Pacifica City Council
July 11, 2022

Figure 7-6: Historic and Cultural Resources
Map will be revised to show Sharp Park Golf Course and
Clubhouse as a historic resource.”
The failure of the 2022 Draft Revised General Plan/EIR to incorporate the Planning Department’s April 2015 Responses to Comments regarding the historical status of Sharp Park Golf Course is inconsistent with the Department’s assurance of its “intent to rely on any environmental analysis which was completed in the earlier EIR process.”
II. CONCLUSION: Sharp Park Golf Course is the eponym of Pacifica’s Sharp Park District. The golf course is the work of world-renowned master architect Alister MacKenzie, and is recognized as architecturally and historically significant by unanimous resolutions of the Pacifica City Council, Pacifica Historical Society, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and an Historic Resource Property
determination under CEQA by the San Francisco Planning
Department. The General Plan and EIR should be revised – as provided in the April 2015 Responses to Comments on the Draft General Plan – to show and determine Sharp Park Golf Course to be a Pacifica Historic Site and Resource.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 627
C129: Jake Scussel, 2/30/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C129-1 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 We should strive to limit or halt urban expansion and avoid exceeding development
on 50% of Pacifica's land mass.

The comment is noted. The Proposed Plan envisions
“concentrated and compact development primarily in
already developed areas” (DEIR p.3.1-19).

C129-2 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 Particularly concerning is the proposed Higgins Way development located in the "Urban
Reserve" that is currently in planning stages.

It's on an HPD, the land is critical habitat for
endangered species and is labeled Very High
fire risk...

Development should be limited to only areas
adjacent to existing roadways throughout
Pacifica. The wooded hillsides between San
Pedro Valley Park and Pedro Point Headlands
should be protected land, and efforts should
be made to ensure that if/when Shamrock
Ranch is sold, development is limited strictly to
alongside Peralta and Shamrock Ranch Rd.

The comment is noted. While it is possible that
development occur in the proximity of VHFHSZ and in
areas that may face higher fire threat shown in Figure

3.11-2 and 3.14-1, there are numerous State
regulations – including the requirements of the
California Building Code and Public Resources Code -
that require landowners to carry out activities such as maintaining defensible space and reducing vulnerability to damage or loss from wildfire, as noted on pages

3.11-11, 3.11-12, 3.14-5, and 3.14-6. Any new
development occurring in areas that may be designated
as VHFHSZ as part of future mapping efforts will be
subject to these requirements. Additionally, the MJLHMP Annex for Pacifica also includes actions that would reduce the risk of loss or damage dure to
wildfire in and adjacent to fire-prone areas, such as
updating its Emergency Operations Plan (Action PAC-8);
continuing public education outreach to neighborhoods
(Action PAC-14); and Evacuating potential wildfire risk and mitigation strategy (Action PAC-18) in partnership
with North County Fire Authority, as described on DEIR
p. 3.14-6. Taken together, these State and local
provisions provide a framework for proactively
managing and reducing risk associated with wildfire in
the Planning Area.

C129-3 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 We need to focus on utilizing under-developed and under-utilized existing spaces first and
foremost, then building up - not out - once
those options have been exhausted. I would
be more than willing to map out potential
locations for renovation/development if it
would be helpful
The comment is noted. The Proposed Plan envisions
“concentrated and compact development primarily in
already developed areas” (DEIR p.3.1-19).

C129-4 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 Population growth is slowing, and may very well be declining in 40 years:
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californiaspopulation/ The comment is noted. The DEIR uses an adequate
baseline; please see Master Response: Buildout and
RHNA for more information.

C129-5 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 Small-scale wind farms should be strongly considered in/near the old quarry and Nike
missile site. Fog collection systems should also
be considered. Fresh water could be harvested
directly from the air during summer months
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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response:

EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

C129-6 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 Strong incentives should be implemented to move residents away from heating their
homes with wood-burning fireplaces to reduce
air pollution.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response:

2.f
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 628
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

C129-7 Jake Scussel 2/30/2022 Does the city have a plan if something like a tsunami/earthquake were to make HWY 1
impassable for days/weeks on end leaving
many residents in Linda Mar and Rockaway
stranded with no way for people/goods to
easily move in/out or out of the city?
Please see Master Response 9: Emergency Access.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 629
C130: Laura Sloan, 1/14/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C130-1 Laura
Sloan
1/14/2
2 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on Pacifica's general plan draft.

I'm writing to comment that I am in support of the land around Old San Pedro Mtn road at the end of Higgins to become Transitional Open Space/Residential with up to 0.1 units/acre). My home today is on Perez Dr. and I use this area regularly for hiking and occasional bicycling. I think the more this hillside land is preserved for future outdoor enjoyment and use by everyone, the better. I am not in favor of the development property proposed there. I think making Old San Pedro Road Higgins entrance an official trailhead to connect to McNee Ranch state park trails would be a welcome addition as well.

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:

EIR comments for more
information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 630
C131: Danny Estrella, 2/26/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C131-1 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 As a resident of the Pedro Point Community, I’m writing to express my concern for the sections of the Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) pertaining to the area referred to as the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site. I will emphasize the history of this property as stated in the summary below.

Imagine a five-acre, outdoor, visitor-serving destination nestled between the Bay Area's most accessible surf break, a commercial kitchen, four restaurants, and a historic community center with a community-built playground. This is the Pedro Point Basin, the heart of our Community.

The Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) welcomes commercial recreational opportunities such as kayak and bike rentals, for-profit community spaces and outdoor events consistent with the current land use designation and conditions on the ground.

The Proposed General Plan Update would change the land-use designation from very low density visitor-serving commercially-viable recreational uses to the development of high-density (at least 70 homes, pre-ADUs) housing on this property, despite strong opposition from the Pedro Point Community and state regulatory agencies.

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: EIR
comments for more
information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

C131-2 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Existing Allowed Uses:

The City of Pacifica's current Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Certified by the California Coastal Commission on March 24, 1980, describes the appropriate uses of this property, which is designed Commercial Recreation. The Basin has since been designated a likely Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat by the California Coastal Commission.
“The designated land use for this area is Commercial with emphasis on coastal related and/or visitor-serving uses... this small, oceanside commercial center could be rejuvenated and expanded to become an attractive visitor destination, as well as provide for neighborhood retail needs ""Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area. Adequate public access through the development to the shoreline and a general orientation to coastal related/visitor-serving uses within the project would be appropriate in ·this location. Given these criteria, commercial use of this portion of the neighborhood is consistent with the following policies of the Coastal Act: 30212 (Provision of Public Access in New Developments), 30222 (Priority of Recreational/VisitorServing Uses), 30250 (Concentration of Development)." The current field has a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2, to promote non-intensive recreational use of the site, retaining most of the site in open space.

The PPCA has been, and remains committed to ensuring that any new developments, and in particular, large-scale land-use changes are sustainable and consistent with State Law. The following table summarizes some of the likely Coastal Act violations inherent to the City's proposed Land Use Designation change.

The LCLUP is being updated
concurrently with this General
Plan; thus, the land uses are
consistent. Please see more
information in Master
Response 6: ESHA for more
information about how
compliance with federal, state,
and local regulations as well as
Proposed Plan policies would
reduce impacts to ESHA to less
than significant.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 631
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C131-3 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act Policy
Section 30212 New development projects – (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shorelineand 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
Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Fully consistent; Recreational land use: physically compatible with public access from public road to shore.

Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update CONSTRAINT OR CONFLICT: Mixed residential land use at 10-15 units/acre: constraint on access from public road to shore The Proposed Plan is
programmatic; a land use
designation does not represent
a project. Coastal Development
Permits are the regulatory
mechanism by which proposed
developments in the coastal
zone are brought into
compliance with the policies of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

Any project brought forth
would be required to
demonstrate compatibility
with Coastal Act policies.

C131-4 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act 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.

Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Fully consistent; directly furthers purpose of section 30221.

Pedro Point Field is adjacent to Pacific Ocean, separated by historic railroad berm segment; thus “oceanfront”; fully suitable for recreational use (Outdoor beer garden or socially-distant eating opportunities, food trucks, mini-golf, Easter egg hunts, Firehouse children’s park spillover, dog walking; ball games)
Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update CONFLICT: Residential development precludes recreational use and development.

Recreational opportunities in the neighborhood on alternate sites are precluded: steep hillslopes, saturated residential development.

Please see response to
comment C131-3 for more
information on project
permitting in the Coastal Zone.

As noted in DEIR p. 3.12-40,
public spaces that are
accessible to the community
are required as part of policy
OC-I-9. As noted in Proposed
Plan policy LU-I-29, the CRMU
zoning district would allow
small-scale visitor oriented
commercial uses as a standalone project without any
residential development, or
small-scale visitor-oriented
commercial uses with
residential development at a
density range of three to five
units per gross acre. Housing
may be clustered, and uses
may be mixed. vertically or
horizontally. Residential uses
may be constructed attached
to or detached from
commercial uses, provided the
overall site contains both
commercial and residential
uses. Development must
include public coastal access
and must provide public open
space.

C131-5 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act Policy
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 Please see response to
comment C131-3 for more
information on project
permitting in the Coastal Zone.

The land use designation
allows visitor-serving

2.f
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 632
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
agriculture or coastaldependent industry.

Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Fully consistent: visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update CONFLICT: Private residential development and general commercial development allowed to have priority over and exclude visitor-serving commercial recreational development.
commercial uses. As noted in
Proposed Plan policy LU-I-29,
the CRMU zoning district
would allow small-scale visitor
oriented commercial uses as a
stand-alone project without
any residential development,
or small-scale visitor-oriented
commercial uses with
residential development at a
density range of three to five
units per gross acre. Housing
may be clustered, and uses
may be mixed. vertically or
horizontally. Residential uses
may be constructed attached
to or detached from
commercial uses, provided the
overall site contains both
commercial and residential
uses. Development must
include public coastal access
and must provide public open
space.

A wetland survey conducted
according to the requirements
of Coastal Commission
regulation 13577 (Title 14,
California Code of Regulations)
is required to delineate
potential wetlands on the site
as part of the development
application and environmental
review process. An
assessment of potential
geotechnical hazards must also
be part of the development
application and environmental
review process, including
assessment of the Ocean Shore
railroad berm under hazard
and vulnerability scenarios
consistent with policies in
Chapters 7 and 8.

C131-6 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act 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 As noted in response to
comment C131-5, a wetland
survey is required to delineate
potential wetlands on the site
as part of the development
application and environmental
review process. Please also see
Master Response 6: ESHA for
more information on how
compliance with federal, state,

2.f
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 633
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
and
recreation areas.

Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Compatible: Low-intensity recreational uses may be compatible with seasonal wetlands (no fill or drainage required for dry season use) and adjacent perennial wetland swale tributary to San Pedro Creek (documented California redlegged frog habitat)
Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update CONFLICT: Residential development at proposed density range would require fill and drainage of seasonal wetlands and degrade ESHA wetlands.
and local regulations and
Proposed Plan policies would
reduce potential impacts to
ESHA.

C131-7 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act Policy
Section 30242. Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses.

Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Compatible: historical artichoke field soils may be kept intact or converted back to coastal agriculture (U-pick berry farm model) Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update CONFLICT: Residential development would require placement of pad fill (flood protection; 100-year floodplain) and drainage) precluding agriculture physically and by land use conflict
This use is not used at present
for farmland, nor is it
designated Farmland under the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program.

Conversion would not occur.

C131-8 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act Policy
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…
Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Compatible: Low-intensity or open space recreational development protects scenic ocean views.

Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update CONFLICT: Residential development would infill the last open space in coastal lowlands from Linda Mar to Pedro Point.

Please see response to
comment C131-3 for more
information on project
permitting in the Coastal Zone;
projects would be required to
demonstrate compliance with
Coastal Act policies.

C131-9 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act 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 Please see response to
comment C131-3 for more
information on project
permitting in the Coastal Zone;
comments about armoring are
inaccurate and speculative.

Projects would be required to
demonstrate compliance with
Coastal Act policies. Policy LU2.f
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 634
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
along bluffs and cliffs. […]
Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Compatible: Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update
CONFLICT. 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 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
I-29 requires an assessment of
geotechnical hazards as part of
the development application
and environmental review
process.

C131-10 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 Coastal Act Policy
Section 30255 Priority of coastal dependent developments Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developmentson or near the shoreline.

Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate, coastalrelated developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.

Commercial – Recreation [CR] (current) or Low-Intensity Visitorserving Commercial (LIVC); PPCA alternative) Fully consistent. Coastal visitor-serving recreational uses do not require fill or drainage of wetlands in field directly landward of the ocean shoreline.

Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] proposed LU Update FULL CONFLICT. Residential development is not coastal-dependent, and would infill the seasonal wetlands in the lowland floodplain of the field.

Please see response to
comment C131-4.

C131-11 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 The Pedro Point Community has a vision, compatible with existing land uses, for this critical parcel as a bridge between Pacifica State Beach, the Bay Area's only accessible beginner's surf break, the Pedro Point Headlands, and the Coastal Trail. The Pedro Point basin can be a vibrant community corridor connecting emerging recreational commercial tourism and job opportunities that make use of existing environmental assets, and do not require extensive non-permeable paved areas and roofed buildings. Examples of existing opportunities which align with Pacifica's economic and the region's commercial and recreational commercial needs and the environment include SparkSocialSF, Half Moon Bay Kayak Company, an outdoor familyfriendly party destination, a bicycle rental and repair shop, and Beach Break Entertainment. Any changes to land-use designations must take into account the present geologic and biological realities of this parcel.

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: EIR
comments for more
information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

C131-12 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 A History of Neighborhood Comments Pertaining to Zoning Changes and Development in the Pedro Point Field
The background information is
noted. The comment is not

2.f
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 635
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Historically, the Pedro Point Field has been a wetlands owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which was leased out for recreational uses such as a golf driving range. These uses are compatible with the seasonal flooding inherent in a coastal wetlands.

In 1996 and 1997 this property was acquired in three private transactions by "Calson Ronald W", "Calson Ronald W & Sheryl W", and "Calson Ronald W & Sheryl W Trs." for $550,000, total. (Ron Calson of RC & Associates in Millbrae has represented the Archdiocese of San Francisco in past real estate transactions.) The designated land use at the time of the acquisition was--and remains--Commercial Recreation.

Subsequent, persistent unauthorized diking, dumping, and infill events have eroded the native plant species and habitat in this designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, but opportunities for restoration abound, consistent with State law, which requires cities to identify natural infrastructure that may be used for adaptation projects including the restoration of wetlands and coastal floodplains "Upzoning" this key parcel without adequate environmental review will severely impact the quality of life and coastal access rights of Pacifica's citizens and visitors to the Coast, while endangering future homeowners who are unwittingly purchasing new homes built on a FEMA-Designated flood plain and historical wetlands temporary protected by coastal armament built for the short-lived Ocean Shore Railroad.

Excerpt of U.S. Coast Survey map of San Francisco Peninsula, 1869, based on 1850s topography: San Pedro Creek Valley and beach, now Linda Mar. Approximate location of Field in red.

Parallel horizontal hatched lines indicate freshwater marsh. Stippled shoreline area indicates sandy beach, dune, washover. Fine horizontal hatching is open freshwater (Lake Mathilda; historical Pedro Creek Lagoon, drained for agriculture 19th century). Irregular circles/dots within marsh = wooded freshwater swamp (alder, willow). 1995 Community Plan "…Pedro Point residents have registered strong support for preserving a major portion of the Archdiocese property in some form of open space. It would be a major setback to the entire Pedro Point community if any development calling for intensive coverage of the land with buildings and pavement were to take place without a generous reservation of land for open space use. The community would look with favor on an adequate provision for open space and a compatible mix of visitor-serving uses appropriate to the Point’s oceanside setting."
2011 Letter in Opposition to the Proposed Land Use Designation Change The Pedro Point Community Association rejected the Draft GPU's proposed Land Use Designation change, and recommended that it adopt "Commercial-Recreational," the designation most similar to the existing land use. The PPCA also supported a change in the land use designation to Open Space.
2012 Letter in Support of Commercial-Recreational Uses: In 2012, the PPCA again, after extensive discussions which included inviting the current-land owners to the PPCA board, voted for the field remain in its current zoning of Commercial- Recreational. The proposed 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: EIR
comments for more
information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 636
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Commercial Recreation designation in the current Draft General Plan is intended for land use that would remain in a primarily undeveloped state but would allow for limited commercial establishments supporting recreational uses in keeping with the enjoyment of the beach and community character.

C131-13 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 2014 DOCUMENTS: In 2014, the PPCA unanimously voted to pool their resources to hire experts and an attorney citing deficiencies in City's General Plan Update and draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

The Proposed Land Use change did not pass, and the approved Land Use Designation remained Commercial Recreation. The following documents have been submitted to the City and are part of the comments on the GPU.
• PPCA Comment Letter Summarizes the PPCA's official position • Brian Gaffney The DEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Errors found by the PPCA's witnesses are materially tied to the legal adequacy of the plan.
• Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECO) The general plan land use designations are the heart of the plan; once a site is designated, applicants have certain development rights. Therefore, it is essential that the City fully consider site values and constraints prior to redesignating sites, not after the site is re-designated. This GPU fails to do that, and the EIR fails to adequately or accurately assess impacts of the proposed redesignation of the Pedro Point Field site. • Peter R. Baye, Ph.D., Coastal Ecologist, Botanist: The Draft Environmental Impact Report fails to recognize the parcels as an Environmentally Sensitive habitat for Endangered Species.

Comments do not apply to the
most recent EIR submittal and
pertain to the 2014 DEIR. As
such, these are not addressed.

C131-14 Danny
Estrella
2/26/22 In 2019, the PPCA formally requested a Neighborhood-Specific Study to consider the robust community input and evidence presented thusfar. This request was denied.

The proposed GPU disregards the facts of the history and community concern for this land. For the sake of completing the GPU so the City of Pacifica can move forward with intelligent development the GPU should be revised to reflect the comments presented here.

This comment is noted. The
comment does not relate to
the adequacy of the DEIR, thus
no further response is
required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 637
C132: Kathy Castor, 3/9/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C132-1 Kathy Castor 3/9/2
2 I am writing to you to express my distress, dismay, disgust and whole-heart objection to the general plan update that would change the Pedro Point field from commercial recreation to COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE???!!! What in the world? Must we completely destroy Pedro Point?
As I mentioned earlier, I have lived on Pedro Point for 27 years.

Not once in these 27 years, has the building of homes ceased on Pedro Point. The single family residences just march up the hill.

And recently, numerous multi-family and mixed-use projects have been approved and are being built. Every tiny piece of land - even designated PAPER STREETS are being approved for construction.

Pedro Point used to be a nice SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

I understand the City needs to generate income, but for crying out loud...must it all come from never ending building permits? You state that the proposed land use change would "not create significant visual impact"....REALLY? I live far enough up the hill to have full view of this parcel of land and enjoy that sight. The thought of another black, 2-story mixed use building box with limited parking (which is another HUGE issue on PP) makes me physically ill. Not to mention the amount of traffic this will generate. Have you visited Pedro Point on the weekends? If not, come have a look at the weekend parking issues.

The kids have an Easter egg hunt every year in the field.

Numerous dogs love to frolic in the field. Gobs of us residents walk the field. Most of the residents I walk this field with moved to Pacifica, like me, for the "small town" feel. There are a number of birds and wildlife that occupy the field that will be greatly impacted.

What about the strain on San Pedro Avenue? What about the strain on sewer and water issues? What about all their lights, glare, etc. affecting the evening darkness we all now enjoy? I firmly believe this project (changing the land use designation) is going to negatively affect the entire Point.

For all of these reasons and a million more that I will not get into right now, changing the land use to residential mixed use for this parcel, is the worst decision the city could make. It needs to stay low intensity commercial - high density residential.

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 SPSPrelated responses.

This DEIR is a programmatic
document and analyzes
potential impacts citywide, not
for individual projects; please
see Master Response 2:

Programmatic EIR for more
information. Please see Master
Response 6: ESHA for more
information on sensitive
species; response to comment
C9-2 for sewer and water
impacts; and response to
comment C27-3 for glare.

Please see also Master
Response 4: Undeveloped San
Pedro Ave Sites for more
information on how the land
use designation and zoning will
influence development on the
site.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 638
C133: John Keener, 3/7/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C133-1 John Keener 3/7/22 Page 6-33 Insert Pacifica Gardens paragraph below Pacifica Resource
Center Proposed addition: Pacifica
Gardens, located behind the Linda Mar
School, donates over 3,000 pounds of
the produce it raises to the Pacifica
Resource Center for distribution to
needy families.

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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C133-2 John Keener 3/7/22 Page 7-3 Figure 7-1: Hydrology Proposed change:

A tributary to San Pedro Creek is
incorrectly labeled as Brooks Creek. This
tributary is Sanchez Fork. Brooks Creek
is the small tributary to the South Fork
San Pedro Creek, and the location of
Brooks Creek Falls in San Pedro Valley
Park. This error originated with Google
maps and they have so far been
unwilling to fix it. Please don't
compound their error!
This comment is noted. The following edit has been made for clarity:

DEIR p. 3.5-4: "San Pedro Creek watershed is the largest of the surface water channels within the City of Pacifica, draining approximately 5,300 acres west to the Pacific Ocean in the area to the north of Devil’s Point. The watershed extends north to Sweeney Ridge, east to Spring Valley Ridge, and south into the slopes of Montara Mountain. San Pedro Creek has four main tributaries extending well past the City’s eastern and southern boundaries. The tributaries are: South Fork, Middle Fork, North Fork, and Brooks Creek Sanchez Fork."
DEIR p. 3.7-56: "Other creeks within the Planning Area are Rockaway Creek, San Pedro Creek, Brooks Creek Sanchez
Fork , and Middle Fork San Pedro Creek. Rockaway Creek and San Pedro Creek are both nearby two of the key sites;
Rockaway Creek is just south of the Rockaway Quarry Site and San Pedro Creek is very close to the San Pedro Site.

Brooks Creek Sanchez Fork and Middle Fork San Pedro Creek are both located in the southern end of the Planning Area, and are fairly removed from the key sites."
DEIR p. 3.7-61: "Several wildlife movement corridors exist within the Planning Area, which include creeks, specifically designated corridors, ridgelines, and valleys. Sanchez Creek exists within the Sharp Park Golf Course and Calera Creek exists within the Rockaway Quarry Site. Rockaway Creek is located south of the Quarry site and San Pedro Creek is located very close to, but just north of the undeveloped San Pedro site. Other creeks within the larger Planning Area are Brooks Creek Sanchez Fork and Middle Fork San Pedro Creek.

Riparian corridors are used in particular by steelhead, California red-legged frog, and San Francisco garter snake.

Steelhead is known to occur along San Pedro Creek, and the entire portion of this creek within the Planning Area is designated as critical steelhead habitat. California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake are known to occur in and along lower Calera Creek which runs through the Quarry site. Both Milagra and Sweeney Ridges are considered
corridors for wildlife as they are large areas of open space that animals can use for movement. In the middle of these two ridgelines exists another important wildlife corridor which has been identified as a migration corridor for the

2.f
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 639
Mission blue butterfly."
These are minor corrections made to clarify and do not affect the findings of the DEIR.

C133-3 John Keener 3/7/22 Page 7-4 San Pedro Creek San Pedro Creek has several tributaries extending
past the City boundaries. These
tributaries include the South Fork,
Middle Fork, North Fork, and
Brooks/Sanchez Creek. Proposed
change: San Pedro Creek has several
tributaries, some of which extend past
the City boundaries. The tributaries
include the South Fork, Middle Fork,
North Fork, Sanchez Fork, and Brooks
Creek. Proposed inserted sentence after
"Wetlands along San Pedro Creek
provide habitat for the threatened
California red-legged frog.": Recently,
the northern tidewater goby, a small
federally-listed endangered fish, was
detected near the mouth of of San
Pedro Creek. [[Reference: Michael
Sutter & Andrew P. Kinziger, Rangewide
tidewater goby occupancy survey using
environmental DNA. Conservation
Genetics (2019) 20:597-613. see page
608]]
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C133-4 John Keener 3/7/22 Alterations from urban development have resulted in a deep channel with
steep banks.

Proposed change: Alterations from
historical agriculture and more recent
urban development have resulted in a
deep channel with steep banks.

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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C133-5 John Keener 3/7/22 7-6 Stormwater This drainage system acts to convey drainage to area creeks
or the ocean. Two areas in the City,
Linda Mar and lower Sharp Park, are too
low to allow drainage to a creek or the
ocean, and are served by pump stations
to prevent street flooding. Proposed
changes: This drainage system acts to
convey stormwater and other drainage
via storm drain pipes to area creeks or
the ocean. San Pedro Creek acts as a
conduit for stormwater from storm
drains to the ocean. Two areas in the
City, lower Linda Mar and lower Sharp
Park, are too low to allow drainage to a
creek or the ocean, and are served by
pump stations to prevent street
flooding.

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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C133-6 John Keener 3/7/22 7-11 CO-I-3 Funding for Creek Maintenance.

Establish funding mechanism to require
property owners with land adjacent to
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

2.f
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 640
creeks to pay proportionate share of
creek improvement maintenance.

Comment: Given that stormwater from
all of the San Pedro Creek watershed
washes through the creek, it seems
inappropriate to require creekside
residents to pay for the creek's
maintenance. At present, maintenance
of the creek by the city primarily
consists of a yearly trek up the creek for
removal of trunks and large branches.
that context. Please see Master Response: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 641
C134: Breck Hitz, 3/6/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C134-1 Breck Hitz 3/6/22 My wife and I have lived on Pedro Point for more than 30 years.

We’ve raised two kids here, and made many good and lasting friendships with our neighbors. I am writing you today to state my objection to the General Plan Update (GPU) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)’s proposed land use
designation change of the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site in Pedro Point (i.e., the Pedro Point field) from “Commercial Recreation” (CR) to a new “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” (CRMU) designation.

Such a designation change would have a detrimental effect on the congestion and safety on the Point, especially on lower San Pedro Avenue. I’m sure you’re aware of the congestion that occurs now on a sunny weekend day: there are surfers, kids, dogs, skateboards, baby carriages, and cars wandering around looking for a parking place. Everybody is intent on whatever he’s doing, and it’s not at all unusual for surfers, kids, dogs, baby carriages, etc, to suddenly wander into the street despite approaching traffic.

The addition of dozens and dozens of housing units in the Pedro Point field would elevate this problem a sunny-weekend-day issue to an everyday problem, and exacerbate the sunnyweekend issue even further. I emphasize that this is an issue of public safety – perhaps life-or-death safety – and I hope it will be taken into account in any decision regarding the future of the Pedro Point field.

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: EIR comments for
more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 642
C135: Christine Boles, 2/11/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C135-1 Christine
Boles
2/11/22 I have spent a LOT of time over the past year researching the subject of safety in Pacifica, both in the hills with landslides and fires, and on the coast with coastal
erosion and sea level rise. I spent days reviewing and
commenting on Pacifica’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
this year, only to be told after the fact that that this work was not needed, and that Pacifica’s hazards will be
properly addressed very soon with the release of the
updated General Plan Safety Element.

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:

EIR comments for more information about
GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C135-2 Christine
Boles
2/11/22 I spent the majority of this weekend reviewing the Safety Element, and honestly, I am appalled. Besides the
landslide and coastal erosion errors I have already
brought to your attention, the fire map only considers
risks to property in the county (State Responsibility
Area); there is no data at all for the entire area in City of Pacifica in the city limits.

The commenter's assertion that there is no
data for the City of Pacifica is incorrect and
mischaracterizes available CALFIRE maps for
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

The DEIR characterizes wildfire hazards
within the Planning Area on pages 3.11-4
through 3.11-6 and 3.14-1 through 3.14-4,
making use of data and information from
CALFIRE and from the Multi-Jurisdictional
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) for
San Mateo County. The characterization in
the DEIR includes a description of vegetation
in the Planning Area, a history of wildfire
occurrence in the Planning Area, the
probability of a fire occurring in the future,
and identification of Fire Hazard Severity
Zones designated by CALFIRE based on
factors such as fuel, slope, and weather. Two
maps are included:

Figure 3.11-2, which shows Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones for Local
Responsibility Areas (LRAs), State
Responsibility Areas (SRAs), and Federal
Responsibility Areas (FRAs) as designated by
CALFIRE pursuant to Government Code
Section 51175. By law CALFIRE is required to
designate these Fire Hazard Severity Zones,
land within which is subject to various
requirements in the California Building Code
for the design and construction of new
buildings intended to reduce the risk of loss
of life and property, including requirements
for building materials, defensible space
clearance, and other wildland fire safety
practices; and
Figure 3.14-1, which shows Fire Threat, a
measure of fuel conditions and fire potential
in the ecosystem, representing the relative
likelihood of “damaging” or difficult to
control wildfire occurring for a given area.

Fire Threat is not a risk assessment by itself,

2.f
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 643
but can be used to assess the potential for
impacts on various assets and values
susceptible to fire. Impacts are more likely
to occur and/or be of increased severity for
the higher threat classes. Please see Master
Response 5: Wildfire for more information.

Analysis in the 2021 MJ-LHMP and the safety
element of the Proposed Project identifies
areas of the city that have constrained
emergency access. Reliance on Highway 1 as
a north-south connection causes challenges
for timely fire response, and the Vallemar,
West and East Fairway Park, Rockaway
Beach, and Rockaway neighborhoods in
central Pacifica are beyond four-minute
travel distance from northern San Mateo
County fire stations, meaning that a new
station would be needed if the central part
of Pacifica were to experience substantial
new development.

Potential improvements to the roadway
network could contribute to mitigating the
impacts of additional traffic on emergency
response times. Furthermore, traffic signal
preemption devices on emergency vehicles,
as well as emergency sirens, will improve
emergency response times ven in instances
of intersection congestion during peak
commute periods. The Proposed Project
provides for improved emergency access
through policies that promote mobility
connections between communities; provide
additional access routes; require new streets
and developments meet adopted
emergency access standards; and ensure
adequate fire, police, and emergency service
in line with any new development, including
in Central Pacifica where service times do
not currently meet NCFA’s standards, and in
areas that have less than two evacuation
routes north of the VHFHSZ (Proposed
General Plan Implementing Policy SA-I-104)
Future development would be required to
adhere to all policies, goals, and standards in
the MJ-LHMP, Pacifica Municipal Code, and
CBC, including vehicular access and
emergency access. Implementation of the
following Proposed Project policies will
ensure that inadequate emergency access
does not occur, and will result in a less than
significant impact
C135-3 Christine
Boles
2/11/22 The Introduction section of the General Plan talks about the importance of Horizontal Consistency within General Plan documents on page 1-5. I’ve copied the text below. (screenshot in letter) Horizontal Consistency between
General Plan documents is a legal term and a basic
requirement, along Vertical Consistency with other city This comment is related to the General Plan.

In the DEIR, the map shows areas of where
critical coastal erosion may occur. The
comment is not related to the adequacy of
the DEIR, therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However, the comment

2.f
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 644
documents like our zoning ordinances. I’m copying the
City Attorney here because I am afraid that this poorly written document could actually put the City in legal
jeopardy if adopted as written.

To be specific, here is one glaring example of horizontal inconsistency. Page 8-9 of the Safety Element talks about coastal bluff erosion and discusses the apartment
buildings on the 300 block of Palmetto that were lost
and had to be demolished in 2016. The Map of Slope
Failure and Coastal in Figure 8-3, which was definitely updated since the 2014 version as it now includes riprap locations, still shows these bluffs as “Not Landslide
Prone”.

There are no other maps in the Safety Element for
coastal erosion or sea level rise, which obviously are an immediate and long-term issue of our city.
addresses the content of the Proposed Plan
and will be shared with decision-makers in
that context. Please see Master Response:

EIR comments for more information about
GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C135-4 Christine
Boles
2/11/22 SB 379 also requires cities to update their Safety Elements by January 2022 for climate change adaptation. “This bill would, upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan on or after January 1, 2017, or, if the local jurisdiction has not adopted a local hazard
mitigation plan, beginning on or before January 1, 2022, require the safety element to be reviewed and updated
as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to that city or county. The bill would require the update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on a vulnerability assessment,
identifying the risks that climate change poses to the
local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change impacts, and specified information from
federal, state, regional, and local agencies.”
There is very vague information about coastal
vulnerabilities in section 8-3 which I will comment on in detail later, but I want to point out that the
requirements of SB379 are for the entire city, not just the coastal zone. So much is missing from this draft
document.

The comment is noted. Climate change and
requirements for SB379 are included in the
MJ-LHMP, incorporated by reference into
the Pacifica GP. Please see response to
comment C13-30 for more information on
the vulnerability assessment and adaptation
plan conducted as part of the LCLUP process.

As the comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental analysis
contained in the DEIR, no further response is
required.

C135-5 Christine
Boles
2/15/22 I am disappointed, because I have reached out to planning staff and the City Manager on numerous
occasions over the past 16 months offering my
assistance with the General Plan update and other
planning issues. Were any public meetings ever held
related to the Safety Element? Even if they were held in 2009, with climate change, these factors are now
completely different. We have the resources here with
coastal and geotechnical engineers, scientists and other professionals like me who would gladly donate time to
improve this document. There is a wealth of knowledge
and experience on the Planning Commission. Were they
asked to review this document before its release?
By the City Manager choosing to save staff time and not involve the public in this update, I fear we are now on a much more expensive, confrontational, and lengthy
Please see DEIR p. 1-2 for more information
about the General Plan public engagement
process.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 645
path. I hope that is not the case and that you will be
willing to reconsider the process to allow real dialogue. I and many others are ready and willing to volunteer our
time to work with you all for a proper General Plan
update that will be able to safely guide Pacifica through the next 20 years.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 646
C136: Nick Lusson, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C136-1 Nick Lusson
Protect San
Pedro
Mountain
Operations
Team
3/8/22 As you well know, our organization's primary efforts center on the protection of our environmental health and community safety as we work towards the preservation of the cherished undeveloped lands along our southern border of San Pedro Mountain. The outcome of this General Plan will clearly play a significant role in those efforts, but we also understand that our work extends beyond it. We're a small operations team of passionate Pacifican residents, but with a very large following both here and from neighboring communities and regions. Our ability to properly and professionally review the Draft General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report are limited. We acknowledge our limitations and are still in the process of engaging with all resources at our disposal to best ascertain our position on the plan and respond accordingly.

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: EIR comments for
more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C136-2 Nick Lusson
Protect San
Pedro
Mountain
Operations
Team
3/8/22 One area that does stand out to us for concern is the inclusion of sufficient hazard information for areas that are deemed in the highest tiers of fire risk by state agencies. This leaves ambiguities as to what and how much development is allowed. In this era of severe climate change, California has had to learn some tragic lessons about the risks of building & development into these areas. From what we've seen so far, this plan could use more work and detail to fill in the gaps of areas on the map that are known to be severe fire risk zones. We would hope that this type of additional hazard overlay would also further prohibit development of these vulnerable areas.

Impacts related to wildfires are
adequately addressed in
chapters 3.11 and 3.14. Please
see Master Response: Wildfire
for more information on the
adequacy of mapping and
policies the reduce impacts to
the maximum extent
practicable.

C136-3 Nick Lusson
Protect San
Pedro
Mountain
Operations
Team
3/8/22 To summarize, we're writing to inform you that we will be turning in more detailed comments on the Draft General Plan and EIR in a timely manner, but they will be late from the deadline of March 8 as we work towards ensuring that this feedback is constructive and effective. We also would like to review the feedback provided by other regional and state agencies that we believe may be providing official comment on the drafts, as our preference is to be wellresearched via objective sources before offering further feedback or opinion.

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: EIR comments for
more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 647
C137: Clifford Lawrence, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C137-1 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 a. What happens when Sea Level
Rise accelerates?
i. Where is the analysis of what
happens when the seawall
infrastructure fails before it is
relocated?
ii. Where is the analysis of the
flood potential on Sharp Park
area and Linda Mar?
As noted in the DEIR p. 3.5-11, "The Vulnerability Assessment mapped seven coastal sub-areas at increased risk of coastal inundation using the OCOF and Pacific Institute Study maps. The subareas were used to facilitate
more focused development of adaptation strategies and policies. The subareas identified as vulnerable to increased coastal flooding are:

Fairmont West, West Edgemar, Pacific Manor, Northwest Sharp Park, Sharp Park/West Fairway Park/Mori Point (these areas were combined because the entire stretch of shoreline is publicly owned and fully government owned shoreline may have different policy or funding considerations), Rockaway Beach/Quarry/Headlands, Pacifica State Beach, West Linda Mar, and Pedro Point/Shelter Cove." Linda Mar and the coastline of Sharp Park are also identified as areas that experience flooding, as shown in Figure 3.7-1. Please see response to comment 13-3 for more information on sea level rise analysis and regulations and policies that reduce the impact, as well as policies in the LCLUP regarding sea level rise monitoring.

C137-2 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 b. What happens when cliff
erosion accelerates?
i. How will it be “managed”?
ii. What will happen at 400
Esplanade?
iii. What will happen at 200-240
Palmetto Ave?
iv. What happens when erosion
at the Palmetto South Canyon
severs Palmetto Ave?

1. Where is the analysis for the
impact on West Fairmont
residents if there is no Palmetto
access to Manor District?

2. What will be the impact on
emergency services to that area?
Please see response to comment C69-8 for more information on erosion hazards and policies that reduce impacts that could occur as result of implementing the Proposed Plan to less than significant.

As noted on DEIR p. 3.6-21, the MJ-LHMP concludes that
landslide/mass movements, which includes traditional landslides as well as coastal erosion, and earthquakes, with the potential to cause ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, are Pacifica’s two highest priorities for the mitigation of geologic and seismic hazards.

All goals and policies in the adopted MJ-LHMP are applicable to the Proposed Project, including those that concern geologic hazards. The MJ-LHMP include several actions that address erosion and landslide concerns, including update of the Emergency Operations Plan, pursue opportunities to preserve and protect critical transportation infrastructure (including Beach Blvd.), and seek to replace/upgrade its seismically-vulnerable facilities to ensure provision of vital services following a hazard. Policies related to emergency services in instances of erosion hazards include SA-I-114, Critical Facilities Location, which avoids locating structures necessary for protection of the public’s health and safety, public assembly, or emergency services in hazardous areas unless no reasonable alternative exists.

C137-3 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 c. What happens if it is
discovered the Mussel Rock
Landfill has leached into West
Fairmont?
The Mussel Rock Transfer Station is located outside of the City's jurisdiction. As described on DEIR p. 3.11-17, the use of these hazardous materials is controlled and permitted by San Mateo County’s Toxic Programs and regulations, and otherwise ensures that risks associated with the use of hazardous materials in the community are minimized.

C137-4 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 d. What happens if retreat is
unmanaged?
Policies within the LCLUP related to effects of climate change and sea level rise are addressed in the LCLUP. See response to comment C13- 3 for more information about coastal flooding and sea level rise.

C137-5 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 e. Where is the analysis for a full
buildout in Pacifica?
Please see Master Response: Buildout and RHNA for more
information on the adequacy of buildout.

C137-6 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 f. Where is the analysis of what
is actually “affordable” in
Pacifica?
Affordability is not a required topic of analysis under CEQA. As this comment doesn't relate to the adequacy of analysis, no further response is required. However, the comment addresses the content

2.f
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 648
of the Proposed Plan and will be shared with decision-makers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-7 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 g. Where is the analysis of
economic sustainability in
Pacifica?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-8 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 a. What is the plan i. If the water
treatment plant is
compromised?
See response to comment C9-26.

C137-9 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 a. What is the plan ii. If public
utilities are hijacked by internet
hackers?
This comment is not related to a required topic of analysis under CEQA. Thus, no further response is required.

C137-10 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 a. What is the plan iii. What is
the plan for the inevitable quake
on Pacifica’s San Andreas Fault?
The comment is noted. Please see Impact 3.6-1, which describes how any potential seismic hazards as a result of a San Andreas Fault earthquake would be reduced to less than significant.

C137-11 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 a. What is the plan iv. If Pacifica
cannot meet its RHNA quotas?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-12 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 b. What are the options …
i. To evacuate residents of
Vallemar area if needed?
An overarching programmatic framework addresses emergency access through local and regional regulations and proposed General Plan policies, in addition to policies related to evacuation planning at the project level. Given the existing framework combined with the beneficial effects of proposed General Plan policies, implementation of the Proposed Project will ensure that inadequate emergency access does not occur and will result in a less-than-significant impact.

Please see Master Response: Evacuation for more information.

Evacuation routes are addressed in Impacts 3.2-4 and 3.11-1. As noted in Impact 3.2-4, project-level review by the City includes site access review for emergency vehicle sand traffic control plans as needed that account for emergency vehicles. Potential
improvements to the roadway network (policies described on DEIR p.

3.2-46), traffic signal preemption devices, additional access routes (CI-I-26, SA-I-94, SA-I-103, SA-I-104), community evacuation education (SA-I-35), and agency coordination (SA-I-102) and ensure inadequate emergency access does not occur. The impact remains less than significant.

C137-13 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 c. What is the plan if developers
continue to bring high-end
residential proposals?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-14 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 a. To Open Space?
i. Where is the commitment of
1980 Pacifica to promote
alliances with non-profit
conservancies such as Peninsula
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 649
Open Space Trust, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area?
C137-15 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 b. To Pacifica’s iconic Hillsides
and Ridgelines?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-16 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 c. To housing that Pacificans can
afford?
i. Pacifica teachers, police, fire,
store clerks, restaurant workers?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-17 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 d. Where is the commitment to
the homeless?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-18 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 e. Where is the commitment to
preparing for elevated fire risk in
Climate Change?
Impacts related to wildfires are adequately addressed in chapters

3.11 and 3.14. Please see Master Response: Wildfire for more information on the adequacy of mapping and policies the reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Elevated wildfire risk due to climate change is addressed in the MJ-LHMP, incorporated by reference in the General Plan. DEIR p. 3.4-7 also describes increased fire risk due to climate change.

C137-19 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 f. Where is the commitment to
emergency preparedness?
Evacuation routes are addressed in Impacts 3.2-4 and 3.11-1. As noted in Impact 3.2-4, project-level review by the City includes site access review for emergency vehicle sand traffic control plans as needed that account for emergency vehicles. Potential
improvements to the roadway network (policies described on DEIR p.

3.2-46), traffic signal preemption devices, additional access routes (Ci-I-26, SA-I-94, SA-I-103, SA-I-104), community evacuation education (SA-I-35), and agency coordination (SA-I-102) and ensure inadequate emergency access does not occur. The impact remains less than significant.

An overarching programmatic framework addresses emergency access through local and regional regulations and proposed General Plan policies, in addition to policies related to evacuation planning at the project level. Given the existing framework combined with the beneficial effects of proposed General Plan policies, implementation of the Proposed Project will ensure that inadequate emergency access does not occur and will result in a less-than-significant impact.

Please see Master Response: Evacuation for more information.

C137-20 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 g. Where is the commitment to
full cooperation with the
California Coastal Commission?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-21 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 h. Where is the commitment to
historical preservation?
i. Native communities
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: EIR

2.f
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 650
comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-22 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 h. Where is the commitment to
historical preservation?
ii. Ocean Shore Railroad
iii. Early highways into and
through today’s Pacifica
The comment is noted. 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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-23 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 i. Where is the commitment to
preservation of wetlands?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-24 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 j. Where is the commitment to
wildlife preservation?
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: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-25 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 k. Where is the commitment to
public engagement?
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 Proposed Plan engagement process and will be shared with decision-makers in that context. Please see Master Response:

EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C137-26 Clifford
Lawrence
3/8/22 l. Where is the commitment to
cleaning up our beaches and
water?
The comment is noted. 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 Project and will be shared with decision-makers in that context.

Please see Master Response: EIR comments for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 651
C138: Andrew, 2/21/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C138-1 Andrew 2/21/22 I am writing you as a homeowner in the Ebken Street Neighborhood of Rockaway Beach. I request an adjustment to the Pacifica General Plan to better serve its stated Guiding Policy.

Request: Update the Plan to show Cattle Hill classified as “Prominent Ridgeline” fully to the HPD boundary. This area is currently shown as Hillside Preservation District with a partial prominent ridgeline. Small revision to Figure 4-4, Figure 3-3, and see excerpts below.

Designating prominent ridgeline to the HPD boundary better aligns with the General Plan:

1. “The General Plan envisions the Rockaway Beach district growing into a more distinct and highprofile visitor destination, with strong links to the natural setting of beaches, headlands, and ridges.” [page 4- 22, emphasis added] 2. “Coastal views from Highway 1 toward Mori Point, Cattle Hill, and the Rockaway Headlands are important in establishing the identity of this area and Pacifica as a whole.” [page 4- 22, emphasis added]

3. Guiding Policy
a. “CD-G-3 Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods.”
b. “CD-G-5 Hillsides and Prominent Ridge-lines. Maintain development standards that ensure that new development does not detract from the visual qualities of Pacifica’s hillsides and visually prominent ridgelines.”
c. “CD-G-6 Scenic and Visual Amenities of the Coastal Zone. Protect the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities in the Coastal Zone by protecting landforms, vegetation, special communities, and important viewsheds.”
d. “CD-I-12 Protection of Ridgelines. Protect visually prominent ridgelines from residential land commercial development.” e. “CD-I-15 Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Landforms.

Ensure that negative visual impacts resulting from new development in the Coastal Zone are minimized. In areas characterized by bluffs and landforms. Strategies to implement this policy include:

Prohibiting development on slopes in excess of 35 percent and highly visible tops of prominent landforms;” [emphasis added]

4. “This dramatic terrain [Hillsides and Ridges] is a defining feature of the city” [page 3-2]

5. “The General Plan supports continued investment in existing neighborhoods and development of a greater variety of housing types, while ensuring that new development is compatible in scale and density and respectful of neighbors.” [page 3-6]

6. “The key issues for hillside development are slope stability, grading, and visual impact.

Prominent ridgelines are identified based on their visual importance or scenic quality.” [page 3-10]

7. “Ensure that development of highly sensitive slopes does not endanger the public” [page 4-13] ;

8. “Ensure that development of highly sensitive slopes does not … harm the environmental or scenic values of the site” [page 4-13]; This steep sloped area encompasses defining ridgelines for the signature topography of this coastal area. This hill is a gateway to recreation for both visitors and residents, including daily regular trail 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: EIR
comments for more
information about GPor SPSP-related
responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 652
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
use by bicycles and pedestrians. From personal observation, this ridgeline is home to wild bobcat, hawks (and other birds of prey) riding coastal thermals to “hover” and hunt, and other wildlife. This small adjustment to the plan will positively impact the development of land use and will protect our community’s character and natural coastal appeal for years to come. Thank you for your support and leadership, Andrew, Ebken Street, Rockaway Beach, Pacifica, [email protected]

2.f
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 653
C139: Christine Boles, 12/17/21
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C139-1 Christine
Boles
12/17/
21 While I appreciate that the General Plan document release has been delayed until January, I was hoping for some more clarification from staff about the process that the city will undertake to allow for the most input from the public. I have the following questions:
• How will the general public be notified? Will mailers also be sent to people not on social media/signed up for city updates? • Will there be a launch meeting to explain the purpose, the documents, the process and how the public can best give input where we can ask questions?
• For people without computer access will there be copies provided at a library or at the community center?
• Will there be any community meetings where we can discuss certain elements of the GP?
• Will someone on staff be available to answer questions during the 45 day period? Can we expect timely responses given the short time frame? Who do we complain to if we’re not getting responses? • To understand the timing and what is expected of the community, can you tell us approximately how many pages are in the EIR? And the General Plan ?
• Which General Plan elements are being updated now versus later - ie. we know the Housing Element will follow after the main GP update. What about the Sharp Park Specific Plan and Local Coastal Plan since the LCLUP is still nowhere near being approved by the Coastal Commission?
• It was my understanding that public meetings were to have been scheduled to review and discuss the Sharp Park Specific Plan. The last meeting I recall was with the council where they gave direction to allow 5 story development, but there were a lot of questions left unanswered, and as Mayor Bier pointed out, the consultant's renderings didn't even show the context of the existing neighborhood homes.
• Should we not review and approve the EIR first in case changes to the EIR need to be incorporated into the various GP elements? • Does the public get to see the comments from the state agencies such as Fish and Wildlife and USGS after their 45 day review while the city is preparing responses?
• Will we have enough time to review the changes made to the GP and EIR before the public hearings? A staff report issued a few before the hearing is not enough for these enormous documents. • Will changes be tracked to enable easy scanning of updated documents without having to reread the whole of the documents? • Processes such as Hazard Mitigation Plan where the public commented and staff responded to questions globally is not enough. Many comments were ignored or mis-interpreted. How will this process be different?
• How will the Planning Commission and City Council hearings be divided up? Do we only get 3 minutes to comment on the entire EIR and GP, or will there be separate hearings for each element? I could talk for 1/
The general public was notified of release
of the General Plan and DEIR through
newspaper announcement and email list.

An FAQ document was prepared to
explain more about the process.

Copies were provided at the Pacifica
Library and Community Center.

Please see DEIR p. 1-2 for more
information about the public engagement
process that informed the plan.

All DEIR-related comments will receive a
response; please see Master Response:

EIR topics vs. GP topics for more
information.

The DEIR is approximately 1000 pages
long, including appendices.

The Sharp Park Specific Plan is part of the
Proposed Project analyzed under the
DEIR. The LCLUP draft is with the Coastal
Commission for certification, it is not
included as part of the DEIR.

Please see the planpacifica.org website
for information on history of past
meetings. SP-related issues will be
presented to decisionmakers.

Comments from public agencies will
become part of the public record.

Tracked changes will be made.

Each CEQA-related comment will receive a
response; however, some comments may
refer to responses in others, or to a
master response, which addresses some
CEQA-related comments more holistically.

The Planning Commission will be
responsible for certification and
recommendation of adoption; the City
Council will be responsible for adoption.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 654
C140: Virgilio Jr. L Yap, 1/19/21
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C140-1 Virgilio Jr L
Yap
1/19/21 Question, regarding the plans can be directed to you. The comment is noted. As the comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is
required. Response to
comment is included in
comment letter C-148.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 655
C141: Remi Tan, 2/26/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C141-1 Remi Tan,
Architect
2/26/2
2 Pacifica's proposed General Plan update has zoned the Rockaway Headlands for development for visitor serving
commercial use. That is a prominent scenic headland ridge and should not be built on. Because the headland's edges are all steep - any access would require significant grading. Visitor serving should be on the parking lot next to the left and right of the Linda Mar BeachTaco Bell on the first row of parking, so there are more waterfront eating places by the beach like in HMB. Also at Rockaway, they should add more restaurants on the parking lots fronting the beach on the right side of the hotel and to the left of Nicks...

This headlands should be zoned park or open space in the General Plan. To avoid legal taking issues since this is private land, the city should allow TDR's where the headlands parcel owners can sell TDRs to other landowners who have parcels near transit and not on hillsides to develop denser housing or commercial projects that will help meet Pacifica's RHNA requirements and economic development needs.

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: EIR comments for
more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 656
C142: Chuck Gust, 1/21/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C142-1 Chuck Gust,
Nick's
Seashore
Restaurant
1/21/2
2 I am sure you have lots to deal with these days as we all do. I have tried to follow progress of the EDC and the general plan. I have read a number of suggestions. I do not believe I have read anything that deals with parking. You can attract all the people you want but if there is no plan to park you just create a mess for businesses. My example is Rockaway Beach. It is a mess on nice summer days when surfers, beach goers and anyone
visiting the coast stops by. There was a long term plan many years ago for parking in Rockaway, but it never materialized.

Much of the problem was the city selling parking for in lieu of fees, putting more stress on parking that was existing. Anyway, it’s a long story so my suggestion is that you consider putting parking on the top of the list. It’s not just Rockaway, its Pedro Point, Highway 1 Beach Parking and actually most areas on the coast side have fallen way behind concerning parking. I thought the coastal commission was formed to assist with coastal recreation; Hmmm, that is another story for another day.

The comment is noted. Parking
is not a required topic of
analysis under CEQA. Thus, no
further response is required.

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

2.f
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 657
C143: Sue Digre, 3/7/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C143-1 Sue Digre 3/7/22 3 08 is the deadline for comments for the DEIR only, correct? There are conflicting statements on the web.

The comment is noted. As
the comment does not
address the adequacy of
the environmental analysis
contained in the DEIR, no
further response is
required. Response to
comment is included in
comment letter C-148.

C143-2 Sue Digre 3/7/22 Understood but the web does not indicate that info clearly. Info on the DEIR says it is "due".

The info on the GP & SharpPk Specific Plan say they are " requested by 3 08" with no clarification. If you don't look carefully at the fine print for each at the same time and on all related pages a reader may not assume that "requested" does give them some lee way. Th General Plan is the focus, but wait in statements about " plan pacifica" , (which include Sharp Park Specific plan, etc ,etc ), then confusion rises. The relationships to each other are not clear. It seems reasonable a GP draft & DEIR would be essential before any of the others because the others must conform to a GP. To add to the confusion: the operative GP is 1980.

Soooo what are the other specific plans conforming to? It can't be legal to be conforming to a Draft GP. Hopefully not!
For those of us who are not techy, all these confusions are a nightmare.

For those of us who work full time and our work and life circumstances are severely impacted by COVID impacts keeping up is nearly impossible.

I started months ago! We are in a pandemic. Then there are other PACIFICANS who can not know that any of this is even going on . I am very concerned and frustrated for them and all of us. Please state who are the Stakeholders? My assumption is that Pacifica constituents, (residents, voters )are the most important persons to get ample responses from. Are we??
Or are "special interest" groups of higher importance? Esp are there " for profit agencies or lobbyists" that are considered "stakeholders". What are the %ages of outreach towards all & the %age of input to the Drafts.

Sorry. I have tried to keep pace. But ,I am failing and getting exasperated.

I tried to avoid having to state these things but, a Gen Plan is the vision of Pacificans about who they are and want to be. As stated on the web , a Gen Plan is a constitution, Of, by for the people . Are we mistaken in our understanding?
These questions should be addressed in the process including in the DEIR & in the draft of the Gen Plan.

The General Plan includes
the Specific Plan; these
constitute the Proposed
Project analyzed in the
DEIR.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 658
C144: James Kremer, 1/17/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C144-1 James Kremer 1/17/2
2 Here is a strange issue with the PDF file provided for the DEIR. I think it is serious, and I wonder if you are aware of it? I downloaded files for all the dropped docs from the Project Docs page on PlanPacifica.org. (I like to be able to save notes.).

The problem seems to be also present online, though I’ve spent more time tracking it down with my downloaded files.
• There is a problem with SEARCH, online and with downloaded PDF files in 2 PDF reader laptop apps: Apple’s Preview, but also with Adobe Acrobat Pro XI.
• The problem is ONLY with the DEIR. The GP works fine. (Perhaps it happened in the compression step?)
• Text words are NOT recognized as words everywhere; most places text seems to only be as block phrases, not searchable. • I am painfully aware this may not be a problem for everyone, but I am sure you want to check if others have it.

A. Please try this:

1. Open the DEIR file online (Public Review Draft EIR (January 2022 Version) | Public Comments Due by 2/21/2022)

2. Use the FIND feature to search for “CEQA” &/or “(CEQA)”.

3. It MISSES the word in the first ¶.

4. Now Search for “Executive" or “Summary”. It finds them fine, in the first header.

If this happens for you, it is not just me!
B. Please view my short clip that shows the problem –
C. One last example from the start of chapter INTRODUCTION shows what might be going on –
Again, search for “CEQA” which is right there in the 3rd line. It does NOT see the first hit (does not highlight the word) but it does find it in the heading. When I click-and-drag to select text (shown in green) it behaves inconsistently, sometimes missing the headings, and most importantly, selecting the text IN BLOCKS. You can see the small heavier green bands where the selected blocks overlap. The search DOES NOT SEE text in these blocks. (It really seems to be bad OCR coding for the main text ¶s, but it works for headings, and maybe some places in tables.) All this seems especially unfortunate since the City has said you are most interested in comments on the EIR which is over 1000 pg and does not have an interactive Table of Contents. If the public (anyone using files from the website) can’t search for key words, it makes it even more intractable. If you cannot repeat this behavior, it still might be worth checking with some others. I hope it is not just me! Again, i’ve seen it on 2 different Macs with 2 browsers online, and with downloaded files using two PDF readers.

Please let me know if you confirm or deny this. It has me dead in the water, essentially unable to work with the EIR, with only manual navigation.

Please see response to
comment C62-8.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 659
C145: Christine Boles, 2/8/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C145-
1 Christine
Boles
2/9/2
2 1) I do see in Chapter 3.3 Air Quality that Dyett and Bhatia provided new emissions data in several tables.

Can you confirm where they got their data for travel/trip information - was it from the 2010 traffic study or
something more recent?
This comment is noted. For this DEIR and GP
update, traffic counts from pages 3-12 to 3-21
were conducted in 2018 and 2019, and
analysis from Table 3.2-7 on page 3-41 was
conducted in 2020 and 2021, in accordance
with the table references in the DEIR. The raw
results of this analysis can be found at
https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/dl/QvA0lqyN
5J.

C145-
2 Christine
Boles
2/9/2
2 2) Dyett and Bhatia (D&B) also references Pacifica's
Climate Action Plan on page 3.3-40 but doesn't list the source.The Bibliography refers to Pacifica's 2012 draft Climate Action Plan and I know there is one later that
was adopted by council. What did they use?
References will be updated to reflect the latest
data used in analysis. This does not change any
findings of significance in the DEIR. Pacifica's
2014 CAP was used in analysis.

C145-
3 Christine
Boles
2/9/2
2 3) I keep trying to look at the bibliography to find
sources, but I don't think it was updated at all since
2014. It does not include BAAQMD's newer data sources
referenced by D&B in Chapter 3.3. Can you confirm? Do
you have access to a more current bibliography that just did not make it into this published draft? That would be very helpful if you could share it.

References will be updated to reflect the latest
data used in analysis. This does not change any
findings of significance in the DEIR.

C145-
4 Christine
Boles
2/9/2
2 I understand from Vicki Sundstrom that no new
technical studies were found in the public records to
assess our traffic conditions as part of this DEIR update, but I wanted to confirm that with you. It seems odd
because DKS Associates is noted as a source in 2020 in
the DEIR - see screenshot below. Please clarify.

Were any other technical studies required or prepared
as part of the CEQA process to inform the DEIR? The
NOP on page 14 says "The environmental assessment
will utilize the most current CEQA Guidelines and for
each issue area, including global warming and
greenhouse gases/climate change."
A city planner friend tells me that you would normally
find these technical studies in an appendix, but there is no appendix. I was pointed to Los Angeles County that
had recently updated their general plan as a good
example as they have a lot of the same issues we do
with sensitive biology, steep hillsides, coastal erosion and sea level rise. Their website shows all these
appendices and detailed technical documents. Am I
missing something?
See response to comment C55-2 and C55-3.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 660
C146: Christine Boles, 1/31/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C146-1 Christine
Boles
1/31/2
2 The DEIR references two Existing Conditions Reports, one done in 2010 and one done in 2019 for Sharp Park.

I think I found the one for Sharp Park here, please confirm this is current. https://www.planpacifica.org/spsp-ecr
I cannot find the one for the whole city that was discussed at a public hearing in September 2010. Can you forward that to me or should I file a PRA request?
And can you confirm if any updates were done for the city wide studies? I'm currently specifically looking for more recent traffic studies as 2010 was before the tunnel opened.

Thank you and I appreciate a quick response as our review time is so limited.

This comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR.

Traffic counts were conducted
in 2018 and 2019, and analysis
was conducted in 2020 and
2021. Thus, findings of
significance and analysis that
relies on transportation counts,
such as VMT analysis and air
quality, remain valid.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 661
C147: Christine Boles, 2/10/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C147-1 Christine
Boles
2/10/2
2 I am trying to understand the calculation of Buildout per the draft General Plan. See screenshot below from Page 4-29. The whole DEIR is based on this maximum buildout number to assess environmental impacts for a project of 990 new units, so I wanted to clarify how these numbers were obtained. I am assuming that you have in your files or in Dyett & Bhatia's the detailed calculations that informed these numbers that would list specific properties and their acreage that were included in each of these land use categories.

Please see Master Response:

Buildout and RHNA

2.f
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 662
C148: Christine Boles, 1/15/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C148-1 Christine
Boles
1/15/22 Thank you Mr. Woodhouse. Is it possible to also get an answer to my question of whether North County Fire and other stakeholder agencies were given the opportunity to review the drafts for factual accuracy before they were released?
And thank you also for copying Chief Myers of North County Fire.

State and regional Cal Fire staff I contacted were not completely clear about who the responsible fire authority was for reviewing our General Plan and Safety Element.

It does concern me greatly that the Safety Element does not seem to have any information about fire risk in LRA (Local Responsibility Areas) and one of my goals in reaching out is to ascertain where I can find the current maps. This is my first time participating in a General Plan update and I am very confused as to the detailed process and how to be most helpful. How can I look at proposed land use changes for example without a thorough understanding of our hazards as a starting point? If I am confused as a professional, then I am sure I am not alone among the public. And I know for a fact that fire risk is one of the top concerns of the residents on the south end of town near the proposed Linda Mar Woods project.

Please see more information about
the adequacy of fire mapping in
Master Response: Wildfire.

C148-2 Christine
Boles
1/16/22 I just noticed that the North County Fire District is not on this distribution list. Is that perhaps an oversight?
And section 7-8 of the DEIR, attached, notes them as a stakeholder agency, but says they were last contacted in 2009. Surely that must be a typo? Were the stakeholder agencies not all recontacted and interviewed in 2019? According to a city planner friend, 2009 is too long ago, the legal term is "stale". This document mentions Michael Crabtree and Van Campo as well who have obviously been gone from Pacifica for some time.

Are there copies of information collected from interviews with these agencies that I can request to view? I'm happy to file a document request, but Sarah is asking me to be as specific as possible to help her with her job.

NCFA reviewed portions of the
DEIR in 2019; the bibliography will
be updated accordingly.

C148-3 Christine
Boles
1/17/22 I'm just looking for the Distribution list for the DEIR - the list of agencies who are required to, or invited to provide comments.

The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.

Response to comment is included
in comment letter C-148.

C148-4 Christine
Boles
1/18/22 Could you please forward a copy of the instructions to the State Clearinghouse, OPR along with the distribution list to responsible and optional agencies that will be reviewing the City's DEIR? The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.

Response to comment is included
in comment letter C-148.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 663
C149: Christine Boels, 1/13/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C149-1 Christine
Boles
1/13/2
2 Comments already included in C148 Please see comment responses to letter C-148.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 664
C150: Christine Boles, 1/13/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C150-1 Christine
Boles
1/13/2
2 Good morning Christian and Tina,
I just noticed that the North County Fire District is not on this istribution list. Is that perhaps an oversight?
And section 7-8 of the DEIR, tached, notes them as a
stakeholder agency, but says they were last contacted in 2009.

Surely that must be a typo? Were the stakeholder encies not all recontacted and interviewed in 2019? According to a city planner friend, 2009 is too long ago, the legal term is "stale".

This document mentions Michael rabtree and Van Campo as well who have obviously been gone from Pacifica for some time.

Are there copies of information collected from interviews with these agencies that I can request to view? I'm happy to file a document request, but Sarah is asking me to be as specific as possible to help her with her job.

The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is
required. Response to
comment is included in
comment letter C-148.

C150-1 Christine
Boles
1/13/2
2 Comments already included in C148 Please see comment responses to letter C-148.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 665
C151: Ellen Natesan, 3/7/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C151-1 Ellen Natesan 3/7/2
2 Hi again Christian, I realized I forgot to put a date, so I added it.

Please use this version with a date in it as my comment letter.

Thank you. Ellen On Mar 6, 2022, at 6:30 PM, ellen.natesan <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Christian, Here is my comment letter on the Pacifica General Plan and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please let me know if you have any trouble with the attached file. I would be happy to talk to you or your consultants to answer questions or provide more
information if that would be helpful.
<Natesan_PGP_Comments_March_2022.pdf> 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.

The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is required.

Response to comment is
included in comment letter C107

2.f
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 666
C152: Christine Boles, 1/9/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C152-1 Christine
Boles
1/9/22 Correction, I meant the upcoming January 18th Planning Commission hearing for the Talbot project, sorry about that. And for the Planning Commissioners, here is a link to my Google folder with the documents I received from the city in regards to the HPD variance discussions for the adjacent property at 722 Talbot Avenue. I think these will be useful to you in looking at precedence. These are from the City Council hearing; I have still not been able to obtain any documentation from the Planning Commission hearing on 11/4/2004 or the previous Planning Commission Study Session despite my 8/16/21 PRA request. The city prematurely closed my request, but I am following up to try to obtain these documents and I will forward it to you if/when I get them. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1efu90KFgl8ozcZr81k-uFPMrazgJVEt?usp=sharing The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is
required.

C152-2 Christine
Boles
1/10/2
2 I was finally able to download the general plan documents after receiving several error messages about the city's lack of bandwidth. The first thing I wanted to do was look at the landslide/coastal erosion map.

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

I have apparently been screaming into the void for over a year now...my letters, public comments, expert reports from
scientists I sent you, mostly ignored. The Esplanade bluffs and Oddstad Boulevard where the kids died are still shown in white as not landslide/coastal erosion prone. I appreciate the new map of debris flow slides, but it does not reference the HDAI report that the city commissioned after the 475 landslides that winter of 1982 or consider all of these historic landslides. Even some of the 9 major slides studied, like the one between Moana and Talbot are not included on either map. The recent landslide on Highway One is missing, which is a blockage of a major
evacuation route. You have these records in your files; I just saw them recently as part of a document request. And the new 2021 USGS maps, which I also shared with planning staff recently, shows most of Pacifica in landslide prone zones. Your document page 8-5 references USGS maps from 19888 (yes 3, 8s) by the way.

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

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

The comment is noted. Historic
mapping and the landslide
inventory was used to develop
the Seismic Hazard Zones map.

Please see response to
comment C119-16 and C110-2
for more information about the
adequacy of mapping.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 667
C153: Mike O’Connell, 1/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C153-1 Mike
O'Connell
1/8/2
2 See attached comments on the GP. It doesn't look
like the consultant picked up the changes on Rosita.

The comment is noted. As the comment does
not address the adequacy of the
environmental analysis contained in the
DEIR, no further response is required.

C153-2 Mike
O'Connell
1/9/2
2 Thanks for incorporating the updates for 535 and
195.

The other one I had noted was 900 Rosita Road,
which I had changed the GP plan to low density
residential in 2012 (Reso 870). It is noted as
undeveloped on figure 4-1. Figure 4-8 shows it as
public facilities. I think it has been mistakenly
shown as part of Linda Mar School which is how it
got the PF designation. There are 2 small lots
behind 900 Rosita which are also shown as public
facilities but have never been owned by the school
district and so I believe those should also have a
LDR designation (I do not own those lots).

The comment is noted. As the comment does
not address the adequacy of the
environmental analysis contained in the
DEIR, no further response is required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 668
C154: Mike O’Connell, 1/10/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C154-1 Mike
O'Connell
1/10/22 Comments already included in C153 The comment is noted. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis
contained in the DEIR, no further response is required.

Response to comment letter included in C-153

2.f
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 669
C155: Mike O’Connell, 1/11/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C155-1 Mike
O'Connell
1/11/2
2 Comments already included in C153 The comment is noted. As the comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is required.

Response to comment letter
included in C-153

2.f
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 670
C156: Brian Gaffney, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C156-1 Brian
Gaffney
3/8/22 Please add the attached 4 documents to the City's administrative record for the 2022 GP Update and the 2022 Draft EIR.

This office represents the Pedro Point Community Association in regards to the 2022 GP Update and the 2022 Draft EIR. Please see the attached comments.

The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is required.

These attachments will be
included as part of the DEIR
record.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 671
C157: Terry Watt, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C157-1 Terry Watt 3/8/22 Please see the attached for our public comment. Thank you! There are no comments in this letter. No further response is
required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 672
C158: Vicki Sundstrom, 2/1/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C158-1 Vicki
Sundstrom
2/1/22 I noticed references in Pacifica's general plan about traffic analysis from 2010...

In trying to understand traffic issues in Pacifica,
particularly the congestion on Hwy 1, I went looking for traffic counts. Traffic data for other cities is available online and so are traffic counts from Caltrans. I don't think Pacifica does regular traffic counts like other cities do - I do believe this is a requirement or at least a best practice in city administration. I took the time to
download what Caltrans had available and came up with
the table below (an hour and a half tops)
A couple of key points from the data & analysis:

1. All the information is pre-pandemic - people were
commuting and kids were in school. Data analysis should not be done in anomalous conditions (school breaks,
holidays etc)

2. More data is available online, I picked 3 years to
compare.

3. The numbers are "annual average daily traffic" - 365 days - so they account for weekend and weekday activity.

4. The data - numbers - speak to the growth in vehicles.

Actual traffic conditions are based on lane geometry,
speed, road conditions etc. In other words, a 10%
increase on a four lane road isn't really a problem but it may be if it's a one lane road with poor traffic control.

5. Between 2013 & 2019 overall traffic has grown
anywhere from 13% to an astounding 57%.

6. Traffic counts from ramps and side streets would
actually help us better understand the growth and traffic patterns. What's important to note here is that the
population of Pacifica grew by 3% but traffic grew by
considerably more.

7. While the traffic heading to the tunnel has grown by 13%, does not mean that all 13% come from the north -
this requires further analysis.

8. Overall, Pacifica is generating a fair amount of it's own traffic and we have a lot of analysis to do to understand & solve the problems. The fact that the general plan is using stale data and analysis, from as far back as 2010, is a grave error and a huge disservice to our city. This is something that impacts the residents as well as any
future economic development. I am shocked at the fact
that any professional - a consultant or staff member -
would even suggest using 12 year old data in a region
that has seen so much growth. If this bad analysis isn't proof that you're rushing the general plan through, I
don't know what is. Please, let's get honest about the
traffic and actually pay someone to do some proper
analysis and fix it.

Traffic counts from pages 3-12 to 3-21 were
conducted in 2018 and 2019, and analysis from
Table 3.2-7 on page 3-41 was conducted in 2020
and 2021, in accordance with the table references
in the DEIR. The raw results of this analysis can be
found at
https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/dl/QvA0lqyN5J.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 673
C159: Gwendolyn Holden, 2/26/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C159-1 Gwendolyn
Holden
2/26/22 I would like to comment on the Pacifica General Plan Draft. On page 189 Figure 7-3 Sensitive Critical Habitat, the riparian habitat on San Pedro Ave. is not listed as critical habitat for the reg legged frog. Attached are
images from May of 2020 and April of 2021 of frogs in
the riparian habitat at the base of Grand Ave, along
San Pedro Ave.

Some may consider it a "drainage ditch" but I claim it is more of a habitat than a ditch. The fact that the frogs have been observed there over two years tells us that
it is a viable habitat. Furthermore it may have been a
frog habitat before 2020, but 2020 brought us closer
to home for longer periods of time. I for one in April of 2020 took more walks around my neighborhood than
ever before. This may be why it is only being
documented now.

While this area seems like a "drainage ditch" it is in
fact supplied with water for longer than surface area
drainage would indicate. Please see the photo taken
about 50 days after the last rain where water was still rising through the pavement. (February 22, 2022) To
me this indicates a water source to the "drainage
ditch" that is more perennial than simple runoff.

Therefore this "drainage ditch" should be reclassified
as a riparian habitat with documented cases of the red
legged frog in the habitat.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Thank you for your comment. The DEIR uses
the best available evidence from credible
government sources, such as the National
Wetlands Inventory and the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Services, at the appropriate scale of a
Programmatic EIR for a General Plan. Figure

3.7-3 shows Critical Habitat which is a specific
designation applied by the CFWD. Figure 3.7-4,
Special Status Species, does show that the
CRLF could appear in the San Pedro Avenue
area. The DEIR and General Plan include
multiple policies to protect these species,
including CO-I-35 which states:
(CO-I-35) Protection of the Californian RedLegged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake during Construction. To minimize disturbance,
require all grading activity within 100 feet of
aquatic habitat shall be conducted during the
dry season (May 1 and October 15) to protect
California red-legged frog and San Francisco
garter snake. A qualified biologist shall
conduct presence/absence surveys for
California red-legged frog and San Francisco
garter snake prior to construction in or
adjacent to riparian areas, grasslands near
ponds/wetlands, or
other sensitive habitat. Any individuals
identified shall be treated in consultation with
USFWS. Construction shall follow accepted
procedures for exclusion and avoidance of
California red-legged frog and San Francisco
garter snake and their habitat. Additionally,
the biologist shall supervise the installation of
exclusion fencing along the boundaries of the
work area, shall conduct environmental
awareness training for construction workers,
and shall be present during initial vegetation
clearing and ground-disturbing activities.

Please see Master Response 6: ESHA and
Master Response: Undeveloped San Pedro Ave
Sites for more information.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 674
C160: Ellen Natesan, 1/19/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C160-1 Ellen Natesan 1/19/2
2 Hello Christian, Please add me to the list of people asking Pacifica to please consider extending the public comment period for the Draft EIR for the General Plan.

Thank you for your comment.

CEQA establishes a minimum
DEIR comment period of 45
days if the DEIR is submitted to
the State Clearinghouse for
review (Public Resources Code
Section 21091). The CEQA
Guidelines further address the
review period length, stating
that the comment period
should not be less than 30 days
nor more than 60 days except
in unusual circumstances
(California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3, (CEQA
Guidelines) Section 15105(a)).
“Unusual circumstances” are
not defined in CEQA. On
January 14, 2022, the City
Council extended the draft
period of time on the draft
Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) evaluating the General
Plan Update and Sharp Park
Specific Plan to 5 PM on March
8, 2022. This 15-day extension
provides the public additional
time to evaluate the draft EIR
and offer substantive
comments for the City’s
consideration.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 675
C161: Arlene Patton, 1/22/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C161-1 Arlene Patton 1/22/2
2 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft General Plan, Draft EIR for the General Plan and the Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan. Pursuant to my comment at the OSPAC meeting, I'm
formally requesting a 30-day extension to the 45-day comment period. As you know this is an enormous amount of material to review and even as a retired person, I don't think I'll meet the current 45-day deadline! From what I've read so far, the General Plan is very good and an enormous improvement from the 1980 version. Thank you and the rest of the planning staff for the good work you do.

Thank you for your comment.

CEQA establishes a minimum
DEIR comment period of 45
days if the DEIR is submitted to
the State Clearinghouse for
review (Public Resources Code
Section 21091). The CEQA
Guidelines further address the
review period length, stating
that the comment period
should not be less than 30 days
nor more than 60 days except
in unusual circumstances
(California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3, (CEQA
Guidelines) Section 15105(a)).
“Unusual circumstances” are
not defined in CEQA. On
January 14, 2022, the City
Council extended the draft
period of time on the draft
Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) evaluating the General
Plan Update and Sharp Park
Specific Plan to 5 PM on March
8, 2022. This 15-day extension
provides the public additional
time to evaluate the draft EIR
and offer substantive
comments for the City’s
consideration.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 676
C162: Mark Hubbell, 3/9/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C162-1 Mark
Hubbell
3/9/22 Good day again! Realizing that I had forgotten to put my contact information on the document I sent before the deadline
yesterday, I've added it here, just in case you wanted to talk to me. Good day. Attached is my comments on the General Plan DEIR Please confirm receipt of this email.

The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is required.

Response to comment is
included in comment letter C-95

2.f
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 677
C163: Paul Totah, 2/27/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C163-1 Paul Totah 2/27/22 Please see below for some changes I made to the comments sent to you a few days ago. -- Paul
As a member of Tree City USA, I have worked to
protect and grow our urban forest. Pacifica's urban
forest includes all trees, both public and private,
within the city limits. The DEIR (and General Plan)
have some aspects that reflect this commitment and
others that need adjusting. Below you will find some
comments, questions and requests. 1. The Guiding
Principle CO-G-10 in the DEIR (and General Plan)
instructs the City to “Conserve trees and encourage
native forestation and planting of appropriate trees
and vegetation”. This is an excellent guiding principle and reflects the intent of a Tree City USA. There are a couple of cases on pages 85 and 560 where other
guiding principles are mislabeled CO-G-10. Can these
be relabeled?
The comment is noted. Guiding Principles
are renumbered to correspond with the
correct GP Principle in the redlined DEIR.

C163-2 Paul Totah 2/27/22 2. Although the Clean Air and Energy and Greenhouse Gases chapters of DEIR acknowledge the value of
trees, the Natural Resources Chapter is less than
thorough. It doesn’t acknowledge the concept of the
urban forest as a whole, and mentions only a few
species of trees. In the section titled
Urban/Developed it doesn’t recognize that trees in
neighborhoods are at risk due to the lack of
enforcement of the Heritage Tree Ordinance, or
acknowledge the environmental contributions of
these trees other than habitat for wildlife. As climate change warms California, growing the urban forest
with diversified species will become even more
important to keep cities livable. Please add these
points to the Natural Resources Chapter.
“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: EIR comments for more
information about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.”
C163-3 Paul Totah 2/27/22 3. In Figure 3.7-1 Vegetation in the DEIR (Figure 7-2 in the General Plan) part of the information comes from
the Department of Forestry in 2005. Some of this
information is either outdated or in error. For
example, the North side of Vallemar is labeled as
Eucalyptus, but it is primarily Monterey Cypress and
Pine, with only a few Eucalyptus trees. Current online
resources such as i-Tree can more accurately assess
tree canopy. Please update this map with more
accurate information.

The General Plan and DEIR make use of
best available evidence from reputable
federal and State governmental sources. As
described on DEIR p. 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, "The
basis for the vegetation classification
system utilized in this analysis relies on the
currently accepted California Department
of Fish and Wildlife List of Vegetation
Alliances and Associations (also known as
the Natural Communities List). Plant
communities generally correlate with
wildlife habitat types, and these typically
are classified and evaluated using CDFW’s
California Wildlife Habitat Relationship
classification system." Thus, this represents
the most accurate source of mapping for
analysis.

C163-4 Paul Totah 2/27/22 4. As stated above Pacifica’s urban forest includes all trees within the city limits.

Unfortunately Figure 3.7-1 labels
"Urban" refers to areas that have human habitation. Figure

3.7-1 is intended to show general vegetation and not tree canopy. The comment is not related to the adequacy of

2.f
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 678
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
neighborhoods as “urban” with no indication
of trees and other vegetation. Can the
“urban" areas be relabeled as “neighborhood"
with the presence of trees identified? Most
cities with Tree City USA status regard trees as
infrastructure, providing services such as
controlling storm water and reducing air
pollution. In addition, research shows that
neighborhoods with trees have higher
property values and greater health benefits.

Having an accurate representation of all trees
in Figure 3.7-1 will help Pacifica manage this
important resource. Please change Figure 3.7-
1 to reflect the entire urban forest.
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: EIR comments
for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C163-5 Paul
Totah
2/27/22 5. There is no Implementing Principle to
correspond with the Guiding Principle CO-G10. Most Tree City USA cities have Canopy Goals for the urban forest that guide the
actions of staff and citizens. Tree City Pacifica
is requesting that Pacifica establish a Canopy
Goal. Please add an Implementing Principle
that states “Adopt an aspirational Canopy
Goal to promote the protection and growth of
the urban forest”.

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: EIR comments
for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C163-6 Paul
Totah
2/27/22 6. In the DEIR the Heritage Tree Implementing
Principle CO-1-41 states “Protect trees
designated by the City Council as having
special value, according to the terms on the
Heritage Tree Ordinance”. In the General
Plan, Heritage Trees are under Principle CO-I39 which has different wording. Please reword both of these Implementing Principles
to better reflect the purpose of the Heritage
Tree Ordinance, such as “Protect essential
trees in Pacifica’s Urban Forest by enforcing
the Heritage Tree Ordinance".

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: EIR comments
for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

C163-7 Paul
Totah
3/5/22 7. The Sharp Park Specific Plan 5-1-4
promotes the addition of curb bulb outs to
plant street trees along Palmetto as well as
east west connections. Research shows that
trees promote commerce, so this would be a
notable addition to this plan. Is this reflected
in the DEIR? Thank you for all your hard work
on the DEIR and General and Sharp Park
Plans. We appreciate you addressing these
concerns regarding our urban forest. Yours,
Paul Totah (124 Nataqua Avenue)
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: EIR comments
for more information about GP- or SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 679
C164: Stan Zeavin, 3/5/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C164-1 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Please consider the following:
“Coastal Zone” Maps and following – Safety element
figure 8-3 & DEIR 3.6-3 >> Combining upland and coastal information on one map minimizes the impact of each.

Separate maps would serve Pacificans better. “Coastal
Erosion” can be anticipated as continuing and
accelerating with more frequent extreme events caused
by climate change and sea level rise. Slope failure inland from the coast usually depends on severe precipitation
and is aggravated by poor engineering choices or
nadequate site investigation.

The comment is noted. Specific descriptions of
coastal erosion are described on DEIR p. 3.6-14
and 3.6-17. Description on 3.6-17 references
erosion projections from the Pacific Institute,
California Climate Change Center, The Impacts
of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, May
2009, which represents the latest and best
available science in the 2018 Sea Level Rise
Vulnerability Assessment.

C164-2 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 1. Safety Element
Document page 7
• Figure 8-3 MAP titled Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion (page 7)
>> Legend identifies the “Coastal Zone” by a dotted pale blue line which is obscured by “seawall” and “riprap,
other revetments”
>> To identify the “Coastal Zone” as only the immediate meeting of sea and land ignores the “Coastal Zone”
definition used elsewhere to indicate that portion of land to which the 1976 Coastal Act applies. To avoid
confusion the term “Coastal Zone” must be defined
specifically and used uniformly.
>> The Figure 8-3 “Note” ( •Figure 8-3 “Note: Beach and cliff erosion are typical of much of Pacifica coastline.”) requires more detailed consideration.
>> “Slope Failure Threat” must recognize and include the threat of bluff failure along nearly all our coast
The Coastal Zone is shown in Figure 2.1-2 and
defined on DEIR p. 2-6. Coastal erosion threat
and policies that reduce the impacts are
described in response to comment C47-3.

C164-3 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Document page 10 (8-10)
• “Increased Coastal Erosion from Potential Sea Level
Rise”
>> Use current information from USGS COSMOS and
Pacifica’s 2018 ESA vulnerability study to explain
projected increase.

Please see response to comment C164-1 for
more information on coastal erosion data
sources.

C164-4 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 • Photo caption: “New development in the Coastal Zone must not require the construction of riprap or other
protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms (left)
New development is required to be set back from coastal bluffs enough to accommodate a 100-year event,
whether caused by seismic, geotechnical, or storm
conditions (right).”
>> Photo caption is consistent with State policy and
should be emphasized. Information elsewhere
contradicts this caption.

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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C164-5 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 >> Identify policies specific to coastal bluffs/cliffs more clearly.
cf. SA-I-3 Real Estate Disclosure specifies “suspected
seismic or geologic hazards…and…risk of liquefaction,
subsidence or landslide.”
cf. SA-I-7 Erosion Prevention … “of hillside areas by
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: EIR

2.f
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 680
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
revegetation…”
>> Sea Level Rise and cliff/bluff risk of retreat MUST also be specified and disclosed in Real Estate transactions. >> Revegetation is inappropriate for cliff/bluff erosion. comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C164-6 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Cf. SA-I-8 Geotechnical Studies. ,,,, Within 50 feet of a coastal bluff
>> Add and Emphasize: “The City's Seismic Safety and
Safety Element requires the bluff setback to be adequate to accommodate a minimum 100- year event, whether
caused by seismic,
geotechnical, or storm conditions. The setback should be adequate to protect the structure for its design life.” 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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C164-7 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Document page 12 (8-12)
SA-I-9 Maintain Restrictions on Hazardous Areas.
>> Clearly identify “Hazardous Areas”
These areas are clearly shown on maps. Please
see comment C22-10 regarding adequacy of
hazards mapping.

C164-8 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Document page 13 (8-13)
SA-I-15 New Development in Coastal Zone.
>> Define new development in accord with the Coastal
Act.
>> Clarify sentence intent: strike beyond the existing
development’s life
>> Provisions must align with current State certified
LCLUP
The comment refers to a LCLUP policy; this
comment is not related to the adequacy of the
DEIR. Thus, no further response is required.

C164-9 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Document p 18 (8-18)
SA-I-27 Critical Facilities Location. Site criti- cal public facilities including hospital and healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and fire stations, and
emergency communications facilities outside of the
tsunami evacuation zone and 100-year flood plains.
>> Add sewer pump stations as a Critical Facility
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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C164-10 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Document page 21 (8-21)
SA-I-28 Vulnerability Identification and Map- ping. The City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones shall be mapped …
>> Mapped in 2018 LCP draft
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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C164-11 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 page E-46
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and…
S A-I-15 New Development in Coastal Zone.
• 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;
• � Not accelerate the need for a shoreline structure or increase the likelihood ��of a future seawall beyond
the existing development’s expected life; and �
������ ������� ������ ���
�������� ����������
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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 681
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
• � Not violate required setback provisions. >> Add
BEACHES after bluffs and cliffs.
>> Define “substantially.”
>> Follow State of California Coastal Act guidance and
clarify the date for “existing development ” to be
consistent with the 1976 date for California voters’
approval of the Coastal Act.
>> Define “expected life.”
>> Add “New development is required to be set back
from coastal bluffs enough to accommodate a 100-year
event, whether caused by seismic, geotechnical, or
storm conditions” according to certified LCP.

C164-12 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 >> Placing coastal erosion in SMCMJLHMP under “Landslide/Mass Movements” does not adequately
emphasize on-going and increasing erosion with SLR.

Document page 470
The comment is noted. Coastal erosion due to
sea level rise is discussed on p. 3.6-14 and
adequately describes ongoing and future risk
of coastal erosion.

C164-13 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Beaches and Coastal Erosion
>> Update erosion history and bluff retreat.

Current data is based on 1998 report.

The comment is noted. Coastal erosion due to
sea level rise is discussed on p. 3.6-14 and
adequately describes ongoing and future risk
of coastal erosion, as well as historical events
of erosion in Pacifica. The MJ-LHMP also
catalogs historical erosion events. Please see
response to comment C164-12 for more
information on where the latest maps of
coastal erosion can be found.

C164-14 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 Figure 3.6-3 Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion Map figure 8-3 is repurposed with legend including red
line to indicate general “critical coastal erosion”
>> Map requires better accuracy and precision to be
meaningful.
> Arrow indicating “Severe Beach and Cliff Erosion”
should bracket from north of the pier to the city limit and include “gullies” area.
> Beach erosion extends south from the pier to Mori
Point.
> Arrow indicating “Severe Beach & Cliff Erosion“ on
northwest Mori Point should include all area south from SF revetment.
> Beach and Cliff erosion occur on the hidden beach
(AKA Smuggler’s Cove
> Serious cliff erosion resumes with marked effect on the porous limestones north of the Rockaway revetment.
> Cliff erosion wraps around all of Aramai Point
(Rockaway Headland).
> Remove “Wave Surge” at Pacifica State Beach north
end.

The comment is noted. Coastal erosion due to
sea level rise is discussed on p. 3.6-14 and
adequately describes ongoing and future risk
of coastal erosion, as well as historical events
of erosion in Pacifica. Please see response to
comment C164-12 for more information on
where the latest maps of coastal erosion can
be found.

C164-15 Stan Zeavin 3/5/22 3.6-17 Effects of Sea Level Rise Paragraph 1: These general projections for the northern California Coast of dune and bluff erosion by 2025, 2050 and 2100 are inappropriate for Pacifica’s exposed coast north of Mori Point where bluff erosion has already
exceeded the 2025 prediction in several places.
>> 2018 LCP vulnerability mapping would give Pacifica
This information is the same source as that
used in the 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment, p. 27.
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank
/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13746

2.f
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 682
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
citizens a much better idea of the area of potential
erosion.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 683
C165: Christine Boles, 1/10/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C165-1 Christine
Boles
1/10/22 Could one of you confirm if there were even any public meetings about the Safety Element portion of the General Plan?
The comment is noted.

Meetings for the General Plan
and LCLUP were held in
summer 2019. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR,
no further response is
required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 684
C166: Pez Godsoe, 3/7/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C166-1 Pez Godsoe 3/7/2
2 This is a letter to object to residential development of the field at San Pedro and Grand Avenues.

Since 2016 we have been subjected to construction up against our house and property lines at 1335 Grand Ave. We now live with an « unmanaged motel The Anchor Inn » directly behind us.

We also have behind us a very large house still under construction since 2018. Those windows look directly into our bedrooms from high above. Most construction starts at 7:01am. It has been constant noise since 2016. Now the construction on Olympian Way involves very large loud trunks and cranes going up/down Grand Ave at all hours.

We frequently need to escape the noise. The pictures on our walls are always askew due to the vibrations of vehicles and machinery.

On the weekends we are saturated with traffic and cars trying to park for the beach. I have to call the police due to drunk tailgaters. We now hide inside the house on weekends to avoid the « invasion » and because there are too many people and cars on the streets.

I have emailed the police, telephoned them and spoken to them in person about the speeding cars, stop sign running, illegal parking. No improvements. Our mailbox has been knocked down 3 times by speeding drivers due to the narrow road.

The field is the ONLY safe place to walk. It functions as a « village square » park for all of the Pacifica residents. (It does get swampy in the Winter). It gives breathing room to the over-crowded streets.

San Pedro Ave is the only entrance and exit for a large number of houses and people. It is narrow and frequently obstructed by trucks, surfers, food delivery semitrucks. How can it
accommodate MORE traffic and people?
Please help Pacifica return to a being a thoughtful city with a concern for its residents. Pedro Point has enough development going on already.

Please see Master Response;
Undeveloped San Pedro Ave
Sites. Please also see Master
Response 1.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 685
C167: Peter K, 1/16/2022
Letter Comment
er
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C167-1 Peter K 1/16/22 I notice that Sharp Park plan doesn't actually address sea level rise. It does not that sea level rise is an issue, but has not one plan address issues.

Issues like:
- Spending tons of money to beautify Sharp Park, and do nothing to protect that investment.
- The pier has been damaged at least twice in the last decade. This is only going to get worse with sea level rise. How does the plan protect the pier, which the plan notes is a precious resource?
- The properties near the end of the sea wall are getting damaged by the water forces being directed there by sea wall. Those residents might have a claim against the city. Sea walls are known for causing damage in adjacent areas:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbeachapedia.org %2fShoreline_Structures&c=E,1,ScSmH7L
HE7I3dhdumWCaaCrK99GhGTpEHzPPLV9tRFA_lUclyBLTgZ7zwvjqnPjFIvO UfF84L2WACWvQqIh6DzgyMVLSnmkjhMCg3RRNKj7qTCM5DSgM2zfQY
M,& typo=1
What is Pacifica doing to protect these homes in the Sharp Park plan? How is Pacifica protecting itself from the legal liabilities around building a seawall next to private property?
- Also, what is Pacifica going to do about the buildings that are literally falling into the ocean, and at risk of doing of falling into the ocean? Not just the Esplanade fiasco, but also the residences just north of the sea wall.
- And when there are high sea waves, building facing the ocean get damaged, one place has had it garage door blown in at least twice in my memory. How much taller does the wall need to be, versus how tall the plan is? Which is to ask, why doesn't the Sharp Park Plan include data about how tall the sea wall needs to be? Deciding how tall to making the sea wall without knowing how tall it needs to be seems stupid. - During major storms, the Sharp Park golf course floods, and two things happen that are environmental issues:
-- They pile sand up next to the "illegal" berm protecting the golf course.

Is that permitted from an environmental standpoint?
-- The golf course pumps out flood water into the ocean. The water from the golf course is polluted with herbicides and pesticides. Does the Sharp Park have a permit to pollute Pacifica's coast waters like that? This snapshot of the Sharp Park plan shows that they don't even know the scope of the problem of sea level rise.

The comment is noted.

As the comment does
not address the
adequacy of the
environmental analysis
contained in the DEIR, no
further response is
required. Sea level rise in
the Sharp Park area is
addressed in the Local
Coastal Land Use
Program.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 686
C168: Bill, 1/11/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C168-1 Bill 1/11/2
2 This comment is to a portion of the proposed Sharp
Park Plan.

With regard to the library proposal, the public
should know that:

1. Libraries have books. The Sanchez "library" would
have neither books to browse, nor staff. Will it close
for "nonuse" after the bond is approved?

2. How will the thousands of Pacificans who don't
drive get to a central library? Pacifica is still cardependent. The bus system is deficient. Pacifica's decision-makers all drive and only hear from fellow
motorists. Kids, seniors, disabled and poor people
who don't drive are overlooked in Car-Town, USA,
yet they'd be taxed for the library. Will there be a
library shuttle? An overbuilt library is nice for library staff (who have asked for private potties, among
other perks to be paid by Pacificans) but
inconvenient to residents miles away in Forgotten
Fairmont or Linda Mar. City Hall won't tell you this,
(the interior design is not disclosed) but the "library" bond we'd be taxed for includes a new City Council
chamber (called a "community room") when our
existing community center would do just fine. It's
overbuilt. Two libraries are better than one. Many
Pacificans use the libraries in nearby cities without
cost. For years, City Hall has failed to fund library
maintenance, cynically betting that voters can be
compelled to vote for a new one. City Hall promises
the central library will be open daily. I don't believe it. Would a building on the coast withstand the harsh
weather?

3. Pacifica has the lowest per capita tax revenue in
the county, with no corporations or big malls to
share the tax burden. A costly library bond, in
addition to the many bonds, parcel taxes, and usual
property and sales taxes we already pay, would fall
mostly on residents, making living here even less
affordable. There's no low-income or senior
exemptions. Including interest payments, the actual
cost of the bond is double the stated cost. City Hall
won't tell you that, either. City Hall is always poormouthing, but property taxes and city revenues are UP. Why doesn't our City chip in?

4. How much has Pacifica raised for this project from
private donors? There's vast wealth nearby, but City
Hall can only envision a hefty property tax hike.

Another city in San Mateo County is building a new
library, privately funded. Has Pacifica even tried? If a donor is willing to donate for naming rights, why not
reduce the cost to Pacificans?
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: EIR comments for more
information about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 687
C169: Jackie Rosenheim, 2/21/2022
Letter Commente
r
Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C169-1 Jackie
Rosenheim
2/21/2
2 I have reviewed the plans and would like to share my
concerns and feedback. While I do think that general
development of the area to create a downtown
atmosphere would be a good thing for Pacifica, I have
concerns over the design as described in Chapter 5 of
the plan. First of all, Chapter 1 states the vision for the downtown becoming" charming and vibrant with
a seaside atmosphere" and that the plans are to
"enhance Sharp Park as a creative and historic
enclave." I really appreciate the motive to honor the
area's character, history and coastal locale as worded
on 1.6 I would like to state that I am opposed to High
Density Residencies (3.10) as it detracts from history
and charm. The area will become boxy and lose all of
its charm. I believe that Medium Density Residency
buildings can become Mixed Use Centers and this will
help to sustain our city's charm.

I like all the guiding policies described on 4.18 such as complete streets and improved public realm (in fact,
this should be a goal for the entirety of Pacifica). We need safer pedestrian crossings that offer coastal
access all over this town. Now, Chapter 5 promotes
an "Attractive Urban Design". The documents don't
describe what is envisioned by 'urban design,' yet the
photos show boxy and bland buildings that are not
consistent with (5.1.19) "employing designs, features,
materials, color that are consistent with character of
Sharp Park." The buildings in the 3-D renderings
shown are similar to the newly renovated Eureka
Square, which is a poorly designed hodge podge of
materials and will take away all of our local seaside
charm. I would like to propose that the vision for
"urban design" design is removed and instead we
look towards other beautiful coastal California towns
that are thriving in vibrancy and tourism. The designs
should be more along the lines of Carmel, Santa
Barbara. We can look for inspiration towards our own
Rockaway Beach with the light colored shingled
buildings. Please do not use mixed materials such as
stucco, wood and tiles as in the design of Eureka
Square. Pacifica will end up looking just like Daly City and that does not exemplify a "charming and vibrant
seaside atmosphere".

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:

EIR comments for more information about
GP- or SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 688
C170: Bryan O’Flynn, 3/9/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C170-1 Bryan
O'Flynn
3/9/22 What makes the Sharp Park neighborhood in Pacifica uniquely wonderful is due in great part to its
location fronting on the Pacific ocean and the people
who are drawn to it . Its embrace of the sea first
created and then subsequently has shaped Sharp
Park.

The SPSP has highlighted the neighborhood’s being
the city’s civic core, it being home to many unique
businesses and its great potential for evolving and
growing in vibrancy over the next several decades.

Significant opportunity for mixed-use buildings, new
housing and higher intensity development that will
help the city address issues of housing affordability
and create a center of gravity for the broader
Pacifica Community as well as visitors. The City
owned site at 2212 Beach Blvd one block south of
the Pacifica Pier slated for hotel development will
bring much needed tax revenue to the City. All of the
potential in the plan hinges on continuing the City’s
commitment to maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhoods relation with the ocean.

Managing potential sea level rise via well established
construction methods is a good and important
investment in our future. Of all of the great
improvements planned for Sharp Park ( the
revitalization of Palmetto Avenue, the new hotel on
Beach Blvd, etc ) the rebuilding of the sea wall north
of the pier is the most critical improvement that
needs to completed to ensure the long term
wellness of the Sharp Park community and should be
the top priority of SPSP.It will protect our
neighborhood for future generations to live, work
and enjoy as well as ensuring public access to our
popular ocean front.

Building a new replacement sea wall north of the
Pier in the same location as the existing
seawall/revetment is a straightforward and efficient
proposition. Years of study by the city with
community involvement has resulted in a great plan
for doing so . The study recognized the importance
of protecting the community, housing , property,
structures and infrastructures - both public and
private via a new sea wall. The construction of a new
sea wall should be made a key part of the Sharp Park
Specific Plan and written into the plan as specific
public policy and top priority.

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:

EIR comments for more information about
GP- or SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 689
C171: Tom Thompson, 3/7/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C171-1 Tom
Thompson

3.7.202
2 I just emailed in my Sharp Park Specific Plan Public
Comments to the email address
[email protected] with a PDF of signed
comments as well. Please, kindly confirm they were
received within the deadline.

There are no comments in this letter. No
further response is required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 690
C172: Tom Thompson, 3/7/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C172-1 Tom
Thompson
3/7/22 As a Sharp Park property owner and taxpayer for
35+ years, I am submitting the following public
comments regarding the Draft Sharp Park Specific
Plan. I have attached a signed PDF copy as well.

The Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) has a major
flaw. Environmental justice and economic justice
issuesare at risk. Let’s fix the SPSP. Now, while we
can. Essentially, the Sharp Park Specific Plan
(SPSP) is spot-on. Visionary. Essential. Brilliant.

The vision for Palmetto Ave as a vibrant and
walkable small “Downtown Pacifica” is just what
we need. A new hotel at 2212 Beach Blvd. is key
to making this happen. Adding shops, eateries
and other businesses will make Pacifica thrive.

And the increased tax revenue to our city
treasuries is essential to our economic viability as
a city.

The SPSP goes into detail about the potential for
Sea Level Rise. Yet, the SPSP is virtually silent
about a commitment to seek a simple sea level
rise solution for Pacifica and Sharp Park… A
RUBUST SEAWALL. Is this just a major oversight,
or a plan for failure? Unless the SPSP includes a
commitment to pursue a robust seawall… within
the Sharp Park Specific Plan itself, the SPSP
becomes a plan for failure. Furthermore, without
a commitment to pursue a robust seawall….
investment in Sharp Park to make it a robust
“Downtown Pacifica”… will never happen.

This single flaw in the SPSP is easy to fix though.

The SPSP needs a strong policy commitment
statement that Pacifica will pursue the design and
funding to build a robust seawall. A plan to guard
against the potential for sea level rise. Public
infrastructure, family homes, retirement nest
eggs, businesses, and affordable recreation are at
stake. Hundreds of millions of dollars of public
infrastructure are potentially at risk, without a
robust seawall. This critical essential public
Infrastructure must be protected from potential
sea level rise. Without the existing standing sewer
pump station alone, 40% of Pacificans will lose
their sewer service. Not just lost in Sharp Park,
but 40% of all Pacifica! The golf course, pier and
access to coastal trails provide affordable
recreation that need the protection of a robust
seawall. A robust seawall is both an
environmental justice issue, and an economic
justice issue. Pacifica family investments in homes
& businesses must be protected. Homeowners
who invested their life savings never thought they
should fear their government might abandon
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: EIR comments for more
information about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 691
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
them and effectively condemn their homes by not
protecting public infrastructure and places to
live… with a robust seawall.

Again, environmental and economic justice issues.

A robust seawall north of the pier is a no brainer.

The Sharp Park Specific Plan needs to be clear
that we are working to make a robust seawall
north of the pier happen. The simple solution is a
robust seawall north of the pier. Let’s fix the
Sharp Park Specific Plan, with a clear policy
statement within the SPSP itself that we will work
to make a seawall happen. Here is more detailed
list of what is at stake, unless we make a
commitment to pursue a robust seawall… within
the Sharp Park Specific Plan itself. PRIORITY
SOLUTION: WE NEED TO COMMIT, WITHIN THE

SPSP ITSELF, TO BUILDING A SEAWALL NORTH OF
THE PIER, so we can:

A) Protect Public Infrastructure Investment.

Economic & Social Justices
Issues Involving:
1) Streets & Roads
2) Sidewalks
3) Beach Promenade
4) Storm Drains
5) Access to Coastal Trails
6) Sewer Lines
7) Natural Gas Lines
8) Electrical Service
9) Internet
10) Cable lines
11) Water Service Lines
12) Golf Course
13) Fishing Pier
14) Existing major sewer pumping station at 2212
Beach Blvd. Sewer service for 16,000 people.

That’s 40% of all Pacificans. Not just Sharp Park.

B) Protect Private Investment. Economic & Social
Justices Issues Involving:
1) 1,000 + of our most affordable existing homes.
2) 100+ existing small businesses.
3) Future Investment to make Palmetto a thriving
walkable downtown district.
4) 2212 Beach Blvd Hotel won’t happen without a
commitment to a seawall. Pacifica’s financial
future depends upon a new hotel on that site.
5) No commitment to pursuit of a robust seawall.

Means no commitment to a hotel. How and why
would investors move forward without this
assurance?
6) The same holds true for other investors in
Sharp Park. Why would any investors come to
Sharp Park, if the city is not committed to
protecting Sharp Park?
C) Again, Protect Environmental and Economic

2.f
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 692
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
and Social Equity Justice
Issues including:
1) Think of the environmental & economic mess if
40% of Pacifica loses their sewer service because
we didn’t protect the sewer pumping station with
a robust seawall.
2) Preserving Pacifica’s 1,000+ most affordable
homes in Sharp Park.
3) Preserving 100+ small businesses in Sharp Park.
4) Homeowners and small businesses have their
nest eggs and retirement invested in Sharp Park.
5) These homeowners and businesses never
dreamed their city might abandon them by not
making it a policy to protect their homes &
investments with a robust seawall.
6) Affordable access to our fishing pier provides
affordable food to many families.
7) Access to affordable recreation like fishing,
picnicking, golf & hiking trails are at risk.
8) Protecting Sharp Park with a simple robust
seawall, north of the pier, is essential to getting
the investment we need to make Sharp Park
thrive.
9) And the increased tax revenue to our city
treasuries from these investments is essential to
our economic viability as a city. Economic justice
for the city itself.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 693
C173: Bob Haxo, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C173-1 Bob Haxo 3/8/22 It was very recently brought to my attention that included in the Plan Pacifica Project is a new Sharp
Park Specific Plan that includes improvements to
San Jose Ave., specifically changes/improvements to
the sidewalks along the eastern portion of San Jose
Ave.

Our house is at 180 San Jose Ave., which is toward
the Francisco Blvd. end of San Jose Ave. On “Figure
4-6b: San Jose Ave Improvements” of the SPSP, our
house is on the S side of San Jose Ave, where there
is the “Potential side-walk expansion” label with the
narrow green stripe indication the strip of unwatered but maintained strip of grass between the curb and the 4’ wide sidewalk. This same green
stripe indication in front of the house to the east of
us.

Our small strip of grass serves an unexpectedly
important neighborhood function: the dogs walked
by neighbors in the area use this area to, uh, relieve
themselves. The owners are good at cleaning up
after their dogs. Would be a shame for
neighborhood dogs to lose this grass and other such
stretches of grass along the block.

There are more concerning issues with the sidewalk
improvements along the street than keeping the
street dog friendly:
1) An 8’ (or 6’) wide sidewalk is out of keeping with
the neighborhood. The existing sidewalks are 4’
wide and that seems to be an adequate width.
2) There are stretches of the street where there is
currently no sidewalk. Most of these stretches could
have curbs and 4’ wide sidewalks added without
affecting the neighbors and the “charm” of the
neighborhood.
3) However, there are stretches without sidewalks
along which even a 4’ wide sidewalk would
significantly impact neighbors. My guess is that the
city has in the past been very lax with enforcing the
city street R.O.W. I hope that much consideration
and consultation of these situations will occur
before any construction plans are created.
4) We have an expensive-to-maintain heritage
cypress in front of our house. I would be very, very,
very, very (!) concerned if improvements along San
Jose Ave. were in any way to impact the root-system
of this heritage cypress.
5) Across the street from us (as indicated in Figure 4- 6b) there is a tree located where a sidewalk would
be added. Is the plan to whack trees that are in the
way or is there a plan for dealing with trees along
the street that would be in the way of adding
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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 694
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
sidewalks/
MY suggestions for immediate improvements:
1) Figure a way to prevent cars from going at speed
the WRONG WAY up the street. Happens daily along
San Jose Ave, and I assume along the other Sharp
Park one-way streets. We really shouldn’t need to
wait for this improvement until there is an accident,
right? Start by adding ARROWS ON THE STREETS
indicating traffic flow direction. Then add a barrier
blocking the south half of San Jose Ave. at Palmetto.

Top that barrier with, uh, how about a big “DO NOT
ENTER” sign? Same for other one-way streets in the
neighborhood,
2) There is a stretch of seriously damaged and
unsafe sidewalk immediately to the east of the
Ballet School parking. This damaged sidewalk is
where a city heritage tree was removed several
years ago. This piece of sidewalk should be fixed
now.
3) Before planning for improvements along the
street, have a REAL meeting with the
residents/owners. This will require communication
so that all are aware of what is being planned. I
receive USPS mail regarding owners planning to
improve their houses blocks away from our house,
but only learned about the SPSP from a friend
follows city planning.
4) With discussion with property owners, add 4’
wide infill sidewalks where this can be done without
too much bother of property owners.
5) Sections of San Jose Ave. need to be re-paved by
a professional contractor. Re-paving is being done
along Oceana Blvd. by the high school. That type of
repair could be done to sections of San Jose Ave.

C173-2 Bob Haxo 3/8/22 I seen no direct reference to the development proposed (or dreamed of) on San Pedro Mountain,
to the south of Higgins Way. Nonetheless I have
some thoughts about this. I bicycle up and over the
Old San Pedro Mountain Road to Montara. Lovely
exercise. I’m quite familiar with the area. The
proposed development atop the hill is very
inappropriate.

A development atop the hill would be a scary fire
hazardous place to live. Fire, as I’m sure you
understand, goes uphill quite readily. This
development would be at the top of a hill covered
by a eucalyptus forest. Escape would require driving
down the hill, along the narrow Higgins Way,
perhaps the source of the fire. And fire fighting
trucks would be needing to go UP the road. I find a
couple references to San Pedro Mount in the
Pacifica General Plan Draft indicating this area as
both fire and slide danger zones.

The comment is noted. Please see Master
Response: Wildfire. The Sphere of Influence is
within a SRA VHFHSZ. The City of Pacifica does not
have permitting jurisdiction in the Sphere of
Influence. Should any land be annexed into the
City of Pacifica, development would be subject to
all state regulations regarding development in
VHFHSZ, as well as Pacifica General Plan policies.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 695
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
I had occasion to have a long chat with someone
associated with the project. He was pushing the
project as much need infill housing. I find that to be
a very strange argument given it would constitute a
completely new housing development.

There should be no development atop San Pedro
Mountain.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 696
C174: James Kremer, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C174-1 James
Kremer
3/8/22 I submitted personal comments on the SPSP DEIR
two weeks ago. At that time, I tried to emphasize
things I had personally identified in my review of the
initial DEIR file, mostly done before the City release a revised version, which had some corrections and was
more userfriendly.

Since then I have become aware of additional issues
that have been noted by others, in talking with
friends, reading online, and following discussions in
the Tribune. Here I annotate a more complete list of
items that I feel are of special importance. They are
itemized without lengthy explanations. My intent is
to offer a vote of support for their importance,
whether new or mentioned earlier. Many of my
bullets (denoted •) involve the Coastal zone as well
as the city at large.
• If material factual changes are deemed necessary, I
understand that California guidelines require a
changed version to be re-circulated for agency and
public review, especially if CEQA compliance is
affected. It seems to me that numerous substantive
changes meeting this criterion have been found. I
urge the City to do this, and add that it can be done
in a way
now that encourages greater inclusion of Pacifica
citizens.

The comment is noted. A lead agency is required
to recirculate an EIR when significant new
information is added to the EIR after public notice
is given of the availability of the draft EIR for
public review under Section 15087 but before
certification. As used in this section, the term
"information" can include changes in the project
or environmental setting as well as additional
data or other information. New information
added to an EIR is not "significant" unless 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 or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such
an effect (including a feasible project alternative)
that the project's proponents have declined to
implement. "Significant new information"
requiring recirculation include, for example, a
disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would
result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the project,
but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish &
Game Com.(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new
information added to the EIR merely clarifies or
amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in
an adequate EIR.

C174-2 James
Kremer
3/8/22 The LCP (LCLUP) is correctly identified as directly implicated in many Policies. The decision to push
ahead with the DEIR, the GP, and especially the SPSP
before having a viable LCP is confusing, is inefficient and counter productive. Having a viable LCP is
essential, and it is NOT on the horizon.

The City of Pacifica started an LCLUP update in
2009 and continued its work through 2014.

Between 2014 and 2018, the update work
paused. Work on the LCLUP update resumed in
2019 with a series of five community meetings
and study sessions with the Planning Commission
and City Council. On February 24, 2020, the City
Council considered the Post-Consultation Draft
LCLUP and approved transmittal of the LCLUP to
the California Coastal Commission for review and
certification. The LCLUP was transmitted to the
Coastal Commission on June 12, 2020. Although
the LCLUP is a separate planning document, the

2.f
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 697
LCLUP policies and relevant narratives are
included in the General Plan Update to ensure
coordination between the two documents. The
City has prepared a draft of the LCP Update in
2019, approved by the City in 2020, and which is
currently under review for certification by the
California Coastal Commission. To the extent the
General Plan Update proposes any policies
beyond those which were sent to the California
Coastal Commission for review and certification, a
subsequent LCP amendment would be necessary
to make the LCP consistent with the General Plan.

C174-3 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Hazard maps and discussion do not use timely,
current Best Available Data, as they must. Indeed,
many maps are incomplete & inconsistent not only
with respect to content germane to policies, but also
even basic geography (sand beaches missing; RLF
habitats disagree).

This is untrue. Please see response to comment
C22-10 for more information on the adequacy of
hazards mapping. CLF occurrences are shown in
DEIR Figure 3.7-4; CLF critical habitat is shown on
DEIR Figure 3.7-3; this is not an inconsistency.

C174-4 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Many of the plans for Housing development have
been justified by City officials by reference to dire
needs of the State, some of which are mandated.

These justifications ring untrue for various
developments now and recently under consideration
for high-end luxury homes. Do Plan Policies have this
emphasis? Are the areas being promoted for
development consistent with the goals for affordable
housing?
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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C174-5 James
Kremer
3/8/22 The HPD ordinance regulates allowable development based on a single criterion, hillside slope. While I
strongly support the HPD and worry that frequent
recent variances are dangerously weakening it, it
certainly needs careful revision for corrections,
ambiguities, and inconsistencies. These should be
included in the Plan, not deferred.

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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C174-6 James
Kremer
3/8/22 More importantly, the city needs to add one or more protective overlays based on hazards (fire, landslide,
flooding, SLR) and protection (wildlife corridors,
stronger protective Implementation Policies for
protected species and habitats). Other cities do this
for hazards, and it is an appropriate planning
mechanism that should be in this EIR and G.P.

The commenters' preference is noted.

Compliance with federal, state, and local
regulations, in addition to Proposed Plan policies,
already reduce impacts to hazards and biological
resources to less than significant. Please
C174-7 James
Kremer
3/8/22 The Plan’s build-out scenarios consider a projection for growth, but do not consider the full allowable
build-out projections. Isn’t this important and
perhaps required?
Please see response to comment C4-1 and Master
Response: Buildout and RHNA for more
information on adequacy of buildout projections.

C174-8 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Residential development is well known to cost more in services than will be repaid in taxes. Lax
development actions, especially of high-end units
favoring real estate interests, will worsen the
financial condition of Pacifica in the mid- to longterm. Implementation policies should encourage tighter compliance with Growth Controls while
emphasizing housing that helps the city meet state
mandates.

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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 698
C174-9 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Is the city planning to make use of sufficiently high Development Impact Fees? Many municipalities
reportedly find it prudent to charge fees from
perhaps $10K for ADUs to $50K for normal
residences. This would seem to be an important
aspect of future Planning planning and should be
mentioned in the documents & policies.

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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

C174-10 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Decarbonization, Electrification and Reach Codes should receive substantial explicit attention in plans
for the future of a city. Now they are essentially
missing.

The comment is noted. As the comment does not
address the adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no further
response is required.

C174-11 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Another DEIR for the Quarry has been released. Is it not a direct conflict to bring this forward? The
premise and the conclusion of the SPSP DEIR is that
the Proposed Alternative is for Palmetto, while the
Quarry as Alternative 1 is definitely not chosen. The
logical structure of the SPSP DEIR obviates substantial Quarry development. DEIR p. E-6 does try to suggest
the alternatives are a shift in balance, but that is not clear in stating the Proposed Project. In fact the new
Quarry DEIR weakens the main premise for the whole
DEIR. Do we really believe that the Quarry plan in its
EIR has been reduced in scope to conform to this
SPSP alternative?
The Quarry Reclamation Plan does not include
the development of any buildings or change in
use of the Quarry site. Any future development
on the Quarry site will require an application to
the City of Pacifica and a public review process.

The end result of the Quarry Reclamation Plan is
a safe site that is suitable for reuse in accordance
with City of Pacifica land use regulations. The
General Plan is the guiding document, and
proposes a Visitor-Serving Commercial
designation on the Quarry site. A land use
designation is implemented through more
specific zoning. While the Visitor Serving land
uses applies broadly to the area, zoning
implementation could provide different standards
to the subsection of this area. Thus, analysis of
the Draft DEIR is valid and adequate.

C174-12 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Public involvement of Pacifica citizens was far below what it should have been. Strong evidence is in the
frequent observation that few people are even aware
that the process is underway. The supposed logical
sequence of public meetings actually took place out
of order! The release of a DEIR file that was nearly
unusable (no search for text, no interactive TOC, etc.) further belies the contention that the City
encouraged active engagement by all citizens. This
can be improved as required revisions are now
undertaken.

A usable DEIR with an interactive TOC was
provided on Feb 14, 2022. The comment does not
relate to the adequacy of analysis in the DEIR,
thus no further response is required.

C174-13 James
Kremer
3/8/22 Growth Management” is only mentioned on p. 5-2
(thank you, searchable PDF file), and the Growth
Management Ordinance is unmentioned. That
ordinance makes it clear that it must be revised and
brought into compliance with a new G.P.: “On or
after June 30, 2020, this chapter shall be reviewed
and revised… to insure consistency with the City's
General Plan”. This ordinance has strong public
support. It MUST NOT be just allowed to expire just
because the Plan update is so slow. The new Planning
documents should address this mandatory update.

Additionally, Council should vote a temporary
extension until it an be considered in light of an
eventual approved G.P.

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: EIR
comments for more information about GP- or
SPSP-related responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 699
C175: Dan Stegink, 3/8/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C175-1 Dan Stegink 3/8/22 LOWER LINDA MAR FLOODING
There are two sewer systems Sanitary Sewer
Overflow (toilets and most sinks), and Storm Sewer
(house gutters, street drains and beach drains) and
lower Linda Mar neighborhood has flooded with
sewage and storm water in December for almost
sixty years like clockwork, and is even deliniated as
a problem in the 1980 General Plan. As of 2015 City
of Pacifica had the highest volume of Sanitary
Sewer Overflows (SSOs) in the State of California
and even after completion of the $30M Sanitary
Sewer Equalization Basin, lower Linda Mar still
suffered single day SSOs of over three million
gallons, a regional record.

On Monday, March 16, 2020 the Department of
Public Works received a call regarding a fire at the
Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach that
had burned in a fire later determined to be
suspicious. Anza was one of two pump stations on
Pacifica State Beach (aka Linda Mar Beach).

Pacific City Council resolution 19-2020 (passed April
13 2020) concluded that the storm drain pumping
system was damaged during the fire and that the
engine and the motors would need to be replaced.

On Sunday October 24 2021(one year and seven
months later), under Mayor Sue Beckmeyer, Linda
Mar residents suffered a record breaking three
million gallon sanitary sewer overflow spill
#2SSO10100 of which only 1600 gallons was
recovered.

The head of Wastewater immediately resigned for a
job in a nearby city. The recently completed
Sanitary Sewer Equalization Basin had failed to
protect lower Linda Mar for even a single year.

On December 23, 2021 Lower Linda Mar flooded for
the third time in ninety days but this time the City
denied knowledge of any flooding based on a photo
they had seen on Nextdoor. City of Pacifica claimed
that pumps had been manned and automatically
turned on but walked the statement back a week
later stating that the Anza Pump station equipment
had mistakenly never been installed but the money
had been spent. The City of Pacifica is almost
bankrupt with a $2M annual structural deficit
projected in the next 24 months. Many current and
prior Wastewater employees believe that funds
allocated for sewer equipment including pumps has
been diverted into other departments to prevent
insolvency. An immediate audit of the Anza and
See response to comment C90-3.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 700
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Linda Mar Blvd Pump stations are necessary to
determine what equipment has actually been
installed and what funds remain of the previously
fully allocated money.

C175-2 Dan Stegink 3/8/22 SHELTER COVE
Residents have complained about additional
unreported oceanfront SSOs at APN 023-720-230
Shelter Cove Beach, Pacifica CA
Shelter Cove is a public beach accessed by a cliffside
set of stairs with 22 rental units (on APN 023-720-
230 ) with approximately 40 residents that does not
appear to be connected to the municipal sewer
system, and several times per month the strong
smell of sewage is discernible at the top of the cliff
above Shetlter Cove.

In 1982 the access road washed away and nearby
residents state they have not seen septic tank
trucks or boats in the area in a long time.

As of September 2019 there was no available record
of any inspection or service to any sewer system,
septic tank or leach field that exists on Shelter Cove
and concern was raised that units may be dumping
sewage directly into the ocean. City of Pacifica
planning inspectors had been unable to access the
site due to steep stairs. It is inappropriate for
Pacifica to encourage further development before
curing this horrible recurring sewage flooding
problem and the sewage problem should have
prevented Pacifica from ever appearing on the
State of California's HCD Pro Housing Designation
Highest Priority Development area map adopted in
Dec 2021.

The comment is noted. See response to
comment C175-1.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 701
C176: Clif Lawrence, 1/29/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C176-1 Clif
Lawrence
1/29/22 "...we have a problem"
No one person is responsible. We all are.

WE need to fix this. It's going to take some
time...But that is what must be done.

General Plans must be "consistent". That's a
problem here. Some of it technical. Most of it is in
format. But it's also substance.

How does one review two documents for
consistency...when they do not share format.

How does one establish "correlations?" between
this DGP and DEIR?
Why is the average source age ten+ years old?
Why haven't we seen the use of other city's models
as facilitated by OPR in their program established in
2017?
What do we want to be our legacy?
What is the RUSH?
The DEIR analyzes how implementation of
the Proposed Project would affect the
environment, specifically, required topics of
CEQA analysis. The DEIR analyzes what
impacts might be significant, and how
compliance with regulations and policies
could potentially reduce any of these
impacts. Up-to-date sources referenced in
the DEIR chapters represent the best
publicly available science from reputable
public agencies; the bibliography changes
will be made to reflect these sources.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 702
C177: Rick Nahass, 3/4/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C177-1 Rick Nahass 3/4/22
In light of the recent Proposed Sewer and Service
Charges letter - please also consider including fees
and funding even outside of transit to mitigate the
impact of municipal development. See links below
which mention that if included in the General Plan
then "Impact fees do not require voter approval."
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/localgov/2020/Local_Go
vernment_Revenues_and_Impact_Fee-022420.pdf
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plansreports/docs/impact-fee-study.pdf Personally I will remain neutral on the Proposed
Sewer Service Charges.

The comment is noted. 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
Project and will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR comments for more
information about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C177-2 Rick Nahass 3/4/22 (1) For Public Transit and Transportation Demand Management: Replace the text 'SamTrans' with 'San
Mateo County Transit Authority (SMCTA) and the
Metropolitan Transit Commision (MTC).' The SMCTA
encompasses both SamTrans and Commute.org bus
operators as well as various Bicycle, Pedestrian
programs. The MTC originally established for regional
transit coordination has recently been given regional
authority to mandate fare integration (AB-629) and
authority through SB-917, Seamless Transit
Transformation Act, to
develop standards and processes to manage a single
Bay Area transit network and requires the 27 Bay
Area Operators to comply. State route 1 on the
Coastside is already congested beyond population
and visitor capacity.

Thank you for your comment. This
correction is noted and incorporated in
the DEIR.

As amended in December 2018, State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
(Determining the Significance of
Transportation Impacts) now specifies
that “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) shall
be the most appropriate measure of
transportation impacts. VMT refers to the
amount and distance of automobile travel
attributable to a project. A project’s effect
on automobile delay and roadway
congestion, previously measured by “level
of service” (LOS), will no longer constitute
an environmental impact.

C177-3 Rick Nahass 3/4/22 (2) Establish a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Mitigation Bank - see
https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/VMTFees_Exchanges_BanksWhite-Paper_Apr2020.pdf - to manage future growth per vehicle miles travelled (VMT) SB- 743
environmental impact mandate.
• For each new housing unit require a 1 time
developer fee based on miles to the nearest high
quality transit stop (e.g., $2100 x 6 miles to Colma
BART = $12,600 per unit)
• For each new housing unit require a yearly owner
fee (tariff) based on miles to the nearest high quality transit stop (e.g. $160 x 6 miles to Colma BART =
$960 per year)
• SB-743 definition says "a high-quality transit
corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus
service with service intervals no longer than 15
minutes during peak commute hours." Add
specifications 'specific' to the coastside, for example:

Limited stops (3 from HMB to Montara, 2 in Pacifica
to BART, possibly continuing to GG Bridge), Coastside
Thank you for your comment. 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: EIR comments for
more information about GP- or SPSPrelated responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 703
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Commute Hours (M-F morning and evening, Sat-Sun
10AM-3PM) - don't want a bus operator to add
another bus to an existing route that takes 45
minutes to and hour to get to BART or Caltrain and
call it satisfying the SB-743 requirement.
• Possible exemptions or fee relief for low-income
housing development
• Councils sit on the commute.org Board. As housing
development is approved and potential fees
identified, a budget can be forecast for establishing
and growing a shuttle program based on capital
income (one time developer fee) and yearly
operating income (yearly owner fee)
• If a coastside transit corridor is established per the General Plan definition, then the fees are reduced.

See attached illustrative orksheet for Pacifica stops.
• This makes housing growth mandates (RHNA
ABAG) dependent on both developers' willingness to
pay to reduce VMT and Regional ransportation
Operators and Caltrans ability to deliver a high
quality transit corridor to the coastside. Also serves
to mitigate GHG, Climate and Circulation elements of
the GP.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 704
C178: Christine Boles, 1/11/2022
Lette
r
Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C178
-1
Christine
Boles
1/11/22 Good evening you two. It’s been quite a day. A few things to share here, other things I’d rather talk about in person.

And Remi, I’ve been trying to meet with the City Manger and planning staff for over a year. They refuse. I encourage to try!
I spent most of my day talking to state agencies and a retired Planning Director who is giving me a lot of advice. What we’re after is making sure this update is the best possible document and it’s obviously going to require a lot of revisions, just based on the huge errors already found. The question is whether they’ll make the revisions or not, and that’s when we’ll need to carefully think about next steps, but that won’t be for a few months.

The most important things to do are to find the inconsistencies and errors in the EIR. That document they have to modify by law and they have to provide written responses to comments. Frame any comments so they have to answer a question, not be able to respond « noted ».

A friend divided up the document into its chapters so the files are smaller. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RWZYA_LEfd6euiezXuQqBqZ1RXJH R3iY
Right now, the EIR is unruly, which makes it even harder for the public to access and review. Some people have trouble downloading and opening the files because they’re so large. Actually that’s something you can write to Christian and complain about. I would copy the council members on this too, but not your technical comments because they don’t understand them and then they just tune you out. I would also copy this official city email address. <[email protected]>
Dawn if you’re willing, I have a big task you could take on, or perhaps you two could split it.

Section 7-8 lists the stakeholder organizations that the city had to consult and interview as part of the drafting of the General Plan. Several of these have dates of 2009, and most have no dates at all as to when these interviews were conducted. 2009 is way too long ago, and even the fire department says 2009. The city says they conducted new meetings in 2019, but were these stakeholders actually consulted then? It would be great to call each one and find out. Best case for the city, they did their jobs and just need to update this form, worst case, they have to conduct new interviews, and other parts of the GP need to be updated.

I’m sure we’ll identify other ways to help after Friday if this is something you’d rather not do, no worries. And please start reading the EIR.

Woodhouse said yesterday that comments on the GP would be accepted later, all the way up to the Planning Commission hearing. But we’ve only got til 2/22 to comment on the EIR.

There are no
comments in this
letter. No further
response is required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 705
C179: Dawn Zidonis, 1/12/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C179-1 Dawn
Zidonis
1/12/22 I’d be haply to take on what you
described below. This might be farfetched but do we need to find a way to better inform residents of whats
happening? So few people are on
nextdoor, and I’m consistently finding
out about things happening in pacifica
after the fact. Wondering if we need to
send out letters, copies of the draft or
just go door to door and ask for
volunteers or help getting more
residents to pay attention to this?
My guess is most neighbors wont want
to be bothered with the stress of daily
life, but we might find a few more to
support. We have 3 new residents on
our street as well. This could be
something I could also help organize: a
packet for neighbors to share with
neighbors. Plus, we’ll have more allies
for anything that arises in the future.

There are no comments in this letter. No further
response is required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 706
C180: Irene Davies, 2/14/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C180-1 Irene Davies 2/14/2
2 Yes, please remove any physical
personal information so I don't have
strangers visiting or calling me.

There are no comments in this letter. No further response is required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 707
C181: Irene Davies, 1/21/2022
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C181-1 Irene Davies 1/21/22 We need real affordable housing, not some developers' high price condos, or just adding ADUs to existing houses.

1. Develop affordable housing with joint partnerships of Fed/State/local governments/nonprofits, and get feedback from folks who are in need of continuous housing, not just the homeless. Don't leave folks out who are in between earning incomes.

2. Put high density (high rise) housing near transit hubs (bus stops or BART stations) for ease of transportation.

3. Each unit with partial rent toward ownership, more like a Co-op, rent to own.

4. Each unit occupants would participate in upkeep of common areas by rotation.

5. Each apartment/co-op would have an in-building rotating committee to oversee the whole complex common rules. Each unit would have a vote on everything.

6. Most or all units would be subsidized by the government.

7. Portion of the rent would be toward the upkeep of the buildings' such as elevators, structural inspections and repairs, exterior paintings, and other maintenance. An escrow account to be set up for the building maintenance fund that will be overseen by the building committee who are responsible and reporting to all the units.

8. No subletting of units within the building, each unit must be occupied by the people who live there.

9. Each high-density building could have basement parking; first floor retails/grocery/health clinics/cafes; second floor offices; and third to top floors residents (up to 20 levels), utility and people elevators, individual balcony per unit for green space, individual tankless water heater, washer/dryer, electric stoves, common garbage/recycle/compost at first level for ease of pickup. Each unit could have 1 or more bedroom(s), kitchen, bathroom, utility, living/dining areas, and outdoor balcony.

10. Roof tops serve as green roofs with walkable and play areas, separate smoking areas, garden space for residents with compost areas for gardens, and community gathering places with kitchens.

11. Build on non-erodible stable soil, away from flood zones or protect from floods, and earthquake proof buildings.

12. Obtain most of the energy from solar and wind farms, and/or add vertical solar panels to the side of buildings.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 708
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)

13. Architectural and landscaping layout of one or more high density buildings to provide maximum light exposure to each unit (step back), pleasing landscaping on the ground level, ease of reaching the first level retail shops, and transit pickups.

14. Group these high-density buildings with mixed use
purposes. Maybe one building can be a school, another be partial offices/clinics.

15. Have green spaces both at roof tops and also ground level.

16. Have design contests to generate good designs and get inputs from people who are interested in renting/ownership.

17. Have public groups which include various agencies, nonprofits, and potential low-income folks to develop the affordable housing plans.

C181-2 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Below are comments to both the City of Pacifica General Plan and to the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Comments on the City of Pacifica General Plan
Need to provide an executive summary in the City of Pacifica General Plan to summarize the overall general plan. Do not just copy selected sections into the executive summary.

Both the General Plan and DEIR should be parallel to each other with the same alternatives mention in each document. I did not see any clear alternatives mentioned in the General Plan and the Draft EIR switched from Alternatives numbering to alphabets.

The general plan need to provide a recommendation and
conclusion sections and summarize these into the executive summary.

P18, Complete streets
Need to have alternative or secondary bypass routes in case Hwy 1 is obstructed and people will have another mean of egress in case of fire or other emergencies. See attached map of suggested short sub routes to bypass Hwy 1 during
emergency.

P21, Section 1.4 Plan themes and key initiatives
Open space preservation and trail system expansion
What about wildlife corridor crossings at various road
obstructions so wildlife can move from one open space to another without injuries. See attached map of sub routes (alternate routes) and wildlife corridors locations.

Sustainable development and practices
What about high-density development away from coastal area such as east of Hwy 1?
Creating a destination for tourism
Congestion is not a significant
impact under CEQA.

Furthermore, please see Master
Response 8 regarding emergency
access.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 709
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
What about revitalize some or all of the existing commercial areas for better functional tourism, local residents, and away from vulnerable coastal area due to climate change and sea level rise?
Have one or more places where we can have weekly food
trucks for tourists and local. What about at the Sea Bowl area by Sea Bowl Lane. This place could be developed into a highdensity tourist area.

P1-13 Sharp Park specific plan for new stores and restaurants What about the coastal commission concerns on management retreat, vulnerable coastal erosion, climate change, sea level rise, and tsunami? Consider including some of the graphic layouts that are within the DEIR into this report for visual understanding: See identified Figures below.

P591, Fig 3.9.4 Impacts on views looking south, 35 feet (current height maximum)
P591, Fig 3.9-5 Impacts on views looking south, 45 ft
P591, Fig 3.9-6, Impacts on views looking south, 55 ft
P592, Fig 3.9-7, Impacts of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard Site
P593, Fig 3.9-8, Impacts of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard site, with pedestrian pathway
P593, Fig 3.9-9 Impact of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard site, with pedestrian pathway and upper stepback P22-P23 Diversity of Housing n population
Will need more high-density housing away from coastal area and sea level rise. Where are the affordable housing for low income, homeless, and van living folks? We need a place for the van living and homeless so they don’t pollute our beach and wetland environment any further.

P23, Infrastructure improvements
Need a bypass around Hwy 1 in case of emergency. Need to plan for electric car charging stations. See attached map of sub routes (alternate routes) and wildlife corridors locations.

P23, Protection from natural hazards
Develop building codes that prohibit developers and
homeowners from developing on unstable land slope, and also need to take account impact to downslope drainage, sea level rise, climate change, earthquake, soil liquefaction.

P25, Sharp Park Specific Plan
Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.

Once all the known hazards mentioned in the above paragraph are mitigated, to draw in more tourism, maybe create a
boardwalk like Santa Cruz with smaller rides, food court, or

2.f
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 710
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
food trucks area, and a visible Visitor Center with maps of local attractions. Develop local tourist buses that only go to all the local areas. People would pay a nominal daily or monthly fee to use this local buses.

P26, Rockaway Beach specific plan
Same bad idea as for Sharp Park specific plan unless can mitigate all the known hazards. See above comment.

P30, 2.1 Vision and Priorities
Revitalize all the existing commercial areas, but keep in mind of climate change and sea level rise.

Better to revitalize on the east side of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, sea level rise, climate change, tsunami, earthquake, beach erosion, and other hazards.

P41, 2-13, Rockaway Beach Quarry site photo
This is a high potential for development as long as we are smart about coastal management retreat, sea level rise, climate change. Would need to be able to mitigate for all of these hazards before we can develop this area and also set aside green space for wildlife.

P46, 3 Community Design
P48, Fig 3-1 Urban Structure
Need a short sub-route between Rockaway and Vallemar, short sub-route between Vallemar to the Sharp Park Road entrance, from there people can escape by way of Sharp Park Road or go thru Palmetto Ave to either Manor Drive or Hickey Blvd during emergency evacuations and when Hwy 1 is blocked. See
attached map of sub routes (alternate routes) and wildlife corridors locations.

See suggested high-density developments.

P49, Balance of Activity Centers
Provide local buses for locals and tourist and charge a daily or monthly nominal fee to use the service.

P50, 3.2 Neighborhoods and District
Need a place for the homeless and van living folks away from the beaches due to daily environmental wastes generated and polluting our beaches, roads, and wetland areas.

P51, Commercial and mixed-use districts
Need high density housing and mixed use at these areas as long as the City is taking into account Coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, earthquake,
liquefaction, down slope drainage, and other hazards.

P52, Fig 3-2 Illustrative urban form: Eureka Square
Good plan for high-density housing and mixed use at this location. Maybe even higher height density. Could even have parking at the ground level and green space on top of the parking area, input solar panels also.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 711
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
P55, 3.3 Hillside and coastal development
P56, Fig 3-3 Visual Resources
Need to pay attention to slope stability, erosion, watershed drainage, impact to downhill drainage, impact on views, liquefaction, earthquake, and include wildlife corridors.

P62, 4 Land use
P67, fig 4-3 Land use diagram
P68, High density residential
Maybe allow higher density height more inland and flat area, and lower density height along coastal area. step back slope height is a good idea per the DEIR figures:

P591, Fig 3.9.4 Impacts on views looking south, 35 feet (current height maximum)
P591, Fig 3.9-5 Impacts on views looking south, 45 ft
P591, Fig 3.9-6, Impacts on views looking south, 55 ft
P592, Fig 3.9-7, Impacts of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard Site
P593, Fig 3.9-8, Impacts of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard site, with pedestrian pathway
P593, Fig 3.9-9 Impact of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard site, with pedestrian pathway and upper step back.

Increase density in already existing high-density area. Need to preserve open space, especially on slope areas. Need
affordable housing and not just let the developers pay off affordable housing with nominal fee. See attached suggestion on high-density development.

Nice the idea of step back high-density buildings to reduce sun shadowing.

P72, Coastal Development
What is being done to balance development west of Hwy 1 with climate change and sea level rise?

P73, Fig 4-4 Hillside preservation
It is definitely in our best interest to preserve the existing hillside due to potential of erosion, liquefaction, earthquake, and unstable soil if we try to build on top of steep slope. We also need to preserve these hillsides for the wildlife.

P74, Transfer of Residential Development Rights.

It is not ok to force long time residents to move from their homes just so the City can transfer the land to developers.

There must be above market payout to the residents or if the residents choose not to move so they are not being forced out by eminent domain.

P76, fig 4-6 Pacifica North
The city needs to find a place with bathroom facilities and garbage bins for the van folks who are currently parking behind Manor Plaza and other locations since they are generating garbage and human wastes that are polluting our roads and beaches. Also need to find a place for the homeless folks who are impacting our wetland areas.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 712
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
P77, Below market rate program
Developers must provide below market rate housing at their developments, not by paying off a nominal fee or set aside somewhere else.

P77, Accessory residential units
ADUs are fine, but they don’t solve the housing problem.

Better to have higher density housing at current high-density areas, or areas away from coastal zone. See attached
suggestions for high-density developments.

See attached suggestion for high-density developments.

P80, East Sharp Park, Milagra Ridge, Gypsy Hill
Need a wildlife tunnel underneath Sharp Park Road so wildlife can access the Milagra Ridge without being hit by vehicles. See attached map of propose wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.

P81, fig 4-7 Pacifica Central
P84, fig 4-8, Pacifica Southwest
P87, fig 4-9 Pacifica southeast
The city needs to find a place with bathroom facilities and garbage bins for the van folks who are currently parking behind Manor Plaza and other locations since they are generating garbage and human wastes that are polluting our roads and beaches. Also need to find a place for the homeless folks who are impacting our wetland areas.

Need to add into Fig 5-1 some alternate sub-routes to Hwy 1 in case of emergency. Sub-routes from Rockway beach ave to Reina del Mar Ave to Lundy Way that lead to Sharp Park Road.

Also need wildlife corridor tunnels underneath Sharp Park Road and Manor Drive. See attached map of propose subroutes and wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.

The proposed illustrative roadway for Linda Mar Blvd and Crespi Drive do not seem to take into account the near future development of more housings on the Linda Mar hillside nor the mega church in the back of Linda Mar area which would increase traffic congestion on normal days. By reducing the traffic lanes, the city is essentially creating a fire trap for residents during emergencies.

P129, 5.5 Public transportation and transportation demand management
P131, fig 5-5 Existing transit routes

2.f
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 713
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Need more high-density housing at transportation routes.

Suggest having some areas set aside near transportation routes for homeless and van folks.

P134, 5.7 Parking
Suggest installing parking meters at public street parking area.

Allow local resident to show some type of QR bar code to the meter and be able to park free. All other visitors would have to pay some parking fees. This would generate revenue for the City of Pacifica. We have a lot of visitors to the Pacifica Beach and having them pay a small fee will help to offset some environmental costs.

P137, 6 Open space and community facilities
P161, 6.3 Coastal Access
P164, fig 6-4 School and Community facilities
Converting closed public school into either high-density housing, a new civic center with local shops, cafes, homeless shelter and clinics.

P170, OC-I-59 Beach Blvd property
Consider either use this site as the new Civic center, or highdensity public housing, expand homeless shelter and clinics.

Need to mitigate for Coastal management retreat, sea level rise, beach erosion, and future levee improvement that are acceptable to the Coastal Commission.

P 180, Planned Improvements
Need to include wildlife corridors as part of the conservation.

See attached map of suggested wildlife corridor
tunnels/crossing.

What is the city doing about future plan for use of desalination of sea water and coordinating with the North Coast County Water District? Maybe work with the North Coast County
Water District to develop water conservation plan such as rebate for water harvesting with rain barrels.

P186, Fig 7-2 Vegetation
P188, Eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress
We need to remove invasive plants in our parks area such as eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress, English ivy,and plant more native plants. The Eucalyptus is also a fire hazard due to it high oil content. Suggest working with the various other agencies who are management of various parks and local areas to
combat these invasive plants.

P190, Fig 7-3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat
P194, Wildlife Movement Corridors
Need wildlife corridors at obstructions such as Sharp Park Blvd, Manor Drive and other roads that blocked wildlife from
traveling to various habitats. See attached map of suggested locations for wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 714
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
P191 Beach/Intertidal
What is the city future plans about coastal management
retreat, climate change, and sea level rise?

P201 7.3 Land and soil resources
Need to pay attention to slope stability, earthquake, erosion, liquefaction, and downslope drainage for any future planned development for buildings. Don’t let developers put up a smokescreen on their future developments within Pacifica.

P216, 7.7 Environmental Justice
Did not see any solution to environmental justice at all for homeless and van parking at designated places in this general plan and in the draft EIR. Need to provide plans for placing the homeless in some type of living and rehab areas with
bathroom facilities along with place for vans to park without further increase of pollution by them around our beaches, roads, and wetland areas.

P218, 8 Safety
P219, Seismic Hazards
P221, Fig 8-1 Seismic hazard zones
Need to pay more attention on earthquake problems on
building at unstable slope, including erosion, landslide, and drainage issues. Also, the potential of liquefaction and landslide in fig 8-1. Don’t let developers build at unstable areas.

P222, Tsunami and Seiche
Sharp Park, Rockaway, lower Linda Mar Blvd, Manor Plaza, and Fairmont are prone to tsunami. This plan needs to provide tsunami evacuation routes for all these areas. That is why it is very important to have alternative evacuation routes in case Hwy 1 is not usable either due to flooding and obstructions.

See attached map of suggested alternative sub-routes around Hwy 1.

P222, Slope Failure and Erosion
Where are the tables showing history (when it happened) of slope failure, erosion, liquefaction, earthquake, landslides, earthquake damages?

P233 Increased coastal flooding from potential sea level rise If the 2009 report from the Pacific Institute mentioned potential flooding, what are the solutions?

P235, 8.3 Coastal Resilience
What are the solutions to the problem raised in this section of potential sea level rise, flooding, etc.

P249, 8.4 Hazardous Materials and Operations
P253, fig 8-7 Fire hazards and public safety services
We need to remove invasive trees such as Eucalyptus to lessen fire hazard as shown on the map.

P260, 9 Noise

2.f
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 715
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Suggest planting of native trees (not invasive trees) to reduce noise level around the noise corridors.

P272, 10 Implementation
This chapter mentioned implementation responsibility by various agencies, but there is no implementation solutions in the general plan. So, what are you implementing? I did not see a section on conclusions and recommendations. Also, the General plan did not spell out the alternatives as shown in the DEIR, why?
C181-3 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report P2 Executive Summary
Glad to see there is an executive summary in the DEIR, but am dismayed that it was just another report and not very clear.

Usually, executive summary is about 10 pages at most.

It seems the Executive Summary just copied and repeat word for word what were stated in the document. Someone need to clean up the Executive Summary so it is concise and to the point.

The executive summary should summarize the alternatives within the 10 pages at most and the alternatives should be mentioned in the General Plan in parallel. Also, the alternatives were switching from numbering to alphabets. Need to clean that up.

Thank you for your comment.

Please see redlined executive
summary for more detail.

C181-4 Irene Davies 1/21/22 There is a disconnect between the Pacifica General Plan 2040 with the DEIR since the General plan did not spell out the alternatives as shown in the DEIR.

The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.

According to CEQA, an EIR must
describe a reasonable range of
alternatives to a proposed
project that could feasibly attain
most of the basic project
objectives, and would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the
proposed project's significant
effects. Additionally, a “No
Project” alternative must be
analyzed as part of a DEIR. As
noted on DEIR p.4-3, Alternative
B represents the closest
alternative to what became the
Preferred Plan (in this case, the
General Plan), which is analyzed
in the DEIR.

C181-5 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P162, fig 2.1-1 Regional Setting P163, figure 2.1-2 Planning Area an Coastal Zone
The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the

2.f
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 716
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
It seems foolish to plan future development of Sharp Park specific plan when it is mostly in the Coastal zone of
management retreat. Better to plan on the east side of Hwy 1 of Sharp Park for long term stability and to account for climate change and sea level rise.
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.

Development in the Coastal Zone
is regulated by the Local Coastal
Program.

C181-6 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Did not see any concise solutions to offset coastal management retreat, beach erosion, liquefaction, climate change, and sea level rise for these proposed high-density developments.

Coastal management is
addressed in the LCLUP and not a
required topic of analysis under
CEQA. Please see comment C69-8
for more information on where
the DEIR addresses coastal
erosion, and how compliance
with federal, state, and local
regulations and Proposed Plan
policies reduce impacts to less
than significant. Please see
response to comment 13-3 for
more information on sea level
rise analysis and regulations and
policies that reduce the impact,
as well as policies in the LCLUP
regarding sea level rise
monitoring.

C181-7 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P164, fig 2.1-3 Sharp Park Specific Plan Planning Area More high-density development of Eureka Square Shopping Center is warranted, but not the west side of Hwy 1 unless the city can get permission from the Coastal Commission to offset future climate change and sea level rise issues.

Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.

Please see response to comment
C47-3 for more information
about coastal flooding and
coastal erosion. Please see
response to comments C181-76
and C15-5 for more information
about tsunami.

C181-8 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P165, Local Coastal Planning P166, Fig 2.1-2 General Plan Land Use
P167, Fig 2.1-3 Sharp Park Specific Plan Land Use Diagram Need to address sea level rise and climate change in this Sharp Park Specific Plan on the west side of Hwy 1.

Policies within the LCLUP related
to effects of climate change and
sea level rise are addressed in the
LCLUP. See response to comment
C13-3 for more information
about coastal flooding and sea
level rise.

C181-9 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P205, Sharp Park Specific Plan Area More high-density development of Eureka Square Shopping Center is warranted, but not the west side of Hwy 1 unless the city can get permission from the Coastal Commission for future climate change and sea level rise protection.

Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward Please see response to comment
C-181-74 and C-181-76.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 717
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.

C181-
10 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P235, fig 3.2-1 Roadway Network and Planned Improvements P678, Fig 3.12-3 Trail System
Need wildlife corridors along Sharp Park road, Manor Drive, and other road obstructions to wildlife. See attached map showing potential wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
11 Irene Davies 1/21/22 More high density along transit corridors. Where are the designated parking for homeless and vans since there are environmental hazards produced by these folks who park along the beach area with their trash and other hazards. The
homeless and travel vans need a designated place along with bathroom facility, and trash bins.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
12 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to have sub-routes from Rockaway beach Ave to Reina del Mar Ave to Ridgeway Dr to Sharp Park Road for emergency access in case Hwy 1 is not usable in either direction. These sub-routes are also critical during emergency evacuations. See attached map of suggested sub-routes to bypass Hwy 1 in case Hwy 1 is not useable.

Please see response to comment
C54-13 for more information on
congestion and evacuation
routes.

C181-
13 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P241, Fig 3.2-3 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network The proposed bike lanes along Linda Mar Blvd and Crespi drive could be a people trap during fire and other emergencies, especially with the proposed high-density development on the hill of Linda Mar and at the back of Linda Mar. How is the city going to mitigate for this potential fire trap?
The comment is noted. The DEIR
addresses evacuation routes on
DEIR p. 3.14-8, noting "Future
development would be required
to adhere to all policies, goals,
and standards in the MJ-LHMP,
Pacifica Municipal Code, and CBC,
including vehicular access and
emergency access.

Implementation of the following
Proposed Project policies will
ensure that inadequate
emergency access does not
occur, and will result in a less
than significant impact."
C181-
14 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P366, Reduced Parking
P372, LU-I-18 Parking Requirements
It is a bad idea of proposed General Plan policy LU-I-18 to allow developers to reduce parking spaces unless we have a robust and almost free public transportation for folks in Pacifica. What is the city going to do for the residents who need to be able to drive and find free parking? Suggest providing buses for local 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 decision2.f
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 718
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
travel only to locals and tourists, and charge a daily or monthly nominal fee to use the buses. Allow the locals to use some type of Id or QR codes to ride the local buses for free.
makers in that context. Please
see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
15 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P366, Water Conservation
P723, Water Conservation
Is the city and the North Coast County Water District going to provide and help residents to install rain barrels to capture rain water and to provide recycled water containers and truck the recycled water to the residents to use to improve water conservation. What are the future plans by the city and the North Coast County Water District to develop seawater
desalination?
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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
16 Irene Davies 1/21/22 What are the future plans by the city and the North Coast County Water District to develop seawater desalination? This is not a required topic of
analysis under CEQA. As this
comment doesn't relate to the
adequacy of analysis, no further
response is required. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
17 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P370, Trees and Native Vegetation What is the city going to do to reduce invasive trees such as Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Monterey cypress, English ivy, and other invasive plants in our area? We need to educate folks to plant more native plants instead of invasive plants. Suggest the city work with other agencies who are managing various parks and places to work together to get rid of these invasive plants and plant native plants instead.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
18 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P371, Impact of the Sharp Park Specific Plan Did not see specific plan to offset future climate change and sea level rise for these future developments.

This comment is noted. The
Sharp Park Specific Plan area is
within the Coastal Zone. Policies
within the LCLUP related to
effects of climate change and sea
level rise are addressed in the
LCLUP. See response to comment
C13-3 for more information
about coastal flooding and sea
level rise.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 719
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C181-
19 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.

This comment is noted. The
Sharp Park Specific Plan area is
within the Coastal Zone. Policies
within the LCLUP related to
effects of climate change, coastal
erosion, sea level rise are
addressed in the LCLUP. See
response to comment C13-3 for
more information about coastal
flooding and sea level rise.

Policies that address risks from
hazards, including flooding,
tsunami, and geologic hazards
are addressed in the following
DEIR chapters:

3.5 Hydrology and Flooding

3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismic
Risk
C181-
20 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Where in the General Plan are the proposed housing for lowincome folks, homeless, and vans along our streets? The homeless and vans are producing human environmental waste along with other trash.

They need a place where they can live with bathroom facility, mental health services, and job training? See attached
suggested high-density developments.

Do like the stepback for high-density buildings to reduce sun shadowing.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
21 Irene Davies 1/21/22 What are the mitigations for areas under the Tsunami evacuation areas especially for Sharp Park area and Linda Mar Blvd close to Hwy 1 on the west side? How are the mitigations being in line with the Coastal Commission on management retreat?
As noted in DEIR p. 3.12-2, "San
Mateo County has an established
emergency plan for tsunamis.

The City of Pacifica has identified
tsunami hazards in their local
annex to the San Mateo County
Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan for the Bay Area.

As part of this program, the City
of Pacifica installed a tsunami
warning system, consisting of
three solar powered alarm
towers. Two are located in the
Sharp Park neighborhood and
one is located at Rockaway
Beach. This system links into a
San Mateo County alert system
that can reach email and cell
phones." Policies that reduce
risks from tsunamis include SA-G2, SA-I-9, SA-I-10, SA-I-26, and SAI-27.

All development in the Coastal

2.f
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 720
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Zone is subject to Coastal
Commission jurisdiction and falls
under the purview of the LCLUP.

C181-
22 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to show Tsunami evacuation plan for folks to reach high ground.

Thank you for your comment.

Tsunami evacuation routes are
available at the City's website,
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/ci
vicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Bl
obID=2499. Policy I-A-106 also
addresses periodic public
information programs to raise
awareness of the City's
emergency preparedness
programs, including evacuation
routes. Please also see Master
Response 9: Emergency Access.

C181-
23 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P407-408, Coastal flooding
How is the improvement of the seawall/revetment structure match up with the Coastal Commission on management
retreat, future climate change, and sea level rise?
Please see Master Response to
comment regarding the LCLUP.

C181-
24 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to provide tables to show the historical seismic events, liquefaction, flooding, landslides, slope failure, and erosions at various locations in Pacifica and pinpoint within the fig for better understanding of these issues.

Historical events are adequately
described in the DEIR as well as in
the MJ-LHMP.

C181-
25 Irene Davies 1/21/22 What protection measures are planned for the Sharp Park area future high-density development with the volubility of
liquefaction, flooding, climate change, sea level rise, earthquake, and Tsunami?
Please see response to comment
C-181-74 and 1-181-76.

C181-
26 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P458, Beaches and Coastal Erosion Need a table and fig of historical beaches and coastal erosions for better understanding of these issues.

The comment is noted. Coastal
erosion due to sea level rise is
discussed on p. 3.6-14 and
adequately describes ongoing
and future risk of coastal erosion,
as well as historical events of
erosion in Pacifica. Please see
response to comment C164-12
for more information on where
the latest maps of coastal erosion
can be found.

C181-
27 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to show in fig wildlife corridors for wildlife. See attached map for suggested wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
28 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to provide a plan to eliminate Eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress, English Ivy, and other invasive plants/vegetations to The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,

2.f
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 721
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
reduce wildfire, increase plant diversity, and improve climate change.
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
29 Irene Davies 1/21/22 We need to educate folks to plant more native plants instead of invasive plants. Suggest the city work with other agencies who are managing various parks and places to work together to get rid of these invasive plants and plant native plants instead.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
30 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to show the closed school of Fairmont in the Fig to match the figure shown in the Pacifica General Plan 2040. See P164, fig 6-4 School and Community facilities, from the General Plan.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
31 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Suggest reuse the closed school for high-density public housing, mix up facilities, weekly food truck area, or use as a place for homeless and van parking so the homeless and van parking folks won’t pollute the roads, beaches, and wetland areas with human waste and trash.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
32 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Suggest high-density development at the Sea Bowl area, including having weekly food trucks gathering.

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 decisionmakers in that context. Please

2.f
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 722
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.

C181-
33 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Why are the alternatives listed as Alt 1, 2 and No Project Alt in page 8 of the Executive Summary and changed to Alt A, B, and C, and change again in page 807. Need to be consistence in naming the alternatives.

As noted in DEIR p. 4-3, lettered
alternatives refer to concepts
that were considered for analysis.

Alternative B becomes the
Proposed Project, the
environmental impacts of which
are evaluated in DEIR chapters

3.1-3.14. Numbered alternatives
represent those concepts that
were evaluated in Chapter 4,
with "Alternative A from the
alternatives phase renamed here
as Alternative 1, and Alternative
C renamed as Alternative 2."
C181-
34 Irene Davies 1/21/22 How is this alternative stand up to climate change, sea level rise, coastal management retreat?
The comment is noted. Climate
change, coastal management
retreat are not required topics of
analysis under CEQA. Please see
response to comment C13-3 for
more information on coastal
flooding and sea level rise.

C181-
35 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Where is the plan for a parking place for the homeless vans and other vehicles so to reduce environmental hazards along the beach and wetland areas?
The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.

2.f
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City

2.B
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Amy Dao [
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:05 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
CC: Gregory H. Nudd [ Henry Hilken [ Abby
Young [ Monte DiPalma [
Subject: Emailing: Comment Letter Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR 2.16.2022_Final Attachments: Comment Letter Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR 2.16.2022_Final.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
Please find attached the Air District's comment letter on the Pacifica General Plan Update and DEIR.

Please reply to confirm receipt.

Thank you,
Amy Dao
Planning & Climate Protection
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
| 415.841.2045
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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 375 BEALE STREET, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO CA • 94105 • 415.771.6000 • www.baaqmd.gov February 16, 2022
Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: Pacifica General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Murdock,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff has reviewed the Pacifica General Plan Update (General Plan) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The General Plan is a policy document to guide the City’s actions through 2040 regarding economic sustainability, community design, land use, transportation/circulation, open space, community facilities, conservation, safety, and noise. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 13.5 square miles, including the entirety of the City as well as 606 acres of unincorporated land south of City Limits that represents the probable future physical boundaries and service area of the City.

Air District staff commends the City for their inclusion of increased housing density, and increased bike/ped mobility throughout the General Plan as helpful elements to minimize regional vehicle miles traveled and associated emissions. Air District staff recommends the General Plan and/or DEIR include the following information and analyses related to energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:

The GHG impact analysis should include an evaluation of the General Plan’s consistency with the California Air Resources Board’s most recent Assembly (AB) 32 Scoping Plan and with the State's 2030, 2045, and 2050 climate goals. The Air District's current GHG thresholds and CEQA Guidelines are based on the State's 2020 targets which are now superseded by the 2030 targets established in SB 32. The Air District recommends that cities and counties evaluate such plans based on whether they would support California’s long-term climate goals of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, as defined in Executive Order B-55-18, including reducing GHG emissions in the relevant jurisdiction to meet an interim milestone of 40 percent below 1990 emission levels by 2030, consistent with SB 32.

ALAMEDA COUNTY
John J. Bauters
(Vice Chair)
Pauline Russo Cutter
David Haubert
Nate Miley

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
David Hudson
Karen Mitchoff
(Chair)
Mark Ross

MARIN COUNTY
Katie Rice

NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Tyrone Jue
(SF Mayor’s Appointee)
Myrna Melgar
Shamann Walton

SAN MATEO COUNTY
David J. Canepa
Carole Groom
Davina Hurt
(Secretary)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Margaret Abe-Koga
Cindy Chavez
Rich Constantine
Rob Rennie

SOLANO COUNTY
Erin Hannigan
Lori Wilson

SONOMA COUNTY
Teresa Barrett
Lynda Hopkins
Jack P. Broadbent

EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO

2.g
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Murdock, City of Pacifica February 16, 2022

CEQA requires local agencies to consider alignment of local plans with federal, state and local energy and climate policy; thus, the relevant plans and programs discussed in the General Plan and DEIR must reflect the most recent information.

Several references to such goals, plans, rules, and programs in the General Plan and DEIR are outdated. Air District staff recommend that the following references be updated as follows:
• Revise Air District 2010 Clean Air Plan to the 2017 Clean Air Plan; • Revise California 2020 GHG reduction goal to California GHG reduction goals for 2030, 2045 and 2050;
• Revise Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2007) carbon intensity reduction goals of 10% to 20% per 2018 CARB amendments to the regulation;
• Revise AB 32 (2006) to SB 32 (2016), and the California Climate Change Scoping Plan 2008 and 2014 versions to the 2017 Scoping Plan; • Revise EPA GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks covering model years 2012 through 2016 to the model years 2023 through 2026; • Revise Executive Order 13154 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (revoked in March 2015) to Executive Order 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade; • Revise Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 to Plan Bay Area 2050 (adopted by MTC/ABAG in October 2021).

Air District staff recommends that the General Plan include additional feasible measures to minimize GHGs within the City. Examples of potential emission reduction measures that should be evaluated and considered, include but are not limited to:
• Including electric infrastructure and fossil fuel alternatives in the development and operation of the Plan, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, renewable diesel, electric heat pump water heaters, and solar PV back-up generators with battery storage capacity.
• Expanding the requirements for no natural gas use to all new residential and commercial construction, with no exemptions for gas cooking and residential fireplaces
• Prohibiting or minimizing the use of diesel fuel, consistent with the Air District’s Diesel Free By ’33 initiative (http://dieselfree33.baaqmd.gov/). • Meeting the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) requirement under SB 743 per the Calfiornia Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA
(https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory.pdf). • Requiring installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and capacity to meet power requirements of future EV charging needs, per CalGreen Tier 2 charging infrastructure requirements
(https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen#codes).

2.g
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Murdock, City of Pacifica February 16, 2022

• Planning for and providing funding for zero-emission transportation projects, including a neighborhood electric vehicle program, community shuttle/van services and car sharing, and enhancement of active transportation initiatives, among others.

We encourage the City to contact Air District staff with any questions and/or to request assistance during the environmental review process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Amy Dao, Sr. Environmental Planner, at Sincerely,
Greg Nudd
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
Cc: BAAQMD Director David J. Canepa
BAAQMD Director Carole Groom
BAAQMD Secretary Davina Hurt

2.g
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Hultman, Debbie@Wildlife [
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 3:37 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
CC: OPR State Clearinghouse [[email protected]]; Kanz, Will@Wildlife [ Stokes, Wesley@Wildlife [
Weightman, Craig@Wildlife [ Martinelli, Greg@Wildlife
[
Subject: General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan-SCH2012022046 Attachments: General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan-SCH2012022046-MurdockKANZ030822.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Mr. Murdock,
Please see the attached letter for your records. If you have any questions, contact Will Kanz, cc’d above.

Thank you,
Debbie Hultman |Assistant to the Regional Manager
California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Bay Delta Region 2825 Cordelia Road, Ste. 100, Fairfield, CA 94534
707.428.2037 |
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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
March 8, 2022
Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, California 94044
Subject: General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2012022046, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Murdock:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with attached appendices prepared by the City of Pacifica (City) for the General Pacifica Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan (Project) located in the City of Pacifica.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources (e.g., biological resources). CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act, the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources. CDFW is also responsible for marine biodiversity protection under the Marine Life Protection Act in coastal marine waters of California.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA Permit must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Take, as defined by Fish and Game Code section 86 is to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is DocuSign Envelope ID: FE837397-619A-404C-ADB9-2F3D70DEF00E

2.g
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
March 8, 2022

encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit.

Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
Notification is required, pursuant to CDFW’s LSA Program (Fish & G. Code section 1600 et. seq.) for any Project-related activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are generally subject to notification requirements.

CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the Project. CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA (Pub. Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) as the responsible agency.

Fully Protected Species
Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take, except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of a fully protected bird species for the protection of livestock. Take of any fully protected species is prohibited, and CDFW cannot authorize their take in association with a general project except under the provisions of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), 2081.7 or a Memorandum of Understanding for scientific research purposes. “Scientific Research” does not include an action taken as part of specified mitigation for a project, as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the General Plan update and the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Collectively these two plans are known as the Plan Pacifica Project. The General Plan update will outline a broad range of policies related to development and conservation in the Planning Area through 2040. The General Plan update encompasses all elements except housing, which is not proposed to be updated at this time. Chapters of the General Plan that are required by State Law include land use, conservation, open space, circulation, noise, and safety. Optional elements included in the General Plan update include economic development, community facilities, historic preservation, and community design. The state-mandated housing element will be updated as part of a separate process during the next housing element cycle. The City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is not expressly included as part of the DEIR although the draft General Plan is consistent with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendment.

Along with the preparation of its General Plan Update, the City of Pacifica is undertaking a parallel but related planning process for the Sharp Park area. The Sharp Park Specific DocuSign Envelope ID: FE837397-619A-404C-ADB9-2F3D70DEF00E

2.g
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
March 8, 2022

Plan builds on a first phase of pedestrian improvements made along Palmetto Avenue, the area’s “main street.” In February 2020, the planning area was designated a “Priority Development Area” by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments due to its potential to support new housing and employment near transit. This designation qualifies the city to receive potential future additional grants for specific projects and public improvements consistent with the Specific Plan.

The Sharp Park Specific Plan includes chapters on land use, mobility and parking, urban design and public space, public facilities and infrastructure, environmental and coastal resilience, and implementation.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Pacifica in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on biological resources.

COMMENT 1: Wildlife Connectivity
Issue: Conservation Element CO-G-10 seeks to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas, high value or high habitat value areas, and wildlife movement corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values but does not provide a set of standards for evaluating these impacts and ensuring the impacts are reduced to less-than-significant. On page 3.2-20 of the DEIR it states, “While a wildlife movement corridor is needed somewhere within the area designated in Figure 3.7-3; the entire area would not be designated as a wildlife movement corridor. Corridors typically range from 100 to 400 feet in width, within which habitat is continuous and suitable for wildlife movements”. Additionally, Figure 3.7-3 indicates wildlife corridors are only needed between Milagra Ridge and Sharp Park/Sweeney Ridge and the need for identifying wildlife corridors in the other sensitive habitat is not discussed. Development and road construction or widening has the potential to significantly impact wildlife movement due to habitat conversion and built infrastructure such as roads that can cause habitat fragmentation, and cut off migration corridors.

Evidence the impacts would be significant: Road use can result in wildlife mortality, altered abundances and diversity of wildlife, and modification of animal behavior (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Additionally, wildlife mortality can occur as a result of road construction (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Road density has been shown to affect habitat selection in frogs (Vos and Chardon 1998). Both independently and collectively, these impacts have the potential to affect public trust resources.

Recommended Measure 1 – Minimize New Road Construction: Limit the construction of new roads and properly use and maintain existing roads when possible.

When new roads must be constructed or reconstructed, use practices that minimize DocuSign Envelope ID: FE837397-619A-404C-ADB9-2F3D70DEF00E

2.g
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
March 8, 2022

environmental impacts. Restore drainage areas connected to current roadways to limit environmental impacts like erosion and diversion of surface flow. Terrestrial connectivity elements such as wildlife friendly culverts, directional fencing, strategically placed median barriers, under-crossings, over-crossings and elevated causeways should be programmed into the Project as design features or conditions of approval in coordination with the natural resource agencies.

Recommended Measure 2- Wildlife Connectivity: The EIR should incorporate a wildlife movement studies to develop a baseline understanding of the areas where wildlife movement, crossings, and mortalities are most prevalent in order to identify species use and to aid in identifying criteria used to determine appropriate wildlife corridor widths and locations where development should not occur. The studies should be focused in those areas identified in Figure 3.7-3 as a wildlife movement corridor and the areas identified as potential environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and high habitat value/threatened by fragmentation. CDFW recommends the study occur over a period of at least 12 months prior to the approval of any project relying on the Plan Pacifica Project. The study should also be utilized to develop project design and identify areas where wildlife crossing structures would result in the largest benefit to rare, threatened, endangered special status, and non-special-status species for wildlife connectivity. Analysis during the 12-month study should also be utilized to determine the type, size and number of structures that would be most beneficial to facilitate wildlife connectivity (new wildlife crossing culverts, modification of existing culverts, elevated causeways, etc.) in existing developed areas. Upon completion of any development, wildlife connectivity structures and movement corridors should be studied for an additional 6 to12 month period, at minimum, to determine the effectiveness of the designs. The protocol for the baseline survey, post-construction surveys, site selection criteria and design criteria for the development of the wildlife connectivity structures should follow the protocols outlined in; The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Wildlife Crossings Design Manual (Caltrans, 2009) and the Federal Highway Administration Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook – Design and Evaluation in North America, Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003 (FHWA, 2011).

COMMENT 2: Fish Passage Assessment
Issue: Multiple potential fish passage barriers and unassessed locations exist within the Project area. The Project contains stream crossings within areas mapped as historic or current watersheds where anadromous fish are, or historically were found. The species include but are not limited to Steelhead – California Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (BIOS; DS-810), Steelhead – Central Coast DPS (BIOS; DS-806).

Section 156 of the Streets and Highways Code (Senate Bill (SB)-857), which amended Fish and Game Code section 5901 and added section 156 to the Streets and Highways Code which requires in section 156.3, any project using state or federal transportation DocuSign Envelope ID: FE837397-619A-404C-ADB9-2F3D70DEF00E

2.g
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
March 8, 2022

funds programmed after January 1, 2006, the lead agency shall ensure that, if the project affects a stream crossing on a stream where fish are, or historically were found, an assessment of potential barriers to fish passage is done prior to commencing project design. For this Project, the City of Pacifica would need to submit the assessment to the CDFW and add it to the CALFISH database. If any structural barrier to passage exists, remediation of the problem shall be designed into the Project by the implementing agency. New projects shall be constructed so that they do not present a barrier to fish passage.

Evidence the impact would be significant: The decline of naturally spawning steelhead trout is primarily a result of the loss of appropriate stream habitat and the inability of fish to get access to habitat, according to reports to the Fish and Game Commission and by the CDFW (CDFW, 1996). Restoration of access to historical spawning and rearing areas should be incorporated into the Project design through barrier modification, fishway installation, or other means (CDFW, 1996).

Recommendations: The EIR should include technical evaluation of the current status of each crossing location noted in the California Fish Passage Assessment Database within the Project limits that may be barriers to fish passage. If any barriers or unassessed barriers noted within the Project limits are found to be exist, remediation of the barrier should be designed into the Project by the implementing agency as a Project feature in consultation with CDFW and other natural resource agencies.

Recommended Measure 1 - Fish Passage Assessment: To evaluate potential impacts to native fish species and fisheries resources, City of Pacifica should submit any fish passage assessments to the CDFW and add it to the CALFISH database. If any structural barrier to passage exists, remediation of the barrier shall be designed into the Project by the implementing agency. New projects shall be constructed so that they do not present a barrier to fish passage. When barriers to fish passage are being addressed, plans and projects shall be developed in consultation with the CDFW.

CDFW shall be engaged prior to design in early coordination and at 30% design at minimum.

Recommended Measure 2 - Fish Passage Design Coordination:

CDFW recommends incorporation into the EIR a condition of approval to engage with CDFW in early and continued coordination before design commences on any fish passage barrier remediation.

Recommendation Measure 3 - Bridge and Stream Crossing References: CDFW recommends utilizing principles outlined in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, Part XII (CDFW, 2009) and NOAA Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), DocuSign Envelope ID: FE837397-619A-404C-ADB9-2F3D70DEF00E

2.g
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
March 8, 2022

2001) into stream crossing designs. CDFW strongly recommends incorporation of freespan bridge designs that are at minimum 1.25 times greater than the channel width.

Such designs allow natural stream flow and sedimentation processes to continue for long term dynamic channel stability.

COMMENT 3: Mountain Lion
Issue: The Project falls within the Central Coast North (CC-N) mountain lion subpopulation. The CC-N subpopulation has the potential to be impacted by development facilitated by the Project. Development within sensitive and critical habitat as defined in Figure 3.7-3has the potential to cause impacts during construction and operation by increasing human presence, traffic, noise, vibration, air pollutants and dust, artificial lighting, habitat removal, severing access to or impacting habitat resources (e.g. streams, dens site, impacts to prey-base, etc.), causing disruption during breeding cycles, impacting den selection, forcing animals into movement paths and areas that could increase their vulnerability to vehicle strikes, and has the potential to significantly and permanently reduce or eliminate the existing wildlife movement corridor necessary for gene flow. Decreased and impeded connectivity could increase the decline in genetic diversity of mountain lions in southern and central parts of the State (Dellinger et al., 2020).

Evidence the impact would be significant: Mountain lion (Puma concolor) is a specially protected mammal in the State (Fish & G. Code, § 4800). In addition, on June 25, 2019, a petition to list the mountain lion, Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) in Southern and Central California as Threatened or Endangered pursuant to CESA (Fish & G. Code §§ 2050 et seq.) was submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission. Specifically, the petitioners requested listing as a “threatened species” for the ESU comprised of the following recognized mountain lion subpopulations: 1) Santa Ana Mountains; 2) Eastern Peninsular Range; 3) San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains; 4) Central Coast South (Santa Monica Mountains); 5) Central Coast North (Santa Cruz Mountains); and 6) Central Coast Central. On April 21, 2020, the Fish and Game Commission determined that the petitioned action “may be warranted” and established mountain lion within the proposed ESU as a candidate species under CESA (CDFW 2020). As a candidate species, mountain lion within the proposed ESU now is granted full protection of a threatened species under CESA.

Recommendations: It is important that the CC-N subpopulation remain connected to adjacent mountain lion populations via suitable habitat and unobstructed sizeable movement corridors. Permanently conserving and restoring habitat connectivity and corridors is essential for minimizing impacts to mountain lions. Gene flow through maintenance of existing occupied habitat within improved and additional wildlife corridors will promote long-term persistence of isolated subpopulations (Gustafason et DocuSign Envelope ID: FE837397-619A-404C-ADB9-2F3D70DEF00E

2.g
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mr. Christian Murdock
City of Pacifica
March 8, 2022