Agenda, special meeting — Pacifica City Council, July 11, 2022 (part 21 of 45)

The Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) has a major flaw. Environmentaljustice and economic justice issues are 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 221,2 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 essentialto our economic viability as a city.

The SPSP goes into detail about the potentialfor Sea Level Rise. Yet, the SPSP is virtuallV silent about a commitment to seek a simple sea level rise solution for Pacifica and Sharp Park... A RUBUST SEAWALL. ls 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 "Downtown Pacifica"... will never happen.
investment in Sharp Park to make lt a robust
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 agalnst the potentialfor 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 lnfrastructure must be protected from potentialsea 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 Paciflca! 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 iustice issue, and an economic iustice 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 them and effectively condemn their homes by not protecting publlc 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 policv statement within the SpSp itself that we will work to make a seawall happen.

Page two includes a 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.

Tom Thompson
Sharp Park property owner and taxpayer for 35 years.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3511 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3417 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to March 1,2022 Page 2 of 2
Sharp Park Specific Plan Public Comments
PRIORITY SOLUTION: WE NEED TO COMMIT, WITHIN THE SPSP ITSELF, TO BUILDING A SEAWALL NORTH OF THE PIER, so we can:

A) Protect Public lnfrastructure lnvestment. Economic & SocialJustices lssues lnvolving:
1) Streets & Roads
2) Sidewalks
3) Beach Promenade
4) Storm Drains
5) Access to CoastalTrails
6) Sewer Lines
1) Natural Gas Lines
8) ElectricalService
9) lnternet
10) Cable lines
11) Water Service Lines
12) Golf Course
13) Fishing Pier
14) Existing major sewer pumping station a|221-2 Beach Blvd. Sewer service for l-6,000 people. That's 40% of all Pacificans. Not just Sharp Park.

B) Protect Private lnvestment. Economic & Socialiustices lssues lnvolving. 1) 1,000 + of our most affordable existing homes.
2) 100+ existing small businesses.
3) Future lnvestment to make Palmetto a thriving walkable downtown district. 4) 22L2 Beach Blvd Hotel won't happen without a commitment to a seawall.

Pacifica's financialfuture 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 and Social Equitv Justice lssues 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. 2l 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.

Tom Thompson, Sharp Park property owner and taxpayer for 35 years.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3512 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3418 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Bob Haxo [
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:03 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
CC:

Subject: Sharp Park Specific Plan: San Jose Ave. Improvements + Protect San Pedro Mtn. [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planners,
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 un-watered 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 sidewalks/

2.g
Packet Pg. 3513 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3419 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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.

Protect San Pedro Mountain
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.

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
Thanks for reading.

Cheers,
Bob Haxo

2.g
Packet Pg. 3514 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3420 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 180 San Jose Ave, Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3515 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3421 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: James Kremer [
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:55 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
CC: KoppmanNorton, [
Subject: Short listing of special comments on DEIR
Attachments: 22-03-08 JKremer special comments DEIR SPSP.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Attached please find a PDF of additional comments I am submitting for the DEIR. -- Jim
James Kremer
Pacifica, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3516 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3422 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to TO: [email protected]
COPY: CCC
FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.

SUBJ: Additional special comments on DEIR
DATE: March 8, 2022
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 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.
• 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). • 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 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. • 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 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? • 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 long-term. Implementation policies should encourage tighter compliance with Growth Controls while emphasizing housing that helps the city meet state mandates.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3517 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3423 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to J. Kremer – Planning Meeting 1/3/2022 p. 2
• 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. • Decarbonization, Electrification and Reach Codes should receive substantial explicit attention in plans for the future of a city. Now they are essentially missing. • 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?
• 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. • “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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3518 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3424 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Clif Lawrence [
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 7:28 PM
To: _City Council Group [[email protected]]; Ferguson, Alex [[email protected]]; Leal, David [[email protected]]; Domurat, George [[email protected]]; Godwin, James [[email protected]]; Nibbelin, John [[email protected]]; Berman, Lauren [[email protected]]; Hauser, Samantha [[email protected]]
CC: Clif Lawrence [ Woodhouse, Kevin [[email protected]]; [email protected]; Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Wehrmeister, Tina [[email protected]]
Subject: There is a General Plan on life support... It is ours! [CAUTION: External Email]
"...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?

2.g
Packet Pg. 3519 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3425 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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?
Clifford Lawrence
West Fairmont
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. 3520 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3426 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Rick Nahass [
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 11:01 AM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]; Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
CC: Bier, Mary [[email protected]]; Bigstyck,
Tygarjas [[email protected]]; Vaterlaus, Sue [[email protected]]; O'Neill, Mike [[email protected]]; Beckmeyer, Sue [[email protected]]; Debbie Ruddock [ Deborah Penrose [ Robert Brownstone
[
Subject: Update RE New Proposed Sewer Service Charges: General Plan DEIR and VMT Mitigation Bank
[CAUTION: External Email]
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_Government_Revenues_and_Impact_Fee022420.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/impact-fee-study.pdf Personally I will remain neutral on the Proposed Sewer Service Charges.

Thanks again for considering public input.

Rick
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 4:17 PM Rick Nahass < wrote:

To: Christian Murdock
Cc: Coastside Councils
Please consider the following changes to the city General Plan and DEIR:
(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

2.g
Packet Pg. 3521 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3427 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation 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. (2) Establish a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Mitigation Bank - see https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/VMT-Fees_Exchanges_BanksWhite-Paper_Apr2020.pdf - to manage future growth per vehicle miles travelled (VMT) SB743 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 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 worksheet for Pacifica stops. • This makes housing growth mandates (RHNA ABAG) dependent on both developers' willingness to pay to reduce VMT and Regional Transportation 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.

Thank You,
Rick Nahass
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. 3522 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3428 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Christine Boles [
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:22 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]; Remi Tan [ CC: dawn zidonis [
Subject: Re: Public Comment letter for tonight's council meeting regarding General Plan [CAUTION: External Email]
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_LEfd6euiezXuQqBqZ1RXJHR3iY 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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3523 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3429 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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.

Thank you both for your interest in working on this!
Christine
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 8:25 AM Remi Tan < wrote:

Hi Christine, Yes I see your concerns - the Pacifica map does not even show any of the high fire danger of the state map. It seems like the consultant team hired to do the General Plan update should be getting these critical maps updated. As mentioned in my previous email, not only they need to look at other maps but this is a lot of grunt work to review reports of all submitted projects, approved and not approved, in the past 42 years since the last GP. Maybe our group needs to meet with City and consultants? Per the last paragraph on the letter to the city, is your group thinking over a lawsuit if the city and consultant ignores the safety issues?
Thank you and Best Regards,

2.g
Packet Pg. 3524 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3430 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Manager and Member
S.A.A. Equities, LLC
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment On Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 06:22:03 AM PST, Christine Boles < wrote:

Hi Dawn and Remi,
You’re both design professionals in my neighborhood so I thought I’d connect you too.

My latest letter and the fire maps I referred to are attached. I am so concerned. We need help! I’m focusing on the Safety Element as that should be the first step in properly understanding our hazards.

It’s a hot mess!
Christine

2.g
Packet Pg. 3525 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3431 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

2.g
Packet Pg. 3526 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3432 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Christine Boles <
Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM
Subject: Public Comment letter for tonight's council meeting regarding General Plan To: <[email protected]>, Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>, Wehrmeister, Tina <[email protected]>, Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>, Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law] <[email protected]>, _City Council Group <[email protected]>
Please see attached, thank you.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3527 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3433 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu --
Christine
--
Christine
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3528 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3434 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: dawn zidonis [
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:45 AM
To: Christine Boles [
CC: Public Comment [[email protected]]; Remi Tan [ Subject: Re: Public Comment letter for tonight's council meeting regarding General Plan [CAUTION: External Email]
I’d be haply to take on what you described below.

This might be far-fetched 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.

Thoughts?
Dawn
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:21 PM Christine Boles < wrote:

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.

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 ».

2.g
Packet Pg. 3529 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3435 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to A friend divided up the document into its chapters so the files are smaller. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RWZYA_LEfd6euiezXuQqBqZ1RXJHR3iY Right now, the EIR is unruly, which makes it even harder for the public to access and review.

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.

Thank you both for your interest in working on this!
Christine
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 8:25 AM Remi Tan < wrote:

2.g
Packet Pg. 3530 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3436 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Manager and Member
S.A.A. Equities, LLC
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment 650-291-3097
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 06:22:03 AM PST, Christine Boles < wrote:

Hi Dawn and Remi,
You’re both design professionals in my neighborhood so I thought I’d connect you too.

It’s a hot mess!

2.g
Packet Pg. 3531 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3437 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Christine

2.g
Packet Pg. 3532 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3438 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Christine Boles <
Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM
Subject: Public Comment letter for tonight's council meeting regarding General Plan To: <[email protected]>, Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>, Wehrmeister, Tina <[email protected]>, Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>, Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law] <[email protected]>, _City Council Group <[email protected]>
Please see attached, thank you.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3533 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3439 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
478 Monterey Road
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu --
Christine
--
Christine
--
Dawn Zidonis
Executive Director
AIGA San Francisco
aigasf.org
San Francisco Design Week
sfdesignweek.org
595 Pacific Ave, Floor4
San Francisco, CA
m
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3534 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3440 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Irene Davies [
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:40 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: Re: Plan Pacifica - City of Pacifica Releases Draft General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for Public Review Attachments: ~WRD0001.jpg
[CAUTION: External Email]
Christian,
Yes, please remove any physical personal information so I don't have strangers visiting or calling me.

Appreciate your help.

Irene
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022, 10:08 PM Murdock, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Irene,
I’m confirming receipt of your comments and that I will use your second email that included a revised version devoid of personal contact information.

Regards,
Christian

2.g
Packet Pg. 3535 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3441 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]
From: Irene Davies <
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:19 PM
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Plan Pacifica - City of Pacifica Releases Draft General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for Public Review [CAUTION: External Email]
Hi,
Please see my attached comments to both the City of Pacifica General Plan and DEIR. I also attached suggested bypass subroutes to Hwy 1 in case of emergency, wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings, and suggested affordable high-density housing.

Please let me know if you need the Word documents.

Thanks

2.g
Packet Pg. 3536 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3442 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Irene Lee
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:08 PM Murdock, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

City of Pacifica Releases Draft General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for Public Review Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.

Click Here to Review Documents
Error! Filename not specified.

Today, the City of Pacifica has released the General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for public review. The Error! Filename not specified.Error!

2.g
Packet Pg. 3537 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3443 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Filename not specified. General Plan and Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified. Sharp Park Specific Plan are comprehensive planning documents that will shape the future of development in Pacifica through policies that express and regulate transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, public safety, and more. The Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.

Draft Environmental Impact Report provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the policies contained in the planning documents. These documents are being released concurrently to enable the public to consider these interrelated documents at the same time. An important and related document, the Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified. Local Coastal Land Use Plan, was previously approved by the City Council and is under review by the California Coastal Commission.

Why are the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan important documents? The General Plan Update, once adopted, will replace the existing 1980 General Plan to reflect contemporary community goals; changes in State laws related to planning and development; and update policies related to public safety, such as fire hazards. The Sharp Park Specific Plan will establish a future vision for a more vibrant Sharp Park. During the preparation of these plans, the City conducted extensive community engagement over several years, including more than a dozen community, City Council, and commission/committee meetings, with over five hundred participants.

How can I participate in the adoption process of these documents? The public is encouraged to review the General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report and participate in the adoption process. The documents can be found by visiting the Error! Filename not specified.Project Documents page on the Plan Pacifica website. This page includes a Error!

2.g
Packet Pg. 3538 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3444 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Filename not specified.Frequently Asked Questions document to help answer common questions about this process including how to submit comments and how to receive information about public hearings that will be held in the coming months.

Whom should I contact if I have any questions? Please reach out to Deputy Planning Director Christian Murdock, at (650) 738-7341 or [email protected] with questions.

Error! Filename not specified.

PLAN PACIFICA DOCUMENTS
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

Draft General Plan
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
Error! Filename not specified.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3539 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3445 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

Local Coastal Land Use Plan

USEFUL LINKS
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

FAQs
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

Plan Pacifica Website
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified.

Plan Pacifica Press Release
Error! Filename not specified.Error!
Filename not specified. City
of Pacifica Planning Department

2.g
Packet Pg. 3540 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3446 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Error! Filename not specified.

Thank you for your interest in Plan Pacifica!
Error! Filename not specified.

STAY CONNECTED
Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified.

City of Pacifica | 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044 Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified. Unsubscribe [email protected]

2.g
Packet Pg. 3541 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3447 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified. Update Profile | Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified. Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Error! Filename not specified.

Error! Filename not specified.Try email marketing for free today! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

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

2.g
Packet Pg. 3542 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3448 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to From: Irene Davies [
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:19 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Re: Plan Pacifica - City of Pacifica Releases Draft General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for Public Review Attachments: We need real affordable housing.pdf; Comments for 2040 General Plan n DEIR.pdf; 20220119_alternative subroutes n wildlife corridor crossings.jpg [CAUTION: External Email]
Hi,
Please see my attached comments to both the City of Pacifica General Plan and DEIR. I also attached suggested bypass subroutes to Hwy 1 in case of emergency, wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings, and suggested affordable high-density housing.

Please let me know if you need the Word documents.

Thanks
Irene Lee
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:08 PM Murdock, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:

2.g
Packet Pg. 3543 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3449 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to City of Pacifica Releases Draft General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for Public Review Click Here to Review Documents
Today, the City of Pacifica has released the General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for public review. The General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan are comprehensive planning documents that will shape the future of development in Pacifica through policies that express and regulate transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, public safety, and more. The Draft Environmental Impact Report provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the policies contained in the planning documents. These documents are being released concurrently to enable the public to consider these interrelated documents at the same time. An important and related document, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, was previously approved by the City Council and is under review by the California Coastal Commission.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3544 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3450 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to How can I participate in the adoption process of these documents? The public is encouraged to review the General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report and participate in the adoption process. The documents can be found by visiting the Project Documents page on the Plan Pacifica website. This page includes a Frequently Asked Questions document to help answer common questions about this process including how to submit comments and how to receive information about public hearings that will be held in the coming months.

Whom should I contact if I have any questions? Please reach out to Deputy Planning Director Christian Murdock, at (650) 738-7341 or [email protected] with questions.

PLAN PACIFICA DOCUMENTS
Draft General Plan
Draft Sharp Park Specific
Plan
Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Local Coastal Land Use Plan

USEFUL LINKS
FAQs
Plan Pacifica Website

2.g
Packet Pg. 3545 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3451 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Plan Pacifica Press Release
City of Pacifica Planning
Department
Thank you for your interest in Plan Pacifica!

STAY CONNECTED
City of Pacifica | 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044 Unsubscribe [email protected]

2.g
Packet Pg. 3546 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3452 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
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. 3547 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3453 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 21 Jan 2022
Irene Lee
Pacifica, CA 94044
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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3548 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3454 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

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.

13. Architectural and landscaping layout of one or more high density buildings to provide maximum light exposure to each unit (stepback), 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, non-profits, and potential lowincome folks to develop the affordable housing plans.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3549 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3455 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 21 Jan2022
Irene Lee
488 Manor Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
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 subroutes 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?

2.g
Packet Pg. 3550 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3456 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Creating a destination for tourism
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 high-density 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.
***********************************

2.g
Packet Pg. 3551 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3457 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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 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

2.g
Packet Pg. 3552 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3458 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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.
**********************
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. stepback slope height is a good idea per the DEIR figures:

2.g
Packet Pg. 3553 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3459 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to P593, Fig 3.9-9 Impact of views looking west, 2212 Beach Boulevard site, with pedestrian pathway and upper stepback
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 stepback 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.
*****************
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

2.g
Packet Pg. 3554 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3460 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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.
********************

Page 101 ends

Page 102 ends

Page 105 ends

Page 107 ends

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 sub-routes and wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings. **********************

Page 109 ends

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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3555 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3461 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to *************************
P129, 5.5 Public transportation and transportation demand management P131, fig 5-5 Existing transit routes
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 high-density 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. **********************

Page 172 ends

P 180, Planned Improvements
Need to include wildlife corridors as part of the conservation. See attached map of suggested wildlife corridor tunnels/crossing.
***********************

Page 185 ends

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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3556 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3462 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to ********************
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.

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

2.g
Packet Pg. 3557 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3463 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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
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?

2.g
Packet Pg. 3558 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3464 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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.
******************
P152, Draft and Final Documents
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.
*****************
P162, fig 2.1-1 Regional Setting
P163, figure 2.1-2 Planning Area an Coastal Zone
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.

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. *********************
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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3559 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3465 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 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.
******************
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 and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.
******************
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. ****************
P238, Fig 3.2-2 Existing Transit Routes and Facilities
P724, Infrastructure Modernization
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.

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.
*************
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?

2.g
Packet Pg. 3560 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3466 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to *****************
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 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. *****************
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?
**********
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.
******************
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.

2.g
Packet Pg. 3561 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3467 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Where in the General Plan are the proposed housing for low-income 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. *********************
P402, Fig 3.5-1 Hydrology and Flood Zones
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?
Need to show Tsunami evacuation plan for folks to reach high ground. ******************
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? ***********************
P454, Fig 3.6-1 Seismic Hazard Zones
P455, Fig 3.6-2 Liquefaction, Liquefaction Potential
P457, Landslides and slope failure
P459, Fig 3.6-3 Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion
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
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.

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?

2.g
Packet Pg. 3562 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3468 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Nice the Stepback of high-density buildings to reduce sun shadowing. ********************
P458, Beaches and Coastal Erosion
Need a table and fig of historical beaches and coastal erosions for better understanding of these issues. ********************
P492, Vegetation
P506, Fig 3.7-3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat
P637, Fig 3.11-2 Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services P750, 3.14 Wildlife
Need to show in fig wildlife corridors for wildlife. See attached map for suggested wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.

Need to provide a plan to eliminate Eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress, English Ivy, and other invasive plants/vegetations to reduce wildfire, increase plant diversity, and improve climate change.

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.
*************************
P662, Fig 3.12-1 Schools and Community Facilities
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.

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.

Suggest high-density development at the Sea Bowl area, including having weekly food trucks gathering. ******************
P805 and P807 Analysis of Alternatives
P8, Executive Summary
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.
*****************
P812, Fig 4.2-3 Alternative 2

2.g
Packet Pg. 3563 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3469 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to How is this alternative stand up to climate change, sea level rise, coastal management retreat? 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?

2.g
Packet Pg. 3564 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3470 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

2.g
Packet Pg. 3565 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3471 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to ATTACHMENT H – FEIR APPENDIX B
The full document including an interactive table of contents is available at: https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/dl/mccqSGSmU7, And is hereby incorporated by reference into the agenda packet.

2.h
Packet Pg. 3566 Attachment: Attachment H – FEIR Appendix B – Redlined DEIR (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to

2.B
Packet Pg. 3472 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Pacifica General Plan
Update and Specific Plan
EIR
CEQA Findings and Facts
in Support of Findings
and Statement of
Overriding
Considerations
SCH No. 2012022046
May 25, 2022
Prepared for the
City of Pacifica by

2.i
Packet Pg. 3567 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3473 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR ii
Table of Contents
Role of Findings ..............................................................................................................1 Findings Under CEQA.....................................................................................................2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................15 Proposed General Plan Benefits ...................................................................................18 Overriding Considerations Conclusions.........................................................................21

2.i
Packet Pg. 3568 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3474 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR iii
This page intentionally left blank.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3569 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3475 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of
Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Pacifica
General Plan EIR
CEQA requires the Pacifica City Council (the Council) to balance the benefits of the City of Pacifica General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan (Plan) against its significant and unavoidable environmental effects in determining whether to approve the Project. Since the EIR identifies significant impacts of the General Plan that cannot feasibly be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City must state in writing its specific reasons for approving the Project in a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to Sections 15043 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. This Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the specific reasons supporting the City’s action in approving the General Plan Update, based on the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR, which incorporates the Draft EIR by reference) and other information in the administrative record.

In making the statement of overriding considerations, “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable’.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, subd. (a).)
The following sections provide findings and statements of facts supporting the findings, describe the general Project benefits considered by decision makers in determining to adopt the proposed General Plan Update despite its potentially significant adverse environmental effects, and then provide conclusions.

Role of Findings
The following findings are hereby adopted by the City Council of Pacifica pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines).

2.i
Packet Pg. 3570 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3476 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 2 of 32 ends

These Findings and Facts in Support of Findings relate to the approval of the Pacifica General Plan. The City Council of Pacifica is the Lead Agency for the Plan.

The Findings state the City Council’s conclusions regarding the significance of the potential environmental impacts of General Plan after all feasible mitigating policies have been adopted.

These findings have been prepared to comply with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and are based on information in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Plan and on all other relevant information contained in the administrative record for the Plan.

CEQA requires agencies to identify mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen a project’s significant impacts or potential significant impacts if such measures are feasible. The mitigating measures identified in the Final EIR mitigate the potential significant impacts of the Plan, to the extent feasible, as described in the Final EIR. All mitigating policies identified in the Final EIR (as listed in Table ES-3 of the Draft EIR) that are within the City Council’s authority to impose are hereby adopted by the Council. Future projects must comply with CEQA, including implementation of project-specific mitigation measures where applicable and feasible. Subsequent environmental review for specific projects identified in the Plan may tier off the programmatic analysis or incorporate information from this analysis by reference (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15150, 15152, and 15168).

Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002.) The mandate and principles set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a).)
Findings Under CEQA
The Final EIR examined the environmental impacts of the General Plan in the areas of Land Use; Transportation; Air Quality; Energy and Greenhouse Gases; Hydrology and Flooding; Geology, Soils and Seismic Risk; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Visual Resources; Noise; Hazardous Materials and Fire Hazards; Parks, Public Services and Facilities; Wildfire; Utilities; Mineral Resources; Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; Growth-Inducing Impacts; and Cumulative Impacts.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3571 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3477 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 3 of 32 ends

IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that the following potential impacts would not occur or would be less than significant, as defined by the EIR:
a) Land Use and Housing: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.1-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.
ii. Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
iii. Impact 3.1-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. iv. Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
b) Transportation: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.2-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
ii. Impact 3.2-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). iii. Impact 3.2-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
c) Air Quality: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.3-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. ii. Impact 3.3-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
iii. Impact 3.3-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. iv. Impact 3.3-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
d) Energy & Greenhouse Gases: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction, operation, and/or maintenance.
e) Hydrology & Flooding: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:

2.i
Packet Pg. 3572 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3478 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 4 of 32 ends

i. Impact 3.5-1: New development and other improvements under the Proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater quality. ii. Impact 3.5-2: New development under the Proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with rates of groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
iii. Impact 3.5-3: New development under the Proposed Project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff resulting in erosion, siltation, polluted runoff, and flooding on- or off-site; an exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or impediment or redirection of flood flows.
iv. Impact 3.5-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation by seiche, tsunami, or flood. v. Impact 3.5-5: The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
vi. Cumulative Impact 3.5-8: Increased construction activity and new development facilitated by the Proposed Project, in conjunction with past, present, reasonably foreseeable future development in the San Francisco Peninsula, would not significantly affect stormwater flows and water quality. f) Geology, Soils, and Seismic Risk: The following impacts would not occur or were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.6-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and landslides.
ii. Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss.
iii. Impact 3.6-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not locate structures on expansive soils or on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, therefore creating substantial risks to life or property.
iv. Impact 3.6-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
v. Impact 3.6-5: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3573 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3479 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 5 of 32 ends

vi. Impact 3.6-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
g) Biological Resources: The following impacts would not occur or were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.7-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ii. Impact 3.7-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. iii. Impact 3.7-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
iv. Impact 3.7-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
v. Impact 3.7-5: Implementation of Proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
vi. Impact 3.7-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
h) Cultural Resources & Tribal Cultural Resources: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.8-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial change to the significance of a historical resource, defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired (Guidelines Section 15064.5).
ii. Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
iii. Impact 3.8-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project could disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. iv. Impact 3.8-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native Tribe. i) Visual Resources: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:

2.i
Packet Pg. 3574 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3480 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 6 of 32 ends

i. Impact 3.9-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
ii. Impact 3.9-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
iii. Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Planning Area and its surroundings.
iv. Impact 3.9-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
j) Noise: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.10-1: New development under the Proposed Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ii. Impact 3.10-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. iii. Impact 3.10-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. k) Hazardous Materials: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.11-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
ii. Impact 3.11-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
iii. Impact 3.11-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. iv. Impact 3.11-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not allow development on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
v. Impact 3.11-5: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, where located within the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for San Francisco International Airport.
vi. Impact 3.11-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3575 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3481 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 7 of 32 ends

vii. Impact 3.11-7: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
l) Parks, Public Services, and Facilities: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.12-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
ii. Impact 3.12-2: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated.
iii. Impact 3.12-3: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities in a manner which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
m) Utilities: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.13-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
ii. Impact 3.13-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. iii. Impact 3.13-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. iv. Impact 3.13-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project will not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. v. Impact 3.13-5: Implementation of the Proposed Project will not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
vi. Impact 3.13-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in solid waste disposal needs that exceed the permitted landfill capacity serving the project.
n) Wildfire: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.14-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ii. Impact 3.14-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or

2.i
Packet Pg. 3576 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3482 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 8 of 32 ends

structures to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
iii. Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
iv. Impact 3.14-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. o) Mineral Resources: The following impacts would not occur or were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.15-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
ii. Impact 3.15-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 (a)(1) and 15092(b), and to the extent reflected in the EIR, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan that mitigate to a less than significant level or avoid the following potentially significant effects on the environment:

GHG and Energy, Impact 3.4.1 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR assessed mass and per capita greenhouse gas emissions under the proposed General Plan buildout, which are expected to decrease over time. The total GHG emissions under proposed General Plan buildout with quantifiable Proposed Project policies and the Climate Action Plan goal of achieving 75 percent diversion of solid waste community-wide is estimated to be 79,851 MTCO2e in 2040, or 1.9 MTCO2e per capita. Projected emissions meet the CARB and SB 375 emissions targets for 2035, but exceed the interpolated GHG reduction target of 1.53 established in the City of Pacifica CAP for 2040, and for the SB 32 emissions reduction target of 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040. The DEIR found that additional quantifiable policies would further reduce mass and per capita emissions; however, these reductions are not sufficient to meet the threshold of 1.53 MTCO2e per capita as the threshold for meeting the 2050 reduction target articulated in EO S-3-05 and the 2014 Pacifica Climate Action Plan (CAP), or the SB 32 emissions reduction target.

Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: As the transportation and energy sectors are the largest source of emissions within the Planning Area in 2020 and is projected to remain the largest sources in 2040, these sectors have the most opportunity for reductions. There are many Proposed Project policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions,

2.i
Packet Pg. 3577 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3483 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 9 of 32 ends

especially those that relate to pedestrian improvements and increased connectivity; streetscape improvements and traffic calming measures; transit service; trip reduction programs; clean city fleet; increased density and affordability; reduced parking; water conservation; waste reduction; commute trip reduction programs; teleworking; municipal energy efficiency; and outdoor lighting.

The Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the interpolated CAP reduction target on both a per capita and mass emissions basis assuming full implementation of quantifiable General Plan policies and 75 percent solid waste diversion, though it would achieve the target on a per service population basis. Other policies that would generally reduce GHG emissions but cannot be quantified include those related to renewable energy; energy efficiency; trees and native vegetation. However, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP. Therefore, on a local scale, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required.

Rationale and Conclusion: Implementation of the Proposed Project would reduce generation of GHG emissions by 47 percent compared to existing conditions. Per capita GHG emissions under the Proposed Project with and without the reduction potential of proposed policies incorporated would also be consistent with GHG emissions targets established by CARB of 6.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2050 to help local governments meet SB 32 and EO S-3-05 targets. The Proposed Project, assuming implementation of quantifiable policies, would result in 1.59 MTCO2e per capita in 2040, and a reduction of mass emissions by 59 percent below 1990 levels, just short of the 60 percent target. This is consistent with the interpolated target of 4.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2040 and the target established by CARB of 2.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2050.

However, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP. Therefore, on a local scale, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required. The impact will be mitigated with imposition of required Mitigation Measures MMGHG-1 and MM-GHG-2 and feasible, voluntary Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-3 which include implementation of the following actions:

MM-GHG-1: For new residential and commercial development, require installation of the electric vehicle recharging stations and other alternative fuel vehicle support infrastructure and adopt requirements for electric vehicle parking in new developments, consistent with Title 24 requirements, , with the goal of increasing electric vehicle ownership by 20%.

MM-GHG-2: Require installation of photovoltaic systems in new single family residential, multifamily residential, and commercial developments to increase solar capacity per the requirements of State law, with a target of an equivalent of 15 percent of projected electricity by 2040. Photovoltaic panel installation is required for new low-rise residential buildings which include single-family dwellings, and multifamily dwellings with three habitable stories or less pursuant to California Energy Code section 150.1.c.14. Photovoltaic panel installation is also required for new

2.i
Packet Pg. 3578 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3484 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 10 of 32 ends

nonresidential buildings with three habitable stories or fewer, other than health care facilities; hotel/motel occupancies; and, high-rise multi-family buildings with 10 habitable stories or fewer, pursuant to a local amendment to the California Energy Code codified in PMC section 8-6.08.

MM-GHG-3: Develop and implement a program to encourage the use of available grants for residential and commercial efficiency retrofits and voluntary cool roofing practices in new development with the goal of a 50 percent energy reduction compared to baseline in 30 percent of the total existing residential units and nonresidential square feet citywide by 2040. This measure is voluntary.

Table 3.4-5: Additional GHG Emissions Reduction from General Plan Policies Measure Sector Assumed Effectiveness Emissions Reduction (MTCO2e) MM-GHG-1 Transportation 20% 9,978
MM-GHG-2 Energy 15% 5,082
MM-GHG-3 Energy Voluntary Voluntary
Total Emissions Reduction 25,224
Total 2040 Emissions with Proposed Project Policies 50,100 Emissions per Capita 1.22
Emissions per Service Population 1.03
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Implementation of these measures would reduce GHG emissions to 50,100 MTCO2e or 1.22 MTCO2e per capita. Both total and per capita emissions would achieve the interpolated GHG emissions reduction target established by the Pacifica CAP and the SB 32 mass emissions reduction target for 2040. Because existing GHG (2020) represents a 35 percent reduction over 1990 levels, and the Proposed Project is estimated to result in an approximately 69 percent reduction of MOTCO2e from 1990 levels, it is reasonable to assume that Pacifica will meet its 2030 SB 32 goal, The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

GHG and Energy, Impact 3.4-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Plan could conflict with Pacifica’s 2014 CAP, a roadmap that outlines a path for the City to achieve its GHG reduction goals of 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. CAP GHG emissions reduction targets of 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as described in Impact 3.4-1.

Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The CAP features goals and reduction strategies in the categories of energy, transportation and land use, solid waste, water, and education and outreach. Table 3.4-6 compares the goals of the 2014 CAP and

2.i
Packet Pg. 3579 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3485 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 11 of 32 ends

supportive Proposed Project policies and shows that the Proposed Project would directly support all CAP measures. However, without mitigation, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP.

Rationale and Conclusion: GHG emissions under the Proposed Project would be consistent with the CAP targets with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MMGHG- 3. Additionally, proposed policy CO-I-59 requires the City to maintain and update the CAP based on the General Plan update. The Proposed Project is consistent with the GHG reduction targets established by the CAP and supports all of the goals and strategies included in the CAP. The impact will be mitigated with imposition of Mitigation Measures GHG1, GHG-2, and GHG-3, as described in Impact 3.4-1.

GHG and Energy, Impact 3.4-4Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Facts in Support of Finding: The Proposed Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it would result in conflicts with regulations adopted for the purpose of increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency. Energy consumption throughout the City may increase as development anticipated by the Proposed Project occurs, therefore, resulting in more consumption than existing conditions and has the potential to conflict with State Goals of reducing GHG emissions, including CalGreen and Title 24, Plan Bay Area and SB 375, SB 32, and the City of Pacifica CAP.

Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts:

Development anticipated by the Proposed Project would be designed in a manner that is consistent with relevant energy conservation plans that encourage efficient use of energy resources. The Proposed Project would comply with CALGreen and Title 24 requirements to reduce energy consumption by implementing energy efficient building designs, reducing indoor and outdoor water demand, providing EV charging spaces, and installing energy-efficient appliances and equipment. Specifically, proposed General Plan policy CO-I-60 calls for the City to monitor the effectiveness of CALGreen in bringing about energy efficiency in architectural design and building construction. Additionally, policy CO-I-67 would increase energy efficiency in existing public buildings and require that any new municipal space exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 20 percent. As a result, the Proposed Project’s impacts would be considered less than significant.

Overall, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of Plan Bay Area 2050 by supporting reduction in transportation-related emissions. Although Plan Bay Area 2050 is not technically an energy efficiency plan, consistency with the RTP/SCS has energy implications (such as the reduction of VMT and thereby fuel energy consumed), including proposed General Plan policies aimed at reducing per capita VMT, which subsequently reduces GHG emissions and reduces fossil fuel consumption from travel. Impact 3.4-2 details the features incorporated into the Proposed Project to reduce vehicle trips, resulting in less gasoline and diesel fuel use. As discussed, implementation of State and local actions, General Plan land use and circulation

2.i
Packet Pg. 3580 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3486 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 12 of 32 ends

elements, proposed General Plan policies, and Mitigation Measure MMGHG- 1 would reduce transportation-related emissions by 68 percent between 2020 and 2040 (68,394 MTCO2e and 21,885 MTCO2e, respectively). Without mitigation, the Proposed Project could conflict with GHG emission-reduction targets set by CARB through SB 375 by reducing VMT to achieve a 10 percent reduction in per capita passenger vehicle emissions by 2020 and 19 percent reduction by 2035 compared to the 2005 level.

As discussed in Impact 3.4-1, the Proposed Project, assuming implementation of quantifiable policies, would result in 1.59 MTCO2e per capita in 2040. This is consistent with the interpolated target of 4.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2040 and the target established by CARB of 2.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2050. Additionally, proposed policy CO-I-59 requires the City to maintain and update the CAP based on the General Plan update. However, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP and 2040 SB 32 mass emissions reduction targets without mitigation.

Rationale and Conclusion:

The Proposed Project would incorporate project design features and policies such that it would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of promoting renewable energy and overall energy efficiency. Any other potential impacts related to conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be mitigated with Mitigation Measures described in Impact 3.4-1.

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that the following significant effects on the environment, as reflected in the EIR, and as mitigated as shown below, remain significant and unavoidable despite the fact that changes or alterations to the Project have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Further, the City finds that the following significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described below. The City also finds that further mitigation measures and a No Project Alternative that may reduce the significance of any of these impacts are rejected as infeasible for the reasons given below.

Impact 3.2-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Significant and Unavoidable) Facts in Support of Finding: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 requires that the determination of significance for transportation impacts be based on VMT instead of a congestion metric such as LOS. The change in the focus of transportation analysis is the result of SB 743. For the purposes of this EIR, the following thresholds of significance are used to determine if the proposed General Plan has an impact under the terms of Criteria 2:

2.i
Packet Pg. 3581 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3487 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 13 of 32 ends

(a) Vehicle Miles Traveled: 1. A significant impact would occur if the proposed General Plan Update increases the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per person above the baseline conditions.

As described in the Methodology, Table 3.2-6 shows VMT calculations for the 2015 baseline scenario for various geographic regions including the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, and the nine-county Bay Area. As shown, both VMT per capita and VMT per employee are higher for the City of Pacifica than for the county or Bay Area statistics. Table 3.2-6 also establishes thresholds based on a 15 percent reduction from the various baseline VMT rates. The threshold of significance based on a 15% reduction would be a VMT per capita of 13.40 miles per resident for the City of Pacifica; and a home-based work VMT per employee of 14.22 at the Countywide level.

Table 3.2-7 summarizes the VMT calculations for Pacifica under the No Project condition and Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3.2-7, VMT is expected to increase under the proposed General Plan and No Project scenarios. With the smallest increase in population, the No Project scenario would decrease home-based VMT and VMT per capita. Home-based work VMT per employee for jobs located in Pacifica would increase by 14.6 percent under the No Project scenario.

Home-based work VMT per employee for jobs located in Pacifica is expected to increase by 22.9 percent under the Proposed Project. While VMT per capita would decrease by 8.6 percent and home-based VMT would increase by only 0.5 percent, these rates all fall above the threshold of significance.

Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Proposed policies listed below would reduce potential impacts by supporting TDM measures and requiring that new developments prepare transportation impact assessments to determine project specific impacts of new development under the proposed General Plan such that impacts can be appropriately mitigated. Additionally, City goals and policies strive to develop a multi-modal transportation network that would provide transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle and encourage complete street design.

The City shall implement all policies identified in the proposed General Plan Circulation Element to reduce the demand for vehicle travel within and through the Planning Area, as well as work with local, regional, and state agencies to implement regional transportation improvements.

Additionally, new developments would be required to evaluate their project-specific impacts on the transportation system and fund improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service, except where exemptions are identified in the Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan.

However, even with implementation of these policies, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Rationale and Conclusion:

Mitigation of VMT is required because levels of VMT per service population is not expected to fall below the threshold of significance without additional measures. Two measures have been proposed:

2.i
Packet Pg. 3582 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3488 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 14 of 32 ends

MM-TRA-1: Require applicants for non-residential projects that employ 20 or more people— which is equivalent to 12,000 square feet of retail space, 6,000 square feet of office space, 20,000 square feet of industrial space, or 22 hotel rooms to implement an employee commute trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program shall identify alternative modes of transportation to the project, including transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool/vanpool availability. Information regarding these programs shall be readily available to employees and clients. The project applicant or designee shall implement at least one of the following incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program, or another equally effective incentive:
• Ride-matching assistance
• Subsidized public transit passes
• Vanpool assistance or employer-provided vanpool/shuttle • Car-sharing program (e.g. Zipcar)
• Bicycle end-trip facilities, including bike parking, lockers, and showers.

MM-TRA-2: Develop an informational program that encourages local businesses to implement telecommuting, hybrid, and alternative work schedules that allow employees to utilize remote work options while reducing vehicle-based commutes. Implementation of commute trip reduction programs and remote work options could reduce home-based work VMT, home-based work VMT per employee, and VMT per capita.

Implementation of commute trip reduction programs and remote work options could reduce home-based work VMT, home-based work VMT per employee, and VMT per capita. It is difficult to quantify the exact reduction potential of these mitigation measures as MM-TRA-1 applies only to new non-residential development of a certain size and MM-TRA-2 is a voluntary measure.

MM-TRA-2 responds to the recent surge of remote and hybrid work schedules following the COVID-19 pandemic. While both measures could reduce VMT metrics, it is unlikely that either would be sufficient in reducing these metrics to the proposed thresholds and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

VMT is by its nature a cumulative impact influenced by regional development patterns and policies. As a result there is little that Pacifica can do on its own to address VMT. As a result even after compliance with existing policies and regulations, implementation of Proposed Project, and implementation of feasible mitigation measures impacts remain significant and unavoidable.

FINDINGS
Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Council, the Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of the rate of increase in VMT or vehicle trips exceeding the rate of increase in population with implementation of the Plan.

Although there are polices in the General Plan to reduce this impact, the Council finds the impact significant and unavoidable.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3583 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3489 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 15 of 32 ends

Alternatives
The Final EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project, examining the environmental impacts and feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project objectives. The Project objectives are listed in Chapter 2(Project Description) of the Draft EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible mitigation measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 3 (Environmental Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 4 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR. Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives.

All analysis in Final EIR Chapter 4 is incorporated by reference.

ALTERNATIVE 1: STRONG CENTER AT QUARRY SITE
In Alternative 1, Pacifica gains a new city center on the Quarry site, extending from the Rockaway Beach district and including a new civic center. This alternative assumes the greatest amount of development on the Quarry site, and the least amount of development on underutilized sites elsewhere. Palmetto Avenue develops as a main street, though at a lower intensity than the Proposed Project, and mixed-use redevelopment occurs at Park Mall.

The “Flats” portion of the Quarry site is developed with a compact mix of offices and housing over retail leading north from the Rockaway Beach district. A new civic center including city offices and a library/learning center is built west of the Reina del Mar intersection, near the Water Recycling facility and the Police station. This civic area meets the mixed use development at a new city park bordering the Calera Creek greenway. Also relating to this park is a Visitors’ Center, with immediate access to both the new shopping district and the regional trail system. The “Pad” portion of the site is reserved for a resort hotel/conference center, with views along the coast and down to the expanded Rockaway Beach district. The remainder of the Quarry uplands is permanently conserved as open space, with public trail access to Mori Point and beyond. Across Highway 1, new mixed-use and high-density residential development takes place along lower Fassler Avenue.

In West Sharp Park, Palmetto Avenue continues to develop as currently envisioned, but at lower intensities than the Preferred Plan, with streetscape improvements helping to stimulate mixed use development on vacant and under-utilized sites. The fishing pier, the revitalized Palmetto shopping area, and a new park and boutique hotel on the site of the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant draw locals and visitors to West Sharp Park. Residential areas are proposed to have the same or nearly the same designations as under the proposed Plan, with an emphasis on conserving sensitive areas, steep slopes and open space; respecting neighborhood character; and facilitating higher-density housing at appropriate locations.

Alternative 1 concentrates the greatest amount of development on the environmentally sensitive Quarry site and the least amount of development on underutilized sites elsewhere in the City, in contrast to the other alternatives. While it has lower population projections to Alternative 2, there are over 710 more jobs forecasted for Alternative 1 compared to the lower growth scheme of

2.i
Packet Pg. 3584 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3490 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 16 of 32 ends

Alternative 2. This additional job growth would result in greater environmental impacts from additional vehicle trips and greater demand for parking. Ultimately, Alternative 1 has a greater impact on the environment than Alternative 2 and the Proposed Project.

ALTERNATIVE 2: CONSERVATION AND REDEVELOPMENT
In Alternative 2, a balance is created between four smaller centers in a sequence along the Coast Highway: Pacific Manor, West and East Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar/Pedro Point. Each has a distinct identity. Most of the Quarry site is conserved. Pedro Point and Linda Mar shopping centers experience redevelopment.

A new civic center is developed in the West Sharp Park neighborhood. Mixed use development also occurs along Palmetto Avenue, as in the other alternatives. Here it is anchored by a visitor attraction at the site of the former Treatment Plant.

Only minimal development takes place on the Quarry site, with the great majority conserved as habitat or open space. The Rockaway Beach district expands slightly to the north with visitororiented uses and a Visitors’ Center with primary access to the regional trail system. The Sea Bowl is developed as a retail commercial center, with a pedestrian bridge across the highway to the Headlands providing trail access to both Rockaway and Pacifica State Beach.

Pedro Point Shopping Center retains its use, with direct access to Pacifica State Beach and visibility from the highway. The undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site is developed with a mix of coastal-related and residential uses. Across Highway 1, mixed-use transit-oriented development occurs on both sides of Linda Mar Boulevard and on Crespi Drive.

Pacific Manor Shopping Center is redeveloped as an office district, with a smaller amount of retail serving the neighborhood. New medical and professional offices could be clustered here, where they have the greatest visibility and access to the largest population.

Residential areas are proposed to have the same or nearly the same designations as under the proposed Plan, with an emphasis on conserving sensitive areas, steep slopes and open space; respecting neighborhood character; and facilitating higher-density housing at appropriate locations.

Alternative 2 creates fewer acres of non-residential buildout than the Proposed Project or Alternative 1, which would result in smaller environmental impacts from less development. It conserves the Quarry site, an environmentally sensitive area. It would result in fewer jobs, population, and housing units than the proposed Plan or Alternative 1, which would lower its environmental impacts.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3585 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3491 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 17 of 32 ends

NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when the project is the revision of a plan, as in this case, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan. The No Project scenario represents the continuation of the current City of Pacifica General Plan land use designations. It uses projections from C/CAG’s Travel Demand Model for the year 2040. It assumes that the existing Plan and Zoning Ordinance would continue to guide development in the Planning Area until buildout in 2040. While the proposed Project and the two alternatives share an updated set of land use designations, the No Project alternative uses the existing General Plan designations. This means that there is only one commercial category, compared to five in the proposed Plan and alternatives; and one mixed use category, compared to three designations in the other scenarios.

The No Project alternative would result in more low density residential development compared to the proposed Project, but less residential development overall, including much less in a mixed-use format. The No Project alternative assumes a similar amount of commercial development as the proposed Project, with most commercial development occurring at the Gypsy Hill site, as well as intensification of commercial uses in northern Palmetto and east of Highway 1 near Rockaway Beach, and at the Pedro Point Shopping Center. The No Project Alternative would result in less non-residential development at the Quarry than the Proposed Project and Alternative 1, but more than Alternative 2.

The No Project Alternative creates the least amount of population growth and housing and a similar number of jobs as the Proposed Project. While the Proposed Project results in the least amount of population growth, it does not accommodate the anticipated housing need for Pacifica.

Importantly, the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the Proposed Project goals, such as preserving open space and trails, providing for sustainable development and practices, and creating a unique, vital center for the City.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. The Guidelines also require that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. Based on a comparison of the alternatives’ overall environmental impacts and their compatibility with General Plan goals and objectives, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative for this EIR.

The Proposed Project would fully accommodate the anticipated population and job growth in Pacifica with orderly, sequential growth focused in multiple centers, with the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area and Rockaway Beach as the two main centers of the city. The key difference between the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 is the amount of job growth accommodated, and the location and amount of land that is urbanized. With more commercial development and more job

2.i
Packet Pg. 3586 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3492 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 18 of 32 ends

growth than Alternative 2, the Proposed Project would create more environmental impacts. It creates more development on the environmentally sensitive Quarry site than Alternative 2.

Ultimately, Alternative 2 would result in lower environmental impact than the Proposed Project; however, the Proposed Project achieves all plan objectives while establishing policies to reduce environmental impacts of the city’s growth and development. However, though Alternative 2 creates less environmental impacts, it may not result in the city center that would be welcomed by community members under the Proposed Project.

Although the No Project Alternative would create less population growth and housing than Alternative 2, it assumes a higher amount of commercial development. In terms of environmental impacts, Alternative 2 would result in impacts similar to the proposed General Plan analyzed in this EIR, as population and housing levels are relatively the same. In some impact areas, such as solid waste, this alternative would result in a lower environmental impact than the proposed General Plan. In addition, this alternative creates less total nonresidential buildout acres than the proposed General Plan, which also leads to a smaller impact as a result of non-residential buildout. Alternative 2 would result in the creation of the four distinct activity centers. With these four centers, the objective to create a strong city center for Pacifica would not be met. Alternative 2 also would not allow for the transition of developable portions of the Quarry site to reuse and integration into the city fabric.

Alternative 2 also does not plan for as much housing as the Proposed Project, a key consideration as Pacifica enters its next housing element cycle.

Proposed General Plan Benefits
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze “beneficial impacts” in an EIR. Rather, EIRs focus on potential “significant effects on the environment” defined to be “adverse” (Public Resources Code Section 21068). Nevertheless, decision makers may be aided by information about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Council’s decision to adopt the proposed General Plan rather than any of the alternatives is based on considering the balance of these benefits of the Plan against its identified unavoidable environmental impacts.

Each benefit of the proposed Project, as stated below, is determined to be a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified above. This Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the specific reasons supporting the Council’s actions in approving the proposed Plan. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the findings of fact and the project, the Council has considered the information contained in the Findings and in the documents comprising the record of proceedings for the project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) provides the following guidance for a statement of overriding considerations:

2.i
Packet Pg. 3587 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3493 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 19 of 32 ends

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” The results of the environmental analysis on the proposed Plan are discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the Findings. The Council reached the conclusions below pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The following statements describe the proposed Plan’s benefits considered by decision makers in determining whether to adopt the proposed Plan despite its potentially significant adverse environmental effects. The Council concludes that any one of the statements below is independently sufficient to justify approval of the project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits of the project can be found in public records on the General Plan update process, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings.

Statement 1: The Proposed Plan prioritizes open space preservation and expands Pacifica’s trail system. Pacifica’s hillsides, beaches, and other protected open space are prized by community members for their scenic, recreational, and habitat values. Continued preservation is seen as a key accomplishment over the next 20 years. The Plan identifies priorities for open space preservation and strategies to protect open space while allowing limited development, to be clustered and designed to fit into its natural setting. It also proposes an enhanced trail system connecting the coastline and ridges throughout Pacifica.

Statement 2: The Proposed Plan promotes sustainable development and practices. Pacifica residents want to allow a responsible amount of development while ensuring that habitat and the community’s unique, small-town character are protected. Residents also want to see green building and other sustainable practices promoted by the City. The Plan aims to set a good land use balance and to promote sustainable site planning and design, water conservation, waste reduction, and use of alternative transportation modes.

Statement 3: The Proposed Plan creates a destination for tourism. Throughout the update process, community members and stakeholders emphasized the need for more economic activity.

There is a widely shared sense that Pacifica has the potential to attract more tourists, and that this should be a key component of the City’s economic development strategy. The Plan includes strategies to enhance tourism by leveraging Pacifica’s natural assets, creating more attractive places in visitor-oriented districts, marketing, and pursuing destination hotels and inns at key sites, including Rockaway Beach and Quarry.

Statement 4: The Proposed Plan revitalizes shopping areas and produces walkable, mixed-use areas. Pacifica residents desire more attractive and successful commercial areas, and also envision the development of walkable, mixed-use areas with good transit access. The Plan seeks to support commercial revitalization and redevelopment at key locations, advancing the City’s fiscal health, its quality of life, and its sustainability all at once.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3588 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3494 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 20 of 32 ends

Statement 5: The Proposed Plan creates a unique, vital center for Pacifica. Many community members expressed interest in creating a center for Pacifica, to provide a community gathering place and strengthen the City’s identity. Palmetto Avenue was most often pointed to as having great potential to grow into such a vital, unique district. The Plan aims to facilitate the enhancement of Palmetto as a pedestrian-oriented retail area, anchored by new development at the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant site, linking the retail district to the Promenade and the Ocean. New civic facilities, such as a City Hall and a new Library/Learning Center, could be valuable assets to this area as well.

Statement 6: The Proposed Plan ensures diversity of housing and population. Only a small amount of new housing—about 990 units—is expected to be developed during the planning period. Residents are proud of the diversity of housing in the community, and want to ensure that this is carried on. In addition, many observed that new housing types should help provide additional options for residents as they age. The Plan aims to make Pacifica more accessible and ensure adequate housing options for people of all ages and incomes by providing enough sites at a higher density, and creating opportunities for mixed use development in transit-accessible locations.

Statement 7: The Proposed Plan provides recreational facilities and activities for youth.

Pacifica has limited recreation facilities, and community members expressed concern about the lack of things to do, especially for youth. The Plan identifies top priorities for recreation improvements, with an emphasis on improving park land that exists and providing some small new parks. Creating more accessible and vibrant commercial areas with a sense of place that appeals to visitors will also help make Pacifica a better place for young people.

Statement 8: The Proposed Plan improves existing infrastructure. The need for the City to maintain and improve streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure was a clear consensus point for the community. Most notable is the need to fix the bottleneck on Highway 1. The Plan supports ecoordination and solutions that ease traffic congestion for greatest benefit and least environmental impact as possible, seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and sets priorities for sidewalk and street repairs based on location and safety.

Statement 9: The Proposed Plan devises protective measures against natural hazards. Pacifica faces a variety of natural hazards, including fires, earthquake-induced landslides, flooding, and coastal erosion. The Plan establishes a land use pattern that reflects hazardous conditions, such as steep slopes and coastal bluffs, and includes policies to improve public safety services and emergency management. The need to respond over the long term to coastal erosion will be an ongoing challenge for the City.

These key goals and initiatives were developed through an extensive public outreach process that accompanied the General Plan, which engaged stakeholders, decision-makers, the General Plan Outreach Committee, and members of the general public in discussion and debate over priorities for Pacifica’s future. Members of the public as well as elected officials were consulted and engaged at each key decision point in the update process, ensuring that the proposed General Plan reflects the community’s priorities to the greatest extent possible. During this public process, the Council

2.i
Packet Pg. 3589 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3495 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 21 of 32 ends

examined alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update, none of which meet the stated project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project.

Overriding Considerations Conclusions
The Council finds that the proposed General Plan has been carefully reviewed and that mitigating policies have been included in the Final EIR to be certified by the Council. Nonetheless, the proposed General Plan may have certain environmental effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. As to these significant environmental effects that are not avoided or substantially lessened to a point less than significant, the Council finds that specific fiscal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make additional mitigation of those impacts infeasible, in that all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed General Plan.

The Council has carefully considered all of the environmental impacts that have not been mitigated to a less than significant level, as listed above. The Council has also carefully considered the fiscal, economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposed General Plan, as listed above, and compared these with the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, which were evaluated in the Final EIR. The Council has balanced the fiscal, economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposed Plan against its unavoidable and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, has determined that the benefits of the proposed General Plan outweigh, and therefore override, the remaining adverse environmental effects. Such benefits provide the substantive and legal basis for this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

In approving the proposed General Plan, the Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 in support of its findings on the Final EIR:

The Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council specifically finds and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The Council has carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed General Plan Update against any adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance, which are enumerated below. While the Council has required all feasible mitigation measures, such impacts remain significant for purposes of adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations:
 Impact 3.3-1 (Implementation of the proposed Pacifica General Plan would cause the rate of increase in VMT or vehicle trips to exceed the rate of increase in population with implementation of the Plan for the years covered by the proposed Plan (Significant and Unavoidable).

2.i
Packet Pg. 3590 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3496 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 22 of 32 ends

FINDINGS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These specific considerations have been analyzed in the context of the proposed General Plan and the project alternatives. Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council finds the proposed General Plan is critical in meeting the following key guiding policies relating to economic sustainability, community design, land use, circulation, open space and community facilities, conservation safety, and noise as follows:

Economic Sustainability
• Leverage Assets. Leverage Pacifica’s coastal location and unique assets as a primary means to strengthen the local economy, focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops, hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails. • Maintain Fiscal Sustainability. Foster a fiscally healthy City government and enlarge the City’s revenue base as necessary to sustain and support the community. • Promote a Positive Image. Promote a positive image of Pacifica as a desirable place to work, live, and visit.
• Support Existing Businesses. Retain and foster the growth of existing Pacifica businesses, and foster a positive relationship between the business community and the City government.
• Attract New Businesses and Jobs. Seek out new businesses that will employ and serve Pacifica residents, improving the City’s jobs/housing ratio. • Ensure Environmental Protection. Ensure that economic development in Pacifica proceeds synergistically with environmental protection.

Community Design
Urban Structure
• Identifiable City Structure. Reinforce a clear city structure, characterized by a progression of ridges, neighborhoods, and activity centers. • Distinct Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica.

Neighborhoods and Districts
• Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods.
• Enhanced Mixed Use Areas. Create distinctive mixed-use areas by ensuring good building form and building-sidewalk interface, and providing pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3591 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3497 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 23 of 32 ends

Hillside and Coastal Development
• Hillsides and Prominent Ridgelines. Maintain development standards that ensure that new development does not detract from the visual qualities of Pacifica’s hillsides and visually prominent ridgelines.
• 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.

Scenic Routes
• Views from Scenic Routes. Ensure that designated viewsheds from Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are preserved and enhanced. These views are an essential part of Pacifica’s identity.
• Gateways. Create strong entrances and preserve the quality of experience of movement along primary travel routes.

Land Use
Land Use Framework
• Coastal Development. Ensure that development maximizes beach and coastal open space access and is oriented as much as possible to each particular coastal environment in use, design, and intensity.
• Concentrated Development. Focus new development in or directly adjacent to alreadydeveloped areas, where it can be served by existing public services and where it will not have significant impacts on coastal or other resources. • Future Residential Development. Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony with the surrounding natural setting.
• Higher-Density Housing. Locate higher-density housing in accessible places close to community shopping areas.
• Commercial Area Revitalization. Facilitate the revitalization of shopping areas and the creation of distinct commercial districts in Pacifica, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.
• Compact Mixed Use Development. Facilitate compact mixed-use development on sites with good access to transit. Mixed-use development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or personal service businesses. • Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.
• Citizen Participation. Continue broad-based citizen participation in the planning process.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3592 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3498 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 24 of 32 ends

Circulation
Roadway Network and Planned Improvements
• Comprehensive Circulation System. Create a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system with streets and highways; transit facilities; a continuous network of sidewalks and bicycle routes.
• Serve All Users. Plan, design, build, and maintain transportation improvements to support safe and convenient access for all users with priority for “complete streets” projects that facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use wherever possible. • Safety. Make safety a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations. • Level of Service (LOS) for All Modes of Travel. Assess the performance of the transportation system by measuring how well pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles as well as automobiles are able to move within and through the community. • Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled by developing higher-density, mixed use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and improving transit options and efficiency.
• Context Sensitivity. Plan, design, and build transportation improvements so that they respect the surrounding environment.

Transportation improvements will be undertaken in consultation with local residents and businesses.
• Congestion on Highway 1. In consultation with Caltrans, seek solutions to ease the traffic congestion that occurs on Highway 1 near the Reina Del Mar, Fassler Avenue, and Linda Mar Boulevard intersections. Strive for the greatest benefit with the least environmental impact possible.
• Congestion on Hickey and Skyline. Improve travel to and from Pacifica’s northern neighborhoods by easing congestion on Hickey Boulevard through coordinated signalization or other changes, and working with the County to improve operations on SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard).
• Coordination of Local and Regional Actions. Coordinate local transportation planning and improvements with State, Regional and County agencies to ensure consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan, the Congestion Management Program, and other regional actions.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Establish trails, bike routes and pedestrian amenities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations, and fill in gaps in the existing network.
• Walkable Neighborhoods. Improve pedestrian amenities to create more walkable neighborhoods, especially in mixed-use activity centers and around schools.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3593 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3499 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 25 of 32 ends

• Recreational Access. Provide recreational access to coastal resources and public open space in keeping with Pacifica’s natural environment, with links to regional trails and bicycle corridors.

See Chapter 6 of the proposed General Plan for additional Trail System policies. • Mobility for All Users. Create a safe and attractive walking environment accessible for all users, particularly persons with disabilities, seniors, and younger residents and visitors. • Connections Across Highway 1. Enhance under- and over-crossings of Highway 1 for pedestrians and bikes to improve accessibility and connect neighborhoods to each other and to the coast.
• Coastal Trail and North-South Bikeway. Complete the Coastal Trail and the northsouth bikeway from the north to sound end of the City parallel to Highway 1, providing clear, safe and efficient means to traverse coastal Pacifica.

Public Transportation and Transportation Demand Management • Improved Public Transit. Advocate for SamTrans and other public transit providers to improve transit service and facilities, to enable trips to be made without use of a car. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Support TDM strategies to reduce congestion and single-occupant vehicle travel.

Truck Movement
• Truck Movement and Quality of Life. Balance commercial goods movement with the health and quality of life priorities of the community.

Parking
• Private Parking. Ensure adequate off-street parking in all new development. • Public and Visitor Parking. Facilitate beach and recreational use by providing safe and well-located public parking.
• Commuter Parking. Facilitate transit use by providing safe, well-located park-and-ride lots.

Open Space and Community Facilities
Parks, Beaches and Open Space
• Development of City Parks. Create and enhance neighborhood and pocket parks and plazas to provide access to local recreational space to all Pacifica residents. • Recreation Facilities. Enhance outdoor recreation facilities and services in local parks, in coordination with youth and adult leagues and community groups with priority given to sports fields and off-leash dog play areas.
• Community Gathering Place. Create or enhance one or more public plazas or central gathering places where all Pacifica residents come together. This place or places should be connected with concentrated, mixed use areas.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3594 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3500 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 26 of 32 ends

• School Playfields. Continue to cooperate with the school districts to make school play fields available for public use after school hours.
• Open Space Preservation. Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety.

The top priority areas for conservation are beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillsides areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and endangered species. See Figure 6-1 in the General Plan. • Coastal Areas Suited for Water-Oriented Recreation. Continue to protect coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities.

This policy applies to, but is not limited to, the following: fishing at Pacifica Pier, surfing and other water recreation at Pacifica State Beach.

Trail System
• Trail System Expansion. Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 6-3 of the General Plan.

Coastal Access
• Coastal Access and Recreational Opportunities. Provide maximum coastal access and recreational opportunities for all people consistent with public safety and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse, including access at each point identified on Figure 6-4 of the General Plan. • Management of Public Access. Provide public access in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner that access is provided, based on such factors as topographic and site constraints; the fragility of natural resources; and the privacy of adjacent residential uses.
• Distribution of Public Coastal Facilities. Continue to distribute public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, so as to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.

Schools and Community Facilities
• Optimize School Facilities. Coordinate with the school districts to ensure facilities are adequate, and to plan for reuse and redevelopment opportunities that help to meet goals of both the districts and the City.
• Public Facilities Improvements. Enhance public community facilities in Pacifica, with top priorities being a new library/learning center and a new City Hall or civic center. • Youth Activities. Create more facilities and activities for youth in Pacifica, especially teenagers, at locations accessible by bus and bicycle as well as by car. • Community Services. Continue to provide services to seniors and others in need, either directly or through support to other organizations.
• Cultural Facilities. Foster the expansion and creation of programs and facilities for the visual and performing arts and the study and appreciation of natural resources.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3595 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3501 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 27 of 32 ends

Conservation
Water Resources
• Water Quality. Support the improvement of Pacifica’s water quality, including both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration. • Watershed Management. Recognize the interrelated nature of Pacifica’s hydrology system, its watersheds, and development in the Planning Area, and protect water resources through comprehensive management of entire watersheds. • Maintain Creeks as a Resource. Ensure both access to and ecological functionality of the creek system in Pacifica.
• Water Conservation. Work with the NCCWD to meet water conservation objectives as required by State law.
• Wastewater Treatment. Ensure that the City maintains adequate capacity to handle wastewater, and continue to expand wastewater recycling. • Retain Natural Processes. Enable natural processes to occur on developed sites, and utilize these processes to enhance the built environment and users’ experiences of it.

Biological Resources
• Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat.

Habitat areas shall be identified as top priorities for permanent conservation, and as such habitat shall be protected by avoiding development or buildout to occur in areas of critical habitat for special status species. Additionally, public land shall be managed to ensure species protection. Critical Habitat in the Coastal Zone is considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).
• Coastal Environment and Sensitive Natural Communities. Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and other habitats for special status species, particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs. • Creeks and Riparian Areas. Protect year-round creeks and their riparian habitats.

San Pedro Creek has been designated an “impaired waterway” by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and provides critical habitat to a federally-listed threatened species, the California coast population of steelhead.
• Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.
• Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect High Value or High Habitat Value areas, Wildlife Movement Corridors and Coastal Commission-designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas from development.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3596 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3502 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 28 of 32 ends

Land and Soil Resources
• Preserve Agricultural Open Space. Promote the preservation of agricultural open space in the Planning Area.
• Protect Significant Mineral Resources. Cooperate with regional agencies to protect coastal sediment and significant mineral resources in the Planning Area.

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

Energy and Greenhouse Gases
• Renewable Energy. Support the use and development of renewable energy through City purchasing, and facilitation of local renewable energy generation. • Energy Conservation. Support efforts to reduce energy use by increasing energy efficiency in buildings and promoting awareness of energy use. • Waste Reduction. Seek to reduce overall solid waste by limiting packaging, controlling construction and demolition waste, and promoting composting and recycling.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
• Historic and Cultural Sites. Conserve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Pacifica’s identity and character and increase public awareness and appreciation them.
• Ensure Mitigation. Require mitigation for any new development that would adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources.

Safety
Seismic and Geologic Hazards
• Reduce Risk. Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.

Flooding and Drainage
• Development in Hazardous Areas. Protect new development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones with flood damage prevention programs. • Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Establish policies to minimize the risk to persons and property posed by potential sea level rise.

Hazardous Materials and Operations
• Contaminated Sites. Facilitate clean-up programs at contaminated sites, particularly on properties with the potential to develop or be reused for public purposes. • Safe Disposal. Continue to promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education and awareness.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3597 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3503 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 29 of 32 ends

Fire Hazards
• Fire Prevention. Protect Pacifica residents and businesses from potential wildland fire hazards.

Public Safety and Emergency Management
• Emergency Response. Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.
• Public Awareness. Support continuing public awareness of hazards, including avoidance, disaster preparedness, and emergency response procedures. • Disaster Preparation. Make infrastructure investments, enforce regulations, and disseminate information that will improve disaster response and recovery, with the goal of minimizing damage to people and property.

Noise
Noise Exposure Standards
• Coordination with Other Agencies. Continue to work with other agencies, airports and jurisdictions to reduce noise levels in Pacifica created by their operations. • Acceptable Noise Environment. Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the environmental, health and safety needs of present and future residents of Pacifica. • Sensitive Land Uses. Protect noise sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise.

This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Final EIR and the record of these proceedings. In addition, this Statement of Overriding Considerations applies to those impacts that have been substantially lessened but not necessarily lessened to a level of insignificance.

Based upon the goals and objectives identified in the proposed General Plan and the Final EIR, following extensive public participation and testimony, and notwithstanding the impacts that are identified in the Final EIR as being significant and potentially significant and which arguably may not be avoided, lessened, or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the Council, acting pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that specific economic, legal, social, environmental, technological, and other benefits and overriding considerations of the proposed General Plan sufficiently outweigh any remaining unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Update and that the proposed General Plan should be approved.

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Council further determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the proposed General Plan are acceptable, and that there are overriding considerations that support the Council’s approval of the proposed General Plan, as stated in the above sections.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3598 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3504 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 30 of 32 ends

The Council believes that it is prudent to select the proposed General Plan over the alternatives because it provides dramatic improvements over the continuation of the existing General Plan, and most closely embodies the project objectives. In making this determination, the Council incorporates by reference all of the supporting evidence cited within the Draft and Final EIR, and in the administrative record.

In reaching this conclusion and approving the proposed Plan:
• The Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council specifically finds and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
• The Council has carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed Plan against any adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. While the Council have required all feasible mitigation measures, some impacts remain potentially significant.

This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be potentially significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Final EIR and the record of these proceedings.

2.i
Packet Pg. 3599 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3505 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR

Page 31 of 32 ends

2.i
Packet Pg. 3600 Attachment: Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific

2.B
Packet Pg. 3506 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
for the

PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND SHARP PARK SPECIFIC PLAN SCH No. 2012022046
City of Pacifica
May 2022

2.j
Packet Pg. 3601 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3507 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan
2 This page intentionally left blank.

2.j
Packet Pg. 3602 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3508 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan
1 1 Purpose
State of California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1) requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City of Pacifica (the "City") is the lead agency for the combined Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan (SCH No. 2012022046), hereafter referred to as “Proposed Project,” and therefore is responsible for the adoption and implementation of the required mitigation monitoring and reporting program. An EIR has been prepared for the Proposed Project that addresses potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1). It is the intent of this program to:

1. Verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the EIR;

2. Provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation;

3. Provide a record of the monitoring program;

4. Identify monitoring responsibility;

5. Establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures;

6. Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and

7. Utilize existing review processes wherever feasible.

The MMRP describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the Proposed Plan and the methods of monitoring such actions. A monitoring program is necessary only for impacts which would be significant if not mitigated.

If, during the course of project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall immediately inform any affected responsible agencies.

The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the project is required, and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate.

The following consists of a monitoring program table noting the responsible entity for mitigation monitoring, the timing, and a list of all project-related mitigation measures.

2.j
Packet Pg. 3603 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3509 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan
2 This page intentionally left blank.

2.j
Packet Pg. 3604 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3510 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan 3 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impact Mitigation Measure Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility
for Verification
Verification
Complete
Date Initial
Energy and Greenhouse Gases

3.4-1: Implementation of
the Proposed Plan would
not generate GHG
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.

MM-GHG-1: For new residential and
commercial development, require
installation of the electric vehicle
recharging stations and other
alternative fuel vehicle support
infrastructure and adopt requirements
for electric vehicle parking in new
developments, consistent with Title 24
requirements, with the goal of
increasing electric vehicle ownership by
20%.

The City of
Pacifica Planning
Department will
review project
plans for
compliance and
the City will verify
compliance after
construction, prior
to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Plan check,
prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of
Pacifica
Planning
Department

3.4-1: Implementation of
the Proposed Plan would
not generate GHG
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.

Photovoltaic panel installation is
required for new low-rise residential
The City of
Pacifica Planning
Department will
review project
plans for
compliance and
the City will verify
compliance after
construction, prior
to issuance of
Plan check,
prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of
Pacifica
Planning
Department

2.j
Packet Pg. 3605 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3511 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan 4 Impact Mitigation Measure Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility
for Verification
Verification
Complete
Date Initial
buildings which include single-family
dwellings, and multi-family dwellings
with three habitable stories or less
pursuant to California Energy Code
section 150.1.c.14. Photovoltaic panel
installation is also required for new
nonresidential buildings with three
habitable stories or fewer, other than
health care facilities; hotel/motel
occupancies; and, high-rise multi-family
buildings with 10 habitable stories or
fewer, pursuant to a local amendment
to the California Energy Code codified
in PMC section 8-6.08.

Certificate of
Occupancy

3.4-1: Implementation of
the Proposed Plan would
not generate GHG
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.

MM-GHG-3: Develop and implement a
program to encourage the use of
available grants for residential and
commercial efficiency retrofits and
voluntary cool roofing practices in new
development with the goal of a 50
percent energy reduction compared to
baseline in 30 percent of the total
existing residential units and nonresidential square feet citywide by 2040. This measure is voluntary.

City Manager’s
Office
Planning
Department will
review project
plans for
compliance and
the City will verify
compliance after
construction, prior
to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy.

Plan check,
prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of
Pacifica
Planning
Department
Transportation
MM-TRA-1: Require applicants for nonresidential projects that employ 20 or more people—which is equivalent to
12,000 square feet of retail space,
Through
development
review process
Prior to
project
approval
City of
Pacifica
Planning
Department

2.j
Packet Pg. 3606 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3512 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility
for Verification
Verification
Complete
Date Initial
6,000 square feet of office space,
20,000 square feet of industrial space,
or 22 hotel rooms to implement an
employee commute trip reduction
(CTR) program. The CTR program shall
include information regarding these
programs. The program shall be readily
available to employees and clients and
participants shall implement at least
one of the following incentives for
commuters as part of the CTR program,
or another equally effective incentive:
• Ride-matching assistance
• Subsidized public transit passes
• Vanpool assistance or employerprovided vanpool/shuttle • Car-sharing program (e.g. Zipcar)
• Bicycle end-trip facilities, including
bike parking, lockers, and
showers.

3.2-2: Implementation of
the Proposed Project
would conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b).

Implementation of commute trip
reduction programs and remote work
options could reduce home-based work
VMT, home-based work VMT per
employee, and VMT per capita. This
measure is voluntary.

Submission of
documents by
participating
businesses
Upon receipt
of reports
submitted by
participating
businesses,
including
any reports
required to
be submitted
pursuant to
San Mateo
County
Congestion
City of
Pacifica
Planning
Department

2.j
Packet Pg. 3607 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3513 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan 6 Impact Mitigation Measure Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility
for Verification
Verification
Complete
Date Initial
Managemen
t Program
TDMs.

2.j
Packet Pg. 3608 Attachment: Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (5015 : General Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3514 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Matt Lanier < >
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2022 8:51 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; O'Connor, Bonny
Subject: Sharp Park specific plan comment
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hello‐
This is coming from Matt Lanier, owner and resident at 44 Carmel Ave, Pacifica.

PLEASE include 44 Carmel Ave within the High Density Residential Zone. We want to use our property as part of High Density infill, and don't want to be stuck with Low Density which is increasingly unaffordable to maintain.

Thank you‐
Matt Lanier
44 Carmel Ave, Pacifica, CA 94044
‐‐
Matt Lanier
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.k
Packet Pg. 3609 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3515 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1 Murdock, Christian
From: William.Leo Leon
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Public Comment; Pacifica Permit Tech; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg Cc: Murdock, Christian; Woodhouse, Kevin; Coffey, Sarah Subject: June 1, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing, Comment Letter and Attachments for GPU, DEIR, LCLUP Attachments: CCC Exhibit 5.pdf; CCC Exhibit 6.pdf; CCC Exhibit 7.pdf; CCC Exhibit 8.pdf; CCC Exhibit 9.pdf; CCC Exhibit 11.pdf; eMail Aug 16, 2021, William.Leo Leon.pdf; F16a-CCC CDP Report.pdf; Figure 3.7. 3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat.pdf; Figure 4.3_ESHA LCLUP.pdf; Figure 7. 3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat.pdf; My GPU-LCLUP Comment Letter 1.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]

Subject: Comment Letter and Attachments for GPU, DEIR, LCLUP DATE: May 24, 2022
To: Pacifica Planning Commissioners,
Dear Chair Berman and Planning Commissioners,
I have attached my Comment letter and the related files for the General Plan Update (GPU), Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), and Draft Environmental Report (DEIR).

I delivered the original of my comment letter and related files, on March 3, 2022, at the Pacifica Planning Department.

As a former Chair and Planning Commissioner member, I believe It is vital to the interests of the City of Pacifica that you read, ask questions and understand all the data and facts before you make a Recommendation or take action regarding our General Plan Update, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comment letter or the attachments.

Best Wishes,
William "Leo"Leon
Pacifica CA 94044
see files attached
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.k
Packet Pg. 3610 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3516 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE, PACIFICA

WETLAND DELINEATION
PREPARED FOR:

Shawn Rhodes
PREPARED BY:

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

Page 1 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3611 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3517 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3612 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3518 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

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

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

LIST OF TABLES

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

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

Page 3 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3613 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3519 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 1

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3614 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3520 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 2 In the city of Pacifica, construction projects within the coastal zone are regulated through the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). The City regulates construction projects through the LCLUP, to bring projects into conformance with the California Coastal Act of 1976.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3615 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3521 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 3

2. SETTING

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

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

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

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

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

Page 6 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3616 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3522 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 4 Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The property is zoned as commercial and is within the Pedro Point – Shelter Cove Land Use Plan Area, and is outside of any special areas delineated in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Pacifica, 1992). The site is a narrow, rectangular strip of land (755 feet long x 55 feet wide) and is bounded by San Pedro Road on the south, a drainage channel and open field on the west, a strip mall/shopping area to the east and a parking lot on the north. San Pedro Creek and the Pacific Ocean are located further to the north, and northwest of the parking lot. The surrounding area is single family residential homes and small businesses.

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

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

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

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

Page 7 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3617 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3523 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 5 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Page 8 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3618 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3524 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 6

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

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

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

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

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

Page 9 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3619 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3525 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 7

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

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

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

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

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

Page 10 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3620 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3526 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 11 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3621 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3527 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 9 The drainage channel was created most likely as an irrigation ditch for farming prior to the 1950’s. At some point later (in the 1960’s possibly), the City of Pacifica constructed a sewer pipe that runs below the open channel for most of the channel’s length. Two sewer manholes are located in the channel bottom. During rain events, urban stormwater runoff from the local community of Pedro Point flows into the channel which then empties through a culvert into San Pedro Creek to the north side of the property.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Page 12 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3622 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3528 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 13 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3623 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3529 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 11 (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
a. which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
b. or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
c. or which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4); (6) Territorial seas; and
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (1) through (6).

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

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

Page 14 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3624 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3530 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 12 Wetland Hydrology: The USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual describes wetland hydrology as “all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively.”
Navigable Waters of the United States: Title 33, Chapter II, Part 329.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines navigable waters of the U.S. as “those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for us to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.” For the purposes of a USACE jurisdictional determination, navigable waters of the United States are considered Traditionally Navigable Waters.

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

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

Page 15 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3625 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3531 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 13 predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year" (Cowardin, 1979).

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

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

3.2 REGULATORY SETTING

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

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

Page 16 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3626 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3532 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 14 The project site is within the Pedro Point/ Shelter Cove Land Use Plan area, and is not located within a designated environmentally sensitive wetland area (LCLUP 1992). However, in the Plan Conclusions section, under Development Near Wetlands and Creeks; the LCLUP states:
“Riparian vegetation along all intermittent and year-round creeks shall be protected, enhanced and restored where feasible, and buffer zones required.”; And; “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”

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

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

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

Page 17 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3627 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3533 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 15 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that any discharges will be in compliance with California’s water quality standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 18 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3628 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3534 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 16 plants observed in the study area. Wetland indicator status refers to the probability that a plant will occur within a wetland or upland area. The indicator status categories are defined as follows:
• Obligate (OBL): almost always occurs in wetlands
• Facultative wetland (FACW): usually occurs in wetlands, sometimes may occur in uplands
• Facultative (FAC): equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands • Facultative upland (FACU): usually occurs in uplands but may occasionally occur in wetlands
• Obligate upland (UPL): almost never occurs in wetlands • No indicator (NI)/ No status (NS): no indicator or status assigned due to lack of information
The presence of hydrophytic vegetation data was then determined using the dominance test and prevalence index described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Western Mountains Regional Supplement.

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

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

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

Page 19 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3629 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3535 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 17

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

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

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

Vegetation units were mapped based upon the dominant species.

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

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

Page 20 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3630 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3536 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 18

4. RESULTS

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

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

TABLE 1: TOTAL ACREAGE OF WETLAND AREAS WITHIN STUDY AREA Wetland Type Federal State
Area (acres) Area (sq ft) Area (acres) Area (sq ft)
Arroyo Willow Wetland
AW-1 0.025 1109.560 0.096 4193.311
Perennial Rye Grass Wetland
PR-1 0.010 437.146 0.001 35.026
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
BM-1 0.003 116.769 0.003 120.651
Smartweed Wetland
SW-1 0.012 508.292 0.004 161.820
SW-2 0.019 833.803
SW-3 0.019 844.048 0.022 963.699
subtotal 0.050 2186.143 0.026 1125.519
Ephemeral Channel
FC-1 0.106 4605.914
Wetted Channel
WC-1 0.017 722.949
Total 0.088 3849.618 0.248 10803.370
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Page 21 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3631 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3537 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to FC-1
A1
A2
A4A3
AW-1
SW-3
SW-2
SW-1
WC-1
PR-1
BM-1
Figure 2: Federal and State Wetlands
Legend
Site Parcel Boundary
Delineation Point
Waters of the State/State Wetland
Wetted Channel
Federal Wetlands
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Perennial Rye Grass Fields
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Smartweed Patch
State Wetlands
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Perennial Rye Grass Fields
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Smartweed Patch
Flow Channel
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, CA
0 20 40 80 120 160
Feet
±
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Page 22 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3632 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3538 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 20

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

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

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

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

Page 23 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3633 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3539 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 21 The entire portion of the channel exhibiting hydrology features was mapped and designated as FC-1. This area qualifies as a state wetland due to hydrology and soil indicators, but vegetation is either lacking or composed of upland plant species in many places. Areas where the hydrophytic vegetation is dominant within the channel satisfy the criteria for federal wetlands.

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

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

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

Page 24 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3634 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3540 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 22 The project as proposed would create a retaining wall and public access easement (pedestrian trail) along the western property boundary, and the following setbacks from the wetlands are shown in Table 2.

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

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

Page 25 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3635 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3541 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 23 Any economic use of the subject property would result in a reduction of the recommended 100- foot buffer because of the proximity of any development on the property to wetland habitat. The CCC has permitted more intensive uses that resulted in direct impacts to sensitive coastal resources, consistent with the mandate of Coastal Act § 30010 that prevents taking of private property without compensation (see CCC Appeal Numbers A-2-SMC-11-040 & A-2-SMC-11- 041)2 concerning a controversial project near Half Moon Bay that was ultimately approved). 2 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/12/W18a-12-2013.pdf 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Page 26 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3636 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3542 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 24

5. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES

5.1 REPORT PREPARATION
Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC
1410 31st Ave
San Francisco, CA 94122
(415) 404-6757
Field work and report preparation were completed by Patrick Kobernus (Senior Biologist) and Greg Pfau (Associate Biologist).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 27 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3637 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3543 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 25 Lichvar, R.W, D. L. Banks, W. N. Kirchner and N. C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Available online at http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/# . Accessed on September 17, 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 28 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3638 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3544 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation Page A-1

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

Page 29 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3639 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3545 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: NorCal Surf Shop City/County: Pacifica, SMC Sampling Date: 10/21/2019 Applicant/Owner: Shawn Rhodes State: CA Sampling Point: A1 Investigator(s): Patrick Kobernus Section, Township, Range:

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

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

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

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

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

1. 2.

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

1. Ligustrum ovilifolium 20 Y -NS2.

3. 4.

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

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

3. Urtica dioica 5 N FAC

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

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

1. Rubus ursinus 50 Y FACU

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

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

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

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

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

Page 30 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3640 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3546 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 5YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

Page 31 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3641 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3547 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: NorCal Surf Shop City/County: Pacifica, SMC Sampling Date: 10/21/2019 Applicant/Owner: Shawn Rhodes State: CA Sampling Point: A2 Investigator(s): Patrick Kobernus Section, Township, Range:

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

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

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

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

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

1. 2.

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

1. 2.

3. 4.

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

1. Persicaria amphibia 35 Y OBL

2. Rubus crispus 55 Y FAC

3. Scirpus microcarpus 5 N OBL

4. Potentilla anserina 5 N OBL

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

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

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

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

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

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

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

Page 32 of 46 ends

2.k
Packet Pg. 3642 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan

2.B
Packet Pg. 3548 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/1 100
Sandy clay
loam
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

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

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

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

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

Remarks:
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5

Page 33 of 46 ends

Pacifica City CouncilJuly 11, 2022

Pacifica City Council
July 11, 2022