Agenda, special meeting — Pacifica City Council, July 11, 2022 (part 40 of 45)

However, the timing of individual development applications is difficult for the City to predict, and it is thereby difficult to establish a specific timeline and quantification for goal achievement.

The main ways the City will prioritize in-fill development is by encouraging developers to intensify already developed sites with residential units above ground floor commercial spaces; by encouraging developers to develop vacant lots interspersed among developed sites, ensuring housing wherever possible; and, if the pace of development was to increase during the planning period, by ranking higher in the Growth Management Ordinance scoring process those developments planned for in-fill.
ii. Provide an Encouraging Environment for Construction of Second Units City staff shall encourage and foster construction of second units when interacting with property owners and development professionals. Staff shall strive to find solutions to challenging development standards and to provide a clear explanation of necessary permit approvals required to construct a second unit, including estimated time frames and costs.

It is not possible to assess the number of second units that will be developed in the City. The amount of such development will depend on a variety of factors including the size of individual properties, the placement and design of structures on individual sites, and neighborhood acceptance. The Second Unit Ordinance is discussed further under Action Program No. 11.

Specific Action - Discuss this option with individual property owners.

Explain and encourage the development of second units
where feasible.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
This policy was Action Program No. 10 in the 2007 Housing Element. It had a continuous time frame for implementation, and is more appropriate as an ongoing policy. Since 1982, when the

1.g
Packet Pg. 3012 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6773 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
94 City of Pacifica passed a Second Residential Unit Ordinance, it has permitted construction of second units on single family properties. It is still confusing and intimidating for many property owners to consider construction of a second unit, however. Planning and Building Division staff shall reduce barriers to second unit construction whenever possible. iii. Identify Opportunities to Include Housing Incentives in Development Applications Despite the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California, the City still has tools and programs available to encourage development of housing affordable to those with extremely low, very low, and low incomes. These include the inclusion of Section 8 units in new developments; granting additional density and relaxing development standards under the Density Bonus Ordinance; requiring affordable housing through the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance; allowing manufactured housing in residential zones; and, ensuring sufficient zoning for mixed-use development. City staff will seek all opportunities to encourage affordable housing development using these tools and others.

Specific Action - Train staff on available housing tools. - Require staff to identify opportunities to explain
affordable housing incentives to prospective developers.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
iv. Assist Affordable Housing Developers with Preparation of Funding and Development Applications
The City can assist with affordable housing development by providing nonfinancial support.

City staff can provide assistance with affordable housing developer applications for government and nonprofit funding by serving as co-applicant or by endorsing applications. Staff can also assist developers to submit more complete planning applications by scheduling no-cost preapplication meetings to discuss City requirements and processes. More complete applications can undergo the City review process more quickly, thus saving time and money, and resulting in faster construction of affordable housing units.

Specific Action - Co-apply or endorse funding applications. - Provide no-cost pre-application meetings for affordable housing projects.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
v. Require a Geotechnical Site Investigation Prior to Permitting Site Development Some potential building sites in Pacifica have unknown geological hazards that only a geotechnical site investigation can uncover. The potential of these hazards to threaten newly developed housing units warrants a careful investigation of each proposed housing site prior to

1.g
Packet Pg. 3013 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6774 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
95 granting development approvals. In most cases, appropriate structural engineering can allow a development project to proceed. However, in extreme cases, identifying geotechnical hazards will allow the City to prohibit development in hazardous areas, including flood zones.

Specific Action - Require geotechnical reports for all development applications where a property may be susceptible to
hazardous impacts.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division, Building Division, Public Works Department
This policy was Action Program No. 19 in the 2007 Housing Element. It had a continuous time frame for implementation, and is more appropriate as an ongoing policy. The City has implemented expanded requirements for geotechnical investigation since 1999, and strictly applies the requirements.
vi. Reference the Open Space Task Force Report When Evaluating Development Proposals for Sites Identified in the Report
Open space preservation is an important community priority. In 1988, the City Council accepted a report prepared by the Open Space Task Force, a group comprised of Pacifica residents interested in protecting undeveloped lands within the City (the report was updated in 2000). While not regulatory in nature, the Open Space Task Force Report identifies sites within Pacifica where proposed development should receive enhanced review. The purpose of the enhanced review is to consider ways to achieve the goals of a developer while preserving the natural aesthetic of a site whenever possible.

Specific Action - Refer to the Open Space Task Force Report when reviewing residential development applications.

Encourage developers to retain natural features of
development sites whenever possible.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
This policy was Action Program No. 14 in the 2007 Housing Element. It had a continuous time frame for implementation, and is more appropriate as an ongoing policy. The City will implement this ongoing policy as part of a broader framework of General Plan objectives and policies and Municipal Code ordinances that address development of open space areas. vii. Encourage development of a shared living community (co-housing) in an appropriate location to provide diversity in housing opportunities.

The City has included this action program in at least its previous two housing elements (covering 20 years or more). During this time, no shared living/co-housing communities have been developed in Pacifica. However, the Planning Commission and some members of the community believe this remains an important type of development that the City should

1.g
Packet Pg. 3014 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6775 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
96 encourage. The City’s existing Zoning Code could accommodate such a development if proposed.

Specific Action - Discuss the potential for development of a co-housing project with owners, prospective developers, and
organizations specializing in shared living
communities. Encourage applications in appropriate
locations.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
This policy was Action Program No. 17 in the 2007 Housing Element. It had a continuous time frame for implementation, and is more appropriate as an ongoing policy.

5. Housing Maintenance
A majority of residents in Pacifica live in high-quality, safe housing. The City strives to keep the good condition of the housing stock by promoting property maintenance. It is far less expensive to maintain housing units than it is to build new housing or to renovate substantially deteriorated housing.

Therefore, maintenance is an essential aspect to providing adequate, affordable housing. However, there are housing units in Pacifica that require rehabilitation. The City’s Building Official estimates that approximately 3 to 5 percent of all units within the City need rehabilitation.

A. Policies, Programs and Objectives to Maintain Housing

POLICIES - ENCOURAGE UPGRADES TO AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING HOUSING UNITS;
- IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS;
(Continued on Next Page)

1.g
Packet Pg. 3015 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6776 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
97 Action Program No. 1
Advertise available grant and loan funding for lower income property owners to rehabilitate substandard housing units.

Specific Action - Display program literature at the Planning Department counter and website. - Distribute program literature to potential participants identified during housing-related inspections.

Responsible Agency - Building Division; Code Enforcement Division; San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Division
Financing - Community Development Block Grants, California Housing Finance Agency, Federal Housing Authority
2007 Objectives - Continue to assist the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Division with advertisement of their programs on the City's web site and by distributing literature from the County at the Planning Department, Sharp Park Library, Sanchez Library, Pacifica Resource Center, City Community Center, and other public locations while decreasing the 18 unit per year rehabilitation goal to 2 units per year. In addition, the City will explore the feasibility of applying for housing rehabilitation funds.

Accomplishments - Distributed more than 75 program brochures throughout all City facilities. - The San Mateo County Housing Authority Rehabilitation Program rehabilitated 37 Pacifica housing units between 2007-2014 with approximately $105,000 in funding.
2015 Objectives - The City has observed little interest from residents to apply for housing rehabilitation loans. Additionally, County program staff has indicated that budget reductions have impacted its ability to administer the program, resulting in a lower program capacity to assist Pacifica residents. The City will, however, continue to market the County’s rehabilitation program to provide the opportunity to apply to any interested residents. The City will strive to refer enough residents to ensure two residents will successfully apply for the program each year.

Time Frame - 1/31/2015 through 12/31/2015: Two applicants - 1/1/2016 through 12/31/2016: Two applicants
- 1/1/2017 through 12/31/2017: Two applicants
- 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2018: Two applicants
- 1/1/2019 through 12/31/2019: Two applicants
- 1/1/2020 through 12/31/2020: Two applicants
- 1/1/2021 through 12/31/2021: Two applicants
- 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2023: Two applicants

1.g
Packet Pg. 3016 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6777 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
98 Action Program No. 2 (formerly Action Program No. 4A in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Reduce potential loss of life and property damage from earthquakes by requiring seismic upgrades (structural strengthening and hazard mitigation) to unsafe buildings, which includes unreinforcedmasonry buildings and soft-story buildings (those with ground floors having a lateral stiffness significantly less than that of the stories above).

Specific Action - Consider development of a mandatory seismic upgrade ordinance. - Develop long-term funding sources to assist property owners with the expenses of upgrading housing units.

Responsible Agency - Building Division
Financing - City funds; Grant funding from federal or state agencies, or nonprofit organizations.
2007 Objectives - Develop funding sources to minimize the financial impact of retrofits on lowand moderate-income residents.

Accomplishments - The City has not enacted a mandatory seismic upgrade ordinance. Therefore, it has not developed a funding program to implement an ordinance. The City continues to consider whether such an ordinance and funding program are feasible. In the meantime, property owners may perform seismic upgrades on a voluntary basis and obtain private financing for the work. Since 2007, zero property owners have performed voluntary seismic upgrades. 2015 Objectives - Continue to distribute program literature. - Successfully refer five households per year.

Time Frame - 12/31/2016: Determine whether development of a mandatory seismic upgrade ordinance and sourcing of sufficient funding to implement upgrades are feasible.
- 12/31/2017: If feasible, complete enactment of ordinance and implementation of seismic upgrade funding program(s).

1.g
Packet Pg. 3017 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6778 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
99 6. Housing Preservation
Development of rental housing affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes in Pacifica has lagged behind demand for affordable units for many years. Therefore, preservation of existing affordable units is essential to meeting affordable housing demands. The loss of any affordable units due to preventable circumstances would exacerbate the housing affordability problem in Pacifica.

A continued supply of affordable rental housing is important to meet the housing needs of Pacifica's population.

Rental housing, dedicated housing for lower income persons, seniors, and persons with disabilities, as well as mobile homes all provide vital affordable housing. The City has many market rate apartment developments, several dedicated senior housing developments, and a 93-unit mobile home park. All of these units are essential to a mixed, affordable housing stock. Yet, units of this sort are particularly threatened by potential decisions of property owners to pursue market rate returns. Apartment owners could pursue conversion to condominiums to generate immediate capital from the long-term value of their properties. Owners of subsidized developments could choose to terminate their participation in the programs, triggering a chain of events leading to displacement of long-time low-income tenants.

Additionally, the mobile home park operator could seek to develop other housing types at the site, causing the relocation of low-income tenants with existing support systems in place in the community.

There are three main ways to preserve existing rental housing affordable persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes in Pacifica: a) to monitor rental units developed with a density bonus or other development concessions; b) to regulate conversions of rental housing to condominiums; and, c) to monitor long-term plans for the mobile home park operator. The Density Bonus Ordinance permits certain housing projects (see Section 7.D.ii) to exceed the maximum density designation for a site and also to develop the site with relaxed standards. The City grants these allowances subject to the continued affordability of units for a defined period of time. The City must monitor housing units to ensure property owners are operating the sites in conformance with their development approvals.

Conversions of apartments to condominiums can also result in significant losses of rental housing when market conditions are suitable for conversion. When conversions occur, many renter occupants are unable to obtain financing necessary to purchase their units, which can lead to their displacement. The City has enacted an ordinance regulating condominium conversions, and limits conversions to a defined set of circumstances.

The Land Use Element recognizes the importance of preserving the mobile home park. Accordingly, the City adopted an ordinance in 1990 which regulates conversion of mobile home parks to other uses.

The ordinance provides procedures and standards for closure of the mobile home park to mitigate adverse impacts of displacement of existing residents while providing economically viable and reasonable use of the land.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3018 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6779 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
100
A. Preservation of Housing Affordability

POLICY - PREVENT THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE

HOUSING UNITS TO LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES
Action Program No. 3
Develop programs to help preserve the "at risk" units at Casa Pacifica senior housing complex.

Specific Actions - Contact the Casa Pacifica owner to inquire about ongoing intentions to continue participation in the Section 8 program. The property owner is currently bound by a five year program participation agreement. Any decision to end program participation would require a notice by1/31/2019. - Respond to any notice of intent required by Government Code Section 65863.10 or federal law, and send copies of any notice received to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). - Upon any indication of owner intent to end Section 8 program participation, partner with HCD and other county, state, federal, and nonprofit partners to assess potential impacts and to formulate a strategy to mitigate any negative impacts on apartment residents.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - The 2007 Housing Element did not contain clear objectives related to this goal.

The intent of the action program was to preserve affordability of the Casa Pacifica Apartments.

Accomplishments - Casa Pacifica Apartments continued its participation in the Section 8 subsidy program throughout the 2007-2014 planning period.
2015 Objectives - Monitor Casa Pacifica Apartments for any indication of intent to cease participation in the Section 8 program. Formulate a comprehensive response with affordable housing partners to any notice of intent to cease Section 8 participation.

Time Frame - 12/31/2018: Contact property owner to inquire about long-term intentions for the site. Due to the length of the current participation agreement (1/31/2015 through 1/31/2020), a single inquiry will suffice during the planning period.

Additional Discussion: The 2007 Housing Element contemplated a variety of potential responses to a notice to cease participation in the Section 8 program at Casa Pacifica Apartments. Those responses follow, for future reference:

1.g
Packet Pg. 3019 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6780 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
101
- Help finance project buyout by nonprofits or other public entities through equity or gap financing, advancing purchase-option funds, carrying of second mortgages, interest write-downs, issuance of tax-exempt bonds for financing acquisition or rent reductions.
- Help finance project buyout by nonprofits or other public entities through equity or gap financing, advancing purchase-option funds, carrying of second mortgages, interest write-downs, issuance of tax-exempt bonds for financing acquisition or rent reductions.
- Provide grants and/or low interest or forgivable loans to potential purchasers to finance preliminary feasibility studies of acquisition. - Provide financial relocation benefits for households dislocated from units with terminating affordability controls.
- Provide grants to create tenant management groups and/or local nonprofits capable of acquiring and managing the project.
- Where public acquisition on a permanent basis is not feasible, assist a public entity or nonprofit in purchasing the project on a temporary basis until a qualified long term owner can be found.
- Provide rent subsidies to ensure continued affordability by lower income tenants.
- Assess a conversion "impact fee" or "in-lieu contribution" for projects that convert to market rate rents.
- Adopt conversion protections, e.g., develop stricter condominium standards, require one-for-one replacement of units converted to market rate rents, where not preempted by State or Federal law.
- Enact some form of rent control, unless preempted by State or Federal law. - Require owners of "at-risk" units to provide relocation assistance for displaced tenants where not already required by federal, state, or local statute. - At such time as the project owners file a notice of intent, provide tenant and community education by involving affected constituencies in assessing the preservation problem, and provide information required for legally valid notices of intent and Plans of Action (POA) submitted by project owners, through local workshops. Include Casa Pacifica owners whenever possible. - Submit comments on a proposed POA for the Casa Pacifica Apartments and communicate the City's concerns to HUD throughout the application process.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3020 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6781 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
102
Advise tenants of the Casa Pacifica Apartments immediately upon receipt of a POA. Also, upon receipt of a POA, hold a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.10.

Action Program No. 4
Encourage preservation of the existing mobile home park as an important source of low- and moderateincome housing.

Specific Actions - Contact mobile home park operator to inquire about ongoing intentions to maintain the use. The City has an established relationship with the operator of the 93-unit Pacific Skies Estates mobile home park on Palmetto Avenue. The operator recently made substantial investments into park improvements, and has stated its intention to operate the mobile home park on a long-term basis. - Maintain in effect the mobile home park conversion ordinance (Ordinance No. 550-C.S.) and monitor the city’s only mobile home park for any indications of a potential conversion.
- Upon any indication of park operator intent to pursue site conversion, administer and enforce Ordinance No. 550-C.S. to regulate conversion of mobile home parks to other uses without relocation assistance to tenants and other mitigation measures.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - Continue preservation of the existing 93 mobile home units.

Accomplishments - The mobile home park is still in operation, providing a valuable source of housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. There were no applications for conversion of the mobile home park during the 2007-2014 planning period.
2015 Objectives - Monitor mobile home park operator’s long-term intentions for the site, encouraging maintenance of the mobile home park use. Administer Ordinance No. 550-C.S. if necessary. Unless development of additional mobile home parks occurs during the planning period, the maximum performance related to this policy would be one mobile home park conversion.

Time Frame - By 12/31 in 2017 and 2020: Contact property owner to inquire about longterm intentions for the site.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3021 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6782 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
103
Action Program No. 5
Ensure proper marketing of housing affordability programs and groups by partner agencies, including the Reverse Annuity Mortgage (RAM) program, Human Investment Project (H.I.P.) Homesharing Program, Lease-Purchase Program, emergency shelters, Project Sentinel, and Center for the Independence of the Disabled. These programs and organizations assist lower income persons, seniors, and persons with disabilities to stay in their homes. Project Sentinel specifically, and other organizations generally, will provide fair housing services to the City’s residents and property owners.

Services may include:
- Distributing educational materials to property owners, apartment managers, and tenants.
- Conducting public presentations with different community groups. - Responding to complaints of discrimination (e.g. complaint intake, investigation, and resolution).
- Referring services to appropriate agencies.

Specific Action - Periodically train City staff with frequent public interactions on available resources.
- Periodically contact partner agencies to verify referrals and cross-referrals are ongoing.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division; Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - One (1) home per year
Accomplishments - Despite repeated attempts, staff was unable to obtain performance data indicating the number of Pacifica residents enrolled in the RAM program and participating in the H.I.P Homesharing program.
2015 Objectives - Pacifica will change the focus of this goal to staff training and encouragement of partner organizations. City staff will train other staff on available housing referral resources, and will contact partner agencies to determine the level of service they are providing to Pacifica residents. The City has no control over the quantity of persons served by the referral programs, but can monitor the level of service being provided to residents.

Time Frame - Bi-annually by 12/31 in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021: Conduct training of Planning Division, Code Enforcement Division, and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation staff regarding available housing referral programs, services, and agencies.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3022 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6783 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
104
- Bi-annually by 12/31 in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021: Contact partner agencies to verify whether they continue to make referrals and cross-referrals to other assistance agencies.

The following is a summary of the above-mentioned housing referral programs and organizations:

The Reverse Annuity Mortgage (RAM) Program
This program allows people over 62 to borrow from their home equity at a fixed interest rate for up to 10-12 years. To qualify, RAM loan recipients must live in their homes and have little or no mortgage balance. The loans allow homeowners to live in their homes, and convert equity into income.

Human Investment Project (H.I.P.) Homesharing Program
H.I.P – funded through private and public sources – matches homeowners seeking housemates with tenants seeking housing. Income provided to senior and single-parent homeowners from renting a room in their home can help them to afford monthly housing payments. The H.I.P. program identifies and screens potential tenants for program participants. Although not explicitly limited by income, the program focuses on assisting lower income individuals.

Lease-Purchase Program
The California Home Source Lease-Purchase Home Ownership Program is a new tool for cities, counties, and other government agencies in the Bay Area to help their constituents achieve home ownership. The program helps individuals and families overcome the cash and credit barriers they often face when attempting to purchase a home. California Home Source is a service of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corporations. The program provides down payment and closing costs assistance to help working individuals and families with credit problems.

Project Sentinel
A program that advances fair housing by investigating complaints of discrimination in housing due to race, religion, marital status, sex or national origin.

Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities An organization that provides services to persons with disabilities, including housing rehabilitation assistance and accessibility modifications.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3023 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6784 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
105
Action Program No. 6
Create a reasonable accommodation program and procedures to allow deviations from zoning standards for projects that improve access for persons with disabilities.

Specific Action - Adopt an ordinance with a reasonable accommodation program and procedures.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objective - None. New program in 2015 Housing Element.

Accomplishments - None. New program in 2015 Housing Element.

2015 Objectives - Adopt an ordinance by the end of 2016.

Time Frame - 12/31/2016: Enact Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3024 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6785 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
106

7. Housing Improvement
There are many expenses associated with owning housing. Whether one owns a single-family home or a multi-family apartment complex, the challenges of paying monthly loans, annual taxes and insurance can leave few resources remaining to maintain the property. After extended neglect, many properties decline in exterior appearance and interior functionality. Neighborhood aesthetics and character can suffer as disinvestment by a single property owner can encourage disinvestment by others. Inside housing units, deterioration can lead to violations of building, health, and safety codes, creating substandard housing conditions.

Property owners, especially those with lower incomes, can feel trapped by declining properties. Unable to afford less expensive maintenance activities, many remain unable to afford costly repairs stemming from neglect. The result is the continued decline of distressed properties until they detract from neighborhood character and are unsuitable for habitation. Proactive measures are necessary to restore declining housing stock to a safe and attractive condition. To the maximum extent feasible, the City shall seek to leverage its own investments and available funding from external partners to improve the quality of its housing stock and neighborhoods. Energy conservation also can play an important role in improving housing. Less energy consumption means lower monthly utility bills, saving property owners money each month and allowing them to direct some of the savings towards improving their housing.

A. Policies, Objectives, and Programs to Improve Housing

POLICIES - ENCOURAGE CODE COMPLIANCE THROUGH PROACTIVE
ENGAGEMENT, EDUCATION, AND ENFORCEMENT;

- LEVERAGE CITY INVESTMENTS TO IMPROVE THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS;
- ENHANCE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY THROUGH ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND OTHER STRATEGIES.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3025 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6786 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
107
Action Program No. 7
Emphasize housing rehabilitation to forestall decline in the housing stock. Utilize government subsidies including Section 8 or other rental assistance programs to enhance owner affordability. Use the Code Enforcement process to refer owners to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for housing rehabilitation.

Specific Action - Distribute program literature to property owners contacted during deteriorated housing-related inspections.
- Include rehabilitation program information on the City’s website.

Responsible Agencies - Building Division; Code Enforcement Division; San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Division
Financing - Community Development Block Grants, California Housing Finance Agency, Federal Housing Authority
2007 Objective - Pacifica's goal is to increase awareness of the San Mateo County Department of Housing and Community Development's housing rehabilitation programs through more aggressive advertising on the City's web site and through the distribution of brochures at the City Hall (annex), Sharp Park Library, Sanchez Library, Pacifica Resource Center, community center and other public locations. Pacifica will modify its Action Program goal from 34 rehabilitated units per year to 10 units per year - 2 low-income rental units and 8 lowincome owner occupied units.

Accomplishments - The San Mateo County Housing Authority Rehabilitation Program rehabilitated 37 Pacifica housing units between 2007-2014.

2015 Objectives - Distribute rehabilitation and housing affordability program information to 300 property owners during building code or property maintenance code interactions with City inspectors. Building Division and Code Enforcement staff responded to 298 housing-related complaints between 2007-2014 (42 per year), and the City estimates the figure will remain consistent during the planning period.

Time Frame - 1/31/2015 through 12/31/2015: Three referrals - 1/1/2016 through 12/31/2016: Four referrals
- 1/1/2017 through 12/31/2017: Four referrals
- 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2018: Four referrals
- 1/1/2019 through 12/31/2019: Four referrals
- 1/1/2020 through 12/31/2020: Four referrals
- 1/1/2021 through 12/31/2021: Four referrals
- 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2023: Five referrals

1.g
Packet Pg. 3026 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6787 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
108
Action Program No.8 (formerly Action Program No. 7A in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Establish an incentive program for voluntary housing rehabilitation.

Specific Action - Review each development application for opportunities to improve community infrastructure and aesthetics. Pursue all available funding sources to upgrade and enhance infrastructure and public property/right-of-way aesthetics with improvements to streets, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, sewer laterals, and other infrastructure.

Responsible Agencies - Department of Public Works; Planning Division Financing - Property owner funds; City funds
2007 Objectives - The City shall support voluntary housing rehabilitation by upgrading streets, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, sewer laterals, etc. Information will be provided to developers and homeowners on the City's web site by early-2011.

Accomplishments - In 2008, the City developed a Palmetto Avenue streetscape improvement plan to underground utilities and improve the sidewalks, roadway, and landscaping between Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road. The plan has multiple phases and timing of improvements is funding dependent. The City continues to seek funding to proceed with Phase I (Utility Undergrounding). Once completed, the project will mark a significantly improved aesthetic environment along Palmetto Avenue and should spur additional private investment in real estate improvements.
- The City Council in December 2011 enacted Ordinance No. 784-C.S. requiring inspection of sewer laterals concurrent with transfer of title to property, certain renovations, and in several other instances. Property owners must improve sewer laterals to reduce the likelihood of blockage or failure when inspections identify blockages or other substandard conditions. Since enactment, the Ordinance has led to nearly 1,000 sewer lateral inspections, of which almost two-thirds resulted in upgrades.
- The City Council took another infrastructure-related action in November 2012 with adoption of a resolution calling for complete streets throughout Pacifica. The resolution approved a new administrative policy emphasizing a connective street network and consideration of all modes of travel. Since adoption, City staff has conditioned seven development approvals to require installation of sidewalks and other pedestrian- and bicyclist-oriented improvements.
2015 Objectives - Continue implementation of Complete Streets policies. Condition all development approvals to require improvements infrastructure and multimodal connectivity. Pursue funding to implement Phase I of the Palmetto streetscape improvements and planning for subsequent phases.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3027 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6788 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
109
Time Frame - 1/31/2015 through 1/31/2023: Condition 80 projects (10 per year) requiring Complete Streets improvements.
- 12/31/2018: Secure sufficient funding to initiate Phase I improvements under the Palmetto streetscape improvement plan. Enhance the neighborhood quality of the 92 housing units in the vicinity of the streetscape improvements.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3028 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6789 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
110
Action Program No. 9 (formerly Action Program No. 4 in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Promote Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Company’s "Energy Savings Assistance Program." The program is free and helps income-qualifying homeowners and renters make vital energy saving improvements to their homes, including weatherstripping, caulking, insulation, minor home repairs, compact fluorescent bulbs, and appliance replacement.

Specific Action - Display program literature at the Planning Department counter and Planning Department website.
- Distribute program literature to potential participants identified during housing-related inspections.

Responsible Agency - Building Division; Planning Division; PG&E Financing - City funds, PG&E funds
2007 Objectives - 35 units per year
Accomplishments - Since 2007, PG&E has provided free weatherstripping, caulking, insulating, and minor home repairs to 882 low income Pacifica residents. These improvements have led to average energy savings of 391 kilowatt-hours (kWh) for single-family residential participants; 229 kWh for multi-family residential participants; and, 401 kWh for mobile home participants. Pacifica also obtained literature regarding the free weatherization/home repair program from PG&E and distributed the literature to all interested parties. 2015 Objectives - Continue to distribute program literature. - Successfully refer 35 households per year.

Time Frame - 1/31/2015 through 12/31/2015: 32 applicants - 1/1/2016 through 12/31/2016: 35 applicants
- 1/1/2017 through 12/31/2017: 35 applicants
- 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2018: 35 applicants
- 1/1/2019 through 12/31/2019: 35 applicants
- 1/1/2020 through 12/31/2020: 35 applicants
- 1/1/2021 through 12/31/2021: 35 applicants
- 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2023: 38 applicants

1.g
Packet Pg. 3029 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6790 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
111

8. Housing Development
As discussed in Section 5 “Regional Housing Needs,” Pacifica must approve or develop an average of 52 housing units per year between 2015 and 2023 to meet its housing needs across all income levels.

Categorized by income level, that equates to annual approval or development of 8 units each for extremely low-income and very low-income persons, 9 units each for low-income and median-income persons, and 20 units for moderate income persons. Considering the residential development trends in Pacifica in recent decades, the City faces significant challenges to meeting these needs. It must ensure to mitigate as many constraints as possible and undertake other activities to encourage and incentivize housing development.

A. Policies, Objectives, and Programs to Improve Housing POLICY - PRIORITIZE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON INFILL SITES.

Action Program No. 10
Prioritize in-fill mixed-use and residential development on underutilized sites and vacant sites interspersed with developed areas.

Specific Action - Encourage property owners to redevelop underutilized sites into mixed-use developments with housing. Also encourage property owners of vacant lots within developed areas to construct mixed-use or multi-family housing at these sites.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division, Economic Development Division Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - None. New program in 2015 Housing Element.

Accomplishments - In 2013, the City encouraged infill within the Rockaway Beach neighborhood which resulted in the construction of three housing units in a mixed-use development at 411 Dondee Way.
2015 Objectives - Contact two property owners of identified underutilized sites per year to encourage redevelopment with higher density, mixed-use projects.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3030 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6791 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
112
Action Program No. 11
Encourage and facilitate construction of second residential units on properties zoned for single-family residential uses in conformance with existing zoning regulations.

Specific Action - The City should periodically evaluate the second unit requirements and review procedures to ensure minimal constraints exist to their construction.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objective - Encourage the construction of two second residential units per year. There is potential that approximately 14 second residential units will be developed during this planning period. To further encourage the development of second residential units, the City shall explore the feasibility of relaxing some of the development regulations such as on-site parking. Other incentives to encourage the development of second residential units may include fee reductions and priority permit processing.

Accomplishments - Three (3) second units were constructed from January 2007 to December 2014, resulting in an 11 unit shortfall from its 14 unit goal. Pacifica currently promotes the second-unit program by providing property owners and developers development information about adding a second unit. 2015 Objectives - Encourage construction of two second residential units per year, or 16 second units during the planning period. Periodically evaluate the City’s second unit zoning regulations and inquire with residents and construction professionals as to the perceived level of difficulty and expense associated with second unit construction. Where perceptions suggest second unit construction is difficult, develop strategies to revise the City’s regulations, such as by relaxing second unit parking requirements.

Time Frame - Bi-annually by 12/31 in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022: Review and revise, as necessary.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3031 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6792 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
113
Action Program No. 12 (formerly Action Program No. 10A in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Amend Second Unit Ordinance to incorporate updates in state law.

Specific Action - Initiate the amendment of the Second Unit Ordinance to conform to state law.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objective - Amend Second Unit Ordinance to comply with state laws by the end of 2011.

Accomplishments - The City did not amend its Second Unit Ordinance as planned, but processed all second unit applications in accordance with state law notwithstanding the City’s codified ordinance.

2015 Objectives - Amend Second Unit Ordinance to comply with state law by the end of 2016.

Time Frame - 12/31/2016: Enact amendments to Second Unit Ordinance to conform to state law.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3032 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6793 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
114
POLICIES - PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS; - PROVIDE A CHOICE OF HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITIES
Action Program No. 13 (formerly Action Program No. 15A in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Amend Density Bonus Ordinance to reflect updates to state law.

Specific Action - Amendment the Density Bonus Ordinance to reflect the latest provisions of state law.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City Funds
2007 Objective - Amend Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with state law by mid-2011.

Accomplishments - The City did not amend its Density Bonus Ordinance as planned.

2015 Objectives - Amend Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with state law by the end of 2016. The City will process density bonus applications in compliance with state law until it amends the local code provisions.

Time Frame - 12/31/2016: Enact amendments to Density Bonus Ordinance to conform to state law.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3033 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6794 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
115
Action Program No. 14 (formerly Action Program No. 16A in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow Rooming Houses and Boardinghouses for farmworker housing as a permitted use in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) District.

Specific Action - Planning Commission shall discuss and consider whether to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Rooming Houses and Boardinghouses for farmworker housing as a permitted use in the R-3 zone.21

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - Consider the zoning amendment.

Accomplishments - The City has not yet considered the described amendments to the Zoning Code.
2015 Objectives - Consider the zoning amendment and enact amendments if determined desirable and feasible.

Time Frame - 12/31/2016: Complete consideration of the amendment. - 12/31/2017: Enact amendments to Zoning Code, if determined desirable and feasible.

21 Farmworker housing for six or fewer occupants is already and will continue to be permitted in any residential zone as a residential use, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type (e.g., single family, duplex, condominiums, apartments) in the same zone.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3034 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6795 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
116
Action Program No. 15 (formerly Action Program No. 16B in the 2007-2014 Housing Element) Amend A (Agricultural) Zoning District to allow farmworker housing.

Specific Action - Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 to allow housing for agricultural employees without discretionary approval.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - Amend A zoning district to comply with state law.

Accomplishments - The City did not amend A zoning district as planned

2015 Objectives - Amend A zoning district to comply with state law.

Time Frame - 6/30/2016: Enact amendments to Zoning Code.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3035 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6796 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
117
Action Program No. 16 (formerly Action Program No. 16C in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing.

Specific Actions - Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 2 to allow Emergency, Transitional and Supportive Housing without discretionary approval.
- Create a definition of “emergency shelter” as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” - Create a definition of “transitional housing” as “buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.” - Create a definition of “supportive housing” as “housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. For the purposes of this definition, “target population” means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5, commencing with Section 4500, of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.” - Create a new permitted use in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district, an overlay zone, or another zoning district to permit emergency shelters for up to 15 occupants, subject only to those development and management standards that apply to residential development within the same zone, except that the City may develop written, objective standards for those criteria identified in Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). - Create new permitted uses in all residential districts and in commercial districts permitting residential uses to permit transitional housing and supportive housing as a residential use, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type (e.g., single family, duplex, condominiums, apartments) in the same zone in accordance with

1.g
Packet Pg. 3036 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6797 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
118
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5). For example, transitional housing located in an apartment building is permitted in the same manner as an apartment building in the same zone or supportive housing located in a singlefamily home is permitted in the same manner as a single-family home in the same zone.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - Amend zoning ordinance to make explicit provisions for transitional and supportive housing, and emergency shelters. Develop objective standards to regulate emergency shelters as provided for under SB 2.

Accomplishments - The City’s Zoning Code already permits by-right establishment of emergency shelters under the zoning classification “special care facility” in all residential districts. The by-right allowance pertains to facilities serving six or fewer individuals. The special care facility classification also allows shelters for “other need categories,” which can include transitional and supportive housing. However, the City should consider enacting explicit authorization for these types of uses as well as development standards for their establishment and operations.

2015 Objectives - Amend the Zoning Code to create new definitions for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. Create new permitted uses for these types of facilities to clarify their treatment by the City. Create development standards for the establishment and ongoing operations of these facilities.

Time Frame - 9/30/2015: Develop and discuss at the Planning Commission potential development standards for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing.
- 1/31/2016: Amend the Zoning Code to explicitly permit by-right emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3037 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6798 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
119
Action Program No. 17 (formerly Action Program No. 16D in 2007-2014 Housing Element) The City shall initiate contact with developers from the private and nonprofit sectors interested in development opportunities in the City of Pacifica for rental housing affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes.

Specific Action - Proactively engage for-profit and not-for-profit housing developers on a periodic basis. Consider hosting an annual developer roundtable to discuss development opportunities sites and other development issues. Provide permit material and information about the review process at the public counter explaining the various steps in the process.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City funds, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Affordable Housing Innovative Program (AHIP) Loan Fund, Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Multi-Housing Program General Component (MHP-General) Fund, and Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP). 2007 Objectives - Initiate meetings with developers from the private and nonprofit sectors interested in affordable rental housing on a regular basis. Consider hosting an annual developer roundtable to discuss development opportunities sites and other development issues. Provide permit material and information about the review process at the public counter explaining the various steps in the process. This includes what materials need to be submitted and when and how long review will take at each juncture, and support applications for funding.

Accomplishments - The City frequently receives inquiries from developers of market rate and affordable housing. Staff provides them with information related to Pacifica’s development process and encourages them to proceed with their projects.

2015 Objectives - Begin a bi-annual housing developer roundtable hosted by the City to provide factual information on development sites and the City’s development process, as well as to demonstrate a strong City commitment to affordable housing development.

Time Frame - Bi-annually by 12/31 in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022: Host developer roundtable.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3038 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6799 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
120

POLICY - MAINTAIN A BALANCED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH ACCESS TO

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND
ADEQUATE SERVICES.

Action Program No. 18 (formerly Action Program No. 20 in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Encourage development of housing for all income levels, including lower income individuals, in suitable areas to meet ABAG's projected housing need.

Specific Action - Prepare, publish, and distribute a regularly-updated inventory of available housing development sites to facilitate the housing development process.

Responsible Agencies - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - Pacifica will encourage annual development of three low-income housing units, five moderate-income housing units, and 30 above-moderate income housing units. The City will continue to update the inventory of sites for distribution to potential developers and other interested parties. The City will advertise its sites by posting a list on the City’s web site and at the Planning Department, and by distributing hard copies to any persons interested in obtaining a list.

Accomplishments - Pacifica regularly updated its inventory of sites available for development.

The City posted the inventory on its website and made the list available to persons interested in the list at its public counter.
2015 Objectives - Update available development site inventory annually to encourage development of housing units to satisfy the City’s RHNA.

Time Frame - Annually by 12/31: Post updated inventory on City’s website.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3039 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6800 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
121
POLICY - ACTIVELY MONITOR HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION.

Action Program No. 19 (formerly Action Program No. 26 in 2007-2014 Housing Element) Form a committee to monitor housing trends affecting needs and development, as well as implementation of action programs. Devise strategies to accommodate housing needs that arise during the planning period that the Housing Element does not adequately address.

Specific Action - Form a committee which includes members of the Planning Commission and housing advocates. Hold meetings to discuss implementation of the Housing Element. Review annual Housing Element Status and Annual Progress Report prior to City Council consideration.

Responsible Agency - Planning Division
Financing - City funds
2007 Objectives - The committee should be constituted and continue to hold meetings to discuss implementation of the 2007 Housing Element.

Accomplishments - The City did not establish a committee to oversee 2007 Housing Element implementation.
2015 Objectives - Form a committee to assert more active oversight in Housing Element implementation. Review the draft Housing Element Status and Annual Progress Report prior to the public hearing and consideration by City Council.

Time Frame - 8/31/2015: Establish a Housing Element implementation committee. - Annually by 6/30: Planning Division staff conducts an internal review of implementation during first-half of year and projected implementation during remaining-half of year.
- Annually between 1/1 and 2/28: Hold a committee meeting to discuss prior year Housing Element implementation and to review the draft Housing Element Status and Annual Progress Report.
- Annually between 3/1 and 3/31: Present the Housing Element Status and Annual Progress Report at a City Council public hearing and seek Council approval and transmittal of the Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by the April 1 deadline.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3040 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6801 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
122

9. Discontinued Programs
The City of Pacifica is a dynamic place, continually evolving and changing over time. This evolution impacts the City across numerous dimensions, including the natural, built, political, legal, and financial environments, The result is that certain programs proposed or undertaken in previous housing elements are no longer relevant or feasible within the context of the current planning period. The following is a summary of discontinued programs, including a brief listing of their accomplishments (if any) during the 2007-2014 Housing Element planning period.

A. Discontinued Program Listing
i. Action Program No. 4B
Complete and Adopt Green Building Ordinance.

Specific Action Adopt a Green Building Ordinance to assure that all new buildings and significant remodels incorporate green building practices and materials into the design.

Reason for Discontinuance The City enacted a local Green Building Ordinance on 12/13/2010, thereby establishing local standards for new and altered buildings.

The City superseded its ordinance with the adoption of the California Green Building Code on 12/25/2013. The program is no longer necessary because the City completed this activity, achieving the desired outcome.
ii. Action Program No. 11
Develop program for establishment of Housing Fund from tax increment revenues to increase and improve low and moderate-income housing.

Specific Action Develop a program which will set forth the means of distributing funds generated by the Redevelopment Agency. Establish priority system.

Reason for Discontinuance In 2012 the California Legislature dissolved redevelopment agencies statewide with passage of Assembly Bill (AB) x1 26 and AB 1484. Dissolution of the City’s Redevelopment Agency rendered this activity infeasible.
iii. Action Program No. 13
Develop regulations to encourage density-open space trade-offs, such as clustering development, transferring development rights from sensitive to less sensitive land, and dedication of open space.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3041 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6802 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
123
Specific Action Amend Zoning Ordinance to include procedure for transfer of development rights. Prepare inventory of potential "receiver sites." Continue to administer open space dedication policies.

Reason for Discontinuance The City enacted an ordinance governing transfer of development rights in 1989 (Ordinance No. 539-C.S.). The City also already has development provisions within the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district that allow deviation from strict implementation of development standards in order to achieve clustered development when it would lead to superior site design. This program was carried forward erroneously into the 2007-2014 Housing Element. iv. Action Program No. 13A
Encourage housing development in clusters.

Specific Action Review clustered housing standards for incentives to build housing development in clusters

Reason for Discontinuance The City already has codified development provisions within the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district that allow deviation from strict implementation of development standards in order to achieve clustered development when it would lead to superior site design. The P-D district regulations have existed in Pacifica since 1975, and this program was carried forward erroneously into the 2007-2014 Housing Element.
v. Action Program No. 15
Promote the Density Bonus Ordinance in all new multifamily residential development.

Encourage a mix of rental and owner housing types, including senior, low income, moderate, above moderate income, and entry-level home ownership for teachers, City employees, and others in Pacifica's workforce.

Specific Action Discuss the ordinance with individual developers. Stress incentives for inclusion of affordable units.

Reason for Discontinuance Incorporated into ongoing policies related to Development of Housing (Section 4.D).
vi. Action Program No. 16
Encourage development of small houses which will fit more appropriately on small lots.

Encourage development of small units in multi-family projects to provide more density without increasing massing. The market should limit cost of the units based on size.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3042 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6803 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
124
Specific Action Utilize the City’s Design Guidelines, design review process, and adaptable zoning provisions to encourage developers to build small units under appropriate circumstances.

Reason for Discontinuance The City has reviewed its Zoning Regulations and procedures and believes they are sufficient to encourage small unit development without undertaking an additional housing element program. vii. Action Program No. 16E
Apply for State and Federal monies for direct support of extremely low-income housing.

Specific Action The City shall consider applying for State and Federal monies for direct support of low-income housing construction and
rehabilitation. The City shall assess potential funding sources, such as, but not limited to, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and HOME. The City shall also seek State and Federal funding specifically targeted for the development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households, such as the Proposition 1-C funds. The City shall promote the benefits of this program to the development community by posting
information on its web page and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications.

Reason for Discontinuance The City does not have a housing authority and does not have staff dedicated to housing programs. Given current budget constraints, establishment of such an agency with staff is infeasible. The San Mateo County Housing Authority administers the activities described in this action program and pursues funding on behalf of the City of Pacifica and other cities in San Mateo County. viii. Action Program No. 16F
Consider using redevelopment funds for affordable housing.

Specific Action Consistent with State law, the City shall consider directing 20 percent of the tax increment funds accruing to the Redevelopment Agency to affordable housing. If successful in receiving matching funds from other sources, the City shall encourage the
Redevelopment Agency to work with affordable housing
developers to utilize a portion of set-aside funds for development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3043 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6804 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
125
ix. Action Program No. 18A
Consider streamlining the permit process to expedite housing construction.

Specific Action Ensure that projects are reviewed and acted on in the shortest possible time consistent with the City's interest in complete review.

Reason for Discontinuance The City’s permitting process has not caused delays to housing development in any fashion that would benefit from streamlining actions. Major delays to projects typically stem from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a state statute the City cannot affect with streamlining actions.
x. Action Program No. 18B
Amend Manufactured Housing Ordinance regulations.

Specific Action Initiate the amendment of the manufacture housing building regulations to comply with state law.

Reason for Discontinuance The City has assessed its ordinance and believes it complies with state law. It allows manufactured housing to be installed in the R-1 zoning district subject to a non-discretionary building permit. xi. Action Program No. 18C
Consider streamlining the permit process to encourage and facilitate residential development on commercial sites (mixed-use).

Specific Action Ensure that commercial/residential projects are reviewed and acted on in the shortest possible time.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3044 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6805 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
126
xii. Action Program No. 20A
Encourage development of lower and moderate income housing in suitable areas to meet ABAG's projected housing need.

Specific Action Prepare, publish, and distribute inventory of available sites.

Facilitate development process.

Reason for Discontinuance Action program combined with 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 22.
xiii. Action Program No. 21
Continue to cooperate with the Pacifica Resource Center and emphasize its role in housing assistance.

Specific Action Refer interested parties to Center staff.

Reason for Discontinuance Action program combined with 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 5.
xiv. Action Program No. 22
Promote the Human Investment Project's Shared Homes Program directed to seniors and single parents who are homeowners or tenants.

Specific Action Obtain literature for display and distribution. Refer interested individuals to Project staff.

Reason for Discontinuance Action program combined with 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 5.
xv. Action Program No. 23
Promote Project Sentinel, a program that investigates complaints of discrimination in housing due to race, religion, marital status, sex or national origin.

Specific Action Obtain literature for display and distribution. Refer interested individuals to Project staff.

Reason for Discontinuance Action program combined with 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 5.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3045 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6806 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
127
xvi. Action Program No. 24
Promote the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities, an organization that provides services to the disabled, including housing rehabilitation assistance and accessibility modifications.

Specific Action Obtain literature for display and distribution. Refer interested individuals to Center staff.

Reason for Discontinuance Action program combined with 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 5.
xvii. Action Program No. 25
Provide the opportunity for conversion of existing facilities to shelters for victims of family violence, or other special needs facilities.

Specific Action Advise interested individuals that Special Care Facilities which include shelters for victims of family violence, homeless persons, or “other needs categories” such as transitional housing and emergency shelters are permitted in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) district.

Reason for Discontinuance The City’s existing Zoning Code permits by-right “special care facilities” for six or fewer persons in all residential zoning districts.

The City does not need to pursue opportunities for conversion of existing facilities as this is already permitted.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3046 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6807 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
128
V. COASTAL ZONE HOUSING

1. Purpose
The coastal zone in Pacifica is that area west of Highway 1 with a small extension east of the highway between Reina del Mar and Burns Court. Pacifica has six coastal neighborhoods, which include (from north to south) Fairmont West, West Edgemar/Pacific Manor, West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, West Linda Mar, and Pedro Point. The coastal zone contains 16 percent of Pacifica’s land area but only 13 percent of its population.

State law includes several requirements for housing in the coastal zone. Specifically, Government Code Section 65588 calls for jurisdictions to include in their housing elements information on the following:
 The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone after January 1, 1982;
 The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in the coastal zone;
 The number of housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone;
 The number of residential dwelling units for persons and families of low or moderate income that have been required for replacement or authorized to be converted or demolished. The review shall include the location of the replacement units in or within three miles of the coastal zone.

State law calls for replacement of demolished if determined to be feasible. In addition, all new development in the coastal zone is required to include low and moderate income units if feasible. Due to the small size of all new development in Pacifica's coastal zone, only one project approved since 1982 has included affordable units. Future projects within the coastal zone are also unlikely to yield affordable units unless they develop eight or more housing units, and which point they become subject to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

2. Housing Unit Construction, Demolition, and Replacement During the 2007-2014 Housing Element planning period, 11 housing units were constructed in the coastal zone. When including areas in or within three miles of the coastal zone, the figure rose to 17 housing units (note: all developable areas of the City are located within three miles of the coastal zone).

During this same period, four housing units were demolished within the coastal zone. All four were moderate-income units. Three units have been replaced with above-moderate income units, with two of

1.g
Packet Pg. 3047 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6808 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
129
these units underway in the construction phase. The replacements occurred on the same sites within the coastal zone. One unit, on Carmel Avenue, was not replaced.

While not demolished, other coastal zone housing units have been impacted during the 2007-2014 Housing Element planning period in such a way as to have the effect of demolition. The City’s Building Official has determined that 20 rental housing units located at 320 Esplanade Avenue and 12 rental housing units located at 330 Esplanade Avenue (all 32 of which were affordable to low-income persons) are unsafe for habitation due to severe coastal erosion.22 The units have not been replaced, and
it is unlikely they will ever be replaced on the same site. The City’s opinion of conditions at the site is that coastal erosion is too severe and that future development at the site is unlikely, including remedial measures to make the buildings once again habitable.

Since January of 1982, a total of 25 housing units have been demolished in the coastal zone. Of these, 5 were low-income units, 17 were moderate-income units, and 3 were above-moderate income units.

Two of these homes, located west of Beach Boulevard in West Sharp Park were lost in a storm.

Another unit on Olympian Way in Pedro Point was demolished because it was threatened by a slide.

Eight of the units demolished since 1982 did not suffer storm damage. One moderate-income structure on Salada Avenue was demolished because it was not up to Building Code standards. It was not replaced. Two moderate-income units on Francisco Boulevard were demolished because they were not up to Building or Fire Code standards. These units have not yet been replaced.

Additionally, in 1998 seven homes, located on Esplanade Avenue in Pacific Manor were lost in a storm.

Another above-moderate income unit on Blackburn Terrace in Pedro Point was demolished. It was replaced in 1998 by an above-moderate income unit. Two above-moderate income units in the West Rockaway Beach area were also demolished.

Twenty-two mobile homes threatened by the 1983 storm were moved out of the Pacific Skies Estates Mobile Home Park on Palmetto Avenue. To date, 14 of the mobile homes have been replaced in the park and the park operator will continue to replace older mobile homes.

Nine structures outside the coastal zone have been demolished since January of 1987. Four destroyed in a 1982 storm included two on Valdez Way in Linda Mar and two on Oddstad Boulevard in Park Pacifica. Three other structures on Reina del Mar in Vallemar were demolished. They were replaced in 1984, 1998, and 2000, respectively. Another unit was demolished in 1999 on Crespi Drive in the West Linda Mar neighborhood. In 1992 a unit was demolished on Perez Drive in the Linda Mar area. The unit was replaced on-site.

No housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income were required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone during the 2007-2014 Housing Element planning period.

22 The Building Official notified tenants of 330 Esplanade Avenue December 17, 2009, and tenants of 320 Esplanade Avenue on April 29, 2010.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3048 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6809 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
130
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
On December 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session public review workshop to discuss the draft Housing Element and to solicit new ideas for policies and action programs from residents, housing advocates, and other interested parties. Additionally, on April 20, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Housing Element, including public testimony. The Planning Commission forwarded the Housing Element to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. The City Council held a public hearing on the Housing Element on May 11, 2015, again seeking public input from residents, housing advocates, and other interested parties. As the public review process progressed, the City posted a draft version of the Housing Element on the City’s website, as well as on the “21elements.com” website for convenience of public review.

Notices of the study session workshop and public hearings were published in the Pacifica Tribune newspaper, e-mailed via the City’s public information system, posted on the Nextdoor community engagement web platform, posted on the City’s website, mailed to interested parties, and posted in the following locations:

1. Sanchez Library (Park Pacifica)

2. Pacifica Library (West Sharp Park)

3. Pacifica Community Center (Linda Mar)

4. Pacifica City Hall

5. Planning Department
Additionally, the City sent notices to 50 nonprofit housing organizations and service providers servicing special needs populations, including Bay Area Legal Aid, Center for the Independence of the Disabled, Center on Homelessness, Community Legal Services, Golden Gate Regional Center, HIP Housing, InnVision/Shelter Network, Mental Health Association of San Mateo County, and the San Mateo County Commissions on Aging/Disabilities.

VII. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
The City will review the Housing Element during the annual review of the General Plan to ensure consistency is achieved and maintained during the planning period with all other legally required elements, and revise as necessary. The City will consider whether major changes in objectives and policies are necessary to achieve its goals, and undertake revisions as necessary.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3049 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6810 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
131
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Pacifica’s population decreased by 3 percent between 2000 and 2010. In the last 30 years the largest population change occurred between 1980 and 1990, with an increase of 804 residents (+2.2 percent).

The City is becoming more diverse as the white population shrinks and the Asian and Latino populations increase.

The City is no longer experiencing periods of rapid population growth as it did during the mid-twentieth century, and development of housing units has slowed as a result. Slowing development of housing units places greater emphasis on maintenance, preservation, and improvement activities by the City.

Yes, development of new housing units will be critically important to meet the increasing needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. Maintenance, preservation, and improvement alone will not meet the housing needs of these groups and other lower income persons.

The City has identified sites where focused housing development can occur. Sufficient sites exist to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the period from January 31, 2015, through January 31, 2023. The City has also identified certain programs and activities it can implement and undertake to encourage development of housing, or to enhance maintenance, preservation, and improvement of existing housing.

Constrained housing resources in a post-redevelopment environment will make development of affordable housing more challenging for Pacifica, but the City is determined to apply all available resources to meet the housing needs of current and future residents.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3050 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6811 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
132
IX. CONTACT INFORMATION
The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the agencies named in this Housing Element are listed below. Whenever possible, the names of contact persons at the agencies are identified. Also listed are the Action Programs for which the agencies are responsible.

Agency Action Program No. Ongoing Policy No.

Pacifica Planning Department,
Planning Division
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
Lee Diaz, Acting Planning Director
3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19
IV.4.B.ii, IV.4.B.iii,
IV.4.B.iv, IV.4.D.i,
IV.4.D.ii, IV.4.D.iii,
IV.4.D.iv, IV.4.D.v,
IV.4.D.vi, IV.4.D.vii
Pacifica Planning Department,
Building Division
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
Liz Ryder, Building Official
1, 2, 7, 9 IV.4.A.i, IV.4.A.ii,
IV.4.A.iii, IV.4.B.i,
IV.4.C.i, IV.4.D.v
Pacifica Planning Department,
Code Enforcement Division
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
Lawrence Ngai, Code Enforcement Officer
1, 7 IV.4.A.i, IV.4.A.ii,
IV.4.C.i
Pacifica Fire Department
616 Edgemar Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
Rich Johnson, Deputy Chief
IV.4.B.i
Pacifica Public Works Department
155 Milagra
Pacifica, CA 94044
Van Ocampo, Director
8 IV.4.D.v
Pacifica City Manager’s Office,
Economic Development Division
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Anne Stedler, Econ. Development Manager
10 IV.4.D.i

1.g
Packet Pg. 3051 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6812 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
133
Agency Action Program No. Ongoing Policy No.

Pacifica Finance Department
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Lorenzo Hines, Assistant City Manager
Pacifica Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
Department
1810 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Michael Perez, Director
5 Housing and Community Development
Division, County of San Mateo
264 Harbor Boulevard, Building A
Belmont, CA 94002
1, 7
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)
P.O. Box 997300
Sacramento, CA 95899
9 Pacifica Resource Center
1809 Palmetto Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Anita Rees, Director
7 Pacifica Historical Society
P.O. Box 752
Pacifica, CA 94044
IV.4.B.iv
Abilities United
525 E. Charleston Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
The Arc
1500 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
BRIDGE Housing
600 California Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108

1.g
Packet Pg. 3052 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6813 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2015-2023
134
Agency Action Program No. Ongoing Policy No.

Center for Independence of Individuals with
Disabilities
2001 Winward Way, Suite 103
San Mateo, CA 94404
Human Investment Project ("HIP")
364 South Railroad Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Kate Comfort Harr
Poplar ReCare
1764 Marco Polo Way
Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Sentinel
1615 Hudson St., Suite A
Redwood City, CA 94061
Puente Clinic
1950 Alameda de las Pulgas
San Mateo, CA 94403
West Bay Housing Corporation
1390 Market Street, Suite 405
San Francisco, CA 94102

1.g
Packet Pg. 3053 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6814 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14

CITY CLERK
City Council Agenda Packets
One meeting packet $45.00
Photocopies (per page) $0.25
Other
Pacifica Municipal Code $181.00
Annual Code Maintenance Fee $90.00
Ordinances and Resolutions $0.25
City Council Agenda Packets $1,091.00
Appeal of Planning Commision Decisions to the City Council $100.00

FINANCE
Bond Search Requests
Current $60.00
Delinquent $60.00
Fireworks Permit
Part 1 $303.00
Part 2 $484.00
Other
Bond Reports $43.25
Business License: Penalty for False Reporting of Gross Receipts $500.00 Annual Financial Report $34.00
Computer Review $99.00
Non-Sufficient Funds Charge $26.00
FIRE
Permits
Annual Fire Code Permits (Each) $200.00
Permitted activities less than 90-days. Initial fee includes 1 hour; hourly charge thereafter. Temporary Permit Required.
$140.00
Plan Review Fire Sprinklers/Stand Pipes
Alteration/repair of existing underground pipe systems. Includes underground, hydro/flush, rough and final. $345.00
Commercial underground pipe system installations. Includes underground, hydro/flush, rough and final. Hourly thereafter. $490.00 Fire sprinklers - tenant improvements. 9 or less sprinkler heads Unlimited head change-outs. (Permit required only). Initial fee includes 1 hour; hourly thereafter. $135.00 New commercial & residential sprinkler installations. First 3,000 sq. ft. Includes underground, hyrdro/flush, rough and final inspections. Hourly thereafter. $665.00 New manufactured home sprinkler systems. Includes underground, hyrdro/flush, rough and final inspections. Hourly thereafter.
$455.00
A-1

1.g
Packet Pg. 3054 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6815 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Standpipe system installation, per standpipe and includes underground, hydro/flush, rough and final inspections.
$595.00
Tenant Improvements - installation/alteration of 10 or more heads. (Head changeouts are not included in count). First 300 sq. ft.; hourly thereafter. $245.00
Plan Review General
Additional Plan review beyond the first 3000 sq. ft.; per hour. $104.00 Plan Check Re-Submittals; initial fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter. $135.00 Plan Review New Construction and/or Tenant Improvements Additional plan review for major changes, additions, as-builts, or resubmittals; initial fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter. $140.00
Misc. items w/o sq. footage - e.g. Install hazardous material, storage tank, HVAC smoke detection, partition wall, etc. Initial fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter.
$140.00
Subdivision map review; per hour fee. $150.00
Base rate - all occupancies. Initial fee includes first 3,000 sq.ft.; hourly thereafter, includes rough and final inspections.
$350.00
Plan Reviews Fire Alarms
Existing Fire Alarm Panel Upgrades. Initial fee includes first 3,000 sq.ft.; hourly thereafter, includes rough and final inspections.
$245.00
Installation of additional devices on existing system. Initial fee includes first 3,000 sq.ft.; hourly thereafter, includes rough and final inspections. $385.00
New installations. Initial fee includes first 3,000 sq.ft.; hourly thereafter, includes rough and final inspections.
$455.00
New installations -- Other Fire Protection Systems. Initial fee includes first 3,000 sq.ft.; hourly thereafter, includes rough and final inspections. $700.00
Requested Services
All Other Reports. Cost per report. $38.00
Digital Photographs - CD, plus $1 for CD cost $64.00
Digital Photographs - Print. Plus $1.40 per photo cost. $69.00 Fire Code Variance Application; per request and none-refundable. $546.00 Fire incident reports (per report charge) $38.00
Inspection Outside Normal Business Hours (Per hour, OT rate) O.T. Rate Non-Subpoenaed Fire Investigation Reports (per report) $38.00 Pre-Inspection / Consultation for daycare facilities, construction projects, etc. Initial $119.00 Pre-Inspection of care facilities with 25 or fewer occupants. (Flat Fee) $119.00 Pre-Inspection of care facilities with 26 or more occupants. (Flat Fee) $225.00 Processed Photographs, plus cost of developing $72.00
Subpoenaed Fire Investigation Report - through City Attorney's Office, plus attorney's fees per evidence code.
$54.00
Site Inspections
Additional inspections beyond the first 3000 sq ft $104.00 A-2

1.g
Packet Pg. 3055 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6816 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Fire alarms - repair or exchange devices and radio transmitters; Initial Fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter.
$135.00
Inspection for which no fee is indicated; Initial Fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter.
$135.00
Installation of hazardous materials storage tank $178.00 Re-inspections; Initial Fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter. $104.00 Removal of hazardous material storage tank. Per tank charge. Temporary permit required.
$135.00
Replacement of hazardous material storage tank piping, dispensers. Per tank charge. If piping work is done as part of tank installation, there is no charge. $178.00
Penalties
Unpermitted construction work Fee plus 2 times fee
False Alarms - 1st Response $0.00
False Alarms - 2nd Response $283.00
False Alarms - 3rd Response $361.00
False Alarms - 4th+ Response $515.00
ANNUAL Commercial Fire Inspection & Re-inspections
A 1 -4 Assembly Occupancies $158.00
B Business Office Occupancies $90.00
E Educational Occupancies $158.00
F Factory Occupancies $158.00
H Hazard Occupancies $158.00
I Institutional (Nursing Homes) Occupancies $158.00
M Mercantile Occupancies $118.00
M Mercantile Occupancies (Motor Fuel Sales) $131.00
R-1 Occupancies Hotels $158.00
R-2 Residential 3 to 20 units $80.00
R-2 Residential 21 - 40 Units $96.00
R-2 Residential 41 - 70 Units $118.00
R-2 Residential 71 - 90 Units $141.00
R-2 Residential 91 - 120 Units $186.00
R-2 Residential Over 120 units $233.00
R-3 Residential Care less than 24 hours $131.00
R-3.1 Licensed Residential Care 24 hour 6 or less $158.00 R-4 Residential care 6 or more $158.00
S Storage Facilities $131.00
U Utility Structures $131.00
POLICE
False Alarms
First Response No Charge
Second through fifth responses $125.00
Six or more responses $195.00
False Alarms without permit
A-3

1.g
Packet Pg. 3056 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6817 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
First Response No Charge
Second through fifth responses $195.00
Six or more responses $195.00
Photograph (digital)
First Page of Photographs (4 to a page) $22.00
Subsequent pages of photographs (4 to a page) $7.00
Disc of photos $30.00
Arcade Permit
Annual Renewal Fee $49.00
Application Fee $29.00
Block Party Permits $50.00
Massage Parlor/Outcall
New $162.00
New - State Certified/Outcall $50.00
Renewal Fee $50.00
Renewal Fee - State Certified $25.00
Masseur / Masseuse
New $331.00
New - State Certified $50.00
Renewal Fee $100.00
Renewal Fee - State Certified $25.00
Massage Trainee - State Certified $50.00
Administrative Fee for Firearms (Per Penal Code 12021.3J1) For release to owner $384.00
Taxi Cab Operation
Permit / Background Investigation $129.00
Fingerprinting and Submittal to DOJ $94.00
Vehicle Inspection $99.00
General
Case Reports (Per Public Records Act) No Charge
Good conduct letter for Visa (record review) $53.00
Bingo Permit: New $29.00
Bingo Permit: Annual Renewal Fee $29.00
Second Hand Dealers $130.00
Tow Service Contract $197.00
Massage Trainee $162.00
Alarm Permit $82.00
Alarm Permit Renewal $43.00
A-4

1.g
Packet Pg. 3057 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6818 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Application for Concealed Weapon (To be paid to licensing agency) $100.00 Application for Concealed Weapon: Renewal Fee (To be paid to licensing agency) $25.00 Fortune Telling $58.00
Audio / Video "CD/DVD" duplication $30.00
Private Property abatement $220.00
Vehicle Release Administrative Costs (all but victims) $133.00 General Research $83.00/Per Hour
Storage of Property $1.00/Per Day
Tobacco Retailer License $76.00
Police Officer Subpoena (Per G.C. 68097.2) $275.00
Live Scan Fingerprinting $45.00
Loud Party Response $179.00
San Mateo County Booking Fee Based on Current
County Fee
DUI with Incident Cost of hours and car
TapeTransaction Cost of Outside Service
Dance Permit $49.00
Repossession Fee (Per G.C. 26751) $15.00

PLANNING
Competitive Evaluation System Determination
Competitive $29.00
Non-Competitive $29.00
Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Full Packet $130.00
Planning Commission Agenda
Picked-up or stamped envelopes provided $22.00
Mailed by the City $7.00
Planning Commission Minutes
Picked-up or stamped envelopes provided $197.00
Mailed by the City $29.00
Planning Commission Agenda or Minutes
Email $115.00
General
Planning and Planning Related Documents Actual Cost of
Reproduction
Code Books or Other Technical Manuals Publisher's Cost + 10% Handling Fee
General Research Fee $180, plus actual
material cost
A-5

1.g
Packet Pg. 3058 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6819 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
City Attorney's Review of Projects and Permits Hourly cost of Contract Attorney
Processing of all development applications; hourly cost plus materials $180.00 Study Sessions. Commercial projects or the commercial portion of a mixed-use project that received final building inspection approval shall be entitled to a refund. If the projects is 50% commercial, they should get a 50% refund for the study session; hourly cost plus materials.
$180.00
Business License Request for zoning consistency and Building and Fire Dept Inspection $180.00 Home Occupation Permits $180.00
Minor Modifications and Other Administrative Permits; hourly cost plus actual material cost.
$180.00

PUBLIC WORKS
Encroachment permits and inspection; hourly charge rate basis $180.00 Sidewalk repair and street openings by private contractor; hourly charge rate basis $180.00 Publication vending machine permit $413.00
City Maps Per Page Fee
Black $4/square foot
Color $5/square foot
Photocopies Per Page Fee
8 1/2" x 11"; $0.25/black; $1.00/color Per Page Fee
8 1/2" x 14"; $0.50/black; $1.50/color Per Page Fee
11" x 17"; $1/black; $2/color Per Page Fee
24" x 36" or larger; $20/black; $25/color Per Page Fee
Engineering Standard Drawing
Picked up Per Page Fee
Mailed (Regular mail -Series 100) Per Page Fee
Mailed (Regular mail -Series 200) Per Page Fee
Mailed (Regular mail -Series 300) Per Page Fee
Beach Parking
Annual Permit $65.00
Day Pass $8.00
Four Hour Pass $4.00
General
Heritage tree removal, destruction, or substantially trim $271.00 General Engineering Development Application Reviews; hourly charge $180.00 A-6

1.g
Packet Pg. 3059 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6820 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Final Subdivision Map Checking. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum. All costs for contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost and may require additional deposit.
$1800 initial deposit
$180/hour
Certificate of Compliance, notices of violation, property mergers, parcel map waivers, minor boundary line adjustments, reversions to acreage, and parcel map checking $2,250 initial deposit $180/hour
Street/curb openings by utilities; hourly charge $180.00 per hour Right of Way/Street Vacations. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum. All costs for contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost and may require additional deposit.
$1,800 initial deposit
$180/hour
Street Excavation Handbook $30.00
Block Party / Barricade Rental $118.00
Barricade Rental $7/pair;
$50 refundable deposit
per 10 barricades
Surface Mining and Reclamation Annual Inspection Fee; hourly charge $300.00 and $180.00 Violation (found during inspection) $412.00

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

0.005% of construction
value
Archive Fee $15
Plan Check fee 65% of Permit Fee
SMIP ( C ) 0.00028 of valuation
SMIP (R ) 0.00013 of valuation
Building Permit Fee (Based on Dollar Valuation)
$0-500 TBD
First $500 $51.50
$501-$2000
First $500 $51.50
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof $3.61
$2001-$25000
First $2000 $105.58
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $15.45
$25001-$50000
A-7

1.g
Packet Pg. 3060 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6821 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
First $25000 $460.93
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $14.42
$50001-$100000
First $50000 $821.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $8.24
$100001-$500000
First $100000 $1,233.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $7.21
$500001-$1,000,000
First $500000 $4,117.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $6.18
$1,000,001 and above
First $1,000,000 $6,692.43
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof $5.15
(N) Residential Bldg; cost per square foot $0.10
Electrical Services (<=200 AMP); cost for each $40.30
Electrical Services (<200 to 1000 AMP); cost for each $81.10 Electrical Services (<1000 AMP); cost for each $164.20
Residential Appliances; cost for each $6.30
(N) Multi-Family Bldg; cost per square foot $0.10
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees; cost for each $32.60 Misc Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors; cost for each $24.10 Light Fixtures (First 20 fixtures); cost for each $1.45 Light Fixtures (Addititional fixtures); cost for each $1.00 Power Apparatus (Up to and including 1) $6.30
Power Apparatus (Over 1 and not over 10) $16.30
Power Apparatus (Over 10 and not over 50) $32.60
Power Apparatus (Over 50 and not over 100) $65.60
Power Apparatus (Over 100) $98.40
Receptacles, Switch & Light Outlets (First 20 fixtures); cost for each $1.45 Receptacles, Switch & Light Outlets (Addititional fixtures) $1.00 Electrical Permit Issuance; cost for each $32.00
Electrical Permit Issuance (Special Cases) $11.30
Mechanical
Furnace (<=100k BTU) $22.00
Furnace (>100k to 500k BTU) $26.90
Appliance Vents $10.70
A-8

1.g
Packet Pg. 3061 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6822 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=3hp or 100k BTU) $20.80 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=15hp or 500k BTU) $38.40 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=30hp or 1000k BTU) $52.70 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=50hp or 1750k BTU) $77.50 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (>=50hp or 17500k BTU) $77.50 Hood $16.80
Air Handlers (<=10k CFM) $16.80
Air Handlers (>10k CFM) $26.80
Evaporative Cooler $16.80
Vent Fan (Single Duct) $11.20
Vent System $16.80
Incinerators (Residential) $16.80
Incinerators (Comm) $16.80
Miscelaneous Mechanical $16.80
Mechanical Permit Issuance $32.00
Mechanical Permit Issuance (Special Cases) $11.40
Plumbing
Fixtures & Vents; $10.40
Fixtures & Vents (Repair/Alteration) $10.40
Cesspool $14.50
Sewage Disposal System $56.65
Grease Interceptors $9.90
Rainwater systems $14.50
Water Piping $14.50
Water heater $14.50
Public Spa $86.00
Gas Piping $7.40
Public Pool $129.30
Private Pool $86.00
Private Spa $86.00
Sewer $22.10
Backflow $14.50
Backflow device over 2" $14.50
Miscellaneous Plumbing $14.50
Plumbing Permit Issuance; cost for issuing each permit. $32.00 Plumbing Permit Issuance (Special Cases). For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been cancelled or finalized. $11.30
Miscellaneous
Inspection. Hourly with a minimum 30 minutes. $114.30
Permits. Hourly with a minimum 30 minutes. $118.50
A-9

1.g
Packet Pg. 3062 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6823 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Master Schedule of Fees and Charges 2014-2015
Fee Description Adopted Fee
9/08/14
ANIMAL CONTROL Fees shall be consistent
with those charged by
the San Mateo County
Division of Animal
Control Services. For a
list of those fees,
contact the County of
San Mateo at (650) 363-
4220.

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

The average sewage connection fee for a new Single Family Residence is approximately:
$3,200
The average sewage connection fee for a new Mixed-use Commercial Building is approximately:
$15,000.00
Inspection and Review Charges $150/hour
A-10

1.g
Packet Pg. 3063 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6824 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve October 11, 2021
Sylvia Targ, Coastal Planner
North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
455 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subj: Response to Filing Letter for City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan Certification Draft (File No. LCP-2-PAC-20-0036-1)
Dear Ms. Targ:

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

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

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

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

1. LCLUP Certification Draft Third City Submittal

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

MAYOR PRO TEM
Mary Bier

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3064 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6825 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Page
2 cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Planning Director

1.g
Packet Pg. 3065 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6826 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve ATTACHMENT 1

1.g
Packet Pg. 3066 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6827 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Table of Contents
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”) Certification Draft Response to Filing Letter No. 2, dated January 12, 2021 “Third City Submittal”
City of Pacifica October 11, 2021
PDF Page
Number

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3067 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6828 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 4 ends

I. CITY RESPONSES TO FILING LETTER NO. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3068 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6829 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3069 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6830 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3070 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6831 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 7 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3071 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6832 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3072 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6833 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 9 ends

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3073 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6834 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 10 ends

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3074 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6835 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

Page 11 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3075 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6836 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

APPENDIX A

1.g
Packet Pg. 3076 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6837 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
Sharp Park
Golf Course
San Pedro
Valley
County
Park
Sharp Park
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sweeney Ridge
(GGNRA)

FASS L ER
AV E

TERRA NOVA BLVD
LINDA
MAR
BLVD

ODDSTAD
BLVD

GRAND AVE

ROCKAWA Y
BEACH
AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR

CREPSI DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

S H AR P PARK RD

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

AVALON DR

M ILA GRADR MONTEREY RD IVERNESS
DR

NELSON AVE

OLD COAST HIGHWAY

ADOBE DR

BEACH BLVD

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

ESPLANADE DR
Local Coastal Land Use Plan
Areas of Change (1980 General Plan)
Unimproved Right-of-Way
Highways
Existing Streets

1.g
Packet Pg. 3077 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6838 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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

STAFF REPORT

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

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

Staff Recommendation: Denial

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3078 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6839 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3079 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6840 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 3 ends

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3080 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6841 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

The Pedro Point neighborhood is described in the LCP as providing a mix of visitor and neighborhood commercial uses, with a strong residential base. Existing development in

1.g
Packet Pg. 3081 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6842 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3082 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6843 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3083 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6844 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 7 ends

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3084 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6845 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3085 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6846 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 9 ends

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3086 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6847 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 10 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3087 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6848 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 11 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3088 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6849 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 12 ends

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3089 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6850 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 13 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3090 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6851 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 14 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3091 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6852 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 15 ends

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

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

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

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

Geological Survey. http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7T151Q4.

1.g
Packet Pg. 3092 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6853 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 16 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3093 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6854 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 17 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3094 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6855 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 18 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3095 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6856 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 19 ends

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

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

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

LCP Policy Guidance

1.g
Packet Pg. 3096 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6857 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 20 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3097 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6858 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 21 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3098 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6859 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 22 ends

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

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

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

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

The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this division is not intended, and shall not be construed as authorizing the commission, port governing body, or local government acting pursuant to this division to exercise their power to grant

1.g
Packet Pg. 3099 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6860 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 23 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3100 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6861 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 24 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3101 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6862 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 25 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3102 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6863 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 26 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3103 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6864 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 27 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3104 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6865 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)

Page 28 ends

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

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

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

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3105 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6866 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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

EXHIBITS
Table of Contents

1.g
Packet Pg. 3106 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6867 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE – PROJECT LOCATION MAP
City of Pacifica, San Mateo County
Pacifica
State Beach
San Pedro
Creek
Shelter
Cove
Old Railroad
Berm
Project Site
Drainage
Channel
2-19-0026
Exhibit 1

Page 1 of 1 ends

1.g
Packet Pg. 3107 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6868 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE – SITE PHOTOS
Drainage
Channel
Project Site
Drainage
Channel
Project Site
Old Railroad
Berm
Old Railroad
Berm
2-19-0026
Exhibit 2

Page 1 of 1 ends

1.g
Packet Pg. 3108 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6869 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 505 SAN PEDRO AVE., A.P.N. 023-072-010, PACIFICA

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NORCAL SURF SHOP

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

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

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

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

SECTION CUT, DETAIL NUMBERSHEET ON WHICH IT OCCURS

SYMBOLS
A1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN

DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENTLY VACANT LOT FOR

PROJECT SCOPE

TITLE SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL / CIVILA0.0

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

W WEST, WASHER, OR WATERW/

VERTICAL

UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERT

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

TTILE, TREAD, TOP, OR

SYMMETRICAL

SS SANITARY SEWERSTL STEELSTOR STORAGESTRUCT STRUCTURALSUB SUBCONTRACTORSUBFLR SUBFLOORSW SHEAR WALLSYM SQUARE

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

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

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

OFF OFFICEOPNG OPENINGOH OVERHANGO/H OVERHEADOPP

OVERFLOW DRAIN

OA OVERALLOC ON CENTEROD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OR
OVEN
NTO

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

NORTH N

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

LINEN CLOSET

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

HC HANDICAPHDR

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

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

FURN FURNACE

EXTERIOR EXTEQUIPMENT EQPTENGINEER ENGELEVATION ELEVELECTRICAL ELECEACH (E) EXISTINGEA

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

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

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

ANCHOR BOLT
# NUMBEAB
R
AT @

ABBREVIATIONS

PROJECT DIRECTORY

APPLICANT

SERVICE COMPANY

NORCAL SURF SHOP SHAWN RHODES

CONTACT TELEPHONE

PROJECT INFORMATION
37,538 SQ.FT. LOT SIZE

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

JOEL BALDWIN EARTH INVESTIGATIONS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

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

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

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
4,730 SQ.FT.

SKATEPARK

ENCLOSED FOOTPRINT
1,540 SQ.FT.

BLDG. #2 - STORAGE BUILDING FOR SURF SHOP

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

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

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

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

LANDSCAPED/ NATURALVEGETATION AREAS

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE SHEET
SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 1 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING

SOUTH FROM JUST TO THE NORTH

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND

DRAINAGE CULVERT FROM THE NORTH

VIEW OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE

PROPERTY FROM SAN PEDRO AVENUE

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING

SOUTHWEST FROM BEHIND THE

EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER

VIEW OF THE NORTHERN END OF THE

PROPERTY AND BEYOND, LOOKING

FROM THE EAST

VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING

NORTHEAST FROM ACROSS SAN

PEDRO AVENUE
A0.1

PHOTOS OF
SITE
SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 2 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

Page 3 of 18 ends

1. Packet Pg. 3

2. Packet Pg. 6
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

Page 4 of 18 ends

1. Packet Pg. 3

2. Packet Pg. 6
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

Page 5 of 18 ends

1. Packet Pg. 3

2. Packet Pg. 6
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

Page 6 of 18 ends

1. Packet Pg. 3

2. Packet Pg. 6
SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

$

OVERALL SITE PLAN
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3

Page 7 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 8 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 9 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 10 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 11 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

Page 12 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

STORAGE

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

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

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

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

ACCESSIBLE

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

RENTALS

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

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

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

RETAIL SPACE RETAIL SPACE

ACCESSIBLE

RESTROOM
287'2256+2:(5

83 83 '1

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

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

OPEN TO BELOW

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

FLAT ROOF DECK

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

DECK

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

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

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

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

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

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

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

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

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

ARTIFICIAL SOD

FENCED IN / COVERED

SKATE PARK

STORAGE
ROOM
UP

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

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

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

3523(57</,1(

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

ROOF OVER SKATE PARK

BOARD SHAPING ROOM

STORAGE

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

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

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

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

$

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

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

Page 14 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

RETAIL SPACE
1-CAR
GARAGE
1-CAR
GARAGE

RETAIL OFFICE /

STORAGE SPACE

GARBAGE

COVERED DRIVEWAY /

VEHICULAR

PASS-THROUGH

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

RESIDENTIAL UNIT 2
RESIDENTIAL UNIT 1
DECK
DECK
DN

OPEN TO
BELOW

BEDROOM

BATHBATH

BEDROOM

LNDRY LNDRY

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

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

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

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

Page 15 of 18 ends

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 20.2'
BLDG #1 BASEMENT F.F. = 10.7''
T.O. PLATE = 31.2'
BLDG #1 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 33.2'
T.O. PLATE = 45.2'
BLDG #1 T.O. ROOF = 52.5'

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

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

[5(':22'32676
7<3

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

$%29())2)%/'*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7<3

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

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

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

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

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

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

$57,),&,$/62'$5($%(+,1'
%/'*
:$/.:$<$/21*%/'*6

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

0$;

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

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

[5(':22'32676
7<3

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

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

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

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

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

$
BLDG #1 NORTHWEST ELEVATION
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3
Pa
ge 16 of 18

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve BLDG #2 T.O. ROOF = 45.8'
T.O. PLATE = 40.2'
BLDG #2 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 30.2'
T.O. PLATE = 29.2'
BLDG #2 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 17.2'

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

0$;

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

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

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

0$;

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

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

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

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

0$;

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

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

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

0$;

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

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

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

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

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

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

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

$
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2

NORTHWEST ELEVATION
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2

NORTHEAST ELEVATION
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
SKATEPARK & BLDG #2SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 2-19-0026
Exhibit 3
Pa
ge 17 of 18

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'
T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'
:$/.,1*3$7+$/21*6,'(2)
3523(57<
7<3

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

0$;

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

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'
T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'

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

0$;

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

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'

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

0$;

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

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

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

BLDG #3 T.O. ROOF = 51.0'
T.O. PLATE = 43.0'
BLDG #3 2ND FLOOR F.F. = 32.0'T.O. PLATE = 30.7'
BLDG #3 1ST FLOOR F.F. = 16.7'

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

0$;

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

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

7<3

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION DATE REV

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

VACANT LOT ON PEDRO POINT

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

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

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

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

$
BLDG #3 NORTHWEST ELEVATION
2-19-0026
Exhibit 3
Pa
ge 18 of 18

1.g
Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Scenic Pacifica
lncorporated Nov. zz, 1957

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

VIACERTIFIED MAIL
MAYOR
John Keener

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINAL LCCAL
ACT!Ci.{ NOTICE
I Project

REFERENCE
2-19-0026
Exhibit 4

Page 1 of 1 ends

1.g
Packet Pg. 3127 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6888 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3128 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6889 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3129 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6890 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve

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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3130 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6891 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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

1.g
Packet Pg. 3131 Attachment: Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)

2.C
Packet Pg. 6892 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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

Pacifica City CouncilJuly 11, 2022

Pacifica City Council
July 11, 2022