coastal Commission but has not yet been certified, the originally certified LCP is the standard with which the GP/SPSP must be consistent. Once an updated LUP is certified, the GP/SPSP would have to be updated to then be consistent with the updated LCP. As such, generally, it may make the most sense to coordinate timing of the GP/SPSP for after the LUP is certified, given the outstanding nature of the LUP certification.

More specifically, policies proposed in the GP/SPSP that correspond to coastal resources cannot contradict the certified LCP and thus Coastal Act. While we understand that the City boundaries extend beyond those of the Coastal Zone, policies that contradict Coastal Act mandates cannot be applied within the Coastal Zone. However, as we understand it, multiple policies proposed in the LUP update are duplicated in the proposed GP update (as denoted by a wave symbol), despite not being certified policies and numerous concerns regarding inconsistencies with the Coastal Act that have been noted to City staff over the years. Thus, policies in Chapter 6 ‘Open Space and Community Facilities,’ Section 6.3 ‘Coastal Access’; Chapter 7 ‘Conservation,’ Sections 7.1‐7.3 ‘Water, Biological, Land and Soil Resources’; and Chapter 8 ‘Safety,’ Sections 8.1‐8.3 and 8.5‐8.6 ‘Seismic and Geologic Hazards, Flooding and Drainage, Coastal Resilience, Fire Hazards, and Public Safety and Emergency Management’ (and any other relevant policies) need to be made fully consistent with the currently certified LCP, and thus Coastal Act – currently, the policies noted as being included in both GP and LCLUP are not certified and thus not in effect in the Coastal Zone at this time. Further, the General Plan update appears to include policies that would only apply in coastal areas, including those pertaining to coastal access, coastal resilience, shoreline development, and allowances for shoreline armoring; these cannot be applied in the CZ as the LCP currently stands. As such, please include the attached past comment letters regarding Coastal Act inconsistencies of proposed LUP policies in the record for this GP/SPSP. Please note that all in‐line edits previously provided to City staff on iterations of the proposed LUP update should also be incorporated as feedback on the overlapping GP update policies.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

13.k
Packet Pg. 3726 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 Oceane Ringuette
Coastal Planner
North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
Pronouns: she/her
From: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 1:54 PM
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing on 6/1/2022 ‐ Plan Pacifica ‐ General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Dear Interested Party:

Please find attached a Notice of Public Hearing in relation to the City of Pacifica’s efforts to adopt a comprehensively updated General Plan and new Sharp Park Specific Plan, which are two components of the “Plan Pacifica” process. The Planning Commission will meet to consider these items at a special meeting on June 1, 2022.

Regards,
Christian

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3727 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:12 AM
To: Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal
Subject: FW: NOP - Pacifica GP Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan - Comments Attachments: City Council 7/20 - Sharp Park Specific Plan Guiding Policy Framework Discussion From: "KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:07 PM
To: "Murdock, Christian" <[email protected]>
Subject: NOP ‐ Pacifica GP Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan ‐ Comments Hi Christian,
Please add this email to the record for comments on the NOP for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

As noted in the attached email dated July 16, 2020 on the City Council’s framework discussion regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan, as the Sharp Park Specific Plan proposes to increase height and density allowances within the Sharp Park neighborhood, the CEQA analysis should thoroughly analyze potential visual impacts of development as provided through the Specific Plan on the character of the surrounding area and on views through the neighborhoods of the ocean, impacts to community character as designated and provided in the LCLUP, impacts on public access and recreation, and impacts of potential geotechnical and coastal hazards on development that per the current proposal would be of increased height and density than currently allowed. More specifically, the analysis should include visual simulations, height and density alternatives, explanations of the hazards within this particular neighborhood, and the benefit to the public with regard to priority uses in this coastal area, and should consider:
 Potential impacts if the proposed maximum height is reduced in areas in which tall buildings (up to 55 feet in height) will impact the visual character of surrounding areas as well as public views to and from the ocean in visually sensitive areas, and
 Performing a thorough geotechnical analysis, including an evaluation of the potential hazards to this neighborhood (landslides and shoreline erosion) as well as a wave uprush study for the area. Such a wave uprush study should include an assessment of the potential hazards caused by 100‐year storm events (cumulative with high tide events, as well as projected sea level rise impacts and given a typical eroded beach condition).

In addition, any new General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan policies will need to be consistent with the LCP, and should not lessen protections or conflict with policy protections for coastal resources in the LCP. Please let me know if you have any questions. We look forward to continuing to work with the City on this CEQA process.

Thanks,
Julia
____________
Julia Koppman Norton
Coastal Planner

13.k
Packet Pg. 3728 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
(415) 904‐5292

13.k
Packet Pg. 3729 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219
VOICE (415) 904-5200
FAX ( 415) 904- 5400
TDD (415) 597-5885
To: Bonny O'Connor
From: Coastal Commission staff
Date: August 29, 2018
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR
RE: Coastal Commission staff comments on the July 2018 Draft Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan
Dear Ms. O'Connor:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the July 2018 draft of the City of Pacifica's Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. This report is a deliverable for Task 3 of the City's LCP Local Assistance Grant, LCP-16-01. This draft includes a cost-benefit analysis and shoreline evolution findings for various adaptation alternatives for seven sub-areas in the City, as well as recommended adaptation approaches based on this analysis, and is meant to provide a foundation for developing new and updated LCP polices to help the City respond to sea level rise. Previous versions of this document which laid out the different adaptation alternatives that would be analyzed were also reviewed by Commission staff.

Overall, Commission staff believes that the Adaptation Plan currently lacks critical details regarding the feasibility of various approaches, does not provide for an adequate cost-benefit assessment of different adaptation alternatives, and lacks a defined adaptation approach that would meet Coastal Act requirements related to the protection of coastal resources for current and future generations. Given the criticality of this information for guiding policy development for the City's LCP, Commission staff recommends the following questions and concerns be addressed and that the adaptation plan be revised as necessary. 1) Recommended Adaptation Approach: In general, the adaptation plan seems to recommend an approach whereby development throughout the City would be protected with hard armoring, while beach nourishment would be used in continuity to try to preserve a stable beach width and retreat would be carried out on a voluntary basis. However, as discussed below, there is no analysis of how long shoreline armoring and beach nourishment would be feasible from an engineering or economic standpoint, and no discussion of the types of policies or programs that would allow the City to prepare for retreat at the scale necessary to relocate structures out of hazardous areas. The resulting emphasis on armoring would likely result in the loss of beaches and their associated public access, recreation, and habitat benefits as sea levels rise, and would leave the City unprepared for sea level rise in the long term. While armoring may protect existing development in the short to medium term, such an approach may not be technically or economically feasible in all areas and/or over longer timeframes, and would not, by itself, be consistent with Coastal Act requirements to ensure protection of coastal resources. This adaptation plan should be revised to identify how the City will 1 13.k
Packet Pg. 3730 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) balance the dual Coastal Act goals of ensuring safe development and protection of coastal resources such as beaches, habitat, and public access and recreation, as sea level rises over time.
2) Managed Retreat: Please update the discussion of managed retreat throughout the document by addressing the following questions and concerns.
a. On page 3 5, managed retreat is described as a strategy that encompasses the use of various measures such as short-term armoring or beach nourishment, which can buy time for existing development but eventually allows for shoreline recession over the long term.

In addition, on page 22, the report states that retreat may be cost effective in the long term in many subareas. Staff agrees with this characterization, but in order to effectively implement retre-at, a long-term planning approach is important to begin implementing now, including with strategies such as: limiting the extent and types of new development allowed in areas exposed to an increased risk of flooding or erosion; requiring hazards disclosures; requiring property owners to assume risks of those hazards; requiring new or existing development to be removed or relocated under certain conditions (e.g. when it is declared unsafe for occupancy, when access and utilities are no longer available to serve the development, when the blufftop edge erodes to a minimum setback line, or if required to be removed by subsequent adaptation planning); not allowing shoreline protection for new development (consistent with the Coastal Act); and ensuring that redevelopment is also sited and designed to be safe from sea level rise hazards without the reliance on existing or new shoreline armoring. Importantly, these types of policies would apply to both public and private development. Additionally, framing the idea of managed retreat as only optional for private development mischaracterizes this approach.

While voluntary relocation would certainly be an important part of such a strategy, it alone would not ensure that structures are removed before they become unsafe (such as was the case for the red-tagged apartment buildings in the City) nor would it ensure longterm protection of beaches and natural shoreline processes. Potential triggers for removal or relocation of existing development should be discussed accordingly. b. In the "Potential Funding Sources" section (pg. 31) the plan states that private property owners would be responsible for funding adaptation projects for their properties. While this may ultimately be true, the City can, and should, play a role in helping private property owners identify potential grant funding and/ or other methods for adapting to sea level rise. Indeed, this concept is included in the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan, as identified on page 16.
c. Managed retreat has not been analyzed for the area of West Linda Mar because this area is "outside of the City's coastal zone and therefore not subject to the Coastal Commission's directive to analyze managed retreat". While this maybe true, the City's vulnerability assessment shows portions of this area at risk for exposure to increased flooding as a result of sea level rise and the Commission recommends analyzing managed retreat city-wide because it is an important strategy to help ensure that development is safe and wetlands and other resources are protected. This concept is not only important on its own, but is emphasized in various statewide guidance including directives from the Governor, in the Ocean Protection Council's State Sea-Level Rise Guidance, and in the California Adaptation Plan {Safeguarding California).
2 13.k
Packet Pg. 3731 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) d. In Appendix C, the figures showing beach width over time in response to the different adaptation options indicates that beach width under a retreat scenario narrows at almost the same rate as with an armoring scenario, but that seen1s like an erroneous assumption.

One of the objectives of a retreat scenario is to allow for natural shoreline processes, which should provide for beach migration (though the dynamics along rocky bluffs would be different than in low-lying beach areas). How was shoreline response to managed retreat modeled? There is currently no description provided in Appendix D. 3) Armoring: Overall, the City seems focused on using an armoring strategy, but the adaptation plan has not adequately described how the City will be able to protect coastal resources in conjunction with armoring. Portions of Section 4.1 state that a public access plan should be developed in concert with an armoring strategy, but there is no description of what such a plan might entail, and there is no information provided on how the City would be able to ensure public access is maintained or enhanced. Additionally, such plans seem to be presented as next steps. However, given that access is already reduced in many areas, including as a result of existing shoreline armoring, and impacts would only be exacerbated as sea levels rise, such plans should be developed now, and as armoring is repaired, expanded, and/ or constructed going forward.

Separately, the adaptation plan should explain the regulatory requirements of the Coastal Act regarding shoreline protective devices, as well as any relevant permit history throughout the area. Assumptions regarding Caltrans continuing to protect Highway 1 in place and the City of San Francisco continuing to maintain the Sharp Park berm as is should be described in the context of other actions these stakeholders have taken regarding realignment, relocation, and protection of other assets, as well as existing coastal development permit condition requirements. For example, pursuant to CDP 2-17-0702 the Sharp Park Berm is only authorized for ten years and requires a five year review by the Coastal Commission to evaluate whether any changed circumstances have occurred that would potentially necessitate a change of the authorization term given the uncertainties of climate change, sea level rise and the volatile history of the Pacifica shoreline.

Lastly, please discuss the engineering and economic feasibility of an armoring approach over time, especially in light of challenges with designing and maintaining armoring in the Esplanade area due to the nature of the bluff geology present. Are there areas of the city where armoring would not be feasible in the near, middle and/or long term? At what point would armoring no longer provide the level of protection necessary to prevent damage from storms and or higher amounts of sea level rise?
4) Beach Nourishment: Overall, there is no discussion of the geotechnical feasibility ofbeach nourishment over time. In order to evaluate the use of nourishment as a strategy for ensuring the continued existence of a beach, particularly in concert with any type of armoring strategies, a technical analysis is critical. How long is nourishment likely to be effective given the particular wave dynamics and geomorphology at various locations throughout the City? Similarly, if effective, how often and at what scale are these areas likely to need nourishment? At what point would the costs of nourishment make it infeasible? At what point would the rate of sea level rise be too high for nourishment actions to take place? Answers to these types of questions are essential if the City plans to pursue an approach that 3 13.k
Packet Pg. 3732 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) focuses on annoring and nourishment. At a minimum, these considerations should be qualitatively discussed.

Additionally, throughout the sub-area adaptation recommendations (starting on page 23), it is recommended that coarse sand or gravel be utilized because it would remain in place longer than finer sands. However, coarse sediment and gravel that is not comparable to area sand would likely result in significant environmental and recreational impacts, inconsistent with the Coastal Act. These Coastal Act requirements should be taken into consideration and described in the beach nourishment section.
5) Cost Benefit Analysis
a. The cost-benefit analysis seems to assume a fixed cost for beach nourishment over time.

However, the cost for sediment will likely increase over time as it becomes scarce. Given the focus on beach'nourishment as a preferr~d adaptation strategy, the adaptation plan should thoroughly explain this assumption and how it relates to the overall analysis. b. Are any mitigation costs associated with seawalls (e.g. required mitigation for sand supply and recreational impacts) incorporated in the costs for the cost-benefit analysis? Discuss whether or not these are incorporated and how this may affect the overall costs. c. Pg. 60 states that accelerating sea level rise would indicate an exponential cost increase for armoring but that this added cost is ignored for simplicity. What is the scale of this potential cost? How might it factor into the overall analysis? This assumption needs to be explained more and should be highlighted as needed to ensure the reader is aware of it. d. Page 61 states that a cost factor of2x was applied to account for demolition and replacement costs. Presumably these costs would generally not be the same, so how accurate is this assumption? In addition, the assumption that all structures would be rebuilt isn't necessarily accurate. These assumptions, and what they mean for the overall analysis, should be explained.
e. Does the $40/day beach recreation value account in any way for beach width? How is it actually factored into the analysis - does a narrowing beach result in a reduced recreational value? Does complete loss of beach result in complete loss of value? f. How does the recreational value of Sharp Park Golf Course actually get factored into the analysis? The Appendix seems to suggest that only the land value is accounted for- this should be described on page 65.
g. What do the transaction costs (page 65 and elsewhere) actually include? Why do they only accrue for managed retreat alternatives?
h. For the expected losses in property tax tables, the loss is significantly greater for the managed retreat alternatives. However, earlier in the report, the assumption is that structures would be demolished and rebuilt elsewhere which would suggest that the property tax would not be lost. Explain the assumptions used and why there are differences among these various cost factors.

1. Please explain why armoring strategies show increasing recreational value over time for each of the cost-benefit analysis tables, despite the fact that beaches would mostlikely be lost as a result of armoring. Is it due to the assumption that beach recreation will increase 4 13.k
Packet Pg. 3733 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) (broadly) over time? Even if recreation increases generally, it is unlikely that recreation would increase in areas where beach area is significantly reduced or eliminated. Please update this analysis and/or explain these assumptions.
j. For flooding impacts, are damage costs considered to be one-time costs? It is more likely that flood damage would happen repeatedly, more often, and to a greater degree as sea level rises if structures are not removed or protected. Relatedly, even the managed retreat alternatives show flood damage costs -what is being damaged in this alternative if structures are removed? The same question applies to Table 34 (regarding tidal flooding).

Additionally, for the tidal flooding table, this section discusses groundwater concerns - in such a case, how would armoring or nourishment protect structures? Also, what other adaptation measures might be needed to address groundwater concerns? Please explain these assumptions and how they impact the overall analysis. 6) Other Comments:
a. Section 4.1: Suggest moving this whole section, which amounts to the conclusions and recommendations, to the end of the document given that it is, presumably, based on the analysis presented in the later sections. Additionally, we suggest including a section that explains how individual strategies for each of the sub-areas would work together to address vulnerabilities for the City as a whole, and how the City would address both built and natural assets. This section should also discuss the types of strategies that could and should be used in all sub-areas, such as siting and designing new development to be safe from hazards.
b. Pg. 19: The document states that because extreme flooding occurs infrequently, sea level rise may be realized before extreme flooding. This statement runs counter to what is the case in most areas,.as the combination of even fairly routine storms riding on top of small increases in sea level are likely to cause damage earlier than higher amounts of sea level rise alone. Why would this not be the case in Pacifica? c. Pg. 20: Please provide more detail about Table 2. How were these stable beach widths and erosion offsets identified? What is the existing beach width/offset in these areas? d. Pg. 22 suggests that vulnerable public infrastructure be armored in the next 10 years, but later says that the adaptation plan includes contingency actions such as realignment if funding is unavailable for armoring. If relocation is an option as a contingency plan, why would it not be used as a primary means to ensure protection of this infrastructure? e. Pg. 31: Why are Prop 1A and Hazard Mitigation grant options not included in the table? We suggest also noting in the Table that, although State and Federal funding options vary over time, there are grant programs that support adaptation efforts (e.g. Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, Caltrans, and NOAA grants).
f. Pg. 33: This section recommends that a plan be developed to maintain and potentially enhance various habitats as a next step. The Coastal Act requires protection of these resources, and thus such a plan should not be a next step, but rather something that should be a required element of this adaptation plan.
5 13.k
Packet Pg. 3734 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) g. Pg. 33: Separate the bullet for the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy. The Conservancy does not have "jurisdiction" over actions in the Coastal Zone, but rather is an important partner in habitat and access related projects along the coast. h. Pg. 34: The description of setbacks states that there will be a question in the future about whether structures that become vulnerable in time would be removed or protected. In current practice, new structures must be sited and designed to be safe over their anticipated lifetime without the need for shoreline protective devices, consistent with the Coastal Act, and would therefore be required to be removed or relocated if they ever become unsafe due to sea level rise.
i. In the Table on page 40, why are setbacks not suitable for all sub-areas? Setbacks are fairly common for most development.

J. In Appendix C, explain how long-term, historic erosion rates were established and discuss whether or not the ongoing presence of existing SPDs may have affected the assumed background erosion rate.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Coastal Commission staff continues to appreciate the City's willingness to facilitate our involvement in the process ofcatrying out the grant requirements and updating the City's LCP, and we are available to discuss these comments in further detail.
/~) ... . . .I ~::~;~~cklow ~~7*i-~--,...,?--fl-o-.\L.- ') LCP Grant Coordinator and Climate Change Analyst
Cc:

Patrick Foster, Coastal Analyst, North Central Coast District 6 13.k
Packet Pg. 3735 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
August 31, 2018
Tina Wehrmeister
Planning Director
City of Pacifica
1800 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Subject: City of Pacifica Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Hazard Policies Dear Ms. Wehrmeister:

This letter is in response to the City of Pacifica’s request for comments on the “Proposed Updated Draft LUP Hazard Policies” provided to us in a memo from ESA to the City (entitled “Sea-Level Rise Policy Options for Pacifica LCP Update” and dated August 24, 2018). We note that we received this document just this week, and you have requested comments by today. As discussed with you, due to that abbreviated timeline of just a few days, we won’t be able to provide final or comprehensive comments, but we are happy to provide some preliminary thoughts and some broader observations regarding the current proposed policies. We look forward to continued dialogue on the policies, including with respect to refinements identified herein.

Overall, the proposed policies appear to provide a solid framework for advancing the City’s sea level rise adaptation efforts, which will be critically important in the coming decades. As is identified in its Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (June 2018), the City of Pacifica is already vulnerable to storm and wave impacts, including as evidenced by the loss of residential structures in recent years, and efforts to protect against such impacts have resulted in narrowed or completely inundated beaches backed by armoring where access can be largely unavailable at higher tides. These hazards are only expected to increase as sea levels rise, resulting in significant loss of public recreational beach resources and shoreline-area habitats, as well as damage to and loss of residential and commercial structures, and transportation, stormwater, and wastewater infrastructure. In particular, given its beaches are a fundamental backbone and significant part of the City’s social fabric and economic engine, it is critically important for the policies to reflect the importance of the City’s beaches, and to be transparent (and provided appropriate mitigations) where the policies might lead to increased impacts to same.

To this end, the proposed policies address the need to ensure that new development is sited and designed to be safe from coastal hazards and to avoid the need for armoring, and the policies provide many key mechanisms for future steps to take as sea level rise advances over time, including interim protection measures, beach nourishment, and eventual managed retreat in

13.k
Packet Pg. 3736 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 certain locations. We want to commend the City for tackling such difficult issues head-on, and for starting to identify practical and substantive measures to address such issues moving forward.

At the same time, although many important sea level rise planning provisions are addressed in the proposed policies, and they provide a good foundation for the LCP update, we also believe that many important details will require refinement moving forward, including to ensure that the proposed policies are logical, feasible, realistic, and consistent with the Coastal Act. We look forward to working together with the City to refine this work so that it achieves Coastal Act and City objectives related to minimizing hazards and protecting coastal resources, even as sea level rises.

In the interim, and in drilling down a bit into the proposed policies, the current draft includes effective and important policies that address planning and accounting for coastal hazards longer term, but appear to require some focus on the shorter term horizon. For example, the “Standard Policies for New Development,” “Shoreline Structures,” and “Coastal Flooding and Other Hazards” sections provide policies for long-term planning throughout the City that should help ensure new development will be safe from current and future vulnerabilities and protective of coastal resources. However, we continue to have the same concerns that we have previously relayed to the City regarding how existing development will be addressed going forward in a manner that ensures beaches, habitat, public access, and recreation will be preserved for current and future generations, as required by the Coastal Act. Part of the challenge before us in refining the policies will be to make sure that the shorter term and longer term policies interact and seamlessly move towards similar objectives, and aren’t somehow at cross-purposes.

In addition, as you know we have previously identified issues associated with potential policy preparation as the City has worked through its Draft Adaptation Plan (including through meeting with you and your staff throughout this year as well as letters dated June 12, 2018 and August 29, 2018). One of our primary concerns was ensuring that such policy preparation was based on a detailed assessment of the feasibility and costs/benefits of different adaptation alternatives, and it is not clear that this sort of information has been fully developed. No matter what policies are ultimately proposed, it will be critical for decision-makers, both at the City and Commission level, to have the benefit of that sort of information as they weigh potential policy approaches.

We would be happy to work with you and your staff as this effort proceeds locally to ensure that such background is clearly provided.

In terms of more specific comments on the draft policies, here are some preliminary observations:
 The proposed policies rely heavily on beach nourishment as a key adaptation strategy.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3737 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 supported by more thorough data.
 The proposed policies refer to developing a “Shoreline Mitigation Program” in the future to address impacts associated with hazard response. The policies are going to need to be able to be structured to address such impacts now, and many policies seem to imply that is their intent. It may be appropriate to identify development of a future mitigation program as a refinement and a next step, but it needs to be clear that this does not negate the need for mitigation in the interim.
 It may be appropriate to reformat and reorganize the policies. For example, the “Standard Policies” sections from pages 14-19 account for the overarching approach for new development and substantial improvements to existing development, in all areas throughout the City, and in both the short- and long-term. It may make better sense to move these to the beginning. Additionally, although we understand the policy construct that suggests that general policies may be superseded by more specific policies for each sub-area, we are concerned that some of the more specific policies appear to be making prescriptions for outcomes that are not based on analysis (e.g., allowed armoring). It is not appropriate, in our view, to have policies state conclusions that have not yet been supported by analysis, and it may be that the overarching policies are required to take precedence in that regard unless and until conclusions can be drawn in that manner.
 The policies appear to be looking to the 2040 horizon as ‘longer term’, and this seems an appropriate framework. We would encourage a close review to ensure that policies referring to other time frames (e.g., 20-year approvals) are understood in terms of this horizon, including to ensure that development years out also times to the same horizon.  It appears that some critical policy language is missing from some of the draft policies.

Please ensure that the following are addressed:
o Please provide design standards for the construction of shoreline protection devices (e.g., they must: blend with natural environment; avoid significant habitat areas; minimize footprint; protect, and where feasible, provide public access; control erosion from surface and groundwater flows; etc.).
o Please identify specific details regarding how proportional mitigation for all unavoidable impacts of shoreline protection devices to coastal resources (e.g., shoreline sand supply, recreation, public views, and water quality) is to be measured and applied. o Please ensure that the policies require removal of shoreline protection devices when they are no longer required to protect existing structures in danger from erosion, including when structures are demolished and then rebuilt, or redeveloped. o Please define what constitutes “substantial improvements” to ensure that current development is brought into compliance with the policies as it is renovated and redeveloped. We have previously identified appropriate standards for such a definition, and would be happy to provide that again.
 Certain themes, concepts, and terms used throughout the draft policies need to be better defined, including as follows:
o Please better describe how the triggers would be implemented (e.g., trigger for when armoring/nourishment etc. would be implemented when the bluff offset reaches the

13.k
Packet Pg. 3738 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 specified distance, or whether the specified distance triggers a different approach). In addition, please explain how the years and amounts of sea level rise pertain to the offset values and describe how beach width and bluff offsets will be measured. o Please explain how the hazard areas referenced in the policies will be defined, including the coastal hazard zones, coastal hazard maps, flood hazard zones, and tsunami run-up zones. In addition, for particular hazard areas that will be mapped, we recommend that the City add timeframes for how often these maps must be updated and include contingencies in the event that they are not updated by the prescribed deadline. o Please discuss how height limitations will be accounted for if/when structures need to be elevated to meet FEMA base flood levels in some areas.
o Please further expound upon what constitutes current “best available science” and whether there is a different standard for what amount of sea level rise should be evaluated in geotechnical studies versus what amount of sea level rise new development must be sited/designed to be safe from. For example, consider specifying that all new development must evaluate, at a minimum, the medium-high projection scenario (from the 2018 OPC Sea-Level Rise Guidance and in line with the Draft 2018 Science Update to the CCC SLR Policy Guidance) over its anticipated lifetime, but that if new development cannot be sited to avoid impacts over that time period certain minimum standards must be met (similar to the policies related to takings). We would be happy to work with the City on this topic.
o References to hazard policies are made without those specific policies’ reference numbers included. Please update the references accordingly.

Again, we appreciate and commend the City on developing these draft policies and the related policy framework, and look forward to helping to refine the policies and approach through our ongoing collaboration on the City’s LCP update. It is clear from these policies that the City is taking the issues and problems associated with coastal hazards seriously, and in a way that advances the City’s approach to sea level rise and LCP planning. We hope these comments help move us forward in that regard. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please don’t hesitate to contact me or Patrick Foster of my staff. Again, we greatly appreciate the ability to be a part of this important planning process and look forward to continued coordination and discussion of this important effort.

Sincerely,

Jeannine Manna
North Central Coast District Manager
California Coastal Commission
cc: Bonny O’Connor, City of Pacifica Planner

13.k
Packet Pg. 3739 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
October 19, 2018
Tina Wehrmeister
Planning Director
City of Pacifica
1800 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Subject: City of Pacifica Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Hazard Policies Dear Ms. Wehrmeister:

This letter is in response to the City of Pacifica’s request for comments on the “Proposed Updated Land Use Plan Coastal Hazards Policies” provided to us in a memo from ESA to the City (entitled “Sea-Level Rise Policy Options for Pacifica LCP Update” and dated August 24, 2018). As you know, we previously provided comments on a memo from ESA to the City with the same title and date (see attachment 1 for that memo, and see attachment 2 for our comments on it in a letter to the City dated August 31, 2018). We were surprised to see that the second memo (see attachment 3) was substantially different than the first memo and did not respond to the majority of our suggestions. Regardless of why the City may have chosen this approach, with respect to the second memo, many of our previous comments still stand, and are repeated below as appropriate. We have also suggested specific modifications to the policies and text within the new memo, including indicating where we believe that language from the first memo we reviewed should be re-inserted (see attachment 3). It is our understanding that the City Council will be considering these draft hazard policies by themselves now, but it is ultimately the City’s intention to incorporate them into an overall draft LCP update for consideration sometime in 2019. As such, although we provide some preliminary comments and suggestions here, it appears that there will also be future junctures when further refinement and comment is possible. Toward that end, we look forward to continued dialogue on the proposed policies, and to working with City staff to further develop this policy language in conjunction with the rest of the LCP update as the draft moves forward, including as it is modified in light of public and City Council input.

When we commented on the first memo we noted that we believed that the proposed policies began to provide a solid foundation and framework for advancing the City’s sea level rise adaptation efforts. As the Coastal Commission has routinely stated, clear, proactive policies for addressing sea level rise are critically important. This is undoubtedly true in Pacifica where, as is identified in the City’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (June 2018), the City is already vulnerable to storm and wave impacts. Such impacts are evidenced by the loss of blufftop residential structures in recent years, and by the fact that efforts to protect against such impacts have resulted in narrowed or completely inundated beaches backed by armoring where beach

13.k
Packet Pg. 3740 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 access can be largely unavailable at higher tides. These hazards are only expected to increase as sea levels rise, resulting in a significant loss of public recreational beach resources and shorelinearea habitats, as well as damage to and loss of residential and commercial structures, and transportation, stormwater, and wastewater infrastructure. In particular, given its beaches are a fundamental backbone and significant part of the City’s social fabric and economic engine, it is critically important for the policies to reflect the importance of the City’s beaches, and to be transparent (and provide appropriate mitigations) where the policies might lead to increased impacts to same.

To this end, we are concerned that both the removal of some proposed policies from the first memo and the addition of new language in the second memo will result in policies that do not clearly state the need to ensure that new development and redevelopment be sited and designed to be safe from coastal hazards and to avoid the need for armoring. We also continue to have the same concerns that we have previously relayed to the City regarding how existing development will be addressed going forward in a manner that ensures beaches, habitat, public access, and recreation will be preserved for current and future generations, as required by the Coastal Act. In addition, we previously identified concerns associated with policy preparation based on a lack of technical and feasibility information as the City worked through its Adaptation Plan (including through meeting with you and your staff throughout this year as well as letters dated June 12, 2018 and August 29, 2018). One of our primary concerns was, and remains, ensuring that policies which prescribe specific adaptation measures (like armoring and beach nourishment with the use of sand retention structures) are based on a clear and detailed assessment of the environmental, technical, and economic feasibility of such alternatives. It is not clear that such information has been fully developed.

We do continue to recognize that addressing new and existing development in a place like Pacifica is a complex challenge given the scope of current and future hazards combined with existing patterns of development and shoreline armoring and uncertainties about future sea level rise and future conditions on the ground. As we have previously explained in meetings with and letters to City staff, there are policy approaches that would allow for continued reliance on armoring for certain development over a specified time horizon, including as identified in the City’s current sub-area policies. However, such policy approaches still need to ensure that impacts to other coastal resources would be mitigated, and need to build in an understanding that other adaptation options may be necessary if and when armoring (and/or beach nourishment) can no longer provide adequate protection for both development and coastal resources. Part of the challenge before us is to refine the policies and strike an appropriate balance in order to protect the range of coastal resources and development, while ensuring that short and long term policies interact and seamlessly move towards similar objectives.

In any case, we want to commend the City for tackling difficult sea level rise issues and for starting to identify practical and substantive measures to address such issues moving forward. To be sure, the proposed policies provide many key mechanisms for future steps to take over time as sea level rise advances, including interim protection measures, beach nourishment, monitoring of changing conditions, and periodic updates to the City’s Adaptation Plan to respond to such changes. Although many important coastal hazard planning provisions are addressed in the proposed policies and they provide a good foundation for the LCP update, we also believe that

13.k
Packet Pg. 3741 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 many important details will require refinement moving forward, including to ensure that the proposed policies are logical, feasible, realistic, and consistent with the Coastal Act. We continue to look forward to working together with the City to refine this work so that it achieves Coastal Act and City objectives related to minimizing hazards and protecting coastal resources, even as sea level rises.

In terms of some more specific comments on the draft policies in the second memo, here are some preliminary observations:
• The previous memo included a summary with details of how the City has dealt with the impacts of shoreline erosion and coastal flooding for decades. We recommend including a similar setting description in the LUP itself to speak to the broad purpose of the proposed coastal hazard policies and to provide context for their future implementation. • The proposed policies rely heavily on beach nourishment as a key adaptation strategy.

Although we believe that nourishment is an appropriate strategy to evaluate and pursue, we also believe that the information that could underpin such a strategy needs to be further fleshed out. As we have discussed previously with City staff, the technical analysis and supporting information regarding potential feasibility and effectiveness of beach nourishment (and also sand retention structures) needs to be better developed (including in relation to different grain sizes and the effects of sand retention structures on erosion in other areas), particularly to support it as a primary adaptation strategy through the proposed policies. In short, we think policies that rely so heavily on nourishment, particularly in the shorter term, need to be supported by more thorough data. Similarly, the use of sand retention structures can alter ocean waves, currents and sand movement, potentially exacerbating erosion on one side or the other of the structure (e.g., depending on currents, littoral drift, etc.). These potential impacts should be evaluated accordingly if sand retention structures are planned to be used in conjunction with beach nourishment.
• The proposed policies refer to developing a “Shoreline Mitigation Program” in the future to address impacts associated with hazard response. The policies need be structured to address such impacts now, and many policies seem to imply that is their intent. It may be appropriate to identify development of a future mitigation program as a refinement and a next step, but it needs to be clear that this does not negate the need for mitigation in the interim. Accordingly, given the Shoreline Mitigation Program is not yet complete, we recommend removing reference to implementation of the Program in the policies, instead of referencing only that it will be developed in the future. Until the Program is fully developed, mitigation should be implemented consistent with the type of requirements found in proposed Hazard Policy 60. • It may be appropriate to reformat and reorganize the policies. For example, the “Standard Policies” sections from pages 12-16 account for the overarching approach for new development in all areas throughout the City, and in both the short- and long-term. It may make better logical, and document-flow sense to move these, along with the definitions section, to the beginning of the document. Additionally, although we understand the policy construct that suggests that general policies may be superseded by more specific policies for each sub-area, we are concerned that some of the more specific policies appear to be making prescriptions for outcomes that are not based on analysis (e.g., allowed armoring). It is not

13.k
Packet Pg. 3742 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 appropriate, in our view, to have policies state conclusions that have not yet been supported by analysis, and it may be that the overarching policies are required to take precedence in that regard unless and until more definitive conclusions can be drawn. • It appears that some critical policy language is missing from some of the proposed draft policies. Please ensure that the following are addressed:
o Please provide design standards for the construction of allowable shoreline protection devices (e.g., they must: blend with natural environment; avoid significant habitat areas; minimize footprint; protect, and where feasible, provide public access; control erosion from surface and groundwater flows; etc.).
o Please identify specific details regarding how proportional mitigation for all unavoidable impacts of shoreline protection devices to coastal resources (e.g., shoreline sand supply, beaches, public recreational access areas and amenities, public views, water quality, etc.) is to be measured and applied. Please ensure that the policies require removal of shoreline protection devices when they are no longer required to protect existing structures in danger from erosion (including when structures are demolished and then rebuilt, or redeveloped) when such removal and restoration can be accomplished without endangering existing principal structures or existing public facilities on adjacent sites. o Please discuss how height limitations will be accounted for if/when structures need to be elevated to meet FEMA base flood levels in some areas.
o The siting and design policies for hazard areas no longer address substantial improvements to existing development (or ‘redevelopment’) in the second memo. We recommend the City develop specific language for how the siting and design of structures will be addressed when they are redeveloped in situations where there is existing, legally authorized shoreline protection and in cases where there is a natural bluff or shoreline fronting the proposed development. In addition, we recommend including separate policies to address new development on vacant lots that are fronted by existing, legally authorized shoreline armoring and in places where there is a natural bluff or shoreline. In cases where new development/redevelopment cannot be located safe from hazards without reliance on existing and/or new armoring or cannot meet the required setbacks, any approval for such development should include triggers for eventual removal in response to coastal hazards (e.g., when declared unsafe for occupancy and/or use; when the development encroaches onto current or future public trust land and the State Lands Commission denies a grant, lease, or other legal mechanism to allow the development to remain in place; when access and utilities are no longer available to serve the development and cannot be restored; when the blufftop edge erodes to the minimum setback line; when removal is required by subsequent adaptation planning; etc.), as well as propose ways in which the new and redeveloped structures will mitigate for that armoring’s impacts to coastal resources.
o Please provide a policy that outlines how the City will address development that becomes unsafe for occupancy and a public nuisance due to coastal hazards.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3743 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 5 • Certain themes, concepts, and terms used throughout the draft policies need to be better defined or explained in order for us to better evaluate the intent and application of the proposed policies, including as follows:
o Please define “existing structure,” as it is used often in the policies in relation to shoreline armoring. We recommend that it be defined as a structure legally authorized prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act on January 1, 1977, including as is identified in the Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance.
o Instead of only a reliance on “new development”, please also define “redevelopment” to ensure that current development is brought into compliance with the policies as it is substantially changed over time. Please establish clear thresholds for when repair, maintenance, improvement, or other work is conducted to the extent that a structure needs to be reviewed against all current standards, including for coastal hazards.

Typically, such thresholds would at the least include alteration (including demolition, renovation or replacement) of 50% or more of major structural components. o Please further describe what constitutes current “best available science” and whether there is a different standard for what amount of sea level rise should be evaluated in geotechnical studies versus what amount of sea level rise new development must be sited/designed to be safe from. For example, consider specifying that all new development must evaluate, at a minimum, the medium-high projection scenario (from the 2018 OPC Sea-Level Rise Guidance and in line with the Draft 2018 Science Update to the Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance) over its anticipated lifetime, but that if new development cannot be sited to avoid impacts over that time period certain minimum standards must be met (similar to the policies related to takings). We would be happy to work with the City on this topic.
o Please explain how the hazard areas referenced in the policies will be defined, including the coastal hazard zones, coastal hazard maps, flood hazard zones, and tsunami run-up zones. The current definition of hazard zone refers to the City’s current maps, but it is not clear to what maps that refers. Any maps referred to in the policies should be included as part of the LCP. In addition, for particular hazard areas that will be mapped, we recommend that the City add timeframes for how often these maps must be updated and include contingencies in the event that they are not updated by the prescribed deadline. o Proposed Hazard Policy 5 states that the City will implement a monitoring program for sea level rise to establish thresholds for reassessing the City’s Adaptation Plan. Please describe the type of thresholds that will be identified. Additionally, the current sub-area policies refer to triggers, but do not explain how the triggers would be implemented. For example, clarify whether armoring/nourishment etc. would be implemented when the bluff offset reaches the specified distance, or whether the specified distance triggers a new approach. Please also explain how beach width and bluff offsets will be measured. o Proposed Hazard Policy 7 states that the Shoreline Mitigation Program will identify priority improvements for maintaining and enhancing coastal shoreline resources, particularly public access and recreation. Please further describe what types of

13.k
Packet Pg. 3744 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 6 improvements the City is contemplating in this regard and provide relevant examples. o Proposed Hazard Policy 8 refers to funding for “adaptation strategies”. Please outline what kind of strategies this refers to, and specify if this will include voluntary removal or relocation of development.
o Proposed Hazard Policy 9 calls for identifying areas where densities and heights may be increased using TDR credits, including to facilitate affordable housing. Please describe how such determinations will be made, including which specific criteria will be evaluated.
o Proposed Hazard Policy 11 states that the City will preserve, protect, or relocate hazard prone infrastructure to maintain critical services and the environment. Given that these two goals will often conflict, please specify what criteria will be evaluated in determining the preferred option for infrastructure projects. Also, given similarities and overlap, please consider combining with proposed Hazard Policy 10. o Please clarify the intent of proposed Hazard Policy 50. Presumably redevelopment of existing development will require the entire structure to conform to applicable LCP standards, but the policy is not clear on this point.
o Proposed Hazard Policy 52 requires sea level rise buffer areas be added to new development if necessary to allow for the migration of wetlands and other shoreline habitats. Please describe how such buffer areas will be delineated, applied, and protected as same.
o The definition of shoreline within the hazard policies appears to exclude shoreline properties adjacent to rivers, streams and creeks, as well as properties that will be impacted by erosion and/or flooding by large storm events or over longer time periods due to rising sea levels. We recommend that the policies instead refer to coastal hazard areas so that properties that are potentially subject to coastal flood and erosion hazards both now and in the future will be reviewed for consistency with the hazard policies.

Again, we appreciate and commend the City on developing these draft coastal hazard policies and the related policy framework, and look forward to helping to refine the policies and approach through our ongoing collaboration on the City’s LCP update. It is clear from these policies that the City is taking the issues and problems associated with coastal hazards seriously, and in a way that advances the City’s approach to sea level rise and LCP planning. We hope these comments help move us forward in that regard. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please don’t hesitate to contact me or Patrick Foster of my staff. Again, we greatly appreciate the ability to be a part of this important planning process and look forward to continued coordination and discussion of this important effort.

Sincerely,

13.k
Packet Pg. 3745 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 7 Jeannine Manna
North Central Coast District Manager
California Coastal Commission
cc: Bonny O’Connor, City of Pacifica Planner
Attachments:

Attachment 1 – ESA memo to the City dated August 24, 2018 (memo 1) Attachment 2 – CCC comments on memo 1 dated August 31, 2018 Attachment 3 – ESA memo to the City also dated August 24, 2018 (memo 2)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3746 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
November 22, 2019
City of Pacifica Planning Department
Attn: Tina Wehrmeister
1800 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Subject: City of Pacifica Consultation Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update Dear Ms. Wehrmeister:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s proposed draft update to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP). As you know, the LUP is a key regulatory tool that implements the statewide goals and policies specified in the California Coastal Act to protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources at the local level, including by specifying the kinds, locations, and intensities of allowed development and applicable coastal resource protection requirements. Once the LUP and an accompanying Implementation Plan (IP) are certified by the Coastal Commission,1thus certifying an updated LCP overall, the updated LCP forms the basis and standard of review for future development within the City’s Coastal Zone.

Accordingly, the City’s current LCP update process offers an exciting opportunity to holistically and comprehensively envision Pacifica’s future and craft the process for how to achieve that vision. Given that importance, Commission staff has been actively and directly engaged with you and your staff to identify issues early and provide recommendations on how to approach the many complicated coastal resource policy decisions facing the City. We acknowledge the substantial time and energy the City has invested in developing this draft document and we greatly appreciate the efforts to coordinate and discuss with Commission staff.

In that vein, we are hopeful that these comments are understood in the manner in which intendednamely to provide as much helpful guidance from our perspective as possible at this juncture. As such, this letter provides a summary of some of the key issues we’ve identified thus far in our review of the draft document, as well as some broad recommendations for how to address these issues. Some of these issues we have discussed with you to-date, while others will be introduced for the first time in this letter.

Specific comments, as well as some line-edits, have been provided on each of the draft LUP chapters in the attached documents. However, given our limited review time, these comments and edits should not be considered final or comprehensive. Lastly, this letter is intended to respond to the City’s letter dated October 31, 2019 to clarify Commission staff’s general perspective regarding the consultation process thus far.

1 The standard of review for an LUP is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and for an IP is the certified LUP.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3747 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
2 Consultation Process
With regard to the letter sent to Commission staff regarding the LCLUP consultation process, we note that the City of Pacifica originally initiated the LCLUP Update process by developing a Consultation Draft in 2014. While this draft document was transmitted to Commission staff for initial review, the City halted the LCLUP process due to time and budgetary constraints. As a result, Commission staff did not conduct a thorough review nor provide written comments to the City at that time. The City began to reengage in the LCLUP update process again in 2018 through the development of an administrative draft of the LUP Coastal Hazards Chapter in conjunction with the development of a vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan. Throughout the multiple rounds of review prior to City action, Commission staff sent three comment letters (dated August 29, 2018, August 31, 2018, and October 19, 2018) on the Hazard Policy Update, all within the abbreviated timeframes requested by City staff, as well as attended a number of public meetings. Through all of these communications, Commission staff noted a willingness to work with the City to identify alternative, context-specific approaches to resolve significant concerns with the hazard policies as drafted (see included attachments). Other than a few coordination calls, Commission staff did not receive specific requests from the City to meet staff-to-staff to further engage at that juncture. Following action by the City Council approving the draft hazard policies for incorporation into the full LCLUP update, no further progress was made on the LCP update, as reflected in LCP grant progress reports received from the City during early 2019.

In summer and early fall of 2019, the City began to recirculate a new LCLUP Consultation Draft, starting with the version originally developed in 2014, incorporating the latest draft Hazards Policy Chapter approved by the City Council. While the City initially emailed Commission staff in August regarding their plans for revising the draft LCLUP recirculation schedule, there was no further discussion with Commission staff regarding the revised timeline to ensure it would be workable and provide for adequate review and staff to staff coordination prior to the draft going before the City Council and Planning Commission for feedback. In an effort to improve coordination on the LUP update process to ensure adequate and meaningful consultation could occur, Commission staff reached out to the City about the anticipated schedule and how to accommodate essential timeframes for both agencies.

At that time, the City relayed that they were sticking to an accelerated timeline to meet grant requirements, but did agree to modify the deadline for comments so as to provide Commission staff with 30-working days to review the draft document as opposed to 30-calendar days. During this review period City and Commission staff have met various times, both in-person and over the phone, and agreed the meetings have been productive. Commission staff continues to commend City staff for the hard work and coordination to-date, and it is our hope this cooperative process can continue. In our experience, this type of early coordination helps to ensure a smoother LCP certification process, including streamlining review and resolution of issues upon ultimate submittal to the Coastal Commission. As such, we will continue to honor our commitments to provide feedback to the City as requested, as we have previously done, regardless of existing workload constraints and staff turnover.

Draft LCLUP Update Feedback and Recommendations
First, in general, the proposed LUP update provides a good starting point by which the City can evaluate development in the coastal zone through assessing up-to-date information and revised policies that address current issues facing the City and reflect the City’s present day vision. However, at a broad level, the document requires numerous clarifications and details added to the policy language to make

13.k
Packet Pg. 3748 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
3 the LUP as user-friendly as possible, manage development expectations in certain areas of the City with known constraints, and ensure consistency with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Act.

Additionally, there is significant overlap between policies in different chapters that creates redundancy, most notably between the Natural Hazards and Coastal Resilience Chapters. In our view, with added refinements and focus, the LUP will offer more clarity and ease of use, ensure adequate protections for sensitive habitats and public access to the beach, and minimize hazard risks to new development. We strongly recommend that the document be reviewed to add detail and clarify language where needed, eliminate policy redundancies, both within and among chapters, and to group related policies accordingly, as discussed in meetings and addressed in this letter and in the attached document edits.

Additionally, in 2019, the Coastal Commission unanimously adopted its first environmental justice policy to provide guidance for Commissioners, staff, and the public on how the Commission will implement its environmental justice authority and integrate the principles of environmental justice, equality, and social equity into all aspects of the Commission’s program and operations. While the current draft LUP mentions environmental justice in terms of the City Council’s Goals and in policy CR-I-2, we recommend the City consider adding additional policies that will more fully address environmental justice issues that pertain to coastal resources as well as participation in the decision making process to help to reduce disparate impacts on vulnerable communities resulting from new development.

In terms of the Land Use and Development chapter, we recommend: 1) ensuring that all figures, numerical references, and maps regarding existing and proposed land use patterns are accurate and upto-date; 2) adding language regarding maps/diagrams to indicate that they are illustrative and for planning purposes only; 3) adding directive policies requiring new development to demonstrate that there are adequate public services to serve such development, examples of which were previously provided to the City; 4) adding up-to-date neighborhood-specific traffic, hazard, visual character, and coastal planning constraints as outlined in the 1980 version of the LUP; 5) including further detail about sites with known development constraints (i.e. the Quarry and Pedro Point field); 6) prohibiting increases in density of land use in hazard and sensitive resource areas; 7) redesignating areas with severe development constraints to the Conservation land use designation, including lots adjacent to the bluff edge where homes and apartments were recently removed; and 8) providing a figure that indicates all proposed changes to existing certified land use designations. With regard to the Public Access Chapter, we recommend: 1) adding more policies that specifically bolster and speak to coastal access, as opposed to public access more generally; 2) ensuring that coastal access will be able to adapt in response to coastal hazards including in areas with and without shoreline protection; and 3) including all existing coastal access points throughout the City including lateral and vertical trails required as CDP requirements, and public parking lots.

Within the Environmental and Scenic Resources Chapter, in general, more recent sources and information should be referenced, and internal references should only be made to maps and documents that are part of the LUP rather than to other City documents. More specifically, the relationship between wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) warrants further discussion. For example, while not all wetlands are ESHA, wetland policies are applied to all wetland areas, which should be stated explicitly. Further, the draft LUP should cite and recognize Coastal Commission regulations that

13.k
Packet Pg. 3749 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
4 more clearly articulate the requirement for a one-parameter criteria for wetland delineations which is applied in the coastal zone, contrasting this with the USACE three-parameter approach. It should also be noted that because the National Wetlands Inventory (and similarly, any map provided or prepared by the City) are not all comprehensive, on-the-ground conditions will prevail. Discussions on ESHA should also: 1) include policies on ‘especially valuable habitat’ as defined by the Coastal Act, which captures natural resources not considered rare but that have some other particular value (e.g. unusually pristine conditions, vegetation supporting other sensitive species, wildlife corridors, etc.); 2) remove references to degrees of habitat value without definition, as an area can be severely degraded and still constitute ESHA if it can be restored and/or is supporting sensitive resources; 3) categorically designate dune habitats as ESHA; 4) reorganize and bolster the ‘Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats’ section for consistency in terms of vegetation types and levels of specificity and relevance; 5) consider habitat not defined by vegetation communities including bluff faces, offshore rocks and islets, and dunes; 6) articulate why seasonal wetlands are included under ESHA; and 7) explain that all riparian habitat should be treated as ESHA, while clearly articulating the differences between streams, creeks, riparian vegetation, and riparian corridors.

In addition, minimum buffer requirements should be established for sensitive habitat areas including wetlands and ESHA, including streams, and any uses allowed within such buffers should be specified.

Moreover, a defined limit should be established for any exceptions to such minimum buffer requirements resulting in a buffer reduction. Exceptions to such buffer requirements should be supported by a biological report demonstrating that the adjusted buffer, in combination with incorporated siting, design or other mitigation measures, will prevent impacts that significantly degrade the wetland and/or ESHA and will be compatible with the continuance of the wetland and/or ESHA. Buffer adjustments should also be limited to where the entire subject legal lot is within the buffer or where it is demonstrated that development outside the buffer would have a greater impact on the wetland and/or ESHA. For both perennial and intermittent streams, buffers should be measured from the outer edge of riparian vegetation where it exists; if it does not, the buffer should be measured from the edge of the bank; and if there is no bank, the buffer should be measured from the mid-line of the watercourse. With respect to impacts and mitigation, impacts to coastal resources must always first be avoided to the maximum extent feasible, then minimized, then mitigated for. As such, compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to sensitive habitats that cannot be avoided should be addressed in this document. Further, the City should consider defining temporary versus permanent impacts- where temporary impacts are those that would be resolved within 12 months, and do not include earthwork or other significant disturbance, with impacted vegetation restored to equal or better including that similar age/size structure of the community is restored.

The Environmental and Scenic Resources Chapter should also reference both perennial and nonperennial resources in any discussion on creeks and other waterways, should further develop the discussion and policies on marine resources (including beaches, rocky intertidal and reef habitats, softbottom habitats, and offshore rocks), and should avoid referencing “restoring” beaches unless it is intended to include ecological, as well as mineral and physical, resources. Additionally, instead of referencing restrictions on invasive plant species, we recommend prohibiting the use of any California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)-listed species with a status of high or moderate, or identified as locally-threatening under the limited alert or watch status, and to establish requirements for their

13.k
Packet Pg. 3750 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
5 abatement from sites on a project-by-project basis as well as through broader restoration efforts. Lastly, there is the potential to frame some of the issues in the chapter under a theme of ‘water security,’ including concepts such as groundwater recharge, use of recycled water, etc.

As mentioned above, there are numerous redundancies between the “natural shorelines” section in the Environmental and Scenic Resources chapter and the content of the Natural Hazards and Coastal Resilience chapters. We recommend instead framing the protection of natural shorelines as “preservation of natural shore dynamics.” In addition to these redundancies, feedback on adaptation and hazard policies expressed in the aforementioned comment letters in 2018 (enclosed) was not incorporated into the draft policies, and as such the main themes are reiterated here. Specific details on policy language that should be incorporated can be found in the enclosed letters, including topics such as design, mitigation, and removal of shoreline protection structures, as well as triggers for removal of threatened development.

In general, the hazard and coastal resilience policies seem to recommend an approach for protecting development throughout the City with hard armoring, supplemented by potential beach nourishment, with no policies that would allow the City to prepare to relocate structures out of hazardous areas. The emphasis on armoring would likely result in the loss of beaches and their associated public access, recreation, economic, and habitat benefits as sea levels rise, and would leave the City unprepared for sea level rise in the long term. While armoring may protect existing development in the short- to mediumterm, such an approach may not be technically or economically feasible in all areas and/or over longer timeframes, and would not, by itself, be consistent with Coastal Act requirements to ensure protection of coastal resources. Policies should be framed to better balance the dual Coastal Act goals of ensuring safe development and protecting coastal resources such as beaches, habitat, and public access and recreation, as sea level rises over time. As discussed in our previous comment letters and in recent coordination calls, Commission staff would be happy to work with City staff in developing a more appropriate balance of short- and long-term approaches, including those that would consider the use of shoreline armoring.

Additionally, the proposed policies rely heavily on beach nourishment as a key adaptation strategy.

Although we believe that nourishment is an appropriate strategy to evaluate and pursue if technically feasible, we also believe that the information that could underpin such a strategy needs to be further fleshed out. As we have discussed previously, the technical analysis and supporting information regarding potential feasibility and effectiveness of beach nourishment (and also sand retention structures) needs to be better developed (including in relation to different grain sizes and the effects of sand retention structures on erosion in other areas), particularly to support such an approach as a primary adaptation strategy in this proposed LCP update. In short, we think that policies that rely so heavily on nourishment, particularly in the shorter term, need to be supported by more thorough quantitative data.

In addition, we have previously identified appropriate definitions of “redevelopment” and “existing structures” or “existing development” that should be incorporated into the draft. “Existing development” should be defined as a structure legally authorized prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act, i.e.- January 1, 1977, including as it is identified in the Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance.

Instead of defining redevelopment, the draft defines ‘new development’ as development on a previously

13.k
Packet Pg. 3751 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
6 vacant parcel, which would mean no current structures would ever have to be brought into compliance with policies if substantially redeveloped and as such does not align with the Coastal Act or the Commission’s guidance on sea level rise planning.

Finally, as discussed above, we have reviewed each of the draft LUP chapters and provided City staff with our suggestions and recommendations via in person meetings and phone calls on each chapter. In closing, we again thank you and your staff for the thoughtful and collaborative work done to date, and appreciate and commend the City for moving forward with the sometimes difficult, but important, task of updating the LCP’s LUP. We also very much look forward to continued collaboration, and helping the City to refine the draft LUP, and a future draft IP, including in the ways identified in this letter. We hope these comments help move us forward to this end. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Julia Koppman Norton
Coastal Planner
North Central Coast District Office
California Coastal Commission
cc: Kevin Woodhouse, City of Pacifica City Manager
Encl.: CCC Letter to City, dated August 29, 2018
CCC Letter to City, dated August 31, 2018
CCC Letter to City, dated October 19, 2018
LCP Draft Update, Ch. 1-6 & Appendices, with edits

13.k
Packet Pg. 3752 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
February 19, 2020
City of Pacifica Planning Department
Attn: Tina Wehrmeister
1800 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Subject: City of Pacifica Post-Consultation Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update Dear Ms. Wehrmeister:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCLUP) post-consultation draft. We would like to commend you for the hard work that went into preparing this draft and acknowledge the effort made to respond to comments we submitted in our previous letter to you dated November 22, 2019 (attached). We recognize that the City has carefully gone through the aforementioned comments and line-item edits and has modified the draft LCLUP to accept some of our recommendations. This letter is intended to provide a summary of the remaining key issues we’ve identified in the post-consultation draft. The items discussed below should not be considered final or comprehensive given our limited review time, but are meant to provide guidance on the more challenging topics at this point in the process of our ongoing effort to coordinate with the City.

It is our understanding that the City Council will be considering the post-consultation draft at the public hearing on February 24, 2020. As such, please deliver this comment letter to the City Council for consideration prior to the hearing in question.

As indicated above, we understand City staff has incorporated some, but not all, of Commission staff’s edits and feedback into the LCLUP post-consultation draft. We continue to recommend that any additional outstanding edits and comments provided in our November letter be incorporated and/or addressed in the final draft LCLUP approved by the City Council. In particular, recommendations and specific language provided on the Environmental and Scenic Resources Chapter should be used to further modify the information and policies as currently drafted. Specifically, we recommend that the City include the more nuanced language we recommended regarding the following topics: recognition of non-perennial resources within the creeks, wetlands, and coastal waters implementing policies, riparian buffers (ER-I-1), potential environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) designation (Section 4.3, “Plant Communities & Wildlife Habitat”), intermittent creeks and streams (ER-G-7), verification of ESHA (ER-I-23), and management of ESHA (ER-I-24) to ensure protection of sensitive habitats and species throughout the City consistent with the Coastal Act resource protection policies.

With regards to the natural hazards and coastal resilience policies (Chapters 5 & 6), the City has modified and/or added new definitions for “new development,” “existing structure,” “substantial exterior structural modification (SESM)” (the City’s proposed definition to qualify the concept of “redevelopment”), and “shoreline.” The application of these new definitions throughout the proposed policies raises inconsistencies with Coastal Act hazard policies 30253 and 30235 which require new

13.k
Packet Pg. 3753 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
February 19, 2020
2 development to ensure long-term structural integrity, minimize future risk, and to avoid landform altering protective measures; and, with the exception of coastal-dependent uses, limit the construction of shoreline protection structures to that required to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts to shoreline sand supply.

Specifically, these new definitions limit application of the City’s hazard policies depending on the nature and location of the proposed development, and expand allowances for shoreline protection as further described below.

First, the definition of “shoreline” as currently presented would only include bluff edges and beach areas at the intersection of the ocean or sea with land. As such, policies that reference “development on the shoreline” (CR-I-42: Technical Reports) or “shoreline development” (CR-I-43: Siting and Design and CR-I-44: Assumption of Risk by Private Landowners) would be limited to shoreline protection structures or similar development located in this very narrowly defined area. However, as we understand through discussions with you and your staff, the City intends for these policies to apply to development located on any parcels that have a shoreline frontage, and as such, we recommend the City modify the definition and the corresponding policies to better reflect this intent. However, even with such clarifications, CR-I-42 would not apply to development located on low-lying shoreline or blufftop land inland of shorefront parcels even if the development would be subject to coastal hazards over its anticipated life. Therefore, development proposals in these areas would be permitted without adequately accounting for potential coastal hazards through a technical evaluation, demonstrating such development will avoid and minimize hazards, and mitigating for any effects the development may have on coastal resources over time, inconsistent with Coastal Act hazard policies. We continue to recommend that any development proposed in coastal hazard zones, defined as anywhere mapped by the City’s coastal vulnerability maps, evaluate such hazards consistent with the requirements of CR-I-42. Further, this policy should be expanded so that the required evaluation examines hazards posed to the development with and without any existing shoreline protection structures.

Second, we commend the City for including language in CR-I-43 requiring that new development be sited and designed safe from coastal hazards for 100 years without shoreline protection structures, and include conditions waiving rights to shoreline protection, and where necessary, removal and restoration.

However, as drafted, this policy would only apply to new development on vacant shoreline properties, which are extremely limited in Pacifica. In addition, similar to CR-I-42 discussed above, this policy would not apply to new development on vacant land just inland of shorefront parcels if separated by a public road, or other lands, even if the development would be subject to known hazards over its anticipated life, inconsistent with Coastal Act hazard policies. Further, the definition of “new development” specifically excludes structures authorized pursuant to the SESM exclusions such as nonstructural improvements to existing structures, any development already protected by an existing shoreline protection structure, existing structures replaced pursuant to Section 30610, and complete demolition and rebuild of single family residences. Thus, this policy would not apply to improvements or redevelopment of existing structures in the majority of the City. This will essentially result in a continued pattern of development and redevelopment in hazardous areas both with and without existing shoreline protection.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3754 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
3 Even if it is the City’s intent to continue to allow existing development to redevelop in hazardous areas, the assumption of risk policy (CR-I-44) similarly only applies to development on shorefront lots. Thus, redevelopment of and improvements to existing structures will continue in hazard areas without the property owners being required to accept the full risk of such development and without providing for adequate mitigation to ensure the development will not impact coastal resources over time. Thus, we continue to recommend that CR-I-43 and CR-I-44 apply to all development proposed in coastal hazard zones. If the City would like to allow for exceptions to setbacks, we recommend accomplishing this goal by first evaluating the hazard, examining siting and design options to avoid or minimize the hazard, allowing for exceptions pursuant to CR-I-49 (Protection of Private Property in Hazard Areas), and then including adequate mitigation for impacts to coastal resources over time by requiring an expanded version of CR-I-44 (Assumption of Risk by Private Landowners) that recognizes the development is located in a hazardous area, or in an area that may become hazardous in the future, assumes the risks of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with the permitted development, unconditionally waives any claim of damage or liability against the City, indemnifies and holds the City harmless with respect to approval of the project, recognizes the property owner has no rights under Coastal Act Section 30235 and related LCP policies to shoreline armoring in the future, that sea level rise could render it difficult or impossible to provide services to the site, that the boundary between public tidelands and private land may move inland causing the structure to be located on public land and thus subject to removal, that any future encroachment must be removed unless determined legally permissible pursuant to the Coastal Act, and that the structure may need to be removed or relocated if it becomes unsafe or substantially damaged.

Third, the definition of “existing development” refers to development constructed or permitted prior to the certification date of this LCLUP and the definition of “SESM” measures modifications to existing structures cumulatively from the same date. In addition, the exclusions provided in the definition of “SESM” and the reference to these exclusions in both the “existing structure” and “new development” definitions in effect allow the vast majority of development in the City a new or expanded entitlement to shoreline protection, including reconstruction of existing protection, and preclude such development from the need to mitigate for unavoidable coastal resource impacts caused by new construction or perpetuation of shoreline protection structures. Lastly, the City has included an exclusion for shoreline protection itself within the SESM definition which allows for reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of shoreline protection structures as long as the height and length are not expanded more than 10 percent.

As we understand, under these proposed definitions and associated policies, the City would allow for unlimited redevelopment on sites built or permitted prior to certification of this drafted LCLUP that are protected by an existing shoreline protective structure. Further, the proposed policies would allow new, redeveloped and augmented shoreline protection structures for all existing development defined as those structures constructed or permitted prior to the certification date of the LCLUP or authorized pursuant to the SESM exclusions. Lastly, the policies would allow for full reconstruction of existing shoreline protection in perpetuity without conforming to the proposed hazard policies as long as it does not increase the height or length by 10 percent.

These definitions and associated policies are inconsistent with the goals of the Coastal Act, which, as discussed in the Commission’s adopted Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, provide that new development or redevelopment constructed after January 1, 1977 is not entitled to shoreline protection and must be

13.k
Packet Pg. 3755 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
February 19, 2020
4 built safe from coastal hazards for its anticipated life. As such, Commission staff continues to recommend that the City define existing structure for the purpose of shoreline protection as a structure legally authorized prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act (i.e. January 1, 1977). In addition, existing structures redeveloped since that date should not be entitled to shoreline protection themselves, even though they may de facto be protected by an existing shoreline protective device.

As has been discussed throughout this process, Commission staff is open to discussing options for exceptions to allow for continued reliance on shoreline armoring for structures built or redeveloped after 1977 in certain circumstances. However, such exceptions will require a case by case evaluation considering factors such as: up and down coast patterns of development and existing shoreline protection, existing public infrastructure, access to support the development, alternatives to address the hazards including relocation, options for short and long term planning, and takings of private property.

Further, any exception would be contingent upon specific adaptation and policy options that ensure that coastal resources would be protected over time. These include at a minimum, an expanded assumption of risk, waiver of liability, and disclosures that shoreline armoring may not be able to provide safety in perpetuity, that the City may not be able to continue to provide services to hazardous locations, and that development may need to be removed at some point in the future to ensure safety and/or to meet other adaptation goals. Additional options may include requirements for continued planning, development of specific phased adaptation approaches along with necessary funding mechanisms, and requirements for alternative public access (e.g., integrating lateral access with shoreline armoring).

Additional comments on the revised Natural Hazards and Coastal Resilience Chapters include:
 Accurate neighborhood-specific hazard information should be incorporated into each neighborhood section, as indicated in our previous November comment letter. While some information was added to this end, additional details regarding erosion rates and patterns as demonstrated in the 1980 version of the LUP should be incorporated and updated, where necessary.
 Section 6.6. The sub-area policies and programs include triggers by which each of the policies are intended to be implemented. The introductory statement indicates that the triggers do not account for regulatory permitting, approvals, or financing, and that planning should be conducted in advance of the triggers. Alternatively, Commission staff recommends this document include triggers for planning purposes.
 CR-I-8, CR-I-9, CR-I-55. All policies should stipulate that the “least environmentally damaging alternative” be implemented, as indicated in prior edits. While some policies refer back to Coastal Act Section 30235 which stipulates the least environmentally damaging alternative is preferred, not all do, so Commission staff recommends each of these policies explicitly state as much.
 CR-I-2. The City intends to implement its Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan through the policies in this chapter. Part c) of this policy stipulates that development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones may be approved consistent with the sub-area policies if the “project will not pose unacceptable risks to life or property.” Commission staff recommends that Part c) be amended to state that the “project will not pose unacceptable risks to life or property for the anticipated life of the development.” In addition, Commission staff recommends removing the italics as they constitute the bulk of this policy.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3756 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
November 22, 2019
5  CR-I-3. Thresholds for reassessing the City’s Adaptation Plan through monitoring shoreline change should account for adequate setbacks from inland development based on erosion rates and a factor of safety.
 CR-I-5. The City intends to adopt a Shoreline Mitigation Program to address the coastal resource impacts of existing and future shoreline protection projects in the City within three years of LCLUP certification. Input from the Commission and the public will be important for the development of this program consistent with Coastal Act requirements and the public’s vision.

Please amend this policy to indicate the Shoreline Mitigation Program shall be reviewed and certified by the Commission through an LCP amendment. We also recommend that the City consider requiring the development of public access facilities or in-lieu fees as mitigation for approval of new, reconstruction, and repair and maintenance of shoreline protection structures, as part of the proposed Program.
 “Sharp Park, West Fairway Park and Mori Point” sub-area & CR-I-22. Commission staff notes that the levee that protects the Sharp Park Golf Course was built in the 1940’s, rather than the 1980’s as indicated in this draft. In addition, policy language should not reference specific permit provisions, but rather should speak to compliance with prior permit conditions and/or existing legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act as is more generally done in Policy CR-I14.  CR-I-14. Please note there are two versions of CR-I-14. The policy on regional sediment management should indicate who will participate (i.e. The City).  CR-I-44. The majority of the edits made to the “Assumption of Risk by Private Landowners” were struck out by the City. Commission staff continues to recommend the City broaden the assumption of risk and waiver of liability per prior edits.  CR-I-49. Commission staff understands the City’s intent to protect private property in hazardous areas to allow for the minimum economic use of a property so as to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property, but recommends adding that this is subject to development maintaining safe access and assuring there is infrastructure to serve it for the anticipated life of the development.
 CR-I-52. This policy should also apply to condominium development.  CR-I-54. This policy states that existing shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained until the development they are protecting is removed or no longer requires shoreline protection. Please amend this to account for redevelopment/substantial exterior structural modification. In addition, Commission staff notes this policy language is internally inconsistent, as it references Section 30235 of the Coastal Act, in which “existing structures” is evaluated as prior to January 1, 1977 rather than prior to certification of this LCLUP.  CR-I-57. Edits to this policy direct that new or reconstructed shoreline protection structures fully mitigate for coastal resource impacts where impacts are unavoidable. However, reconstruction of shoreline protection structures is included in the exceptions clause of the “substantial exterior structural modification” definition. Please ensure that both new and reconstructed shoreline protection is mitigated for by removing reconstruction of shoreline protection structures from the list of exceptions.
 Definitions. The City should clarify whether or not the exceptions in SESM definition apply throughout the City or just in coastal hazard areas.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3757 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) City of Pacifica
Comments on the City’s Draft LUP Update
February 19, 2020
6  NH-I-10. Requires geotechnical studies for areas within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, but this should be clarified and expanded to account for increased erosion from sea level rise both with and without existing shoreline protection for development within 300 feet of a bluff edge.  NH-I-17. More generally includes similar requirements to the Coastal Act, but again, with the proposed definition of “new development” would limit application of this policy to areas where there is no existing development.

Lastly, it has come to our attention that there are numerous shoreline protection structures in the City, both publicly and privately owned, that are unpermitted and/or have existing permits that have since expired. Please take note of this in considering policies regarding shoreline protection structures that provide allowances for active, permitted shoreline protection structures specifically.

As discussed above, this letter is not an exhaustive list of comments on the post-consultation draft of the LCLUP, but rather provides an overview of overarching feedback at this time. We again thank you and your staff for the thoughtful and collaborative work done to date, and appreciate and commend the City for moving forward with the sometimes difficult, but important, task of updating the LCP’s LUP. We look forward to continued collaboration, and helping the City to refine the draft LUP, and a future draft IP, including in the ways identified in this letter. We hope these comments help move us forward to this end. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jeannine Manna
District Manager
North Central Coast District Office
California Coastal Commission
cc: Kevin Woodhouse, City of Pacifica City Manager
Encl.: CCC Letter to City, dated August 29, 2018
CCC Letter to City, dated August 31, 2018
CCC Letter to City, dated October 19, 2018
CCC Letter to City, dated November 22, 2019

13.k
Packet Pg. 3758 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal
Subject: General Plan Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan - DEIR Comments Attachments: FW: NOP - Pacifica GP Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan - Comments; CCC Comment Letter 2018.08.31.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2018.10.19.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2019.11.22.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2020.02.19.pdf; CCC Comment Letter 2018.08.29.pdf; Pacifica LCP Post-Consultation Draft Letter 2020.02.19.pdf
Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR for the City’s General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan. I’ve attached our prior correspondence on this matter, all of which we would like to be incorporated into the comment record for the DEIR and project. Broadly, and as indicated prior, the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan, as well as this associated DEIR, must be consistent with the certified LCP. As the LUP update has been submitted to the Coastal Commission but has not yet been certified, the originally certified LCP is the standard with which the GP/SPSP must be consistent. Once an updated LUP is certified, the GP/SPSP would have to be updated to then be consistent with the updated LCP. As such, generally, it may make the most sense to coordinate timing of the GP/SPSP for after the LUP is certified, given the outstanding nature of the LUP certification.

More specifically, policies proposed in the GP/SPSP that correspond to coastal resources cannot contradict the certified LCP and thus Coastal Act. While we understand that the City boundaries extend beyond those of the Coastal Zone, policies that contradict Coastal Act mandates cannot be applied within the Coastal Zone. However, as we understand it, multiple policies proposed in the LUP update are duplicated in the proposed GP update (as denoted by a wave symbol), despite not being certified policies and numerous concerns regarding inconsistencies with the Coastal Act that have been noted to City staff over the years. Thus, policies in Chapter 6 ‘Open Space and Community Facilities,’ Section 6.3 ‘Coastal Access’; Chapter 7 ‘Conservation,’ Sections 7.1‐7.3 ‘Water, Biological, Land and Soil Resources’; and Chapter 8 ‘Safety,’ Sections 8.1‐8.3 and 8.5‐8.6 ‘Seismic and Geologic Hazards, Flooding and Drainage, Coastal Resilience, Fire Hazards, and Public Safety and Emergency Management’ (and any other relevant policies) need to be made fully consistent with the currently certified LCP, and thus Coastal Act – currently, the policies noted as being included in both GP and LCLUP are not certified and thus not in effect in the Coastal Zone at this time. Further, the General Plan update appears to include policies that would only apply in coastal areas, including those pertaining to coastal access, coastal resilience, shoreline development, and allowances for shoreline armoring; these cannot be applied in the CZ as the LCP currently stands. As such, please include the attached past comment letters regarding Coastal Act inconsistencies of proposed LUP policies in the record for this GP/SPSP DEIR. Please note that all in‐line edits previously provided to City staff on iterations of the proposed LUP update should also be incorporated as feedback on the overlapping GP update policies.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Julia
_______
Julia Koppman Norton
North Central Coast District Supervisor
California Coastal Commission

13.k
Packet Pg. 3759 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 13.k
Packet Pg. 3760 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:12 AM
To: Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal
Subject: FW: NOP - Pacifica GP Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan - Comments Attachments: City Council 7/20 - Sharp Park Specific Plan Guiding Policy Framework Discussion From: "KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:07 PM
To: "Murdock, Christian" <[email protected]>
Subject: NOP ‐ Pacifica GP Update & Sharp Park Specific Plan ‐ Comments Hi Christian,
Please add this email to the record for comments on the NOP for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Thanks,
Julia
____________
Julia Koppman Norton
Coastal Planner

13.k
Packet Pg. 3761 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
(415) 904‐5292

13.k
Packet Pg. 3762 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:59 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Tina Wehrmeister
Subject: City Council 7/20 - Sharp Park Specific Plan Guiding Policy Framework Discussion Hi Christian,
Please add the following to the record for the Sharp Park Specific Plan Guiding Policy Framework Discussion that is on the City Council agenda on Monday, July 20th. The comments reiterate concerns and comments raised by Commission staff during a phone call with Commission and City staff on April 3, 2020.

As the Sharp Park Specific Plan proposes to increase height and density allowances within the Sharp Park neighborhood, a thorough analysis should be conducted in terms of visual impacts of development as provided through the Specific Plan on the character of the surrounding area and on views through the neighborhoods of the ocean, impacts to community character as designated and provided in the LCLUP, and impacts of potential geotechnical and coastal hazards on development that per the current proposal would be of increased height and density than currently allowed.

Any allowed uses in the Specific Plan should prioritize low‐cost visitor‐serving, recreational uses and public access. In addition, the Specific Plan would need to provide for increased coastal resource protections in order to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act, and documentation should be provided including visual simulations, height and density alternatives, explanations of the hazards within this particular neighborhood, and the benefit to the public with regard to priority uses in this coastal area. More specifically, the City should consider:
 Reducing the proposed height in areas in which tall buildings (up to 55 feet in height) will impact the visual character of surrounding areas as well as public views to and from the ocean in visually sensitive areas, and  Performing a thorough geotechnical analysis, including an evaluation of the potential hazards to this neighborhood (landslides and shoreline erosion) as well as a wave uprush study for the area. Such a wave uprush study should include an assessment of the potential hazards caused by 100‐year storm events (cumulative with high tide events, as well as projected sea level rise impacts and given a typical eroded beach condition).

We look forward to continuing to work with the City on this Specific Plan throughout the City’s drafting and review process. Thank you.

Best,
Julia
____________
Julia Koppman Norton
Coastal Planner
North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
(415) 904‐5292

13.k
Packet Pg. 3763 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Mike O'Connell < >
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 8:58 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Subject: General Plan Comments
[CAUTION: External Email]

Christian
On Clarendon Road, why are you changing it to very low density residential when the subdivision was recently completed with a GP of low density residential? This should be low density residential.

The high density residential designation at the rehabilitation center should be low density residential like the adjacent sites. The land the city owns where the trail is located is high density residential but I understand that when it was granted to the city from the state it may only be used for flood control purposes and so should have a public/semi-public designation or utilities.
900 Rosita and the adjacent lots still have a public designation even though they are not owned nor have ever been owned by the school district. I changed the GP on 900 rosita already and do not want to see it inadvertently reverted to public. I've made this request several times - how do we get resolution on it? You should change the adjacent lots too since they are not owned by a public agency.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3764 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 Thanks,
Mike O'Connell, PE
DRE #02114316
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3765 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 10:06 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Public Comment
Subject: Trouble accessing General Plan documents
[CAUTION: External Email]

Good morning Christian,
I see the revised GP documents were released early this morning through the staff report for Wednesday, but I cannot seem to download Attachment G, comment letters. I assume responses to comments are in this document too? Can you send it to me some other way, or will it be posted on the Plan Pacifica website this morning? Here is the error message I keep getting. I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow morning and I need to download these now if the meeting is really still happening on Wednesday.

And will you be answering my other questions or has the City Manager limited your ability to respond to me as he did earlier with Public Works staff about the sewers?
Thank you for including my recent emails in the agenda packet. I know you are extremely overworked and I am not blaming you personally, but this whole process continues to be a royal mess. I'm already drafting my response about the continued inadequate landslide maps. Even landslides that I learned about from Public Works are still not mapped! Is this Dyett and Bhatia's work? Who is supervising their work and why do we continue to pay for poor quality work that will delay this process?
Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects

13.k
Packet Pg. 3766 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3767 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 5 Murdock, Christian
From: Mike O'Connell < >
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:14 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Re: General Plan Comments
[CAUTION: External Email]

Christian
I found the section in staff report on Rosita. I appreciate that it is in the staff report but it is half wrong. The report should state that 900 Rosita already changed the GP to LDR. It is important to make that distinction. Also, how do we get the mapped changed? Will that be done before Council? I'm just trying to avoid a bunch of confusion 10 years from now if the color on the map is wrong.

Thanks,
Mike O'Connell, PE
DRE #02114316
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 8:57 AM Mike O'Connell wrote:

13.k
Packet Pg. 3768 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 6 900 Rosita and the adjacent lots still have a public designation even though they are not owned nor have ever been owned by the school district. I changed the GP on 900 rosita already and do not want to see it inadvertently reverted to public. I've made this request several times - how do we get resolution on it? You should change the adjacent lots too since they are not owned by a public agency.

Thanks,
Mike O'Connell, PE
DRE #02114316

13.k
Packet Pg. 3769 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 7 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3770 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 8 Murdock, Christian
From: Pete Shoemaker < >
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Let's be friends
[CAUTION: External Email]
Christian,
You and Bonny and the Staff have done an incredible amount of good work on the GP and EIR, both initially and responding to comments. Yet here we are in battle mode again! It’s so frustrating.

You do all this great work and then give us no time to look it over and appreciate it. Sure, we’ll be checking for things we don’t like, but most of it is just fine. All we need is a reasonable amount of time to review, talk in a civilized manner, and we can get this done.

You of course realize that dropping a 3,670-page agenda, which includes a link to another 1,125-page document (EIR redline) for a total of 4,795 pages, and expecting the Planning Commission, and everyone else, to review this in 6 days, three of which are holidays, is beyond absurd. How could we not be pissed off? Why do this? You’re just setting yourself up for acrimony, and all your great work will be overshadowed.

Just for context: If the Planning Commissioners worked full 8-hour days on Thursday (today), Friday, Tuesday and Wednesday, like you will probably do, they would have to go over, in some manner, 150 pages per HOUR, every hour, nonstop, to get through this. This would be absurd to ask full-time paid employees to do, and these people are unpaid volunteers with most of them having other full-time jobs.

We don’t have to live like this. Let’s make it better, please.

Pete
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3771 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) From: Pete Shoemaker < >
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Beckmeyer, Sue <[email protected]>
----------
Commissioner Wright,
We the undersigned are Pacificans who love our community and have given many volunteer hours to serve it for many years. We understand and appreciate your service on the Planning Commission. We are writing to urge you, during the upcoming meeting on June 1, to ask for more time to review the General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan and EIR submitted to you by City Staff.

We would like to recommend that the Planning Commission work with staff to partition these documents into manageable sections and develop a timeline for a series of separate public meetings on each section. Public comment should be included as part of each meeting regarding these important documents that will guide our city for decades.

There is no reason to rush through this process that began in 2009, and was delayed for a number of reasons until now; if there is such a reason, the city should divulge the urgency to you and to the public. The current approach being suggested by City staff is counter to the principles of democratic process where citizens actively participate in the decision-making of government.

We know you want to do the best job possible as Commissioner, and you need to be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. To ask you to review these very long technical documents, along with the numerous comments that were submitted asking for changes, in a six-day period, three days of which are holidays, is more than challenging. It puts you in an impossible position, which is completely unfair to you, the people of Pacifica, and the City Council who appointed you to provide your recommendations to them.

As a Planning Commissioner, you have the authority and duty to ask for what you need to do your job. The City of Pacifica's lively history of robust public engagement shows that Planning Commissioners have on many occasions held off on making decisions that needed more time to fully understand and deliberate over. While Staff has provided you summaries and recommendations, City Council and the public rely on you as one of the steps to ensure a full and robust vetting of critical planning documents.

As individuals who spent many hours reviewing the draft GP, Sharp Park Specific Plan and DEIR, and have found serious errors and omissions that were documented during the initial (also expedited) public comment period, we believe these should be given due time and consideration for review and inclusion in this process.

Like you, we are in the process of reviewing the new releases to see what changes have been made. We will be preparing a summary with prioritized recommendations. We commit to getting this to you as soon as possible, so that you have this additional information to guide you in your due diligence review.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3772 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Again, we thank you for your service and urge you to ask for more review time at the June 1 meeting.

And just for context: The agenda is 3,670 pages with a link to another 1,125-page document, for a total of 4,795 pages. If you worked full 8-hour days on Thursday, Friday, Tuesday and Wednesday before the June 1 meeting, you would have to go over, in some manner, 150 pages per hour, every hour nonstop, to get through it all.

Sincerely,
The undersigned…
Allison West Dinah Verby Mark Hubbell
Barbara Lubben Erin Macias Nancy Tierney
Bill Collins Gary Emich Patricia R. McGregor
Bob Boles James Kremer Pete Shoemaker
Cherie Chan Jim Heldberg Peter Loeb
Christine Boles JoAnne Arnos Sue Digre
Cindy Abbott John Keener Summer Lee
Clif Lawrence Karen Clark Susan Miller
Danny Estrella Leo Leon Suzanne Moore
David Hirzel Lisa A. Warns Victor Carmichael
Deb Wong Margaret Goodale William C. Trichon
Debra Etienne Marjorie Davis

13.k
Packet Pg. 3773 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 9 Murdock, Christian
From: D Gold < >
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 5:11 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Plan -- Highway 1 onramp at Milagra
[CAUTION: External Email]

I was very concerned to find in the General Plan update the following on page 5-12 (page 33 of the pdf file):
"The Manor Drive overcrossing is planned to be widened and coordinated signal control is recommended to be added at the intersections of Manor Drive with Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue. This project includes a new on-ramp to SR 1 from Oceana at Milagra Drive. "
The community has strongly opposed this new on-ramp for traffic safety, public safety and its environmental impact.

This opposition was reflected at two public meetings, and at a recent city council meeting. At that meeting, the city council stated that their vote to explore the manor overcrossing improvements was not a vote to construct the highway 1 on ramp, and the two projects could be split.

Therefore the general plan should be amended to remove this linkage. The onramp is a bad idea that will damage the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
D. Gold
Pacific Manor
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3774 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 10 Murdock, Christian
From: Julie Starobin < >
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 2:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Plan Update
[CAUTION: External Email]

I read the General Plan Update and there's a lot there to be concerned with. One particular item should definitely be changed before the plan is approved.

On page 5-12 (page 33 of the pdf file): "The Manor Drive overcrossing is planned to be widened and coordinated signal control is recommended to be added at the intersections of Manor Drive with Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue.

This project includes a new on-ramp to SR 1 from Oceana at Milagra Drive. " The proposed new on-ramp at Milagra has been discussed at several City Council meetings and at least two public hearings. At all of them, the majority of community speakers were from the Pacific Manor neighborhood and emphatically opposed the on-ramp. Several Council people expressed concern that the community was so opposed and said the two projects should be separated. They stated, on record, that their vote for the overcrossing was not a vote for the on-ramp.

Several alternatives were proposed and need to be considered. The General Plan should be amended to remove the assumption that these two projects are linked. The on-ramp is a terrible idea that will negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you,
Julie Starobin. Pacific Manor
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3775 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 11 Murdock, Christian
From: Dustin M
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 3:49 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Pacifica General Plan deserves more time for review by the Planning Commission [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Deputy Planning Director Murdock,
I am writing to express to you my concern as a local homeowner, active City volunteer and local business owner regarding the accelerated review process of the newly proposed General Plan, the Sharp Park Specific Plan and the EIR recently submitted to the Planning Commission.

Your work as Deputy Planning Director plays a vital role in our local governance, particularly since the General Plan is a guiding document that will shape Pacifica’s future for decades.

It is my understanding that the Planning Commission has been requested to review these documents over a 6 day period, yet the documents total an incredible 4,795 pages.

I feel that this places too heavy a burden on the Planning commission to execute with the prudence and detail necessary to properly fulfill its function.

Furthermore, I believe that these documents should be broken into sections for the Planning Commission to review in parts and include opportunities for further public comment. To date, there have been few opportunities with very little advertising, for the public to engage in this process.

The future of Pacifica deserves the care and attention of the Planning Commission and the voices of Pacificans should be represented.

I am asking you to consider a more reasonable formal timeline for the Planning Commission to review the General Plan, the Sharp Park Specific Plan and the EIR. June 1st is not reasonable for the Planning Commission to be effective in it’s function.

Sincerely,
Dustin McGahan
President
Little Feet Renovation Inc.
“visionary sculptural transformations”
www.littlefeetrenovation.com
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3776 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 12 Murdock, Christian
From: Remi Tan < >
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 6:19 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Wehrmeister, Tina; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Nibbelin, John; Leal, David; Godwin, James; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; O'Connor, Bonny Subject: Comments on May 2022 Draft General Plan (GP) revise – Prominent prominent ridge lines and prominent landforms
[CAUTION: External Email]

2022-05-31
Re: Comments on May 2022 Draft General Plan (GP) revise – Prominent prominent ridge lines and prominent landforms Dear Planning Staff, Commission, and City Council,
Reviewing the new Draft General Plan and noticed that there are prominent ridge lines (noted in red) and prominent landforms (noted in purple) missing from this Figure 3.3:

1. Gypsy Hill - Gypsy Hill Rd. There are developable lots on this. GP should state that all new homes in this area must be located well below the ridge line and screened by new trees and existing homes add tree screening and offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space (removing existing buildings and improvements) and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

2. Fassler Hill - Ohlone Dr. Harmony @ 1 Development was recently approved disregarding this ridgeline. GP should state that all new homes in this area must be located well below the ridge line and screened by new trees and existing homes add tree screening and offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space (removing existing buildings and improvements) and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

3. There is a proposed development at the end of Higgins Rd on this ridge line. Due to access and infrastructure issues and active recreation trail this development should be halted and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

4. Pedro Point – end of Grand and Belfast Aves. Individual lots - No developments are currently proposed here. Due to access and infrastructure issues, future development should be halted and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

5. Behind Park Pacifica and Frontierland Park - No developments are currently proposed here. Due to access and infrastructure issues, future development should be halted and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

6. South of San Pedro Valley - No developments are currently proposed here. Due to access and infrastructure issues, future development should be halted and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3777 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 13 7. Rockaway Quarry Headlands is missing. GP should state that any part of the future Quarry development that is trying to get ocean views needs to be not visible from these prominent points, and in exchange development in the flatlands of the Quarry should be densified.

8. Mussel Rock – this starts at the north end of town at the end of this beach. No developments are currently proposed here. Due to access and infrastructure issues and coastal erosion, future development should be halted and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

For all of the prominent ridgelines and prominent landforms shown on the map (including Aramai Pt.) No development should be allowed and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

Please make all the corrections noted above to the General Plan.

Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan,
Architect, Pacific Manor

m
m
V

13.k
Packet Pg. 3778 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 14 13.k
Packet Pg. 3779 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 15 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3780 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 16 Murdock, Christian
From:

Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: YES Adopt the current GPU and EIR that is being presented on June 6 [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

We are writing to urge you TO ADOPT the current GPU and EIR that is being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field.

We DO NOT support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye.

Sincerely,
Larry & Sandra Anderson
Pedro Point
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3781 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3782 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 18 Murdock, Christian
From: Remi Tan < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:58 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Wehrmeister, Tina; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Nibbelin, John; Leal, David; Godwin, James; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; O'Connor, Bonny Subject: Re: Comments on May 2022 Draft General Plan (GP) revise – Prominent prominent ridge lines and prominent landforms
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Planning Staff, Commission, and City Council,
Regarding my comment yesterday on 2022-05-31, I forgot to note on the map on Figure 4-3 Land Use Diagram that all the areas circled in red and purple below should be made Park or Conservation. Please add this map markup to my comment.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3783 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 19 13.k
Packet Pg. 3784 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20 Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Manager and Member
S.A.A. Equities, LLC
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment On Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 06:18:33 AM PDT, Remi Tan wrote:
2022-05-31
Re: Comments on May 2022 Draft General Plan (GP) revise – Prominent prominent ridge lines and prominent landforms Dear Planning Staff, Commission, and City Council,
Reviewing the new Draft General Plan and noticed that there are prominent ridge lines (noted in red) and prominent landforms (noted in purple) missing from this Figure 3.3:

7. Rockaway Quarry Headlands is missing. GP should state that any part of the future Quarry development that is trying to get ocean views needs to be not visible from these prominent points, and in exchange development in the flatlands of the Quarry should be densified.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3785 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 21 8. Mussel Rock – this starts at the north end of town at the end of this beach. No developments are currently proposed here. Due to access and infrastructure issues and coastal erosion, future development should be halted and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

Please make all the corrections noted above to the General Plan.

Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan,
Architect, Pacific Manor

m
m
V

13.k
Packet Pg. 3786 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 22 13.k
Packet Pg. 3787 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 23 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3788 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 24 Murdock, Christian
From: Remi Tan < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:10 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Wehrmeister, Tina; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Nibbelin, John; Leal, David; Godwin, James; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; O'Connor, Bonny Subject: Re: Comments on May 2022 Draft General Plan (GP) revise – Prominent prominent ridge lines and prominent landforms
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Planning Staff, Commission, and City Council,
And diagrams 4-4 through 4-9 should be updated accordingly with the ridgline properties designate as park or conservation land
Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment Pacifica Manor
On Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 01:58:30 AM PDT, Remi Tan < > wrote:

13.k
Packet Pg. 3789 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 25 13.k
Packet Pg. 3790 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 26 Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment Pacific Manor
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 06:18:33 AM PDT, Remi Tan < > wrote:
2022-05-31
Re: Comments on May 2022 Draft General Plan (GP) revise – Prominent prominent ridge lines and prominent landforms Dear Planning Staff, Commission, and City Council,
Reviewing the new Draft General Plan and noticed that there are prominent ridge lines (noted in red) and prominent landforms (noted in purple) missing from this Figure 3.3:

13.k
Packet Pg. 3791 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 27 For all of the prominent ridgelines and prominent landforms shown on the map (including Aramai Pt.) No development should be allowed and GP should offer landowners salable transfer development rights to keep as open space and transfer their development rights to lot owners in the flats near transit to densify those lots near transit.

Please make all the corrections noted above to the General Plan.

Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan,
Architect, Pacific Manor

m
m
V

13.k
Packet Pg. 3792 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 28 13.k
Packet Pg. 3793 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 29 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3794 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 30 Murdock, Christian
From: Remi Tan < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:24 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Wehrmeister, Tina; Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Nibbelin, John; Leal, David; Godwin, James; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; O'Connor, Bonny Subject: 2022-05 Pacifica General Plan - Public Comment Draft - Comments - DEIR Housing [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear City Council and City Planning Staff and Commission: It looks like my comment from 2022-02-26 on the DEIR and on 2022-01-08 on the Draft GP has not been addressed. Not sure why this is so. The 990 net new residential potential is still way under the RHNA numbers of 1,892 To be compliant with RHNA, this General Plan must be updated to account for the RHNA numbers. As mentioned before, we need to densify zoning on all sites near transit lines in the flats and not on the hillsides. Please see my original comments below Please have Dyett and Bhatia work this out and present a new draft to the public.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3795 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 31 Thank you and Best Regards,

13.k
Packet Pg. 3796 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 32 Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment Pacific Manor
On Saturday, February 26, 2022, 04:39:20 PM PST, Remi Tan > wrote:

Dear City Council and City Planning:

I was looking at the DEIR exec summary and the housing number is still to low at 900... The DEIR needs to be completely updated to reflect the higher RHNA numbers and the increased service retail that the new housing would support. Also the DIER needs to be updated to reflect the increased traffic, pollution, transit, and other environmental impacts would increase and need to be accounted for with the higher RHNA numbers.

Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment Pacifica, CA
From: Remi Tan < >
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; o'[email protected] <o'[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022, 11:47:52 AM PST
Subject: 2022-01 Pacifica General Plan - Public Comment Draft - Comments - Housing Chris and Bonnie: I have the following comments on the draft public comment General Plan The planned housing quantity of 990 units by 2035 is inadequate and does not cover the job creation of 1,470 jobs by 2040 and is also short of the 1,892 RHNA required housing units to be built by 2031. (See excerpts from the Jan 2022 Public Comment Draft General Plan and the ABAG RHNA.) Also given that the majority of the jobs projected to be created are in the retail and service sectors (which is in line with the proposed increase in tourism), and these jobs are typically low paying, we need to add much more housing and most of this should be affordable housing.

Given the recent astronomical rise in Pacifica real estate values, Pacifica needs to increase housing quantities beyond the RHNA allocation to stabilize prices by increase supply to meet demand.. The City should work with other Bay Area cities and counties and ABAG to engage a study by an economist that would analyze job creation and population increase in the Bay Area and determine the amount of housing that needs to be built in Pacifica (and the Bay Area) not only to accommodate the new jobs within commutable distance and population growth but to stabilize rising prices by building enough housing so that demand and supply are equalized.

This new housing should be accounted for in the new General Plan and should be located near transit stops and shopping centers to reduce traffic, and not located on hillsides and toes of hills subject to landslide, in erosion vulnerable coastal edges, or in areas prone to flooding or high tide inundation to avoid loss of life and property due to more severe weather and sea level rise caused by global warming. This may require increase in density and height limits near the transit and shopping centers to accommodate the housing.

Given the dire rising cost situation with housing, and with all the effort and public input in the new General Plan and subsequent zoning updates, all housing projects as well as commercial projects should have as-of-right zoning that minimizes additional public, planning commission and city council hearings and meetings to expedite the planning process and the city should coordinate with the Coastal Commission to make sure the General Plan and zoning is designed to make CC approval as of right too.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3797 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 33 The city should have an expedited permit process in place and coordinate this expedited permit process with the Coastal Commission for housing locations in the Coastal Zone. Housing projects with high affordability should be top priority in permit expediting
Please advise on next steps plans to take in incorporating increased housing and the above measures into the new General Plan.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3798 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 34 13.k
Packet Pg. 3799 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 35 13.k
Packet Pg. 3800 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 36 Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment . Pacifica, CA 94044

13.k
Packet Pg. 3801 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 37 M
m
m Virus-free. www.avast.com
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3802 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 38 Murdock, Christian
From: Richard Clark <r >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Land Use Designation of the 5 acre Pedro Point Field [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming the June 6th public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and EnvironmentallySensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational uses to Commercial Residential Mixed Use. What I’m most concerned about the field being developed is the high volume of traffic this will incur and the burden/effect these additional cars will have on the surrounding residential San Pedro area. Any given weekend, there is a high load of parked cars along San Pedro Avenue. There is only one way in and one way out. With the proposed changes, a minimum of 85 single family residences and up to 800 homes could be built on this field. That could increase the amount of vehicles from 85 to 1600 on any given day (most residences have a 2 or more cars).

Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

Sincerely,
Richard Clark
, 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3803 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 39 Murdock, Christian
From: Mark Musselman < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Subject: Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use. I have been living on Pedro Point for 5 years now - first renting and now owning on Livingston Avenue, looking down on the Field. I see this Field as being an amazing part of the community that is totally unique to any other place I've lived in the Bay Area. This field should be developed as a Park, not more housing. This field needs to be protected from current and future development.

I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3804 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 40 Murdock, Christian
From: David Costa < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg Subject: Subject: Proposal to change land use designation in the GPU and EIR [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to object to the proposal in the GPU and EIR that would change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point field from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use. I find it difficult to believe that this proposal is once again being considered over the near universal objection of the residents of Pedro Point and the numerous reasons that argue against this being anything but a good idea.

This parcel is in a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and when it rains, it becomes swamp like. There are photos of people using row boats on it. There has been no discussion of how this can be mitigated to allow mixed commercial-residential use.

Changing the land use designation of this parcel would also significantly alter the basic nature/environment of this neighborhood. Since the City has failed to provide any park or open space for the community, this parcel has become a recreational/gathering spot, where people can exercise their pets and congregate. It is without question that a Prescriptive Easement has already been established for the residents of Pedro Point and, if the proposed change of land use is adopted, it will incite litigation to formally establish this Prescriptive Easement.

Given your position, I'm sure that you already the requirements for a Prescriptive Easement, so I won't bother to recite them here.

Of even greater concern, are the safety issues presented by adding numerous additional housing units to a neighborhood which has only one access road and which is in a high-risk fire area. On weekends and holidays, Pedro Point is crowded with people using its streets for parking (many illegally) and many of these streets are substandard and difficult to navigate. With global warming, it is only a matter of time before Pedro Point is subject to a significant fire, requiring its residents to evacuate as quickly as possible. This will be difficult as is and a potential disaster if seventy or more additional housing units are allowed to be built on the parcel in question. This email should serve to put the City on notice of its potential liability.

I have been a resident of Pedro Point for over thirty-six years and have witnessed the neglect of this neighborhood by the City first hand, from the failure to properly maintain its streets to the failure to enforce parking and illegal fireworks regulations. The current owner of the property purchased it with full knowledge of the environmental, safety and zoning issues, as well as the concerns of the neighborhood. His sole purpose seems to have been to develop the property in disregard of these issues. I fail to see why his desire to make a profit should take precedence over these issues and concerns.

I have reviewed the the comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022, as well as the letters the submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye. I believe that the city and the Planning Committee need to

13.k
Packet Pg. 3805 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 41 carefully examine these documents before making changes that will almost certainly open them up to both moral and legal issues.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3806 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 42 Murdock, Christian
From: Suzanne Moore < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Public Comment
Subject: Comments on the DEIR, GP, and SPSP
[CAUTION: External Email]

TO: Pacifica Planning Department
Pacifica Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Moore, Manor District
RE: Final DEIR, GP, SPSP and the Housing Element to come Hello staff and commissioners,
Thank you, staff, for your evident hard work at creating and incorporating community responses to the DEIR, GP, and SPSP.

And thank you, commissioners, for taking up the task of reviewing these documents for City Council.

I am confused on how best to communicate my concerns pertaining to these documents. Since the documents are interconnected and you will be making recommendations on all three, I will refer to the designations supplied by the documents.
3-G-12, Housing Opportunity, is referenced in both the GP and SPSP. 3-J-37, Supportive Housing
3-I-35, Preserve Affordability
All of these demonstrate City goals for projects and preservation of affordable housing that serve the homeless, special needs, and opportunities suitable for all incomes, abilities, and stages of life. The City seems to focus heavily on relationships and incentives geared to for-profit contractors. To utilize the services of non-profit contractors, many communities rely on monies from a dedicated housing fund, - which we could create through a title transfer fee, vacancy fee, landlord tax, and commercial linkage fee. I would like to see this language be incorporated in our plans. 3-I-36, Displacement Indicators. This is seen in the SPSP and refers to change in the share of low-income households, average rent and sale price, supply of affordable units, evictions and foreclosures within SPSP. Concord gathers this data through a registry, and they have hired someone to set up the system.

It could be invaluable information for Pacifica: the number of Air B&Bs/conversions, condos and conversions, unit availability and current rents - all data helpful to the real-time picture of displacement risk factors. I would like to see a registry be incorporated into our City plans.

I understand that Pacifica’s Housing Element will be addressed separately. I want to voice my concern that Pacifica is far behind other communities in the development of our Housing Element, and time is running out for development of this important document. I understand necessary steps include a needs assessment, site inventory, and public engagement. Can we immediately start this process?

13.k
Packet Pg. 3807 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 43 I admit I am not well educated in this process of communicating my ideas about the GP, SPSP, DEIR. I found the document difficult to understand. I have no doubt, however, of its importance - and the importance of community engagement. Please continue efforts to engage the public.

Thank you.
--
Suzanne Moore
Home
Cell
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3808 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 44 Murdock, Christian
From: Louderback, Jim < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:46 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren
Subject: GPU and Pedro Point
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners:

I’m very concerned about the flood-plain aspect of this land, particularly as sea rise continues. The Pedro Point Field is a known wetlands which would be inappropriate for high-density (overwhelmingly) residential, and according to the county maps will be inundated with water over the next 20-30 years as sea levels rise. This would lead to an inordinate expense to the city to manage the retreat from land that should never be built on (see the crazy costs to keep the sea wall intact up by the pier and multiply by ten).

And as a neighborhood with only one road in and out, I’m also concerned about potential bottlenecks if the Pedro Point headlands caught fire, which is increasingly likely in our dry, dry times. Almost doubling the size of the neighborhood will turn San Pedro Avenue into a dangerous bottleneck if we have to evacuate quickly.

In addition, as a Pedro Point resident, I look out over the field and regularly use it for recreation and gathering with neighbors. It would totally change the character of the neighborhood if this plan moves forward. Please don’t ruin this amazing part of the world with untrammeled development that is wrong for Pacifica, wrong for Pedro Point, and wrong the environmentally changing world we live in.

Let’s instead turn this into an amazing place for the community, the neighborhood, and visitors to come enjoy our amazing city. The growth of the Pedro Point shopping center and use of Pacifica State Beach show that we have an amazing opportunity to appeal to more day trippers and overnight guests. Let’s turn this field into something we can all be proud of and that continues to highlight the amazing strength Pacifica has as a destination for local, regional, and global guests. This can be accomplished without changing the zoning, and with intelligent development that supports the wetland, the rising seas and the ecology and the community.

I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

Sincerely,

13.k
Packet Pg. 3809 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 45 Jim Louderback, Sam Louderback, Kimberly Risk
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3810 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 46 Murdock, Christian
From: Melinda Clar < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Open Field at Pedro Point
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners:

As a 25-year resident of Pedro Point, we highly object to the proposed changes to the open field at Pedro Point. Besides all of the effects to the local environment, the roads cannot support the huge influx of cars coming onto Pedro Point.

On any given weekend, the parking is so bad that it is difficult for two cars to pass each other on San Pedro Avenue. Think of what the traffic would be in this limited space with the additional cars associated with new housing built on the field. There is only one road into Pedro Point, therefore the additional traffic would be a hazard to emergency vehicles.

Pedro Point is the Gem of Pacifica. Its unique nature is extremely rare in the Bay Area. Building on the field would destroy its charm and history. It would also have the effect of lowering property values and quality-of-life for the Pedro Point residents, many of whom have been here for over fifty years.

To turn the field into a Foster City and destroy the Jewel of Pacifica is unacceptable! It's obvious to us that this plan is being pushed by folks who don't live on Pedro Point and could care less about its residents or the City of Pacifica.

We urge you to abandon this plan. There has got to be a better idea.

Sincerely,
Pat and Mindy Clar

Pedro Point
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3811 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 47 Murdock, Christian
From: Melinda Clar < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:00 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg Subject: Open Field at Pedro Point (additional email address added) [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners:

We urge you to abandon this plan. There has got to be a better idea.

Sincerely,
Pat and Mindy Clar

13.k
Packet Pg. 3812 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 48 Murdock, Christian
From: Gary Furlong < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: San Pedro Ave field proposed land use designation change [CAUTION: External Email]

Frankly, it is almost beyond believing that this issue is still being actively considered. I have written about this matter before but am happy to do so yet again. I have lived here for more than 20 years and my husband has lived here for more than 30 years, so we do have some history here.

Please keep in mind these points:

1. there is ONE ROAD in and out of this neighborhood. On a pleasant day our neighborhood is already swamped with cars, many of them illegally parked as there is no legal parking left anywhere; these "extra" cars are due to beach goers, shoppers, hikers, people going to restaurants, people attending events at the community center, people visiting friends who live here, etc. Lots that are already zoned for residential use are still in the process of being built out so there will be more cars, more traffic. If there is an emergency that requires an evacuation of this neighborhood (i.e. a fire sweeping through the neighborhood) it is already impossible to quickly and safely evacuate this area. The city planning committee already bears a moral (and possibly legal) responsibility for creating a situation that may well prove to be deadly in the event of an emergency. The thought that some are considering adding even more possible housing (and not just a few but a great many) to this mix staggers the imagination. Again, ONE ROAD.

2. The field is environmentally sensitive. This has been shown over and over again. Documentation has been provided showing this to be true so I won't belabor that point here. However, I will point out that this field is being considered in its current condition during an extended, multi-year drought. One day the drought will end and that field will revert to its previous condition, which means a soggy mess during the wet season. It is the legal duty of the committee to exam the documents that have been presented to them in this regard.

3. The appearance is being given that the Planning Commission is creating a special zoning provision so that the owner of the property can make a profit at the cost of the neighborhood. I'm all for people making a profit but I also recognize that the field was bought with zoning that does not allow residential development. The current owner bought it knowing that and I resent that my neighborhood is being sacrificed so that a profit can be made. I believe it is the duty of the city and the Planning Commission to look out for its established neighborhoods adopting this change will do just the opposite.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3813 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 49 4. Cramming houses into field will change the basic nature of our neighborhood. That field currently serves as a open space where neighbors can have casual encounters, where people exercise their pets, etc. For many years now there has been unchallenged access to that field and it has thus developed into the heart of the community. This designation change will ruin my decades long enjoyment of that field and will certainly do so for many others.

I am in agreement with the comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022. I fully support the letters the submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, I remain deeply concerned that this testimony was evidently rejected without adequate analysis and assume that at some point this is going to be examined more closely. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. I believe that the city and the Planning Committee need to carefully examine these documents before making changes that will almost certainly open them up to both moral and legal issues.

Regards,
Gary Furlong
.

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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3814 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 50 Murdock, Christian
From: Beth Brann < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:36 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: San Pedro Avenue Field Property and proposed change of land use designation [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to strongly urge you NOT to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

I have been a Pedro Point resident since 2000 (22 years), and purchased my home with the view it had of the open field and the beach. The density of housing being proposed in changing the usage is preposterous if you look at the number of people currently living in Pedro Point and observing the traffic, the condition of our streets, the weekend touring and daily traffic, and the realization that we only have 1 ROAD IN AND 1 ROAD OUT in case of emergency. We cannot fathom what the additional number of vehicles, residences, and people would contribute to changing the safety and our coastal vibe of our little enclave in Pedro Point, Pacifica.

Sincerely,
Beth Brann
Pacifica, CA 94044
phone
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3815 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 51 Murdock, Christian
From: Anne Evers Hitz < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:29 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: San Pedro Avenue Field Property and proposed change of land use designation [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to strongly urge you NOT to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, recognized wetlands and EnvironmentallySensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

We have been Pedro Point residents since 1990 (32 years). The density of housing being proposed by changing the usage does not make any sense if you look at the number of people currently living in Pedro Point and observe the condition of our streets, the weekend touring and daily traffic, and the realization that we only have ONE ROAD IN AND ONE ROAD OUT in case of emergency. We cannot fathom what the additional number of vehicles, residences, and people would contribute to changing the safety and the coastal vibe of the neighborhood.

We fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022, and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am concerned and disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3816 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 52 Murdock, Christian
From: Andy Narraway < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:19 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: GPU comment re Calson Field, Pedro Point
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

I am a resident of Pedro Point for the last 9 years. I moved here after 25 years living in SF and moved here for the small town community feel I was lacking, living in SF. I have attended numerous planning commision and council meetings over the years voicing my opposition to changing the Calson field in Pedro Point from Commercial into a Residential zoning. Even a small number of developments will completely change the nature of our neighborhood and will diminish the quality of life for everyone surrounding any development. We have been continually ignored by the real estate interests on city council and real estate lobbying dollars for the last 9 years I have lived here (and apparently for even longer than that by residents who have spent the last 20+ years here) and Im sick and tired of the VAST majority of the community's wishes being railroaded and IGNORED. I won't even go into Federal species regulation, climate change, wetland preservation, sea rise etc as it's been repeated ad nauseum over many, many years with NO action by the members of city council.

I am therefore writing to (AGAIN) to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from CommercialRecreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

Sincerely,
Andy Narraway
Grand Avenue
Pacifica

13.k
Packet Pg. 3817 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 53 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3818 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 54 Murdock, Christian
From: Lori Martin < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 9:16 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Home
Subject: General Plan & Pedro Point
[CAUTION: External Email]

13.k
Packet Pg. 3819 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3820 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 56 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3821 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 57 Murdock, Christian
From: Mlcalifdreaming < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 9:27 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: General Plan & PEDRO POINT
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use. I have lived on Pedro point for 13 years and have never once used this field for my personal use. My concern is that a planned development such as this would dramatically change the Pedro Point community which is becoming an upscale jewel of Pacifica (with an ever increasing tax base for the city), add an additional traffic and parking burden to an already over-burdened area, cause flooding and potentially destroy the wetlands.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3822 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3823 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 59 Murdock, Christian
From: Jennie Lill (JLILL) < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 11:25 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg Subject: San Pedro Avenue Field proposed land use designation changes [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I hope you are doing well.

It recently came to my attention that a couple of proposals I thought have been dismissed recently have reemerged that will directly affect myself, my family and my neighbors within the Pedro Point community.

I am writing to please ask that you to not adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a well used center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

Firstly, the traffic in and out of Pedro Point is already congested particularly during commute times and on sunny days when we suffer from parking due to beach traffic overflow. Many times it has been impossible to even park outside my own home and I often have to place traffic cones outside to ensure my family and tenants can park safely near our residence (140 Blackburn Terrace which I have been the owner of for the past 9 years). We already have many vacant lots that are already zoned for residential use which are still being built out which means that in a year or so time, the traffic will increase.

We often discuss that it will be hard to safely evacuate via our one exit road during a Tsunami, Earthquake or Fire evacuation.

We simply cannot add multiple additional houses in this area.

Secondly, the field where the new zoning is being proposed if often flooded in the rainy season, but is also a habitat to certain types of wildlife (we often see garter snakes there) but is also the central hub of our community for dog walkers, our residences who can't walk too far and for our young children. How would we be compensated for this if it becomes built out?
I am in agreement with the comments previously submitted by PPCA regarding this matter and implore that the city and the Planning Committee very carefully examine these documents before making changes that will almost certainly open them up to both moral, legal and societal issues.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3824 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 60 In brief, this is a beautiful neighborhood that is already stretched to capacity & where it really makes no sense to build things up further.

Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely,
Dr. Jennie Lill
Jennie R Lill Ph.D. Senior Fellow & Executive Director.

Department of Proteomics, Lipidomics and Next Generation Sequencing Genentech, A Member of the Roche Group
On Campus on Mon, Tues, Wed, WFH Thurs Fri
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3825 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 61 Murdock, Christian
From: Peter Loeb >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; O'Neill, Mike; Beckmeyer, Sue; Vaterlaus, Sue; Woodhouse, Kevin; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian Cc: Summer Lee; JoAnne Arnos; Pete Shoemaker; Mark Hubbell; Clif Lawrence; Cherie Chan; Christine Boles; Stan Zeavin; Suzanne Moore; Nancy Tierney; Sue Digre (Contact); Cindy Abbott; James Kremer; Marj Davis; Paul Chervatin; Carolyn Jaramillo; Dinah Verby; Sam Casillas; Victor Carmichael
Subject: When will comments on General Plan be addressed? [CAUTION: External Email]

Perhaps the most frequent response to comments in the FEIR is:
“The comment is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR, therefore no further response is required in the FEIR. However, the comment addresses the content of the Proposed Plan and will be shared with decision-makers in that context. Please see Master Response 1: EIR Comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses." Will the comments about the General Plan be shared in the June 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting? The recommended action on that agenda is:

Adopt the attached resolution to recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Members of the public have made many comments on the General Plan. That will be a large number of comments to summarize and discuss. The Planning Commissioners will be unable to consider them all in the meeting, prior to acting on the recommended action. All of the comments on the General Plan need to be presented to the Planning Commission before they take the recommended action. Some of the comments may result in recommended changes to the General Plan. These comments and the General Plan recommendation action item deserve a separate meeting to consider all these comments and the recommendation.

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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3826 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 62 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Clif Lawrence
Cc: Peter Loeb; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; O'Neill, Mike; Beckmeyer, Sue; Vaterlaus, Sue; Woodhouse, Kevin; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian; Summer Lee; JoAnne Arnos; Pete Shoemaker; Mark Hubbell; Cherie Chan; Stan Zeavin; Suzanne Moore; Nancy Tierney; Sue Digre (Contact); Cindy Abbott; James Kremer; Marj Davis; Paul Chervatin; Carolyn Jaramillo; Dinah Verby; Sam Casillas; Victor Carmichael; Public Comment
Subject: Re: When will comments on General Plan be addressed? [CAUTION: External Email]

Thank you Peter, this is a very important point as the Planning Commission is also being asked by staff and state agencies to consider making some changes to the GP as well.

It would be really helpful to know how this meeting will be structured so that the public can prepare comments for the various topics. Certainly we won't be limited to one 2-3 minute comment on all three incredibly complex documents, will we? My main comments will focus on the still deficient landslide and fire maps in both the General Plan and EIR as those are critical to life safety, but I just noticed some new horizontal discrepancies in the General Plan while reading the revisions on the plane yesterday that should be fixed too.

I plan to spend this weekend writing up ahead of time what I can in this short time period, but oral comments should be allowed after the staff presentation/initial planning commission discussion on each separate item at a minimum (GP, SPSP, EIR) as we have no idea what staff will be presenting and what may be accidentally left out or misinterpreted from our comments that need additional attention.

Again, please allow us to be your partners in this update. Many of us have spent many hours reviewing and analyzing these documents and the background scientific data. We want to be helpful so together we can ensure Pacifica has a really good General Plan to guide us through the next 20-40 years.

Thank you!
Christine Boles
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:32 PM Clif Lawrence < > wrote:

Very good catch.

Clif
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:10 PM Peter Loeb < > wrote:

Perhaps the most frequent response to comments in the FEIR is:
“The comment is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR, therefore no further response is required in the FEIR.

However, the comment addresses the content of the Proposed Plan and will be shared with decision-makers in that context. Please see Master Response 1: EIR Comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses."

13.k
Packet Pg. 3827 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 63 Will the comments about the General Plan be shared in the June 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting? The recommended action on that agenda is:

Adopt the attached resolution to recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Peter Loeb
--
Christine Boles, Architect
Candidate for Pacifica City Council, District 2
Caring for the People and Environment of Pacifica
www.ChristineforPacifica.com
M m m
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3828 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 64 Murdock, Christian
From: Debi Hirshlag < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Concerned Citizen - Proposed land use designation change for the San Pedro Ave field in Pedro Point
[CAUTION: External Email]

I am a fairly new resident, having moved to Pacifica about a year ago and being so smitten with the field's open space allowing coastal access for Pedro Point residents and visitors and providing a safe place for families and dogs to meet, exercise and roam, especially given so many of us have no yard or a highly sloped one, and the area has few protective sidewalks. It is also a natural adjunct to the historic Pedro Point Firehouse, a community center for residents and others who lease it out, including a small playground for kids behind it.

Development of this field will fundamentally alter the charm, peace and safety of this neighborhood. I don't know if any of you live in or spend time in Pedro Point but the beauty of this neighborhood comes with several downsides, of which the development of dense housing will only serve to make it worse.

1. During the busy weekends and throughout the summer, beachgoers and patrons of businesses like Soul Grind and Humble Sea park up and down our streets after facing full lots or seeking to avoid paying for parking. And the recently enacted large vehicle parking ordinance will probably reduce legal parking by another 6 or so spaces here. As a result, we face a gauntlet of illegally and/or poorly parked cars as we try to get into and out of our neighborhood. This is not only a driving hazard but potentially a safety hazard should an emergency vehicle try to get in/out or, heaven forbid, we need to evacuate in an emergency. I have had to slam on my brakes for children running across streets from behind parked cars excited to go to the beach, an unleashed dog jumping out of an open Jeep and generally "oblivious" tourists on the phone crossing the road. If you add another 70 units with all their residents, cars and visitors, this becomes a real hazard for ingress and egress, not to mention how traffic will flow from the housing area onto San Pedro (street light, or every man for himself trying to dart into traffic).

2. For whatever reason, Pacifica seems to have forgotten about street quality in Pedro Point. We have pot holes and edges of streets that are deteriorated and crumbling away. This is made worse by so many people parking along the edges, the narrowness of our streets and the water drainage during rainy seasons which chips away at blacktop quality. Again, visitors and residents have already taxed the infrastructure of Pedro Point. How can we keep adding onto it?

3. Lastly, acoustics in Pedro Point are a bit unique due to the bowl-shape of our hillside. Every emergency vehicle, car with a loud muffler and revving motorcycle is heard loud and clear in our homes, at all hours of the day and night. Even construction on a single home is loud. If you take construction on 70 homes that will take a very long

13.k
Packet Pg. 3829 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 65 time, not to mention the resulting noise of 70 families, their cars, their kids and their dogs, all of us who are living here will have their quality of life reduced greatly.

I understand and support progress, and realize the pressure towns are under given California's housing push, but isn't a Planning Commission also supposed to look out for the safety and well-being of existing, tax-paying residents - not just hypothetical new ones? Aren't there safer places to build where a new neighborhood can be established, rather than altering an existing one? Or, can't existing cleared land be added onto/built up? And, if the safety and well-being of existing residents isn't enough of a factor to NOT accept this proposed change, I urge you to revisit in detail the environmental considerations of this piece of land. Not only does it support endangered species and provide drinking water for wild animals in our area, it is also an important drainage basin for the hillside of Pedro Point. You see a grassy field right now (in a multi-year drought) but even in the most modest one-day rain, all the criss-cross drainage of Pedro Points flows to that field.

I conclude by saying I am in agreement with the comments previously submitted by Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) President Allison West on March 7, 2022. I fully support the letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and I remain deeply concerned that this testimony was evidently rejected without adequate analysis and assume that at some point this is going to be examined more closely. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. I believe that the city and the Planning Committee need to carefully examine these documents before making changes that will almost certainly open them up to both moral and legal issues, and jeopardize the safety and well-being of the existing residents of Pedro Point - both human and wildlife.

Thank you.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3830 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 66 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:21 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Public Comment Subject: URGENT - city calendar on Meeting Portal site for Planning Commission hearing has not been updated!
[CAUTION: External Email]

I am getting questions from other members of the public because the city meeting portal website shows the GP hearing already happened on 6/1. The agenda itself also says 6/1 and there is no agenda posted for the 6/6. This is so confusing. Does this meet the legal requirements of notifications? Please confirm and fix it asap.

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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3831 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 67 Murdock, Christian
From: Suzanne Moore >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:02 PM
To: Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Wright, Greg; Hauser, Samantha; Woodhouse, Kevin; Leal, David; Beckmeyer, Sue; Vaterlaus, Sue
Cc: Christine Boles; Clif Lawrence; Mark Hubbell; Nancy Tierney; Pete Shoemaker; Suzanne Moore
Subject: Public questions to prepare for the 6/6/22 Planning Commission meeting [CAUTION: External Email]

Community members have been intent on providing thoughtful and meaningful comments to the GP, SPSP, and DEIR.

We have some common questions to best prepare for the 6/6/22 meeting with the Planning Commission.

1. Will there be public presentations? These documents are complex, and for many of us, difficult to understand. Could the City provide a brief presentation on the proposals to increase density and height, especially in Sharp Park where the neighborhood could be completely transformed?

2. Will the public be allowed time to speak to each of the three documents? It is unclear from the agenda.

3. If the public disagrees with a City reply to a previous comment on the DEIR, what process has been created?

4. Can you clarify when staff will present public comments on the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan at public hearings per Master Response 1 on packet page 751? Some comments remain unaddressed.

5. The Housing Element process has not been initiated, will require significant public engagement, has a January deadline, will require CEQA work, and needs to be consistent with the LCLUP and the GP. Further changes to the GP, LCLUP and EIR may be needed. Can we immediately, with the dedicated outside consultants the city has already hired, start work on the Housing Element in parallel with the GP review and approvals process? What are the repercussions if the State fails to certify our Housing Element?
--
Suzanne Moore
Home
Cell
--
Suzanne Moore
Home
Cell
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3832 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3833 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 69 Sent from my iPhone
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3834 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 70 Murdock, Christian
From: Emil Mitev < >
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:39 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Opposition to adopt current GPU and EIR
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

Sincerely,
Emil Mitev
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3835 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Joanne Gold
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 9:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian; Murdock, Christian Subject: Comments on GPU and EIR for June 6th Planning Commission Hearing [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of Pedro Point and am writing to urge you not to adopt the GPU and FEIR in their current form which are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming the June 6th public hearing.

There is no question that the City of Pacifica needs a new General Plan. But the GPU and FEIR being put in front of you contain errors and omissions that will have significant negative consequences if not addressed and will leave the city vulnerable to future challenges and/or lawsuits – something no one wants, and the city can’t afford.

The area of my greatest concern - and the one that prompted more than two-thirds of overall public comments on the DEIR - is the proposed Land Use Designation change from Commercial-Recreational (CR) to Commercial Residential Based Mixed Use (CRMU) for the five-acre undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site (ie: the Pedro Point Field - the center of my neighborhood, a seasonal wetlands and EnvironmentallySensitive Habitat Area) I am among those who had personally submitted comments on the DEIR citing issues with this proposed Land Use change noting negative impacts, deficiencies, and ways in which the proposed Land Use would be out of compliance with CEQA and Coastal Act policies.

I also fully support comment letters previously submitted on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association on March 7, 2022 by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye. Their comments also documented known deficiencies in the Draft EIR and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU.

Please do not merely dismiss these expert opinions and common-sense comments from concerned residents like me in a rush to approve the EIR and GPU in their current form. These are long and complex documents – more than 4,000 pages in all! You must take the time needed to adequately review and consider their content and all the comments submitted.

We’ve waited this long to update the General Plan… don’t sacrifice quality and the careful consideration needed that will give us a plan for the future of Pacifica we can be proud of. I implore you to take steps to address the noted deficiencies, errors and omissions – especially those related to the Pedro Point field - before adopting these important guiding documents for our city. It will not only help to avoid drawn out challenges and potential litigation, it is simply the only responsible thing to do.

Respectfully,
Joanne Gold
Pacifica

13.k
Packet Pg. 3836 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3837 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Dinah Verby < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; O'Neill, Mike; Beckmeyer, Sue; Vaterlaus, Sue; Woodhouse, Kevin; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian Cc: Dinah Verby; Public Comment
Subject: Apparent Lack of/Defective Notice of Hearing for June 6 Planning Commission Gen Plan Update
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear City Council, Planning Commissioners, City Manager and Acting Planning Director,

As you may know, state law requires the City to publish a Notice of Hearing regarding the General Plan update in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction of the local agency at least 10 days prior to the hearing. (Govt. Code Secs. 65353(a) and 65090).

I am unable to find if and where the Notice of Hearing for the June 6th Planning Commission hearing was published. There was NO Notice of Hearing in this week’s June 1st Pacifica Tribune, which is the paper the City always uses to publish such notices.

There was a prior Notice of Hearing in the May 25th Tribune, but that was for the original hearing date of June 1st, which was to be an in-person meeting at the Council Chambers. That Notice was apparently invalid, as it was not published at least 10 days prior to the original June 1st hearing date. Is that why you extended the hearing date to June 6th?

If I am mistaken, please advise when and in which newspaper the Notice of Hearing for June 6th was published.

If I am correct, it would seem that the Agenda item for the General Plan Update will have to be postponed and re-noticed in compliance with state law.

Please advise. Thank you.

Dinah Verby

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3838 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 Murdock, Christian
From: Peter Loeb < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Cc: Summer Lee; Christine Boles; Sam Casillas; Pete Shoemaker; Leo Leon; Stan Zeavin; Victor Carmichael; Clif Lawrence; Cherie Chan; Sue Digre (Contact); Debra Etienne; Mark Hubbell; Dinah Verby; Nancy Tierney
Subject: Planning Commission: clarify procedure before General Plan/SPSP/EIR Public Hearing [CAUTION: External Email]

There are many procedural questions that have been raised about the June 6 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Public Hearing on the General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan and the Final EIR. This is a request on behalf of many citizens for the Planning Commission to discuss and answer the following questions at the beginning of the agenda item, prior to the item being discussed and before public comments, so that we know how to proceed.

1. Has the June 6 Planning Commission meeting been properly noticed? There is no notice of hearing published in the newspaper at least 10 days before the June 6 meeting, as required by state law for general plan updates. Can the Commission legally proceed to discuss the GP, or does it need to be postponed and renoticed?

2. Have all Commissioners completed review of the Agenda packet, and if not, how much time do they need to complete their review?

3. Responses to comment in the EIR repeatedly state that public comments on the General Plan will be summarized and presented to decision makers. When exactly will this happen? Will the comments on the General Plan be presented to the Planning Commission at this meeting and prior to oral public comments?

4. The agenda says that public will be allowed 6 minutes to comment. Will the comments on the three documents be divided up? Will the 3 documents be discussed separately? If people have 6 minutes to speak, does it matter if they spend all 6 minutes on one document?

5. Will the hearing be segmented so the three documents are considered separately?

6. Will the Commission consider separate meetings for each of the documents?

7. Does the Planning Commission have sufficient autonomy over its own process to determine the structure and timing of hearings or is the Commission bound to follow the structure and timeline presented by city staff? 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3839 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 Murdock, Christian
From: Allison West < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:32 PM
To: Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian Subject: Comments on GPU/EIR for 6/6 Planning Commission Hearing [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of Pedro Point and am also the President of Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA.) I'm writing to urge you not to adopt the GPU and FEIR in their current form which are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming the June 6th public hearing.

Contrary to some viewpoints, our community feels strongly the City of Pacifica needs a new General Plan. Our attorney, Brian Gaffney, highlighted significant errors and omissions in the GPU/EIR in his March 8, 2022, letter to Mr. Murdock. He will also provide additional comments to the revised GPU/EIR. These issues have not been answered fully or properly. The current state of the GPU/EIR will leave the city vulnerable to future challenges and/or lawsuits.

Of major significance and concern is the proposed Land Use Designation change from CommercialRecreational (CR) to Commercial Residential Based Mixed Use (CRMU) for the five-acre undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site also known as the Pedro Point Field. This field is the center of our neighborhood, is a seasonal wetlands, tsunami evacuation area, flood zone and EnvironmentallySensitive Habitat Area.

The majority of comments in the DEIR centered on this proposed change. The proposed Land Use change will have negative impacts, deficiencies, and ways in which the proposed Land Use would be out of compliance with CEQA and Coastal Act policies. The City has not done sufficient (if any) traffic or noise studies and what the impact will be for adding 70 + units to tight two-lane, dead-end road into Pedro Point.

I include by reference comments provided by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, as noted previously our attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye. Their comments also documented known significant deficiencies in the Draft EIR and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU.

Your roles are to evaluate all evidence, concerns, valid expert opinions and common-sense comments from concerned residents in our community in a rush to approve the EIR and GPU in their current form. These are long and complex documents – more than 4,000 pages in all! You must take the time needed to adequately review and consider their content and all the comments submitted.

The City has worked on the General Plan Update for more than a decade. Give the time and attention to ultimately have a GPU that will benefit all citizens in Pacifica. I urge you to take steps to address the noted deficiencies, errors, and omissions – especially those related to the Pedro Point field -

13.k
Packet Pg. 3840 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 before adopting these important guiding documents for our city. Avoid drawn out challenges and potential litigation: we ask that you take your time, continue public comments, push the Planning Department to comply with the requirements to provide detailed responses to resident’s concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.

Allison West

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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3841 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 5 Murdock, Christian
From: D Mi < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:07 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Domurat, George; Hauser, Samantha; Wright, Greg; Leal, David
Subject: Comments re GPU
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Planning Commissioners,

We are writing to urge you to reject the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which propose to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field -- a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community -- from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

We fully support, reiterate and incorporate herein comments previously submitted by Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) President Allison West on March 7, 2022, the comments and analysis submitted by Sam Casillas and other Pedro Point residents during the same timeframe, and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye - - all of which were rejected without adequate analysis.

Among other things, the foregoing comments and analyses document known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies.

Please do not dismiss these expert opinions; instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city. To do otherwise will inevitably lead to needless, expensive litigation that is unlikely to result in a favourable result for Pacifica. You have the opportunity to avoid such a result, which we urge you to do.

Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.

Dina and Robert Horan
Pedro Point residents
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3842 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 6 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:51 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Pacifica Permit Tech; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas Subject: a few quick questions regarding the General Plan documents [CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Christian,
I am trying to review the revised documents but am not finding some of the information referenced in the revisions. 1) Master Response 6 on fire issues has links to two word documents at the end. Neither of the links work. Can you please forward these documents?
[1] Email correspondence with Dave Sapsis, Wildland Fire Scientist, CAL FIRE, dated April 11, 2022 [2] Figure 3.11-2 is based on the “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA” map adopted by CALFIRE on November 7, 2007.Can you please share the data source for the new landslide map 8-x? There is no link 2) ) New landslide map 8-x mentions the Department of Conservation as the source but provides no link and no description of the type of landslides it addresses. Please clarify where I can find this information. 3) Buildout - Master Response #3 says, "Buildout projections were calculated on a parcel basis;" Can you share these calculations and a map showing where the city identified the parcels considered as part of Buildout.

Thank you,
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3843 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 7 Murdock, Christian
From: Sheryl Calson < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Vaterlaus, Sue; O'Neill, Mike; Beckmeyer, Sue
Subject: Calson Position Paper - Updated
Attachments: Calson Property Position Paper Update June 03 2022.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Planning Commissioners We've attached the Calson Property Position Paper for your consideration at the 6/7/2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Please see attached. Thank you.

Sheryl Calson
Ron Calson
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3844 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 June 3, 2022
To: City of Pacifica
- Planning Staff, Commissioners
- City Council Members
- City Manager
From: Sheryl and Ron Calson
City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU)
Calson Property Position Paper (Updated)
The GPU process has been very frustrating for us, beginning with the 8/26/2019 joint Planning and City Council Meeting to discuss the City’s GPU. After public comment had closed and the actual meeting began, there was a discussion by City Leaders present specifically regarding our property that lasted for approximately 90 minutes. Topics included land use, density and zoning. Although it is our understanding a “specific plan” for our property had been proposed some time ago by both the City and the property owner, it was denied due to cost. That evening we had no opportunity to participate in the discussion and it concluded with a recommendation to decrease the density of our property from “up to 15”

13.k
Packet Pg. 3845 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 to 3-5 units/gross acre. We question the omission of this process; a “specific plan” would have offered us that opportunity.

During the 2007-2014 Housing Element period then acting Assistant Planning Director Diaz indicated an appropriate density as being up to 50 units for the site (draft language, 2010). The same conclusion was offered by the owner’s consultant (Blazej, 2011); 50 townhomes was his conclusion we submitted to the City. Dyette and Bhatia hired by the City to develop the GPU had even higher densities; both medium and high densities were proposed.

At subsequent meetings during public comment we advocated to keep the density up to 15 units/gross acre that would support the City’s housing goals, including affordable housing. Yet the 3-5 units/gross acre density was approved and included in the redline document sent to the California Coastal Commission.

It is our belief that over the course of this GPU process (2011-current), the City has not made efforts to be fair and just with regards to the designation and density of our property.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3846 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 Given requirements noted in the 2015-2022 Housing Element and review of annual results, the City of Pacifica appears in need of more housing. We had a potential affordable housing buyer who had had discussions with Planning twice with a prospective project over the summer 2019; the Planning Department had reported to us that they were supportive of the project. It is our understanding that at the time City Council members had no knowledge of what potentially could be a beneficial affordable housing project for the City. After hearing the newly proposed density that evening, the prospective buyer withdrew from pursuing the project further.

As noted on page 29 of City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023, “ State of California, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and local governments determine each locality’s share of regional housing needs through a process known as Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)” Pacifica must plan for 413 units for the period (2014-2022).

13.k
Packet Pg. 3847 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 There were 109 unmet housing needs from the 2007-2014 allocation.

It is our belief that over the course of this GPU process (2011-current), the City has not made efforts to be fair and just with regards to the designation and density of our property. In 1957 when seven individual communities band together to form Pacifica, they did so for the benefit of all. Pacifica has 38,759 residents (July 2018 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pacificacitycalifornia.

Pedro Point has 790 residents (https://nextdoor.com/neighborhood/pedropoint- -pacifica--ca/) or approximately 2% of the total population.

We believe the City has been politically and unduly influenced by residents from Pedro Point whose numbers are significantly greater than the 2 of us. As a result our property may be devalued, causing us to significantly lose financially. This is not consistent with City leaders who speak to “the owner has a right to benefit economically from their property”.

Support for this view includes:

1. The property was part of the original 1908 Terrace by the Sea, a residential subdivision. Under the 1980 (current) General Plan (GP), the designation is

13.k
Packet Pg. 3848 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 5 C-2 which includes all of C-1 at a density of up to 22 units/gross acre. At the October, 2011 presentation of the GPU, the property had been designated by the GP consultant Dyette and Bhatia a mix of medium (10-15) and high density (16-22) residential. As some residents of Pedro Point protested that evening, the approval was held up for further site specific study with the neighborhood. This study was never conducted by the City.

2. In the 2014 GPU draft, the property was given the novel designation Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU), a mix of commercial, residential and visitor serving up to 15 units/gross acre and with public open space and coastal access. To our knowledge no other property in Pacifica has the proposed lower density 3-5 units/gross acre.

3. The property had been included in Housing Element 2007-2015. Then Assistant Planning Director Lee Diaz had recommended our approximately 5 acre property in the Element for up to 50 units (draft language, 2010). In 2015 the property was removed from the Housing Element, “An additional result of incorporating the newly-identified sites was the ability to remove from Table III-1 the two sites discussed the most at the Study Session - the “Calson Property” and “Hacienda Court.”” “Although the Calson Property

13.k
Packet Pg. 3849 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 6 was one of seven sites identified by the “Open Space Taskforce”, it is stated in the 2007 – 2014 Housing element, page 66 “None of the areas planned for residential development present significant physical constraints that could impede residential development for the planning period. Any potential physical constraints at these sites can be mitigated through appropriate residential design. None of the selected sites available for housing within the 2007 and 2014 planning period or for the past planning period (1999 - 2006) are located in hazardous areas… Although these properties have been identified in the Open Space Task Force report as candidates for preservation, they have not been designated as open space and there are no development limitations imposed on these properties” http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7339 And to our knowledge, none of the sites identified have been purchased by the City to date. We believe because “these sites were discussed the most” was not a valid reason to remove the Calson property from the housing element. The Open Space Taskforce Report was never intended to be part of the entitlement process.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3850 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 7 4. At the joint Planning and City Council Meeting held on August 26, 2019, an approximately 90 minute discussion regarding the designation and density of the Calson Property became the focal point. Also as noted earlier, the City and the Calsons had requested a “specific plan” prior, but were denied due to cost. However the City presented the Calson Property as a “key site” that evening. We had not been informed that our property had become a “key site” and the two of us were left with the results and no discussion.

During public comment, residents of Pedro Point were there, some requesting no development on the property. It appeared to us that some Council Members and Planning Commissioners may have shaped the conversation leading to the proposed decrease in density from “up to 15”, to 3-5 units /gross acre. (See these comments on PCT (Cite) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqkAa1mDH g&list=PLFUunuheJ0ZU2 5IaKfa31mnHMxGy V4Ob&index=10&t=0s (Time stamp beginning ~1:14:588)
We again question the legitimacy of this process. With the most recent change from up to 15 units decreased to 3-5 units/gross acre (much lower than 3-9 units/ gross acre sited by the City as Low Density Residential

13.k
Packet Pg. 3851 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 8 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=6552), the City has considerably devalued our property and economic potential.

Given the City’s need for housing and recently implemented State legislation requirements (SB 330), going forward we implore the City leaders reconsider and compromise further regarding the designation and density for the Calson Property. The City defines low density as 3-9, not 3-5 units/gross acre; the Calson Property is the only property designated with 3-5 units/gross acre. Although we advocate a designation that includes medium density up to 15 units/gross acre, 5- 10 units/gross acre is a better compromise than the proposed density.

Hospitality should not be omitted due to the site’s proximity to the highway, the ocean and the retail at Pedro Point and Linda Mar Shopping Centers.

As proposed at the 8/26/2019 meeting, the description of density for CRMU on page 27 of 243 of the redline document is too restrictive. We advocate for a slight change as follows:

On page 2-8 for CRMU designation, should read:
“COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE”

13.k
Packet Pg. 3852 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 9 The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) designation is intended for sites in the Coastal Zone with residential mixed use development potential, including housing at a range of densities compatible with (R-1 single family housing, R-2 Duplex, R-3 Multifamily), mixed use compatible with (C-2, C-1) with housing over or lateral to retail, and/or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial compatible with (C-2, C-1) uses such as vacation rental or time-share units. Residential without mixed-use is permitted as long as there is a component of commercial mixed-use on the site; residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations on the same site (horizontal mixed use). Hotels are not permitted. Coastal access and public open space must also be provided, and environmental resources must be evaluated and protected. Sites may be developed up to an overall density of up to 15 10 units per gross acre, with clustering and sensitive site planning. Non-residential development may have an FAR up to 0.5 FAR. The total FAR (residential and nonresidential) cannot exceed 1.0. Buildout is calculated at 15 10 units per gross acre and 0.10 FAR of non-residential use. Gross acre shall be calculated using the site's acreage before any dedications of land for parks, trails, coastal access, streets and similar public uses.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3853 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 10 As proposed at the 8/26/2019 meeting, the description of density for CRMU on page 51 of 243 of the redline document is too restrictive. We advocate for a slight change as follows:

LD-I-20 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning district to allow residential development (R-1 single family housing, R-2 Duplex, R-3 Multifamily) at a density range up to 15 10 units per gross acre, and/or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses (C-2, C-1). Housing may be clustered, and uses may be mixed. Development must include public coastal access and must provide public open space. A survey is required to delineate potential wetlands on the site, if any, as part of the development application and environmental review process. The application process should be streamlined as recommended by the State of California.

We have strongly oppose the City decreasing further the density on our property to 3-5 units /gross acre. In doing so the City of Pacifica has considerably reduced the value of our property and economic benefit. We ask that the City leaders at least compromise, defining the density for our property as low, 5-10 units/gross acre which is in alignment with the recommendations from Lee Diaz, former Planning Assistant Director (draft language, 2010). We again question the

13.k
Packet Pg. 3854 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 11 legitimacy of this plan process as City Council and Planning members have defined a new density outside of already defined, documented parameters without input from the residents.

Hopefully moving forward the City Council and Planning Commission will be more supportive of the owners’ rights to benefit economically from their property when defining zoning and permitted uses at a future date for “residential development” … “and/or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses.” that supports the City’s housing goals (senior housing, assisted living, affordable housing, market rate housing, etc) and benefits the community (open space, coastal access, visitor serving, and parking) and the City and the owners economically.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3855 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 8 Murdock, Christian
From: Samuel Casillas < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Comments for Special Planning Commission meeting to consider approval of the GPU, FEIR and SPSP
Attachments: 2022 Grassetti FEIR.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Christian,
Can you please include the attached letter from our CEQA consultant to the comments for the planning commission meeting on Monday?
thanks
Sam
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3856 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdock
Deputy Planning Director
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
June 3, 2022
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT
Dear Mr. Murdock:

Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECo) is submitting this comment letter on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA). As Principal of GECo, I have prepared these comments based on my 40 years of experience preparing and reviewing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. This letter addresses responses to my February 28, 2022 comment letter on the draft EIR.

It should be noted that the City provided less than a week for review of over 3600 pages of information. This is wholly inadequate for both the public and decisionmakers. It would be impossible for the Planning Commissioners to have read the entire staff report and understood all of the numerous deficiencies in the EIR, including those summarized below. In the comments and responses. Given the paucity of review time allotted by the City, my responses to the FEIR responses are, by necessity, general.

Summary of Comments
1). The FEIR failed to respond to my comments in good faith, instead just cutting and pasting generic responses that missed the point of my comment entirely. See notes after comments below.
2) The FEIR willfully ignored detailed evidence of significant impacts and instead impermissibly relies on vague plan policies and generic setting information for the entirety of its analysis. An EIR, programmatic or not, may not ignore substantial evidence of significant impacts. It may not substitute vague platitudes (i.e. policies) for analysis and evidence.
3) The FEIR impermissibly defers consideration of potentially significant impacts to future environmental reviews, some of which may never occur. In fact, this EIR sets

13.k
Packet Pg. 3857 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 2
June 3, 2022
up a shell game where the City says impacts will be evaluated later and then many of the projects will use this EIR to claim no additional work is needed. 4) The FEIR continues to assume that vague, generic, unenforceable, plan policies would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels while at the same time acknowledging that additional mitigation measures may be needed and would be developed in subsequent project-level CEQA reviews. It’s not possible to have lessthan-significant program-level impacts while at the same time have potentially significant project-level impacts. In fact, this EIR is tacitly acknowledging that its policies do not mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels. 5) This EIR ignores evidenced based conclusions of expert agencies with respect to biological impacts and ESHA’s.
6) This EIR misapplies the “substantial evidence” standard for significance determination, particularly with respect to biological impacts and ESHA’s. It states that when there are two competing conclusions the impact can be determined in later environmental reviews. It then punts on describing the two competing conclusions and providing an evidence-based conclusion as to which opinion it is accepting. Yet, at the same time it concludes that the impacts are less than significant because some future review will deem it so. This is illogical and subverts the purpose of CEQA.
7) The EIR repeatedly engages in “magical thinking”, and tautologies, without evidence or analysis. It repeatedly assumes effective mitigation of impacts by lists of policies that are 1) vague, and 2) unenforceable, to reduce impacts to less than significant.
8) The EIR impermissibly defers numerous studies that need to be done to support its conclusions, to future reviews. An EIR may not use future studies as mitigation. 9) The EIR fails to address on-the-ground impacts of the Plan’s land use designations, instead just waves its hands via vague policies.

In summary, the EIR is fatally defective. In my 40 years of experience, this is one of the most deficient program EIR’s I have ever encountered. This type of avoided analysis document, where the plan was just assumed to mitigate all of its own impacts, and absent any real analysis, was prevalent into the 1990’s but faded out because the courts repeatedly found it impermissible.

Specific Deficiencies:

Original Comment:

The PPCA requested a thorough evaluation of the potential effects of the General Plan Update (“GPU” or “the Project”) on the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site (“the Site” or “San Pedro Avenue Site”). This letter identifies deficiencies in the General Plan Update Draft EIR (“DEIR”) with respect to the Site. It is based on my reading of the

13.k
Packet Pg. 3858 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 3
June 3, 2022
proposed GPU and DEIR, as well as a review of sensitive resources and hazards from available sources. General deficiencies are described first, followed by some specific comments on the adequacy of technical analyses.

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

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

The land use designations are the heart of the General Plan. Because the General Plan serves as “the constitution for all future developments” within the City once a land use for a site is designated, applicants have certain development rights. Therefore it is essential that the City of Pacifica (“City”) fully consider environmental values and constraints prior to re-designating parcels, not after a parcel is re-designated. This GPU fails to do that, and, as detailed below, the DEIR fails to adequately or accurately assess impacts of the proposed re-designation of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

Response Deficiency:

The FEIR fails to respond in good faith. It defers analysis to future documents even though it is in possession of substantial evidence of significant unmitigable impacts.

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

DEIR Land Use Chapter 3.1 does include a very small- scale map of existing land use designations, which, critically shows the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site land use designation as “Commercial” but omits consideration that the Site is zoned “Commercial Recreation”. The General Plan states, “The land directly west of the Pedro Point Shopping Center was identified as a commercial recreation site in the previous General Plan, and has been zoned for general commercial uses.” By failing to include this information, the DEIR does not serve its informational disclosure

13.k
Packet Pg. 3859 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 4
June 3, 2022
requirement. The public should not be forced to ferret out information and connect the dots to understand the Project and its impacts. This combination of incomplete and incorrect information renders the DEIR Project Description useless as the basis for determining impacts of the proposed GPU.

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

Further, the DEIR project description compares the Project to the existing plan, but does not provide the necessary information on existing on-the-ground conditions from which to conduct the impact assessment. With limited exceptions, CEQA does not permit plan-to-plan analyses. Per the CEQA Guidelines (Section. 15126.2) “In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced.” In order to adequately conduct this assessment, the EIR must identify which parcels are undeveloped, what their existing development potential is, and how that potential would change with the project. The actual impacts would be the difference between the existing undeveloped state and full development of a site under the new designation. Full development under the existing 1980 GP would be the No Project Alternative.

Response Deficiency:

The FEIR fails to address this comment in good faith. No additional information is provided in the responses. The EIR continues to use a plan-to-plan analysis in certain sections.

Original Comment:

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

Response Deficiency:

The FEIR fails to address the discrepancy between the Project Objectives and the alternative selection criteria. It also fails to have realistic project objectives.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3860 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 5
June 3, 2022
Original Comment:

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

The GPU would re-designate the Site as Coastal Residential Mixed Use, which would allow housing or commercial uses at an FAR of 0.5 (DEIR Figure 2.1-2 and table 2.3-1).

That FAR does not include roads or parking, which could result in further environmental impacts. The DEIR fails entirely to address potential Project impacts at this Site, and never even mentions the Site in its impact analyses.

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3861 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 6
June 3, 2022
Here, the proposed changes in land use designations would cause the loss of biological resources, recreational resources, and flood storage from the Site. The DEIR must first disclose and analyze those impacts, determine the significance of each impact, and then discuss whether and how general plan policies and mitigation would reduce the impact. The applicability of policies must be identified, as well as their effectiveness. If policies are assumed to be mitigation, then they must be presented in a manner that assures their implementation on any particular site.

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

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

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

In summary, the DEIR fails to address the impacts of land use changes proposed under the GPU because it concludes that GPU policies would mitigate any undisclosed impacts. In essence, the DEIR claims that the Project would mitigate itself despite the fact that there may be significant unmitigable impacts of implementing the proposed land use designations on a given site, as is the case for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

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

Also, many of the plan policies are couched in language such as “to the extent feasible”, “strive to”, “study”, “consult with”, ‘coordinate with” and similar vague, non-committal terms that fail to assure that mitigation will be implemented or, if implemented, will

1 An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." [Citation. ’ [Citation. State law does not require perfect conformity between a proposed project and the applicable general plan...." ( Friends of Lagoon Valley, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 817, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3862 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 7
June 3, 2022
be successful in reducing a project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level. There are numerous examples of this in the Plan, including Policies CO-G-3, CO-I-1, CO-G-4, CO-I19-23, SA-I-29, SA-I-109, SA-I-12, and many, many more. In addition, as can be seen in these examples and many others, in many cases, the City relies on policies that assume mitigation by other agencies and jurisdictions over which it has no control. Under CEQA mitigation measures must include performance standards, rather than just aspirational goals or deferred studies. The DEIR must also translate these policies to enforceable measures before it can consider any potentially significant impacts to have been mitigated to less than significant.

The City is required to comply with SB379 as stated in Chapter 1.2, General Plan Requirements: “Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Legislation (SB 379)…requires the safety elements of general plans to be reviewed and updated to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies.” SB379 further requires the identification of hazard zones that can serve as mitigation areas for said hazards, yet the GPU fails to identify any properties in Pacifica for such mitigation and it is insufficient to only set “Coastal Resiliency Policies” when areas like the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would qualify to be designated as hazard mitigation sites due to its many hazard vulnerabilities and ESHA designation.

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

Response Deficiency:

The FEIR fails entirely to address this comment in a substantive and good faith way.

It fails to address specific evidence provided in the comment. Instead is simply defers the analyses to a future date, and continues to insist that while the policies are not mitigation, they will, in fact mitigate all of the impacts to a less than significant level and, if not, that will occur in some future environmental review.

This is illogical and impermissible
Original Comment:

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3863 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 8
June 3, 2022
This DEIR is required to identify and focus on impacts of importance, not the items in the CEQA Initial Study checklist. For example, impacts and mitigation measures should be called out for each special-status species that may be affected by buildout of the plan.

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails to address this comment.

Original Comment:

Biological Resources
As noted in a letter submitted separately by Dr. Peter Baye, the Site is valuable habitat for special status species. In addition, habitat values and flooding hazards for the adjoining Rhodes development site, which extend onto the San Pedro Avenue Site, are presented in painstaking detail by expert technical specialists in the California Coastal Commission’s Staff Report for the proposed development of that site (CDP Application 2-19-0026, dated 12/7/2020), which was never referenced or considered in this DEIR.

Willful omission of this critical information on its face renders this DEIR invalid.

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

For example, Figure 3.7-3 in the Biological Resources chapter shows this Site as having no sensitive or critical habitat values, yet evidence by Dr. Peter Baye as well as that provided by the Coastal Commission’s expert biologists shows that it does have sensitive species and habitats. The CCC Staff Report for the adjacent Rhodes project site considers that entire site to be an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (“ESHA”), and similar habitat exists on the San Pedro Avenue Site, making it likely that that Site also would be ESHA. Similarly, the DEIR focuses on the National Wetlands Inventory while excluding detailed wetlands mapping of this Site, thereby rejecting onthe-ground analyses in favor of large-scale remote mapping (see Figure 3.7-2). The CCC Staff Report on the Rhodes site further identifies the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site as “likely wetlands” (see Figures 1a and 1b, on p. 134 of the CCC Staff Report).

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

The lower portion of San Pedro Creek also has been found to be habitat for the specialstatus tidewater goby (see Baye report referencing Sutter and Kinziger, 2019). This

13.k
Packet Pg. 3864 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 9
June 3, 2022
habitat may be adversely affected by contaminated runoff that would result from development of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. This impact also must be addressed in the DEIR.

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

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails to address this comment in a meaningful way. Rather it states that there is substantial evidence in both directions and this will be resolved in future CEQA reviews. It also must meaningfully address the expert, evidenced based conclusions presented by the commenting consulting and agency biologists. This EIR is required to consider the competing conclusions now, not later. It fails on both counts.

Original Comment:

Land Use Environmental Setting

13.k
Packet Pg. 3865 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 10
June 3, 2022
Chapter 3.1, overall: The list of General Plan Policies that purportedly reduce impacts fails to describe how or to what degree impacts are reduced. Please add this analysis for Impacts 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and 3.1-3, considering that not all General Plan policies are required to be implemented by the City.

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

As noted in its denial in Application CDP-2-19-00262, the California Coastal Commission has declared this area an ESHA. Please revise the land use designation for consistency with Verification of ESHA (CO-1-27) and Management of ESHA (CO-I-28), and Habitat Preservation (CO-I-31).

Chapter 3.1 also needs to be revised to address potential land use incompatibilities. As written there is no assessment of any potential incompatibilities of proposed new land uses with existing nearby uses. For example, the DEIR does not disclose if intense residential development of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site will have noise or traffic incompatibilities with surrounding residential land uses. The DEIR also does not disclose if intense residential development of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would displace flood storage, important habitat, or recreational uses of the Site.

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails to address this comment in good faith and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date. It should be noted that the Coastal Conservancy also commented similarly that the policies in the Plan are in conflict with reality.

Original Comment:

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

2 CCC Denial of CDP-2-19-0026, Exhibit 11 at
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/3/F16a/F16a-3-2021-exhibits.pdf

13.k
Packet Pg. 3866 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 11
June 3, 2022
described below for both geology and hydrology, this DEIR fails to conduct these required assessments.

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails substantially to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date.

Original Comment:

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

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date.

Original Comment:

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

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

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

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails substantially to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date. Vague, unenforceable policies continue to be substituted for actual mitigation.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3867 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 12
June 3, 2022
Original Comment:

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

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

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

As detailed in the CCC Staff Report on the adjacent Rhodes project site, “With respect to coastal hazards, the site would be subject to potential future impacts from the combination of shoreline retreat, sea level rise, wave runup, and inundation. As proposed, the structures are not sufficiently sited and designed to avoid such problems, and the northernmost building includes a basement structure, all of which would be subject to flooding over the expected life of the development. “
“… Commission staff geologist Dr. Joseph Street estimates that with 6.6 feet of sea level rise, wave runup with the 100-year storm could extend about 170 feet inland of the shoreline (i.e., of MHTL) across the beach and flatter ground near San Pedro Creek, northeast of the project site. This provides a more conservative estimate of potential storm wave runup beyond the future shoreline position. If 170 feet of horizontal wave runup distance is added to the projected future shoreline position (with 5.7 or 6.6 feet of sea level rise), the seaward portion of the project site (where Building 1 is proposed which includes the two-story surf shop on the first floor, office and storage space on the second floor, and a 3,500 square-foot basement subgrade) would be affected by wave runup within the 100-year analytic period referenced by the LCP.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3868 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 13
June 3, 2022
“Another option to approximate the future wave runup hazard risk to the site is to add projected sea level rise to the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation.

Adding the medium-high risk scenario sea level rise projection (+5.6 to +6.9 feet by 2090-2100) to the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation of the VE zone (representing areas within the 1% annual chance coastal floodplain which have additional hazards associated with storm waves) where the proposed project is located (i.e., at +17 feet elevation) yields a rough estimate of the future 100-year flood elevation in the range of +22.5 to +24 feet NAVD88. Given the existing elevations at the project site (+16 to +21 feet) and the elevations of the topographic lows adjacent to the project site (+16 to +17 feet NAVD88), it is thus possible that future flood elevations in this range affect at least a portion of the project site toward the end of the project life. At the very least, additional, more detailed analysis would be needed to rule out this possibility.” The San Pedro Avenue Site is lower than the adjacent Rhodes project site, rendering it even more likely to be impacted from coastal flooding hazards. This should have been considered in planning for Site development in the GPU, as well as in determining impacts in the DEIR.

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

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

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

In the 2014 DEIR for that General Plan Update, the Hydrology section included an impact on sea level rise (Impact 3.5-6). Inexplicably that impact, as well as Impact 3.5- 7 in the 2014 DEIR, have been deleted, leaving a jump from Impact 3.5-5 to 3.5-8 in the 2022 DEIR. Given that the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would be subject to extreme flooding from sea level rise and that runoff to and from the project Site would aggravate that flooding (see CCC comments), this issue must be addressed in the stormwater runoff and flooding discussions of this Project and DEIR.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3869 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 14
June 3, 2022
Also, designating this Site for development is in clear violation of sea-level-rise policies in the General Plan Update itself. The fact that the City is willing to adopt a land use plan that is inconsistent with the policies in the very same plan shows that the policies are not effective mitigation.

As mitigation, please revise the land use element of the Project to eliminate the density increases in these areas and respond to the real hazards by reducing densities instead.

The DEIR by suggesting unenforceable policies that conflict with the underlying land use as mitigation measures - does not comply with CEQA requirements for mitigation, which must be both enforceable and verifiable, and must actually mitigate the impact.

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails substantially to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date. Specific evidence of site flooding is ignored in favor of non-specific regional studies.

Original Comment:

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

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails substantially to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date. Specific evidence of loss of coastal recreational resources is ignored in favor of deferred studies.

Original Comment
There is no location-specific analysis of flooding in this DEIR alternatives chapter, which results in inaccurate statements that the no-project alternative would increase flood hazards compared to the proposed Project. Certainly this is false at the site.

More generally, why wouldn’t ongoing flood-improvement projects continue with or without the project?
Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails substantially to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date. Specific evidence of site flooding is ignored in favor of deferred studies.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3870 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 15
June 3, 2022
Original Comment
Planning Issues
As noted above, the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use land use designation at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would subject increased densities of people to geologic and hydrologic hazards, in non-conformance with both City and LCP policies.

Further, sensitive ecological resources would be adversely affected, which also undercuts and fails to comply with the policies regarding those resources. As noted in the DEIR’s Project Description, the Site’s current Commercial Recreation land use designation is most similar to the GPU’s proposed Visitor Serving Commercial (VC) designation. The VC designation, “allows uses that create public access to the coastal setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions: campgrounds, rustic lodging, concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites, and similar uses.

Development may occur up to a 0.20 FAR, but must have an overall very low-intensity character on sites of more than one acre. Buildout is assumed at 0.05 FAR, recognizing the large land areas and minimal buildings expected to support recreational uses.” (DEIR, p. 2-14.)
It is clear that, given the Site location and constraints, the GPU’s policies as applied at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site can only be met by applying the Conservation (C) General Plan designation and associated zoning because of the on-site hazards and identified ESHA.

Response Deficiency:

The EIR fails substantially to address this comment and instead, once again, punts the analysis to some future date. The response is illogical and wholly deficient as it ignores the obvious impacts of site development.

Conclusions
The FEIR fails entirely as an informational disclosure document because of its assumptions that plan policies would equate to mitigation and its failure to actually analyze the effectiveness and likelihood of implementation of those policies.

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

It is my professional opinion that, given the extent of the flaws detailed above, which reflect only a partial review of the FEIR’s technical sections, this document does not meet CEQA requirements for full disclosure of potential impacts of the proposed project.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3871 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 16
June 3, 2022
The FEIR’s failure to address the deficiencies cited above are especially critical because of the potential for “infill” residential projects to be permitted under CEQA exemptions for such projects as permitted under CEQA Guideline Sections 15182, 15183, and 15183.3. While this DEIR promises further site-specific CEQA review, it is possible that for some developments, no such review could occur. In those cases, given the analytical deficiencies in this DEIR, the impacts will not be assessed in any CEQA document. This sort of CEQA “shell game” would deprive the public and decision-makers of meaningful information and input in the environmental review process.

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

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

Sincerely
Richard Grassetti
Principal
Grassetti Environmental Consulting

13.k
Packet Pg. 3872 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3873 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 18
June 3, 2022
• Assisting clients in Federal and California environmental impact assessment process compliance
• Preparation of technical analyses for impact assessments • Preparation of project feasibility, opportunities, and constraints analyses, and mitigation monitoring and
reporting plans
Education University of Oregon, Eugene, Department of Geography, M.A., Geography (Emphasis on Fluvial Geomorphology and
Water Resources Planning), 1981.

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

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

San Francisco, CA
1979-1981 Graduate Teaching Fellow,
Department of Geography, University
of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Professional Member and Past Chapter Director, Association of Affiliations and Environmental Professionals, San Francisco Bay Chapter Certifications Member, International Association for Impact Assessment

13.k
Packet Pg. 3874 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 19
June 3, 2022
Publications
and Presentations Grassetti, R. Understanding Environmental Impact Assessment A Layperson’s Guide to Environmental Impact Documents and Processes. 2002 (Revised 2011)
Grassetti, R. Round Up The Usual Suspects: Common
Deficiencies in US and California Environmental Impact
assessments. Paper Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

May 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 1992.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3875 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 20
June 3, 2022
Grassetti, R. A. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, An Overview.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3876 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 21
June 3, 2022
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SEMINARS
Mr. Grassetti has conducted numerous CEQA and NEPA compliance seminars for entities including:
• Alameda County Waste Management Authority
• San Francisco County Transportation Authority
• West Bay Sanitary District
• North Coast Resource Management, Inc.
• Element Power Company
• Tetra Tech Inc.
• Impact Sciences Inc.
• Northwest Environmental Training Center (over 10 workshops) • California State University East Bay (14 years teaching Environmental Impact Assessment)
PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTS (partial list)
Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project EIR. GECo managed preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the restoration of a large area of former marsh and open channel near Ferndale in Humboldt County. The project includes creation of a new seven-mile-long river channel and a 400-acre wetland restoration. Major issues include biological resources, land use, hydrology/flooding, and construction impacts (noise, air quality, traffic.). Client: Humboldt County Resource Conservation District.

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

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

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

Client: San Joaquin County Community Development Department.

San Francisco PUC WSIP Projects. Mr. Grassetti assisted in the preparation of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Water Supply Improvement Project

13.k
Packet Pg. 3877 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 22
June 3, 2022
Program EIR, as well as two other CEQA documents for smaller projects under that program. Major issues include hydrology, water supply, and fisheries. Client: Water Resources Engineering/Orion Associates.

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

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

Client: California State Coastal Conservancy.

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

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

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

Vineyard RV Park.

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3878 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 23
June 3, 2022
Baxter Creek Restoration Project CEQA Consulting. Mr. Grassetti assisted City of El Cerrito staff in the preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed Baxter Creek Restoration Project. Client: City of El Cerrito.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Client: Harris and Associates.

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

Clients: Shea Homes and Braddock and Logan Services.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3879 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 24
June 3, 2022
Consolidated Forward Landfill Project EIR Update. Mr. Grassetti managed preparation of an EIR for the expansion and consolidation of the Forward Landfill and the Austin Road Landfill near Stockton, CA. Major issues include toxics, water quality, traffic, biological resources, and air quality. Client: San Joaquin County Community Development Department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayside Road Sewer Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed new sewer system in the Wayside Road area of Portola Valley. Client: West Bay Sanitary District Los Trancos Woods Sewer Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed new sewer system in the Los Trancos Woods area of Portola Valley. Client: West Bay Sanitary District Arastradero Road Sewer Expansion Initial Study. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed new sewer system in the Arastradero Road area of Portola Valley. Client: West Bay Sanitary District

13.k
Packet Pg. 3880 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 25
June 3, 2022
Lower Orinda Pumping Station Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Mr. Grassetti prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for renovating or relocating a wastewater pumping plant in Orinda, CA. Client: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.

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

Client: City of Martinez.

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

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

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

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

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

Water Resource Engineering.

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3881 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 26
June 3, 2022
Ostrom Road Landfill Hydrologic Analysis. Mr. Grassetti prepared the hydrology section for an environmental impact report on the proposed vertical expansion of an existing Class II landfill in Yuba County. Client: ESA Associates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Client: Tetra Tech, Inc.

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

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

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

Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate. Mr. Grassetti conducted overall internal peer reviews of several drafts of the EIR/EIS for reuse of the former Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate in Richmond, CA. In addition, he prepared the Noise,

13.k
Packet Pg. 3882 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 27
June 3, 2022
Socioeconomics, and Cultural Resources sections of the EIS/EIR. Client: Uribe and Associates.

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

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

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

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

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

San Francisco International Airport Environmental Liaison Office Consulting. Mr.

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3883 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 28
June 3, 2022
Sausalito Marina CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and critique of an EIR for a proposed new marina in Sausalito. Client: Confidential Sausalito Police and Fire Station CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and critique of an EIR for a proposed new public safety building in Sausalito. Client:

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

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

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

Confidential.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alamo Gate Permitting Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review and prepared expert testimony and correspondence regarding the adequacy of CEQA and land use

13.k
Packet Pg. 3884 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 29
June 3, 2022
permitting and studies for a proposed gate on Las Trampas Road, which would preclude vehicular access to a regional park staging area. Client: Las Trampas Trails Advocates.

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

Law Office of Vern Kalshan.

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

Dr. Barton Brown.

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

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

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

Scientific Certification Systems.

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

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

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3885 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 30
June 3, 2022
Jamestown Whistlestop CEQA Adequacy Review. Mr. Grassetti performed an expert review and assisted in successful litigation regarding an Initial Study for a proposed mini mall in Jamestown, Tuolumne County. Client: Law Offices of Thomas Mauriello.

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

Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report Review. Mr.

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

Citizens for Well Planned Development.

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

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

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

Client: Sylva Corporation.

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

Client: Law Office of Alexander Henson.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3886 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 31
June 3, 2022
Attachment 2: City of Pacifica Zoning Map, p. 31

13.k
Packet Pg. 3887 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 32
June 3, 2022
Attachment 2: Pacific Institute Sea Level Rise Map

13.k
Packet Pg. 3888 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 33
June 3, 2022
Attachment 4: State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance Document

13.k
Packet Pg. 3889 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 34
June 3, 2022
Attachment 5: Site Access Photographs

13.k
Packet Pg. 3890 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 9 Murdock, Christian
From: Paul Totah < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:05 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Cc: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Comments on General Plan Chapter 7 - Conservation [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Commissioners,
We are writing to you to support specific aspects of the staff report on the General Plan: Chapter 7- Conservation.

Tree City Pacifica supports the guiding policy (CO-G-10) "Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.” In our comments to this plan, we requested that the City add an Implementing Policy to “adopt an aspirational Canopy Goal to promote the protection and expansion of the urban forest.” Thus, we were pleased to see the staff recommendation to add this statement to Implementing Policy CO-I-39: “Consider a canopy goal for heritage and non-heritage trees as part of the Heritage Tree ordinance update or other updates to the City’s tree regulations." Pacifica is a Tree City USA. Most cities awarded this designation have adopted canopy goals to protect and expand the urban forest. You can find statistics for nearly 30 U.S. cities at this website showing a variety of canopy goals with only a handful below 30 percent and some as high as 50 and 60 percent. Our hope is that the City of Pacifica commits to an aspirational goal of 30 percent as we move to make Pacifica greener and more sustainable and prepare for an uncertain future given the realities of climate change.

Thank you for all you have done for Pacifica and all you will be doing in the months to come.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3891 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 10 Murdock, Christian
From: Emma Brady
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: General Plan Update Public Hearing Comments
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use. [Please include your own your own comments/feelings about why the Field matters to you.]
I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

Sincerely,
Emma Brady
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3892 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 11 Murdock, Christian
From: Kathy < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: PEDRO POINT FIELD
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

Sincerely,
Kathy Castor
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3893 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3894 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 FIRE HAZARDS p. 1
TO: [email protected]
COPY: Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager, Director Murdock CALFIRE, CCC
FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.

SUBJ: Comments for the PC meeting on the FEIR
DATE: June 4, 2022
Please note that the version of the FEIR included as “Ch. 1-3” in the PC Agenda packet for the original PC meeting 6/1/22 is different from the redline version available online. Headings, subheadings, content are ≠, and the major additions in Ch.2 are not shown.

I have tried to use the Agenda packet pages, because the redline has extraneous lines of text for changes. (See screen images that show the docs are different, below.) I was one of many who had critical comments on the Wildfire risk. I was eager to see the responses.

Despite the focused attention via Master Response 5, I remain confused and unconvinced of the arguments offered in defense of this section remaining essentially untouched from the DEIR. Fire is an important aspect of public and environmental safety, and important to be accurate, understandable and consistent. It still falls short.

It is my strong judgment that the terse conclusion in Master Response 5 of insignificant fire hazard throughout Pacifica is unjustified and poorly defended.

First, look at the text of the FEIR as presented in the Planning Commission’s Agenda packet – A. Contradictory text
p2.11-5 FIRE HAZARDS: “Pacifica has a substantial risk of wildland fires, with many areas of high and very high threat within the Planning area.”
&
p3.11-6 Wildland Fires: “As an urbanized community, wildfire hazard in minimal in most of Pacifica within city limits.”
Despite attempts to explain away this apparent contradiction (see below), this is still the text of the FEIR. The creation of MS5 made clear that reviewers objected, yet no attempt was made to improve this, or if a misconception, to correct it.

B. Maps are inconsistent
Map Fig 3.11-2 Fire Hazards… is still included even though map Fig 3.14-1 Fire Threat shows zones of very high and high wildfire hazard within the city. The first (Fig 3.11-2) was included in the SMC Multi-hazard Risk Assessment for Pacifica, and elicited wide public objection when that draft was circulated. The defense then by the city then was: 1) this map is from the view of SMC and they don’t have jurisdiction within city limits, and 2) the details of the map don't matter since the main used of the document is for justification in grant submissions. Note that there has never been a suggestion from the city that the map was accurate depiction of Fire Hazards throughout the city.

…

13.k
Packet Pg. 3895 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 FIRE HAZARDS p. 2
Until now.

C. Master Response 5: Wildfire (full agenda pp762, doc p11ff; this section is omitted from the redline)
In explanation of the maps, MS5 emphasizes that Fig. 3.11-2 separates risk by jurisdiction.

Indeed, the map identifies LRA, SRA & FRA as explained above. Everyone notes that only map zone SRA (State/County) has any meaningful content about fire risk–NO INFORMATION is provided within the city, the legend does not even identify the beige color. The subheading highlighted in green explicitly states the intended content, which does not include local areas even thought they are identified. Also, the City’s response to my comment C30-17 (pp928) mentions the lack of “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones” within the city. How does the lack of Very High Fire Severity Zones obviate the need for a good map?
So, why would the FEIR include this readily available but probably inappropriate and certainly confusing map to depict fire risk within the city?
MS5 minimizes risk within the city (middle of last ¶ pp762, doc p12):
“development under the Proposed Plan is expected to occur predominantly in already-urbanized neighborhoods where risk is lower… While it is possible that development could occur … in areas that may face higher fire threat…, there are numerous State regulations … reducing vulnerability to damage or loss from wildfire”.

Implying there is no hazard because likely development may not be close to hazardous areas is misguided. The reason for the regs and codes are explicitly because of the higher risk! To minimize real risk by assuming that landowners follow the regs is contrived. It seems obvious that accurate presentation of the true risk is important step in policy planning, not to mention prudent public education. (Actions speak loud: the city is presently working with developers on city projects clearly faced with wildfire risk, such as Higgins way and Talbot. Protestations in this Master Response notwithstanding. Q. E. D.)
Finally, the last sentence of this Master Response asserts: “accordingly the DEIR finds that impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant”.

This is almost certainly unjustified and perhaps dangerous. It is unacceptable in any official City document, especially in an EIR.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3896 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 FIRE HAZARDS p. 3
Please note that the version of the FEIR included in the PC Agenda packet for the original PC meeting 6/1/22 is different from the redline version available online. Headings, subheadings, content ≠.

REDLINE version vs. Agenda packet version

13.k
Packet Pg. 3897 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 13 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 5:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Wright, Greg; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian; CA Coastal Commission staff
Subject: PC Meeting: City responses to comments not responsive Attachments: 22-06-04 JKremer on EIR Comment responses.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Please find my comments to the Planning Commissioners on previous City Responses for the upcoming meeting. -- Jim
James Kremer, Ph.D. (coastal environmental science)
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3898 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 Non-responsive Responses by the City p. 1 TO: [email protected]
COPY: Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager, Director Murdock FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.

SUBJ: Comments for the PC meeting on City Responses to MY Comments DATE: June 3, 2022
Where to begin…
Attachment F in the Full Agenda Packet for the initial June 1st PC meeting is an impressive effort.

In sheer magnitude and completeness, the compilation of public and agency responses to the DEIR is overwhelming. I found the tabular section with each commenter, each comment verbatim, and the City’s “response” to be a very helpful approach. Of course that very volume of content effectively precludes complete analysis, especially in the time allotted, even with the “extension” of a few days.

Forgive me if I seem snarky. Setting aside the time constraint, I disparage some of the “responses” placing the word in quotes, because they really do not serve well. It would be interminable, as well as ludicrous to attempt a point-by-point rebuttal of those “responses” that are inadequate, and only a few examples will suffice. It is especially worrisome since the very nonresponsiveness, itself, makes it clear that another iteration is unlikely to result in more meaningful results.

Consider these responses to my comments posted by the (very hard working) City staff that I say are perfunctory and diversionary rather than responsive –

1. C30-4 (p 1.f-153; pp920) I questioned the removal of text historically included in the definition of specific zoning categories, which altered clear intent to codify environmental and safety considerations, with bland focus on esthetics and scenic views. (!) The City’s lengthy response is indeed totally non-responsive, offering presumably factual assertions about what is in the EIR and where, but never addressing the deletion & replacement that was questioned. Instead, the reply takes the opportunity to state repeatedly that the policies in the EIR “would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.” Huh?

2. C30-9 (p 1.f-157; pp924) I questioned the practical functionality of the docs released for public review, and in light of 2nd release, noted changes in the new documents. The City’s response asserted “While a duplicated wildfire chapter was removed to reflect a usable TOC, there are no other differences between the document.” First, I believe there were changes; my note identified corrections in addition to the dup section. Second, the removal of a duplicated section is NOT to make a more usable TOC. This is dissembling – Minor, but unfortunately this is a common complaint, replies are tangential and convenient, but not focused on the intent of the comment.

3. C30-10 (p 1.f-157; pp924) I point out vague wording throughout many EIR Policy statements “suggested to reduce impacts” that are not enforceable, and for which the suggested reduction of impacts was unclear or hard to evaluate. The City’s brief response singled out one of my examples with another dissembling note about the designation of Critical Habitat, that completely misses my larger point.

4. C30-12 (p 1.f-158; pp925) I note that seven hierarchical levels of structure/outline are impossible to distinguish, such that a reader cannot know where they are in the progression of content. The City’s response “Clarifications will be noted in a redlined version of the DEIR” is inaccurate, as the same layout seems to be used in the “FEIR”. Yes, this is structural not content-factual, but it remains a clear functional shortcoming, which appeared to be accepted as valid and

13.k
Packet Pg. 3899 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 Non-responsive Responses by the City p. 2 straightforward to fix. It would make the new document appearance very different, but easily understood in the redline edition.

Similarly, and more serious, in a number of different sections, I commented: “names of headings are repetitive and thus unclear. … Sec. 3.7 BIOL starting below “SUMMARY OF IMPACTS”.

Each individual “Impact” has only that word as a heading, so they all look identical … (& the same applies throughout all elements)”. This must create unacceptable confusion, again it could easily be fixed.

5. C30-16 (p 1.f-160; pp927) I object that frequent assertions of reduced impacts for policies are not justified and the connections to impacts are poorly specified. City’s response: “The comment is noted. A DEIR with interactive table of contents was made available on the Plan Pacifica website on February 14, 2022.” “Noted” perhaps, but not changed anywhere – I looked at ALL the redlines and I don’t think this was ever done. As for the TOC, it is irrelevant. Not responsive!

6. C30-19 (p 1.f-162; pp929) I note that a suggestion from the FWS that Wildlife Friendly Fences be mentioned, but the City declares, “Wildlife friendly fencing is addressed as policy CO-I- 31,” which is untrue -- See CO-I-31 appearing on p. E-72 of redlined FEIR, movement corridors but not fencing. Yes, this is minor, even picky, but we are seeking accuracy here, are we not?

7. C30-21 (p 1.f-162; pp929) Map errors & inconsistencies for CRLF in various places. City agrees and says map clarifications will be made in redlined version, which does not appear to be the case.

These are the shortcomings just for my comments. You may note from the sequence numbers that MOST of my comments were not responded to ways that addressed the intent. It is obvious that more consistently cogent replies would be helpful to the review process to improve the FEIR.

If my experience is typical (please listen for others’ concerns of inadequate responses), the City’s position seems clear: for the FEIR, no substantive suggestion for improvement will be acted upon.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3900 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 14 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 5:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Wright, Greg; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian Subject: PC Meeting: Some changes to the FEIR are Major Attachments: 22-06-04 JKremer Comments on EIR (&GP) revs 5-26-22.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Please find my comments to the Planning Commissioners on FEIR changes for the upcoming meeting. -- 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3901 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 Some Changes to FEIR are Major p. 1 TO: [email protected]
COPY: Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager, Director Murdock FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.

SUBJ: Comments for the PC meeting on changes to the FEIR (& GP) DATE: June 4, 2022
FEIR.

I remain concerned that at least SOME of the changes made to the DEIR are substantive, and meet the standard of significance requiring by state law that the document, at least parts of it, be re-circulated before it can be certified.

The City is aware of these regulations, as their response to one public comment I submitted was almost only a verbatim copy of the legal text. (Glad we agree on that; now we must address whether any of the changes meet the standards.)
I reviewed every change highlighted in the FEIR redline version released online. (FYI: I found one change that was not redlined, and a few typos:

Ch. 2 Master responses (new), not shown as additions; & other differences from Ch 1-3 in PC Agenda Pkt.

3.4-18 Added sentences not redlined, prior to & citing a new Table 3.4-1;

3.6-17 Last sentence of 1st¶ is grammatically bad

3.6-23 Significance Criterion 3 revise so it doesn’t parse grammatically.

3.9-21 Wording of new LU-I-23 punctuation error, missing period after “designation. New…” ) First, compliments! I was impressed with the completeness of staff’s tallying and organized responding to the voluminous comments. It was logical and tractable. I appreciated the new attention to more complete citation of references, which I had asked about.

However, a number of changes have been made are substantive, consequential changes affecting specific instances of policy and implementation. These are not minor, they are not “typographical errors and minor clarifications that do not amount to substantial revisions” (pp 13). Understand that my point is not whether these are appropriate changes, rather that they ARE and deserve more complete review, as required by the state.

There is an element of subjectivity, and I know you would like to argue that these are not “significant new information”, but I show below that with each, the “EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project”. Each cited redline change is noted with relevant policy implications – “FEIR” page (redline version)

3.2-31 Roadway abandonment deleted; changes policies and exceptions

3.3-26 Trip Reduction Prgms reworded; omitting substantive policy deletions

3.4-6 GHG & Climate: major change in projected SLR rates are cited; implicates more severe impacts, thus triggering different criteria for evaluation by expert reviewers

3.4-7 predicted climate ∆T increased from 4°F to “5.6-8.8°F”(!) & ∆ timing; major affects on efficacy of proposed policies

3.4-10 Different CA legal requirements; changing regulatory context and required planning goals

3.4-18 new Table 3.4-1 & Table 3.4-2 reports new Emissions Targets under SF32; substantive impacts & implications, and shifts from local CAP to state law.

3.5-27 (summary of policies) adds 3 new Safety Element Implementation policies; (I can’t be sure these are new; my search couldn’t find them elsewhere) Unless they were just moved here, these

13.k
Packet Pg. 3902 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 Some Changes to FEIR are Major p. 2 have enforcement impacts and are substantive changes (e.g. SA-I-# on Grading & Drainage; NPDES Enforcement; No Adverse Impact Approach)

3.9-19 LU-I-19 Basis for Height Limits changed from defined by “zone” to “neighborhood”; the implications of this change are substantive, i.e. no longer applied based on the zoning category

3.11-5 ff. Fire Hazards; despite widespread objections to the SMCMHRA and the DEIR and DGP, no changes were made to clarify OR reduce inconsistency
• Redlines in Water section in Utilities are in blue! Cute. ----------- end of FEIR significant changes
General Plan.

I also reviewed the redline changes in the GP. I know re-review is not required by law, but prudence and transparency might recommend a similar guidelines, to maintain public and agency contact and maximize constructive input for these important City documents. The GP is arguably more important to Pacifica than EIR or Specific Plans, and would sensibly warrant the most complete study, review and improvement of all these docs. I have no doubt that the process would benefit by another iteration. All stakeholders would be more relaxed and congenial, their attempts to help would be met very differently by elected officials and city staff. I am pretty sure the culprit here is the determination by some in the city government to push ahead on a rigid published timetable, lest they appear to have fallen short in some way rather than having had the highest interests for the best possible plans.

A few examples with page numbers from the redlines in Attch D for DGP will suffice to make the point that the document would benefit from agency and public re-review. I do not claim completeness – the brief window for review precludes this – only that this release includes many real changes that would otherwise benefit from another iteration. •p3-10: CD-I-18. Old: Vague and superficial. New: Specifies explicit priorities for future development. •p3-10/11: CD-I-19. Old: addresses possible new hotel vague goals; this is essentially removed. New:

Replaces old with useful change to former CD-I-20; clearly proposing different policies. •p4-5: Residential> ¶Open Space/Ag/Resid: A sentence is omitted that specifies an explicit development specification that has apparently now been deleted. •p4-8: ¶ Visitor-Serving Commercial: adds an explicit stipulation of a condition for development that will be considered/allowed.
•p4-15: 3rd ¶ “The ‘Bowl’ site…”: one basis for proposed development guidance replaced with another totally different one. (TDR replaces cluster housing & hazard avoidance) •p4-31: LU-I-30: Old: specific protection for CRLF habitat. New: guidance for density on steep slopes. (Both may have been moved? but if not, this is substantive.) •p5-11: Traffic Conditions, bottom 3 ¶s: factual corrections change the severity the existing conditions at intersections.
•p7-21: 1st ¶ Special-Status… Additional information added that correct erroneous (incomplete) statement about ESHA. Good improvement, but should be reviewed again by FWS & perhaps other agencies. (Are these changes a result of comments? J) •p7-39 ff: ¶ GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS & Tab 7-3. Yea! but… What to make of this? A serious complaint I made (& others I assume) was the old and inadequate use of available climate information. Here are attempts to remedy this blatant error. Is this not a substantive change? Should not public and agency review be allowed to further check these adjusted assertions and cited sources? Is this not what review is for?

13.k
Packet Pg. 3903 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Kremer June 4, 2022 Some Changes to FEIR are Major p. 3 •p7-47 ff: 7-6 Cultural Resources, new Fig7-6 & Tab 7-5: Similarly, culturally insensitive statements and factual inaccuracies have been corrected throughout this section. Good! This is another example of EXACTLY why this must be re-circulated so it may be checked for accuracy and completeness by those who know. This is substantive change. •p8-3: Text and new Figs 8-1 & 8-2. These are not redlined so it is not clear if these are new figures that were omitted? if so: 1) that is not correcting a typographical error, 2) substantive content must be receive adequate opportunity for professional and public review. •p8-4: Landslide maps Fig 8-1 & 8-3a: Were any of these, or other substantive documentary evidence modified? If so, they should be put out again for review, for authorities OTHER than our Planning Commissioners and Councilpersons.
>> This raises the question if ALL changes are highlighted in the redline versions. Perhaps this is not a legal requirement, but it is clear with almost 4500 pages to review in a short week, it is unacceptable to proffer a redline version that omits major changes, like new or modified figures, about hazards and safety especially.
•p8-33: WILDLAND FIRES: Fig 8-7: Is this map modified? The first public version had odd unexplained features, that seemed to be clear serious errors. If those have been corrected, as I hope, they warrant review and consideration by fire officials and safety minded public. •p8-36: SA-I-98: Veg Mngmt: a substantial phrase about the nature of implementation policy was added. Good, but substantive; not a typo.
•p8-36 ff: 8.6 Public Safety & Emergc’y Mngmt: The next 2 pages have major deletions and addition that are factual statements about operations and policy. They deserve a chance to be reviewed by professionals and knowledgeable public.
•p8-38: Insert Fig 8-8. Another new figure with really important information! Neighborhoods with fewer that 2 evacuation routes. Should this not be carefully reviewed without time pressure by all citizens who know their areas and have a critical interest? >>> (new or modified figures are not flagged as changes by redline, and are easily missed.) •p9-5: Noise: FEDERAL REGULATIONS: A new reg is added that apparently includes for the first time relevant federal standards that were omitted. Seem important. ----------- end of GP significant changes

13.k
Packet Pg. 3904 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 15 Murdock, Christian
From: Nancy Beeman
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Subject: PEDRO POINT FIELD
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to urge you NOT to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.

As a resident of Pacifica for the last 8 1/2 years, I have found that the five-acre Pedro Point Field is dearly beloved by not only the residents of Pedro Point, but also the people who visit our area from far and wide. This field serves as a visual, physical, and mental respite from man-made structures. It is absolutely imperative that we maintain some sense of open space for the sake of our sanity, and I say "our" meaning every living soul, whether human or animal.

Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.

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

13.k
Packet Pg. 3905 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 16 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:25 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment
Cc: Bier, Mary; Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal; Ringuette, Oceane@Coastal; KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal; Leal, David; Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Wright, Greg
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 Attachments: Christine Boles Comment Letter #A 6.6.22 PC Hearing.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Mr. Murdock, Mayor Bier, Planning Commissioners and Coastal Commission Staff, Please find attached my comment letter A for tomorrow's planning commission meeting regarding continued deficiencies, errors and omissions in the FEIR and General Plan documents related to the coastal zone and coastal hazards.

I wanted to get this out as soon as possible so commissioners had a chance to read it prior to the meeting. I am working on other letters related to landslides and fire that I hope to get to you later today.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3906 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
DATE: June 5, 2022
TO: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

RE: City of Pacifica General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) and EIR Comments, letter A Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners:

I want to first raise my objections to this flawed process that limits public and agency engagement on critical environmental and life safety issues that will define Pacifica for the next 20-40 years. Given the ridiculously short time frame allowed (12 calendar days which include a major holiday) to review this new set of documents, totaling 4,795 pages including the FEIR, I have not had time to read, much less research and respond to many items of concern.

I will focus my comments on a few items I noticed that feel are substantial deficiencies in the documents and underlying data that will require edits and recirculation. This letter will focus on issues in the Coastal Zone. 1) There are many references through the FEIR, General Plan and SPSP documents to the 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment prepared by ESA. Thank you for the clarification based on my comment C49-1 that this document is only a draft and has not been finalized nor officially adopted or certified by the City of Pacifica. Please clarify how this document can legally be used to fully evaluate environmental and safety issues and write policy, much less certify the FEIR. 2) The FEIR has been modified to include new references to this ESA study without labeling it as draft.

See highlighted section in green.
3) The response to my comment C49-11 regarding the accuracy of the dune shoreline erosion numbers of 115-116 meters by 2025 was not answered and the information remains grossly in error. See screenshot from above from redlined DEIR. If our dunes are eroding 115 meters (over 377 feet) by 2025, we are in deep trouble losing our major arterial road, SR1, and these documents are seriously deficient.

Note that there is also confusing duplicated text in the newly added redlined text.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3907 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3908 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3909 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3910 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 17 Murdock, Christian
From: Nancy Tierney < >
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Pacifica Planning Commission GP, EIR, SPSP public hearing [CAUTION: External Email]

Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, Planning Staff:

Regarding the June 6 public hearing to review the General Plan update, Final EIR, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and to consider a resolution to adopt these plans, I look forward to the presentation and appreciate the responses in the FAQs provided by the City. In the meantime I have a number of comments.

Having reviewed the draft documents released early this year, I am somewhat familiar with their contents. I and many other Pacifica residents urged the City to engage the public in reviewing the documents. Apparently that was viewed as unnecessary as the next step was a Planning Commission hearing on June 1 to adopt the plans, later postponed to June

6. I still am puzzled by the seeming reluctance to engage the public in reviewing these lengthy and complex documents.

Recall from the General Plan draft that a visioning session was held in 2009, a draft GP released in 2014 and then presented in 2019. I'm not sure that qualifies as timely public engagement. That said, I am encouraged by the FAQ response that public comment will occur in "any subsequent public hearing on adoption of the General Plan and SPSP." Through my involvement in a number of non-profit organizations, I am aware of similar efforts in other cities on the Peninsula and in the East Bay. Many are updating General Plans, EIRs and various specific plans. The City of San Mateo is in the midst of a 3 year period to update its General Plan, Housing Element and specific plans, including a number of public review sessions. Foster City, Millbrae, Redwood City have pursued similar processes. The City of South San Francisco Planning Commission held a public hearing last week on half a dozen resolutions involving General Plan amendments, specific plans, EIR, and zoning amendments. These resolutions were considered separately, an idea worth considering for the various Pacifica documents.

While I recognize the Commissioners' dedication to their roles, I ask how much of these reports (4000+ pages) you were able to absorb. And, how do you evaluate their contents? What metrics apply and how do specific recommendations support the City's goals?
I question the order of plans approval. As you know, the 6th Cycle Housing Element plan is due in January 2023, addressed in FAQ #7. The current plan doesn't account for the total number of 1892 housing units in Pacifica required by the State, but rather half of the target. As noted, land use tools including higher densities are warranted to achieve the target. Contending that the GP and SPSP must be adopted before tackling the Housing Element, rather than concurrently, is counter productive and inconsistent with the practices of other Bay area cities. Further, a piecemeal approach to housing should be avoided at all costs, rather identifying appropriate sites and approaches in the context of other GP elements like land use and conservation.

The GP and SPSP plans contain many laudable policies, including reference to past successes such as the recommendations of a 1984 open space task force. In the end Pacifica needs to find that balance between conservation of our natural assets defined by the coast and hillsides and ensuring that our city is affordable and provides the necessary services. This is a big challenge that we in the community support.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3911 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 18 thank you.

Nancy Tierney
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3912 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3913 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 1 DATE: June 5, 2022
TO: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

RE: City of Pacifica General Plan and FEIR Comments, letter #B FEIR Chapter 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismic Risk
General Plan Chapter 8.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I have read the city’s responses to my comment letter #2 want to thank you for some of the corrections made in response to my comments to include current data and links. While I have not had time to finish the review of the responses, I did however notice some responses that I strongly disagree with. I also have new information from a conversation I had this week with the Department of Conservation about the inadequacies of the current landslide maps that I will share. I believe these to be significant deficiencies in the EIR and General Plan Safety Element that need to be promptly addressed and modified before the EIR can be certified.

After the 475 debris flow landslides that occurred in the winter of 1982 that led to the death of three children on Oddstad Boulevard in Park Pacifica we must do better to make sure our General Plan documents address this risk and mitigate these hazards. I know of two debris flow landslides that occurred early this winter during heavy rains, one in Linda Mar and one in Park Pacifica. We were fortunate that the rain subsided, and the hills dried out this time, but this reminds us that the risk of these types of landslides is still very much present. El Nino years bringing intense rainfall and saturated hillsides will come again, and we should be prepared and carefully review proposed new projects in these hazard zones to avoid potential costly destruction and loss of life.

Please accept the following comments regarding the safety and geology related chapters noted above of the revised General Plan and FEIR.

1. A Debris Flow landslide map, Figure 3.6-3b has been added to the redlined DEIR, but it is not redlined or noted as new information. It seems that state agencies, like the Department of Conservation have not been given the opportunity to officially review and comment on this DEIR change, so this may trigger recirculation under CEQA.

2. I pointed out in a previous comment, C49-16, that this map in Figure 3.6-3b which was in the General Plan is inaccurate as it does not show any debris flow landslides on the north part of town, even missing two of the 9 major slides studied in the Howard Donley and Associations report of 1982. There was no written response to this specific comment about the inaccuracy and the map has not been updated.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3914 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 2 I had an email exchange on 6/2/22 with Dr. Erik Frost of the Department of Conservation who provided official comments on the DEIR and this is his response. I have attached our full conversation for reference.1
“ The specific features you’re showing from the CGS Landslide Inventory website (image on the left) are all taken from a 1986 USGS report (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr86363). Each red arrow is an interactive feature, and if you click on any given red arrow a pop-up will appear with additional information, including a link to this USGS report. The USGS area of investigation did not extent into the northern part of Pacifica, so no debris flows are shown in that area.”
As you can see, without data for the north part of town, this map is incomplete and is therefore misleading and must be amended or removed.

3. Dr. Frost urged you to use a different map for debris flow landslides in his comment #A3-4, copied below for reference. “Debris Flows Shallow, rainfall-triggered landslides, described in the DEIR as debris flows, are a known hazard within the City of Pacifica. The DEIR mentions debris flow hazards but does not provide much information on where this hazard exists nor where it has occurred in the past. CGS recommends that the Final EIR and Safety Element include debris flow hazard maps and information prepared by the USGS (USGS OFR 97-745 E; USGS Professional Paper 1434 including Plate 8). In particular, the City should consider using these references to help identify existing developments subject to debris flow hazards and determine what new development areas should have geotechnical site investigations prepared prior to project approval.”
The USGS map Dr. Frost refers to is the same one I referred to in my comment letter #2, C49-16. This map not only shows historic debris flow landslides in all of Pacifica, it also shows areas of higher probability of debris flow sides occurring due to topography highlighted in red. This is a much more accurate and useful map for planning purposes for evaluating when soils investigation reports are required to address these types of landslides. This map is actually a more current data source (1997 versus 1986) and CEQA requires the use of best available data, therefore Figure 3.6-3b cannot be used.

Here is a link to this document: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-745/sm-df.pdf. I have contacted the USGS to see if we can get this data in an importable format and will forward it to Mr. Murdock when I receive it. A screenshot is included below for reference.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3915 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 3 4) While the EIR and General Plan Safety Element require geotechnical investigations for steep sites at the planning review level, a typical geotechnical soils report and analysis focuses on deep seated landslides and not debris flow landslides. Debris flows can start uphill from a particular parcel and can affect parcels below, so a much larger area must be analyzed. It is important for the planning department to be able to ascertain when debris flow analysis is required as that will require more information to evaluate whether a proposed project could create hazards beyond its site boundaries.

As an example of the importance of this information, I wanted to share with you a recent project approved by the Planning Commission this year for a new home at the end of Talbot Avenue. There was no discussion of debris flow landslides in the geotechnical report or in the planning staff report.

During the City Council review of the project a neighbor commented on a previous major debris flow landslide nearby on Moana in 1982. I spoke with other neighbors and was informed of two other debris flow landslides on this same hill in 1998 that forced the red tagging of two homes below on Canyon Drive.2 It is imperative that we understand and evaluate the risks of debris flow landslides before granting entitlements. Accurate and complete maps are a critical tool in identifying areas subject to this deadly hazard.
5) Besides the importance of accurate maps, it is critical to include evaluation and mitigation measures for sites with debris flow risks. While the 1983 General Plan Safety Element was completely rewritten to address this major hazard with specific policies after the horrific winter of 1982, the current draft General Plan does not even mention debris flow slides in the text or implementation policies, and so this important historic data and analysis done in the 1983 Howard Donley and Associates report that reviewed and mapped all 475 landslides, and analyzed 9 of them in detail, will be lost. I recommend this report be added as a reference to the final GP and EIR and the policy recommendations reviewed and added.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3916 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 4 6) Dr. Erik Frost also kindly shared the link to the Department of Conservation’s published recommendations for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards which includes a discussion of debris flows on page 51.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-Publications/SP 117a.pdf.

I have copied the critical text from page 51 here below.

Debris flows may initiate as slides, but almost immediately break up and turn into flows. They are typically triggered by periods of prolonged rainfall following a period of less intense precipitation. They can move very rapidly and travel relatively long distances, making them a significant threat to life and property. Individual debris flows are typically small in areal extent and their deposits are relatively thin. They form run-out deposits on the flatter ground below the failure. The extent of runout is based on volume and speed of the debris mass.

Loose material that has accumulated in swales on steep slopes provides the flow material. Flows can also occur on the outer slope of engineered fill faces where saturated surface soils lay above more highly compacted engineered fill.

Recommended Mitigation: Because this type of hazard usually develops in distinct chutes, the main mitigation is to either avoid the hazardous zone or deflect the flow material (Hollingsworth and Kovacs, 1981). The most common solution is to provide an adequate setback from the runout zone. Grading solutions include removing excess material from the upslope swales, reshape the gully profile to reduce the driving forces, lowering the slope gradient and restricting water inflow into the soil mass. Offsite flows can be mitigated using catchment basins, protective structures such as embankments, diversion or barrier walls and by requiring setback distances. The most effective measure to protect structures against earth flows and debris flows is to accurately define the potential failure area and require a setback from the runout path.

This information and specific implementation policies need to be added to the FEIR and to the General Plan Safety Element before they can be certified.
7) Dr. Frost’s comment A3-3 says “The City should also consider providing a map of specific landslides. CGS has compiled an inventory of landslides in the planning area (as shown in Seismic Hazard Zone Reports 128 and 133), and we recommend this inventory be shown in an appropriate figure. The GIS data for this landslide inventory will be transmitted separately.”
Is the new proposed figure 8-X in response to this comment? It is unclear from the staff report. What kinds of landslides are included in this map and over what time period? I note many past landslides missing from this map that were identified, including the debris flow landslides discussed earlier, and landslides documented in specific geotechnical reports the city has in hand, such as for the Vista Mar project at 500 Monterey Road.3 Please update this map accordingly. 8) The response to my comment 49-27 is incomplete as only a few properties have been added to the Hillside Preservation overlay map, see Figure 4.4 in the Land Use Element. FEIR page 3.6-26 says, “Policy LU-I-14 extends the Hillside Preservation District on the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations.” This extension of HPD has not been mapped. 9) The Hillside Preservation overlay map, Figure 4.4, omits certain sites previously identified as HPD in the current zoning maps, see example below. Note that this is one representative example and I have not had time to compare all the maps.

Please clarify if this is intentional as rezoning properties out of HPD requires a public vote per the recently renewed Muncipal Code Tile 9, Chapter 5 Growth Control Ordinance. If it is not intentional, Figure 4.4 must be revised prior to adoption.

I am also surprised that Ohlone Drive off of Roberts Road and Fassler has not been added to any of the General Plan and DEIR maps as that road has existed for many years now.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3917 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 5 13.k
Packet Pg. 3918 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3919 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 7 Thank you for your attention to these important matters of public safety. Please feel free to reach out to me if I can provide any further clarification.

Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
License #C024448
Principal
Cc: Honorable Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro-Tem Bigstyck
Planning Commissioners
[email protected]
Attachments: 1 6/2/22 Email conversation between Christine Boles and Dr Erik Frost of the Department of Conservation. 2 5/28/22 Letter from Christine Boles re. Talbot Avenue project, APN 016-270-190 3 6/21/91 Geotechnical Investigation by John Hom and Associates

13.k
Packet Pg. 3920 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3921 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3922 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

DATE: March 28, 2022
TO: Tina Wehrmeister, Planning Director/Assistant City Manager Christian Murdock, Deputy Planning Director

RE: Talbot Avenue project, APN 016-270-190
Dear Ms. Wehrmeister and Mr. Murdock,
As I was reading the staff report for the Talbot project this weekend I read the new letter from the downhill neighbor, Mr. Gerald King, on Canyon Drive who mentioned his concerns about drainage and landslides given the proximity of the Moana Landslide of 1982. That jarred my memory and I spent some time this weekend digging in my landslide records. I apologize that I did not read the geotechnical report or notice these issues when the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Fortunately, it is not too late.

You might remember that Pacifica suffered 475 landslides that winter 40 years ago that caused millions of dollars of damage and cost the lives of three children when their home was engulfed in a landslide as they slept. Of the 475 slides, the Moana slide was one of the 9 major slides that was studied in the Howard Donley (HDAI) report.

That slide is located on the same hill as the proposed project, on the north face, less than 600 feet away.

I have attached the relevant section of the HDAI report, including the location map and detailed plan and sections of the Moana slide. Talbot Avenue, built on the ridge of this hill, was extended and new homes built along the downslope sides after 1982.

I took a Google Earth image along Talbot that shows both the proposed property and the location of the Moana slide. See below. Except for the proposed driveway and upper section of the home, the slopes are identical at 1:1 or 100% slope.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3923 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

You might recall that I have informed the Planning Department and City Council on numerous occasions that our current General Plan Landslide Maps are inaccurate as the HDAI report called for new landslide maps to be drawn in 1983, but this work was never done. In my 2022 Draft General Plan/DEIR Comment Letter #2, dated 2/7/22, I also pointed out that the new landslide maps were inaccurate as they left out the historic debris flow landslides in the entire northern section of Pacifica, including the area of this project. See images below.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3924 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

Yesterday I met with a neighbor at 708 Canyon Drive. He informed me of two other landslides on this hill during the 1998 El Nino winter. See highlighted areas below in yellow. He said the larger slide was caused by the construction of the Talbot Road extension and the new homes on Talbot. The two houses at the bottom of Canyon Drive, 676 and 684, on either side of a gap, suffered extensive damage and were red tagged as uninhabitable for weeks while repair work was done.

I am concerned that the very real risks of debris flow landslides have not been evaluated by staff or the geotechnical engineer for this project. I have the following questions for the geotechnical consultant, Summit Engineering, and the city’s geotechnical peer review consultant. 1) The geotechnical report is dated September 19, 2018. This is out of date and would not be accepted in other Bay Area municipalities. Is there an update letter to the report that is missing from the agenda packet? The engineer’s recommendations on page 6 specifically says to “update the report because of observed changes or delays”.
2) On page 1, under geology, it says “Local land stability maps show the site to have medium to high susceptibility of seismic landslides”. There is no mention of debris flow landslides anywhere in the report. We learned in 1982 that debris flow landslides do not require a seismic event to trigger this type of slide. According to a Pacific Tribune article interviewing Howard Donley in 1990, he says, “the key is that any time you have a rainstorm that exceeds 1” in a day, with rain before and after, that kind of rainfall completely saturates the earth, fills all the cracks and creates a buoyant effect when surface and groundwater meet. It’s like sticking the soil in a bathtub, it lifts the soil up…Mudslides have a life of their own, it’s like you’ve got your gun cocked. The only problem is you don’t know when it will go off and what will trigger it.” Donley recommended detailed studies not only of each project site, but of the hillsides around it. In fact the 1983 Safety Element requires an analysis of on and off-site hazards. This analysis does not appear to have been done for this site.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3925 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

3) On page 1 of the geotechnical report the land stability maps referenced as data sources date from 1983. These only reference seismic events. Current geologic maps which, according to my source at USGS, do include debris flow risk can be found at the US Department of Conservation website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
As you can see in the screenshot below, this parcel is in an identified landslide zone, identical to the area of the Moana slide. Please confirm that state requirements for required investigations are met based on this landslide risk identification.
4) Page 3 of the report references 2016 California Building Code Seismic Parameters. Please update recommendations as necessary to comply with the current 2019 California Building Code. Changes may also be needed to the design drawings to reflect new code requirements. 5) The staff report acknowledges recommendations from the HDAI report that plantings of trees and larger shrubs can increase the risks of debris flow landslides and yet the analysis to determine specific appropriate planting is being deferred.

With no analysis, the geotechnical report contradicts these recommendations on page 7 and the project plans continue to show trees being added on slopes of 100%.

Here is a clip from a newspaper interview with Howard Donley explaining why trees are not a good idea on slopes susceptible to debris flow landslides.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3926 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

If I was one of the downhill neighbors, I would be worried as if this project is approved tonight, it leaves decisions that impact my property and my family’s safety to staff with no opportunity for public review and input. Besides an updated geotechnical report and analysis of debris flow landslide risks and recommendations, I would also want to see a construction erosion control plan, which is very difficult to manage on such a steep site with 100% slope. The soils report calls for no grading to be allowed from October to April. I would also suggest adding language for strict compliance with grading moratorium dates as a condition of approval.

One of the main reasons Pacifica adopted the Hillside Preservation Ordinance is to protect public safety. The second item under “intent” in the ordinance says, “Help protect people and property from all potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides”.

HPD only allows projects to be built on slopes up to 38%, and at that slope the size of the project is severely restricted. This site, with an average of 55% slope, increasing to 100% for the majority of the site, is a hazard, and the geotechnical investigations must be thorough, comprehensive and up to date with current codes if the city is to consider a variance. By considering variances to HPD without providing these detailed analyses, any approvals that contradict the language and intent of the General Plan and could be challenged.

I’d also like to point out again that the project plans continue to have incorrect fire hose lengths on the plan (166’ measured versus 150’ incorrectly noted) and the staff report is still missing official documentation from North County Fire stating that they have agreed to an exception to maximum length of 150’. I would have thought that the City Attorney would want to see such a document in the project file and/or conditions of approval to carefully protect the city from liability in case of a catastrophic fire. I have copied the relevant section of the current fire code below for reference.

Section 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities [2019 California Fire Code] … The fire apparatus access road shall … extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building facility.

Exceptions:

1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where any of the following conditions occur:

1.1 the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 ….

1.2 Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided.

I would suggest that this item be continued tonight so that these issues can be properly addressed before final approvals. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
Principal
Cc: City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
City Manager Woodhouse

13.k
Packet Pg. 3927 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3928 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3929 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3930 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3931 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3932 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3933 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3934 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3935 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 20 Murdock, Christian
From: Carie Unger
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 8:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Meeting 6/6/22 Agenda Item #2
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hello,
I am reaching out today regarding the General Plan and DEIR.

My understanding is that this Monday, 06/06, the Planning Commission will make their recommendation on if the General Plan and DEIR should be adopted.

I am concerned by the pace of this, as the City has only released their responses to public comments submitted, regarding the General Plan and DEIR, a few days before this Planning Commission Meeting.

This leaves little to no time for the public to review the City's responses to areas of concern within these documents. The General Plan and DEIR are complex documents that will have a lasting impact on our community. The citizens of Pacifica deserve time to read and understand what the implications of this plan will be.

I urge the planning commission to delay their recommendation on the General Plan and DEIR, at this time. Further, I urge City Council to extend the timeline for General Plan and DEIR review and approval so that Pacifica Community members are able to meaningfully participate in this process.

Thank you,
Carie Unger
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3936 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 21 Murdock, Christian
From: Catherine Wachtler
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 8:42 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Christian,
Thank you for your work on the EIR, the General Plan, and the Sharp Park Specific Plan for Pacifica. I'm writing with a few requests for the Planning Commission hearing tomorrow night.

I am concerned that both the Planning Commissioners and citizens of Pacifica have been given insufficient time to read, analyze and develop complete and helpful feedback on these lengthy documents. I would like to suggest a reading schedule of approximately 50 pages a day, 5 days a week, for 20 weeks. I really want everyone to be able to deeply understand the content they are being asked to discuss. We can certainly start discussing now, but let's push the recommendation to early December at the earliest.

When these topics are discussed at a public meeting, I believe each of them merits its own item on the agenda. They are certainly related and there should be discussion and comment about their interconnectedness, but that should be preceded by individual presentations about each document with opportunity for the public to comment on each.

Additionally, because the hearing on June 6 will be the first time staff makes a public presentation of each document, the public will need more time, beyond June 6, to reflect on and analyze the information.

Finally, in the limited reading I have completed of these documents, I notice that the fire hazard map data for many parts of Pacifica, including my neighborhood of Park Pacifica, is missing. Our updated General Plan should include this data.

Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions regarding both the timeline and parts of the process for Pacifica to update its General Plan and EIR and to develop the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Catherine Wachtler
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3937 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 22 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:10 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian
Subject: FEIR comment for planning commission meeting 6/6/22 Attachments: 2018 all bands copy.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Commissioners,
To clarify my earlier comments please see the following.

Respectfully,
Margaret Goodale
concerning Packet pages 823 - 826 Attachment F Final EIR chapters 1-3

C1- 11 through C1-13

I requested that the north half of PSB be added as ESHA for the Western Snowy Plover. Staff responded “ Snowy plover is shown on DEIR p. 3.7-21 to have medium-to-high potential to occur in the planning area” and offers pages of policies that would “pertain to the western snowy plovers habitat once verified by a biologist.”

CO-I-27 Verification of ESHA should be satisfied by the following.

According to the Endangered Species Act plovers are a federally listed threatened species and a State of California “species of special concern.”

In 2007 USFWS compiled the Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the species.

In that federal plan Pacifica State Beach is identified as California 48, part of the Recovery Unit 4 encompassing Pt. Reyes through Monterey Bay.

Volunteers from the Pacifica Shorebird Alliance are trained by State Park and Point Blue biologists and shorebird ecologists to monitor the presence of plovers during the wintering season beginning as early as August and continuing to about mid-April. Conditions on the beach for the wintering plovers are reported to USFWS, CDFW and Pt. Blue scientists. Birds banded from as far as Vandenberg and the Oregon dunes as well as those banded along the SF Bay shore and at Pt Reyes

13.k
Packet Pg. 3938 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 23 have been recorded for multiple winters at PSB. Biologists tracking site fidelity, life span and resource availability use this weekly data to assess snowy plover recovery and how recovery may be affected by climate change and sea level rise.

In 2010 in response to urging from Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory (now Pt. Blue) ornithologists and in consultation with USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist Dan Cordova, City staff presented recommendations for plover protection to Council. The recommendations were approved and are included below. With the implementation of symbolic fencing to provide a safe refuge from human and pet pressures, Pt. Blue shorebird ecologist Carleton Eyster visited and found the site appropriate for ESHA designation. Volunteers continue to cooperate with professionals in federal and state agencies, provide data and meet yearly with them.

See also attached the 2018 band identification prepared for USFWS, for volunteers and for school children who did field studies at the beach after classroom introductions.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3939 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 24 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3940 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) Snowy Plovers at Pacifica State Beach 2017-2018
BG:GY
2015 Banded as a chick
Pajaro Spit
wintered Pacifica 2015-16,
2016-17, 2017-18
WB:WA
2014 banded as a chick
Reservation Road, just north
of Fort Ord
wintered Pacifica 2014-15,
2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18
OY:K
6/11/2017 banded as a
chick South Tenmile,
Coos City, Oregon
obo:K
banded as a chick 7/10/17
North Overlook
Douglas City, Oregon

13.k
Packet Pg. 3941 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 25 Murdock, Christian
From: Necesse
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:58 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; White, Gwen
Cc: Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Fire hazards Pacifica and Code enforcement Complaint [CAUTION: External Email]

Please allow this to serve as a public comment regarding the General Plan update and a Code Enforcement Complaint case to be reopened immediately.

I filed a code enforcement complaint with the City of Pacifica in November 2015 regarding a dangerous limb and a fire hazard behind my home. The response from the Code Enforcement officer Lawrence Ngai was that I was required by the City to provide an arborist report to PROVE that the trees were a hazard. The discovery made during the GPU demonstrates that the City of Pacifica identified this particular grove as HIGH THREAT zone in the map that was prepared for the City one year in advance of this complaint and failed to enforce this complaint.

Considering a fire already occurred in this exact grove during a 4th of July celebration, I would like to immediately address this major public safety issue with the City of Pacifica and reopen this case. The 4th of July is just around the corner and it is common knowledge that fireworks is a major concern with a history of fires resulting from their use.

Considering the retention schedule for the City is 10 years, please review your own records. I look forward to the City taking action on this public safety item affecting the entire area.

Erin Macias

Sent from Mail for Windows
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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3942 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 26 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:25 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; _City Council Group Attachments: 2022-06-05_Chan_LCP_Comments.pdf; DrGarske-Garcia.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Planning Commissioners
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I appreciate the many hours you devote as a volunteer to help us create a more sustainable, vibrant Pacifica which will live on for years to come I am writing to you to urge you to reject the proposed changes to the Land Use designation in the Pedro Point Field (aka the San Pedro Ave Site) from Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses to a novel Residential Mixed-Use Designation. I urge you to listen to your neighbors who have consistently advocated against this ill-advised and potentially dangerous and illegal Land Use Change. This change commits the City of Pacifica towards an avoidable battle, losing battle against its own Citizens, Science, the California Coastal Commission, and the rising tides of the Pacific Ocean.

Proposing to change the basic framework of our City’s long-term land use designation with the aim of “fixing” the affordable housing crisis with new development in a seasonal wetlands subject to frequent flooding and tsunami inundation is ill-advised, while leaving the City and its Citizens to clean up the inevitable disaster.

As secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), the PPCA has consistently provided valuable feedback, citizen input, and expert testimony indicating why this proposed change is poorly considered, and incompatible with state law. We worked tirelessly with the property owners to propose potential commercial recreational uses to create jobs and a sustainable tourism-driving economy, to no avail. Yet, the City continues to push for this change to greenlight residential development in a vulnerable parcel, inexplicably putting the city at substantial financial and legal risk to benefit only one person--the land owner--who purchased the swamp in 1997, well after the Coastal Act was passed and the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan were adopted, at the expense to all Pacifica Citizens and Visitors.

Attached, I add several more reasons why I ask you to listen to your fellow citizens and reject the City’s proposed Land Use Designation change at the San Pedro Avenue Site.

With gratitude,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
--
Cherie Chan

13.k
Packet Pg. 3943 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) 27 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.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3944 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 1
Dear Planning Commissioners
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I appreciate the many hours you devote as a volunteer to help us create a more sustainable, vibrant Pacifica which will live on for years to come I am writing to you to urge you to reject the proposed changes to the Land Use designation in the Pedro Point Field (aka the San Pedro Ave Site) from Visitor‐Serving Commercial Uses to a novel Residential Mixed‐Use Designation. I urge you to listen to your neighbors who have consistently advocated against this ill‐advised and potentially dangerous and illegal Land Use Change. This change commits the City of Pacifica towards an avoidable battle, losing battle against its own Citizens, Science, the California Coastal Commission, and the rising tides of the Pacific Ocean.

Proposing to change the basic framework of our City’s long‐term land use designation with the aim of “fixing” the affordable housing crisis with new development in a seasonal wetlands subject to frequent flooding and tsunami inundation is ill‐advised, while leaving the City and its Citizens to clean up the inevitable disaster.

As secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), the PPCA has consistently provided valuable feedback, citizen input, and expert testimony indicating why this proposed change is poorly considered, and incompatible with state law. We worked tirelessly with the property owners to propose potential commercial recreational uses to create jobs and a sustainable tourism‐driving economy, to no avail. Yet, the City continues to push for this change to green‐light residential development in a vulnerable parcel, inexplicably putting the city at substantial financial and legal risk to benefit only one person‐‐the land owner‐‐who purchased the swamp in 1997, well after the Coastal Act was passed and the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan were adopted, at the expense to all Pacifica Citizens and Visitors.

Below are the many reasons documented below, we ask you to listen to your fellow citizens and reject the City’s proposed Land Use Designation change at the San Pedro Avenue Site.

With gratitude,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
[email protected]
Contents
Understanding the Baseline Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 2 The Land is Currently Designated Commercial Recreation................................................................... 2 The City’s Proposed Residential Mixed‐Use Designation is Incompatible with ESHA .................................. 3 Pacifica’s Proposed CRMU Designation Fails to Meet the Basic Statutes of the Coastal Act ....................... 5

13.k
Packet Pg. 3945 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 2
§30006: Public Participation: The City has Failed in its Obligation to Satisfy Section 30006 of the Coastal Act: Public Participation by Excluding Facts and Participation Presented by the Pedro Point Community ............................................................................................................................................ 6 §30212 The Land Use Change Violates the Requirement for Public Access....................................... 17 §30222 Visitor‐Serving Recreational Uses Shall Take Priority ............................................................ 19 §30240 Environmentally Sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) .................................................................... 20 §30253 Minimization of adverse impacts ........................................................................................... 21 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................. 21 Understanding the Baseline Land Uses
The Land is Currently Designated Commercial Recreation
Under the current approved 1980 Local Coastal Plan, permissible land uses are described as the following:
“The designated land use for this area is commercial with emphasis on coastal related and/or visitor-serving uses. By combining all of the parcels in the area between Danmann and San Pedro Avenue, Highway 1 and the railroad berm and developing them as an integrated project along a realigned San Pedro Avenue, this small, oceanside commercial center could be rejuvenated and expanded to become an attractive visitor destination, as well as provide for neighborhood retail needs" … adding a cultural center for performing arts and an attractive motel could, if carefully designed, enhance the appearance of this area and provide visitor services near the shoreline. …
Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area. Adequate public access through the development to the shoreline and a general orientation to coastal related/visitor-serving uses within the project would be appropriate in ·this location. 1’ As described by the PPCA’s hired consultant, Richard Grasetti who has submitted his testimony and response to the proposed FEIR, the currently‐allowed land use caps development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2, which means that total development footage cannot exceed 20% of the site area. In contrast, the proposed Land Use Designation,2
as excerpted below, represents a radical change which
will increase density by 2.5 times, and will compromise an entire community’s quality of life, the public’s access to one of the Bay Area’s best family‐friendly beginner surfing beaches, and preclude the opportunity for sustainable visitor‐serving jobs while greenlighting development on an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat.
1 Available at: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2293 Pedro Point begins on page C‐54, electronically page 63. 2 On Electronic Packet Page 195: the actual page numbers of the PDF file are obscured, but I infer it to be page 1‐

29. 13.k
Packet Pg. 3946 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 3
The City’s Proposed Residential Mixed‐Use Designation is Incompatible with ESHA
The FEIR claims that 70 houses will be added through this land use change; the City fails to provide any analysis to show how this could be accomplished, and create the requisite Environmental Impact Report which addresses these proposed changes.

Rather, the City proposes a new The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) with an FAR of 5.0, two and a half times greater than the current density, to align with this flyer, which the current property owner has been distributing, without any input from the PPCA, although the PPCA has attempted, on several occasions, to present the property owner with commercially‐viable Recreational uses for the Field, such as Open‐Air dining, a Food Truck Festival, a Drive‐In Movie Event, and Food trucks.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3947 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 4

13.k
Packet Pg. 3948 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 5
Pacifica’s Proposed CRMU Designation Fails to Meet the Basic Statutes of the Coastal Act
The table below summarizes how the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation as applied in Pedro Point Field fails to meet the basic statutes of the Coastal Act. More detail is provided in the following pages.

Coastal Act Policy Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] §30006: Public Participation “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of
sound coastal conservation and development is
dependent upon public understanding and support; and
that the continuing planning and implementation of
programs for coastal conservation and development
should include the widest opportunity for public
participation.”
FAIL: The Pedro Point Community has consistently
opposed the introduction of mixed‐Use land use
designations in the Pedro Point Field; but it has not
been heard.
§30212 New development projects – (a) Public access
from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and
along the coast shall be provided in new development
projects except where:
(1) [conflict] public safety, military security. protection of fragile coastal resources,
(2) [redundant shore access]
(3) [conflict] agriculture
CONSTRAINT OR FAIL: Mixed residential land use
will constrain the multiple well‐established and
persistent foot trails that lead from San Pedro
Avenue (the nearest public roadway to the
shoreline) to a private beach with long‐established
open public access
§30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes
The use of private lands suitable for visitor‐serving
commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance
public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have
priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over
agriculture or coastal‐dependent industry.

FAIL: Residential development precludes
recreational use and development or
conservation in a critical wetlands.

The Pedro Point Field is less than a one‐minute
walk away from Linda Mar Beach: “The most
well‐loved and well‐used beach in Pacifica!”3
Note that the community has welcomed and
encouraged allowable economic benefits from
his property such as rentals from food trucks,
rentals, or its pre‐existing use as a Golf Range.

FAIL:

Private residential development and general
commercial development are allowed to have
priority over and exclude visitor‐serving
commercial recreational development.
§30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA);
adjacent developments
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be
protected against any significant disruption of habitat FAIL: Residential development density range would
require fill and drainage of seasonal wetlands and
degrade ESHA wetlands.

See Testimony of the California Coastal
Commission
3 The most well-loved and well-used beach in Pacifica!” From the City of Pacifica’s Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/rec department/parksbeaches/beach and park info and rules/linda mar (pacifica state beach)/default.asp

13.k
Packet Pg. 3949 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 6
values, and only uses dependent on those resources
shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally
sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas
shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which
would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be
compatible with the continuance of those habitat and
recreation areas.
§30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective
devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. […]
FAIL. Most of field lies approximately 15‐17 feet in
elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL), only about
3‐5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at
the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Residential
development requires flood protection and
drainage.

Wave runup to the field depends on the non‐
engineered privately owned berm which is not
maintained by Pacifica. Residential development
would likely require armored flood protection
structures as sea level rises.

Alluvial soils (historical wetland) of the field have
the same relative liquefaction (earthquake shaking)
potential as diked bay muds and marshes in San
Francisco Bay, and are located in a Tsunami
Evacuation Zone.

Environmental Justice
Equitable coastal access is encompassed in and
protected by the public access policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide
maximum access and recreational opportunities for all,
and to protect, encourage, and provide lower‐cost
visitor and recreational opportunities embody
fundamental principles of environmental justice.

CONFLICT:
“Pacifica is home to some of the San Francisco Bay
area’s best surfing beaches. Linda Mar State Beach
is one of the most popular beginner surfing spots in
the San Francisco area”4
This is also the premier
family‐friendly break within a short distance from
the San Francisco Bay Area.
§30006: Public Participation: The City has Failed in its Obligation to Satisfy Section 30006 of the Coastal Act: Public Participation by Excluding Facts and Participation Presented by the Pedro Point Community
Section 30006 of the Coastal Act also states that “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation.” The residents of Pedro Point have consistently acted in good faith to work with the City and the Owner to propose a Land Use Designation which considers the unique coastal nature and reflects our concerns over residential development on this lowest‐lying parcel in the neighborhood, both as a united neighborhood and by individual neighbors.
4 Website of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center: http://visitpacifica.com/index.php?page=16

13.k
Packet Pg. 3950 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 7
The City’s Own Consultant Noted Pedro Point’s Strong Preference for Natural, Sustainable Open Spaces and Recreation
The FEIR claims that the Proposed Project was developed in response to policy direction provided by the City Council and the Planning Commission as well as community concerns identified through an extensive public participation and outreach program, including newsletters, community workshops and public meetings in 2008‐2010, and additional outreach in 2019‐2021.

While the City claims to public input, in notes in its Public Agenda dated August 26, 2019, the City notes:

Staff and Dyett & Bhatia presented the 2014 draft General Plan and LCP, in their final form ready for adoption, to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 11, 2015. Public comments received at the meeting covered a number of topics, but two central themes included the widening of Highway 1 as part of the Calera Parkway project and the appropriate use of a large undeveloped site in the Pedro Point neighborhood commonly called “Calson Field” (minutes included as Attachment A). The Council’s feedback at that time was to conduct further community engagement to validate the recommendations contained in the draft documents.

Rather than reflect on this overwhelming cascade of public comments against the proposed rezoning, the City ignored all feedback and continued on its path of rezoning the parcels towards Residential uses.

The City’s own consultant noted the neighborhood’s strong preference for sustainable, Open Space, and natural recreation‐based land‐uses: the City’s proposed Land use Change to CRMU boldly rejects the community’s consultant‐gathered input.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3951 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 8
Below are letters from past Pedro Point Community Association presidents: Danny Estrella (2011) expresses the community’s strong support for a land use designation which retains uses of the field as‐ is. Bruce Ferry (2013) details the extensive steps the Community has taken to facilitate meaningful dialogue, and Joanne Gold who again expresses a retention of Commercial Recreation or Conservation Uses. These letters have been followed with hostility from decision‐makers who ignore the law and the plain facts on the ground.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3952 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 9
Letter from Danny Estrella, PPCA President, 2011

13.k
Packet Pg. 3953 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 10

13.k
Packet Pg. 3954 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 11
Letter of Bruce Ferry, 2013 PPCA President, Documenting extensive Community Feedback

13.k
Packet Pg. 3955 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 12

13.k
Packet Pg. 3956 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 13
Letter from Joanne Gold, 2014 PPCA President

13.k
Packet Pg. 3957 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3958 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 15
evidenced in this letter from our current Councilmember.

From: "Vaterlaus, Sue" <[email protected]>
Date: February 24, 2020 at 9:57:58 AM PST
To: Joanne Gold
Subject: RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - 2/24/20 City Council Agenda Item
Yes we are charged to represent all Pacificans, not just the residents of Pedro Point who continually use items that are not always accurate to describe the Calson Property. Have you ever heard the term taking?
The Calsons want more and you want nothing. These numbers were brought out at a study session with planning and council and it seems like a good compromise to me at this time although again i will wait to see what comes to light at the meeting . It will depend on new information.

The City Ignores Concerns Raised by its Own Staff detailing the limitations of this parcel in an Internal Memo.

Furthermore, an internal memo from the former coordinator of the General Plan Update to the City’s Planning Director, the City has known that the Pedro Point Fields is a wetlands which needs to be properly mapped, and should not be upzoned.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3959 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3960 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

13.k
Packet Pg. 3961 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 18
In the present day, the importance of the Field in ensuring the public’s access to the Coast is even more pronounced, as shown in the hatched blue lines below. This critical coastal access point should not be ignored in the FEIR and proposed Land Use Designation change.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3962 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 19
§30222 Visitor‐Serving Recreational Uses Shall Take Priority Per the Coastal Act, Land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development.

The current property owners—in their own materials—indicate that the Field had been a golf range, as shown below.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3963 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 20
Figure: From Flyers Distributed by the Developer in September, 2019 It was suitable for recreational uses when the property owner purchased the entire Field from its own client, the Archdiocese of San Francisco, for a mere $550,000 in the late 1990s, 20 years before the Coastal Act was signed. It is not the responsibility of the local residents to help an outside investor maximize their profits to their own detriment and in violation of the law.

The PPCA has strongly encouraged such sustainable, permeable projects, and had reached out to the owners with potential community‐based options, to no avail. Indeed, the City’s action of rezoning this field to green‐light of 70+ housing units would deprive the greater San Francisco Bay Area of such a recreational opportunity, in violation of the Coastal Act. Nothing in the Coastal Act of the City of Pacifica’s laws requires that the City violate its own ordinances to help a real‐estate speculator maximize their profits at the expense of an entire neighborhood and region. §30240 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Per the Coastal Act, Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall remain protected. The addition of 70+ new homes would significantly degrade those areas and cannot be shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

The FEIR inexplicitly ignores a recent unanimous ruling by the California Coastal Commission which overturned the City of Pacifica’s ruling for a new, project at 505 San Pedro, Pacifica (APN 023‐72‐010) adjacent to the property in question. In the Coastal Commission’s report dated January 25, 2021 and written by , Ph.D. – Senior Ecologist, Dr.

Garske‐Garcia noted that the adjacent property, the Pedro Point Field, is a likely wetlands and confirmed ESHA.

13.k
Packet Pg. 3964 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) pg. 21
The addition of 70+ new homes on this property is in conflict with these findings. It is inexplicable that any valid environmental impact report could omit this information. §30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
The City is bound to ensure in its EIR that it identified and minimized risks to life and property in areas of high hazard. The DEIR fails to recognize that the Field is a floodplain temporarily protected by ephemeral coastal armament built for the short‐lived Ocean Shore Railroad. Changing the density on this parcel, as proposed in the draft GPU, could obligate future generations to maintain this temporary earthen barrier. Indeed, most of the field lies approximately 15‐17 feet in elevation above Mean Sea Level, only about 3‐ 5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Residential development will require flood protection and drainage in what has already been designated an ESHA and heavily armored flood protection structures as sea level rises. Furthermore, the removal of this wetlands habitat will severely endanger surrounding properties which are only a few feet higher in elevation.

Environmental Justice
Equitable coastal access is encompassed in and protected by the public access policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities for all, and to protect, encourage, and provide lower‐cost visitor and recreational opportunities embody fundamental principles of environmental justice.

Per the City’s own Marketing materials, “Pacifica is home to some of the San Francisco Bay area’s best surfing beaches. Linda Mar State Beach is one of the most popular beginner surfing spots in the San Francisco area”5 This
is also the premier family‐friendly break within a short distance from the San Francisco Bay Area. Removing Commercial Recreational Opportunities in this prime location adjacent to Pacifica State beach will destroy the character of not only a neighborhood, and a local economy, but Coastal Access for the approximately 7.75 million people of the nine‐county Bay Area. We join the chorus of other Pacificans and experts in exhorting you to update this fatally‐flawed Draft EIR, and start with an honest baseline which reflects existing uses and conditions.

Sincerely Yours,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
5 Website of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center: http://visitpacifica.com/index.php?page=16

13.k
Packet Pg. 3965 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5055 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update) STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM,

GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
VOICE (415) 904- 5200
FAX (415) 904-5400

WWW COASTAL CA GOV

Page 1 of 24 ends

Pacifica City CouncilJuly 11, 2022

Pacifica City Council
July 11, 2022