Agenda, special meeting — Pacifica City Council, July 11, 2022 (part 1 of 45)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 July 11, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING
July 11, 2022 (MONDAY) – 5:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) NOTICE

THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361) WHICH AUTHORIZES

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID-19 ON MARCH 4, 2020.

THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT

ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ATTENDEES.

Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City Council Meeting will be held via teleconference only and will not be physically open to the public. City Councilmembers and staff will teleconference into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom.

Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.

To Observe the Meeting:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
• To dial-in via phone:

Dial: 1-669-900-6833 And enter Webinar ID: 840 5973 3437 To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment:
• For Special Meetings, public comment is limited to items on the agenda only. • During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The City Clerk will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees.

Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment. • Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected] and will be City Council Special Meeting 2 July 11, 2022
made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

Alternative Ways to Watch the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is via the zoom link or phone number listed above, however, there are alternative ways to watch the meeting:
• Watch on TV on local cable channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv Note: The methods of observing the meeting or providing public comments may be altered or the meeting may be cancelled, if needed. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website at www.cityofpacifica.org for any updates or changes, should they occur.
5:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
Call to Order
Roll Call

STUDY SESSION

1. Study Session regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation regarding a status update of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for City Council approval of a General Plan update and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status:

Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (File No. 2009-001) PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a General Plan update and certify an environmental impact report.

ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public City Council Special Meeting 3 July 11, 2022
hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.

The Pacifica Municipal Code is available on line at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at the Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive.

View on the Internet:

Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:

Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 540 Crespi Drive
Council meetings:

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313
• Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 349-2200
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier, 155 Bovet Road, Suite 780, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 342-0300
• Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553
• Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707
• President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Mike O’Neill, mo’[email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
7/11/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Study Session regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive an informational presentation regarding a status update of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lawrence Henriquez, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this study session is for City Council to receive an informational presentation regarding a status update of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (Master Plan).

The City collects and disposes storm water runoff generated within the City service area through a system of gravity storm drains and open channels connecting to outfalls into the Pacific Ocean. The existing storm drain pipelines range from 4-inches to 120-inches in diameter. The City’s storm drainage infrastructure includes almost 56 miles of storm drainage lines, 8.7 miles of open channels, over 20 ocean outfalls, 12 distinct drainage basins, and two City-operated pump stations.

In 2012, the City hired Carollo Engineers of Walnut Creek to develop a Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP), which modeled the existing storm drainage system. Future growth was identified as a key factor for the construction of new storm drainage facilities to accommodate the increase of runoff. The 2012 SDMP Master Plan Report also proposed a long-term maintenance program inclusive of the new infrastructure storm drainage facilities when constructed. 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan Update:

The reason for upgrading the 2012 SDMP was to address several key objectives such as:
• Industry standard recommendation for updating master plans every 10-15 years. • Updating the City’s hydrologic and hydraulic model that has since become outdated.

1.1 Packet Pg. 4
Pacifica City Council 2
July 11, 2022
• Serve future growth projected by active planning applications and General Plan update land use designations.
• Understand the potential impacts of climate change on the existing storm drainage system.
• Develop a prioritized capital improvement plan and identify potential funding options for transition into the construction phase.
• Document any deficient areas of the City to be addressed by the Master Plan. • Receive any public comments and input to incorporate into the updated plans.

Through a Request for Proposals and consultant interviews process, City staff chose Carollo Engineers to update the 2012 SDMP. Carollo Engineer’s scope of work included the above elements.

The 2022 SDMP efforts began by collecting existing data regarding the City’s storm drainage system during Summer 2021. In December 2021, flow meters were deployed at strategic locations throughout the City storm drain system in anticipation of forecasted rain events to capture flowrate data through the storm drain pipes. The flowrate data collected was used to calibrate and update the outdated hydrologic/hydraulic models to determine future capacity limitations for the City’s storm drainage system. This model assists in identifying deficient areas and helps the engineers determine what improvements could be designed and implemented.

City staff engaged in a stakeholder outreach program with the objective of securing community input regarding storm drainage matters. The first community outreach activity City staff participated in was through pop-up events held in October and November 2021 at the Pacifica Farmer’s Market in Rockaway Beach. Flyers distributed at the events contained information directing residents to the City’s developed Master Plan webpage to provide storm drainagerelated comments to help with development of the Master Plan. Staff was also at the pop-up events and responded to resident questions regarding the City’s storm drainage system.

The City also solicited public feedback through a dedicated page on the City’s website which provided Pacifica residents with an opportunity to share their issues with storm drainage in the City. The page was published on social media and residents were encouraged to provide feedback. The social media outreach included the City’s newsletter, Connect with Pacifica, Facebook and Nextdoor postings. Based on this outreach, the City received concerns/input from residents on a number of issues including:

1. Monterey Road Drainage Basin
a. Water ponding in street due to lack of inlets/inadequate inlet size b. Erosion/damage due to runoff on private property
c. Concerns about creek capacity in the “Big Inch”
d. Other maintenance concerns and improvements/repairs needed

2. East/West Sharp Park Drainage Basin
a. Issues with culvert and potential slope failure

3. Lower Linda Mar / Rockaway Beach Drainage Basin
a. Frequent ponding/flooding concerns on Montezuma and Anza/Arguello (Lower Linda Mar)
b. Small amount of runoff in street year-round from a localized naturally-occurring spring in the 600-block of Rockaway Beach Avenue
The community outreach activities provided existing condition information, which Carollo investigated to substantiate storm drainage infrastructure recommendations. The recommendations will be furnished to City Council at a future meeting relating to CIP projects and prioritization.

1.1 Packet Pg. 5
Pacifica City Council 3
July 11, 2022
Since the environment is evolving, the Master Plan will analyze the storm drainage system as it relates to climate change. There have been studies prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association which discusses climate impact changes, such as sea level rise, coastal flooding, and erosion. A technical memorandum summarizing the findings and recommended considerations would be included in the Master Plan.

The next steps will be for City staff to bring the draft Master Plan with recommendations to Council at a future meeting to discuss the findings, which would include the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and their prioritizations to help inform future year CIP recommendations for City Council approval. The Master Plan is tentatively scheduled for completion in September 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There are no alternative actions at this time.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. The 2022 Storm Water Master Plan will recommend areas in the City for improving stormwater drainage infrastructure while taking into account the effects of sea level rise
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a direct result of this study session.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

1.1 Packet Pg. 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
7/11/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for City Council approval of a General Plan update and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR).

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (File No. 2009-001)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a General Plan update and certify an environmental impact report.

STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The following section provides the relevant background of the General Plan Update (GPU) as well as discussion of the appeal.

A. BACKGROUND
The City of Pacifica (“City”) has worked to complete the GPU since 2009. The GPU was ready for adoption in 2015 when, following a joint City Council/Planning Commission study session, the Council determined that additional community engagement was required. Before staff could undertake the desired community engagement, other community priorities emerged between 2015 and 2018 including discussions of Highway 1 widening, consideration of rent stabilization and cannabis regulations, and sea level rise adaptation planning. The City resumed a concerted effort to complete the GPU in 2019 combined with an effort to complete a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) update and creation of a new Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP). Work on these three plans was branded as the Plan Pacifica process. This process included significant community engagement throughout 2019 and 2020. Additional background on the City’s GPU process can be found in the Planning Commission staff report and agenda packet from June 6, 2022 (Attachment B).

The City released a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for a public comment period from January 7 through March 8, 2022. Following completion of the public review period and the preparation of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), including a response to comments received during the public comment period, the City initiated the final phase of the GPU process by scheduling public hearings to consider adoption.

The Planning Commission conducted public hearings to consider the GPU, SPSP, and FEIR prepared to assess potential environmental impacts from the GPU and SPSP on June 6 and 2 Packet Pg. 7
Pacifica City Council 2
July 11, 2022
June 11, 20221. The Planning Commission provided up to six minutes per public commenter to provide sufficient time for comments on all three documents. Following more than four hours of public comment from 37 speakers and six hours of deliberations, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-014 to recommend City Council certification of the FEIR and approval of the General Plan update.2
The Planning Commission’s recommendation included changes to the following elements of the draft General Plan, and were further detailed in a redline version of the May 2022 version of the draft General Plan as well as in testimony at the City Council’s public hearing on the GPU held on June 25, 20223; agenda packet included as Attachment C:
• Economic Sustainability Element (Chapter 2)
• Community Design Element (Chapter 3)
• Land Use Element (Chapter 4)
• Circulation Element (Chapter 5)
• Open Space and Community Facilities Element (Chapter 6) • Conservation Element (Chapter 7)
• Safety Element (Chapter 8)
• Implementation (Chapter 10)
• Glossary and List of Acronyms.

The City Council received public comment and deliberated at the public hearing on June 25, 2022. However, the City Council deferred final action on the GPU pending resolution of the appeal that is the subject of this agenda report.

B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On June 21, 2022, Mark Hubbell and Christine Boles (hereafter “Appellants”) submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form stating several bases for appeal (“Appeal”), and submitted the applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office, to appeal the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the GPU and to certify the FEIR (Attachment D). The bases for the Appeal are summarized by staff below and followed by staff’s responses.

Basis 1. The City impermissibly evades the EIR’s CEQA errors by hiding behind “a citywide assessment” that does not assess project-specific impacts of potential future projects and therefore lack [sic] substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse impacts.

Staff Response:

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Complies with CEQA Appellants have provided no evidence or explanation of the claims made about the FEIR in this basis for the Appeal. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is codified in the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA’s provisions and requirements are further clarified and implemented by the CEQA Guidelines codified in the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter “CEQA 1 Video of these meetings is available on the Pacific Coast TV YouTube channel: June 6 | June 11 2 The Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the SPSP to June 20, 2022, and following that hearing, continued it again to July 18, 2022.
3 Video of the City Council meeting on June 25, 2022, is available on the Pacific Coast TV YouTube channel. 2 Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 3
July 11, 2022
Guidelines”). Where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (i.e., the decision making body considering a discretionary action or project), that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) shall be prepared. PRC Section 21080(d). As used in CEQA, the term “substantial evidence” means fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.

PRC Section 21080(e)(1). Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. PRC Section 21080(e)(2).

City staff concluded that the GPU and SPSP, if adopted, would have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and initiated preparation of an EIR. The City issued the first Notice of Preparation of an EIR on February 16, 2012, as part of the initial effort to adopt the GPU. However, as noted in the above-referenced background on the GPU, the City did not adopt the GPU started in 2009. The City then expanded the EIR prepared for the GPU to include review of potential impacts to the environment from the SPSP and released the DEIR for public review and comment in January 2022.

CEQA provides for different types of EIRs to be prepared to best fit the type of project being undertaken. These types of EIRs are listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15160 through 15170.

Among the various types of EIRs is a “program EIR,” sometimes called a “programmatic EIR,” as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Attachment E). The City has prepared a program EIR for the GPU.

As indicated in Attachment E, a program EIR may be prepared where a series of actions can be characterized as one large project and those actions are related either:
• geographically;
• as logical parts in the same chain of contemplated actions; or • in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
• as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

These criteria are applicable to the GPU. The GPU contemplates implementation of the policies contained therein, future adoption of zoning to be consistent with the GPU, review of specific actions by the City for consistency with the GPU, and potentially other activities related to the GPU. Together, these comprise a series of actions that are part of the GPU. Because the GPU would become the General Plan for the City of Pacifica, the series of actions would be related geographically. They would also be logical parts in the same chain of contemplated actions beginning with adoption of the GPU and followed by implementation of specific policies contained in the GPU. Furthermore, all follow-on actions pursuant to the GPU would be considered individual activities carried out under the authorizing authority contained in the GPU and similarly mitigated with the policies contained in the GPU. Therefore, preparation of a program EIR is appropriate for the GPU and consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 also lists advantages of a program EIR. These include “consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis.” Just such a situation would result from the Appellants’ claim that the FEIR prepared by the City should have performed an analysis of project-specific environmental impacts. An attempt to focus on project-level impacts would not result in a robust cumulative impacts analysis for the GPU overall and would have the potential to miss reviewing important environmental impacts. 2 Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 4
July 11, 2022
Appellants assert that the EIR is deficient on the basis that the City did not assess specific projects in particular locations. However, practically and logically, there cannot be an accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of specific projects at particular locations without having specific projects to evaluate. Such projects do not exist at this time, and thus, are not reasonably foreseeable. Rather than performing the type of analysis identified by the Appellants, the FEIR utilizes reasonable assumptions of future development activity citywide in reliance on the GPU and evaluates potential environmental impacts therefrom. This type of analysis conducted by the City is consistent with another stated advantage of a program EIR in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which is to “allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.” Utilizing this approach as provided in the CEQA Guidelines, the City identified in the FEIR that most potential environmental impacts would be less than significant after considering compliance with existing laws and regulations, and implementation of the various policies contained in the GPU. The FEIR did conclude, though, that potentially significant impacts to the environment could occur in the following resource areas: Energy and Greenhouse Gases; and, Transportation. Potentially significant impacts to Energy and Greenhouse Gases can be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures, both of which would be applied citywide (i.e., programmatically) in a manner fully consistent with the CEQA Guidelines4. However, impacts to Transportation would be significant and unavoidable due to the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would result from adoption of the GPU.

Although Transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable, CEQA still requires the imposition of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

The FEIR includes feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen potential significant effects to the environment from this impact5.

Lastly, the Appellants’ claim the City is “hiding behind” a citywide assessment is unfounded and does not acknowledge CEQA’s explicit authorization of utilizing program EIRs. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly provides for use of a program EIR to determine if later activities would require additional environmental review. For instance, if a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration (which includes a mitigated negative declaration). Later analysis may tier from the program EIR, which means to continue a more detailed analysis from the more general baseline of analysis provided in the program EIR.

Therefore, Appellants incorrectly claim that the City’s preparation of a program EIR would result in insufficient analysis of potential impacts from the GPU. Rather, the City’s preparation of a program EIR is squarely consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15168; provides for improved analysis of cumulative impacts from the GPU including program wide (i.e., citywide) mitigation of potentially significant impacts from the GPU; and, provides a foundation from which future project-specific actions by the City can be evaluated to determine whether additional environmental review may be necessary.

Standard of Review
Appellants claim that the FEIR prepared by the City lacks “substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse impacts.” However, this “fair argument” 4 See the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which includes Mitigation Measures MM-GHG-1 (electric vehicle charging station requirements in new residential and commercial developments) and MM-GHG-2 (photovoltaic charging system requirements in new residential and commercial developments citywide). 5 See MMRP, Mitigation Measures MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2.
2 Packet Pg. 10
Pacifica City Council 5
July 11, 2022
standard is relevant in the event an EIR is not prepared, which circumstance does not exist here. As background, a lead agency under CEQA will usually initiate preparation of an initial study following preliminary review of a project to determine whether any significant impacts on the environment would occur. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. However, a lead agency may forego preparation of an initial study if it has concluded that a project would clearly require an EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). The City reached this conclusion early in the GPU process and commenced preparation of a DEIR. It has since prepared an FEIR that complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and that supports its conclusions of significance on the basis of substantial evidence as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384. Therefore, the City has properly determined that preparation of an EIR would be appropriate for the GPU and prepared the DEIR and FEIR in compliance with CEQA.

The correct standard in determining the adequacy of an EIR is provided in California Public Resources Code section 21168.5, and states in an action to set aside an agency's decision under CEQA, Courts must look at “whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established where a public agency “has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” Public Resources Code section 21168.5. Under this standard, a court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392; see also id. at p. 407.) Here, Appellants contend that the EIR is deficient by not evaluating specific projects at specific locations, thereby running afoul of CEQA. However, CEQA does not require analysis of speculative future projects. (See In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1172 [“Where, as here, an EIR cannot provide meaningful information about a speculative future project, deferral of an environmental assessment does not violate CEQA.”] Basis 2. This Program EIR must analyze what is reasonably foreseeable from the proposed GP Update, and fails to do so in a number of areas, including, but not limited to fire and landslide maps that are inaccurate and that are lacking implementation policies, inadequate traffic analysis and mitigation measures, inadequate evacuation information, etc. as required per state and CEQA law including California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 5.

Staff Response:

Appellants have not provided evidence or explanation of the claims made about the FEIR in this basis for the Appeal. All EIRs, including a program EIR, must evaluate the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the physical environment that would result from a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2. The FEIR prepared by the City has complied with this obligation by evaluating such potential impacts in all resource areas required in CEQA Appendix G. This includes an analysis of wildfire (FEIR Chapter 3.14) and geology, soils, and seismic risk (FEIR Chapter 3.6). These FEIR chapters are based on substantial evidence in the record to support their analysis and conclusions, including but not limited to a fire threat level map based on data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as presented in Figure 3.14-1, and various geologic hazard maps based on data from the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, and/or U.S. Geological Survey in Figures 3.6-1 through 3.6-3b. These maps provide a conservative assessment of the broad wildfire and geologic risks present in the City of Pacifica for purposes of the FEIR’s analysis.

The maps were created using data from authoritative sources as indicated in each figure.

Figure 3.14-1 was created primarily based on fire threat data retrieved from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Calfire”) in 2020. The data source is the Calfire 2 Packet Pg. 11
Pacifica City Council 6
July 11, 2022
Fire Threat map6 which is published at a statewide scale. The City remapped the Calfire Fire Threat map at a citywide scale using the geographic information system (GIS) dataset7for the Fire Threat map.

Similarly, the City used authoritative sources to create FEIR Figures 3.6-1 through 3.6-3b. As confirmed in the Department of Conservation comments on the DEIR, authored by Dr. Erik Frost – a senior engineering geologist in the Seismic Hazards Program of the California Geologic Survey – the DEIR includes figures depicting the most up-to-date Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation produced under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, as well as the most recent Tsunami Hazard Area maps for evacuation planning. Dr. Frost’s comments do suggest inclusion of a map of past landslides in Pacifica in addition to FEIR Figure 3.6-3a which depicts the relative density of existing landslides. The comment suggests the additional map as a complement to the maps included in the DEIR and does not call into question the accuracy of the data in Figure 3.6-3a. Dr.

Frost’s comments also suggest the addition of a new figure to the FEIR demonstrating past mapped debris flows in Pacifica. Staff responded to this comment by incorporating Figure 3.6- 3b into the FEIR. Staff created Figure 3.6-3b using available GIS data from the California Geologic Survey website. Subsequent to publication of the FEIR in the Planning Commission agenda packet on June 6, 2022, staff learned from Dr. Frost that the GIS data for debris flows were incomplete and he recommended use of “plate” maps, or non-GIS paper-based maps that included debris flow data for the entire city. Staff has since updated the corresponding figure in the Safety Element of the GPU even though Figure 3.6-3b in the FEIR continues to include the GIS-based map with partial data. Neither suggested inclusion by Dr. Frost of a map of past landslides or debris flows affects the conclusions in the FEIR. As demonstrated in Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2, and as confirmed in Dr. Frost’s comments, the FEIR includes accurate information about the extent of seismic hazard zones including but not limited to Alquist Priolo, landslide, and liquefaction hazard zones. These areas cover nearly the entirety of the City of Pacifica and conservatively reflect the potential geologic hazards in Pacifica. Moreover, as analyzed in FEIR Chapter 3.6, various policies in the Land Use and Safety Elements of the GPU would reduce the potential environmental impacts from geologic risks to less than significant levels. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the wildfire and geologic hazard maps prepared by the City in the FEIR are accurate and sufficient to support an analysis of potential wildfire and geologic hazards that may occur within the context of adoption of the GPU.

An EIR is not required to have implementation policies. However, where an EIR has identified one or more potentially significant environmental impacts, an EIR must include feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact(s). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. The FEIR recommended by the Planning Commission for certification by the City Council included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment J to the Planning Commission staff report from June 6, 2022). Therefore, the FEIR recommended by the Planning Commission fulfilled this CEQA requirement in relation to all potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from adoption of the GPU.

However, the FEIR did consider level of service to the extent necessary to determine if adoption of the GPU would conflict with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP), and concluded that no potentially significant impact would occur. The FEIR’s analysis of other 6 Available at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10315/firethreat_19_ada.pdf. 7 Available at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/9792/fthrt14_2.zip. 2 Packet Pg. 12
Pacifica City Council 7
July 11, 2022
transportation impacts concluded adoption of the GPU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and the FEIR included mitigation measures MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 to reduce potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Appellants have not clarified why the City’s traffic analysis is inadequate.

Appellants provide that the FEIR contains inadequate evacuation information as required by CEQA, but does not state the reason for this assertion. Not only is this analysis provided in the EIR, it is supported by substantial evidence. The required analysis of emergency evacuation is found in CEQA Appendix G, Section XX.a, which requires an analysis of whether a project would “Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.” The City analyzed this issue in compliance with CEQA in FEIR Section 3.14 “Wildfire,” specifically in the analysis of Impact 3.14-1. After analyzing the potential impacts, the FEIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant under the GPU.

The Appellants’ claims regarding California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 5 is not specific, and the City is unable to evaluate these claims. The referenced body of law is entitled “Authority for and Scope of General Plans” and is codified in Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4. These sections of law spell out the requirements for cities to have general plans; the requirement that they be integrated and internally consistent; and required elements. The GPU prepared by the City contains all elements required by Government Code Section 65302 except for the Housing Element, which the City intends to separately update as part of the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process as provided in state law.

Basis 3. A Program EIR does not justify deferring analysis of GP Update impacts to a later tiered EIR or negative declaration (see CEQA Guideline [sic] 15152).

Staff Response:

Appellants provide that the City has erroneously deferred analysis of General Plan impacts for future study. However, as noted in discussion of Appeal Basis No. 1, a program EIR is intended to support future tiering for environmental review of projects that will occur later as part of the overall program. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 referenced by Appellants provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.
* * * * *
Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a largescale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.(emphasis added.) 2 Packet Pg. 13
Pacifica City Council 8
July 11, 2022
The Appellants’ citation to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 actually supports the City’s position because the law identifies general plans as a circumstance in which tiering is appropriate.

Courts have opined that "[t]iering is properly used to defer analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures to later phases when the impacts or mitigation measures are not determined by the first-tier approval decision but are specific to the later phases." (See e.g., Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 431.)
Therefore, the City has evaluated potential environmental impacts at an appropriate level for a program EIR and established a baseline for future environmental review through tiering when detailed, site-specific information is known and can be adequately analyzed under CEQA.

C. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE IN THE APPEAL PROCESS
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3208, after considering the appeal, the Council may approve, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the GPU and certification of the FEIR, the Council should deny the appeal by adopting the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal by staff and brought back to Council at a later date.

D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments received prior to agenda packet publication are included as Attachment F.

E. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
City Council consideration of the Appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that action on the Appeal would have a significant effect on the environment. The City has prepared an FEIR to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the GPU (the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046). The City Council must certify the FEIR prior to any final action on the GPU.

F. STAFF SUMMARY
Staff believes there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the GPU and to certify the FEIR as discussed above.

Adoption of the GPU is a legislative matter that does not require specific findings. There is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the GPU would serve the public interest and include policies to protect public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the detailed record developed by the City in preparation of the FEIR demonstrates compliance with CEQA. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the GPU and to certify the FEIR. Consideration of adoption of the GPU and certification of the FEIR would occur at a subsequent public hearing following an action by the City Council to deny the Appeal.
2 Packet Pg. 14
Pacifica City Council 9
July 11, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the GPU and to certify the FEIR. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Action on the Appeal is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City has borne the direct costs of preparing this appeal because it is the applicant for the GPU.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (PDF) Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (PDF) Attachment D - Appeal Form (PDF)
Attachment E - CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (PDF)
Attachment F - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 15
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PACIFICA PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 11, 2022, ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-014 TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FILE NO. 2009-001).

WHEREAS, on June 6 and June 11, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a public hearing to consider adoption of a General Plan Update (GPU) and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) assessing the potential environmental impacts from adoption of the GPU; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 2022-014 by a vote of 5-0 (with two abstentions) to recommended that the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopt the GPU (File No. 2009-001) and certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed on June 21, 2022, by Mark Hubbell and Christine Boles (“Appellants”) with the appropriate appeal fee (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the Appeal raises several issues and challenges the Planning Commission’s action to adopt Resolution No. 2022-014 on June 11, 2022; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) section 9-4.3602, the appeal was heard and determined according to the procedures set forth in Section 9-4.3208 of Article 32 of Title 9, Chapter 4; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and upholds the Planning Commission’s action to adopt Resolution No. 2022-014 on June 11, and makes the following findings pertaining to its denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:

2.A
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 2 Findings for Basis 1:

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Complies with CEQA Appellants have provided no evidence or explanation of the claims made about the FEIR in this basis for the Appeal. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is codified in the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA’s provisions and requirements are further clarified and implemented by the CEQA Guidelines codified in the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”). Where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (i.e., the decision making body considering a discretionary action or project), that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) shall be prepared. PRC Section 21080(d). As used in CEQA, the term “substantial evidence” means fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. PRC Section 21080(e)(1). Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. PRC Section 21080(e)(2).

The City then expanded the EIR prepared for the GPU to include review of potential impacts to the environment from the SPSP and released the DEIR for public review and comment in January 2022.

CEQA provides for different types of EIRs to be prepared to best fit the type of project being undertaken.

These types of EIRs are listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15160 through 15170. Among the various types of EIRs is a “program EIR,” sometimes called a “programmatic EIR,” as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Attachment E to the staff report). The City has prepared a program EIR for the GPU.

As indicated in Attachment E to the staff report, a program EIR may be prepared where a series of actions can be characterized as one large project and those actions are related either:
• geographically;
• as logical parts in the same chain of contemplated actions; or • in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
• as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

2.A
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 3 actions pursuant to the GPU would be considered individual activities carried out under the authorizing authority contained in the GPU and similarly mitigated with the policies contained in the GPU.

Therefore, preparation of a program EIR is appropriate for the GPU and consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Appellants assert that the EIR is deficient on the basis that the City did not assess specific projects in particular locations. However, practically and logically, there cannot be an accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of specific projects at particular locations without having specific projects to evaluate. Such projects do not exist at this time, and thus, are not reasonably foreseeable. Rather than performing the type of analysis identified by the Appellants, the FEIR utilizes reasonable assumptions of future development activity citywide in reliance on the GPU and evaluates potential environmental impacts therefrom. This type of analysis conducted by the City is consistent with another stated advantage of a program EIR in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which is to “allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.” Utilizing this approach as provided in the CEQA Guidelines, the City identified in the FEIR that most potential environmental impacts would be less than significant after considering compliance with existing laws and regulations, and implementation of the various policies contained in the GPU. The FEIR did conclude, though, that potentially significant impacts to the environment could occur in the following resource areas: Energy and Greenhouse Gases; and, Transportation. Potentially significant impacts to Energy and Greenhouse Gases can be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures, both of which would be applied citywide (i.e., programmatically) in a manner fully consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. However, impacts to Transportation would be significant and unavoidable due to the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would result from adoption of the GPU. Although Transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable, CEQA still requires the imposition of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The FEIR includes feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen potential significant effects to the environment from this impact.

2.A
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 4 is squarely consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15168; provides for improved analysis of cumulative impacts from the GPU including program wide (i.e., citywide) mitigation of potentially significant impacts from the GPU; and, provides a foundation from which future projectspecific actions by the City can be evaluated to determine whether additional environmental review may be necessary.

Substantial Evidence Supports the EIR
Appellants claim that the FEIR prepared by the City lacks “substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse impacts.” However, this “fair argument” standard is relevant in the event an EIR is not prepared, which circumstance does not exist here. As background, a lead agency under CEQA will usually initiate preparation of an initial study following preliminary review of a project to determine whether any significant impacts on the environment would occur. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. However, a lead agency may forego preparation of an initial study if it has concluded that a project would clearly require an EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c).

The City reached this conclusion early in the GPU process and commenced preparation of a DEIR. It has since prepared an FEIR that complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and that supports its conclusions of significance on the basis of substantial evidence as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384. Therefore, the City has properly determined that preparation of an EIR would be appropriate for the GPU and prepared the DEIR and FEIR in compliance with CEQA.

The correct standard in determining the adequacy of an EIR is provided in California Public Resources Code section 21168.5, and states in an action to set aside an agency's decision under CEQA, Courts must look at “whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established where a public agency “has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” Public Resources Code section 21168.5. Under this standard, a court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392; see also id. at p. 407.) Here, Appellants contend that the EIR is deficient by not evaluating specific projects at specific locations, thereby running afoul of CEQA. However, CEQA does not require analysis of speculative future projects. (See In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1172 [“Where, as here, an EIR cannot provide meaningful information about a speculative future project, deferral of an environmental assessment does not violate CEQA.”]
Basis 2. This Program EIR must analyze what is reasonably foreseeable from the proposed GP Update, and fails to do so in a number of areas, including, but not limited to fire and landslide maps that are inaccurate and that are lacking implementation policies, inadequate traffic analysis and mitigation measures, inadequate evacuation information, etc. as required per state and CEQA law including California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 5.

Findings for Basis 2:

2.A
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 5 (FEIR Chapter 3.14) and geology, soils, and seismic risk (FEIR Chapter 3.6). These FEIR chapters are based on substantial evidence in the record to support their analysis and conclusions, including but not limited to a fire threat level map based on data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as presented in Figure 3.14-1, and various geologic hazard maps based on data from the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, and/or U.S. Geological Survey in Figures 3.6-1 through 3.6-3b. These maps provide a conservative assessment of the broad wildfire and geologic risks present in the City of Pacifica for purposes of the FEIR’s analysis.

The maps were created using data from authoritative sources as indicated in each figure. Figure 3.14-1 was created primarily based on fire threat data retrieved from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Calfire”) in 2020. The data source is the Calfire Fire Threat map which is published at a statewide scale. The City remapped the Calfire Fire Threat map at a citywide scale using the geographic information system (GIS) dataset for the Fire Threat map.

Dr. Frost’s comments also suggest the addition of a new figure to the FEIR demonstrating past mapped debris flows in Pacifica. Staff responded to this comment by incorporating Figure 3.6-3b into the FEIR.

Staff created Figure 3.6-3b using available GIS data from the California Geologic Survey website.

Subsequent to publication of the FEIR in the Planning Commission agenda packet on June 6, 2022, staff learned from Dr. Frost that the GIS data for debris flows were incomplete and he recommended use of “plate” maps, or non-GIS paper-based maps that included debris flow data for the entire city. Staff has since updated the corresponding figure in the Safety Element of the GPU even though Figure 3.6-3b in the FEIR continues to include the GIS-based map with partial data. Neither suggested inclusion by Dr.

Frost of a map of past landslides or debris flows affects the conclusions in the FEIR. As demonstrated in Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2, and as confirmed in Dr. Frost’s comments, the FEIR includes accurate information about the extent of seismic hazard zones including but not limited to Alquist Priolo, landslide, and liquefaction hazard zones. These areas cover nearly the entirety of the City of Pacifica and conservatively reflect the potential geologic hazards in Pacifica. Moreover, as analyzed in FEIR Chapter 3.6, various policies in the Land Use and Safety Elements of the GPU would reduce the potential environmental impacts from geologic risks to less than significant levels. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the wildfire and geologic hazard maps prepared by the City in the FEIR are accurate and sufficient to support an analysis of potential wildfire and geologic hazards that may occur within the context of adoption of the GPU.

2.A
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 6 the FEIR recommended by the Planning Commission fulfilled this CEQA requirement in relation to all potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from adoption of the GPU.

The FEIR also includes analysis of transportation impacts in Chapter 3.2 to address the impacts identified in Section XVII of CEQA Appendix G. The City’s analysis relied primarily on a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodology. Automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2). However, the FEIR did consider level of service to the extent necessary to determine if adoption of the GPU would conflict with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP), and concluded that no potentially significant impact would occur. The FEIR’s analysis of other transportation impacts concluded adoption of the GPU would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and the FEIR included mitigation measures MMTRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 to reduce potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Appellants have not clarified why the City’s traffic analysis is inadequate.

Basis 3. A Program EIR does not justify deferring analysis of GP Update impacts to a later tiered EIR or negative declaration (see CEQA Guideline [sic] 15152).

Findings for Basis 3:

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 referenced by Appellants provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a sitespecific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such

2.A
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 7 analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed. * * * * *
Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. (emphasis added.) The Appellants’ citation to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 actually supports the City’s position because the law identifies general plans as a circumstance in which tiering is appropriate.

Courts have opined that "[t]iering is properly used to defer analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures to later phases when the impacts or mitigation measures are not determined by the first-tier approval decision but are specific to the later phases." (See e.g., Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 431.) Therefore, the City has evaluated potential environmental impacts at an appropriate level for a program EIR and established a baseline for future environmental review through tiering when detailed, sitespecific information is known and can be adequately analyzed under CEQA. * * * * *

2.A
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning 8 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 11th day of July, 2022.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

2.A
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Action (5049 : Appeal of Planning

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: June 6, 2022 FILE: 2009-001
2020-007
ITEM: 2
SUBJECT: Consideration of Environmental Impact Report and California Environmental Quality Act Findings, General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan, and Recommendation to City Council.

PROJECT
LOCATION: Citywide
PUBLIC NOTICE: A one-eighth page Notice of Public Hearing was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on May 21, 2022, posted on the Planning Department webpage, and mailed to adjacent jurisdictions, interested agencies/persons, and Pacifica’s two library branches. An additional courtesy notice was published in the Pacifica Tribune on May 25, 2022.

The City further issued courtesy notices prior to the meeting to reflect the City Council’s action on May 23, 2022, to change the meeting location for all City commissions and committees to an online teleconference meeting format pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 54953 (as amended by AB 361).

CEQA STATUS: Recommend City Council certification of an environmental impact report (EIR), and adoption of findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).

REQUIRED
APPROVALS: City Council approval of General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Adopt the attached Resolution to recommend City Council adoption of a resolution certifying the EIR, adopting findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and MMRP, and approving the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan (Attachment A).
2 Packet Pg. 118

2.B
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION

1. Background
A. Public Engagement and Involvement in Development of the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan
The General Plan Update (GPU) is the product of more than a decade of work by City staff, consultants, and the community. This meeting of the Planning Commission is a milestone indicating the City’s entry into the final phase of the GPU process. The GPU process started in 2009 and has included robust community engagement, summarized below:
• Formation of a General Plan Outreach Committee
• Stakeholder interviews with 35 representatives of the various community interests
• Community forums attended by 225 community members
• Multiple community meetings before release of 2014 drafts • Joint City Council/Planning Commission study session in 2015 The GPU was ready for adoption in 2015 when, following the joint City Council/Planning Commission study session, the Council determined that additional community engagement was required. Before staff could undertake the desired community engagement, other community priorities emerged between 2015 and 2018 including discussions of Highway 1 widening, consideration of rent stabilization and cannabis regulations, and sea level rise adaptation planning.

The City kicked-off another broad community engagement effort throughout 2019 and 2020, branding this effort Plan Pacifica to reflect the broad planning activities being undertaken with concurrent updates to the General Plan, Local Coastal Land Use Plan1(LCLUP), and adoption of a new SPSP. Community engagement efforts included:
• Five community meetings across the City attended by more than 250 community members in summer 2019
• Online video advertisements on Facebook and Instagram explaining ‘What is a General Plan?’ and ‘What is an LCLUP?’ in summer 2019
• Commission and committee presentations in summer 2019 • Stakeholder interviews with 17 representatives of residents, community organizations, business owners, and developers in fall 2019 • Two joint City Council/Planning Commission study sessions in fall 2019 1 The City Council adopted an updated LCLUP on February 24, 2020. City staff has been working with California Coastal Commission staff towards certification of the LCLUP update since June 2020. 2 Packet Pg. 119

2.B
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 3 ends

• Online community survey with over 100 responses in fall 2019 • Planning Commission presentation of SPSP Existing Conditions Report in November 2019
• Formation of a City Council ad hoc subcommittee on SPSP outreach in November 2019
• SPSP community meeting at Little Brown Church in January 2020 • Online community survey with over 350 responses in spring 2020 • Community workshop and EIR scoping meeting in August 2020 • SPSP virtual “walk” along Palmetto Avenue in November 2020 • SPSP policy direction at City Council in September and November 2020 Staff has additionally fielded numerous informal inquiries in-person and by email and phone to answer community questions. In total, the City has held nearly 20 public meetings and has received input from more than 1,000 members of the public throughout this extensive public engagement process.

Most recently, the City in early 2022 provided an extended 60-day public review and comment period on the draft EIR (state law requires only 45 days) prepared to assess potential environmental impacts from the GPU and SPSP. The City received hundreds of public comments on the draft EIR, with many additional comments on the GPU and SPSP as further described later in the staff report.

B. Preparation of Updated General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan Documents The Planning Commission, City Council, and community input received in 2019 and 2020 provided guidance to staff to revise and update the 2014 draft General Plan and prepare a new SPSP. The significant effort invested in previous development of the 2014 draft resulted in a focus on updating outdated references in the 2014 draft (such as completed actions/projects, removing references to Highway 1 widening, etc.), incorporating City Council policy direction provided in the 2019 study sessions (such as key land use policies for specific sites), and ensuring consistency of General Plan policies with those in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP or LCP) approved by the City Council in February 2020.

Following City Council guidance provided in November 2020, considerable effort has focused on preparation of the new SPSP. Creation of the SPSP required creation of all elements needed within a new plan. These elements included additional urban design work to refine policy guidance provided by the City Council and to create functional street design examples for some of the key transportation investments proposed in the SPSP. Another significant area of work was making updates to the draft EIR prepared for the 2014 draft General Plan, as well expanding the analysis in the draft EIR to incorporate the SPSP.
2 Packet Pg. 120

2.B
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 4 ends

Staff and consultants have worked diligently to continue forward progress on the important GPU and SPSP processes which culminated in release of an updated draft General Plan, new SPSP, and updated draft EIR for public review and comment in January 2022.

2. Staff-Proposed Changes to January 2022 Draft General Plan and Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan
A. Overview
The content in the draft General Plan and draft SPSP released in January 2022 were a reflection of Planning Commission, City Council, and community input received up to their release date.

These two documents are being published in this report to serve as the baseline for consideration by the Planning Commission. Both documents have been updated on their covers to reflect “May 2022” to distinguish them from the prior versions.

The May 2022 version of the draft General Plan included as Attachment B, and the May 2022 version of the draft Sharp Park Specific Plan is included as Attachment C. The May 2022 version of the draft General Plan is similar to the January 2022 version, with the following minor revisions to the version released on January 7:
• Addition of Figure 8-8 to Chapter 8 – Safety. This figure was inadvertently omitted in the January 7 release and is intended to be part of the base document considered by the Planning Commission.
• Non-substantive typographical corrections to improve readability of the documents.

No changes have been made to the draft Sharp Park Specific Plan except that the cover page has been updated to reflect the May 2022 version for consistency of reference with the May 2022 version of the draft General Plan.

B. Changes to January 2022 Version of the Draft General Plan Since January 2022, additional community input has been received through the public review and comment period on the draft EIR that occurred from January through March. A number of public and agency comments on the draft EIR have prompted staff to propose changes to the draft General Plan as outlined in Attachment D. The redline changes proposed in Attachment D are a companion to the draft General Plan in Attachment B, and enable readers to see a redline version of content edits that have been included in Attachment B. The redline changes are presented in this fashion to distinguish between content based on prior City Council and Planning Commission guidance (the January 2022 version) and new edits that have not yet been considered by the City Council and Planning Commission (redline changes).

C. Comparing Proposed Redline Changes to January 2022 Version of Draft General Plan Readers must consult the redline changes proposed in Attachment D to view the changes to the January 2022 version of the draft General Plan that have been incorporated into the May 2022 2 Packet Pg. 121

2.B
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 5 ends

version (Attachment B) proposed by staff in response to public input during the draft EIR public comment period.

Further potential changes to the May 2022 draft General Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission are outlined later in this staff report in Sections 3 and 4, and are not currently reflected in either the May 2022 version of the draft General Plan (Attachment B) or the redline version of staff-proposed changes (Attachment D).

3. Policy Options to Consider for Incorporation in Draft General Plan and/or Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan
A. Overview
Public comments received by the City have identified certain policy options for Planning Commission consideration to incorporate as recommendations to the City Council into the draft General Plan and draft SPSP. The following sections summarize these policy options and include staff recommendations.

B. General Plan: Chapter 4 – Land Use

1. Land Use Designation Change: APN 023-190-090, 023-190-060, 023-190-040 – Linda Mar
a. These properties are located adjacent to Linda Mar School (indicated with red arrow). They are privately owned and are incorrectly designated as Public and Semi-Public, which is the land use designation applied to Linda Mar school. The adjacent privately owned properties on Rosita Road and Adobe Road are designated as Low Density Residential, which is the predominant land use designation in this area. One of the affected property owners commented on this discrepancy and advised staff about all affected 2 Packet Pg. 122

2.B
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 6 ends

properties. This property owner also pointed out that the City Council several years ago redesignated the property at 900 Rosita Road (APN 023- 190-090) to Low Density Residential.
b. Staff recommendation: Change to Low Density Residential.

C. General Plan: Chapter 7 – Conservation

1. Add policy related to study of wildlife movement corridors and potential wildlife crossings
a. Among the comments submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the agency recommended that the City should study wildlife movement to develop a baseline understanding of the areas where wildlife movement, crossings, and mortalities are most prevalent in order to identify species use and to aid in identifying criteria used to determine appropriate wildlife corridor widths and locations where development should not occur.

Staff notes that the draft General Plan currently contains Guiding Policy COG-11 that provides as follows:

CO-G-11: Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect other potential ESHAs, high habitat value areas, and wildlife movement corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values. b. Staff recommendation: Add a new Implementing Policy to include the goal of mapping out wildlife movement corridors in Pacifica, as follows:
“The City shall advocate for funding and participate in a regional or subregional study to identify areas where wildlife crossing structures would result in the largest benefit to rare, threatened, and endangered special status and non-special-status species for wildlife connectivity, to be led and conducted by an appropriate agency.”

2. Revise Implementing Policy CO-I-39 related to heritage tree ordinance update a. A public commenter on behalf of Tree City Pacifica noted there is no implementing policy to correspond with Guiding Policy CO-G-10, which provides as follows:

CO-G-10: Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.

The comment states that most Tree City USA cities (of which Pacifica is one) have canopy goals for the urban forest that guide the actions of staff and 2 Packet Pg. 123

2.B
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 7 ends

citizens. The comment requested that Pacifica establish a canopy goal and also add an implementing policy that states “Adopt an aspirational Canopy Goal to promote the protection and expansion of the urban forest.” Staff notes the City is already underway with work on updates to its tree ordinances, including a heritage tree ordinance update. Moreover, the draft General Plan already contains Implementing Policy CO-I-39, which provides as follows:

CO-I-39: Heritage Trees. Update the Heritage Tree ordinance to improve ease of City administration and clarify for applicants and surrounding residents.
b. Staff recommendation: Revise the policy as indicated below (see underlined text for added language):

CO-I-39: Heritage Trees. Update the Heritage Tree ordinance to improve ease of City administration and clarify for applicants and surrounding residents. Consider a canopy goal for heritage and non-heritage trees as part of the Heritage Tree ordinance update or other updates to the City’s tree regulations.

D. General Plan: Chapter 8 – Safety

3. Incorporate additional landslide hazard maps
a. Among the comments submitted by the California Geologic Survey (CGS), the agency recommended that the City include an additional map of past landslides to supplement the map included as Figure 8-3 (the comment did not specifically mention the additional map of landslides in Figure 8-3b).

The comment indicated that CGS has compiled an inventory of landslides in the planning area (as shown in Seismic Hazard Zone Reports 128 and 133), and provided data of this landslide inventory for the City to review.

Staff has reviewed the landslide inventory provided by CGS and determined it shows additional landslides not currently identified in Figures 8-3 and 8- 3b.
b. Staff recommendation: Incorporate the landslide inventory map shown in Attachment E into Chapter 8 – Safety as a supplement to existing landslide information.

4. Revise Implementing Policies SA-I-101 & SA-I-102 related to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and Emergency Response Coordination.
2 Packet Pg. 124

2.B
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 8 ends

a. The North Coast County Water District (NCCCWD) submitted a comment requesting inclusion of the NCCWD in the City's emergency operations planning and response coordination activities as described in Policies SA-I101 and SA-I-102. The NCCWD identified itself as a provider of essential services during emergencies and stated a desire to be part of the City's meetings and drills.

Staff notes it is critical that utility services (water, electricity, etc.) are continually provided to residents and businesses during natural and manmade emergencies. Therefore, the Planning Commission can consider adding the language to Policies SA-101 and SA-102 as noted below. b. Staff recommendation: Revise the policies as indicated below (see underlined text for added language):
i. SA-I-101: Emergency Operations Plan. Update and maintain the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, which provides adequate response to disasters, including emergency ingress and egress, and defines the expected roles of City, County, utility service providers and regional agencies.
ii. SA-I-102: Emergency Response Coordination. Develop effective mechanisms for a coordinated response to natural and man-made emergencies by:
• Conducting regular emergency planning meetings and disaster preparedness exercises with City departments, the Fire District, the County, medical centers, utility service providers, and other emergency service providers and relevant public agencies; • Holding emergency drills that require all City staff to be adequately trained to handle different kinds of emergency scenarios; and
• Coordinating with the County on regional emergency
communications.

4. Property Owner Requests
Staff has received two written requests from property owners seeking to change the land use designations proposed for their properties in the draft General Plan and/or SPSP. Each request is listed below in order of geographic location from north to south, followed by staff’s recommendation.

A. 44 Carmel Avenue – West Sharp Park
APN 016-031-050
2 Packet Pg. 125

2.B
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 9 ends

1980 General Plan: Low Density Residential (3 to 9 units per acre) Proposed (GP): Low Density Residential (3 to 9 units per acre) Proposed (SPSP): Low Density Residential (3 to 9 units per acre) Owner Request: High Density Residential (16 to 21 units per acre) Evaluation of Request: The existing land use on the subject property is a detached singlefamily residence. The property to the west contains a single-family residence while the property to the east contains a multi-family residential building. The property is located roughly equidistant between Beach Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue.

The property owner’s request indicates a desire to the property as part of high-density infill, with the owner remarking that the existing low-density development (i.e., single-family residence) is increasingly unaffordable to maintain.

Staff Recommendation: The Vision Statement for the SPSP included that the “residential focus is maintained on east-west streets between Francisco Boulevard and Beach Boulevard,” with “smooth transitions from higher-energy corridors to smaller-scale neighborhoods” (SPSP, p. 1-5). Discussion of residential areas states in part that “the character of lower density residential uses [should be] preserved in key areas” (SPSP, p. 3-6).

These concepts were translated into SPSP Policy 3-G-3 which intends to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods between Beach Boulevard, Palmetto Avenue, and Francisco Boulevard, while focusing the location of new higher-energy mixed-uses in the north-south corridors (SPSP, p. 3-17).

Therefore, given the mid-block location of the subject site, the SPSP policy intention to maintain the character of lower density residential uses, the SPSP policy intention to provide transitions to higher-energy uses located on north-south corridors, there does not appear to be policy support in the SPSP to establish a High Density Residential land use in this location.

Staff does not recommend approving this property owner request. 2 Packet Pg. 126

2.B
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 10 ends

B. Between 4320 and 4400 Coast Highway – Rockaway Beach APN 018-140-700
1980 LCLUP: Commercial (Mixed-use up to 22 units per acre) Proposed (GP): Service Commercial (no residential uses allowed) Owner Request: Mixed Use Neighborhood (16 to 30 units per acre)2 Evaluation of Request: The subject property is approximately 3.48 acres in area and is undeveloped. Note that the property owner of the subject site has submitted a development permit application known as the Pacifica Highlands Project that would construct residential development on adjacent parcels and would include supporting development on the subject site, such as a private street, retaining walls, stormwater treatment facilities, and other infrastructure (no commercial or residential development is currently proposed on the subject site). The site is also contained within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) zoning overlay.

The property owner’s request expresses an opinion that the Service Commercial land use designation is a “downzoning” of the subject property relative to the existing “C-2 zoning” that allows for more uses than the proposed designation. The Service Commercial land use designation proposed for the subject site would allow industrial and heavy commercial uses, such as auto repair, equipment rental, storage, and materials salvage. The request also states that it would be inconsistent to designate the subject parcel as Service Commercial while changing surrounding land use designations to Mixed Use Neighborhood. The property owner also claims the proposed designation appears to be a “spot zone” around mixed-use designations.
2 The Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designation generally allows 16 to 30 dwelling units per acre, while up to 30 units per acre allowed on sites ½-acre and larger.
2 Packet Pg. 127

2.B
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 11 ends

Staff Recommendation: The property owner’s request mixes discussion of General Plan land use designations (which are at issue with the GPU under consideration) and zoning classifications (which are not at issue in the GPU process). Further, the proposed Service Commercial land use designation would not constitute an impermissible spot zoning action as claimed because a Service Commercial land use designation would be reasonable to apply to the subject site. It is located midway between Reina del Mar Avenue and Fassler Avenue, a greater walking distance than either adjacent parcel. This results in less walkability and a greater auto-orientation for land uses on the subject site as compared to the adjacent sites, making it less suitable for potential residential development than either adjacent parcel proposed for the Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designation. The result is that more auto-oriented land uses such as industrial and heavy commercial uses could be more suitable for this site than residential development.

The properties to the north and south of the subject site are proposed for Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designations, which would allow mixed-use commercial and residential development at standard densities of 16 to 26 units per acre and up to 30 units per acre on sites ½-acre and larger (which includes the subject site with an area of 3.48 acres).

In staff’s assessment, a Service Commercial land use designation is likely to be incompatible with adjacent Mixed Use Neighborhood land uses proposed for adjacent properties to the north and south. Therefore, while a Service Commercial land use designation could be appropriate for the subject site on its own, a change to Mixed Use Neighborhood on the subject site would ensure compatibility of uses among the adjacent parcels and would achieve consistent land uses along the Highway 1 frontage in this area.

Therefore, staff recommends granting the property owner’s request and recommends the Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designation.

5. California Environmental Quality Act
An action to adopt the GPU and SPSP would be subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To comply with CEQA, staff has prepared a final environmental impact report (FEIR) (Attachment F).

The draft EIR (DEIR) was available for public review and comment from January 7 through March 8, 2022. The City received 182 comment letters from private individuals and groups, and 6 comment letters from public agencies during the public comment period (Attachment G). These comment letters were comprised of more than 1,200 individual comments requiring review and response. The City has prepared a Response to Comments (RTC) document (Chapters 2 and 3 of Attachment F) that includes responses to these public and agency comments.

The FEIR prepared by the City includes the DEIR with revisions to correct typographical errors and minor clarifications that do not amount to substantial revisions requiring recirculation of the DEIR (Attachment H, consisting of Attachments H1 through H5). The FEIR also includes the RTC, 2 Packet Pg. 128

2.B
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 12 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment I), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)(Attachment J). The revised DEIR, public/agency comments, RTC, findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and MMRP collectively make up the FEIR (Attachments F through J, inclusive).

Generally, the FEIR found that most potential environmental impacts would be less than significant after considering compliance with existing laws and regulations, and implementation of the various policies contained in the Proposed Plans. The FEIR did conclude, though, that potentially significant impacts to the environment could occur in the following resource areas:

Energy and Greenhouse Gases; and, Transportation. Potentially significant impacts to Energy and Greenhouse Gases can be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. However, impacts to Transportation would be significant and unavoidable due to the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would result from adoption of the Proposed Plans. Although Transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable, CEQA still requires the imposition of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen potential significant effects to the environment are identified in the MMRP (Attachment J).

6. Public Comments
The City received four public comments and one comment from the California Coastal Commission related to this agenda item prior to agenda publication on May 25, 2022 (Attachment K).

As described in the preceding section, the City also provided a public review and comment period on the draft EIR from January 7 through March 8, 2022. The City accepted comments on the draft General Plan and draft Sharp Park Specific Plan during this same period as well.

The City received 182 comment letters from private individuals and groups, and 6 comment letters from public agencies during the public comment period (Attachment G). These comment letters were comprised of more than 1,200 individual comments requiring review and response as included in the RTC (Chapters 2 and 3 of Attachment F).

7. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution which would recommend City Council certification of the FEIR to comply with CEQA, and approval of the GPU and SPSP. The Planning Commission may consider including revisions to the GPU and SPSP, including but not limited to those potential changes specified in Attachment D and in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.

8. Commission Action
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:
2 Packet Pg. 129

2.B
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PC Staff Report
General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council June 6, 2022

Page 13 ends

A. Recommend that the City Council certifies General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
B. Recommend that the City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA;
C. Recommend that the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA;
D. Recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan, including the amendments incorporated into the May 2022 drafts of those documents identified by the Planning Commission; and
E. Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (PDF) Attachment C - Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan (May 2022 Version) (PDF) Attachment D - Redline Edits to Draft General Plan (PDF) Attachment E - Proposed New Figure 8-X (Landslides) (PDF) Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (PDF)
Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters OPTIMIZED (PDF) Attachment H – FEIR Appendix B – Redlined DEIR (PDF)
Attachment I - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (PDF) Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (PDF) Attachment K - Public Comments Received Prior to Agenda Publication (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 130

2.B
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CERTIFY AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT

OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPT THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND SHARP PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. 2009-001 AND 2020-007) .
_______________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica desires to update its General Plan, last comprehensively updated in 1980, by adopting a comprehensive General Plan update, and also desires to adopt a new Sharp Park Specific Plan (collectively “Proposed Plans”); and
WHEREAS, City of Pacifica Planning Division is the Lead Agency for preparing the environmental review for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for project approval; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica Planning Division issued a Notice of Preparation of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) on August 11, 2020, for the Proposed Plans, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046 for the Proposed Plans in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq.; and WHEREAS, on January 7, 2022 (with filing date by the State Clearinghouse on January 10, 2022), the City of Pacifica issued a Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability for the DEIR, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2022, the City of Pacifica distributed copies of the DEIR to public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Proposed Plans and to publicly accessible repositories including the Sharp Park and Sanchez branches of the Pacifica Library and invited comments on the DEIR in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and
WHEREAS, the 45-day minimum public review and comment period for the DEIR ran from January 7, 2022, through March 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were collected and responses to comments (“RTC”) were considered in the revisions made to the DEIR to comprise the Final EIR (FEIR); and

2.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council)

2.B
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to WHEREAS, the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046 was made available to the public on May 25, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from the Proposed Plans and recommends certain mitigation measures regarding such effects; and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Plans would have significant and unavoidable effects on transportation, specifically related to increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), after implementation of identified mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that where more than one reason for approving the Proposed Plans and rejecting alternatives is given in its findings or in the record, and where more than one reason is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Planning Commission would have made its decision on the basis of any one of those reasons; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Proposed Plans at a special meeting on June 6, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby find as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby:

1. Concludes that it has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the FEIR, RTC, Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, MMRP and all written documentation and public comments prior to recommending City Council approval of the Proposed Plans and finds the FEIR, inclusive of the RTC, Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP, reflect the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

2. Concludes that the FEIR, inclusive of the RTC, Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP, constitutes substantial evidence, and also constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete document in compliance with all legal standards.

3. Concludes that the revisions made to the FEIR following public review of the DEIR simply provide minor clarifications and do not amount to substantial revisions requiring recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

2.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council)

2.B
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to File No. 2009-001 and 2020-007: General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan June 6, 2022

Page 3 ends

4. Recommends that the City Council certify the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

5. Recommends that the City Council adopts the Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

6. Recommends that the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, included as Exhibit B to this Resolution.

7. Declares that the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Planning Department of the City of Pacifica, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044.

8. Incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby find as follows:

1. The public health, safety, and general welfare are best served by adoption of the Proposed Plans.

2. Recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Proposed Plans in the manner recommended by the Planning Commission, with specific changes to the Draft General Plan attached to the staff report as provided in Exhibit C to this Resolution, and specific changes to the Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan as provided in Exhibit D to this Resolution.
* * * * *

2.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council)

2.B
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to File No. 2009-001 and 2020-007: General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan June 6, 2022

Page 4 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 6
th day of June 2022.

AYES, Commissioners:

NOES, Commissioners:

ABSENT, Commissioners:

ABSTAIN, Commissioners:
______________________________
Lauren Berman, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

2.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation to City Council)

2.B
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M i l a g r a R i d g e
( G G N R A )
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
S h a r p P a r k
G o l f C o u r s e
S h a r p P a r k
M o r i P o i n t
( G G N R A )

FASSLER
AV E

TERRA NOVA
B
LV
LINDA
MAR
B
ND
AVE

ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR
PI
DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD
PALMET
T
O
AVE

MI LAGR ADR
BEA
C
H
BLV
D
P a c i fi c
O c e a n
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach

EVE RGLAD ES DR
R

OBERTSRD
SHAR

P P A RK R D

BRADFORD WAY

E DGEMAR A VE
OCEANA
BLV
D
SHARP

PARK RD TALBO T AVE

MOANAW AY
·|}þ1
HS
ES
ES
MS HS
General Plan
May 2022
City of Pacifica
DRAFT

2.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Pacifica City Council
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O’Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Planning Commissioners
Lauren Berman, Chair
Samantha Hauser, Vice Chair
George Domurat
Alex Ferguson
James Godwin
David Leal
David Wright
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director

2.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Prepared for
City of Pacifica
by
DKS Associates
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
ESA
Charles M. Salter Associates Inc.

May 2013 General Plan
May 2022
City of Pacifica
DRAFT

2.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

2.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Planning Process..............................................................................................................1-2

1.2 General Plan Requirements..................................................................................................................1-7

1.3 Planning Context................................................................................................................................1-12

1.4 Plan Themes and Key Initiatives..........................................................................................................1-13

1.5 Development Under the Plan .............................................................................................................. 1-15

1.6 Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations......................................................................................1-16

1.7 Guide to Using this Document...........................................................................................................1-18

1.8 Plan Administration...........................................................................................................................1-20 2 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Vision and Priorities............................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2 Regional and Local Economic Context............................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 The Future Economy........................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Fiscal Sustainability ............................................................................................................................2-11

2.5 Economic Development Strategy ........................................................................................................2-11 3 COMMUNITY DESIGN ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Urban Structure...................................................................................................................................3-2

3.2 Neighborhoods and Districts ..............................................................................................................3-5

3.3 Hillside and Coastal Development..................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 Scenic Routes..................................................................................................................................... 3-14

2.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to ii PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
4 LAND USE..............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Existing Land Use............................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Land Use Framework ...........................................................................................................................4-5 5 CIRCULATION ........................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Circulation Framework ........................................................................................................................5-2

5.2 Existing Travel Patterns........................................................................................................................5-3

5.3 Roadway Network and Planned Improvements....................................................................................5-5

5.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network......................................................................................................... 5-23

5.5 Public Transportation and Transportation Demand Management.....................................................5-29

5.6 Truck Movement.................................................................................................................................5-33

5.7 Parking ..............................................................................................................................................5-34 6 OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ........................................................6-1

6.1 Parks, Beaches, and Open Space......................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Trail System .......................................................................................................................................6-17

6.3 Coastal Access....................................................................................................................................6-25

6.4 Schools and Community Facilities.................................................................................................... 6-29 7 CONSERVATION..................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Water Resources.................................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.2 Biological Resources........................................................................................................................... 7-16

7.3 Land and Soil Resources ....................................................................................................................7-30

7.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 7-32

7.5 Energy and Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................... 7-35

7.6 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ................................................................................... 7-40 8 SAFETY..................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................ 8-2

8.2 Flooding and Drainage.......................................................................................................................8-13

8.3 Coastal Resilience.............................................................................................................................. 8-19

8.4 Hazardous Materials and Operations................................................................................................. 8-32

8.5 Fire Hazards....................................................................................................................................... 8-35

8.6 Public Safety and Emergency Management....................................................................................... 8-40 9 NOISE ....................................................................................................................9-1

9.1 Noise Characteristics and Measurement.............................................................................................. 9-2

9.2 Noise Generation in Pacifica ................................................................................................................9-3

9.3 Noise Exposure Standards................................................................................................................... 9-8

2.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT iii
10 IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................. 10-1

10.1 Implementation Process .....................................................................................................................10-2

10.2 Responsibilities...................................................................................................................................10-2

10.3 The Plan and Regulatory System........................................................................................................10-5

10.4 Capital Improvement and Programming............................................................................................10-8 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................R-1 Economic Sustainability................................................................................................................................. R-1 Community Design ....................................................................................................................................... R-1 Land Use........................................................................................................................................................ R-1 Circulation.....................................................................................................................................................R-2 Open Space and Community Facilities..........................................................................................................R-2 Conservation..................................................................................................................................................R-2 Safety ............................................................................................................................................................R-2 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................R-3 GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................... G-1 Glossary .........................................................................................................................................................G-1 List of Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................G-12

FIGURES
igure 1-1: Regional Setting ....................................................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 1-2: Coastal Zone and Planning Boundary...................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 2-1: Retail Sales and Estimated Household Demand, 2006.............................................................2-6 Figure 2-2: Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Per Fiscal Year................................................................. 2-10 Figure 3-1: Urban Structure ....................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2: Illustrative Urban Form: Eureka Square...................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-3: Visual Resources......................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use.................................................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2: Current Land Use Distribution ................................................................................................4-5 Figure 4-3: Land Use Diagram.................................................................................................................. 4-6 Figure 4-4: Hillside Preservation............................................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-5: Sub-Areas and Specific Sites ................................................................................................... 4-14 Figure 4-6: Pacifica, North ........................................................................................................................4-15 Figure 4-7 Pacifica, Central .....................................................................................................................4-20 Figure 4-8 Pacifica, Southwest................................................................................................................. 4-23

2.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to iv PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Figure 4-9 Pacifica, Southeast..................................................................................................................4-26 Figure 5-1: Roadway Network and Planned Improvements ........................................................................5-7 Figure 5-2: Palmetto Avenue Streetscape Improvements .............................................................................5-8 Figure 5-3: Illustrative Roadway Retrofits...................................................................................................5-9 Figure 5-4: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................................................5-25 Figure 5-5: Existing Transit Routes ...........................................................................................................5-31 Figure 6-1: Parks and Open Space System..................................................................................................6-3 Figure 6-2: Trail System............................................................................................................................ 6-16 Figure 6-3: Coastal Access........................................................................................................................ 6-21 Figure 6-4: Schools and Community Facilities .........................................................................................6-28 Figure 7-1: Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 7-3 Figure 7-2: Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 7-15 Figure 7-3: Sensitive and Critical Habitat..................................................................................................7-19 Figure 7-4: Historic and Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 7-43 FFigure 8-1: Seismic Hazard Zones ..............................................................................................................8-4 Figure 8-2: Liquefaction Zones...................................................................................................................8-6 Figure 8-3: Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion ............................................................................................8-7 Figure 8-3b: Landslide Inventory..................................................................................................................8-8 Figure 8-4: Flood Zones ............................................................................................................................ 8-15 Figure 8-5: Coastal Resilience Subareas.................................................................................................... 8-22 Figure 8-6: Contaminated Sites .................................................................................................................8-33 Figure 8-7: Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services ................................................................................. 8-36 Figure 8-8: Pacifica Neighborhoods with Fewer Than Two Evacuation Routes......................................... 8-41 Figure 9-1: Typical Sound Levels................................................................................................................9-3 Figure 9-2: Existing Noise Contours...........................................................................................................9-4 Figure 9-3: Future Noise Contours.............................................................................................................9-5

2.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT v
Land Use Diagram Inside Back Cover
TABLES
Table 1-1: Correspondence Between Required Elements and Local Coastal Land Use Plan Chapters ........1-7 Table 1-2: Residential Development and Population .................................................................................1-15 Table 1-3: Non-Residential Development and Employment......................................................................1-15 Table 1-4: Correspondence Between Required Elements and General Plan Elements.............................. 1-20 Table 2-1: Demographic Indicators of Economic Conditions.................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2: Employment by Industry, San Mateo County and Pacifica....................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3: Labor Force and Employment Rates for Population Over 16, San Mateo County and Pacifica ................................................................................................................. 2-3 Table 2-4: Place of Work for Workers 16 Years and Older, Pacifica and San Mateo County.......................2-4 Table 2-5 Visitor-Generated Tax Receipts by County...............................................................................2-6 Table 2-6: Current Median Household Income.........................................................................................2-7 Table 4-1: Land Use Classifications and Density and Intensity Standards............................................... 4-10 Table 4-2: Residential Buildout Under the General Plan .........................................................................4-29 Table 4-3: Non-Residential Buildout Under the General Plan................................................................. 4-30 Table 5-1: Daily Travel Patterns.................................................................................................................5-3 Table 5-2: Transit Mode Share..................................................................................................................5-4 Table 5-3: Mode Priorities By Roadway Type............................................................................................5-6 Table 5-4: C/CAG Level of Service Descriptions......................................................................................5-10 Table 5-5: Definition of Multi-modal Level of Service Indicators............................................................. 5-11 Table 5-6: Major Transportation Improvements.......................................................................................5-14 Table 5-7: Peak-Hour Intersection Operations Summary – Existing and Plan Buildout Conditions................................................................................................................ 5-15 Table 5-8: Peak Hour Roadway Segment Operations Summary – Existing and Plan Buildout Conditions........................................................................................................5-17 Table 5-9: Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis..........................................................................5-18 Table 5-10: Commuter and Beach Visitor Parking .....................................................................................5-35 Table 6-1: City Parks and Playfields ..........................................................................................................6-5 Table 6-2: Park Standards ........................................................................................................................6-5

2.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to vi PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 6-3: Regional Parks and Beaches..................................................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-4: Open Space Inventory ............................................................................................................ 6-10 Table 6-5: Coastal Access Points ............................................................................................................. 6-23 Table 6-6: Pacifica Schools by Enrollment and Capacity ..........................................................................6-31 Table 6-7: Characteristics of Pacifica Libraries......................................................................................... 6-32 Table 7-1: Impaired Water Bodies.............................................................................................................7-6 Table 7-2: Quality Data Summary (2006-2010) for the Planning Area.....................................................7-33 Table 7-3: Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 7-36 Table 7-4: 2006 CO2 Emissions in San Mateo County and Pacifica........................................................ 7-37 Table 7-5: Historic Sites in Pacifica .........................................................................................................7-42 Table 8-1: Proposed Future Sea Level Rise (SLR) Amounts for Various Scenarios With Associated Probability of Occurence (CAL NRA & OPC 2017)...............................................................8-19 Table 8-2: Contaminated Sites in Pacifica ...............................................................................................8-19 Table 9-1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments................................................ 9-9 Table 9-2: Allowable Noise Exposure...................................................................................................... 9-10 Table 9-3: Noise Level Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources........................................... 9-10 Table 10-1: Consistency Between the Plan and Zoning ............................................................................10-7

2.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT vii
This page left intentionally blank

2.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to The 2040 General Plan is a policy document for the long-range development of the City of Pacifica. It provides the direction for the future growth of the City and articulates a vision of what Pacifica aspires to be. The Plan draws its ideas from residents, business owners, elected officials, and City staff and translates these ideas into a set of policies and actions for present and future generations.

This introduction to the General Plan provides an overview of the document.

It highlights key themes, gives the reader a background to the planning process and the requirements for the Plan, describes how the Plan is organized, and explains how it will be administered after it is adopted. 1INTRODUCTION

2.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-3

1.1 PURPOSE AND PLANNING

PROCESS
Purpose
Purpose of the General Plan
The Pacifica General Plan is a policy document mandated by State law to address issues related to physical development and conservation of resources. The Plan
embodies the expressed goals of residents, business
owners, and elected officials and establishes concrete
and achievable actions within the planning period.

Broad objectives such as “create economic development,” “preserve open space,” and “support sustainable practices” are translated into policies, maps, and specific actions that are tangible and can be implemented. The Plan is designed for a range of users, from City staff to residents. Where greater specificity is needed, the City will rely on specific plans, an updated Zoning Ordinance, and subdivision and
other regulations to implement its policies.

This General Plan aims to achieve the following purposes:
• Outline a long-range vision that reflects the aspirations of the community; • Establish goals and policies to guide development
and conservation decisions by the Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff; • Provide a basis for determining whether specific
development proposals and public projects are in
harmony with the City’s long-range vision;
• Reflect Pacifica’s current planning and economic
development efforts;
• Allow City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that enhance the character of the community,
promote public health, preserve environmental
resources, and minimize hazards;
• Provide the basis for establishing and setting
priorities for detailed plans and implementing
Community forums were held to get feedback from Pacifica residents about what they valued most, what they wanted to see change, and what their preferences were regarding key policies and alternative land use scenarios.

2.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
programs, such as the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision regulations, specific and area plans, and the Capital Improvement Program; and
• Ensure that the statewide goals of the California
Coastal Act are served within the Coastal Zone.

Why Update the General Plan?
The City of Pacifica last comprehensively updated its
General Plan in 1980. In the more than 40 years since
then, many of its goals have been carried out, including a Zoning Ordinance with regulations to protect slopes and preserve open space, and the revitalization of the Rockaway Beach area. Many issues facing Pacifica are enduring but the legal environment governing land use, environmental preservation,
housing, and other planning issues have changed.

New priorities have emerged with a new generation
of Pacifica residents and stakeholders. The General
Plan update has provided for a comprehensive assessment of current conditions and; it allows today’s residents to express a vision for the future. This updated plan can provide an opportunity to eliminate obsolete text and policies, ensure legal conformity, and address today’s challenges.

Plan Preparation Process
Community Building: Visioning and Key
Issues
In order for the General Plan update to address accurately community needs and values, a comprehensive public of obtaining the input of residents, business
and property owners, City staff, and elected officials was central to the update process. The visioning phase of the General Plan update process was initiated by the City of Pacifica in the spring of 2009.

At different stages of the plan-making process, residents, property and business owners, organizations, and public agencies were invited to interviews, workshops and open houses to provide input. The initial stage of community involvement included the following elements:
• General Plan Outreach Committee (GPOC).

The City convened a committee of citizens with
the responsibility of stimulating broader community involvement in the process. • Community Interviews. Consultants met with
35 members of the community selected to represent a broad range of interests and provide local knowledge. The interviews took place in
April 2009 and were conducted one-on-one or
in small groups of up to four people. To gain
perspective on the key issues and opportunities
to be addressed in the Sharp Park Specific Plan,
interviews were conducted with 17 stakeholders,
including small-group discussions and individual
interviews with developers, nonprofits, and Sharp
Park residents.
• Community Forums. In 2009, over 225 community members participated in community forums that focused on the community vision
and prioritization of draft guiding policies for
the General Plan and LCLUP. In the summer of
2019, five neighborhood meetings were held to
re-familiarize community members with the Plan
Pacifica process and the 2014 General Plan draft.

Participants were asked to share their values,
concerns, or responses to changing contexts; their
visions, priorities, and issues for the city at large;
their ideas and concerns for specific neighborhoods where the meetings were held; and for the Sharp Park area. Over 200 community members
attended at least one of these meetings. This input
was critical in reaffirming the key themes and initiatives of the 2040 General Plan and developing a vision and priorities for the Sharp Park Specific
Plan. Other Specific Plan-focused community
forums included a concepts workshop at the Pacifica Coastside Museum, in which participants learned about different options for achieving the
goals and vision for Sharp Park and discussed
their preferences.
• Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Workshops. A joint study session of the City
Council and Planning Commission was held on
May 11, 2015, to discuss the 2014 Draft General
Plan. The results of the community reintroduction/visioning meetings and staff recommenda2.b Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-5
tions for General Plan changes were presented at
additional joint study sessions of the City Council and the Planning Commission on August 26 and September 3, 2019. Council and Commission
members and members of the public were given
the opportunity to provide feedback.
• Newsletter. An initial newsletter was mailed to
Pacifica residents and businesses to introduce the
process and its goals.
• Media and Press Releases. The City has provided
press releases to generate local media coverage
of the General Plan update in advance of each
opportunity for community involvement.
• City Website. Frequent updates and interim
documents were available on the City’s website
throughout the planning process.

Analysis of Existing Conditions
The plan-making process involved City staff working closely with land use, traffic, market demand, and other consultants to analyze existing conditions
and development opportunities. Interim reports were
prepared to document findings of technical analysis. These findings were integrated in the Existing Conditions and Key Issues report, published in July
2010 and presented to a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop in September 2010. In response to questions from Council and Commission
members, the report on traffic conditions and the
transportation chapter of the Existing Conditions
report were revised and released in May 2011. Existing conditions were revisited in 2019 to account for any changes since then. The 2019 update included
an online community survey and presentation to the
Planning Commission.

Evaluating Choices
The next phase of the update process involved development and discussion of alternative land use plans and key policy issues. The alternative land use concepts illustrate a range of choices—inspired by the priorities articulated during the community-building
phase and informed by the existing conditions analysis. These were presented for discussion at a third community forum, held January 29, 2011, at Ingrid
B. Lacy Middle School. The meeting featured presentations on alternative concepts for future residential and commercial development, and key issues of sustainability and open parks and open space, followed by small-group discussion periods. The ideas and community feedback were published as the Land
Use Alternatives and Key Policy Issues report, released in May 2011, and presented at public meetings of the
Planning Commission and City Council in August
and September of 2011.

Based on projected growth, the consulting team
offered recommendations for each land use choice,
and for how to proceed with key policy issues. Planning Commission and City Council heard testimony from members of the public, and registered their
agreement or disagreement with each choice. This
guidance from elected officials resulted in Preferred
Plan concept maps, which were completed in January 2012. The City Council and Planning Commission provided guidance to update key policies in the General Plan at two joint study sessions in August
and September 2020. The Preferred Plan combines
the most desirable aspects of the alternatives, with
modifications based on community feedback. The
adopted Preferred Plan Concept continues to provide
the foundation for this General Plan.

Draft and Final Documents
The final phase of the update process includes the
preparation of the Draft Pacifica 2040 General
Plan, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
for public review and adoption. The phase began
with an opportunity for community members and
resource agency representatives to comment on the
proposed project at a scoping meeting for the EIR,
held on August 13, 2020. Drafting the General Plan
involved establishing detailed policies to help the
City achieve its goals for development, conservation,
public facilities and services, and other issues, over
the next 20 years.

2.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The Draft General Plan, and Draft EIR will be circulated for public review prior to public hearings.

After Commission and Council action, the final version of the General Plan will be prepared.

1.2 GENERAL PLAN

REQUIREMENTS
California’s tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans. However, though land use policies are not mandated, the issues to be addressed in the Plan are prescribed by
State law. California Government Code Sections 65300
et seq. establish requirements for the content of General Plans, as well as for their adoption and subsequent amendments. Together, State law and judicial decisions
establish three overall guidelines for general plans:
• The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive.

California’s tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general
plans. However, though land use policies are not
mandated, the issues to be addressed in the Plan
are prescribed by State law. California Government
Code Sections 65300 et seq. establish requirements
for the content of General Plans, as well as for their
adoption and subsequent amendments. Together,
State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for general plans:
• The General Plan Must Be Internally Consistent.

This requirement means that the general plan must
fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to
each other without conflict. “Horizontal” consistency applies both to figures and diagrams as well as general plan text. It also applies to data and
analysis as well as policies. All adopted portions of
the general plan, whether required by State law or
not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede
another, so the general plan must resolve conflicts
among the provisions of each element.
• The General Plan Must Be Long-Range. In
order to avoid incremental planning decisions
which may occur over many years, and may eventually conflict with each other, the General Plan must be long range. The General Plan is intended
to take a long-term view of development and considers issues that may impact the community for the next ten or twenty years.

Circulation, Open Space, and Conservation are among the required topics for General Plans. Planning for the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and other transportation modes helps meet State requirements for “complete streets.”

2.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-7
The City of Pacifica General Plan includes six of
the seven elements required by State law: Land Use,
Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, and
Noise. The seventh required General Plan element
is the Housing Element. Because the Housing Element is required by State law to be updated at specific times—more frequently than the rest of the General Plan—it is published as a separate document.

The City will undertake a planning and community
engagement process to update the Housing Element
and accommodate its 6th Cycle Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA 6) of 1,892 housing units
following adoption of the other required elements of
the General Plan. Adoption of a Housing Element
to reflect RHNA 6 must occur by January 31, 2023.

Until such time, the City’s existing Housing Element
which accommodates its 5th Cycle RHNA (RHNA
5) allocation will remain in effect and in compliance
with State law. However, the Housing Element is
written to be consistent with the rest of the General
Plan. Pacifica’s General Plan also includes two other
optional elements that address local concerns: Economic Sustainability and Community Design.

Table 1-1 shows the relationship between required
General Plan elements and their location in the Pacifica 2040 General Plan. The table also shows the relationship between elements of this General Plan and elements in the 1980 General Plan which this Plan
replaces.

Environmental Justice
The Planning for Healthy Communities Act (SB 1000)
requires General Plans to include consideration of environmental justice in preparing policies and implementation programs, and in creating the physical framework for development. The problems of environmental justice that the General Plan can address include procedural inequities and geographic inequities. • Procedural inequities might include “stacking”
commissions or committees with individuals who
ignore the interests of minority and low-income
residents, holding meetings at times and places
that minimize the ability of low-income residents
to participate, using English-only communications when non-English speaking populations may be affected by land use decisions, and requiring lower levels of mitigation for projects affecting low-income and minority populations. • Geographic inequities might include providing
fewer public services, transit services, and parks
Table 1-1: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN REQUIRED ELEMENTS AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS Required Elements Element in 1980 General Plan Current General Plan Element Land Use Land Use Chapter 4: Land Use
Circulation Circulation Chapter 5: Circulation
Open Space Open Space and Recreation Chapter 6: Open Space and Community Facilities Conservation Conservation Chapter 7: Conservation
Safety Seismic Safety & Safety Chapter 8: Safety
Noise Noise Chapter 9: Noise
Housing Contained in a separate volume Contained in a separate volume Not required Community Design Chapter 3: Community Design Not required Scenic Highways Covered in Chapter 3: Community Design Not required Community Facilities Covered in Chapter 6: Open Space and Community Facilities Not required Historic Preservation Covered in Chapter 7: Conservation Not required Not included Chapter 2: Economic Sustainability Coastal Zone Land Use Policies Covered in Local Coastal Land Use Plan Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

2.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
1 1
92 92
35 84
1 1
1 280
Pacifica
580
380
280
101
101
101
280
101
280
80 880
580
980
880
13 61
238
80 24
101
101
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly
City
East
Palo Alto
Foster
City
Half
Moon
Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo
Park
Pacifica Millbrae
Redwood
City
San
Bruno
San Carlos
San
Mateo
South San Francisco
Montara
Greenbrae
Kentfield
Larkspur
Corte
Madera
Mill
Valley
Tiburon
Sausalito
Richmond
El Cerrito
Berkeley
Emeryville
Oakland
Albany
Orinda
Moraga
Alameda
San Leandro
Lafayette

S A N F R A N C I S C O

M A R I N

C O N T R A

C O S T A

A L A M E D A
S A N

M A T E O
Pacific
Ocean
San
Francisco
Bay
Figure 1-1:

Regional Setting
Pacifica Planning Area
County Lines
Urbanized Area
Freeways
Highways
Major Arterials
BART
Caltrain
Figure 1-1: Regional Setting

2.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-9
P a c i f i c
O cea n
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; County of
San Mateo, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.

Pacica
Pier
Milag r a Ridg e (GGNRA )
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Shar p Par k
Swee ne y Ridg e (GGNRA )
Sa n P ed ro Val ley
C ou n ty Pa rk
Pe d ro Poin t
Headlan ds
(G GNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Pe nin sul a Watersh ed (SFPUC )
Water
Recycling
Plant

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD

DVLB HCAEB

OCEANA BLVD
Figure 1-2
Planning Area and
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Sharp Park Specific Plan Area
Planning Area
City Limits
Figure 1-2:

Coastal Zone and Planning
Boundary

2.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
for minority and low-income residents than for
middle- and upper-income residents.

SB 1000 requires a local government to prepare an Environmental Justice (EJ) Element or integrate EJ-related policies into other elements when both of the following conditions apply: The concurrent adoption or next revision of two or more other General Plan elements, and when a local jurisdiction identifies one or more disadvantaged communities (DACs) within its General Plan planning area.

While Pacifica does not have any communities that meet
the criteria for disadvantaged communities as defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency under
SB 1000, the General Plan addresses environmental justice and any disproportionate burdens, especially related to pollution burden and vulnerability to climate change in Chapter 7 (Conservation). Chapter 6 includes policies to ensure that inequalities in public facilities and service levels are not related to race, ethnicity, or income status.

In 2016, Governor Brown also signed into law Assembly
Bill 2616 (AB 2616), amending the Coastal Act to give the Coastal Commission authority to specifically consider
environmental justice when making permit decisions.

This legislation also cross-references existing nondiscrimination and civil rights law in the Government Code and requires the Governor to appoint an environmental justice Commissioner.

The General Plan addresses environmental justice in the context of parks and public services in Chapter 6 (Open Space and Community Facilities). Chapter 8 (Safety)
includes policies to ensure that public facilities and service levels are not related to race, ethnicity, or income status.

Complete Streets
The California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358)
requires all cities and counties to plan for the development of multimodal transportation networks in their general plans, beginning in January 2011.
“Complete Streets” meet the travel needs of all users
of streets, roads, and highways, and of all modes of
travel (walking, cycling, driving, etc.). Pacifica’s General Plan responds directly to the Complete Streets Act in Chapter 5, Circulation.

California’s Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Legislation
Pacifica’s new General Plan is being updated at a time
when issues of sustainability, global climate change,
and smart growth are being actively addressed at
the State and regional levels. New legislation and
regional planning efforts have informed this Plan
update, and showed how local communities can play
a part in confronting these larger challenges.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32)
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(AB 32) and subsequent update, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2016 (SB 32), directed the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop
a strategy to meet specific targets for greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reductions. The resulting CARB
Scoping Plan outlined the combination of policies,
programs, and measures necessary to reduce statewide
GHG emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by
2030. AB 32 required California to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and SB-32 continues that timeline to reach the targets set in Executive The Plan identifies strategies to preserve open space, and proposes an enhanced trail system connecting the coastline and ridges throughout Pacifica..

2.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-11
Compact, mixed-use development at key locations should stimulate tourism and revitalize shopping areas (left). New development is required to provide park land to serve local residents, or pay fees that help the City provide needed recreational amenities (right).

Order B-30-15. Many of the measures identified in the
scoping plan would, when implemented, contribute to
emission reductions statewide as well as in local communities.

Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375)
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act of 2008 promotes better integration of transportation and land use planning throughout California. The statute complements AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets for passenger
vehicles. Following SB 375, CARB established targets for the years 2020 and 2040 for each region covered by the
state’s 18 federally-designated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), including the San Francisco Bay Area.

Pursuant to this Act, each of California’s MPOs must
prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) outlining how the region will meet its GHG reduction target by integrating land use planning, transportation planning and funding, and housing needs. The SCS has been incorporated into the regional transportation plan, now known as Plan Bay Area 2050.

Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency
Legislation (SB 379)
Passed in 2015, SB 379 requires the safety elements of general plans to be reviewed and updated to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. The review and update must consist of the following components: 1) A vulnerability assessment that identifies the risks climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change; 2) Set of adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and objectives based on the information specified in the vulnerability assessment; and 3) Set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives identified in the adaptation objectives. The City of Pacifica received a Local Assistance Grant from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and California Coastal Conservancy, which provided funding to the City of Pacifica to hire a consultant to conduct technical analyses and prepare a vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan. The City Council approved and adopted Coastal Resiliency Policies in 2018.

These policies are included as part of Chapter 8, Safety, and in Chapter 6, Coastal Resiliency, of the LCLUP.

2.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

1.3 PLANNING CONTEXT
Regional Location
Pacifica is within the San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose metropolitan area, and at its northern end is just 10 miles from downtown San Francisco. The cities
of Daly City, South San Francisco, and San Bruno
border the City on the north and east, and include
urban development up to the City’s borders. Much
of the land to the southeast and south is preserved
as units of the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area, State and County parks, and the San Francisco
watershed, and rural and agricultural land is prevalent to the south. The Pacific Ocean borders Pacifica to the west. Access to Pacifica is primarily via Highway 1 (SR 1, or Coast Highway) and State Route 35 (SR 35, or Skyline Boulevard.) Figure 1-1 shows Pacifica in its regional context.

Planning Boundaries
The Planning Area
The Planning Area is the geographic area for which the
General Plan establishes policies about future urban
growth and natural resource conservation in Pacifica.

The boundary was determined in response to State
law requiring each city to include in its General Plan
all territory within the boundaries of the incorporated area as well as “any land outside its boundaries which
in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to
its planning” (California Government Code Section
65300).

The Planning Area comprises 8,625 acres, or about 13.5
square miles, including all of the City of Pacifica (8,019 acres) as well as 606 acres of unincorporated land south of City limits on the slope of San Pedro Mountain.

Nearly half (47 percent) of the Planning Area is preserved as open space. Another 16 percent of the Planning Area is vacant or undeveloped, and five percent is agricultural. Urban uses make up 32 percent of the
Planning Area, 70 percent of which is residential.

The Coastal Zone
Land west of SR 1, as well as the Shelldance Nursery
property and some land east of SR 1 south of City
limits, is part of the Coastal Zone, subject to Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and the policies of the California Coastal Act. Pacifica’s
Coastal Zone comprises approximately 1,286 acres
of land, or about 15 percent of the Planning Area.

It includes a high proportion of the City’s commercial land and visitor destinations. The Planning Area boundary, Coastal Zone boundary, and City limits
are shown in Figure 1-2.

The General Plan update has been conducted in tandem with the update to Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), covering land use and related issues for the portion of Pacifica within the State’s Coastal Zone

2.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-13

1.4 PLAN THEMES AND KEY INITIATIVES
Several themes for the General Plan were identified
based on input by the public and from key stakeholders and City staff. The importance of these themes was underscored by analysis of existing conditions,
and key initiatives were developed collaboratively
through the planning process. These themes guide
many of the policies in each Plan chapter.
• Open Space Preservation and Trail System
Expansion. Pacifica’s hillsides, beaches, and other
protected open space are prized by community
members for their scenic, recreational, and habitat values. Continued preservation is seen as a key accomplishment over the next 20 years. The
Plan identifies priorities for open space preservation and strategies to protect open space while allowing limited development, to be clustered
and designed to fit into its natural setting. It also
proposes an enhanced trail system connecting the
coastline and ridges throughout Pacifica.
• Sustainable Development and Practices. Pacifica
residents want to allow a responsible amount of
development while ensuring that habitat and the
community’s unique, small-town character are
protected. Residents also want to see green building and other sustainable practices promoted by the City. The Plan aims to set a good land use
balance and to promote sustainable site planning
and design, water conservation, waste reduction,
and use of alternative transportation modes.
• Creating a Destination for Tourism. Throughout the update process, community members and stakeholders emphasized the need for more
economic activity. There is a widely shared sense
that Pacifica has the potential to attract more
tourists, and that this should be a key component of the City’s economic development strategy.

The Plan includes strategies to enhance tourism
by leveraging Pacifica’s natural assets, creating
more attractive places in visitor-oriented districts,
marketing, and pursuing destination hotels and
inns at key sites, including Rockaway Beach and
Quarry.
• Shopping Area Revitalization and Walkable,
Mixed Use Areas. Pacifica residents desire more
attractive and successful commercial areas,
and also envision the development of walkable,
mixed-use areas with good transit access. The
Plan seeks to support commercial revitalization
and redevelopment at key locations, advancing
the City’s fiscal health, its quality of life, and its
sustainability all at once.
• A Unique, Vital Center for Pacifica. Many community members expressed interest in creating a center for Pacifica, to provide a community
gathering place and strengthen the City’s identity.

Palmetto Avenue was most often pointed to as
having great potential to grow into such a vital,
unique district. The General Plan establishes the
goals for the Sharp Park neighborhood and supports the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which provides detailed land use strategies, urban design guidance, and connectivity improvements and
other policies to enhance the area. With implementation of the Specific Plan, new stores and restaurants that cater to residents and stay open
later, cultural and entertainment activities that
draw people from afar, and an increased population base will infuse Sharp Park with vitality that will also draw new businesses and visitors. The
Specific Plan includes improvements to enhance
Palmetto as a pedestrian-oriented mixed use area,
anchored by new development at the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant site which will link the district to the Promenade and the Ocean. New
civic facilities, such as a new Library/Learning
Center, could be valuable assets to this area as
well.

2.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
• Diversity of Housing and Population. Only
a small amount of new housing—about 990
units—is expected to be developed during the
planning period. Residents are proud of the diversity of housing in the community, and want to ensure that this is carried on. In addition, many
observed that new housing types should help provide additional options for residents as they age.

The Plan aims to make Pacifica more accessible
and ensure adequate housing options for people
of all ages and incomes by providing enough sites
at a higher density, and creating opportunities for
mixed use development in transit-accessible locations. • Recreation Facilities and Activities for Youth.

Pacifica has limited recreation facilities, and
community members expressed concern about
the lack of things to do, especially for youth.

The Plan identifies top priorities for recreation
improvements, with an emphasis on improving
park land that exists and providing some small
new parks. Creating more accessible and vibrant
commercial areas with a sense of place that
appeals to visitors will also help make Pacifica a
better place for young people.
• Infrastructure Improvements. The need for the
City to maintain and improve streets, sidewalks,
and other infrastructure was a clear consensus
point for the community. The Plan supports
completion of planned highway improvements
and seeks to set priorities for sidewalk and street
repairs based on location and safety.
• Protection from Natural Hazards. Pacifica faces
a variety of natural hazards, including fires,
earthquake-induced landslides, flooding, and
coastal erosion. The Plan establishes a land use
pattern that reflects hazardous conditions, such
as steep slopes and coastal bluffs, and includes
policies to improve public safety services and
emergency management. The need to respond
over the long term to coastal erosion will be an
ongoing challenge for the City.

Habitat protection and restoration will be a top priority for open space

2.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-15

1.5 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE
PLAN
Development resulting from application of land use
designations and assumed densities under the General
Plan is referred to as “buildout.” Buildout is calculated based on assumptions about new residential and nonresidential development that could be built under the Plan’s land use designations and their respective densities and intensities.

Residential Development and
Population
Table 1-2 tracks the existing and additional housing units and population expected under General Plan buildout.

As shown, approximately 14,520 units existed in the Planning Area as of 2020 according to the California Department of Finance.

Land use designations in the general plan are projected to result in an additional an additional 990 units. In total, General Plan buildout will result in approximately 15,510 housing units in the Planning Area.

According to the California Department of Finance,
Pacifica had a population of approximately 38,330 in 2020.

Assuming that average household size remains stable,
buildout of the General Plan would accommodate a population of approximately 40,990 in the Planning Area, or an increase of approximately 2,720 new residents.

Non-Residential Development and
Employment
Table 1-3 summarizes the additional non-residential floor area and jobs projected to result under General Plan
buildout. Pacifica currently has nearly 2 million square feet of non-residential floor area, not including schools or public facilities. The General Plan is intended to accommodate an additional 620,330 square feet of non-residential floor area. At buildout, the Planning Area will accommodate approximately 7,6310 jobs. Of the 1,470
new jobs, more than three quarters (1,250 jobs) would be service-related and less than one-quarter would be retail jobs, with no anticipated growth in the wholesale/trade sector.

Table 1-3: NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
Existing (2020)1 Net New at Buildout (2040)2,3 Total at Buildout (2040)3 Non-Residential Sq. Ft. 1,945,770 620,330 2,566,100
Jobs 5,840 1,470 7,310
Retail 1,890 230 2,210
Service 3,780 1,250 5,030
Wholesale/Trade 170 - 170
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020. 1 C/CAG 2040 Model baseline estimates are used for estimates of jobs by sector. Existing non-residential square feet is based on San Mateo County Assessor data, and does not include schools or other public facilities. 2 Net new development assumes the following job generation ratios by land use classification: 400 s.f./job in Mixed Use, Retail, Office/ Commercial, and Visitor-Serving Commercial classifications; 800 s.f./job in Service Commercial classifications; 1,200 s.f./job in Low Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial classifications; and 800 s.f./job in the Public and Semi-Public classification. 3 Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Table 1-2: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION
Existing (2020) Net New at Buildout (2040) Total at Buildout (2040) Housing Units 14,520 990 15,510
Population 38,270 2,720* 40,990
Source: Department of Finance, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 *Assumes vacancy rate of 3.8% and 2.86 people per household, based on 2015-2019 ACS rates..

2.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER

PLANS AND REGULATIONS
The General Plan provides the basis for all of the
City’s regulations, policies and programs that relate
to issues addressed in the Plan. In addition to requiring that the Plan be internally consistent, the State also requires “vertical consistency”—i.e., consistency
between the General Plan and other City actions.

This requirement means that the City’s zoning and
subdivision ordinances, specific plans and redevelopment plans, all development approvals, public works projects, and open space implementation programs
have to be consistent with the General Plan.

The State’s General Plan Guidelines provide the following rule for defining consistency: “An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” This rule gives the City flexibility in implementation. Because the Plan is both general and long-range, there are many circumstances where future City actions
will be addressed only generally in the Plan.

Consistency Between the General
Plan and Zoning
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is one of the most
important tools for implementing the Plan. Following Plan adoption, zoning must be revised to be consistent with the General Plan, as needed. Requirements for consistency between the General Plan and zoning can be broken down into three aspects:
• Uses and Standards. The General Plan’s land use
classifications are more general than the Zoning Ordinance classifications. For example, the Plan has five categories for residential use, while
the zoning ordinance may have more. Multiple
zoning districts may be consistent with a single
General Plan residential classification, as long as
all of the densities and unit types allowed in each
zoning district are also permitted in the relevant
General Plan category.
• Spatial Correlation. The Zoning Map should
reflect the general pattern of land use depicted on
the Plan Diagram. However the two need not be
identical. Boundaries of land use classifications
depicted on the General Plan Diagram are typically more precise in developed areas and more generalized in undeveloped properties. For new
development areas, details will be established
through adoption of master or specific plans, and
establishment of zoning.
• Timing. The General Plan has a 20-year horizon,
while zoning focuses on the immediate appropriate uses for individual sites.

The General Plan and the Local
Coastal Land Use Plan
The California Coastal Act requires every city and
county lying partly or wholly within the Coastal
Zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP).

The LCP consists of two parts: a Local Coastal Land
Use Plan (LCLUP), which specifies the intended
uses of land within the Coastal Zone; and, an implementation plan comprised of the zoning ordinances; zoning district maps; and other actions which taken
together implement the local coastal land use plan
and Coastal Act provisions. These provisions seek to
ensure that public access to and along the shoreline is maintained; that water quality, marine life, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas are protected; and that coastal visual resources and special communities
are preserved. The Coastal Act calls for certain land
uses within the Coastal Zone to have priority over
other uses: recreation and visitor-serving uses, fishing, boating, and other coastal-dependent uses, and public works and industrial facilities needed to support priority uses.

The General Plan and LCLUP updates have been
conducted in tandem. While they are two separate
documents, much of the descriptive text and many
of the policies are overlapping. Policies that are
included in both the General Plan and the LCLUP
are marked with a in the General Plan. All policies in the LCLUP are also in the General Plan.

2.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-17
Detailed discussion of Coastal Act requirements and
goals is included only in the LCLUP, while issues
that are not relevant to Coastal Act requirements
and goals are covered only in the General Plan. As
part of this effort to keep the two plans as close as
possible, the term “Planning Area” is used to refer
to the General Plan’s Planning Area, while the term
“Coastal Zone” is used to refer to the area subject to
the LCLUP. The two plans each have different organizational structures, to match each Plan’s purpose.

Sharp Park Specific Plan
The Sharp Park Specific Plan, developed concurrently with the General Plan, is the blueprint for development and preservation on the blocks surrounding Palmetto Avenue and Beach Boulevard between Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road, as
well as adjacent areas of potential change east of
Highway 1. Currently, Sharp Park is the city’s civic
core and is home to many unique businesses, as well
as the iconic Pacifica Pier. Many community members have expressed interest in creating a vital center for Pacifica There is significant opportunity for mixed-use buildings, new housing and higher intensity development that will help the city address issues of housing affordability and create a center of gravity with more opportunities to shop, dine, and gather for the broader Pacifica community as well as visitors. The goal of the Sharp Park Specific Plan is to formalize this vision for Sharp Park and put in place
an implementation program that will help realize
change in the area through detailed development
standards, public realm improvements, and design
guidelines for new developments. The Specific Plan
is cross-referenced throughout the General Plan, but
the Specific Plan itself should be consulted as specific projects within the Specific Plan boundary are proposed.

Rockaway Beach Specific Plan
The Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Area contains
approximately 150 acres of land including and surrounding the existing Rockaway Beach community in Pacifica. The overall goal of the plan, adopted
in 1986, is to stimulate and attract quality private
investment in the area, thereby improving the City’s
economic health and tax base while strengthening
the overall image and attractiveness of the area. The
total potential development for the Rockaway Beach
Specific Plan Area was determined to be 2,305,000
square feet of visitor- and business-oriented commercial use. The Rockaway Beach Specific Plan remains consistent with the General Plan.

Coastal Regional Sediment
Management Plan
A consortium of State and federal agencies, including the California Department of Natural Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers, is organizing
a series of Regional Sediment Management (RSM)
plans. The primary focus is on facilitating the movement of excess clean sand to areas experiencing high levels of erosion. Goals include restoring and preserving beaches; sustaining recreation; enhancing public safety; and restoring coastal habitats. The San
Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal RSM Plan is currently being developed for the coastline between the Golden Gate and Pedro Point Headlands. The Plan’s
purpose is to assist communities by providing information for decision-makers and offering recommendations specific to the coastlines of San Francisco, Daly City and Pacifica.

2.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-18 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

1.7 GUIDE TO USING THIS

DOCUMENT
Plan Organization
The Plan is organized as follows:

1. Introduction. This chapter summarizes the key
themes and initiatives of the Plan. It covers the
Plan’s purpose, process, planning context, State
requirements, relationships to other plans, plan
organization, and requirements for administration of the Plan.

2. Economic Sustainability. This chapter, an
optional General Plan Element, describes the
economic context and sets out goals and policies
to stimulate retail and tourism-related development, maintain fiscal health, and support other efforts to enhance the City’s economy.

3. Community Design. This chapter, an optional
General Plan Element, includes urban design
policies to improve the city’s visual quality and
livability, including its neighborhoods, mixeduse areas, hillside and coastal areas, and scenic routes.

4. Land Use. This chapter describes the existing land use pattern and provides the physical framework for land use and development in
the City. It enumerates development demand
and capacity, and provides detailed descriptions
of land use issues by sub-area. This Element is
required by State law.

5. Circulation. This chapter includes policies,
programs, and standards to maintain efficient
circulation for all modes of travel. It identifies future street and traffic improvements, and addresses walking, biking, transit, and parking
to enable a multi-modal circulation system. This
Element is required by State law.

6. Open Space and Community Facilities. This
chapter outlines policies relating to regional
open spaces and beaches, the trail system,
coastal access, City parks and recreation,
schools, and community facilities. Open Space is
a required General Plan subject under State law;
Community Facilities are included because they
logically relate to Pacifica’s Open Space.

7. Conservation. This chapter includes policies
relating to hydrology and water quality, biological resources, agriculture and coastal sediment, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and
historic and archaeological resources and conservation. It also addresses water supply, sewerage, solid waste management, and recycling, as well as stormwater management and sustainable
site planning. This Element is required by State
law.

8. Safety. This chapter addresses the risks posed by
seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, hazardous materials, and wildland fires. It also includes policies on public safety services and emergency
management, as well as the unique challenges of
adapting to climate change, especially sea level
rise (SLR). This Element is required by State law.

9. Noise. This chapter includes policies to limit the
impacts of noise sources through land use planning, site planning, building design requirements, and other measures. This Element is required by State law.

10. Implementation. This chapter describes the
implementation process in general terms and the
major actions to be undertaken by the City.

Table 1-4 shows how the General Plan Elements correspond with chapters in the LCLUP.

Policy Structure
Each chapter of the Plan includes background information to establish the context for policies in the chapter. This background information is followed by
two sets of policies, which together articulate a vision for Pacifica that the Plan seeks to achieve:

2.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1INTRODUCTION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-19
Table 1-4: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND LOCAL COASTAL LAND

USE PLAN CHAPTERS
General Plan Element Related LCLUP Chapter
Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Economic Development –
Chapter 3: Community Design Chapter 4: Environmental and Scenic Resources Chapter 5: Natural Hazards
Chapter 4: Land Use Chapter 2: Land Use
Chapter 5: Circulation Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation Chapter 6: Open Space & Community Facilities Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation Chapter 7: Conservation Chapter 4: Environmental and Scenic Resources Chapter 8: Safety Chapter 5: Natural Hazards
Chapter 6: Coastal Resilience
Chapter 9: Noise –
Chapter 10: Implementation –
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2020
• Guiding Policies are the City’s statements of its
goals and philosophies.
• Implementing Policies represent commitments
to specific actions. They may refer to existing programs or call for establishment of new ones.

Policies provide guidance for development review,
infrastructure planning, community facilities and
services, and protection for the city’s resources, by
establishing planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review. Explanatory material or commentary accompanies some policies.

The use of “should” or “would” indicates that a statement is advisory, not binding; details will be refined in General Plan implementation. Where the same
topic is addressed in more than one chapter, sections and policies are cross-referenced. Many of the Coastal Act policies are translated into Plan policies, as indicated in policy commentary. As shown earlier,
policies identified with a in the General Plan are
included in both the General Plan and the LCLUP.

Maps, Diagrams and Land Use
Classifications
Maps and diagrams in the General Plan illustrate
policies relating to land use, circulation, conservation, and public facilities. The Land Use Diagram, other figures, and the Land Use Classifications (in
Section 4.2 of the General Plan) are also adopted
parts of the Plan.

Glossary and List of Acronyms
The Plan concludes with a glossary to define important terms and concepts, and a list of acronyms that may appear in the preceding chapters.

2.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 1-20 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

1.8 PLAN ADMINISTRATION
The General Plan is intended to be a dynamic document. As such, it will be updated periodically to address site-specific or comprehensive needs, to
respond to new State or federal law, or to modify
policies that may become obsolete or unrealistic over
time.

Amendments to the Plan
The Plan may be amended from time to time, but
opportunities for amendments to mandatory elements of the General Plan are limited to four times per year under state law (Gov. Code § 65358). Each
amendment may make an unlimited number of
changes to the Plan. However, this restriction does
not apply to optional elements (such as Community
Design), to certain amendments necessary to develop
a local coastal program, to amendments needed to
comply with a court decision, or amendments to
allow for the development of certain specified affordable housing developments.

Annual Report
Government Code section 65400 et seq., requires
that City staff submit an annual report to the City
Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation. This report is submitted to the Governor’s Office on Planning and Research
and the Department of Housing and Community
Development. The report must include an analysis
of the progress made in meeting the City’s share of
regional housing needs (identified in the Housing
Element) and local efforts to remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of affordable housing under Government Code section 65583(c)(3). Also, the report must include the following information:
• The status of the General Plan and the progress
made in implementing it;
• The number of housing development applications
received in the prior year;
• The number of units included in all development
applications in the prior year;
• The number of units approved and disapproved
in the prior year;
• A listing of sites rezoned to accommodate the
portion of the local government’s share of the
regional housing need for each income level that
could not be accommodated on sites identified in
the inventory required by Govt Code §§65583(c)
(1) and 65584.09, and any additional sites that
may have been required to be identified by Govt
Code §65863;
• The number of applications submitted under
Govt Code §65913.4(a), the location and total
number of developments approved under Govt
Code §65913.4(b), the total number of building
permits issued under Govt Code §65913.4(b), and
the total number of for-sale and rental units by
income category constructed using the process
provided in Govt Code §65913.4(b);
• The progress made in adopting or amending
the General Plan or local open-space element in
compliance with its obligations to consult with
California Native American tribes, and to identify and protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to specified places, features, and objects (see Govt
Code §65400(a)(2)(K); and
• Specified information regarding density bonus
applications received and granted under Govt
Code §65915 (see Govt C §65400(a)(2)(L).

Any mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed in the General Plan EIR should also be included in the annual report. Finally, the
report should also include a summary of all general plan amendments adopted during the preceding year, a description of upcoming projects or General
Plan issues to be addressed in the coming year, and a
work program.

2.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to This General Plan seeks to establish a long-term framework for employment growth and fiscal stability for Pacifica. Together with other General Plan initiatives, this will help ensure the City’s economic success. The Economic Sustainability chapter contains policies and actions that provide direction for improving the City’s business and tourist attraction strategies; improving the ratio of jobs to households; and supporting business activities that can meet the needs of the community and of visitors to the City.

ECONOMIC 2 SUSTAINABILITY

2.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-2 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

2.1 VISION AND PRIORITIES
A successful economic development plan must be
guided by a clear vision, long-range planning and
continuous commitment. This vision includes a City
government that is receptive to working with business owners to facilitate expansion of commercial enterprise, and visitor/tourist uses; flexible land use policies that encourage mixed-use development and
promote jobs for all residents; investment in new and
maintenance of existing infrastructure; and a close
partnership with business owners, governmental
agencies, and stakeholders.

Ideas and priorities for economic development in
Pacifica have been discussed throughout the General Plan Update process. Almost every participant identified Pacifica’s need for a stable economic base
and source of tax revenue as a critical concern. Policy statements related to economic sustainability have received broad support from the community,
particularly the ideas of enhancing the appeal and
vibrancy of Palmetto Avenue and the Promenade,
including redevelopment of the old Wastewater
Treatment Plant; and revitalizing shopping centers.

Improved fiscal stability was also widely agreed upon
as an important goal. As a means toward that end,
developing a stronger tourism sector was broadly
supported. These ideas form the basis of the guiding and implementing policies for economic development.

2.2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL

ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Demographics
Some basic demographics serve as good economic
indicators of a city’s workforce quality and economic
opportunity (Table 2-1). A high percentage of Pacifica’s population is of workforce age—approximately two-thirds. Nearly 46 percent of residents over the
age of 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher, which
is well above the statewide percentage (34 percent),
but slightly below that of San Mateo County (51
percent).1 A high percentage of households own their
homes, and the City’s median household income is
slightly above the San Mateo County median. Overall, Pacifica residents are well-educated with good financial resources.

Current Employment Characteristics
Employment by Industry
Employment by industry in Pacifica closely follows that of San Mateo County overall. The American Community Survey’s five-year estimate (2015- 2019) shows Educational Services, Health Care, and
Social Assistance as having the highest percentage
of employment in both jurisdictions (22 percent and
20 percent, respectively). The next largest industry
sector is Professional, Scientific, Management, and
Administrative services, at 16 and 20 percent for
the City and the County respectfully, followed by
retail trade and arts/entertainment. Table 2-2 shows
employment by industry.

On average, from 2015 to 2019, Pacifica’s unemployment rate has been 2.2 percent, slightly lower than San Mateo County overall, and significantly better
than the statewide average of 4.8 percent (see Table
2-3).
1 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-year Estimates

2.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-3
Table 2-1: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Population between 18 and 64 64%
Population over 25 with a bachelor’s degree or higher 46% Average household size 2.8 2persons
Percent of ownership housing 71%
Household Income $125,500
Median Household Income as a percent of San Mateo County overall 102% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-year Estimates Table 2-2: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, SAN MATEO COUNTY AND PACIFICA San Mateo County City of Pacifica
Total Percent Total Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 2,060 1% 64 0% Construction 21,395 5% 1,479 7%
Manufacturing 32,363 8% 1,521 7%
Wholesale trade 8,685 2% 370 2%
Retail trade 37,676 9% 2,061 10%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 23,713 6% 1,535 7% Information 18,,894 5% 802 4%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 31,461 8% 1,491 7% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
81,965 17% 3,428 16%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 81,965 20% 4,752 22% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 40,832 10% 1,961 9% Other services, except public administration 13,483 5% 1,163 5% Public administration 13,483 3% 1,025 5%
TOTAL 414,747 100% 21,682 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-year Estimates Table 2-3: LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT RATES FOR POPULATION OVER 16, SAN MATEO

COUNTY AND PACIFICA
Population Over 16 San Mateo County Pacifica
In Labor Force 69% 69%
Employed 66% 67%
Unemployment Rate 3.7% 2.2%
Unemployment Rate Among College Graduates 1.4% 0.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-year Estimates

2.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 2-4: PLACE OF WORK FOR WORKERS
16 YEARS AND OLDER, PACIFICA

AND SAN MATEO COUNTY
Workers Over Age 16 San Mateo
County
Pacifica
Worked in Place of
Residence
19% 14%
Worked Outside Place of
Residence
80% 86%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 Five-year Estimates

2.3 THE FUTURE ECONOMY
Retail and Tourism Prospects
Retail and tourism are two areas of economic interest
for Pacifica. Strengthening the City’s performance in
these areas could create jobs, increase the tax base,
and enhance quality of life for residents. This section and the relevant policies that follow address Pacifica’s long-term retail and tourism prospects and propose
actions the City can take to improve performance in
these sectors.

Due to its fairly isolated geography and access constraints, consumer demand for retail in Pacifica is currently driven primarily by local economic and
demographic conditions (e.g., population, employment, and income). The City’s numerous shopping centers are distributed throughout the various neighborhoods and are primarily patronized by local residents; many shopping centers are also older and somewhat underutilized. A small amount of retail
demand comes from visitors to Pacifica, particularly
from those visiting the Rockaway Beach area. Given
the older properties, small population and employment numbers, and limited accessibility, demand from larger, regional-serving retailers is minimal.

Existing Retail Supply Overview
Currently, Pacifica’s retail stores are concentrated
along Highway 1, as well as the northern part of
the City along Skyline Boulevard. Most are located
within shopping centers. Overall, there are about 11
retail centers and a total of approximately one million square feet of leasable space across the City.

Many of the retail properties are older and underutilized (though some have undergone renovations). A majority of Pacifica’s retail tenants consists of small, independent retailers anchored by one or several
national brand establishments. The smaller serviceoriented businesses periodically change ownership, but the mix of businesses in the City tends to stay
the same. In other words, the market position and
orientation of Pacifica’s retail has remained relatively static. The lack of diverse retail opportunities limits the City’s regional retail draw.

Place of Work
Pacifica is expected to continue to function as primarily a “bedroom” community serving employment centers in San Francisco and along the Peninsula. In fact, only 14 percent of Pacifica’s employed residents work locally, with the rest commuting to
other jurisdictions (see Table 2-4). While the percentage of residents who work in Pacifica is low, and demonstrates the need to create more jobs for local
residents, Pacifica’s place of work pattern is not out
of step with that of San Mateo County as a whole,
illustrating the regional nature of commuting and
employment dynamics in the Bay Area.

The most common place of work for Pacifica residents was elsewhere in San Mateo County (36 percent) and in San Francisco (35 percent).2

2 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-year Estimates

2.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-5
Most of Pacifica’s retail is located in 11 retail centers with a total of almost 600,000 square feet of leasable space. Many cities, including Mountain View, have downtown retail areas. Palmetto Avenue has potential to develop as a vibrant main street for Pacifica(left). With its scenic setting along Highway 1, south of San Francisco, Pacifica has potential for more tourism-based retail (right).

In addition to the neighborhood centers, the City
also has a cluster of tourist-oriented retail, mainly
around Rockaway Beach. These businesses consist
of arts and craft stores, specialty retail, lodging, and restaurants and eateries. For the most part, these
establishments are not attractions in their own right
but rather cater to “spill-over” traffic from regional
tourism and overnight accommodations. Palmetto
Avenue also has a mix of local-serving and visitorserving retail and services, including antique shops, salons, and cafes.

Retail Sales Trends, Household Spending, and
Capture Rate
Pacifica has relatively weak per-capita retail sales,
likely the result of competitive retail clusters in Daly City and Colma. Based on household and income
data, a gain of $337 million of additional potential
retail sales could be theoretically supportable within
the City. In 2016, the City’s retail stores generated
$167 million in taxable sales, representing only 48
percent of the retail spending power. A large proportion of the City’s retail sales potential is lost to retailers outside of the City as Pacifica residents travel to other jurisdictions for their shopping needs. This
leakage occurs in nearly all retail categories, the only exceptions being food stores and service stations (see
Figure 2-1).

The leakage of retail sales potential can be traced
to limited retail gain in Pacifica. Daly City has a
regional shopping mall, Serramonte Center, and
regional retail centers with big box retailers. Located northeast of Pacifica, Colma also has a number of
regional retail centers with big box retailers. Additionally, to the east in San Bruno, the Tanforan Mall is another regional shopping center.

Future Retail Demand
Retail demand can be disaggregated into spending
from local sources, such as residents and employees
and spending from outside sources, such as commuters, tourists, and other visitors. Spending from local sources is largely determined by demographic
and economic variables, such as population, income,
and employment. Spending from outside sources is
determined by such factors as regional commute patterns, local destinations or tourist attractions, and the quality/character of the retail supply itself. The
performance of the City’s retail market in general
may also be affected by national changes in consumer behavior (e.g., online sales,) as well as regional competition.

The current median household income in Pacifica is
$125,500 per household, which is slightly greater than
the median household income in San Mateo County
as a whole (See Table 2-5). If the level of household
income grows over time, the purchasing power of
Pacifica households could increase and boost retail
demand independent of population growth.

2.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Figure 2-1: Retail Sales and Estimated Household Demand, 2016 Source: BLS Expenditure Survey 2016-2017, CA Board of Equalization Taxable Sales 2016.

Table 2-5: VISITOR-GENERATED TAX RECEIPTS BY COUNTY
County 2017 Receipts (in millions) Receipts per Household Percent of California Receipts San Francisco $159 $3,160 1.5%
Napa $994 $2,620 9.2%
San Mateo $514 $1,860 4.7%
Santa Clara $167 $870 1.5%
Sonoma $545 $830 5.0%
Alameda $347 $580 3.2%
Marin $60 $400 0.6%
Contra Costa $152 $370 1.4%
Solano $6.7 $49 0.3%
BAY AREA TOTAL $2,999 -- 27.6%
California $10,851 $810 100.0%
Source: California Travel Impacts, 2000-2017, Dean Runyan Associates, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

2.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-7
Given the population and employment trends and
the City’s relatively small employment base, there
is little support for additional retail space. However, additional retail demand could be generated by increased capture of local spending and spending by
tourists, commuters, and other nonresident population groups.

Local-Serving Retail and “Town Center”
Concept
One retail concept that may present an opportunity
for Pacifica is that of a “town center.” Cities often
have clusters of retail surrounding their core or destination areas, supported by a concentrated presence of employment, historic or “main street” features,
convenient or centrally located transportation hubs,
well-traveled thoroughfares, and/or high density
of population. Currently, Pacifica has no distinct
downtown area; rather, the City’s retail tends to be
dispersed within a number of neighborhood-based
submarkets.

Palmetto Avenue, the “backbone” of the Sharp
Park Specific Plan Area, has potential to expand
its function as a town center retail district. Building on improvements as part of the Palmetto Avenue Streetscape Plan, the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates Palmetto Avenue for mixed
use development to produce ground-floor retail and
other commercial uses with a pedestrian orientation as well as upper-story housing. With targeted public investments in the Sharp Park Specific Plan
Area, retail opportunities are likely to emerge from
new local small businesses and incremental and finegrained improvements to existing properties with a focus on creating a differentiated experience that
provides residents and visitors with a unique sense
of place. To support the potential town center area,
key opportunity sites near the Palmetto corridor
are designated Mixed Use Center. Higher-intensity
residential development along the Highway 1 corridor directly adjacent to and well-linked to Palmetto Avenue would provide a regular customer base for
shops and restaurants along Palmetto, and signal to
passersby the presence of an active center. Continued public and private investments can contribute to the development of Palmetto Avenue into a town
center retail district. If successful, Palmetto Avenue
then could help the City capture more of the local
expenditure potential without drawing sales away
from existing retailers. Policies in this element, the
Land Use element, and the Sharp Park Specific Plan
support this objective.

Tourism-Based Retail
San Francisco and San Mateo Counties are major
tourist destinations, attracting domestic as well as
international travelers. As shown in Table 2-6, the
nine-county Bay Area region accounts for almost 30
percent of the visitor-generated tax receipts in California. Of the counties in the Bay Area, San Mateo County had the third highest visitor-generated tax
receipts per household at $239, behind San Francisco
and Napa counties at $812 and $564, respectively. Both
San Mateo and San Francisco Counties rank well
above the statewide per household average of $165.

Pacifica enjoys exposure to a number of visitors to
the County’s coast, State parks, and other attractions. Despite its advantageous position, however, the City does not currently offer a major attraction or an
identifiable theme that draws significant tourism and
tourist-related spending. In addition, the City has not successfully positioned or marketed itself as a major
tourist destination. Tourism-related retail concepts
supported by policies in this element may allow Pacifica to better leverage its coastal location and establish itself as more successful tourist destination.

Table 2-6: CURRENT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
2019
Pacifica $125,500
San Mateo County $122,641
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015- 2019 Five-year Estimates

2.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
“Placemaking”
Tourist-oriented retail districts often succeed by providing a unique mix of small-scale “boutique” stores that offer arts, crafts, and other goods or services with a distinctive local flavor. This retail strategy is not formulaic, and the actual tenant mix depends on the location. One of the key characteristics of successful
tourist-oriented retail districts is its unique identity or “brand.” Similar to other beachside communities
along the Pacific coastline, Pacifica could potentially focus on beach/coastal-related businesses, drawing on
its very name to help establish a strong identity.

Equally important to the success of tourism-based
retail are the placemaking features, such as public plazas and public art features. Placemaking features provide aesthetically pleasing, thematic design. Uniform signage and wayfinding is another aspect of placemaking. Enhancing Rockaway Beach district and extending the visitor-oriented environment into the Quarry Site could follow this model. A traditional town center district along Palmetto Avenue, linked through these
place-making features to amenities (e.g., the beach
and golf course), would create a unified image of the
City.

Unlike local or regional shopping centers, tourismbased retail is more fluid and gradual in development. To be successful, this strategy will require a multi-dimensional effort, including marketing, public improvements, and pursuit of specific opportunity investments through public-private partnerships.

Hotel and/or Resort Opportunities
Tourism is a significant industry in San Mateo
County, attracting both domestic and international
visitors. Pacifica’s coastal location coupled with the
City’s accessibility along scenic Highway 1 and its
proximity to San Francisco and the San Francisco
International Airport provides it with exposure to a
number of visitors to the County’s coast, State parks,
and other attractions. However, the City is not currently a well-known tourist destination and primarily serves pass-through travelers on their way to a primary destination elsewhere in the County or region.

Amenities including the Pier (top) and the Golf Course (middle) can be linked with Palmetto Avenue through place-making features, such as public plazas and public art.

2.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-9
Another way in which Pacifica could increase its visibility, boost tax revenue, and help foster a distinctive sense of place would be to recruit a major resort hotel.

Currently, Pacifica is served by six moderately-priced
hotels with a total of 282 rooms. Transient occupancy
tax (TOT) revenues from these hotels have fluctuated
during the past 10 years, with a general upward trend,
as shown in Figure 2-2. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2019, the TOT revenues include revenues generated by short term rentals such as Airbnb and VRBO.

The revenue data from short term rentals is not available at the time of this report, but is likely to increase the amount of TOT revenue going to the City.

In terms of occupancy rate, Pacifica’s hotels have
generally been underperforming relative to the
County average of approximately 80 percent, as of
2019. However, there are market segments that have
the potential to complement and/or stimulate tourist-related demand. These include:
• Bed-and-Breakfast. A small-scale inn or bedand-breakfast facility that is successfully operated may serve as a key attraction. As the County attracts more visitors, it is likely that Pacifica can
capture some of the increase. Despite the City’s
approximately lower occupancy rate relative to
the County, a high-end inn or bed-and-breakfast, if able to successfully distinguish itself, may be supportable without drawing customers away
from existing hotels.
• Boutique Hotel. A mid-sized hotel that provides
uniquely designed accommodations also could
attract visitors to the City. Boutique hotels are
smaller than resort hotels, but command higher
rates because of the emphasis on personal experience and high service levels. The boutique hotel may even serve as a destination, attracting new
visitors to Pacifica.
• Luxury or Resort Hotel. Pacifica is an easy drive
(15 minutes) to San Francisco and San Francisco
International Airport, and is conveniently located
on the coastal route to other well-known destinations such as Half Moon Bay, Monterey, and Big Sur.

The City may be able to support a boutique hotel without drawing customers away from existing hotels (Healdsburg Hotel, top). Pacifica offers a number of amenities and attributes that could potentially support a resort hotel (Asilomar Conference Center, middle). With improved signage and amenities, outdoor recreation visitors could extend their stay and patronize Pacifica businesses (Bear Valley Visitor Center, bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Consequently, visitors could enjoy the natural
beauty of the City and nearby natural areas and
the urban attractions of San Francisco in a single
day. The proximity to San Francisco would provide
a comparative advantage over other coastal hotel
destinations in the Bay Area, such as Half Moon
Bay, Point Reyes, and even Napa. A resort hotel also
could provide conference facilities that could attract
business groups.
2212 Beach Boulevard, the site of a former wastewater
treatment plant, presents the greatest potential
location for the development of a full-service hotel.

With immediate beach access, proximity to the Sharp
Park Golf Course, the existing Palmetto Avenue
commercial area, and the open space park lands of
Pacifica Beach Park, the Beach Boulevard site offers
a variety of attributes typically sought by full-service hotel operators. Additionally, the development of
a hotel at this site could support additional visitororiented commercial development, integrated with the plans for the adjacent Sharp Park district.

Source: City of Pacifica, 2019.

Figure 2-2: Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Per Fiscal Year With an increase in tourism, additional visitors to the City also could support a town center retail district
along Palmetto Avenue, a key objective of the Sharp
Park Specific Plan.

Outdoor Recreation Destinations
Beyond providing a recreational amenity, the completion of the trails system, as proposed by this General Plan, will have significant economic benefits. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA)
already hosts many visitors, especially to Sweeney
Ridge. However, visitors to that site are unlikely to
realize how close the other destinations in the City
are to the park. With improved signage and amenities accompanying the trails (such as concessions, huts, and a GGNRA visitors’ center), hikers could
extend their stay and patronize Pacifica businesses.

At full buildout, the trail network has the potential
to become an attraction in its own right, becoming
one of several amenities that would encourage visitors to stay in Pacifica for a whole weekend.

2.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-11
For the trail system to serve as an economic driver, it must be coupled with recognizable signage, permanent maps and information kiosks, and immediate connections to commercial sites that are appealing to
walkers/hikers.

Other Opportunities
Like many California communities, Pacifica has
passed ordinances to allow cannabis businesses in
the City. The City currently allows cannabis retail
operations, cannabis manufacturing operations, and
cannabis testing operations in various designated
locations.

In 2017, Pacifica voters adopted an excise tax that
would apply to the gross receipts of cannabis businesses. The local tax, initially set at 6 percent of gross receipts for the first two years, was projected by City staff to generate $420,000 in the industry’s first full year of operation. Council retained the option to
decrease or increase the rate up to 10 percent after
two years. Funds from the approval of this tax could
be used to offset the cost of local government services, programs, and activities.

Pacifica Economic Development Plan
City Council adopted the Pacifica Economic Development Strategic Plan (PEDSP) in August 2019 and is currently developing an update called Vision 2025
to guide economic development efforts in the near
term (through 2025). Both the 2019 PEDSP and this
Economic Sustainability Element share common
features, including identifying opportunity sites,
promoting local retail, and developing Pacifica as a
visitor destination. Both plans identify the revitalization of the Palmetto Avenue corridor as a destination with shops and services for residents and visitors alike, a key objective of the Sharp Park Specific Plan. Both recognize the leakage of retail spending
by Pacifica residents, and propose a Shop Pacifica
campaign in addition to offering a more attractive
local retail environment. The Vision 2025 document
is expected to build on these and other strategies.

2.4 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
Land use and policy priorities in this General Plan
have implications for the City’s economic and fiscal
well-being. The challenge in Pacifica is to encourage
a mix of uses that bring fiscal benefits to the City—
through property, sales, and transient occupancy tax
revenues.

Specifically, if the General Plan succeeds in attracting business investment, it may also attract residents and employers who might otherwise choose other
locations in the Bay Area or beyond. An increasing
employment base can, in turn, create a positive feedback loop by boosting property values and household incomes and improving economic conditions.

The City can support and encourage entrepreneurship and business growth through a range of actions, including connecting business owners and entrepreneurs to resources and funding in order to support the growth of their operations locally and streamlining regulations to support business creation and growth. In addition, encouraging local businesses to
buy from one another rather than from businesses in
other communities can help “keep the dollars local”
and support the success of Pacifica businesses. Provision of adequate childcare is part of the social infrastructure of economic development and can help attract and retain residents as well.

Achieving these quality of life factors will boost the
City’s tax base and enable further investment in public services and infrastructure needed to sustain economic growth. The City’s fiscal health also is affected by factors outside of its control, including national
business cycles, state and federal budget decisions,
international trade, and the performance of key
local industries such as information, high-tech and
biotechnology. A balanced and integrated approach
to planning future land use, investing in municipal
service and facilities, and leveraging Pacifica’s unique assets is the best way to ensure sustainable growth
and fiscal well-being.

2.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

2.5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGY
Areas in which General Plan policies can help formulate a coordinated economic development strategy include:
• Leveraging Key Locational Assets. Pacifica has the
potential to be “placemaking” and build tourismbased shopping environment over time. A true town center district and a luxury and/or resort hotel
would significantly advance this goal by transforming Pacifica into a higher profile travel destination.

The Rockaway Beach Quarry site and Palmetto
Avenue represent two potentially complementary
opportunities to do this.
• Improving Shopping Areas, and Recruiting Tenants. Upgrading existing shopping centers could create an environment more conducive to attracting
a broader base of customers and tenants. The City
can play an active role in attracting specific businesses that enhance the vitality of the City. • Investing in Public Infrastructure and Facilities.

Streetscape improvements, a signage program, and
other public infrastructure investments represent
valuable advancements for property owners and
developers, who stand to benefit from them.
• Branding Pacifica. A detailed marketing plan could
help Pacifica shape its image as a desirable destination itself through a wide range of methods and provide a unified “look and feel” to the City, complementing place-making and visitor attraction efforts. • Facilitating Employment Growth. The City could
be proactive in recruiting for employers. Job growth
in the City could improve fiscal health.
• Integrating Economic Growth and Environmental
Conservation. Pacifica’s natural setting, from the
coastline to the ridges, is a critical component of the city’s identity, and it shapes the city’s urban and economic development. Future physical and economic development in Pacifica can help preserve the City’s
natural features, both for the broader purpose of
environmental conservation as well as the economic
objective of attracting visitors.

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
ES-G-1 Leverage Assets. Leverage Pacifica’s coastal
location and unique assets as a primary means
to strengthen the local economy, focusing on
increasing tourism facilities, including shops,
hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails.

ES-G-2 Maintain Fiscal Sustainability. Foster
a fiscally healthy City government and
enlarge the City’s revenue base as necessary
to sustain and support the community.

ES-G-3 Promote a Positive Image. Promote a positive image of Pacifica as a desirable place to work, live, and visit.

ES-G-4 Support Existing Businesses. Retain and
foster the growth of existing Pacifica businesses, and foster a positive relationship between the business community and the
City government.

ES-G-5 Attract New Businesses and Jobs. Seek
out new businesses that will employ and
serve Pacifica residents, improving the
City’s jobs/housing ratio.

ES-G-6 Ensure Environmental Protection. Ensure
that economic development in Pacifica
proceeds synergistically with environmental protection.

Implementing Policies
Creating a Destination
ES-I-1 Town Center. Through a combination of
mixed use land use designations/zoning,
streetscape improvements, targeted public
investment, and marketing strategies, promote Palmetto Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented destination with shops and services for residents and visitors alike.

2.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-13
ES-I-2 City-Owned Catalyst Projects. Use
City-owned properties as catalysts for new
development in the Palmetto area and elsewhere in the City.

For key opportunity sites such as 2212 Beach
Boulevard, the City may issue Request
for Proposals for development. Learnings
from past request for qualifications (RFQ)
processes for 2212 Beach Boulevard site will
inform strategies to make the site more
attractive and marketable as part of a future
RFQ for a hotel developer.

ES-I-3 Recycling Center Relocation. Work with
Recology, Inc. to identify a new location
for a recycling yard to free up land for
visitor-based economic development.

ES-I-4 Increase Tourism. Prepare a multi-faceted
program to encourage tourism, focusing
on:
• Attracting new hotels or inns, a visitor’s
center or other key attraction, tourismbased shopping, and other components; and
• “Branding” and marketing Pacifica’s
parks, open spaces, beaches, and other
natural amenities.

ES-I-5 Enhanced Visitor Node. Create a highly
distinct visitor-oriented commercial and
hospitality node at Rockaway Beach and
on developable portions of the Rockaway
Quarry site.

A key component of this strategy would be to
pursue a boutique or high end/resort-oriented
hotel and supporting tourist-oriented shopping and dining opportunities.

ES-I-6 Increase Accessibility. Improve accessibility and transit into Pacifica by partnering with transit providers (BART, SamTrans,
etc.) to increase frequency and visibility
of service to and from San Francisco and
other destinations in the Bay Area.

Fiscal Sustainability
ES-I-7 Mixed Land Uses. Promote development
of a broader mix of revenue-generating
land uses, including hotels, to increase the
City’s fiscal benefits.

ES-I-8 Shopping Center Performance Improvement. Support existing retail center property owners’ and tenants’ efforts to
improve their sales and occupancy rate performance, as feasible.

ES-I-9 Fiscal Analyses Required. Require fiscal
impact analyses for major development
proposals requiring a General Plan amendment to assess citywide impacts and identify any burden such projects might create for the City as well as viable mitigation.

The Rockaway Beach Quarry site (left) and Palmetto Avenue (right) represent two potentially complementary opportunities to advance the City’s retail and tourism sectors.

2.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ES-I-10 Pursue New Funding Sources. Continue
to identify and pursue federal, State, and
other grants for economic development,
marketing, and incentives to recruit new
businesses.

ES-I-11 Development Pays its Fair Share. Continue to require new development to pay its fair share of needed community improvements.

ES-I-12 Maintain Impact Fee Schedule. Periodically update the City’s impact fee schedule to ensure that fees are commensurate with the associated costs of facilities and
services.

ES-I-13 Proportional Mix of Uses. Strive to
achieve a balanced mix of retail and service
uses in commercial centers and districts
to support visitor- and sales tax-generating
uses.

Marketing and Branding
ES-I-14 Broaden Business Marketing Efforts.

Expand the City’s marketing efforts developing a comprehensive marketing plan with tools and implementation strategies,
focusing on targeted industries and businesses. Actions may include:
• Advertising in industry publications;
• Publicizing local business success stories
in local news outlets;
• Contracting with a professional marketing service (if feasible); and • Preparing marketing materials, including an inventory of assets that Pacifica offers, such as available sites and buildings, development incentives, high quality of life, amenities, and others.

ES-I-15 Relationships with Business Organizations. Maintain a strong working relationship with the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, as well as other local and regional business groups such as the Palmetto Business Association.

Promote Palmetto Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented destination with shops and services for residents and visitors alike (top).

Support the upgrade and redevelopment of shopping centers to attract a broader base of customers and tenants (middle). Implement a unified, unique signage and wayfinding program for the City’s distinct commercial and attractions (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-15
ES-I-16 “Shop Pacifica” Campaign. Create a
“Shop Pacifica” campaign to support local
businesses and decrease retail sales leakage.

ES-I-17 Signage and Wayfinding. Implement a
unified, unique signage and wayfinding
program for the City’s distinct commercial
and attractions.

Particular attention should be paid to providing clear visual linkages between separate, but proximate, areas of the City that would
benefit from clearer connections. Signage and
way finding could identify and link Palmetto
Avenue; Sharp Park Golf Course; the future
GGNRA visitors’ center; Rockaway Beach;
and Pacifica State Beach.

ES-I-18 Public Realm Improvements. Invest in
streetscape and public space improvements
to attract visitor-oriented development and
improve Pacifica’s image and the quality of
life for residents.

Public realm improvement priority areas are:

Palmetto Avenue; new public space adjacent
to the Pier associated with redevelopment of
the 2212 Beach Boulevard site; the Rockaway Beach oceanfront; new public space and streetscape associated with development in the
Quarry site; the Pacific Manor shopping area
and Esplanade Avenue overlooking the ocean;
the Pedro Point shopping area; lower Linda
Mar Boulevard and lower Crespi Drive.

ES-I-19 Host New Events. Promote regionally
recognized events as a means of increasing
awareness of Pacifica as a destination and
fostering a positive image of the City as a
place to visit, reside, and conduct business.

Examples of community events that could
draw visitors to the city—and take advantage of the City’s outdoor amenities—include group hikes, trail races, golf tournaments,
surfing competitions, a Summer Concert
series, as well as city celebrations such as Fog
Fest, festivals, and promotional sales.

ES-I-20 Create Gateways. Create visually notable
“gateways” to Pacifica, following the same
design theme as the signage and wayfinding program, at major roadways where they enter the City (SR 1 at the northern and
southern ends of the city, and Sharp Park
Road and Hickey Boulevard at SR 35).

Local Business Support and Revitalization
ES-I-21 Shopping Center Upgrades. Support
upgrading existing centers to create an
environment more conducive to attracting
a broader base of customers and tenants.

ES-I-22 New Business Organizations. Encourage
formation of business organizations to represent business districts or industry groups where there are no support organizations.

ES-I-23 Enterprise Development Program. Create
an Enterprise Development Program to
provide technical support for local start-up
businesses.

The City may seek assistance from the Workforce Investment Board and the San Mateo County Economic Development Association
(SAMCEDA) to help set up a website incorporating all the tools and resources available to small local businesses and start-ups.

ES-I-24 Loan Program for Business Support. Evaluate the feasibility of maintaining a revolving City loan program for local businesses needing temporary financial support.

ES-I-25 Childcare. Encourage development of
accessible, affordable, and quality childcare
facilities through the following mechanisms:
• Streamline processing and permit regulations for childcare facilities. • Allow childcare facilities with a capacity 15-20 children minimum as a use in commercial areas.

2.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ES-I-26 Business-to-Business Transactions. Promote strategies to increase local businessto-business commerce.

New Employment Attraction
ES-I-27 New Business Attraction. Attract new
businesses to Pacifica, focusing on those
that:
• Have a high growth potential;
• Generate net fiscal benefits to the City
through increased tax revenue;
• Create high-paying and/or career-oriented jobs for local residents with opportunities for advancement; • Complement or augment existing businesses and services in Pacifica; and • Create a minimal negative impact on
the environment.

ES-I-28 Opportunity Sites Inventory. Maintain
an inventory of available and “ready-to-go”
development sites on the City’s website,
and provide the list to interested developers
and/or businesses seeking sites in the Cty.

The inventory of development sites should
be updated periodically, depending on the
pace of development, and distributed to local
developers, realtors, employment recruiters, large commercial bankers, and others involved in economic development.

ES-I-29 Economic Development Website. Create a
one-stop web portal for the City’s economic
development activities.

The website could include:
• Information on the permitting and licensing process, and available business assistance programs, if applicable; • A secure portal for online applications;
• A searchable GIS inventory of available
sites;
• A directory of Pacifica businesses/firms and
the products and services they provide;
• Testimonials from local business owners on
positive experiences with the City; and
• Links to complementary websites.

ES-I-30 Public/Private Partnerships. Explore the
use of public/private partnerships to aid
new small businesses with initial capital
costs.

ES-I-31 Incentives for Locating in Pacifica. Create
a list of incentives as part of a package to
approach “target businesses” to encourage
their location in Pacifica.

Possible incentives may include Enterprise
Development Program assistance (see Policy ES-I-23), expedited permit review and approval, and floor area or density bonuses.

ES-I-32 Investment in Infrastructure. Continue
to invest in public infrastructure improvements, including landscaping, signage, lighting, and roadways.

The Economy and the Environment
ES-I-33 GGNRA Visitor Center. Work with the
GGNRA to establish a Visitor Center off
SR 1 near Mori Point. Connect with the
Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park districts
with signage, roadway improvements, and
pedestrian- and bicycle improvements.

ES-I-34 Expanded Commercial Recreation. Foster
the development of low-intensity outdoor
commercial recreation uses on sites near
Pacifica State Beach and at the northern
end of Palmetto Avenue.

ES-I-35 Preserve the Experience of the Natural
Environment. Ensure that new development projects do not disrupt view corridors from prominent points or otherwise interfere with residents’ and visitors’ experience of Pacifica’s natural areas and amenities.

2.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2-17
ES-I-36 Appropriate Site Design. Ensure that
development projects adjacent to protected
natural areas are designed to minimize
impacts on those areas by employing low
impact development techniques for storm-
water management, using native/non-inva-
sive landscaping, and minimizing nighttime lighting and glare.

2.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 2-18 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank

2.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to The Community Design Element focuses on enhancing the image and everyday livability of Pacifica. It presents a vision for the City’s overall form and image, and provides guidance for preserving and enhancing the qualities that support that urban structure. Specifically, the Community Design Element discusses compatible infill development; pedestrian-oriented, mixed use districts; views to hillsides, coastal bluffs and the ocean; and sustainable design. This chapter identifies certain areas where additional standards and guidelines may be needed, and provides policies at a citywide scale, as well as key goals defining distinct areas within the City.
3 COMMUNITY DESIGN

2.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-2 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

3.1 URBAN STRUCTURE
Pacifica has a strong physical identity as a stretch of dramatic coastline punctuated by ridges. Its boundaries are very distinct on three sides, with the Ocean on the west, the crest of Sweeney Ridge and Skyline
Boulevard on the east, and San Pedro Mountain on
the south. The northern edge narrows almost to a
gateway entered along Highway 1. As an urban place,
Pacifica presents itself as a collection of valley and
coastal neighborhoods nestled in the topography.

As envisioned here, the basic components of Pacifica’s
existing structure—its open spaces, neighborhoods,
activity centers, and transportation corridors—are
built upon to establish a more coherent overall form,
pictured in Figure 3-1: Urban Structure. Key features
are described below.

Balance of Urban and Undeveloped
Land
Pacifica is striking for its high proportion of both
parks and undeveloped land, which comprises twothirds of the Planning Area, and for the way its neighborhoods and rugged, open ridges alternate
along the length of the City.

Hillsides and Ridges
The crest of the Coast Range forms Pacifica’s eastern
boundary. This crest rises toward the south as Sweeney Ridge. Five lateral ridges extend westward from Sweeney Ridge to the ocean. From north to south,
these are Milagra Ridge, Gypsy Hill, Mori Ridge,
Cattle Hill, and Fassler Ridge. At the south end, San
Pedro Mountain extends to the coast at Pedro Point
Headlands. This dramatic terrain is a defining feature of the city.

Neighborhoods
Pacifica’s neighborhoods lie in valleys between the
ridges, and along hillsides.
• Fairmont, Fairmont West, and Westview-Pacific
Highlands. In this northernmost section of the
city, the coastal neighborhoods are linked with
urbanized uplands: the Fairmont West, Fairmont
and Westview-Pacific Highlands neighborhoods
to the north and east.
• Edgemar-Pacific Manor. The Pacific Manor
shopping district is the hub of the West and East
Edgemar-Pacific Manor neighborhoods, north of
Milagra Ridge.
• Sharp Park. The East and West Sharp Park
neighborhoods lie in the bowl between Gypsy
Hill and Milagra Ridge, north of Sharp Park (the
park).
• Vallemar. Near the geographical center of the
city, the Vallemar neighborhood is located in
a narrow valley along upper Calera Creek. The
stream’s western end travels through the quarry
site at the base of Mori Point.
• Rockaway and Rockaway Beach. The Rockaway
neighborhood extends down the narrow valley
between Fassler Ridge and Cattle Hill, and culminates in the seaside Rockaway Beach district. • San Pedro Valley and Pedro Point. The San
Pedro Valley, in the far south, includes the neighborhoods of Linda Mar, West Linda Mar, Park Pacifica, and the coastal Pedro Point neighborhood.

Pacifica developed first as a string of coastal communities and later as a suburban extension of San Francisco; this has created unusual patterns. Development in the newer neighborhoods has occurred on a larger scale, often with significant grading to provide access and construction pads, whereas older development was generally one or a few houses at a time with minimal change to the existing terrain. This
quality will lessen over time as context-sensitive infill housing is developed, older housing is replaced, and
vegetation matures.

2.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-3
3-3
Pacific
Ocean
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 3-1:

Urban Structure
Urbanized
Primary Activity Center
Neighborhood Activity Center
Small Commercial Center
Industrial Area
Beach
Undeveloped or Open Space
Hillsides/Ridgelines
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Neighborhood
Public Open Space
or Natural Feature
Highways and
Regional Roadways
Planning Area
City Limits
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Pacifica
Pier
Milagra Ridge
(GGNRA)
Sharp Park
Golf Course
Mori Point
(GGNRA)
Sharp Park
Sweeney
Ridge
(GGNRA)
San Pedro Valley
County Park
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacifica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Peninsula
Watershed
(SFPUC)
Water
Recycling
Plant
Cattle
Hill
Fassler
Ridge
R o c k a w a y V a l l e y
S a n P e d r o Va l l e y
Park
Pacifica Linda
Mar
Pedro
Point
Rockaway
Vallemar
C a l e r a V a l l e y
Mori Ridge
West
Fairway
Park
East
Fairway
Park
Gypsy
Hill
East
Sharp
Park
West
Sharp
Park
East
EdgemarPacific Manor
Westview
Pacific
Highlands
Fairmont
West
West EdgemarPacific Manor
West
Linda
Mar

GAT EWAY DR

INVERNESS DR

OLD COAST HWY

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

PALMETTO AVE

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKAWAYBEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICA NTE DR

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

DE SOLO

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

WESTBOROUGH

KING DR

SKYLINE BLVD H CI KEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

CLARENDON RD

LINDA MAR BLVD
Figure 3-1: Figure 3-1: Urban Structure Urban Structure 2.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Balance of Activity Centers
Unlike many cities, Pacifica has no single downtown,
but rather an assortment of activity centers. West
Sharp Park has a concentration of public uses and
a small business district. However, it is balanced by
the shopping hubs of West Linda Mar to the south
and Pacific Manor to the north, while a tourist atmosphere is captured more clearly at Rockaway Beach.

Other small activity centers are at Fairmont Shopping Center, Park Mall, Eureka Square, and small business districts at Crespi Drive, Adobe Drive, and
Vallemar.

Pacifica’s multi-centered quality will continue to
be part of its identity, but each activity center will
become more distinct and more vibrant, especially
the area within the Sharp Park Specific Plan. The
three primary activity centers will be at West Sharp
Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, associated with Pacifica’s three accessible beaches. Smaller mixed-use activity centers will grow at Pacific Manor
and Park Mall. Each activity center will be distinguished by its land use mix, built form, and public realm enhancements, as well as by district-specific
signage.

Highway 1
Highway 1 is a unifying element for the city, connecting all of its neighborhoods and key sites to one another and to the region. The sequential experience
created by the Highway will be strengthened as each
activity center becomes more distinct, and as coastal
and hillside views are enhanced. The highway also
divides neighborhoods and influences access to and
use of various commercial centers.

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CD-G-1 Identifiable City Structure. Reinforce
a clear city structure, characterized by a
progression of ridges, neighborhoods, and
activity centers.

CD-G-2 Distinct Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers, each distinguished through land use, built form, public
realm enhancements, and signage.

Implementing Policies
CD-I-1 Primary Activity Centers.Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and
neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor
and Park Pacifica (at and around the Park
Mall site).
• The Sharp Park Specific Plan Area will
be the City’s mixed use core. The Sharp
Park Specific Plan will serve as the guide
to enhance Palmetto Avenue between
Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road
as a vibrant, mixed-use main street,
with strong connections to the Ocean.

Sharp Park’s character will be signaled
by higher-intensity buildings along the
Highway 1 corridor, including at the
Eureka Square site.
• Rockaway Beach will be the visitor-oriented center. Its charming coastal character will be strengthened by new development and the district will be extended with a connective street pattern onto the
flat portion of the Quarry site. It may
gain a new, defining feature such as a
destination hotel or conference center.

2.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3COMMUNITY DESIGN
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-5

3.2 NEIGHBORHOODS AND

DISTRICTS
This section explores the characteristics of Pacifica’s residential, mixed-use and commercial neighborhoods, and the community design considerations for each type. Residential districts and commercial areas
are treated separately.

Historical Development
Pacifica’s earliest development occurred with the construction of the Ocean Shore Railroad in 1905, as land speculators subdivided and developed a series
of coastside communities, including Edgemar, Vallemar, Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Pedro Point. These communities grew out in the 1920s and
1930s, primarily with small, one-story houses, often
with detached one-car garages, on narrow lots. Sharp
Park Golf Course was developed during this time.

After World War II, larger housing tract development
began to take place, including Linda Mar, Fairway
Park, Pacific Manor and Westview.

The most notable residential developments in recent
years have occurred on former school sites and on
hillside parcels. School sites have tended to yield compact neighborhoods including a mix of detached and attached housing. Development of hillside sites has
been clustered, and resulted in areas of permanently
preserved open space.

Residential Neighborhoods
The various stages of Pacifica’s development produced different street patterns, lot dimensions, typical housing types and densities. In West Sharp Park, single-family houses on narrow lots and multi-family housing are intermixed, and a grid street pattern prevails. Other early communities, including Pedro
Point, Vallemar, and Rockaway/Rockaway Beach,
developed in narrow valleys and on hillsides, with a
mixture of lot sizes and irregular street patterns.
• Linda Mar will be a center for recreation
and community. Crespi Drive, in particular, will become a more diverse center of activity, including visitors to the beaches and trail system; seniors, youth,
and families at an expanded community
center park; and mixed-use, transitoriented development. Linda Mar and Pedro Point Shopping Centers are also
part of this center.

CD-I-2 Neighborhood Activity Centers. Support smaller-scale neighborhood centers at Pacific Manor and at and around the Park
Mall site, enabling them to become walkable, mixed use districts catering primarily to Pacifica residents.

CD-I-3 Sharp Park Specific Plan Design
Standards and Guidelines. Within the
Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, adhere to
urban design standards guidelines outlined in the Sharp Park Specific Plan to promote a walkable, pedestrian-oriented
community center.

2.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The early postwar neighborhoods of Fairmont, Fairmont West, Westview-Pacific Highlands, Fairway Park, and West Linda Mar, are typified by 5,000
square foot single-family lots, and curvilinear street
patterns. A suburban street pattern with larger lots
and lower densities is typical in the later development of Linda Mar and Park Pacifica.

West Edgemar-Pacific Manor has evolved to contain
a high concentration of multi-family housing along
Esplanade Avenue. Multi-family housing is also clustered around Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive; along Oddstad and Terra Nova Boulevards; and
mixed in with single-family houses in West Sharp
Park.

At community forums held during the General Plan
Update, participants expressed the desire to preserve
neighborhood character. Pacifica’s neighborhoods are
largely built out, with a scattering of vacant lots providing limited opportunities for infill development.

The General Plan supports continued investment in
existing neighborhoods and development of a greater
variety of housing types, while ensuring that new
development is compatible in scale and density and
respectful of neighbors.

Commercial and Mixed Use Districts
Pacifica has a variety of shopping centers and small
mixed-use business districts. Upgrading the appeal
of existing shopping centers and providing new
opportunities for mixed use development were high
priorities expressed by community members during
the General Plan Update. The General Plan seeks to
guide future development so that each commercial
area becomes more distinct and more vibrant. Figure
3-2 illustrates how new mixed-use development on
a shopping center site could be done with attention
to the building form and to the relationship between
buildings, parking areas, streets, and public spaces.

In West Sharp Park, single-family houses on narrow lots and multi-family housing are intermixed, on a grid pattern (top). The early postwar neighborhoods are typified by 5,000 square foot single-family lots, and curvilinear street patterns (middle). Multifamily development accounts predominates in West EdgemarPacific Manor (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3COMMUNITY DESIGN
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-7
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

This diagram illustrates the idea of a higher-intensity, mixed-use development with varied building form, pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces, at the Eureka Square site.

Figure 3-2: Illustrative Urban Form: Eureka Square

2.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CD-G-3 Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve
the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s
residential neighborhoods.

CD-G-4 Enhanced Mixed Use Areas. Create
distinctive mixed-use areas by ensuring
good building form and building-sidewalk
interface, and providing pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces.

Implementing Policies
CD-I-4 Support Infill and Redevelopment.

Support compatible residential infill on
vacant lots, and redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties, and continue to use the City’s Design Guidelines in evaluation of proposals that don’t meet
all development standards in residential
districts.

Pacifica’s Design Guidelines identify building form strategies including locating higher portions of the house to be less visible, “stepping down” the house toward adjoining lots, and breaking up the building mass into
smaller sections. Good site planning should
accommodate necessary parking without
allowing parking to dominate the house
frontage or front yard.

CD-I-5 High-Quality Multi-Family and Senior
Housing. Support attached, multi-family,
and senior housing that relates positively
to the street and surrounding areas, is
accessible on foot to community amenities
including transit, shopping and services,
and offers residents a range of amenities,
and provide updated, illustrated Design
Guidelines.

Compatible new houses help to preserve neighborhood character (top). Larger buildings should be varied in form, setback, height, color, and materials (middle). Fine-grained development that engages the pedestrian is essential in mixed use and commercial districts (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3COMMUNITY DESIGN
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-9
Larger buildings should vary in form, setback, height, color, and materials. Landscaping plays a role in defining spaces, creating interplay with building forms, and
screening parking and utilities. Access and
parking should be designed to minimize
traffic impacts on residential streets. Buildings and open spaces should be oriented to maximize sunlight.

CD-I-6 Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate
the creation of accessory dwelling units
that contribute to the variety of available
housing and do not disrupt neighborhood
character. Update the Zoning Ordinance
and Design Guidelines to address the
integration of accessory dwelling units
into the neighborhood fabric.

CD-I-7 Commercial and Mixed Use Building
Form. Seek to ensure that new commercial and mixed use development creates an attractive and human-scaled built environment. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address mixed
use access, building form, the buildingsidewalk relationship. • Buildings should be varied to provide
visual interest, while having a unified
theme within each project.
• Building form should be responsive to
context, including stepping down to
adjacent, lower-scale uses, and establishing a fine-grained scale at street level. • Commercial buildings and ground-floor
commercial uses in mixed-use areas
should have active frontages characterized by building windows and entrances supporting activity on the sidewalk.

Illustrated Design Guidelines should show
how a fine grain of development offers more
opportunities for public spaces, greater visual
interest at the street level, a feeling of safety,
and a diverse character. Chapter 4: Land
Redevelopment of certain sites should incorporate small new plazas or public gathering spaces (top). Require pedestrian-oriented amenities and design in mixed use areas, including wider sidewalks, curb bulb-outs at key intersections, outdoor seating, and public art (middle). For new development at the Quarry site or Park Mall site, streets should be designed to maximize connectivity, including mid-block pedestrian connections (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Use discusses the need to update the Zoning
Ordinance to create new zoning districts
and provide development standards corresponding to each commercial and mixed use General Plan land use classification.

CD-I-8 Parking in Higher-Intensity Mixed
Use Areas. Update parking standards
to require parking areas to be located
behind buildings, in the center of blocks,
or tucked under development, and update
the Design Guidelines to cover parking
issues in higher-intensity, mixed-use areas.

If development of above-grade structures is
economically viable, the interaction of the
parking structure with the street is a key element of design. The design and location of parking directly affects the viability of commercial areas, safety for all road users, and the quality and character of the street and
pedestrian environment.

CD-I-9 Parking Districts. Within mixed-use and
commercial areas, establish parking districts that facilitate parking once to reach all destinations.

CD-I-10 New Public Spaces as Part of Redevelopment. Incorporate into the redevelopment of the City’s 2212 Beach Boulevard property; Eureka Square Shopping Center; and Park Mall and/or the Sanchez Branch
Library site small new plazas or public
gathering spaces.

The role and character of public spaces in
new development should be addressed in
updated Design Guidelines.

3.3 HILLSIDE AND COASTAL

DEVELOPMENT
Hillside Preservation
To protect important views from public areas and
the To protect important views from public areas
and the sensitive terrain of hillside areas, the City has special development regulations for the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), which requires submission of development plans, grading plans, and other documentation. Hillside development also receives special consideration in the Design Guidelines, which are used to evaluate proposed projects. The key issues
for hillside development are slope stability, grading,
and visual impact.

Prominent ridgelines are identified based on their
visual importance or scenic quality. Owners must
focus development on suitable portions of their property off the ridges, to protect the scenic quality of ridgelines, except where ridgelines are the only buildable portions of the property. Prominent ridgelines are shown on Figure 3-3.

Coastal Development
The sensitive natural and visual resources of hillsides also apply to the undeveloped coastal bluffs and promontories, including the Northern Coastal
Bluffs, the Quarry site uplands, and Aramai Point.

Developed coastal areas also require special attention, not only because of their natural features but also for their potential as visitor destinations. The
City’s Coastal Zone Combining District (CZ)
ensures that the goals and policies of the California
Coastal Act are followed. These goals include the
protection and enhancement of the coastal environment, including its visual resources. Coastal development is also among the special issues treated by Pacifica’s Design Guidelines.

2.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-11
Mori Point
Aramai
Point
Pedro Point
Headlands
P a c i f i c
O cea n
400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Figure 3-4:

Visual Resources
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: US Geological Survey, 2009; City of
Pacica, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.

Gateways
Prominent Landforms
Coastal View Corridors
Scenic Routes
Prominent Ridges
City Limits
Planning Area
Pacica
Pier
Milag r a Ridg e (GGNRA )
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t (GGNRA )
Shar p Par k
Swee ne y
Ridg e
(GGNRA )
Sa n P ed ro Val le y
C ou n ty Pa rk
Pe d ro Poi nt
Headland s
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Pacica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Peni nsu la
Watershe d
(SFPUC )

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

BEACH BLVD

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Coast Highway
Clarendon Rd
Manor Dr
Paloma Ave
Salada Ave
Coast Highway
Rockaway
Beach
Coast
Highway
Shelter Cove/
Shoreside Dr
Coast Highway
Figure 3-3: Visual Resources 2.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Three promontories dominate Pacifica’s Coastal
Zone and visually represent the coastal character of
Pacifica. These landforms—Pedro Point Headlands,
Aramai Piont (formerly known as the Rockaway
Headlands), and Mori Point (including the Quarry
site uplands)—are shown on Figure 3-3. While
much of this area has been permanently preserved,
development may occur on the Aramai Point or the
Quarry site.

Views to the ocean and along the panoramic coastline are an integral part of Pacifica’s character, and a part that must be preserved for the future. Of primary importance are views of the ocean, landforms, and special coastal communities from public roadways, trails, and vista points. Important coastal view corridors are identified on Figure 3-3.

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CD-G-5 Hillsides and Prominent Ridgelines. Maintain development standards that ensure that new development does
not detract from the visual qualities of
Pacifica’s hillsides and visually prominent
ridgelines.

CD-G-6 Scenic and Visual Amenities of the
Coastal Zone. Protect the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities in the Coastal Zone by protecting landforms,
vegetation, special communities, and
important viewsheds.

Implementing Policies
Hillside Development
CD-I-11 Minimize Visual Impacts of Hillside
Development. Require new development
to employ innovative site planning, engineering and design techniques that:
• Seek first to avoid impacts to scenic
resources through site planning and
design;
• Minimize grading and conform with
natural landforms to the greatest extent
possible;
• Design structures so that they follow
contours and limit their downslope
exposure; and
• Use landscaping to screen and integrate
buildings with the natural environment.

CD-I-12 Protection of Ridgelines. Protect
visually prominent ridgelines from residential and commercial development.

2.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3COMMUNITY DESIGN
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-13
Local access roads and trails may be allowed
on visually prominent ridgelines provided
they follow contours, minimize grading, and
are unobtrusive in their design.

CD-I-13 Hillside Preservation District
Requirements. Continue to implement
the requirements of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), including submission of siting and grading plans. Update the HPD to ensure that all steep slopes
are covered and that sites on other terrain
are not included.

CD-I-14 Design Review. Continue to use
Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed
projects in Planned Development, Hillside Development, and Special districts.

Coastal Development
CD-I-15 Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Landforms. Ensure that negative visual impacts resulting from
new development in the Coastal Zone
are minimized. In areas characterized by
bluffs and landforms. Strategies to implement this policy include:
• Prohibiting development on slopes in
excess of 35 percent and highly visible
tops of prominent landforms;
• Requiring blufftop development to
minimize impacts on the view from the
ocean and beach below by implementing a setback from the bluff edge; • Requiring that development be clustered
and contoured into the existing slope;
and
• Requiring that new development be
scaled and designed to be subordinate to
landforms in the Coastal Zone.

CD-I-16 Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Vegetation. Continue to require that disturbance to vegetation be
minimized in new development and that
Unlike the example of Oceana High School, future hillside development is required to conform with natural landforms and design structures into the landscape (top). New development at the Quarry site should enhance the visual character of the Coastal Zone (middle). Protect coastal viewsheds characterized by natural landforms and coastal bluffs (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
graded areas be promptly replanted with
native vegetation.

CD-I-17 Headlands Special Area. In the Zoning Ordinance, update the Headlands Special Area for Aramai Point, to specify
very low-intensity visitor-serving use such
as hikers’ huts and kiosks. A view restaurant may be appropriate if access can be created without harming biological or
scenic resources.

CD-I-18 Rockaway Quarry Site. Development
on the Quarry site should be prioritized
in the “flats” and should connect with the
adjacent Rockaway Beach district. Development in areas of the Quarry site that would impact the visual qualities of surrounding hillsides or ridgelines should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible.

CD-I-19 Trail Design on Coastal Headlands
and Bluffs. Develop new trails on Pedro
Point Headlands, Aramai Point, the
Quarry site uplands, and the Northern
Coastal Bluffs in such a way that native
vegetation is protected by limiting pedestrians to designated trails and preventing access by motorized vehicles.

CD-I-20 Underground Utilities. Continue to
require underground utilities in all new
development. Within scenic corridors,
place lines underground or located there
so they do not break the viewline of a
roadway vista.

3.4 SCENIC ROUTES
The State and County have identified Highway 1
and Sharp Park Road in Pacifica as eligible for scenic
highway designation. Local scenic roadway designation requires a corridor study, a program to enhance the scenic qualities, and adoption of the scenic roadway designation and its protection plan. Such a plan may be prepared in the future. For the purpose of
this General Plan, what is important is that the scenic qualities of these roadways are preserved and enhanced.

Viewsheds
Highway 1 plays an important role in defining the
image of Pacifica, creating a visual narrative for the
traveler from one end of the City to the other. Sharp
Park Road also represents an important visual summary of Pacifica, drawing travelers from the ridgeline at Skyline Boulevard to the coast, with views out to the Ocean and over the Sharp Park neighborhood
and Golf Course. Several specific viewsheds from
Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are shown on Figure 3-3. Other defining views include the view over the West Sharp Park district and Pacifica Pier from
Highway 1; views toward Cattle Hill and Fassler
Ridge from Highway 1; and the view to the ocean
from Grace McCarthy Vista Point on Sharp Park
Road.

Roadway Enhancements
In addition to viewsheds from these roads, the character of the roadways themselves shapes visitors’ and residents’ experience of Pacifica. The appearance of
the Coast Highway right-of-way in central Pacifica
can be improved as part of roadway beautification
projects in partnership with Caltrans. Other future
improvements to the visual character of the Highway can include new and improved pedestrian overcrossings, and multi-use trails leading to the Devil’s Slide area. On Sharp Park Road, completion of bicycle improvements will improve the character of
this roadway and make its scenic quality available to
cyclists.

2.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3COMMUNITY DESIGN
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-15
Development Character in the
Highway 1 Corridor
Future development along Highway 1 will also influence the scenic qualities of the corridor. Development can create a strong presence along the Highway and harmonious transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. All new commercial development requires site development review, assisted by the Design
Guidelines. The Guidelines will provide direction on
how buildings should relate to Highway 1 at different
segments of the Highway.

Gateways
Pacifica is introduced to southbound travelers with
the experience of coming over the hill and seeing the
expansive coastal vista. Northbound travelers come
through the Devils Slide Tunnel, wind around the
forested Pedro Point Headlands, and arrive at the
active intersection with Linda Mar Boulevard. Skyline Boulevard acts as a coherent eastern boundary for the City, as it travels along the crest of the ridge with mature trees along its edges. From Skyline, Pacifica is entered via Sharp Park Road, Manor Drive, and Hickey Boulevard. While the “gateways”
into Pacifica are strong, entry points from the east
can be made stronger, and all entries treated with
a consistent signage theme. Gateway locations are
shown on Figure 3-3.

The Grace McCarthy Vista Point on Sharp Park Road helps to define Pacifica’s image (top). The completed edestrian overcrossing between West and East Sharp Park enhances the character of the Highway 1 corridor (middle). Pacifica is introduced to southbound travelers with an expansive coastal vista (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CD-G-7 Views from Scenic Routes. Ensure
that viewsheds from Highway 1 and Sharp
Park Road are preserved and enhanced.

These views are an essential part of Pacifica’s identity.

CD-G-8 Gateways. Create strong entrances and
preserve the quality of experience of
movement along primary travel routes, in
particular along the coast.

Implementing Policies
CD-I-21 Roadway Enhancements. Coordinate
with Caltrans in an effort to ensure that
future changes to the Coast Highway will
also upgrade the appearance of the rightof-way.

Improvements should include landscaping
and roadway design, as well as trails and
visually-appealing pedestrian over-crossings.

CD-I-22 Scenic Corridor Plans. Seek grant
funding to develop local scenic corridor plans for Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road.

CD-I-23 Parallel Trails for Non-Motorized
Travel. Improve walking, riding, and biking trails along roadways with the State scenic highway designation.

CD-I-24 Other Scenic Trails. Improve pedestrian routes along corridors that provide access to locations of significant scenic
quality, recreation, historic and cultural
importance in Pacifica.

CD-I-25 Vehicle Access Points. Maintain and
improve existing scenic turnouts, public
parking areas, access to regional parks,
beaches and other recreation areas.

CD-I-26 Roadway Design. Ensure that any
proposed new roads or modification to
existing roads which traverse scenic areas
minimize visual impacts to views from
scenic routes.

Where possible, the physical form of structures, grading and alignment should be integrated into the natural setting. Views to
and from ridges should be protected.

CD-I-27 High-Quality Design at Key Points.

Ensure that new development directly
adjacent to Highway 1 in West and East
Sharp Park helps to create a strong image
of Pacifica’s cultural and civic core, and
that new development in the Rockaway Quarry site has a visual quality that enhances the natural setting and draws
travelers in from the highway.

CD-I-28 Highway Frontage Design Guidelines. Update the Design Guidelines to provide direction on how new buildings
relate to Highway 1, both in its freeway
and highway configuration.

CD-I-29 Gateway Signage. Create unified
gateway signage, for entrances along
Highway 1, Sharp Park Road, Manor
Drive, and Hickey Boulevard.

2.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 3COMMUNITY DESIGN
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3-17
This page left intentionally blank

2.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to The purpose of this chapter is to describe existing and planned land use in the Planning Area and present the policy framework that will guide the City on development decisions. The chapter forms the core of the General Plan and its policies articulate the community’s land use and growth priorities through 2040. It includes the Land Use Diagram, land use designations, standards for density and intensity, and limitations on development expressed by the policies.

The land use framework for each sub-area is then provided in greater detail.

Guiding and implementing policies aim to define the Planning Area’s physical development and reinforce its commitment to balancing needs for open space and habitat conservation; housing opportunities; economic development; neighborhood character; and other issues.
4 LAND USE

2.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-2 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

4.1 EXISTING LAND USE
Background
Before visitation by the Portola expedition in 1769,
Pacifica was home to the Costanoans, now known
as the Ohlone, who were stewards of the land for
thousands of years. Originally visited by the Portola expedition in 1769, Pacifica remained primarily agricultural until after the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906. Land speculators, stimulated by the construction of the Ocean Shore Railroad in 1905,
subdivided and developed a series of small, coastside communities, including Edgemar, Salada Beach, Brighton Beach, Vallemar, Rockaway Beach and
Tobin (San Pedro Terrace-by-theSea.) These neighborhoods, together with Pacific Manor, Westview, Fairway Park, and Linda Mar, incorporated in 1957
as the City of Pacifica. The city grew rapidly in the
1950s and 1960s, and most of its current housing—56
percent as of 2020—was built during those decades.

Growth slowed in the 1970s, and then slowed further in the following decades, owing to the scarcity of developable land and infrastructure constraints.

While growth increased again in the 1990s, housing
production and population growth has been modest
from 2000 onward. About 730 units currently standing were built in the 1990s, dropping to 480 units built between 2000 to 2009, with the total amounting to 1,215 units over the 20 years between 1990 and 2009. From 2009 to 2019, Pacifica has added approximately 100 units.1 .

Current Land Use Pattern
Parks and Open Space
The Planning Area covers 7,665 acres, not including
road rights-of-way. Over 3,600 acres (47 percent) of
this land is preserved as open space. Most of Pacifica’s rugged ridges are part of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA) or Sharp Park. Sharp
Park Golf Course, San Pedro Valley County Park,
and Pacifica State Beach represent other important
public open space holdings. Parks and open space are
1 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019. discussed in further detail in the Open Space and
Community Facilities chapter.

Residential
Residential use makes up 26 percent of the Planning
Area and 70 percent of developed land2 in the Planning Area, covering 1,984 acres. As shown in Figure 4-1, residential land is the predominant land use in
the neighborhoods that occupy Pacifica’s five valleys,
along the coast, and in the highlands bordering Daly
City and South San Francisco. Most residential land
in Pacifica (90 percent) contains single-family housing, which is typical in nearly all neighborhoods.

Multi-family housing is mainly located around
Hickey and Skyline Boulevards; along Terra Nova
and Oddstad Boulevards in the Park Pacifica neighborhood; interspersed among single-family houses and commercial uses in the West Sharp Park neighborhood; in the East Sharp Park neighborhood along Talbot Avenue; and along the coast in the West
Edgemar-Pacific Manor neighborhood.

Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use
The Planning Area includes 125 acres of commercial
uses, including a small amount of mixed-use development. Commercial land is located at the City’s shopping centers (Linda Mar, Pacific Manor, Fairmont, Eureka Square, Park Mall, Pedro Point) and at smaller shopping centers and districts at Rockaway
Beach, Crespi Drive, Palmetto Avenue, and along
the Highway 1 corridor. Pacifica has a small amount
of mixed-use development along Palmetto Avenue in
West Sharp Park, in Rockaway Beach and in Pedro
Point. Overall, West Sharp Park has the greatest mix
of uses throughout the neighborhood. Hotels, along
with most visitor-serving commercial uses, are primarily in the Coastal Zone in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood. There are only 4 acres of office use
in Pacifica. Finally, the City has a small amount of
industrial land (17 acres), mainly located along Palmetto, north of the West Sharp Park commercial area.
2 Developed land includes all land uses except for Open Space, Agriculture, or Vacant/Undeveloped.

2.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-3
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)

FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

GRAND AVE

ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

AVALON DR

MI LAGR ADR

MONTEREY RD

IVERNESS DR

NELSON AVE

PA ML ETTO AVE

ADOBE DR

BEACH BLVD

HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Peninsula
Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Devil' s Slide Tunnel

PERALTA RD

ROSITA RD

EVE RGLAD ES DR

M ANZA NI T A DR

LERI D A WAY

R OBERTSRD

SHAR P P A RK R D

BRADFORD WAY

ESPLANADE AV E

E DGEMAR A VE

GAT EWAYDR

FIRECREST AVE

OCEANA BLVD

SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE

MOANAW AY
Water
Recycling
Plant
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Agriculture
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family
Mobile Homes
Commercial
Auto Services
Hotels
Office
Mixed Use
Utilities
Industrial
Schools
Church
Other Public or Community Uses
Source: City of Pacifica, 2021; San Mateo County, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Figure 4-1:

Existing Land Use
Planning Area
City Limits
Other Open Space
Parks & Accessible Open Space
Beach
Vacant/Undeveloped
Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use

2.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Public and Institutional Uses
Public, community, and institutional uses occupy
398 acres of land. Of this, about 70 percent is school
land and buildings, including the campuses of
Oceana and Terra Nova high schools. Other significant public land holdings—not including parks and open space—include the two library sites; the Calera
Creek Water Recycling Plant; police and fire stations;
and former school sites now used for other purposes.

Agriculture and Recreation
There are about 360 acres of land used for agriculture or private recreation. About 260 acres of this are within City limits, at Millwood Ranch, the former Park Pacifica Stables on Cape Breton Drive, and properties directly north of Sharp Park and along
Linda Mar Boulevard. About 104 acres are outside
city limits, at Shamrock Ranch between San Pedro
Creek and Highway 1. Most land in this category
involves horse boarding and trail riding and has a
rural character.

Undeveloped and Vacant Land
Vacant and undeveloped land totals 1,1,41 acres or
16 percent of land in the Planning Area. About 15
percent of this land (184 acres) is outside City limits, within the Sphere of Influence. Large parcels of undeveloped land are present along the northern coastal bluffs, Milagra Canyon, Gypsy Hill, the Rockaway Quarry site, the face of Cattle Hill, Fassler
Ridge, and the slope of Montara Mountain. Smaller
vacant “infill” lots are scattered in neighborhoods.

Given environmental factors such as slope and sensitive species, there are constraints on the development potential of many of these sites.

Figure 4-1 maps the City’s land use pattern, while
Figure 4-2 charts the relative distribution of land by
land use in the Planning Area.

Sharp Park Golf Course and Mori Point. Over 3,600 acres are preserved as open space (top). Single-family houses comprise three-quarters of Pacifica’s housing (middle). Commercial land is concentrated at shopping centers and small neighborhood commercial areas (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-5

4.2 LAND USE FRAMEWORK Figure 4-2: Current Land Use Distribution The Land Use Diagram, (Figure 4-3 and the foldout
in the back of this plan) illustrates the community’s
vision for land use in 2040. This Diagram reflects
planning themes presented in Chapter 1. The land
use designations depicted indicate the use and form
of development. Planned land use will be guided
by Plan policies and programs for hillside and open
space preservation; housing and commercial development.

Land Use
The Land Use Diagram is a graphic representation
of planned land use designations; it will be used in
conjunction with policies established in the Plan to
review and approve, modify or deny proposed development projects. The Land Use Diagram includes a legend that shows land use categories whose densities and allowable uses are specified in the Land Use Designation below.

Land Use Designations
Land use designations establish allowed uses, maximum density and intensity, and the type and character of development that is expected. Details on development standards are established in the zoning
ordinance, and more than one zoning district may
be consistent with a General Plan land use designation. The Implementing Policies of this Chapter may contain more specific guidance on the use of individual sites.

According to State law, the General Plan must establish standards of population density and building intensity for each land use designation. The Plan stipulates residential densities in housing units per gross acre; population density can be obtained by applying
average persons per housing unit3 to the housing unit
densities. For nonresidential uses, the Plan specifies a maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site
area (Floor Area Ratio or FAR). Recommended den3 Based on 2015-2019 U.S. Census data, the number of persons per total housing units is 2.8
Open Space
Public/Community/
Institutional
Residential Uses
Commercial Uses
Mixed Use
Industrial Uses
Agriculture
Vacant/
Undeveloped
47%
26%
1%
0%
0% 16%
5%
5%
Large parcels of undeveloped land are present on Gypsy Hill (pictured) and many other hillsides (middle). Smaller vacant “infill” lots are scattered in neighborhoods (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 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)

FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

GRAND AVE

ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

AVALON DR

MI LAGR ADR

MONTEREY RD

IVERNESS DR

NELSON AVE

PA ML ETTO AVE

ADOBE DR

BEACH BLVD

HICKEY B LV D
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Peninsula
Watershed
(SFPUC)
Rockaway
Beach
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Devil' s Slide Tunnel

PERALTA RD

ROSITA RD

EVE RGLAD ES DR

M ANZA NI T A DR

LERI D A WAY

R OBERTSRD

SHAR P P A RK R D

BRADFORD WAY

ESPLANADE AV E

E DGEMAR A VE

GAT EWAYDR

FIRECREST AVE

OCEANA BLVD

SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE

MOANAW AY
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.

Figure 4-3:

Land Use Diagram
Retail Commercial
Office Commercial
Service Commercial
Visitor-Serving Commercial
Low Intensity Visitor Commercial
Transitional Open Space/Residential
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
(upto 0.2 units/acre)
(0.2 - 2.0 units/acre)
(3 - 9 units/acre)
(10 - 15 units/acre)
(16 - 21 units/acre)*
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Center
(16 - 26 units/acre)*
(upto 50 units/acre)
Urban Reserve (Unincorporated)
Transportation Corridor
Public and Semi-Public
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
!!!!!!!!!!! Coastal Zone Boundary
City Limits
Planning Area

RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE COMMERCIAL

PARKS ANDOPEN SPACE OTHER
*Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
** ES
MS
HS
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
(upto 0.1 units/acre)
ES
HS
ES
ES
MS HS
ES
ES
Figure 4-3: Land Use Diagram

2.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-7

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Low Density Residential (LDR) designation
provides for development of three to nine dwelling
units per gross acre. Single-family residential is the
primary use intended for LDR areas. Residential
care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Clusters of small-lot development as well as standard subdivisions may be allowed. Buildout is
calculated at 6.5 units per gross acre.

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation is intended for a mix of housing types, including small-lot single-family, attached single-family, apartments, duplexes, townhomes and mobile home
parks at densities of 10 to 15 units per gross acre. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Buildout is calculated at 12.5 units per gross acre.

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The High Density Residential (HDR) designation is intended for multi-family apartments, condominiums and townhomes, in multi-story buildings located near shopping areas and transit. Sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater will have an
allowable density between 16 to 21 dwelling units per
gross acre, except that sites of 0.5 acres or more in
size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross
acre. For lawful nonconforming sites less than 5,000
square feet in area, the allowable density shall be 10
to 15 units per gross acre. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Buildout is calculated at 25 units per gross acre.

Mixed Use
The General Plan provides three mixed-use designations to create areas where housing and active commercial uses may be integrated. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are allowed as-of-right in all mixeduse areas within the Coastal Zone. sity and intensity standards do not imply that development projects must be approved at the maximum intensity specified for each use. Zoning regulations
consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce development potential within the stated ranges. Table 4-1 shows gross density standards for residential categories and FAR standards for the other uses.

Residential
The six residential designations provide for a range
of densities, consistent with neighborhood character
and planned land use.

TRANSITIONAL OPEN SPACE/RESIDENTIAL
In the Transitional Open Space Residential (TOSR)
designation, residential and recreation uses are allowed at a gross density of up to one unit per 10 acres (or 0.1 units per gross acre). Existing legal lots less than 10 acres in area shall be allowed to develop
one dwelling unit consistent with all other applicable zoning and development standards. The density assumed for buildout calculations is 0.08 units per
gross acre.

OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL
In the Open Space/Agriculture/Residential/ (OSAR)
designation, residential, agriculture, and recreation
uses are allowed at a gross density of up to one unit
per five acres (or 0.2 units per gross acre). Farm
worker housing may be permitted on sites zoned for
agriculture uses, consistent with state law, and shall
not be included in density calculations for a site.

The density assumed for buildout calculations is 0.15
units per gross acre.

VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) designation provides for development of 0.2 to 2.0 units per gross acre (or 0.5 to 5.0 acres per dwelling unit). Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. The density assumed for buildout calculations is 1.5 units per gross acre.

2.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE
The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) designation is intended for sites in the Coastal Zone with residential mixed use development potential, including mixed-use with housing and retail, and/or smallscale visitor-oriented commercial uses such as retail, vacation rental, or time-share units. Residential uses
are allowed in the same building as commercial uses
above the ground floor (vertical mixed-use) and in
other locations attached to or detached from commercial uses on the same site (horizontal mixed use).

Hotels are not permitted. Coastal access and public
open space must also be provided, and environmental resources must be evaluated and protected. Sites may be developed up to an overall density of up to 15
units per gross acre, with clustering and sensitive site planning. Non-residential development may have an
FAR up to 0.5 FAR. The total FAR (residential and
non-residential) cannot exceed 1.0. Buildout is calculated at 15 units per gross acre and 0.10 FAR of nonresidential use.

MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD
In the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) designation, new development may include multi-family housing and building with ground-floor retail, restaurant or service uses and housing or offices. Residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical
mixed- use) and in other locations on the same site
(horizontal mixed use). Public or community uses
and hotels may be permitted at appropriate locations.

The MUN designation allows a density range of 16
to 26 units per gross acre and non-residential development with an FAR up to 1.0 on sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater. Sites of 0.5 acres or
more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per
gross acre and a non-residential development FAR
up to 1.0. For lawful nonconforming sites less than
5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density shall
be 10 to 15 units per gross acre and a non-residential
development FAR up to 0.5. The total FAR (residential and non-residential) cannot exceed 2.0 on sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater, and cannot
exceed 1.0 on sites with less than 5,000 square feet of New development in Mixed Use Neighborhood areas should
include multi-family housing or ground-floor commercial uses with housing above (top). The Mixed Use Center classification is intended for high-density mixed use development, hotels, or community uses (middle). The Visitor-Serving Commercial classification promotes concentrated development of commercial uses with visitor appeal (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-9
area. Buildout is calculated based on a 0.25 FAR for
non-residential uses and 25 residential units per gross acre.

MIXED USE CENTER
The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation is
intended for high-density mixed-use development,
including public or community uses and hotels.

Allowable uses include ground-floor retail, restaurant
or service uses and housing or offices. The MUC designation permits housing at a density range of 30 to 50 units per gross acre and a 2.5 FAR of non-residential development, provided the overall FAR does not to exceed 2.5. For lawful non-conforming sites less
than 5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density
shall be 16 to 26 units per gross acre and a non-residential development FAR up to 0.5. Buildout is calculated at an FAR of 0.35 for non-residential uses and 25 units per gross acre for housing.

Commercial Uses
The General Plan establishes five commercial designations to accommodate a variety of potential commercial activities. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are allowed as-of-right in all commercial areas within
the Coastal Zone.

RETAIL COMMERCIAL
The Retail Commercial (RC) designation is intended
for retail, restaurant, and service uses, typically in
single-or two-story buildings within shopping centers or on sites in the Highway 1 corridor. New development will be pedestrian-oriented. Offices may be located above the ground floor. The maximum FAR
is 1.0 FAR. Buildout is calculated with an FAR of

0.25. OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
The Office/Commercial (OC) designation permits
offices as well as retail and service uses in buildings of two to three stories. The maximum FAR is 1.5;
buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.

SERVICE COMMERCIAL
The Service Commercial (SC) designation is for
industrial and heavy commercial uses, such as auto
repair, equipment rental, storage, and materials salvage. The maximum FAR is 0.6; buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.25.

VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
The Visitor-Serving Commercial (VC) designation is
intended to foster and protect areas that attract and
cater to visitors, including hotels or a visitor attraction, such as an interpretive center or conference center, restaurants, retail and services, commercial recreation, or other compatible uses. Larger sites, with developable
areas of two acres or larger, shall require a hotel, lowercost overnight accommodation, or visitor attraction as part of new development. The maximum FAR is 3.0.

Buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.

LOW-INTENSITY VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
The Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial
(LIVC) designation allows uses that create public access to the coastal setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions: campgrounds,
rustic lodging, concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites, and similar uses. Existing permitted businesses that do not conform to the description of
LIVC may remain until voluntarily redeveloped by
the property owner or abandonment of the use has
occurred pursuant to the nonconforming use zoning
provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code (cessation
of the use for 12 months, under current zoning provisions). In these areas, the designation indicates the long-term goal of transition to recreation-oriented
land uses. Development may occur at up to 0.20
FAR, but must have an overall very low-intensity
character on sites of more than one acre. Buildout
is assumed at 0.05 FAR, recognizing the large land
areas and minimal building expected to support recreational uses.

Public and Community Uses
Designations for public uses such as schools, civic buildings, utilities, and public parking areas are designated on the Land Use Diagram, and summarized below. Public
park land is covered separately in the following section.

2.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 4-1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Land Use1
Residential Density
(gross units per acre): Range2,3
Non-Residential Intensity
(FAR): Maximum4
Residential
TOSR Transitional Open Space/Residential Up to 0.1
ROSA Open Space/Agriculture/Residential Up to 0.2
VLDR Very Low Density Residential 0.2 to 2
LDR Low Density Residential 3 to 9
MDR Medium Density Residential 10 to 15
HDR High Density Residential4 16 to 21
305
Mixed Use
CRMU Coastal Residential Mixed Use 10 to 15 0.5
MUN Mixed Use Neighborhood 16 to 265 1.0
305
MUC Mixed Use Center Up to 50 2.5
Commercial
RC Retail Commercial 1.0
OC Office/Commercial 1.5
SC Service Commercial 0.6
VC Visitor-Serving Commercial 3.0
LIVC Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial 0.2
Public and Community Uses
PSP Public and Semi-Public 1.0
U Utilities 1.0
BCP Beach and Commuter Parking –
Parks and Open Space and Urban Reserve
P Park
C Conservation
UR Urban Reserve Up to 0.1

1. All land use designations are shown except those in the Parks and Open Space category. No development is projected in these areas.

2. Density ranges are rounded to the nearest whole number, except where less than 1 unit per acre. Allowances for increased density under the Density Bonus Program may affect the maximum density allowed in certain land use designations..

3. For mixed use designations, the following maximum total FAR, including both residential and non-residential uses, is established:

CRMU: 1.0 FAR maximum; MUN: 2.0 FAR maximum; MUC: 2.5 FAR maximum

4. For conforming lots smaller than 5,000 sf in the HDR, MUN, and MUC designations, the density range of the tier be-low applies. For example, an MUC site less than 5,000 sf would have a density comparative to MUN (16-26 du/ac); an HDR site less than 5,000 sf would have a density comparative to MDR (10-15 du/ac). Parcels less than 5,000 sf may merge and quality for the allowable density range.

5. Sites of 0.5 acres or more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.

Source: City of Pacifica, Dyett & Bhatia, 20121

2.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-11

PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC
The Public and Semi-Public (PSP) designation indicates public or private schools, libraries, police and fire stations, and other civic and community uses.

In the case that public facilities are converted or
sold for new uses, Plan land use designations shall
be updated. If a public school is discontinued, any
proposed new use should be compatible with the
adjacent neighborhood. The maximum FAR is 1.0.

Buildout is assumed at 0.35 FAR.

BEACH AND COMMUTER PARKING
The Beach and Commuter Parking (BCP) designation
applies to areas where the priority use is public parking to serve beach visitors and/or transit users. Sites are located adjacent to Pacifica State Beach and at Crespi Drive and Highway 1. Beach parking at the City’s Beach Boulevard
property serving Pacifica Pier and Sharp Park should be conserved as part of development of that site.

UTILITIES
The Utilities (U) designation indicates the location
of water tanks communications facilities including
cellular facilities, and other utilities serving the City.

The maximum FAR in this designation is 1.0.

Parks and Open Space
The Planning Area is defined by its extensive open
space system, and additional land is designated for
conservation or ridgeline protection. These categories
are detailed below.

PARK
The Park (P) designation is applied to public land
either currently developed for active recreation use
or intended for future recreation development. The
designation applies to city parks as well as to park or open space whose primary character is undeveloped
and natural, or that is managed for use by residents
of the larger region and beyond. The City does not
have permitting authority on lands owned by other
public agencies.

CONSERVATION
The Conservation (C) designation applies to publicly-owned or privately-owned open areas not intended for development. These areas may include:
• Watershed lands;
• Sandy beach areas;
• Land which is physically unsuitable for development due to geotechnical hazards, excessive steepness, wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas (ESHA) or other environmental
constraints, or lies within stream channels;
• Areas to remain undeveloped as a result of density transfer or clustered development, or covered by open space, recreational or scenic easements;
• Open areas providing a physical and visual buffer
between developed or open areas; and
• Open space required as mitigation for environmental impacts.

URBAN RESERVE
The Urban Reserve (UR) designation is created
to apply to private lands outside of City limits but
within the Planning Area. The City does not have
permitting authority in this area. The Pacifica General Plan intends for agriculture and residential development with a minimum site area of 10 acres
per unit to be the predominant uses on land designated Urban Reserve. Existing legal lots less than 10 acres in area shall be allowed to develop one dwelling
unit consistent with all other applicable zoning and
development standards.

Sites within the Urban Reserve land designation that
are annexed into the City of Pacifica should receive
a land use designation consistent with the applicable
density prior to annexation. For sites larger than 50
acres, the City should work with San Mateo LAFCo
to ensure that subdivision and development be considered in the context of a Plan Update.

2.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Pac i c
O cea n
400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e
T u n n e l
Figure 4-4:

Hillside Preservation
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Hillside Preservation
District (HPD)Boundary
Existing HPD Parcels
HPD Parcels to be Added
HPD Parcels to be Removed
Prominent Ridgelines
Parks and Open Space
Conservation
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Pacica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTE MLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

DVLB HCAEB

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD
ROSI

ADOBE RD
TA RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Pacica
Pier
M i lagra R i d g e ( G GNRA )
Sha rp Par k
G ol f C ours e
Mor i Po i n t
(G GN R A )
Sha r p Pa r k
S w e e ne y
R i d g e
( G GNRA )
San Pe d ro Val l e y
Cou n ty Par k
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
P e n i nsul a
Wat e rshe d
(SFPUC )
Edgemar
Park
Figure 4-4: Hillside Preservation

2.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-13
Coastal Development
The General Plan and LCLUP aim to ensure that
the goals of the California Coastal Act are furthered
by land use actions and policies that affect land
within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Commission.

The City’s zoning code features a Coastal Zone (CZ)
Combining District, with development regulations
based on Coastal Act goals. These include the provision of public access to the shoreline and recreational opportunities, the protection and enhancement of the coastal environment, and the prioritization
of coastal-dependent and visitor-serving uses. The
Coastal Zone requirements supplement the underlying zoning regulations on all property subject to the LCLUP. Following adoption of the General Plan
and LCLUP, the CZ District will be updated to be
consistent with the new guidance provided here.

General Plan and LCLUP Policies that promote visitor-oriented development are in Chapter 2. Policies to protect scenic resources are in Chapter 3. Provisions for public shoreline access and recreation are provided in Chapter 6. Policies to protect water
quality, sensitive habitats, and natural resources are
in Chapter 7. Policies to protect against seismic hazards, erosion and flooding, and other natural hazards are in Chapter 8. This chapter covers how this Plan
supports Coastal Act priorities for development.

Land Use Strategies to Protect
Natural and Scenic Resources
Hillside Preservation District
The Hillside Preservation District (HPD) covers many of the city’s ridges and open spaces, as an “overlay” district on top of base zoning and in most
cases requires rezoning to the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district as part of the development review process. The HPD aims to ensure that development of highly sensitive slopes does not endanger the public or harm the environmental or scenic values of the site, and to encourage high-quality site
planning and design that enhances the beauty of the
New development along the coast is required to provide public access, unless the City determines public access would pose safety issues or there is adequate access nearby (top). Clustered development is encouraged to preserve open space areas and protect sensitive hillsides (middle). The development of second units, compatible with their neighborhood context, is facilitated (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
and Park Pacica
East Linda Mar
Highlands
Pacic
Westview,
Fairmont
Pacic Manor
East Edgemar,
Pacic Manor
West Edgemar,
West
Fairmont
and Gypsy Hall
East Sharp Park,
Milagra Ridge,
Park
Sharp
West
and Mori Point
West Fairway Park,
Sharp Park GC,
and Sweeney Ridge
East Fairway Park,
Sharp Park,
Shelter Cove
and
Pedro Point
West Linda Mar
Headlands
Quarry, and
Rockaway Beach,
and Fassler
Rockaway,
Vallemar,
Beach
State
Pacica
F Blus
Coastal
Northern
Bowl Site
Manor
Paci
c
Road
Monterey
Upper
Canyon
Milagra
Palmetto
Northern
Industrial
Specific Plan Area
Sharp Park
School
High
Oceana
Hill
Gypsy
Golf Course
Sharp Park
Hillside
East Fairway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach
Rockaway
Highway 1
East Side
Headlands
Rockaway
Rockaway
Cattle Hill
Fassler Ridge Crespi Dr
Lamer Center
Shopping
Pedro Point
Center
Shopping
Linda Mar Avenue Site
San Pedro
Undeveloped
Ranch
Shamrock Site
Marsh
Mid
Hillsides
Park Paci
ca
Linda Mar &
Hillsides
Park Paci
ca
Linda Mar &
Hillsides
Park Paci
ca
Linda Mar &
Stables
Paci
ca
Park
Subarea
Specic Sites
City Limits
Planning Area
Specic Sites
Subareas &
Figure 4-5:

O cea n
Pa cific
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Source: City of Pacica, 2020; San Mateo
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

DVLB HCAEB

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA DR

ALICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Figure 4-5: Sub-Areas
and Specific Sites

2.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-15
Pier
Pacica
Undercrossing
Overcrossing
Overcrossing
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
Milagra Ridge Trail
Talbot Road Trail
Coastal Trail

GATEWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTE MLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

PALOMA AVE

BEACH BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

MOANA WAY

MANOR DR

PALMETTO AVE

MONTEREY RD

H CI KEY BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

WINWOOD AVE

ESPLANADE AVE

CLARENDON RD
(GGNRA)
Blu
s
Coastal
Northern Bowl
Center
Shopping
Manor
Pacic
Road
Monterey
Upper
Canyon
Milagra
Palmetto
Northern
Industrial
School
High
Oceana
Plan
Specic
Sharp Park
Hill
Gypsy
Fish
West Park
Fairmont
Park
Edgemar
Catholic School
Good Shepherd
School
Middle
Lacy
Ingrid B.

Hall
City
Promenade
Course
Golf
Park
Sharp
E.S.

Shore
Ocean
Apts.

Lands End
RV Park
Francisco
San
School Site
Fairmont
Highlands
Pacic
Westview,
Pacic Manor
Pacic Manor East Edgemar,
West Edgemar,
and Gypsy Hall
East Sharp Park,
Milagra Ridge,
Park
Sharp
West
Fairmont
West
Fairmont
keyed to Table X-X
Coastal Access Points are
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
Planning Area
City Limits
Specic Sites
Subareas
Existing trailhead
On-street trail
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Blu
top/View) 8
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points 7
Transportation Corridor
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Public and Semi-Public
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Service Commercial
O
ce/Commercial
Retail Commercial
(up to 50 units/acre)
Mixed Use Center
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -21 units/acre)*
High Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1
Pacica, North
Figure 4-6:

Figure 4-6: Pacifica, North

2.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
landscape. Figure 4-4 shows Pacifica’s existing Hillside Preservation District, and identifies the general area where site status should be reviewed based on
slope stability (including sites in the HPD, and sites
to be added to the HPD). Other sites may also be
reviewed. Development regulations for hillsides are
covered in Chapter 3 as they pertain to community
design and in Chapter 8 as they pertain to safety.

Transfer of Residential Development Rights
Transfer of development rights (TDR) is established
to provide a mechanism to relocate potential residential development from areas where environmental or land use impacts could be severe to other areas more
appropriate for development, and to preserve significant open space resources. Owners of environmentally sensitive sites may transfer residential development rights to other sites where higher-density development can be
supported, or from one part of a site to another. As in the Hillside Preservation District, clustered housing is encouraged to preserve the most sensitive portions of a site. The zoning code identifies eligible “sending areas” and “receiving areas.” TDR may also be used to shift
development within a site which has more than one
zoning or General Plan designation, or between commonly owned parcels which have more than one zoning or General Plan designation and are planned as a unit.

The City should update its TDR regulations to encourage broader use by property owners.

Land Use Programs to Facilitate
Housing
The City provides special regulations and incentives to facilitate development of housing affordable to moderate- and low-income households while preserving neighborhood character. These programs help to bring
about concentrated development in transit-supportive
areas, in keeping with Sections 30250 and 30252 of the
Coastal Act and other State law.

Density Bonus
Developments providing rental units, affordable
housing, or housing for elderly or disabled persons
may exceed the maximum density allowed by the
General Plan or zoning, consistent with State Density Bonus law.

Below Market Rate Program
In Pacifica, residential developments or subdivisions
of eight or more units must set aside at least 15 percent of units as Below Market Rate housing, with affordability provisions in place for at least 45 or 55 years for for-sale units and rental units, respectively.

With approval from the Planning Commission,
developers may meet the program goals by building
units off-site, dedicating land to the City, or paying
into the City’s housing in-lieu fund.

Accessory Residential Units
Accessory dwelling units may be built in areas zoned
to allow residential uses pursuant to State law. The
City’s zoning code provides additional standards
depending on ADU type: detached, attached, created within existing floor area, and multi-family.

Off-street parking is not required for most ADUs,
except certain ADUs located within a mapped
coastal access parking area within the Coastal Zone.

Sub-Areas and Specific Sites
Figure 4-5 shows 15 sub-areas. Sub-areas may be
referred to as neighborhoods at times. The “sub-area”
designation is not intended to correspond with any
jurisdictional boundaries, but to help readers understand the way the General Plan affects Pacifica’s distinct geographic areas. Figure 4-5 also identifies
specific sites within sub-areas that are the subject
of General Plan policies. This chapter contains land
use policies for specific sites. Policies on open space, parks and coastal access are in Chapter 6. Policies on
environmental resources are in Chapter 7, with visual
resources covered in Chapter 3. Policies on hazards
are in Chapter 8.

Figure 4-5 also serves as a key map for the four maps
that follow, showing sub-areas and specific sites at a
larger scale. These maps show General Plan land use
at the parcel level, as well as coastal access points;
park opportunity sites; coastal view corridors; trails
and proposed trail improvements. The area maps, and

2.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-17
the sub-area descriptions below, are intended to demonstrate how various aspects of the General Plan— including land use, parks and recreation facilities,
coastal access, and environmental resources and hazards—work together in the more localized context.

The maps do not show different information than is
contained in other General Plan maps.

Northern Pacifica
Figure 4-6 covers all of Pacifica north of Sharp Park,
including the following sub-areas or neighborhoods:
• Fairmont West; West Edgemar-Pacific Manor;
and West Sharp Park in the Coastal Zone;
• Fairmont; Westview-Pacific Highlands; East
Edgemar-Pacific Manor; and East Sharp Park,
east of Highway 1.

This sub-area includes Palmetto Avenue, the Pacifica
Pier and Promenade, the Pacific Manor shopping area,
the northern coastal bluffs, Oceana High School,
Milagra Ridge and Gypsy Hill. The summaries below
begin with the three coastal sub-areas, followed by the four inland sub-areas.

Fairmont West
Fairmont West is a small residential area in northwestern Pacifica between Highway 1 and the Pacific Ocean, extending from Daly City along the Northern
Coastal Bluffs. It is separated from inland neighborhoods by the highway and a significant grade change.

Fairmont West is composed mainly of single-family houses, with a condominium development and a neighborhood park. Palmetto Avenue is Fairmont
West’s principal roadway, and provides open views of
the Pacific Ocean. The National Park Service owns
approximately 14 acres of land on the northern coastal
bluffs along the west side of Palmetto Avenue as part
of the GGNRA.

Given the extraordinary natural and scenic value, the
interest of public access, and the potential erosion hazards, undeveloped land on the northern coastal bluffs is designated Residential/Open Space/Agriculture,
and identified as a priority for permanent conservaThe “Bowl” site (top) is designated as a receiving area in the City’s Transfer of Development Rights regulations. Multi-family development accounts for over 90 percent of West EdgemarPacific Manor Pacifica’s housing (middle). The service commercial and industrial businesses on the west side of northern Palmetto (bottom) may transition over time toward Low-Intensity Visitor Serving Commercial uses.

2.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-18 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
tion. Sensitive, clustered development could occur on
the east side of Palmetto.

GGNRA plans to continue to manage its land along
the northern coastal bluffs as a “natural zone” emphasizing protection of habitat and natural coastal processes. No formal beach access exists or is planned.

Undeveloped land west of Palmetto Avenue contains
areas of Coastal bluff scrub, which is considered a special status community of high value, important for stabilizing sand dunes. The entire bluff-top area is currently undeveloped and offers an open, highly scenic view of the entire length of Pacifica’s coastline.

West Edgemar-Pacific Manor
West Edgemar-Pacific Manor is an established coastal
neighborhood extending from north of the Land’s
End Apartments to south of the San Francisco RV
Park between Highway 1 and the ocean. The area is
centered on the Pacific Manor shopping center. Multifamily development accounts for over 90 percent of the area’s approximately 870 housing units. West
Edgemar-Pacific Manor’s residential areas have the
highest density in Pacifica.

As envisioned by the Plan, redevelopment and/or
shopping center improvements will enhance the area’s
walkability, help integrate the commercial center
with its coastal setting, and improve the area’s visual appeal. The City-owned bluff-top land along the west
side of Esplanade Avenue may present an opportunity
to develop a small park, if this can be done without
aggravating slope instability. Esplanade Avenue is also identified as a future bluff-top coastal access point,
which may be achieved by redesigning the Esplanade
right-of-way to enhance views and pedestrian access.

Progressive coastal erosion has led to demolition of
residential structures in the 300- and 500-blocks of
Esplanade Avenue, and remains an important factor
when considering future development potential of
sites located along the bluff-top.

West Sharp Park
Sharp Park is one of Pacifica’s original beach communities. Its western and eastern portions are divided The Plan designates the large Oceana High School site for continued public use, while recognizing future potential (top).

Private, undeveloped land on Gypsy Hill is designated for Open Space/Agriculture/Residential or Very Low Density Residential (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-19
by Highway 1. The northern half of West Sharp Park
includes some of Pacifica’s only industrial and service commercial uses. The southern half of the neighborhood has a mixture of single-family and multi-family housing, with retail commercial uses prevailing along
Palmetto Avenue, and commercial and civic buildings along Francisco Boulevard. A majority of the neighborhood’s approximately 900 housing units are
in multi-family buildings. West Sharp Park includes
many of Pacifica’s community facilities, including a
branch of the San Mateo County Library, the Pacifica Resource Center, City Hall, and Council Chambers. The neighborhood features the Pacifica Pier and Beach Boulevard Promenade, and public parking for
the Pier, Promenade, and Sharp Park Beach. The General Plan will implement the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which includes this area plus the Eureka Square shopping center, and provide additional detailed information on the vision for the area regarding land uses, mobility, urban design and development standards,
utilities and public services, community facilities, the environment, and implementation.

The Plan envisions the northern area west of Palmetto
Avenue transitioning to Low-Intensity Visitor Serving
Commercial uses over time. The transition is necessary to account for progressive coastal erosion which has advanced into many bluff-top sites along Palmetto
Avenue in this area. Coastal erosion is an important
factor to consider when reviewing future development
of sites located along the bluff-top.

Fairmont
The Fairmont sub-area, between Highway 1, Skyline
Boulevard and the ravine formed by the San Andreas
Fault, was primarily developed during the 1950s and
1960s. City-owned parks and greenbelts lie along the
ravine, including Fairmont Park and Imperial Park.

The predominant land use is single-family residential on small lots (less than 5,000 square feet in area), with multi-family housing around Fairmont Shopping
Center, which provides convenience shopping and services.

The Plan reinforces existing development patterns,
while facilitating creation of new public open space as part of any redevelopment of the closed Fairmont Elementary school site, and new trail connections along the greenbelts and to the coast.

Westview-Pacific Highlands
Westview-Pacific Highlands is a predominantly single-family area in Pacifica’s northern hills, lying south of the ravine formed by the San Andreas fault, west
of Skyline Boulevard, and north of Milagra Canyon.

There is a small commercial center at Manor Drive
and Skyline Boulevard. Two significant residential
developments have been built recently along Skyline
Boulevard: the Skyridge development on the flank of
Milagra Ridge, and the Cypress Walk development on
the site of the former Westview School, both of which
also included public open space. Existing development
patterns in the community will be preserved under the
Plan, while steep hillsides and habitat value in Milagra Canyon will be protected.

East Edgemar-Pacific Manor
East Edgemar-Pacific Manor is relatively flat, with
hills rising up to the north, east, and south. Manor
Drive links the neighborhood to the Pacific Manor
shopping area across Highway 1, and to WestviewPacific Highlands uphill to the east. Oceana Boulevard serves as a frontage road to Highway 1, and is lined with commercial uses, Ocean Shore Elementary
School, and the City’s Public Works offices and corporation yard. The area is composed mainly of singlefamily houses, with a small amount of multi-family housing. Edgemar Park provides a small public open
space for the neighborhood.

Commercial sites along Oceana are considered to have
potential to redevelop during the planning period.

The Plan designates these sites primarily for continued Retail Commercial use, reinforcing the existing pattern. The playfields at Ocean Shore Elementary School may help provide additional active open space, which
could be augmented by a small play area set aside as
part of any development in lower Milagra Canyon.

2.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-20 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Calera
Creek
Undercrossing
Overcrossing
Proposed
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 SharpPark Trail
Mori Ridge Trail
Baquiano Trail
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
Farallon View Trail
Ahni Trail

CRESPI DR

REINA DEL MAR AVE AVE

CRESPI DR

FASSLER AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD
LUNDY
DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

ROCKAWAYBEACH AVE

TERRA NOVA BLVD

DESOLODR

ROBERTS RD

SEASIDE DR
Beach
Rockaway
Headlands
Rockaway
Crespi Drive
Lower
Beach
Park
Sharp
& G olf C ours e
Sharp Par k
(G GNRA )
Mori Poi nt
E.S.

Cabrillo
Center
Community
Pacica
Fassler Ridge
Rockaway
Cattle Hill
Highway 1
East Side
Flats
Pad
O
ces
District
School E.S.

Station Vallemar
Plant Police Water Recycling
Center
Shopping
Linda Mar
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Hillside
East Fairway
Hill
Gypsy
and Fassler
Rockaway,
Vallemar,
& Mori Point
West Fairway Park
Golf Course,
Sharp Park
Beach
State
Pacica
Headlands
Quarry, &
Rockaway Beach,
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.

Coastal Access Points are keyed to Table 6-5.

Subareas
Specic Sites
City Limits
Planning Area
Improved
Trailhead to be
Existing Trailhead
On-street trail
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail
View Corridor
(Blu
top/View)
Coastal Access Points 8
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points 7
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Park Opportunity Site
Transportation Corridor
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Beach/Commuter Parking
Public and Semi-Public
Serving Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorCommercial
Visitor-Serving
Service Commercial
Retail Commercial
(up to 50 units/acre)
Mixed Use Center
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -21 units/acre)*
High Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Pacica, Central
Figure 4-7:

Figure 4-7: Pacifica, Central

2.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-21
East Sharp Park, Milagra Ridge, Gypsy Hill
East Sharp Park lies in two valleys and on the small
ridge separating them. Milagra Ridge is to the north
and Gypsy Hill is to the south and east. Houses are
along streets that go up the valleys and along the small ridge, with a scattering of multi-family housing on the ridge. Oceana High School occupies a 56-acre site,
accessible to Pacifica’s most central neighborhoods
along the Highway 1 corridor. There are connections
across the highway to West Sharp Park and the ocean
at Paloma Avenue in the north and Clarendon Road
in the south, as well as a pedestrian overcrossing from Eureka Square Shopping Center.

Eureka Square, along Oceana Boulevard facing Highway 1, has the potential for new development. The Plan identifies this site, together with land facing Francisco Boulevard on the opposite side of Highway 1, as Mixed Use Center, for higher-intensity commercial
and residential development. The site’s location along
Highway 1, at the base of a hill and directly across
from the existing civic cluster, makes it well-suited
for higher-intensity development. Over the long term,
the large Oceana High School site could also support
additional development. Undeveloped land on Gypsy
Hill may also support appropriately-designed, smallscale development, which would be very low density and also be required to retain natural vegetation, limit building footprints, and preserve large areas of open
space and support wildlife movement.

The Plan envisions a small new public open space as
part of any new development at Eureka Square, and
pedestrian improvements to create a good walking
link through the neighborhood linking the beach to
the ridgetop.

Central Pacifica
Figure 4-7 shows the central section of Pacifica. The
map includes:
• Sharp Park Golf Course, the West Fairway
Park neighborhood, Mori Point, the Rockaway
Quarry, Rockaway Beach, and the Rockaway
Headlands in the Coastal Zone;
Habitat restoration of the Laguna Salada area is planned, following extensive habitat improvements at neighboring Horse Stable Pond and Mori Point (top). The General Plan envisions the Rockaway Beach district growing into a more distinct and high-profile visitor destination (middle). The General Plan designates most of Fassler Ridge (bottom) as Open Space/Agriculture/Residential to conserve its open space character.

2.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-22 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
• Sharp Park; the East Fairway Park, Vallemar, and
Rockaway neighborhoods; and Sweeney Ridge,
Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge, east of Highway 1.

This sub-area includes the Rockaway Beach district,
the Police Station, and the Shelldance Nursery (the
only location east of Highway 1 within the Coastal
Zone).

Sharp Park Golf Course, West Fairway Park,
and Mori Point
The central stretch of Pacifica’s coast includes Sharp
Park Golf Course, Mori Point, and the small singlefamily subdivision of West Fairway Park. Sharp Park Municipal Golf Course is part of a land bequest made
to the City and County of San Francisco early in the
20th Century on the condition that the land be used
for public recreation. West Fairway Park is a small single-family residential subdivision. On the south, the neighborhood meets the base of undeveloped Mori
Point, managed as part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

The Plan designates Sharp Park Golf Course and
Mori Point as regional park land. Current characteristics may be maintained, and environmental restoration will be a priority. The West Fairway Park neighborhood’s existing land use is reinforced by the Plan’s land use designations.

Sharp Park Beach is open to the public between the
Pier and Mori Point, while Sharp Park Golf Course
provides a unique recreational asset. Mori Point is a
spectacular section of the GGNRA. The General Plan
proposes trail improvements and critical new trail
segments that would link the coastal trails with the
inland ridges. This segment of the Pacifica coastline
includes view corridors from Highway 1 into Sharp
Park Golf Course and toward Mori Point and Mori
Ridge that will be preserved.

Rockaway Beach, Quarry, and Headlands
Rockaway Beach is a small, pedestrian-oriented area
with shops, restaurants, and lodging and a small
beach, with parking and other amenities. The vacant
Quarry site occupies about 94 acres west of High-way
1 and south of Mori Point. About 30 acres of the site
are on slopes of 35 percent or steeper. The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant, at the north end of the former
quarry, releases treated wastewater into Calera Creek,
which has a naturalized channel, a restored riparian
corridor, and a paved walking and cycling path. The
Headlands is a rocky promontory separating Rockaway Beach and Pacifica State Beach, and is crossed by a scenic trail.

The Quarry site is Pacifica’s most prominent potential
development site. Prior to any future development,
the property owner must complete reclamation of
the former quarry pursuant to the State Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica Municipal Code. Approximately half of the site, including the upland areas and the Calera Creek riparian corridor, is designated for Conservation. This area will remain open space, with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The Flats and the Pad overlooking Rockaway Beach are designated
for Visitor-Serving Commercial development, supporting such potential uses as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail uses integrated with the Rockaway Beach district. Redevelopment
of the Quarry site could expand this visitor-oriented
area. Any development of the Quarry site will require
detailed evaluation of biological re-sources to ensure
that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; as a result, the footprint of development could be smaller
than the area designated. While housing may be proposed as part of a plan for the site, Ordinance No. 391 provides that rezoning to allow residential uses may
occur only if approved by a vote of the electorate. Figure 4-4 indicates removal of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay from the Flats portion of the site, which would also require approval by a vote
of the electorate. Development in the Quarry Flats
should include new public open space.

The existing Rockaway Beach district also offers
opportunities for infill and redevelopment, subject
to an appropriate assessment of potential coastal hazards and vulnerabilities. The General Plan envisions the Rockaway Beach district growing into a more distinct and high-profile visitor destination, with strong links to the natural setting of beaches, headlands, and ridges.

2.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-23
21 22
23 24 25 26
27 Devil’s Slide Trail
San Pedro Creek
Old San Pedro MountianRd
Coastal Trail
Pedro Point Trail
Rosita Road Trail
DEVIL’S SLIDE TUNNEL

SAN PEDRO AVE
ROSITA
RD

ROBERTS
RD

GRAND AVE

FASSLER AVE

LINDA MAR BLVD
DESOLO
DR

PERALTA RD

ADOBE RD

LINDA MAR BLVD

ALICANTE DR

MANZANITA DR

SEVILLE DR

CRESPI DR

CRESPI DR
Fassler Ridge
Crespi Dr
Lower
San Pedro Ave Site
Undeveloped
Center
Shopping
Pedro Point
Center
Shopping
Linda Mar
Ranch
Shamrock
Hillsides
& Park Pacica
Linda Mar
Park
Skate
Center
Community
Pacica
E.S.

Cabrillo
Site
Park-and-Ride
Linda Mar
Pacic Bay
Christian
School
(GGNRA)
Headlands
Pedro Point
State Beach
Pacica
Adobe
Sanchez
School
Linda Mar
Art Center
Sanchez Park/
Pedro
Point
& Shelter
Cove
Pacica
State Beach
West Linda Mar
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
Coastal Access Points are
keyed to Table 6-5.

Planning Area
City Limits
Specic Sites
Subareas
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Park Opportunity Site
Proposed Trailhead
Existing Trailhead
On-street trail
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail
View Corridor
(Blu
top/View)
Coastal Access Points 8
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points 7
Transportation Corridor
Urban Reserve
Sandy Beach
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Beach/Commuter Parking
Public and Semi-Public
Serving Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorVisitor-Serving Commercial
Service Commercial
Retail Commercial
(up to 50 units/acre)
Mixed Use Center
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
(16 -21 units/acre)*
High Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.1 units/acre)
Transitional Open Space/Residential
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Pacica, Southwest
Figure 4-8:

Figure 4-8: Pacifica, Southwest

2.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-24 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The General Plan proposes new coastal trail segments,
and new trails would link the coastal trails with the
inland ridges. Improvements to Highway 1 should
ease travel, accommodate vehicles as well as bikes and
pedestrians, and improve access into the Rockaway
Beach district. Coastal views from Highway 1 toward
Mori Point, Cattle Hill, and the Rockaway Headlands
are important in establishing the identity of this area and Pacifica as a whole. The United States Geological Survey established the place name “Aramai Point” for the Rockaway Headlands in 2021 in recognition of
the indigenous peoples that occupied the area prior to
European settlement.

Sharp Park, East Fairway Park, and Sweeney
Ridge
Sharp Park east of Highway 1 includes a portion of
the Golf Course, and is primarily undeveloped at its
higher elevations. Land in the vicinity of the former
rifle range in Sharp Park could potentially support
sports fields for school and community use. Sweeney
Ridge features over 1,000 acres of preserved regional
open space in the GGNRA, with the protected San
Francisco watershed to the east. Mori Ridge descends
toward the coast, forming the southern boundary of
this sub-area. The small East Fairway Park subdivision is located between Mori Ridge and Sharp Park and Fairway Park contains several baseball fields and
a small playground. An undeveloped site along Highway 1 is designated for Low Density Residential development, while a larger hillside property at the east edge of the neighborhood is designated Open Space/
Agriculture/Residential.

Mori Ridge, at the southern edge of this sub-area, is
part of GGNRA. The Pacifica General Plan supports
the creation of a nucleus of GGNRA park activities
at Shelldance Nursery, and proposes a trail connection over Highway 1 connecting Mori Point with the The scenic Pedro Point neighborhood overlooks Pacifica State Beach.

2.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-25
proposed park visitors’ center, and the trail up Mori
Ridge to the Bay Area Ridge Trail system.

Vallemar, Rockaway, and Fassler
The Vallemar neighborhood follows Reina del Mar
Avenue up the narrow Calera Creek valley. Around
the intersection of Reina del Mar and Highway 1, there
is a small commercial area as well as Vallemar School,
the Pacifica School District offices, and the police station. Mori Ridge, Sweeney Ridge, and upper Cattle Hill are mostly protected open space, and afford recreational opportunities. Undeveloped land on the upper slopes of the valley are designated primarily for Open
Space/Agriculture/Residential to ensure that new
development is minimal, in recognition of environmental constraints and limited access.

Cattle Hill is the next prominent ridgeline south of
Mori Ridge, between the Vallemar and Rockaway
valleys. Much of the ridge is protected as permanent open space. The western face of Cattle Hill is privately-owned, and some development may occur
here in the future. The ridge is designated as Open
Space/Agriculture/Residential to ensure that new
development is appropriate to the rugged conditions
and high scenic value of the ridge. The General Plan
also proposes a public trail up Cattle Hill, providing
a connection between Rockaway Beach and Sweeney Ridge, requiring an easement or dedicated public access. Potential development sites along Highway 1 at
the base of the hill may be well-suited to mixed-use
residential and commercial uses. Commercial development should feature attractive frontage treatment along the highway and should consider ways to mitigate traffic impacts to Highway 1.

The Rockaway neighborhood ascends from Highway 1 along Rockaway Beach Avenue up another narrow valley. There are many vacant residential lots
on mapped rights-of-way on the upper slopes of the
Rockaway valley to the north and south, but topography makes development challenging. There is a very small commercial area where Rockaway Beach Avenue
meets Highway 1.

Fassler Avenue traverses a ridge separating Rockaway
from the much broader San Pedro Valley to the south.

Fassler Ridge is mainly in private ownership and presents potential development opportunities overlooking Pacifica State Beach and Rockaway Beach. The General Plan designates most of the ridge as Open Space/ Agriculture/Residential to conserve its highly-visible
open space character. A new trail is proposed that
would connect the site of the historic Portola camp
on Crespi Drive—and Pacifica State Beach—with the
San Francisco Bay Discovery Site on Sweeney Ridge.

Southwestern Pacifica
Figure 4-8 shows the southwestern part of the Planning Area, including:
• Pacifica State Beach, Shelter Cove, and the Pedro
Point neighborhood in the Coastal Zone;
• The West Linda Mar neighborhood and areas
outside City limits, east of Highway 1.

Pacifica State Beach
Pacifica State Beach, also known as Linda Mar Beach,
is a long sandy beach on a small bay formed by the
Rockaway Headlands and Pedro Point. Pacifica State
Beach is an outstanding recreational asset for the City and attracts over one million visitors annually from
the region and beyond for its surfing, beach environment and scenery in close proximity to San Francisco.

Recent restoration work and improvements to parking and access has helped to ensure that the beach will remain a popular natural environment for years
to come. Views from Highway 1 toward the crescent
sweep of Pacifica State Beach, the Headlands, and
Pedro Point are a defining element for Pacifica, and
will be preserved across the protected park land.

Pacifica State Beach supports primarily wintering
and/or migrating Western snowy plovers, a federally
threatened bird species. The beach must continue to
be managed to ensure that recreational use does not
interfere with the species’ habitat requirements. Steelhead trout from the Central California Coast Ecologically Significant Unit are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Steelhead are

2.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-26 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Middle Fork San Pedro Creek
Old San PedroMtnRd
Weller Ranch Trail
Montara Mountain Trail
Rosita Road Trail
ail
San Pedro Creek

ROSITA RD

AP RK PACIFIC A AVELINCOLN BLVD LINDA MAR BLVD

ALICANTE DR

MANZANITA DR

SEVILLE DR
LERIDA
WAY

CRESPI DR

ODDSTAD
BLVD

EVERGLADES
DR

TERRANOVA
BLVD
County Par k
Sa n P e d r o Vall e y
Ranch
Millwood
E.S.

Ortega
Mall
Park
Library
Sanchez
Site School
Oddstad
E.S.

Ortega
Park
Oddstad
Art Center
Sanchez Park/
Adobe
Sanchez
High School
Terra Nova
Hillsides
Park Pacica Linda Mar &
Stables
Pacica
Park
Hillsides
Park Pacica
Linda Mar &
Hillsides
Park Pacica
Linda Mar &
Fassler Ridge
Pacic Bay
Christian
School
West Linda Mar
and Park Pacica
East Linda Mar
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
Planning Area
City Limits
Specic Sites
Subareas
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Park Opportunity Site
Existing Trailhead
On-street trail
Existing Trail
Urban Reserve
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Public and Semi-Public
Retail Commercial
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -21 units/acre)*
High Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
(up to 0.1 units/acre)
Transitional Open Space/Residential
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Pacica, Southeast
Figure 4-9:

Figure 4-9: Pacifica, Southeast

2.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-27
known to spawn in several parts of San Pedro Creek,
and the City will continue to support the preservation
of viable steelhead migration.

Pedro Point and Shelter Cove
The Pedro Point neighborhood sits on the slope
of the promontory that marks Pacifica’s southern
boundary. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family houses climbing up the slope, with some commercial development, including a small shopping center, on the flat land near the beach. The neighborhood is separated from the coastline by the
berm of the former Ocean Shore Railroad. Pedro
Point abuts City-, County-, and State-owned land at
the Point’s higher elevations to the south. This land is within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s
legislative boundary, and could be included in the
park in the future. The western tip of Pedro Point
descends to Shelter Cove, where another cluster of
houses exists on a single 17-acre parcel. Land access
to Shelter Cove has been limited to steep pedestrian
trails since the former roadway to the area washed
out in the 1980s.

The Plan reinforces existing land use patterns for all
developed parts of the sub-area. There is potential for Pedro Point shopping center and adjacent parcels to
accommodate some new retail development, which
could provide local convenience shopping as well as
visitor-oriented businesses. The Plan retains flexibility for any future development on the vacant site west of the shopping center, identified as the Undeveloped
San Pedro Avenue Site, which could have residential
and small-scale commercial and visitor-oriented uses.

Development of the site will require detailed evaluation of coastal hazards/vulnerabilities and biological resources to ensure that any sensitive habitat and wetlands that may exist on the site are protected;
thus, the footprint of development could be smaller
than the area designated. Future development should
include a small park and access to the berm and the
beach beyond. Completion of the Devils Slide Tunnel project has provided the opportunity to create a new trailhead and trails through open space land on
the headlands.

The General Plan designates most of Fassler Ridge (top) as Open Space/Agriculture/Residential. New development at Park Mall (middle) could include a mix of retail and residential uses. Steep land in Park Pacifica (bottom) is designated either as greenbelt or for Open Space/Agriculture/Residential to ensure slope stability and visual quality.

2.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-28 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
West Linda Mar
The West Linda Mar sub-area is in the lower portion
of the San Pedro Creek Valley and on the hillsides to
the north. The area is almost entirely developed with
single-family houses. West Linda Mar has two access
points to Highway 1, at Crespi Drive and Linda Mar
Boulevard. Linda Mar Shopping Center, Pacifica’s
largest, is at the junction of Linda Mar Boulevard
and Highway 1. Public parking for beach visitors and
commuters is provided in both areas, and served by
Samtrans buses. A variety of uses, including a hotel,
multi-family housing, service commercial and small
retail centers, Cabrillo Elementary School, the Pacifica Community Center, including Senior Services, and a
post office, are clustered along lower Crespi Drive. The Crespi Business Center is the City’s only light-industrial business park and provides a unique combination of local employment and small business opportunities for residents. A smaller commercial/office area is located at the corner of Linda Mar Boulevard and
Adobe Drive. The area includes the Sanchez Adobe,
the oldest structure in San Mateo County and a designated historic resource. Pacific Bay Christian School (formerly Alma Heights Christian Academy) is to the
east along Linda Mar Boulevard. Oddstad Park is a
large, mostly wooded park serving the area.

The General Plan reinforces existing residential land
use patterns in West Linda Mar. It proposes new
opportunities for mixed-use development along lower
Crespi Drive and at the Linda Mar Park-and-Ride site.

Redevelopment at these locations can help Pacifica
provide a greater diversity of housing types in close
proximity to transit, public amenities, and walkable
commercial areas.

San Pedro Creek travels through the heart of the
neighborhood. Protection and enhancement of the
riparian stream corridor must be a continued priority. The General Plan envisions on-street trails along the former San Pedro Terrace Road and Rosita Road,
providing a good walking route through valley neighborhoods between Pacifica State Beach and San Pedro Valley County Park.

Southeastern Pacifica
Figure 4-9 shows the East Linda Mar and Park Pacifica neighborhoods in the southeastern part of the Planning Area. The map includes Park Mall, Terra
Nova High School, San Pedro Valley County Park,
Oddstad Park, and a section of Sweeney Ridge.

East Linda Mar and Park Pacifica
East Linda Mar includes the portion of the San
Pedro Valley east of Pacific Bay Christian School and
Oddstad Park, and on the southern slope of Fassler
Ridge. Park Pacifica, developed mostly in the 1970s,
lies in the “back of the valley” and the hilly terrain
rising up to Sweeney Ridge. In the north, the area
is characterized by winding residential streets and
greenbelts. The valley portion includes Sanchez Park,
the Pacifica Center for the Arts, and one of Pacifica’s two fire stations. Some housing exists south of San
Pedro Creek, along with undeveloped or agricultural
land where a limited amount of residential development may be possible. The area is served by the Park Mall shopping center on Terra Nova Boulevard, and
by the adjacent Sanchez branch library and Ortega
Elementary School.

Park Pacifica lies in a secluded valley and its slopes
extend to the northeast of Linda Mar Boulevard
along Oddstad Boulevard. As in Linda Mar, the
predominant land use is low density residential,
interspersed with greenbelts. Multi-family housing
is developed along Terra Nova and Oddstad Boulevards, including senior housing. Park Pacifica is also home to Terra Nova High School. The neighborhood is hemmed in by topography and protected open space on Sweeney Ridge and in San Pedro Valley County Park and Frontierland Park.

Existing land use patterns in Linda Mar and Park
Pacifica are reflected in the Plan. There is a considerable amount of undeveloped land within City limits on the slope of San Pedro Mountain to the south.

These parcels are designated for lower density resi2.b Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-29
Table 4-2: RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Land Use
Permitted Density
Range (units per acre)
Projected Density
(units per acre)2
New Housing Units at
Buildout
Residential Designations
Transitional Open Space/Residential 0.1 or less 0.08 0
Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential 0.2 or less 0.15 40 Very Low Density Residential 0.2 to 2 1.5 10
Low Density Residential 3 to 9 6.5 80
Medium Density Residential Up to 15 12.5 60
High Density Residential Up to 21 25 60
Mixed Use Designations
Coastal Residential Mixed Use Up to 15 15 70
Mixed Use Neighborhood Up to 26 25 300
Mixed Use Center Up to 50 25 380
Urban Reserve
Urban Reserve 0.1 or less 0.1 0
Net New Residential Potential1 990
1 May not sum due to rounding
2 Projected density is informed by average current density of projected land uses and allowable density ranges.

Sources: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2008; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020. dential development than other areas of the City, in
recognition of the constraints on development posed
by steep slopes, the City’s hillside development standards, limited access, and location adjacent to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones located on the
periphery of Pacifica.

Park Mall is a candidate for potential new development. The Plan would facilitate a mix of retail and residential uses, including housing for seniors, and
the creation of a small new public space. Very limited
residential development potential may exist on existing parcels in agricultural use, including the large Millwood Ranch and former Park Pacifica Stables
properties. These are designated Open Space/Agriculture/Residential or Conservation to ensure that open space and biological resource protection is an
emphasis of any development on these scenic and
remote properties.

Sphere of Influence
San Pedro Mountain and Pedro Point Headlands
define the southern boundary of Pacifica’s Sphere of
Influence, which includes the undeveloped 73-acre,
986-lot Tobin Park subdivision4 located outside the
Coastal Zone. The area between the City and Sphere
of Influence boundaries includes sloping, undeveloped land and Shamrock Ranch.

The Plan designates existing public open space in the
Sphere of Influence as Park, and designates all other
land as Urban Reserve. The Urban Reserve area is
intended to remain largely undeveloped. Shamrock
Ranch represents the area’s most significant potential
future development opportunity. Any new development here should be clustered to preserve open space and maintain land that could be developed beyond
the planning period to support future growth.

Development Capacity
One purpose of the General Plan and LCLUP is to
ensure that the City can accommodate projected
population and job growth over the planning period
(to 2040). This section estimates projected demand
for new housing and non-residential space, and the
4 San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, Record of Subdivision Maps, Volume 9, Page 12.

2.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-30 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 4-3: NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN General Plan Land Use
Maximum NonResidential FARProjected NonResidential FAR2New Non-Residential Sq.

Ft. at Buildout
Mixed Use Designations
Coastal Residential Mixed Use 0.5 0.10 57,490
Mixed Use Neighborhood 1.0 0.25 182,890
Mixed Use Center 2.5 0.35 162,860
Commercial Designations
Retail Commercial 1.0 0.25 757,380
Office/Commercial 1.5 0.35 63,120
Service Commercial 0.6 0.25 21,000
Visitor-Serving Commercial 3.0 0.35 81,840
Rockaway Quarry Site4 0.5 0.35 448,400
Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial 0.2 0.05 40,550 Public Facilities and Open Space Designations
Public and Semi-Public 1.0 0.35 0
Total Non-Residential Development Potential
on Opportunity Sites
1,848,630
Existing Non-Residential Development on
Underutilized Sites
1,228,300
Net New Non-Residential Potential1 620,330
1 Acreages are shown rounded to the nearest whole number, but more detailed numbers are used in calculations. 2 Projected density is informed by average current density of projected land uses and allowable density ranges.

Sources: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. development potential provided under the General
Plan land use framework.

Buildout
Policies in the General Plan will allow the City to
meet the needs of the future residents and workers,
including housing for a diversity of residents, parkland and public facilities, and adequate options for non-residential development to provide employment
opportunities and retail and services that respond to
the community’s daily needs.

Potential new development through the horizon year
and the corresponding growth in population and
employment is referred to as “buildout.” Buildout
is based on existing development and an estimated
amount of potential new development in the Planning Area. Buildout estimates should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur through 2040 is
based on many factors outside of the City’s control,
including changes in regional real estate and labor
markets and other long-term economic and demographic trends. Therefore, buildout estimates represent potentialities rather than definitive figures. To estimate buildout, assumptions were made about the
density of development in each proposed land use
designation, as well as the percentage of parcels that
would actually develop depending on location and
land use designation. The designation of a site for
a particular land use in the General Plan does not
guarantee that the site will be developed or redeveloped with that use or assumed density during the planning period, as future development will rely primarily on each property owner’s initiative.

2.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-31

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
As Table 4-2 shows, buildout would result in an estimated 990 new housing units. Of these units, 12 percent would be single-family residential, and 88
percent would be multi-family residential including those within mixed-use developments. Assuming that average household size remains as it is today, new housing at buildout could accommodate population growth of about 2,720 and a total population of 41,050.

NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Table 4-3 shows the realistic non-residential development capacity in terms of square feet of new commercial buildings. Development capacity is based on the maximum intensity established for each designation by the General Plan, and is typically toward the middle of the allowable density range, pointing to
the existence of constraints on many sites. Realistic
development of opportunity sites would result in an
estimated 620,300 square feet of net new non-residential building area. New development is estimated to accommodate approximately 1,470 new jobs over
the planning period.

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
LU-G-1 Coastal Development. Ensure that
development maximizes beach and coastal
open space access and is oriented as much
as possible to each particular coastal environment in use, design, and intensity.

Policies related to coastal access are provided
in Chapter 6.

LU-G-2 Concentrated Development. Focus
new development in or directly adjacent
to already-developed areas, where it can
be served by existing public services and
where it will not have significant impacts
on coastal or other resources.

LU-G-3 Future Residential Development.

Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony
with the surrounding natural setting.

LU-G-4 Higher-Density Housing. Locate
higher-density housing outside of Coastal
Vulnerability Zones and in accessible
places close to community shopping areas
and transportation.

LU-G-5 Commercial Area Revitalization.

Facilitate the revitalization of shopping
areas and the creation of distinct commercial districts in Pacifica, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for
residents, enhanced attractions for visitors,
increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger
community image.

LU-G-6 Compact Mixed Use Development.

Facilitate compact mixed-use development
on sites with good access to transit. Mixeduse development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or personal service businesses.

LU-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to
existing open space, and areas that support
critical wildlife habitat and special status
species.

LU-G-8 Changes in Density or Intensity of
Land Use in Coastal Vulnerability Zones.

Do not increase the density or intensity
of land use designations beyond those
indicated in the LCLUP for sites located
within Coastal Vulnerability Zones.

Policies related to Natural Hazards and
Coastal Resilience are provided in Chapter 8.

LU-G-9 Citizen Participation. Continue broadbased citizen participation in the planning process.

2.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-32 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Implementing Policies
Land Use Designations
LU-I-1 Zoning Consistency. Update the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map and apply zoning to all land within the City, consistent with General Plan and LCLUP policies and land use designations.

LU-I-2 Land Divisions in the Coastal Zone.

Continue to require coastal development permits for all land divisions within the Coastal Zone. Land divisions in the
Coastal Zone shall be:
• Designed to minimize impacts to public
access, recreation, and coastal resources.
• Designed to minimize site disturbance,
landform alteration, and the removal of
native vegetation for development or fire
safety.
• Prohibited on properties that include
any areas that are within or adjacent to
an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Area (ESHA) unless the resulting parcels can be developed without building or requiring vegetation clearance in the
ESHA or ESHA buffer, or unless the
resulting parcels are set aside for conservation.
• Permitted only in areas with adequate
public services to serve development on
the resulting parcels.
• Any land division that would result in
a parcel that could not be developed
in accordance with the policies of this
LCLUP is not allowed.

LU-I-3 Coastal Development Permit Findings. For all development that requires a coastal development permit, continue to
require written findings that it is consistent
with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

If there is a conflict between a provision of
this LCP and a provision of the General
Plan, or any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for the development to
comply with both the LCP and such other
plan, resolution or ordinance, the LCP shall
take precedence and the development shall
not be approved unless it complies with the
LCP provision.

LU-I-4 Coordinate with the County to protect the Urban Reserve. Coordinate with the County to ensure that new development in unincorporated areas occurs at a maximum density of 10 acres per unit, and
request that subdivision of 50 acres or more
is subject to master planning and annexation as a condition of any urban development.

Annexation would require a General Plan
amendment, and an LCLUP amendment
would be required for land within the
Coastal Zone.

LU-I-5 Density Ranges. Ensure that development
is permitted within the allowable density
range for the applicable land use designations.

LU-I-6 Sphere of Influence Annexations. Permit
annexation of unincorporated parcels on
the condition that parcels will correspond
to the Urban Reserve designation, including a minimum lot area of 10 acres per dwelling unit. Contiguous parcels or units
held by the same owner in the Sphere of
Influence that do not conform to the minimum parcel lor lot size shall be required to merge pursuant to Pacifica Municipal
Code Title 10.

Coastal Development
LU-I-7 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational
Facilities. Protect lower-cost visitor and

2.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-33
recreational facilities along the coastline.

These include recreational attractions such
as Pacifica Pier and Pacifica State Beach;
the public golf course at Sharp Park; the
San Francisco RV Park; and beaches accessible at no cost.

LU-I-8 Oceanfront Land for Recreational
Use. Protect land adjacent to Sharp Park
and Pacifica State Beaches for low-intensity
recreational use. Allowable uses should
include recreation outfitters, campgrounds,
rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or view restaurants.

LU-I-9 Development Priority for VisitorServing and Recreational Uses. Allow visitor-oriented uses as-of-right in all areas
designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial
or Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial, and all commercial or mixed-use districts within the Coastal Zone.

Development on Visitor-Serving Commercial sites with developable areas of two acres or larger must include a visitor attraction,
hotel, conference center, or similar use, and
may also include a range of retail and service
uses. Smaller sites may have any visitor- or
pedestrian-oriented retail or service use.

LU-I-10 Walkable and Transit-Oriented
Development. Facilitate higher-density,
mixed use development at specific locations
along the coastline where an active, pedestrian environment is desired.

Future development along Palmetto Avenue
and at the Eureka Square site; on lower
Linda Mar Boulevard and Crespi Drive
in West Linda Mar; at the Pacific Manor
Shopping Center; and at Rockaway Beach
and Quarry are easily accessible along the
Highway 1 corridor and transit routes. Such
Major stretches of the Pacifica coastline along Sharp Park and Pacifica State Beaches are protected as open space, and accessible for recreational use (top). The General Plan facilitates mixed use development at specific locations along the coastline where an active environment is desired, including Palmetto Avenue (middle). The Hillside Preservation District helps to ensure careful site planning on steep terrain (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-34 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
development should help to make the coastline more accessible to residents and visitors.

LU-I-11 Coastal-Dependent Industry. Only
allow new coastal-dependent industry if
alternative locations outside the Coastal
Zone are infeasible or more environmentally damaging or because to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare,
and potential impacts to visual resources,
sensitive species and habitat, water quality are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Future development of oil and gas facilities,
refineries or petrochemical facilities, or thermal electric generating plants will be permitted only according to the terms established in Sections 30262, 30263, and 30264 of the
Coastal Act, and Conditions of Approval that
will ensure consistency with all Coastal Act
policies.

LU-I-12 Aquaculture. If oceanfront land is
found to be suitable for coastal-dependent
aquaculture, give such use priority over
non-coastal-dependent uses.

LU-I-13 Public Service Priorities. Ensure that
existing and planned public works facilities
accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted over the planning period.

In the event that existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services
to coastal dependent land use, essential public
services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and
visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.

Land Use Strategies to Protect Natural and
Scenic Resources
LU-I-14 Hillside Preservation. Update the
Hillside Preservation District and the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations.

The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4)
should be used as a guide.

LU-I-15 Transfer of Development Rights.

Amend the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program to reflect the following changes:
• Use the City’s TDR ordinance to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones and other hazardous
areas (sending sites) to receiving sites
out-side of Coastal Vulnerability zones
or other hazardous areas. Identify areas
where densities and heights may be
increased using TDR credits, including
to facilitate affordable housing.
• Apply receiving status to sites designated
for mixed use development in addition
to the residential land use categories.

The TDR Program provides a mechanism
to relocate potential development from areas
where environmental or land use impacts
could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development.

Land Use Programs to Facilitate Housing
LU-I-16 Density Bonus. Continue to facilitate
housing affordable to moderate-, low- and
extremely-low-income households by providing a density bonus of up to 50 percent over the maximum allowed by zoning.

Specific density bonus provisions in the zoning ordinance should be adjusted as needed to support housing types that are most needed
based on regional housing needs allocations or
local goals.

LU-I-17 Accessory Dwelling Units. Maintain the
Zoning Ordinance to ensure that regulations governing accessory dwelling units conform with current State requirements.

2.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-35
Accessory dwelling units are an important
component of the City’s strategy to provide
housing for moderate- and low-income
households.

LU-I-18 Parking Requirements. Update commercial and mixed use parking requirements as appropriate based on best practices. Provide for shared parking between commercial uses; car-sharing availability
for residential uses, reductions for transitaccessible locations, and other strategies.

LU-I-19 Height Limit. Replace a single citywide
height limit with height limits that vary
by neighborhood, topography, or other relevant factors, based on community input.

These may allow greater heights for buildings in the Mixed Use Center and VisitorServing Commercial designations.

Policies for Specific Sites
LU-I-20 Northern Coastal Bluffs. Maintain
the Planned Development zoning district
for the private, developable land on the
northern coastal bluffs to allow for the
consideration of development standards
that consider the potential environmental
and scenic resources on the site.

Allowable density should be consistent with
the Open Space/Residential/Agriculture designation. Where coastal bluff scrub vegetation is present, further analysis will be required
prior to any development. Work with public
agencies and others to facilitate permanent
conservation of scenic resources in this area.

LU-I-21 Bowl Site. Establish appropriate zoning for the “Bowl” site along the east side of Palmetto Avenue in Fairmont West for
Planned Development to ensure site planning that clusters development, avoiding potential flooding or geotechnical hazards
and protecting open space resources.

Allowable density should be consistent with
the Medium Density Residential designation.

Redevelopment or improvements of Pacific Manor Shopping Center (top) should enhance the area’s visual appeal and integrate the district with its coastal setting. Redevelopment of the city-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property (middle) should provide an anchor for Palmetto Avenue and enhance the beachfront experience. The Quarry site (bottom) could support hotels and other visitor-serving uses and complement the natural setting. Any development of the Quarry site must ensure that sensitive habitat is protected.

2.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-36 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry
site could achieve the desired development
outcomes. Allowable development should
provide City revenues, substantial public
open space, and commercial uses and public
spaces attractive to both visitors and local
residents. Uses may include an inn or hotel;
shops and restaurants; performance or conference spaces; and public uses. Ordinance No. 391 provides that residential uses are
only authorized after a vote of the electorate. Development should be integrated with the Rockaway Beach district, to create an
expanded visitor-oriented area in a memorable natural setting.

Environmental protection is a priority at this
site and includes preserving upland areas as
open space, preserving the riparian corridor
along Calera Creek, and preserving critical
habitat. Any development of the Quarry site
will require detailed evaluation of potential
geotechnical hazards and biological resources
to ensure safe use of the site and that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; the likely footprint of development could be much
smaller than the area designated.

LU-I-26 Rockaway Beach. Facilitate continued improvements in the Rockaway Beach district and promote infill development
emphasizing active ground-floor and visitor-oriented uses and links to the Quarry site.

LU-I-27 Aramai Point. Facilitate very lowintensity visitor-serving commercial use on Aramai Point between Rockaway Beach
and Pacifica State Beach. Maintain the
Coastal Trail connecting the two beaches.

Any use on this site must recognize the
limited opportunity for vehicular access.

Potential uses should have a low development
impact and able to be readily relocated to
adapt to evolving coastal conditions, such as
rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or similar uses.

LU-I-22 Pacific Manor. Establish appropriate
zoning for the Pacific Manor shopping district to facilitate Retail Commercial improvements and Mixed Use redevelopment.

Redevelopment or improvements should
enhance the area’s walkability and visual
appeal, and should include pedestrian realm
improvements that help to integrate the district with its coastal setting.

LU-I-23 Esplanade. Establish appropriate zoning for privately-owned, undeveloped land on the west side of Esplanade Avenue to
ensure minimal development consistent
with the General Plan designation New
development shall preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way and shall be sited and designed to ensure that
any proposed development could withstand erosion resulting from a 100-year seismic or storm event and in accordance
with LCLUP Policy CR-I-44 and preserve
the view corridor to the ocean along Bill
Drake Way.

LU-I-24 Northern Palmetto. Support the
transition to low-intensity visitor-serving
commercial uses over time along the west
side of Palmetto Avenue in northern West
Sharp Park, and require improvement of
the visual appearance of permitted older
industrial uses when improvements are
proposed to these uses.

Geotechnical studies are required to determine the “net developable area.” New uses are required to provide appropriate setbacks along the coastal bluffs to protect new structures from loss during their design life,
and to provide public access to and along the
shoreline.

LU-I-25 Rockaway Quarry Site. Enable the
responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry Site.

2.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-37
LU-I-28 Pedro Point Shopping Center. Facilitate improvements to the existing Shopping Center that result in an improved orientation to the coastal environment
and that result in more efficient use of the
property with regards to parking, while
enhancing its appeal for both neighborhood residents and visitors. Maintain beach access along Shoreside Drive.

LU-I-29 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use
zoning district to allow small-scale visitororiented commercial uses as a stand-alone project without any residential development, or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses with residential development at a density range of three to five units per
gross acre. Housing may be clustered, and
uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial
uses, provided the overall site contains
both commercial and residential uses.

Development must include public coastal
access and must provide public open space.

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

LU-I-30 Pedro Point Upper Slopes. Maintain
zoning for the upper slopes of Pedro Point
to ensure that any new development is at a
density appropriate to the steep slopes.

LU-I-31 Upper Monterey Road. Extend the Hillside Preservation District zoning to steep sites along upper Monterey Road and limit
new development to a density that is consistent with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential designation.

LU-I-32 Milagra Canyon. Ensure that land along
Milagra Canyon south of Manor Drive
occurs at a density consistent with the
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential designation, is clustered to minimize environmental impacts, and resulting open space is permanently preserved.

LU-I-33 Eureka Square. Facilitate high-quality
redevelopment for the Eureka Square
Shopping Center using policies in the
Sharp Park Specific Plan.

The site’s position along Highway 1, beneath
a ridge and backed by multi-family housing
make it well-suited for higher-intensity development, which would also reinforce the area as Pacifica’s center. A small plaza should be
included as part of redevelopment.

LU-I-34 Gypsy Hill. Require sensitive site planning
in accordance with the Hillside Preservation District for up-per portions of Gypsy Hill.

Clustered development can preserve open
space and maintain the area’s function as a
wildlife movement corridor.

LU-I-35 East Fairway Park Hillside. Ensure consistency with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential designation on the slope above
Fairway Park to ensure that any new development occurs at a very low density and meets standards of the Hillside Preservation District.

LU-I-36 Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge. Ensure consistency with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential land use designation on Cattle
Hill and Fassler Ridge, as shown on the
General Plan Land Use diagram, to ensure

2.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4-38 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
that new development is appropriate to the
physical conditions and high scenic value
of the ridge.

Certain locations are designated for Low
Density Residential development; site planning in these areas should be subject to the Hillside Preservation District to provide
clustered development. The Royce water tank
site will retain a Utilities designation. Trail
easements should be negotiated with land
owners based on the Parks and Open Space
map (Figure 6-1).

LU-I-37 Lower Cattle Hill. Any project proposed
on Lower Cattle Hill should perform
detailed transportation impact studies and
implement measures to minimize impacts
to vehicular traffic flow on Highway 1, and
The General Plan allows higher-intensity mixed use redevelopment, as in the example at top, and redevelopment along lower Crespi Drive should provide a walkable commercial area appealing to both locals and visitors (bottom). to ensure maximum alternatives to singleoccupant vehicle trips, including but not limited to establishing on-site transit services and providing a pedestrian overcrossing to the west side of Highway 1.

LU-I-38 Lower Crespi Drive. Establish zoning
provisions to facilitate compact, mixed-use
redevelopment of older commercial and
residential properties along lower Crespi
Drive, consistent with the Mixed Use Center and Mixed Use Neighborhood designations.

Redevelopment adjacent to the Community
Center, Skate Park, and Pacifica State Beach
should provide a core for the southern portion of the City, a greater diversity of housing types, and a walkable commercial area appealing to both locals and visitors.

LU-I-39 Crespi Business Center. Protect existing
land uses at the Crespi Business Center to
support local employment and small business opportunities for residents. Ensure zoning allows the continuation of lightindustrial and research and development uses that would not generate significant
noise and odors, or use significant quantities of hazardous materials, that may be incompatible with mixed-use residential
development on the site or nearby sites.

LU-I-40 Linda Mar Shopping Center and Parkand-Ride. Allow redevelopment of the Linda Mar Shopping Center with additional commercial development along the Linda Mar Boulevard frontage. Rezone the
north side of Linda Mar Boulevard to facilitate mixed-use development, while also accommodating the existing park-and-ride
use, and improving the pedestrian-transit
interface.

LU-I-41 Linda Mar and Park Pacifica Hillsides.

Ensure Linda Mar and Park Pacifica hillsides are developed consistent with the Open Space/Agriculture/Residential land

2.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-39
use designation and are subject to the Hill-
side Preservation District.

LU-I-42 Park Mall Area. Facilitate mixed-use rede-
velopment at the Park Mall and Sanchez
Library sites and adjacent vacant land, with
retail uses concentrated along Oddstad and
Terra Nova Boulevards.

Upper story housing over retail may be pro-
vided, along with attached, multi-family
housing, and senior housing. Redevelopment
should include a small public open space and
public viewing areas at San Pedro Creek.

LU-I-43 Former Park Pacifica Stables. Ensure
development of the former Park Pacifica
Stables is consistent with the Open Space/
Agriculture/Residential land use designa-
tion , to provide opportunities related to
Pacifica’s natural setting, including con-
tinuing equestrian use, or open space and
minimal residential development.

LU-I-44 Shamrock Ranch. Coordinate with San
Mateo County to ensure that any new
development at Shamrock Ranch is clus-
tered to preserve open space.

Shamrock Ranch is the largest parcel in the
sphere of influence outside of City limits. Any
subdivision of greater than ten lots or develop-
ment of more than ten housing units or 40,000
square feet of non-residential space should
occur through a master planning process and
may involve annexation into the city. Such
subdivision and/or development may result in
a new neighborhood, employment area and/
or open spaces for Pacifica, and will require an
amendment to the General Plan.

2.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to The Circulation Element provides a framework to guide management and improvements to Pacifica’s transportation-related infrastructure over the next 20 years. A safe and efficient transportation network is an important contributor to a community’s quality of life and economic vitality. The circulation system enables access to the City’s neighborhoods, employment and educational opportunities, public services, commercial and recreational areas, and regional destinations. It provides for travel by automobile, transit, walking, and cycling.
5 CIRCULATION

2.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-2 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

5.1 CIRCULATION FRAMEWORK
Transportation and Land Use
State law recognizes the close relationship between
transportation and land use and requires that policies for the two topics are related and mutually beneficial. By integrating transportation policies with land use, the General Plan ensures that there will be
sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate traffic
generated by future planned development. Additionally, by integrating transportation and land use planning so that a greater percentage of short trips can be accomplished by walking, cycling, or transit, the
City can reduce the air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions associated with automobile use.

Complete Streets
Pacifica’s Circulation Element also responds directly
to the State requirement of planning for “Complete
Streets.” In response to the California Complete
Streets Act, all cities and counties are required to
plan for the development of multimodal transportation networks in their general plans. According to the Act, jurisdictions must “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe
and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to
the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general
plan.”1 The “users of streets, roads, and highways”
refers to bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Sustainable Communities
The transportation planning and policy set forth in
the Circulation Element is also an important component of Pacifica’s responsibility toward meeting the requirements of the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act of 2008. This Act requires
that metropolitan planning organizations in California prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for meeting their greenhouse gas reduc1 California Government Code Section 65302(b)(2). tion targets, through coordinating planning for land
use, transportation, and housing. While the SCS is
a regional plan, thoughtful land use and transportation planning in Pacifica is one part of a larger effort.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) adopted the “Plan Bay Area in 2013,” which serves as the SCS for the region.

An update, Plan Bay Area 2040, was adopted in 2017
and forecasts transportation needs through the year
2040. Plan Bay Area 2050 will focus on four key
issues—the economy, the environment, housing and
transportation—and will identify a path to make the
Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more
resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. MTC
and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October
2021.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Pacifica Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan Update 2020 establishes a long-term vision for
improving walking and bicycling in Pacifica through
policy, program, and project recommendations. The
four criteria used to prioritize bicycle projects and
pedestrian improvements include enhancements to
safety; connectivity; accessibility; and feasibility.

This Circulation Element includes policies that are
consistent with the goals of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and that support its implementation.

This chapter sets forth a circulation plan that
strengthens Pacifica’s transportation network, provides more choice of travel modes, identifies needed improvements, and works in tandem with land use
changes.

2.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-3

5.2 EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS
Existing travel patterns are analyzed in terms of trip
type, travel mode, and geography using information
from the City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel demand
model. In Table 5-1, “home-based work trips” are distinguished from other trips such as recreation-, shopping-, and school-related trips, and trip types are shown by the geography of residential location and
work or other attraction location.

Home-based work trips from Pacifica (Pacifica residents) to San Francisco or to other parts of San Mateo County account for 79 percent of the trips
in this category, with only 10 percent of such trips
staying in Pacifica. In other words, the great majority of Pacifica’s resident workforce commutes out of the City. Alternatively, 28 percent of commuter trips
to jobs in Pacifica originate in Pacifica, representing the second largest source with the first being the remainder of San Mateo County with 39 percent.

The majority of home-based work trips to and from
Pacifica are non-local however.

On the other hand, 52 percent of all “other” trips
that begin in Pacifica have local destinations and 64
percent of “other” trips with Pacifica destinations
also begin there. This indicates that well over half
of recreation-, shopping- and school-related trips are
local. Altogether, about half (41 percent of trips from Pacifica, 59 percent of trips to Pacifica) of all trips are made entirely within the City.

Table 5-2 details the share of trips to and from Pacifica made by transit. Three percent of trips made by Pacifica residents are made by public transit. For
trips from Pacifica, more people drive to Caltrain
and BART. Trips to San Francisco employment and
other attractions are the most likely to be made by
transit. Transit accounts for only a small fraction
(0.12 percent) of trips within Pacifica. Trips made
by residents of locations outside Pacifica to Pacifica
employment and other attractions are much less
likely to be made by transit.

Table 5-1: DAILY TRAVEL PATTERNS
Percent of Trips by Trip Type
Destination Home-Based Work Trips All Other Trips Total Trips Trips from Pacifica
Within Pacifica 10% 52% 41%
San Mateo County (not Pacifica) 38% 35% 35%
San Francisco 41% 11% 19%
Other Bay Area Counties 11% 2% 5%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Trips to Pacifica
Within Pacifica 28% 64% 59%
San Mateo County (not Pacifica) 39% 27% 29%
San Francisco 23% 6% 9%
Other Bay Area Counties 9% 3% 4%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Source: DKS Associates, 2021.

2.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 5-2: TRANSIT MODE SHARE OF ALL TRIPS
Drive-Access to
Transit1 Walk-Access to Transit Total Access Trips to Transit Trips from Pacifica
Within Pacifica 0.00% 0.12% 0.12%
San Mateo County (not Pacifica) 0.17% 0.61% 0.78%
San Francisco 10.47% 3.97% 14.45%
Other Bay Area Counties 0.94% 0.62% 1.56%
TOTAL 2.12% 1.05% 3.17%
Trips to Pacifica
Within Pacifica 0.00% 0.12% 0.12%
San Mateo County (not Pacifica) 0.05% 0.44% 0.48%
San Francisco 0.01% 1.36% 1.37%
Other Bay Area Counties 0.18% 0.69% 0.88%
TOTAL 0.02% 0.34% 0.36%
1 Includes Park-and-Ride trips and “Kiss and Ride” (drop off) trips to bus and BART or Caltrans stations; 2) Transit stop is reached by walking Source: DKS Associates, 2021.

2.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-5
SamTrans provides a Park & Ride lot on Linda Mar Boulevard.

Only about 1.5 percent of trips beginning or ending in Pacifica are made using public transportation (top). SR 1 is a two-lane highway south of Linda Mar Boulevard, a four-lane highway between Linda Mar and Sharp Park, and a four-lane divided freeway north of Sharp Park (middle). Arterials such as Terra Nova Boulevard serve relatively high volumes of vehicles, but are also important links for bicycle and pedestrian movement (bottom).

5.3 ROADWAY NETWORK AND

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Three major routes connect Pacifica to the rest of the
region. State Route (SR) 1 (Coast Highway) traverses
the City from north to south, connecting Pacifica to
Daly City and San Francisco to the north, and to
Half Moon Bay and the San Mateo County coastline to the south, and providing continuous access to the Pacifica coast. SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard) generally runs along the eastern edge of Pacifica, and is a major north-south route connecting to Santa Clara
County and San Francisco. Sharp Park Road follows a southwest-northeast route through the center of Pacifica, connecting SR 1 with SR 35. It continues
east of SR 35 in South San Francisco as Westborough
Boulevard. Each of these major roadways intersects
with I-280, an eight-lane major regional freeway on
the Peninsula located between one-half and two
miles from the Planning Area.

Roadway Classification
Pacifica’s roadway network is comprised of freeways,
highways, arterials, collector streets and local streets.

Each classification reflects the character of the roadway as well as its function within the context of the circulation system. Figure 5-1 illustrates the roadway
network with street classifications.

Freeways and Multi-Lane Highways
Freeways typically have speed limits of 55 and 65
miles per hour (mph) and four to eight lanes, with
physical medians and uninterrupted flow. Multilane
highways generally have posted speed limits between
40 and 55 mph2. Unlike freeways, multilane highways are interrupted by intersections or driveways.

These roadway types serve high volumes of high
speed regional vehicle traffic, including automobiles
and trucks. Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited.

In Pacifica, SR 1 north of Linda Mar Boulevard and
SR 35 both have segments that are freeways and segments that are multilane highways. 2 City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), 2007
Congestion Management Program, Appendix A.

2.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Two-Lane Highways
The 2019 C/CAG Congestion Management Program
defines a two-lane highway as a two-lane roadway
with one lane for use by traffic in each direction. In
Pacifica, SR 1 is considered a two-lane highway south
of Linda Mar Boulevard.

Arterials
In Pacifica, arterials are classified as roadways that
are wider, accommodate higher volumes of traffic,
or may provide access to the state highway system.

Arterials generally provide important connections
between different areas of Pacifica. They have frequent intersections and points of access, and may pass through pedestrian-intensive commercial areas.

These roadways serve relatively high volumes of
vehicles, but are also important links for bicycle and
pedestrian movement. Most arterials in Pacifica have
existing or planned bike lanes. In most cases, arterials are also the location of bus service in Pacifica.

Along certain arterials, notably Palmetto Avenue,
Esplanade Avenue, and sections of Oceana Boulevard, Paloma Avenue and Manor Drive, the pedestrian environment should be prioritized.

Collectors
In Pacifica, collectors have slower permitted speeds
than arterials, serve short, local trips, and accommodate travel between residential neighborhoods and arterials. Collectors are generally larger streets in residential areas but have smaller widths than arterials. Collectors have moderate volumes of vehicular traffic, and accommodate equally automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians within the right-of-way. Transit use, if any, is incidental, and pedestrians are provided with continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, to the greatest extent feasible. On-street parking is allowed and encouraged.

Mode Priorities
Table 5-3 shows generally how vehicle modes of travel
are accommodated on each type of roadway with the
City. This table provides a guide for how future roadway improvements should help to produce a complete streets network in Pacifica, with different roadways balancing needs differently to create a system that functions optimally for all users.

Table 5-3: MODE PRIORITIES BY ROADWAY TYPE
Facility Transit Bicycles Pedestrians Trucks Automobiles Freeways and Multilane Highways o X X n n
Two-lane Highways o o  n n
Arterials o o o  o
Collectors  o o  o
Local  o o X o
n = Dominant
o = Accommodated
 = Incidental
X = Prohibited
1 Transit has priority over bicycles on Arterials, where conflicts exist.

2.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-7
Pac i c
O cea n

GATEWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE BLVD

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTE MLA VE

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

DVLB OCSI CNARF

CLARENDON RD

BRADFORD WAY

SHARPPA RK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

SEASIDE DR

DVLB HCAEB

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVLI LE

MANZANITA DR

ALICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO DR

FASSLER AVE

SAN PEDRO AVE

GRAND AVE

WESTBOROUGH

KING DR

MILAGRA DR

H CI KEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD
Manor Drive Overcrossing
(planned improvements)

LINDAMAR BLVD

REINA DEL MAR AVE
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e
T u n n e l
Figure 5-1:

Roadway Network
and Planned
Improvements
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Freeway
Multi-Lane Highway
Two-Lane Highway
Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Unimproved Right-of-Way
Planned Improvement
Potential Future Street
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Pacica, 2020; DKS, 20019;
San Mateo County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Pacica
Pier
Milag r a Ridg e
(GGNRA )
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t
(GGNRA )
Shar p Par k
S w e e ne y
Ridg e
(GGNRA )
Sa n P ed ro Val l e y
C ou n ty Pa r k
Pe d ro Poin t
Headlan d s
(G G N R A )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Pe n i n sul a Watersh e d (SFPUC )
Water Recycling Plant
Figure 5-1: Roadway Network
and Planned Improvements

2.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Streetscape Improvements in
Pedestrian Priority Areas
Pedestrian Priority Areas (PPAs) are areas within
proximity to one or more schools, trailheads, and a
crossing of Highway 1 that have potential to generate substantial volumes of pedestrians. While pedestrian improvements are not limited to within these areas, areas with highest needs include the Manor,
Sharp Park, Vallemar/Fairway Park, and Linda Mar
PPAs. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides specific recommendations for each PPA, but pedestrian infrastructure improvements fall into six
general categories, including pavement markings;
pedestrian-actuated beacons; street furniture; sidewalks, trails, and medians; intersection and street design; and studies.

The City of Pacifica has made public realm improvements in Rockaway Beach and completed the first phase of street scape improvements for Palmetto
Avenue from Clarendon Road north to Paloma Avenue in 2017. Improvements included additions of new bikeways with green pavement markings, landscaping and bulbouts, lighting, and undergrounding utilities. The Sharp Park Specific Plan includes several policies to further enhance the comfort, atmosphere, and navigability of the streetscape for pedestrians and bicyclists within the Sharp Park neighborhood, such as those shown in Figure 5-2. During the planning period, additional attention will be paid
to streetscape improvements in the City’s mixed use
centers and other visitor-oriented commercial areas.

Roadway Improvements and
Complete Streets
Roadway improvements will follow design standards for each roadway classification that take into account a facility’s relation to the larger circulation system; appropriate travel speeds; surrounding land
uses; conditions for managing local access; safety;
and mode priority, as described in this chapter. These
standards will be based on “Complete Streets” concepts, and State and federal requirements for “routine accommodation” of cyclists and pedestrians.

Figure 5-2: Palmetto Avenue Streetscape
Improvements
The Sharp Park Specific Plan includes recommendations for trees, landscaping, and furnishings along Palmetto to further enhance the street.

San Jose Ave.

Salada Ave.

Santa Rosa Ave.

Palmetto Ave
40’
P
P
R. O. W.

Parking Bike Roadway Ro
Lane
Sidewalk
R. O. W.

Parking Bike Roadway Ro
Lane
Sidewalk
60’
6’ 7.5’ 6’ 10.5’ 1
60’
6’ 7.5’ 6’ 10.5’ 1
Palmetto Avenue
Palmetto Avenue
Paved Sidewalk
Driveway Entry
Electric Poles
Street Lights
Street Trees
Cracked Sidewalk
Potential Street Trees
Missing Sidewalk
Potential Bulb-Out
Paved Sidewalk
Driveway Entry
Electric Poles
Street Lights
Street Trees
Cracked Sidewalk
Potential Street Trees
Missing Sidewalk
Potential Bulb-Out
Paved Sidewalk
Driveway Entry
Electric Poles
Street Lights
Street Trees
Cracked Sidewalk
Potential Street Trees
Missing Sidewalk
Potential Bulb-Out
Potential
tree well
Potential location
for bike-racks, street
furniture and signange
Potential
curb extension

2.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-9
70’ Right-of-Way
56’
7’ 7’ 4’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 4’ 7’ 7’
70’ Right-of-Way
56’
7’ 7’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 7’ 7’
ParkingParkingSidewalkSidewalk Travel Travel Travel Travel ParkingSidewalk Bike Travel ParkingSidewalk Travel Bike Two-Way
Left Turn
Lane
One-foot
painted
buffer
Illustrative Improvements for Complete Streets: Linda Mar Boulevard Existing
Proposed
Figure 5-3: Illustrative Roadway Retrofits
Existing Conditions Linda Mar Boulevard,
Residential Area
Proposed (Illustrative)
80’ Right-of-Way
60’
10’ 8’ 5’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 5’ 8’ 10’
80’ Right-of-Way
66’
7’ 10’ 17’ 12’ 17’ 10’ 7’
Parking Parking Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Two-Way
Left Turn
Lane
Travel Travel
Sidewalk Parking Bike Travel Travel Bike Parking Sidewalk Median/
Left Turn
Lane
One-foot
painted
buffer
One-foot
painted
buffer
Illustrative Improvements for Complete Streets: Crespi Drive Existing
Proposed
80’ Right-of-Way
60’
10’ 8’ 5’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 5’ 8’ 10’
80’ Right-of-Way
66’
7’ 10’ 17’ 12’ 17’ 10’ 7’
Parking Parking Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Two-Way
Left Turn
Lane
Travel Travel
Sidewalk Parking Bike Travel Travel Bike Parking Sidewalk Median/
Left Turn
Lane
One-foot
painted
buffer
One-foot
painted
buffer
Illustrative Improvements for Complete Streets: Crespi Drive Existing
Proposed
Existing Conditions Crespi Drive, Mixed Use Area
Proposed (Illustrative)
80’ Right-of-Way
60’
10’ 8’ 5’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 5’ 8’ 10’
80’ Right-of-Way
66’
7’ 10’ 17’ 12’ 17’ 10’ 7’
Parking Parking Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Two-Way
Left Turn
Lane
Travel Travel
Sidewalk Parking Bike Travel Travel Bike Parking Sidewalk Median/
Left Turn
Lane
One-foot
painted
buffer
One-foot
painted
buffer
Illustrative Improvements for Complete Streets: Crespi Drive Existing
Proposed
Note: Roadway retrofits will require additional analysis.

2.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 5-4: C/CAG LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
LOS Freeways and Multilane Highways Two-Lane Highways
A Highest quality of service with free-flow conditions and a high level of maneuverability.

Free-flow conditions with a high level of maneuverability.

Passing is easy to accomplish.

B Free-flow conditions, but presence of other vehicles is noticeable. Minor disruptions easily absorbed.

Stable operations with passing demand approaching
passing capacity.

C Stable operations, but minor disruptions cause significant local congestion.

Stable operations, but with noticeable increases in passing difficulty.

D Borders on unstable traffic flow with ability to maneuver severely restricted due to congestion.

Approaching unstable traffic flow. Passing demand is high while passing capacity approaches zero.

E Unstable operations with conditions at or near capacity.

Disruptions cannot be dissipated and cause bottlenecks to form.

Unstable operations. Passing is virtually impossible and platooning becomes intense.

F Forced or breakdown flow with bottlenecks forming at
locations where demand exceeds capacity. Speeds may drop to zero.

Heavily congested traffic flow with traffic demand
exceeding capacity. Speeds may drop to zero.

Source: C/CAG, San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 2019.

They will be flexible enough to adopt the latest and
best ideas, and allowing for adjustment to existing
right-of-way and special circumstances.

Many roadways in Pacifica offer opportunities for
redesign of the existing right-of-way to balance the
needs of all users and create a safer and more attractive public realm. Roadway improvements that do not require adjustments to curbs may involve the
narrowing of travel lanes to a more compact 10 or
11 feet to accommodate bicycle lanes, or the conversion of four-lane streets to three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction and a continuous center
left-turn lane. Figure 5-3 illustrates two examples of
how arterial and collector roadways may be retrofitted to function as a complete street. The first example, a segment of Linda Mar Boulevard in a residential neighborhood context, requires only re-striping.

The second example, a segment of Crespi Drive in
a mixed-use center context, includes extending the
sidewalk and building a median. Specific roadway
retrofits will require additional future analysis.

Level of Service Standards
Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of the degree
of vehicle congestion that occurs during peak travel
periods and is the traditional measure of roadway
and intersection performance. Level of Service can
range from “A” representing free-flow conditions, to
“F” representing extremely long delays. LOS B and
C signify stable conditions with acceptable delays.

LOS D is typically considered acceptable for a peak
hour in urban areas. LOS E is approaching capacity
and LOS F represents conditions at or above capacity.

The City/County Association of Governments (C/
CAG) has LOS standards for highways (see Table
5-4).

In Pacifica, the most critical congestion occurs on
SR 1 and SR 35, where certain intersections and roadway segments currently operate at LOS E or F during peak periods. (See Table 5-6) As established in this General Plan 2040, 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 improvements
to maintain, if possible, LOS D for City streets and
the LOS standards set by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for roadway segments included in the San Mateo County Congestion
Management Program (CMP).

2.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-11
Table 5-5: DEFINITION OF MULTI-MODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE INDICATORS LOS Transit Bicycle Pedestrian
A
(Good walk access to bus stops,
frequent service, good bus stop
amenities.)
(Few driveway and cross street
conflicts, good pavement condition,
ample width of outside lane, including
parking and bike lanes.)
(Low traffic volumes, wide buffer
separating sidewalk from traffic,
numerous street trees, and high parking
occupancy.)
B
C
D
E
F
(Poor walk access to bus stops,
infrequent service, poor schedule
adherence, no bus stop amenities.)
(Poor pavement condition, narrow
width of outside lane, frequent
driveways and cross streets.)
(High traffic volumes, limited buffer
separating sidewalk from traffic, few
street trees, low parking occupancy.)
Source: Dowling Associates, 2010.

Multi-Modal Level of Service
To apply the Complete Streets framework, this Circulation Element identifies qualitative indicators that may be used to prioritize improvements and evaluate
projects, for all users, including transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists, based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.3 An LOS grade is
established for each mode, based on the user’s perceptions of the quality of service provided by the street. These grades correspond to numerical scores,
which are calculated using a variety of inputs that
cover the facility design, facility controls, and volumes by mode. The thresholds for each grade are shown in Table 5-5 and described below.

The Bicycle LOS is a weighted combination of the
bicyclists’ experience at intersections and on street
segments in between the intersections. The numerical score is dependent on:
• Presence of conventional (striped) bike lanes,
buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks, or wide outside
travel lanes;
3 National Cooperative Highway Research Program. “Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets” Report 616. Washington, DC: 2008
• Pavement condition; and
• Vehicle speeds and volumes.

Pedestrian LOS is based on pedestrian density and
a weighted combination of factors related to pedestrians’ experience on the street segment and at intersections as well as roadway crossing difficulty. The numerical score is dependent on:
• Width of the buffer;
• Presence of parking lane and/or bike lane;
• Number of street trees;
• Parking occupancy; and
• Traffic volumes.

For transit LOS, the numerical score is dependent
on:
• Average scheduled headway and on-time performance;
• Bus speed and perceived travel time;
• Bus stop amenities; and
• Pedestrian LOS (e.g. pedestrian volumes, intersection controls).

2.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Planned Improvements
The City currently has one roadway improvement
project in the planning stage within the Planning
Area. This improvement is related to the Manor
Drive Overcrossing project, described below and
shown in Figure 5-1. Other improvements to the
roadway network are expected to be needed during
the planning period to achieve a balance between
existing and future land use and traffic carrying
capacity. Major street improvements planned or programmed for Pacifica are described below.

Manor Drive Overcrossing
The Manor Drive overcrossing is planned to be widened and coordinated signal control is recommended to be added at the intersections of Manor Drive with
Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue. This project includes a new on-ramp to SR 1 from Oceana at Milagra Drive.

Potential Additional Improvements to
Accommodate Buildout
Additional improvements are justified based on the
analysis of existing and projected future traffic conditions with projected growth during the planning period, compared to the City’s level of service standards. These potential additional improvements should be considered in coordination with Caltrans
and the County of San Mateo.
• SR 35: By 2040, SR 35 would operate at LOS F
during PM peak hour between Hickey Boulevard
and Timberhill Court in the absence of improvements. While most of this traffic is not related to the expected employment and residential
growth in Pacifica, an additional lane of travel in
the northbound and southbound directions will
improve the roadway segment LOS to an acceptable level B or better. Widening would need to occur on the east side of the roadway only to
allow for planned development.

Proposed improvements would upgrade SR 1 between Reina del Mar and Fassler Avenue to alleviate a major traffic bottleneck (top). The Devil’s Slide tunnel project has moved SR 1 out of the path of frequent landslides (middle). Some Pacifica neighborhoods contain streets that were not built to current standards or have deteriorated and need improvements (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-13
• Intersection of Hickey Boulevard and SR 35: Signal timing optimization is required, specifically for the 2040 PM peak hour volumes, to ensure
that the intersection operates at an acceptable
LOS of D during both AM and PM peak hours.
• Intersection of Paloma Avenue and Oceana
Boulevard: This intersection currently operates
at LOS F during the AM peak hour and meets a
peak hour signal warrant. (See Table 5.9). Signalization of this intersection would improve the operation to LOS D during the AM peak hour
and would maintain LOS C during the PM peak
hour, consistent across existing and build scenarios, with slightly increased delay for the build PM scenario. Further analysis should be conducted
to determine if signalization is appropriate and
improves bicycle and pedestrian safety in concert
with improved vehicular traffic movement.
• Intersection of SR 1 and Reina del Mar: The
limited right of way and high volumes at the
intersection result in no easy improvements to
reduce delay to acceptable levels. Reducing green
time for underutilized approaches is feasible and
reduces delay to acceptable levels if the pedestrian
phase is removed with installation of a pedestrian
overcrossing allowing for safe grade-separated
crossing of pedestrians across SR 1. This improvement will result in operations maintaining LOS E during both AM and PM periods for the build
scenario, respectively.
• Intersection of SR 1 and Fassler Avenue: By
2040, the intersection of SR 1 and Fassler Avenue
will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.

Signal timing optimization will improve operations to LOS D.

Traffic Conditions
Intersection Operating Conditions
Of the 13 study intersections, five are located along
roadway segments included in C/CAG’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) for San Mateo County. Four of these are located along Highway
1 (SR 1) and one is located along Skyline Boulevard
(SR 35). As shown in Table 5-6, one of the five CMP
intersections along SR 1 currently operates at an
unacceptable LOS during the AM peak hour (Reina
Del Mar and SR 1), and none of the five intersections
operate at an unacceptable LOS during the PM peak
hour. Also, except for the intersection of Paloma
Avenue and Oceana Boulevard during the AM peak
hour, none of the seven non-CMP intersections currently operate at an unacceptable LOS (defined as LOS E or F by this General Plan) in the AM and/or
PM peak hours.

With buildout of the General Plan, two of the five
CMP intersections would operate at unacceptable
LOS during the study peak hours. As proposed in
the Plan, replacing the existing pedestrian crosswalk
with a pedestrian overcrossing at the intersection of
SR 1 and Reina del Mar Avenue would help with the
excessive delay, however, it still remains at LOS E.

Also, optimizing the signal timing at the intersection of SR 1 and Fassler Avenue would reduce delay and improve intersection operations during PM peak
hour but the intersection would continue to operate
at LOS D.

Regarding the non-CMP intersections, two intersections (i.e., intersection of Manor Drive and Palmetto Avenue and intersection of Manor Drive and Oceana
Boulevard) would mostly operate at unacceptable
LOS during peak hours.

2.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 5-6: PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY – EXISTING AND PLAN

BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Existing Plan Buildout (2040)
Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2
CMP Intersections
1 Hickey Boulevard / SR 35 Signalized AM 41.7 D 50.8 D
PM 39.1 D 50.8 D
10 Reina del Mar Avenue / SR 13 Signalized AM 61.0 E 69.6 E PM 35.5 D 58.2 E
11 Fassler Avenue / SR 13 Signalized AM 35.5 D 38.8 D
PM 47.8 D 37.0 D
12 Crespi Drive / SR 1 Signalized AM 12.2 B 14.7 B
PM 7.1 A 9.7 A
13 Linda Mar Boulevard / SR 1 Signalized AM 17.3 B 28.0 C PM 27.2 C 43.6 D
Non-CMP Intersections
2 Manor Drive/ Oceana Boulevard AWSC
Signalized
Build
AM 18.0 C 63.1 E
PM 23.2 C 44.3 D
3 Manor Drive / Palmetto Avenue4 AWSC
Signalized
Build
AM 32.1 D 96.9 F
PM 23.0 D 71.7 E
4 Manor Drive / Oceana Boulevard4 AWSC
Signalized
Build
AM 66.6 F 48.4 D
PM 15.4 C 23.5 C
5 Paloma Avenue/ Francisco Boulevard AWSC AM 11.2 B 17.5 C PM 9.8 A 13.2 B
6 Paloma Avenue/ Palmetto Avenue AWSC AM 12.4 B 20.8 C
PM 12.3 B 28.7 D
7 Clarendon Road/ Oceana Boulevard AWSC AM 12.4 B 17.1 C PM 12.3 B 15.1 C
8 Clarendon Road/ Francisco Boulevard AWSC AM 9.8 A 11.9 B PM 10.2 B 11.6 B
9 Francisco Boulevard/ SR 1 AWSC AM 5.0 A 5.0 A
PM 5.0 A 5.0 A
1 Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay. For unsignalized intersections, delay is based at the worst approach for two-way stop controlled intersection.

LOS = Level of Service
AWSC = All-way stop control
Source: DKS Associates, 2021.

2.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-15
Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
As shown in Table 5-7, 10 of the 16 CMP roadway
segments studied currently operate at or above the
threshold of LOS E. Three northbound segments
of SR 1 currently operate at LOS F in the AM peak
hour, and three southbound segments operate at
LOS F during the PM peak hour. Bottlenecks exist
at areas along SR 1 as a result of an increase in traffic control devices and at-grade intersections between Westport Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard.

At Plan buildout, six CMP segments would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours if no improvements were made. The CMP requires
the City to take steps to ensure development projects reduce their impacts on the CMP transportation network, such as through implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures identified in the CMP. None of the local roadway
segments would operate at LOS E or F during the
AM or PM peak hours at Plan buildout.

Table 5-7: PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS SUMMARY – EXISTING AND PLAN

BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Existing Plan Buildout
(2040)
Roadway
Segment
Class Location Measure of
Effectiveness (MOE)
Peak
Hour
MOE1 LOS2 MOE1 LOS2
State Routes
SR 35 Type I From South of SR 1 to Hickey Blvd V/C Ratio AM 0.60 A 0.64 B PM .072 C 0.85 D
SR 35 Type I From Hickey Blvd to South of SR 1 V/C Ratio AM .071 B 0.75 C PM .58 A 0.68 B
SR 35 Type I From Hickey Blvd to Timberhill Ct V/C Ratio AM 0.90 D 0.53 A PM 0.90 D 0.67 B
SR 35 Type I From Timberhill Ct to Hickey Blvd V/C Ratio AM 0.87 D 0.51 A PM 0.88 D 0.64 B
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Eight unsignalized intersections were investigated to
determine whether traffic signals were warranted (see
Table 5-8). At Plan buildout (2040), the intersection
of Manor Drive and Oceana Boulevard, West Manor
Drive and Palmetto Avenue, and Paloma Avenue and
Oceana Boulevard would meet the signal warrant criteria for the AM and PM peak hours. The West Manor Drive and Palmetto Avenue intersection would meet
the signal warrant analysis for the PM peak hour, but
not for the AM peak hour because the 2040 C/CAG
model indicates that traffic volumes for this intersection will decrease between the existing study year and 2040.

The intersections of Manor Drive and Oceana Boulevard, and West Manor Drive and Palmetto Avenue, and Paloma Avenue and Oceana Boulevard may need
to be modified in terms of traffic control (traffic signalization), efficiency (widening of the overcrossing to provide shoulders and flaring curb returns without
changing the existing number of lanes), and Highway 1
access (adding the Milagra Drive on-ramp). The City’s
planned improvements to the two intersections as well
as the overcrossing and Milagra Drive on-ramp as part
of the Manor Drive overcrossing project will allow traffic to flow through the area in a much better manner, by remaining on the intended streets and reducing the
diversion to side streets and neighborhoods.

2.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 5-7: PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS SUMMARY – EXISTING AND PLAN

BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Existing Plan Buildout
(2040)
Roadway
Segment
Class Location Measure of
Effectiveness (MOE)
Peak
Hour
MOE1 LOS2 MOE1 LOS2
SR 1 2-Lane
Highway
Between San Pedro Ave and
Linda Mar Blvd
V/C Ratio AM 0.27 C 1.03 F
PM 0.20 B 1.05 F
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Linda Mar Blvd to Crespi Dr V/C Ratio AM 0.61 C 0.67 C PM 0.43 B 0.58 C
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Crespi Dr to Linda Mar Blvd V/C Ratio AM 0.30 B 0.43 B PM 0.69 C 0.79 D
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Crespi Dr to Sea Bowl Ln V/C Ratio AM 0.76 D 0.90 E PM 0.68 C 0.68 C
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Sea Bowl Ln to Fassler Ave3 V/C Ratio AM 0.78 D 0.90 E PM 0.52 C 0.68 C
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Fassler Ave to Crespi Dr3 V/C Ratio AM 0.36 B 0.52 C PM 0.83 D 0.97 E
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Fassler Ave to Reina del
Mar Ave3
V/C Ratio AM 1.17 F 1.30 F
PM 0.70 D 0.87 E
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Reina del Mar Ave to
Fassler Ave3
V/C Ratio AM 0.59 C 0.76 D
PM 1.16 F 1.35 F
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Reina del Mar Ave to Mori
Point Rd3
V/C Ratio AM 1.23 F 1.37 F
PM 0.72 D 0.89 E
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Mori Point Rd to Reina del
Mar Ave
V/C Ratio AM 0.66 C 0.84 D
PM 1.24 F 1.42 F
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Mori Point Rd to Ave to
Westport Dr3
V/C Ratio AM 1.23 F 1.37 F
PM 0.72 D 0.89 E
SR 1 4-Lane
Highway
From Westport Dr to Mori Point
Rd3
V/C Ratio AM 0.66 C 0.84 D
PM 1.24 F 1.42 F
Local Roadways
Hickey
Blvd
Type II From SR 35 to Gateway V/C Ratio AM 0.26 A 0.25 A PM 0.57 A 0.27 A
Hickey
Blvd
Type II From Gateway to SR 35 V/C Ratio AM 0.45 A 0.40 A PM 0.33 A 0.31 A
Reina del
Mar Ave
Type I From SR 1 to Lauren Ave V/C Ratio AM 0.34 A 0.40 A PM 0.27 A 0.31 A
Reina del
Mar Ave
Type I From Lauren Ave to SR 1 V/C Ratio AM 0.36 A 0.42 A PM 0.22 A 0.26 A
Fassler
Ave.

Type I From SR 1 to Ebken St V/C Ratio AM 0.21 A 0.22 A PM 0.38 A 0.39 A

2.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-17
Table 5-8: EXISTING CONDITIONS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Intersection
Existing Plan Buildout (2035)
AM Peak Hour
Warrant Met?
PM Peak Hour
Warrant Met?
AM Peak Hour
Warrant Met?
PM Peak Hour
Warrant Met?
Manor Drive / Oceana Boulevard Yes Yes Yes Yes
W. Manor Drive / Palmetto Avenue Yes Yes Yes Yes
Paloma Avenue/ Oceana Boulevard No No Yes Yes
Paloma Avenue/ Francisco Boulevard No No No Yes
Paloma Avenue/ Palmetto Avenue No No No No
Clarendon Road/Oceana Boulevard No No No No
Clarendon Road/ Francisco Boulevard No No No No
Francisco Boulevard/ SR 1 No No No No
Source: DKS Associates, 2021.

Table 5-7: PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS SUMMARY – EXISTING AND PLAN

BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Existing Plan Buildout
(2040)
Roadway
Segment
Class Location Measure of
Effectiveness (MOE)
Peak
Hour
MOE1 LOS2 MOE1 LOS2
Fassler
Ave.

Type I From Ebken St to SR 1 V/C Ratio AM 0.40 A 0.40 A PM 0.20 A 0.20 A
Crespi Dr Type II From SR 1 to Roberts Rd V/C Ratio AM 0.13 A 0.13 A PM 0.25 A 0.25 A
Crespi Dr Type II From Roberts Rd to SR 1 V/C Ratio AM 0.24 A 0.24 A PM 0.18 A 0.18 A
Linda Mar
Blvd
Type II From SR 1 to De Solo Dr V/C Ratio AM 0.23 A 0.23 A PM 0.41 A 0.41 A
Linda Mar
Blvd
Type II From De Solo Dr to SR 1 V/C Ratio AM 0.29 A 0.29 A PM 0.30 A 0.30 A
1 MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. For arterials, MOE is measured in v/c ratios (volume to capacity ratios). 2 LOS = Level of Service is based on 2019 C/CAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria Source: DKS Associates, 2020.

2.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-18 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CI-G-1 Comprehensive Circulation System.

Create a comprehensive, multi-modal
transportation system with streets and
highways; transit facilities; a continuous
network of sidewalks and bicycle routes.

CI-G-2 Serve All Users. Plan, design, build,
and maintain transportation improvements
to support safe and convenient access for
all users with priority for “complete streets”
projects that facilitate walking, bicycling
and transit use wherever possible.

CI-G-3 Safety. Make safety a primary objective in
street planning and traffic regulations.

CI-G-4 Level of Service (LOS) for all Modes of
Travel. Assess the performance of the
transportation system by measuring how
well pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles as well as automobiles are able to move within and through the community.

CI-G-5 Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce
overall vehicle miles travelled by developing higher-density, mixed use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and
improving transit options and efficiency.

CI-G-6 Context Sensitivity. Plan, design, and
build transportation improvements so that
they respect the surrounding environment.

CI-G-7 Congestion on Highway 1. In consultation with Caltrans, seek solutions to ease the traffic congestion that occurs on
Highway 1 near the Reina Del Mar, Fassler
Avenue, and Linda Mar Boulevard intersections. Strive for the greatest benefit with the least environmental impact possible.

CI-G-8 Congestion on Hickey and Skyline.

Improve travel to and from Pacifica’s
northern neighborhoods by easing congestion on Hickey Boulevard through coordinated signalization or other changes, and working with the County to improve
operations on SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard).

CI-G-9 Coordination of Local and Regional
Actions. Coordinate local transportation
planning and improvements with State,
Regional and County agencies to ensure
consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan, the Congestion Management Program, and other regional actions.

CI-G-10 Abandonment of Public Rights-of-Way.

Ensure that abandonment or vacation of
public rights-of-way does not adversely
impact coastal access.

Implementing Policies
Complete Streets Implementation
CI-I-1 Connective Street Network. Require
new streets created as part of new development to continue existing street patterns, and include stub access points to adjacent
undeveloped areas.

CI-I-2 Complete Streets Design Approach.

Update the City’s engineering design standards to implement Complete Streets concepts, and include Complete Streets design principles in the planning of all circulation
improvement projects. These principles
include, but are not limited to:
• Maximizing connections with the existing circulation network; • Minimizing ingress and egress points
and consolidating entries;
• Providing public transit facilities and
improvements;

2.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-19
• Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (bike lanes and sidewalks); • Minimizing pedestrian crossing distances by providing curb extensions; medians with safety refuges, and other
treatments;
• Improving safety by providing lighting
and traffic calming devices for residential streets;
• Including landscaping (trees, medians,
key intersections and gateways);
• Providing appropriate signage, including
street signs, entry signs, and directional
signs;
• Providing street furniture; and
• Maintaining on--street parking.

Any proposed development or transportation
project that does not adequately incorporate
complete streets concepts should be supported
by findings of why all travel modes have not
been accommodated. The Complete Streets
approach should be applied to new roadway
construction as well as to retrofit projects.

CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project
Development Process. Incorporate complete streets concepts at each stage of the development process for projects affecting
the right-of-way, including the following:
• As part of design review, both at Phase
I and Phase II, require documentation
of how the “routine accommodation” of
bicyclists and pedestrians has been satisfied in planning and design.; • During project review and approval,
ensure that the objectives and purpose
are consistent with MTC directives on
Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation;
• For projects subject to MTC’s Resolution 3765, as amended, work with MTC to secure approval of the Complete
Streets checklist and submittal to MTC
of all required documents.

Integrating Complete Streets considerations
should require only minor additions to
normal design, acquisitions, and approval
guidelines.

CI-I-4 Roadway Retrofits. Identify opportunities to retrofit existing roadways to create complete streets, giving priority to arterial
and collector streets where travel lanes may
be narrowed or where four lanes may be
converted to three, including a center left
turn lane, with bicycle facilities added in
both cases.

Linda Mar Boulevard, Terra Nova Boulevard, Fassler Avenue, Esplanade Avenue, Monterey Road, Hickey Boulevard, Rosita
Road, Crespi Drive, Oddstad Boulevard,
Everglades Drive, Alicante Drive, Talbot
Avenue, Inverness Drive, and Gateway Drive
may all present opportunities for roadway
retrofits. Roadway retrofits will also help to
complete the bicycle network, as described in
Section 5.4, and provide safety for cyclists.

Ten- and eleven-foot travel lanes are often
acceptable for auto and transit use, respectively, without adversely affecting capacity.

Roadway retrofits will require additional
analysis.

CI-I-5 Streetscape in Mixed Use Areas.

Require pedestrian-oriented amenities and
design in visitor-oriented commercial and
mixed use areas, including wider sidewalks, curb bulb-outs at key intersections, outdoor seating, and public art.

Priority streetscapes include Palmetto
between Paloma and Clarendon; Montecito, Santa Rosa, and San Jose Avenues in West Sharp Park; Rockaway Beach Avenue
and Dondee Way in Rockaway Beach; lower

2.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-20 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard in
Linda Mar; Manor Drive and Aura Vista
Drive in West Edgemar-Pacific Manor; and
Oddstad and Terra Nova Boulevards and
new streets created as part of redevelopment
of the Park Mall site.

CI-I-6 Block Size and Maximum Street
Spacing. For new development at the
Quarry site or Park Mall site, require
streets to be designed to maximize connectivity for automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians, with blocks between 200 and 600 feet in length. Provide mid-block pedestrian connections where blocks exceed 500 feet in length.

The intent of these standards is to prevent
development of introverted neighborhoods,
provide flexibility in circulation, and promote access for bicyclists and pedestrians.

CI-I-7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. Create and solicit input from
a bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees (BPAC) on planning and funding for transportation improvement projects.

Roadway Improvements to Ease Congestion
and Improve Level of Service
CI-I-8 SR 1 Improvements Between South
of Fassler and North of Reina del Mar.

Continue to work with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and the San Mateo County Transportation
Authority (SMCTA) to improve operations
along SR 1. Strategies could include installation of a pedestrian overcrossing, allowing for safer grade-separated crossings of pedestrians.

Improvements to SR 1 should alleviate traffic
congestion between north of Reina del Mar
and south of Fassler Avenue while minimizing environmental impacts and impacts to adjacent land uses, ensuring adequate
local access, and enhancing the community’s
image.

CI-I-9 Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvements. Complete planned improvements to the Manor Drive overcrossing to facilitate traffic movement across SR 1 for all modes.

Improvements should include widening of
the overcrossing, possible signal control at the
intersections of Manor Drive with Palmetto
Avenue and Oceana Boulevard, and a new
on-ramp to SR 1 from Oceana at Milagra
Drive.

CI-I-10 SR 35 Improvements. Work with San
Mateo County to evaluate, design and
implement improvements to SR 35 to
relieve congestion along this roadway
within Pacifica. Improvements that would
mitigate regional growth may include
adding an additional travel lane in either
direction, or widening on the east side of
the roadway only.

Most growth in traffic along SR 35 is unrelated to expected growth in Pacifica.

CI-I-11 SR 35 and Hickey Boulevard Intersection
Improvements. Add signal timing optimization to the SR 35 and Hickey Boulevard intersection.

CI-I-12 Paloma Avenue and Oceana Boulevard
Improvements. Add signal control to the
intersection of Paloma Avenue and Oceana
Boulevard to improve pedestrian safety
and facilitate traffic movement.

CI-I-13 Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive
Intersection Improvements. Add signal
control to the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive, with signal timing to facilitate traffic movement.

CI-I-14 Strategies to Reduce School-Related
Peak Hour Auto Congestion. Work with
Pacifica School District and Jefferson
Union High School District to promote
adoption of staggered hours, car-pooling,

2.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-21
and use of transit to reduce traffic congestion during peak hours.

This policy applies especially to Vallemar
School and the Visalia School District offices,
where trips contribute to traffic congestion
around SR 1 and Reina del Mar Avenue.

Level of Service Standards
CI-I-15 Multi-modal Level of Service (LOS) Performance Measures. Develop performance measures for LOS for pedestrians, cyclists,
and transit users, based on the criteria in
this chapter and on “best practices.”
Measures may be both quantitative (for
example, sidewalk width) and qualitative
(perceived safety and attractiveness.) Measures should use data that is readily available or can be readily collected, while providing
an accurate assessment.

CI-I-16 LOS for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Transit
Users. Strive to maintain LOS C or better
for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users
on all roadways, and impose mitigation
measures as needed to achieve multi-modal
service objectives.

CI-I-17 Vehicle Level of Service on Roadways
Included in the Congestion Management
Program. Accept an LOS E on SR 1 and
SR 35, consistent with the C/CAG Congestion Management Program (CMP), in planning improvements.

CI-I-18 Vehicle Level of Service for Other Roadways and Intersections. For all roadways and intersections not included in the CMP
network, strive to maintain LOS D for
vehicles during peak periods. Allow level of
service to exceed this threshold under the
following circumstances:
• Constraints on development as would
be required to achieve or maintain
these standards would adversely impede
achievement of this Plan’s economic,
land use and community development,
and environmental goals and policies;
• Mitigation of congestion would negatively affect transit, bicycle or pedestrian circulation, or would conflict with General Plan goals for these alternative
modes of circulation, for example by
increasing crossing distances, increasing pedestrian safety risk, or restricting bicycle or transit access;
• Traffic congestion is a result of an effort
to promote transit ridership and/or
access, including the development of
higher-density development in mixed
use areas; or
• A demonstrated significant increase in
transit ridership, carpooling, bicycling,
and/or walking is achieved.

CI-I-19 Interim Standard for Intersection of
Linda Mar Boulevard and SR 1 and
Hickey Boulevard and SR 35. Accept LOS
F at the intersections of Linda Mar Boulevard and SR 1 and Hickey Boulevard and SR 35 as an interim standard until feasible
traffic improvements can be designed,
funded and constructed.

CI-I-20 Monitor Traffic Congestion at Key Intersections and Roadway Segments. Periodically monitor levels of service at intersections and roadway segments where existing LOS is E or lower.

Funding for Improvements
CI-I-21 Transportation Improvement Funding.

Establish funding mechanisms to ensure
that new development pays its proportionate share of the costs of new and improved transportation facilities as a result of the
development.

CI-I-22 Improvements for Existing Facilities.

Maintain and upgrade local streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other City infrastructure in a manner that prevents deterioration and corrects existing deficiencies.

2.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-22 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Safety
CI-I-23 Design for Safety. Incorporate safety measures in improvement designs for intersections, roadways, pedestrians, transit, and bicycle facilities.

CI-I-24 Development on Unimproved Streets.

Continue to require a Site Development
Permit for development on lots with unimproved streets to ensure off-site improvements meet City standards.

This policy will protect the visual and natural
resource qualities of the hillsides and minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources.

CI-I-25 Emergency Access. Require all developers to incorporate emergency access needs consistent with Title 10 of the Municipal
Code.

See Chapter 8: Safety for related policies.

Streets in “Pedestrian Priority Areas” should be designed to emphasize pedestrian comfort and access. Redevelopment
around Crespi Drive (top) would be supported by streetscape improvements such as those at Rockaway Beach (middle). SR 1 presents a barrier to pedestrian movement in Pacifica (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-23

5.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

NETWORK
Pedestrian Circulation
Walking is a basic and often overlooked part of all
trips that also involve transit or automobiles. Walking can be ideal for short, local trips for shopping, school, and recreation. Adequate facilities for pedestrians help to ensure access to and along the coast.

Chapter 6: Open Space and Community Facilities
includes a section devoted to Pacifica’s trail system,
and how it should be enhanced during the planning
period. This section focuses on pedestrian facilities
that support comfortable and safe day-to-day pedestrian travel.

Sidewalks and Crosswalks
Where sidewalks are present in Pacifica, they are
generally between five and ten feet wide and in good
condition. Crosswalks are provided at all studied
intersections with appropriate striping and, where
appropriate, pedestrian signals. However, there are
streets within Pacifica that do not have sidewalks,
which force pedestrians to walk in the road and
navigate around parked cars. Under the General
Plan 2040, pedestrian facilities will be improved and
enhanced, especially within the four Pedestrian Priority Areas identified in the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: Manor, Sharp Park, Vallemar/ Fairway; and Linda Mar. Pedestrian improvements
include pavement markings; pedestrian-actuated
beacons; street furniture; sidewalks, trails, and medians; intersection and street design, and additional studies.

Within city limits, there are thirteen crossings of
Highway 1. Each crossing type has a unique set of
challenges associated with it. There are five at-grade
crossings (ground level with intersections), five
above-grade (overpasses) crossings, and three belowgrade crossings (underpasses and tunnels). Pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings are located at Milagra Drive and San Jose Avenue, with an undercrossing at
Sharp Park Golf Course.

Hiking and Pedestrian Trails
Pacifica has a network of trails along the Pacific
Ocean and on inland ridges. Some are paved and
allow for cycling and pedestrians, while others are
unpaved and only accommodate pedestrians. Some
are open to horseback riders.

A brief summary of existing trails follows:
• The Coastal Trail is a seven-mile coastal trail
starting from Sharp Park Beach, crossing Mori
Point, passing through Rockaway Beach, and
ending at Pacifica State Beach near the Linda
Mar district.
• Milagra Ridge, part of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA), has paved paths for
hiking and bicycles and unpaved paths for hiking
only.
• Mori Point, a addition to the GGNRA, now an
elevated trail with wooden decking leading to
a viewing platform overlooking a new habitat
pond; an accessible trail loop; and a new link in
the Coastal Trail.
• GGNRA’s Sweeney Ridge Trails includes Mori
Ridge Trail, connecting Shelldance Nursery at
Highway 1 with Sweeney Ridge; Baquiano Trail,
from the top of Fassler Avenue eastward to the
Portola Discovery Site; Sneath Lane from San
Bruno west to the Discovery Site, and Sweeney
Ridge Trail, extending along the crest and connecting these trails. • Sweeney Ridge Trail, a part of the larger Bay Area
Ridge Trail, which continues along the Fifield
and Cahill Ridges to the south. To the north, it is
interrupted at Milagra Ridge.

Bicycle Circulation
Pacifica’s highly scenic setting, recreational amenities, and connections to major regional open spaces and trails make it ideal for recreational bicycle riding, and for local trips along the coastline or in the valley neighborhoods. However, the network of bicycle routes is inconsistently developed and not always well marked. The 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Mas2.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-24 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
A Class I bicycle trail and walking path were built along a restored portion of lower Calera Creek in the 1990s, providing an alternative to cycling along SR 1 for this stretch of the Coastal Trail. ter Plan updates existing plans and identifies needs
and opportunities to improve walking and bicycling
on city streets as well as trail and beach access.

The proposed bicycle network, shown in Figure 5-4,
is a critical component of the circulation network. It
shows both bicycle routes and improved signage to
improve access and safety. It provides bicyclists with
a complete network of continuous and safe access
along the coastal corridor and between neighborhoods. These designations support the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

The bicycle network in Figure 5-4 includes four types
of bikeway classifications, consistent with Chapter
1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:
• Class I facilities (bike paths or trails) have exclusive right-of-way, are separated from roads, and exclude general motor vehicle traffic.
• Class II facilities (bike lanes) are marked by
painted stripes on the roadway. While the striping provides preferred space for bicycles, they are still part of the paved road and are not exclusive
for bicycles.
• Class III facilities (bike routes) share traffic lanes with automobiles and are only identified by signage.
• Class IV facilities (separated bikeways) are for the
exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may
include, but is not limited to, grade separation,
flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers,
or on-street parking.

Bikeways
Within Pacifica, there are 11 miles of bicycle facilities. Existing facilities are broken into two primary categories: on-street bikeways and trails. The Coastal
Trail is the centerpiece of Pacifica’s trail network
and accounts for most of the system’s mileage. The
Coastal Trail and Palmetto Avenue are the primary
active transportation north-south spines of Pacifica’s active transportation network, both are west of Highway 1. Highway 1 and the side path (about
10-feet wide), where present, also provides northsouth connectivity, but in a higher-stress environment. Currently, bike lanes are primarily on three corridors: Linda Mar Boulevard, Palmetto Avenue,
and the uphill side Sharp Park Road. The Palmetto
and Linda Mar facilities provide access to schools,

2.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-26 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-25
Pier
Pacica
(GGNRA)
Milagr a Ridge
Golf Course
Sharp Park
(GGNRA)
Mori Point
Shar p Pa rk
(GGNRA)
Ridge
Swee ney
C oun ty Pa rk Sa n P ed ro Val le
y
(GG NRA)
Headla nds
Ped ro Poi nt
Beach
Park
Sharp
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
State
Pacica
(GGNRA)
Blu
s
Coastal
Northern
(SFPUC)
Watersh ed
Pe nin sula
Plant
Recycling
Water
Ocean
P a c i f i c
Proposed Class I
Existing Class I
Proposed Class II
Existing Class II
Proposed Class III
Existing Class III
Proposed Class IV
Trails
Bicycle Lockers
Bicycle Parking
Changing Room w/Water
Changing Room wo/Water
Pedestrian Overpass
Pedestrian Underpass
Trailhead
Parks/Open Space
City Limits
Planning Area
2020; San Mateo County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.
0 1/4 1/21 Source: Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Pacic MILES
2 Bicycle Network
Existing and Proposed
Figure 5-4: Figure 5-4: Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network

2.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-26 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
and the Sharp Park facility connects to the Milagra Ridge Trail. However, many of the shared-use paths within Pacifica lack comfortable bikeways
along major arterials and gaps at barriers and may
leave people who want to bike disconnected from the
many destinations within Pacifica.

A series of additional bikeways are proposed to serve
the Sharp Park, Vallemar, Rockaway Beach, Linda
Mar, and Pedro Point neighborhoods. These routes
are planned to provide convenient access to most
Pacifica residents, to connect to Pacifica amenities
and attractions, to follow streets with gradual slopes, and to use through streets with adequate right-ofway for bicycle facilities where possible. The type of bikeway class should be appropriate to the context of
each street while maximizing safety, separation from
vehicles, traffic calming, and network/destination
connectivity.

Bicycle Parking and Amenities
Facilities are an essential component of Pacifica’s
bicycle network. End-of-trip facilities include bicycle parking (short-term and long-term parking), selfrepair stations, and lockers and changing areas in existing or new buildings. Outdoor facilities, especially bicycle parking, is an important factor because potential users may be less likely to complete a trip
by bicycle if they do not believe they have a safe and
secure location to lock their bike.

Current bicycle parking is limited in Pacifica. Bike
racks are close to most major destinations along the
two bike routes, but are not present at Rockaway
Beach, the beach access location at the end of Esplanade Avenue, in the Pedro Point area, at some of the public schools, or in the Pacific Manor commercial
area. Improved parking and facilities will increase
the comfort and appeal of biking in Pacifica during
the planning period.

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CI-G-11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Establish trails, bike routes and pedestrian amenities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations,
and fill in gaps in the existing network.

CI-G-12 Walkable Neighborhoods. Improve pedestrian amenities to create more walkable neighborhoods, especially in mixed-use
activity centers and around schools.

CI-G-13 Recreational Access. Provide recreational access to coastal resources and public open space in keeping with Pacifica’s natural environment, with links to regional trails and bicycle corridors.

See Chapter 6 for additional Trail System
policies.

CI-G-14 Mobility for All Users. Create a safe
and attractive pedestrian environment
accessible for all users, particularly persons
with disabilities, seniors, and younger residents and visitors.

CI-G-15 Connections Across Highway 1.

Enhance under- and over-crossings of
Highway 1 for pedestrians and bikes to
improve accessibility and connect neighborhoods to each other and to the coast.

CI-G-16 Coastal Trail and North-South Bikeway. Complete the Coastal Trail and the north-south bikeway from the north to
south end of the City parallel to Highway
1, providing clear, safe and efficient means
to traverse coastal Pacifica.

2.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-27
Implementing Policies
Pedestrian Access
CI-I-26 Pedestrian-Oriented Street Improvements. Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations to improve
pedestrian-oriented safety and comfort.

Priority locations for pedestrian-oriented
design improvements include:
• Pedestrian Priority Areas (including
Manor, Sharp Park, Vallemar/Fairway
Park, and Linda Mar PPAs,) which
include mixed use and higher-intensity
areas;
• Streets that are part of Pacifica’s proposed trail system improvements; • Streets adjacent to schools; and
• Locations where pedestrian-automobile
collisions have occurred.

CI-I-27 Sharp Park Specific Plan Streetscape.

Complete and implement streetscape
improvements in the Sharp Park Specific Plan to widen sidewalks, provide bike lanes, landscaping, and make other
improvements that will upgrade the
appearance of the area and make it more
attractive to pedestrians.

CI-I-28 Additional Pedestrian Facilities on
Large Sites. Enhance the pedestrian network with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both
sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings
as part of higher-intensity redevelopment
of large sites.

CI-I-29 Safe Routes to Schools. Partner with Pacifica School District and Jefferson Union School District to develop and implement
a Safe Routes to Schools program.

CI-I-30 Universal Design. Require all pedestrian facilities to be ADA compliant and accessible to persons with disabilities.

Bicycle Facilities
CI-I-31 Neighborhood Bikeways. Develop a
system of bikeways connecting all neighborhoods to the City’s north-south pathway consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

CI-I-32 Class II Facility Design. Wherever Class
II facilities are designated, make bike lanes
at least 5 feet wide along local streets and at
least 6 feet wide on arterials or highways.

Separate Class II facilities from vehicle
traffic with a solid stripe and mark them
with bike lane symbols.

A one-foot buffer strip between the bike lane
and vehicle traffic should be provided wherever feasible to increase safety. Raised or twoway cycle tracks or other forms of bikeway should also be considered where appropriate.

CI-I-33 Class III Facility Design. Demarcate Class
III bicycle facilities by painting “sharrows”
on streets, where appropriate.

A consistent Class II bikeway on SR 1 between Reina del Mar Avenue and San Pedro Creek will complete a direct north-south bikeway (left). Parallel routes to the east and west feature Class I and Class II facilities that provide greater comfort and scenic value (right).

2.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-28 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
CI-I-34 Signage Program. Develop and implement
a signage program for the bikeway system
in order to:
• Alert motorists to the presence of
cyclists on the road;
• Alert cyclists to route turns junctions,
and changes in the class of bicycle facility; and
• Provide a clear identity for each bicycle
route, and periodically provide distance
to key destinations.

CI-I-35 Obstructions. Align designated bikeways
to avoid obstructions such as light posts,
signage, trees, and curb cuts, and relocate
or modify these obstructions as necessary.

CI-I-36 Priorities for Improvements. Make designated bicycle routes a priority for pavement repair, as needed, and for regular maintenance to remove sand, gravel or other debris.

CI-I-37 Improved Bikeway Visibility. Use strategies to improve bikeway visibility, including but not limited to:
• Using visual cues such as brightly-colored paint on bike lanes or a one-foot painted buffer strip;
• Upgrading a Class III facility to Class II
and providing additional signage; and
• Removing on-street parking, if feasible.

CI-I-38 Bicycle Lockers at Public Parking
Lots. Replace existing bicycle lockers at
the public parking lot on Crespi Drive,
and add lockers at the park-and-ride lot on
Linda Mar Boulevard.

CI-I-39 Bicycle Parking at Recreation Areas.

Provide bicycle parking at the following
locations where feasible:
• Park and beach access at the northern
end of Esplanade Drive (Lands End
Apartments); and
• Pedro Point Headlands/Devil’s Slide.

CI-I-40 Bicycle Parking Requirements for
New Development. Continue to require
bicycle parking facilities in new non-residential development.

CI-I-41 Bicycle Parking at Schools and Workplaces. Work with the school districts and employers to provide adequate bicycle
parking at all schools and workplaces with
30 or more employees.

CI-I-42 Bicycle Education. Distribute appropriate informational material to all schools in Pacifica in conjunction with bicycle education campaigns.

CI-I-43 Funding for Bicycle Facilities. Designate a portion of the City’s annual street construction and improvement budget to
fund bikeway design and construction, and
continue to pursue potential funding from
MTC and San Mateo County Transportation Authority, as well as appropriate Federal and State programs.

CI-I-44 Eligibility Criteria for Improvements.

Review eligibility criteria for funding for
improvements from the State, to obtain
additional funding for bicycle facilities.

2.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-29

5.5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND TRANSPORTATION

DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Pacifica’s location at the edge of the metropolitan
area and its relatively low density makes extensive
transit service or use challenging. Just one percent of all trips to or from Pacifica are made using transit.

While as much as four percent of trips between Pacifica and San Francisco are made by transit, only a fraction (under 0.5 percent) of trips within Pacifica
are transit trips. Growth during the planning period
is expected to be limited, but the General Plan aims
to concentrate new development in mixed use, transit-accessible locations.

Transit Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans)
provides bus service throughout San Mateo County
and into San Francisco and Palo Alto. SamTrans
provides local service in Pacifica as well as service to and from BART and Caltrain stations.

Bus Routes
As of 2019, nine SamTrans bus routes serve Pacifica
(see Figure 5-5).
• Routes 14 and 16 make loops through the southern and northern areas of Pacifica serving shopping areas, schools, and services. • Routes 19 and 49 provide service on school days
to serve students. Route 19 makes loops through
southern Pacifica and up to Ingrid B Lacy Middle
School, and Route 49 connects northern Pacifica
to Terra Nova High School.
• Routes 110 and 112 provide service between the
Highway 1 corridor in Pacifica and the Daly City
and Colma BART stations, respectively. Both
terminate at Linda Mar Shopping Center.
• Route 118 provides service to Colma BART station during the AM and PM peak hour periods of weekdays.
• Route 121 runs through Pacifica’s northern upland
neighborhoods, serving Fairmont Shopping Center and providing connections to Skyline College SamTrans provides bus service within Pacifica and to and from BART and Caltrain stations.

2.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-30 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
in San Bruno, Serramonte Shopping Center and
Seton Medical Center in Daly City, and the Daly
City and Colma BART stations.
• Route 140 connects the Pacific Manor shopping
center on Palmetto Avenue and Manor Drive to
Skyline College and the San Bruno BART station
to the east. It extends to Terra Nova High School
on school days to serve students.
• Route 17 connects the Linda Mar Park and Ride
to Half Moon Bay and the Hillsdale Caltrain station in San Mateo.

BART and Caltrain
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides rail rapid
transit to Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco,
and San Mateo Counties. The Colma, Daly City,
San Bruno, and South San Francisco BART stations
are accessible to Pacifica residents via bus connections or by car.

Caltrain provides commuter service over a 77-mile
route between downtown San Francisco and Gilroy,
through San Jose and along the San Francisco Peninsula. The San Bruno station is approximately eight miles east of Pacifica, while the South San Francisco
station is approximately six miles east. Dial-a-Ride
Service
All SamTrans buses are accessible to persons with
disabilities. The San Mateo County Transit District
also operates dial-a-ride (or paratransit) service for
persons who cannot use fixed-route bus service. Paratransit service in the Planning Area is called RediCoast.

Planned Transit Improvements
In Summer 2019, the San Mateo County Transit
District launched Reimagine SamTrans, a comprehensive operational analysis (COA) to redesign the entire SamTrans bus system. Reimagine SamTrans
began its work by evaluating every element of the
SamTrans system to identify improvements to local
and regional travel connections, route design, how
often the buses run, best practices for operations and
public health, and more. Reimagine SamTrans utilized data and public input to pinpoint the strengths and challenges in the current bus system. The recommended SamTrans changes are slated to be adopted in Winter 2021 and implemented in summer 2022.

Changes include shortening of Route 112 to provide
more streamlined service; elimination of the FLX
Pacifica route, to be covered by Route 110; and direct
service on Route 118 to/from Daly City BART only.

Neither BART nor Caltrain have planned improvements that would change service levels in the vicinity of Pacifica.

2.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-31
112
110
19 16
16 16
49 49
49 49
49 49
49 49
19 19
19 14
14 14
17 110
112
19 140
140
140
121
121
118
118
112
112
110
112
16 16
19 14
14 14
FLXP
110
17 118 112
P
P
P a c i f i c
O cea n

GATEWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

OLD COASTHWY

SKYLINE BLVD

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

CARMEL AVE
TALBOT

FRANCISCO
AVE

BRADFORD

SHARPPARK RD

MOANA WAY FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

SEASIDE DR

DVLB HCAEB

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA DR

ALICANTE
LI
DR

NDA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

ROSITA RD

PERALTA RD

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

SAN PEDRO

GRAND AVE

WESTBOROUGH

KING DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

CLARENDON RD

REINA DEL MAR AVE
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 SamTrans to BART
SamTrans to Caltrain
Local Service
Park and Ride Lot
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: DKS, 2019; SamTrans, 2020; City of Pacica
2020; San Mateo County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Pacica
Pier
Milagra R i dg e (GGNRA )
Sharp Par k
Golf Cours e
Mori Poin t (GGNRA )
Sha r p Pa rk
Sw e en ey
Ridg e
(GGNRA )
Sa n P ed ro Val le y
C ou n ty Pa rk
Pe d ro Poi nt
Headla nds
(G G NRA )
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State
Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Pe nin sul a
Watersh ed
(SFPUC )
Water
Recycling
Plant
FLXP
FLXP
FLXP
* Route 14, Route 118 services are suspended due
to COVID-19 impacts.

Figure 5-5:

Existing Transit
Routes and Facilities
Figure 5-5: Existing Transit Routes 2.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-32 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CI-G-17 Improved Public Transit. Advocate for
SamTrans and other public transit providers to improve transit service and facilities, to enable trips to be made without use of a
car. In particular, advocate for the expansion of public transit services and facilities to improve public access and recreation
opportunities along the coast.

CI-G-18 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Support TDM strategies to reduce congestion and single-occupant
vehicle travel.

Implementing Policies
CI-I-45 Service Optimization. Continue coordination efforts with transit agencies (i.e., SamTrans) to maintain transit service that is
safe and efficient, provides convenient connections to high-use activity areas and key destinations outside the City, and responds
to the needs of all passengers, including
seniors, youth, and persons with disabilities.

CI-I-46 Improved Transit Stops. Work with
transit agencies to improve transit stops
and access to facilities.

CI-I-47 Park-and-Ride Locations and Attributes. Work with Samtrans to identify changes that would improve the convenience and functionality of Park-and-Ride facilities, and result in increased ridership.

CI-I-48 Transit-Oriented Development. Work
with Samtrans to facilitate transit-oriented
development on all or part of the Linda
Mar Boulevard Park-and-Ride lot.

The Linda Mar Park & Ride lot is a hub for transit in Pacifica.

2.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-33
CI-I-49 Promotion of Transit Use. Promote
transit use and reduce reliance on the private automobile in order to reduce congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve quality of life.

CI-I-50 Transportation Demand Management Measures. Incorporate conditions of approval for development projects that
exceed the Congestion Management Program (CMP) threshold for impacts to the CMP transportation network to require
adoption of transportation demand management (TDM) measures authorized by the CMP to make measurable reductions
in their trip generation and to require a
monitoring plan to determine if established
trip reduction targets are met or exceeded.

Require TDM measures for development
projects below the CMP threshold whenever
feasible, but do not require a monitoring
plan for these smaller projects.

CI-I-51 Local Transportation Services. Support expanded funding for local transportation services tailored to the schedules and destinations of students, seniors, and
recreational visitors.

CI-I-52 Age-Friendly Community. Support
mobility programs and improvements that
enable mobility for all people, including
seniors and people with disabilities.

The City should work with transit agencies to improve transit stops to create a more pleasant, comfortable, and safe waiting environment for transit users (right).

2.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-34 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

5.6 TRUCK MOVEMENT
In addition to moving people, the roadway system in
Pacifica carries trucks moving goods. Trucks move
well through the City and to destinations in the City,
particularly in commercial areas. However, there is
very little industrial activity in the Planning Area,
and locally-originating truck trips are minimal.

SR 1 and SR 35 are State-designated truck routes,
including their segments in the Planning Area. The
routes allow truck traffic to pass through the City
with minimal impact on residential neighborhoods,
local vehicular traffic and pedestrians. They also
aim to discourage the use of Sharp Park Road for
through truck traffic because of its sharp curves and
grade change. Designated truck routes do not prevent trucks from using other streets as needed for local trips.

POLICIES
Guiding Policy
CI-G-19 Truck Movement and Quality of Life.

Balance commercial goods movement with
the health and quality of life priorities of
the community.

Implementing Policy
CI-I-53 Truck Route Identification. Ensure that
clear identifying signage is provided for
trucks or SR 1 and SR 35.

Pacifica aims to ensure good access to beaches and recreational open spaces along the coastline.

2.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-35

5.7 PARKING
Parking policies are intended to accommodate
parked vehicles used by occupants, visitors, customers, clientele, and employees of a variety of buildings in the City. These policies seek to provide accessible, attractive, secured parking facilities, and to ensure
adequate access to beaches and recreational open
spaces along the coastline.

On-Street Parking
On-street parking is an important contributor to a
street’s functionality. On-street parking is permitted
on most residential streets in Pacifica. It is allowed
and encouraged on collector streets, and on most
arterials in pedestrian-oriented commercial areas.

On-street parking can complement both automobile
and pedestrian use, and provide a buffer between the
two. On-street parking is not permitted on high-traffic roadways such as SR 1, SR 35, Sharp Park Road, and small, limited sections of Linda Mar Boulevard
and Fassler Avenue. On these roadways, smooth traffic flow is prioritized.

Off-Street Parking
The City requires off-street parking and loading
facilities for all new developments.

Off-street parking is available in public lots in the
Planning Area that serve commuters, beach visitors,
and visitors to recreational open space areas.
• Commuter parking is provided at the park-andride lot on Linda Mar Boulevard. • Public parking lots for beach visitors exist at
Pacifica State Beach, Rockaway Beach, and Sharp
Park Beach and Promenade. The public parking
lot on Crespi Drive serves the Community Center as well as beach visitors.

TABLE 5-10: COMMUTER AND BEACH

VISITOR PARKING
Type and Location Capacity (approx.)
Park-and-Ride Lots
Linda Mar 70
Subtotal 70
Beach Visitor Lots
Crespi Drive 110
Pacifica State Beach (south) 54
Pacifica State Beach (north) 135
Rockaway Beach (south) 50
Rockaway Beach (north) 54
Sharp Park Beach Promenade/Pier 53
Subtotal 456
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.
• The Northern Coastal Bluffs and the Esplanade
bluff are publicly protected open space with
limited trail or beach access, and are served by
on-street parking.
• Trailhead parking is provided on GGNRA land
at Milagra Ridge and Shelldance Nursery. Parking serving GGNRA open spaces in Pacifica is also provided at Skyline College just east of the
Planning Area. Parking also exists at San Pedro
Valley County Park.
• Public parking lots exist at Fairmont Park, Fairmont West Park, Oddstad Park, Sanchez Park, and Frontierland Park.

Commuter lots are shown on Figure 5-5: Transit
Routes and Facilities. Trailhead parking for open
space and beach users is shown on Figure 6-2: Trail
System. Table 5-10 provides a current inventory of
off-street parking for commuters and beach visitors
in the Planning Area.

2.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5-36 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
In 2009, parking lots at Pacifica State Beach were
60 Commuter lots are shown on Figure 5-5: Transit Routes and Facilities. Trailhead parking for open space and beach users is shown on Figure 6-2: Trail
System. Table 5-10 provides a current inventory of
off-street parking for commuters and beach visitors
in the Planning Area. In summer 2013, Pacifica State
Beach began a parking program, wherein a parking
receipt or pass is required to park in both the north
and south Pacifica State Beach parking lots on Highway 1, the Crespi Drive lot, and SR 1 adjacent to the Pacifica Community Center. Recently constructed
parking areas include a lot at the north tunnel
entrance at Devil’s Slide, enhanced visitor services
at Shelldance Nursery provide access to GGNRA
lands. In the future, the public parking area at Sharp
Park Beach/Pacifica Pier may be reconfigured as part
of redevelopment of the former Wastewater Treatment Plant site.

The City should support the development of centralized off-street parking facilities in areas with multiple attractions or where pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns should be prioritized. Centralized off-street parking facilities can increase the efficiency of parking for visitors to attractions and can minimize the number of curb cuts for driveways which can disrupt safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

One tool to accomplish development of centralized off-street parking facilities is payment of in-lieu parking fees by developers. In 2020, the City Council updated the fee for the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan area and enacted a new in-lieu parking fee for
the Sharp Park Specific Plan area.

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
CI-G-20 Private Parking. Ensure adequate offstreet parking in all new development.

CI-G-21 Public and Visitor Parking. Facilitate
beach and recreational use by providing
safe and well-located public parking.

CI-G-22Commuter Parking. Facilitate transit use
by providing safe, well-located park-andride lots.

Implementing Policies
CI-I-54 Parking Lot Design. Set standards for the
size and design parking lots to minimize
environmental impact.

CI-I-55 On-Street Parking. Revise the zoning
code to preserve on-street parking by limiting the number and location of curb cuts.

CI-I-56 Off-Street Parking. Update parking
requirements in the zoning code based on
“best practices,” including provisions for
reduced parking and, if acceptable, parking maximums.

CI-I-57 Shared Parking. Facilitate efficient use
of parking areas by allowing uses whose
primary activity occurs at different times
of day or days of the week to share parking, and provide less than the sum total of parking spaces each use would be required
to provide individually. Require a shared
parking agreement and approval of the
Planning Director.

CI-I-58 Accessible Parking. Require convenient
and accessible parking facilities for persons
with disabilities, consistent with Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

2.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 5CIRCULATION
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5-37
On-street parking contributes to compact and pedestrianfriendly commercial districts and neighborhoods (top). Public parking at Sharp Park Beach/Pacifica Pier will be preserved (bottom).

CI-I-59 Parking Districts. Within mixed-use and
commercial areas, monitor parking supply and availability and explore methods to alleviate parking shortages, including
through increasing efficiency of on-street
parking, shared parking arrangements, and
need/feasibility of parking districts.

CI-I-60 In-Lieu Parking Fees. Allow developers to
meet their minimum parking requirements
via shared parking between uses, payment
of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a
reasonable walking distance.

CI-I-61 Environmental Benefits. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish “green” parking design standards that have multiple benefits, including photovoltaic panels to
generate energy for parking lot lighting,
and pervious paving to improve groundwater recharge.

See also policies on stormwater management and sustainable planning and design in Chapter 7. See Chapter 3: Community
Design for additional policies on designing
parking to create a strong urban fabric.

CI-I-62 New and Enhanced Trailhead Parking. Support GGNRA, the Coastal Conservancy and others in developing and enhancing new public parking for recreational users at Devil’s Slide and Shelldance Nursery.

CI-I-63 Parking at Sharp Park Beach. Ensure
that adequate and well-located public parking is preserved for Sharp Park Beach, the Promenade and Pier as part of any redevelopment of the City-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property.

CI-I-64 Signage for Visitor-Serving Parking.

Undertake a citywide program for improving signs for public visitor-serving parking. This may include incorporating smart parking technology for high-demand parking lots to alert drivers to the location of available parking.

CI-I-65 Parking Enforcement. Continue to
make parking enforcement a priority at
public visitor parking areas.

2.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Open space is a defining feature of the Pacifica Planning Area, an extraordinary resource, and a priority for the community. Parks, schools, and public utility services are a vital part of a livable and sustainable Pacifica. The purpose of this chapter is to document existing public open space and community facilities and infrastructure, identify priority improvements, and ensure that they meet the needs of community members. The close relationship between open space, parks, recreation, and schools is highlighted.

OPEN SPACE A ND 6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES

2.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-2 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

6.1 PARKS, BEACHES, AND OPEN SPACE
Parks and recreation facilities provide community
gathering places, opportunities for relaxation, passive and active recreation, enjoyment of the natural environment, and a break from the stresses of everyday life. Public open space in Pacifica also defines neighborhoods, establishes urban edges, creates scenic vistas, protects coastal resources, and protects rare and endangered or threatened plants and animals and
their habitats.

Nearly half of the Planning Area land is protected
open space or park land. In addition to large areas
of preserved open space along ridgelines, Pacifica
has over six miles of coastline and beaches, offering
recreation opportunities that include isolated beach
experiences, outstanding fishing, surfing, tide-pooling and diving. Trails provide public access along the Planning Area’s ridges and coastline. Pacifica also provides City parks in a variety of sizes for local residents and visitors, maintains a partnership with local school districts making certain recreational facilities available for community use, and has a historic coastal public golf course. Both existing parks and
proposed improvements are shown on Figure 6-1,
Parks and Open Space System.

City Parks and Playfields
City parks and playfields provide active use areas
and areas for local passive enjoyment for Pacifica
residents. These include district parks, neighborhood
parks, pocket parks, special facilities, and school
grounds. As Table 6-1 shows, Pacifica’s City parks
and playfields total just over 240 acres, providing 6.3 acres per 1,000 Pacifica residents in 2020.

District Parks
Pacifica has one park whose size and range of amenities translates to a service area larger than the immediate neighborhood. Frontierland Park, at the eastern edge of the Park Pacifica neighborhood, comprises 63
acres. It features a picnic area, sports fields, a children’s play area, and undeveloped hillside land.

Neighborhood Parks
Pacifica has six neighborhood parks ranging in size
from about four to 20 acres for a total of 55 acres.

These parks are summarized below, from north to
south.
• Fairmont West Park covers five acres and includes
a soccer field, basketball hoops, and public restrooms. • Fairmont Park comprises six acres and includes a
parking area, a small community building, and a
playground.
• Imperial Park, with 13 acres, is steeply sloping and
largely unimproved. It has a play area accessible
from Imperial Drive.
• Fairway Park provides three baseball diamonds.
• Oddstad Park occupies a mostly wooded 20 acres
on a ridge in Linda Mar, with one access point,
from Crespi Drive, two parking areas, a basketball court, a building used by a theater company, and another building used by a performing arts
school.
• Sanchez Park occupies about half of the 8.8-acre
site of the former Sanchez School, now used as
an arts center. The park contains two t-ball fields
and a soccer field.

Pocket Parks
Pacifica has 11 small parks that provide playlots or
public use areas serving the immediate vicinity.

Edgemar Park, Skyridge Park, and Pomo Park are
the largest of these, at one to two acres each. Other
pocket parks include the City-owned Horizon,
Brighton, Palmetto, and Portola Mini-Parks, and
privately-developed mini-parks in the Connemara,
Cypress Walk, and Timber Hill subdivisions and on
Monterey Road.

2.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-3
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n
e l
County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020. 0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Park Opportunity Site
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Points of Interest
Regional Open Space
& Pocket Parks
District, Neighborhood,
Special Facilities
School elds
Priorities for Conservation
Golf Course
Beach
Other Protected Open Space
with Development
Partial Conservation
Urban Reserve
City Limits
Planning Area
Space System
Parks and Open
Figure 6-1: GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

EV ALMETTO A P

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

D V L B H C A E B

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

WESTBOROUGH

KING DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Pier
(G GNR A)
Mi lag ra Ri dg e
Golf C our se
Sh arp Pa rk
(GGNRA)
Mo ri P o in t
Sh ar p P ark
(G GNR A)
R idg e
S we eney
Co un ty Pa rk
San P ed ro Va lley
Headlands
Pedro Point
Beach
Park
Sharp
Beach
Rockaway
State Beach
(GGNRA)
Coastal
Northern
(SFPU C)
Wa te rsh ed
P en i nsu la
School
Elementary
Ocean Shore
Center
Educational
Linda Mar
High School
Terra Nova
School
Elementary
Ortega
School
Elementary
Cabrillo
Center
Community
School
Elementary
Vallemar
High School
Oceana
Middle School
Ingrid B. Lacy
School
Elementary
Sunset Ridge
(closed)
Elementary
Fairmont
Park
Frontierland
Park
Sanchez
Adobe
Sanchez
Site
Quarry
Rockaway
Fairway Park
Vista Point
Grace McCarthy
Park
Skyridge
Park
Imperial
Park
Fairmont
West Park
Fairmont
Park
Edgemar
Park
Oddstad
Park
Pomo
Beach Promenade
Sharp Park
Skate Park
Sta te Pa rk
Mc Nee Ranch
Camp
Expedition
Portola
Discovery Site
San Francisco Bay
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Figure 6-1:

Parks and Open Space System

2.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Special Facilities
Beach Boulevard Promenade is located above the
seawall in the West Sharp Park neighborhood. It is
served by public parking, and is popular for walking
and jogging. The Promenade provides picnic tables
and access to the Pacifica Pier and Sharp Park Beach.

Pacifica Municipal Pier is one of the Bay Area’s most
popular places to fish. The pier is adjacent to the
promenade and picnic area along Beach Boulevard.

A café is located at the foot of the pier.

The Grace McCarthy Vista Point, on Sharp Park
Road, features a sheltered viewpoint with benches
overlooking the Sharp Park neighborhood, the Pier,
and the Ocean.

Pacifica Skate Park opened in 2005 and is located
adjacent to the Pacifica Community Center on
Crespi Drive.

School Playfields
Schools provide recreational resources used by the
community, including playing fields, at nine sites
with a total of 112 acres. With the exception of the
Oceana High School pool, the City does not have
a joint-use agreement with either Jefferson Union
High School District or Pacifica School District to
operate fields on evenings or weekends.

Park Standards
The City’s park standards, shown in Table 6-2, are
intended to meet the needs for active and passive
recreation and enjoyment of Pacifica residents and
visitors over the planning period. For local-serving
parks, the General Plan provides standards for park
size, service area, and distribution. The table compares these standards to existing park land, and presents a range of park land needs to keep pace with population growth through the planning period.

Size Range and Service Area
All residents should be within a short walk (onequarter to one-half mile) of either a neighborhood park or usable outdoor area at a school site, but
not necessarily both. This flexibility underlines the
importance of maintaining outdoor play areas at
school sites for community use after school hours.

Most Pacifica neighborhoods fall within the service
area standards for neighborhood parks or school
play fields. However, Pedro Point, Rockaway Beach,
Rockaway, West Fairway Park, and parts of West
and East Sharp Park, West and East EdgemarPacific Manor, and West Linda Mar do not meet the General Plan’s service standard in this category.

Areas where active play areas are not readily accessible should be priorities for future improvements, even if those are as simple as exercise stations and
a playground. Beaches may reasonably make up for
this park shortage in some areas. Meanwhile, only
the southern portion of the City is currently within
three miles of Frontierland Park, Pacifica’s only “district park.” While an opportunity to change this is not likely, it may become possible in the long term
to convert a portion of Sharp Park or the Oceana
High School campus to a district park with multiuse characteristics.

The General Plan does not specifically establish
acreage standards for regional parks, and no longer
identifies a classification for large City parks of 100+ acres, as this is neither feasible nor needed.

Distribution (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
Pacifica requires developers to dedicate land or pay
an in-lieu fee to provide park land at a ratio of five
acres per 1,000 residents. The citywide ratio (6.3 acres per 1,000) includes school grounds. Distribution
standards by park type are provided in ranges to give
the City flexibility to respond to opportunities and
adapt to potentially changing circumstances.

Recreation Facilities and Needs
Athletic Fields and Courts
City parks include five baseball fields and two soccer
fields. School sites provide another 15 tennis courts,
10 baseball or softball fields, eight soccer fields, four football fields, three gyms, two full tracks, and two
swimming pools. The Jean E. Brink Pool, located at

2.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-5
Table 6-1: CITY PARKS AND PLAYFIELDS
Park Acres1 Park Acres
District Parks Special Facilities
Frontierland Park 63 Grace McCarthy Vista Point 2.6
Subtotal 63 Pacifica Skate Park 1.4
Neighborhood Parks Rockaway Beach Promenade 0.1
Fairmont Park 6.4 Sharp Park Promenade and Pier 1.3
Fairmont West Park 4.9 Subtotal 5.4
Fairway Park 6.9 School Playfields3
Imperial Park 12.8 Cabrillo School 10.0
Oddstad Park 19.9 IB Lacy Middle School 4.0
Sanchez Park 4.5 Linda Mar School 4.0
Subtotal 55 Ocean Shore School 4.0
Pocket Parks Oceana High School 19.0
Brighton Mini-Park 0.1 Oddstad School 5.0
Connemara Mini-Park2 0.3 Ortega School 17.0
Cypress Mini-Park2 0.5 Sunset Ridge School 11.0
Edgemar Park 1.2 Terra Nova High School 33.0
Horizon Mini-Park 0.1 Vallemar School 5.0
Monterey Mini-Park2 0.6 Subtotal 112
Palmetto Mini-Park 0.1 TOTAL 242
Pomo Park 0.8 CURRENT PARKS RATIO4 6.3
Portola Mini-Park 0.2
Skyridge Park 1.9
Timber Hill Mini-Park2 0.3
Subtotal 6.3

1. Acreage subtotals and totals may not add up due to rounding.

2. Private parks created as part of development, these are not counted as City parkland.

3.Owned and operated by Pacifica School District or Jefferson Union High School District.

4. Acres of publicly-owned land per 1,000 residents, at 2020 population of 38,330.

Sources: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Table 6-2: PARK STANDARDS
General Plan Standards Existing
Parkland
Existing Ratio
(Acres/1000
persons)
New Acres
Needed3
Classification1 Size Range Service Area Acres/1000
Persons2
District Parks 20 – 100 acres 1/2 to 3 miles 1.5 to 2.25 63 1.5 0 to 27 Neighborhood Parks 3 – 20 acres 1/4 to 1/2-mile 1.5 to 1.75 55 1.3 4 to 14 Pocket Parks 2500 sq. ft. – 1 acre Subneighborhood 0.15 to 0.25 6.3 0.2 0 to 4 Special Facilities NA City 0.15 to 0.25 5.4 0.1 0 to 5
School Playfields 4 - 30 acres 1/4 to 1/2-mile 2.0 to 3.0 112 2.7 0 TOTAL 6.3 242 6.3 20.7

1. The Planning Area also includes 2,932 acres of regional park land and beaches.

2. Total park land acreage standard assures future development will provide new park land at 5 acres per 1,000 residents.

3. Assumes population of 41,450 in 2040, and 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents provided for new development.

Sources: City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

2.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Oceana High School, is home to the City of Pacifica’s
aquatics program. The pool at Terra Nova High School
is not open to the public. Pacifica’s two high schools
have renovated athletic facilities at both campuses.

Pacifica youth participate at high levels in league
sports, including two soccer and three baseball leagues.

Currently, local sports leagues may use the City’s fields for free but may take responsibility for maintenance.

The leagues pay a fee to the school districts for use
of those fields, often using grant money from parent
organizations. There is a shortage of fields for both
organized play and general community use.

Playgrounds
Pacifica currently has 13 playgrounds within its district, neighborhood and pocket parks. West Edgemar-Pacific Manor, much of West Sharp Park, West Fairway Park, Rockaway Beach, and Pedro Point, as
well as much of Linda Mar and Park Pacifica, are not
within walking distance of a playground.

Other Amenities
Many parks have fields where dogs can play or be
walked on-leash, and an off-leash dog park has been
developed at Sanchez Park. Dogs also are allowed
off-leash at Esplanade Beach. A bocce ball court has
been built at the community center, with donated
funds and services.

Parks and Recreation Priorities
According to the California Parks and Recreation
Society, the most valued feature of parks is the preservation of and access to outdoor spaces, particularly minimally-developed areas in a nearly natural state
and areas with facilities for children’s play and for
exercise and group sports. Parks also provide a sense
of social connectedness. The desire for natural areas
is abundantly met in Pacifica.

While Pacifica has a good inventory of park land,
some built-out neighborhoods with limited existing
parkland may experience increasing in-fill density,
leading to unique park needs. Additionally, fiscal
constraints make park maintenance a challenge in
the future. Pacifica is likely to focus on solutions to address park access in built-out neighborhoods, such
as rooftop parks or public plazas, enhancing existing
parks, and evaluating opportunities to create new
parks on underused public land and as part of new
development. Opportunity sites for new parks and
park improvements are shown in Figure 6-1.

Regional Parks and Beaches
Regional Parks
Regional parks and beaches, totaling approximately
2,930 acres, are listed in Table 6-3. This park land
is owned and managed by various agencies, including the National Park Service, the State of California, San Mateo County, the City and County of San Francisco, and the City of Pacifica. The City does
not have permitting authority over park land owned
by other public agencies. While the California redlegged frog and the endangered San Francisco garOddstad Park occupies a mostly wooded 20 acres on a ridge in Linda Mar (left). Pacifica Skate Park could become part of an enhanced community gathering place with diverse attractions (right).

2.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-7
ter snake are noted within the Mori Point and Sharp
Park areas, these or other sensitive species may also
be present in other regional park or beach areas.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
Sweeney Ridge, Mori Point, Milagra Ridge, and
land on Pacifica’s Northern Coastal Bluffs are part
of the National Park Service’s Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA), which extends in segments from Point Reyes, through San Francisco, to the Santa Cruz Mountains. Additional land owned
by the California Coastal Conservancy and the City
of Pacifica on Pedro Point Headlands and Sweeney
Ridge is may be added to the GGNRA in the future.

As of 2018, GGNRA estimated approximately 17
million visitors to the Recreation Area as a whole.

Protected ridges and coastal bluffs in and adjacent
to the GGNRA are features of major local and
regional significance as well as being vantage points
for impressive views of the coast and bayside ridges
and valleys.

Northern Coastal Bluffs
GGNRA manages approximately 17 acres of bluffs
along the ocean in the far northern end of Pacifica,
nearly contiguous with GGNRA-managed coastal
land around Mussel Rock in Daly City. This land
offers wide open views from Palmetto Avenue. There
is currently no improved public access. GGNRA
intends to preserve and enhance the natural and scenic value, with some public access.

Sharp Park
The 400-acre Sharp Park is the result of a 1917 land
bequest by the Murphey family to the City and
County of San Francisco, on the condition that
the land remain in recreational use. Sharp Park has
an 18-hole public golf course, occupying 128 acres
between the ocean berm and Highway 1. It was
established in 1932 and designed by Alister Mackenzie. The Park provides low-cost golf to the general public, with reduced greens fees for Pacifica and San
Francisco residents. The golf course also includes
habitat for the California red-legged frog and the
endangered San Francisco garter snake. In 2009,
the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission
adopted a restoration plan that would retain the golf
course, while also creating more habitat by realigning parts of the course.

Milagra Ridge
The 245-acre Milagra Ridge area provides habitat to
the federally-protected Mission Blue Butterfly and
the San Bruno Elfin Butterfly, which are considTable 6-3: REGIONAL PARKS AND BEACHES Park Name or Category Owner Acres
Regional Parks
Golden Gate National Recreation Area National Park Service or Others1 1,958 Sharp Park2 City and County of San Francisco 397
San Pedro Valley County Park San Mateo County 521
McNee Ranch State Park3 State of California 22
Subtotal 2,888
Beaches
Sharp Park Beach City and County of San Francisco, State of California 14 Rockaway Beach Private 5
Pacifica State Beach State of California, City of Pacifica 21 Subtotal 40
TOTAL 2,937

1. As of 2021, some GGNRA land is owned by the City of Pacifica, and the California Coastal Conservancy. This includes 5 acres of land, known as the Colt Property in Pedro Point, currently owned by the City of Pacifica.

2. Portion of Sharp Park Beach within Sharp Park is calculated separately below.

3. Only a small portion of McNee Ranch State Park is within the Planning Area.

Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

2.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ered sensitive to human disturbance. The park unit
also offers spectacular views and historic resources.

GGNRA manages Milagra Ridge with the primary goal of protecting and restoring natural habitat, while still providing public access. Access to the park is from a parking lot at the end of College Drive
north of Sharp Park Road. A housing development
on lower Milagra Ridge, Connemara, included the
preservation of 35 acres of open space that could be
transferred to an appropriate public or private land
steward.

Sweeney Ridge
At 1,470 acres, GGNRA’s Sweeney Ridge is the largest public open space tract in Pacifica. The park, reaching an elevation of 1,220 feet, offers views to
Mount Tamalpais to the north, Mount Diablo to the
east, Montara Mountain to the south, and the Farallon Islands to the west on clear days. Trailheads are at Skyline College, Shelldance Nursery off Highway
1, and Sneath Lane off Skyline Boulevard. Under
GGNRA’s management, Sweeney Ridge’s natural
landscape will be protected and trail amenities will
be enhanced, including efforts to improve connections to the regional trail network and surrounding public lands. The City of Pacifica acquired 331 acres
on upper Cattle Hill directly adjoining Sweeney
Ridge on the west, and seeks to transfer the land to
an appropriate public or private land steward.

The San Francisco Bay Discovery Site, where the
Portola Expedition crossed over Sweeney Ridge in
1769 and for the first time came to view the Bay, is
located on Sweeney Ridge. It is a National Registerdesignated historic site. Access to this landmark will be improved, and a hikers’ hut added as part of a system of huts proposed for the Bay Area Ridge Trail.

Shelldance Nursery, just off Highway 1 at the base
of Sweeney Ridge, features a display of orchids, bromeliad, and stag head ferns. The site also provides shared-use trailhead parking for access to Sweeney
Ridge and is used for park maintenance. GGNRA’s
plans for Shelldance Nursery include new visitor
facilities, a community stewardship/education center, enhanced trailhead parking, and an improved trail connection to Mori Point.

Mori Point
Mori Point, a 106-acre promontory between Sharp
Park and Rockaway beaches, was added to the
GGNRA in 2002. Mori Point is accessible from the
Coastal Trail along Calera Creek, from the Sharp
Park levee at Clarendon and Beach Boulevard, or
from Mori Point Road in the West Fairway Park
neighborhood. The San Francisco garter snake and
California red-legged frog are found on Mori Point,
and the unit is managed for the protection of these
species, while trail enhancements are also being provided.

Pedro Point Headlands
Pedro Point Headlands is the coastal extension of
San Pedro Mountain, jutting into the Pacific west
of Highway 1 north of Devil’s Slide. Most of Pedro
Point Headlands within the Planning Area are now
owned by the State of California or the City of Pacifica. In 2016, the City of Pacifica added five acres of land, known as the Colt Property, to the Headlands
using funds granted by Measure A and the State of
California Habitat Conservation Fund. The construction of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel allowed the bypassed highway segment to be converted to a trail
in 2014. Parking areas and trailheads are also now
available at this segment, and new trails have been
developed to link the trailhead at the north end with
trails on Pedro Point Headlands. The Headlands will
be managed for habitat protection and public enjoyment.

SAN PEDRO VALLEY COUNTY PARK
The Middle and South Forks of San Pedro Creek
flow year-round through the 1,150-acre San Pedro
Valley County Park, providing spawning habitat for
migratory Steelhead salmon. The park entrance is
reached from the south end of Oddstad Boulevard in
Pacifica; near the entrance the park offers two group
picnic areas and a small visitors’ center. During rainy winter months, visitors can see Brooks Falls, which

2.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-9
has a three-tiered, 175-foot drop. Ten miles of trails
offer both easy walks and challenging climbs to the
ridges, with views to the ocean. Approximately half
of the park is within the Planning Area.

MCNEE RANCH STATE PARK
McNee Ranch State Park adjoins San Pedro Valley
County Park to the west. Trail connections between
the parks allow hikers beginning in Pacifica to reach
the summit of 1,900-foot North Peak and the ocean
at Montara State Beach or Gray Whale Cove. Just 22
acres of this park are within the Planning Area.

Beaches

PACIFICA STATE BEACH
Pacifica State Beach, stretching more than a half
mile between Pedro Point and Aramai Point, is one
of the most popular surfing spots in the San Francisco area. By a 2005 estimate, more than one million visitors use Pacifica State Beach every year. Most of the beach and dunes are owned by the State and
are part of the state parks system, but are managed
by the City of Pacifica. Improvements completed in
2004 included rehabilitation of the Linda Mar Sewage Pumping Station, wetlands restoration, shoreline protection, dune restoration, improvements to the
Coastal Trail, and new public restrooms.

ROCKAWAY BEACH
Rockaway Beach lies on a small bay between rocky
headlands. The south end of the beach may be
accessed from a seafront plaza at the end of Rockaway Beach Avenue. A parking lot connects the south end of the beach to a new segment of the Coastal
Trail crossing the Headlands between Rockaway
Beach and Pacifica State Beach. The new section
of Coastal Trail along Calera Creek can be reached
from the north end of Rockaway Beach.

SHARP PARK BEACH AND PACIFICA PIER
Sharp Park Beach extends from Mori Point along the
west side of the Sharp Park levee to the West Sharp
Park neighborhood. The southern section is owned by
the City and County of San Francisco as part of Sharp
Park, while the northern portion is owned by the State.

The beach is open to the public, and is popular for walkNearly 2,000 acres of land in the Planning Area are preserved as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, including Sweeney Ridge (top). A restoration plan would retain Sharp Park Golf Course while also creating more habitat (middle). Pacifica State Beach is one of the most popular surfing spots in the San Francisco area (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ing. It is reached from the south from a small trailhead at Mori Point, and from the north at the Beach Boulevard Promenade, where public parking is available. The Promenade also provides access to Pacifica Pier.

Other Protected Open Space
State planning law (Government Code Section
65560) provides a structure for the preservation of
open space by identifying open space categories.

These are:
• Open space for public health and safety;
• Open space for the preservation of natural
resources;
• Open space for resource management and production;
• Open space for outdoor recreation;
• Open space for the protection of Native American sites.

As summarized in Table 6-4, over 3,600 acres in the
Planning Area are protected open space. The majority
of this is in large regional parks. This parkland serves more than one of the open space functions above: it
may shelter sensitive habitat and feature steep slopes
that present landslide hazards, while also providing
opportunities for recreation.

The Planning Area also includes protected open
space that does not have public access or provide
recreational opportunities, but is preserved in keeping with one of the other state-identified open space categories. These protected open spaces are shown on
Figure 6-1 as “Other Protected Open Space.”

GREENBELTS, COASTAL UPLANDS AND BLUFFS
The General Plan designates certain land for Conservation because it would be unsafe to develop due to slope failure, other seismic hazards, or coastal erosion, and may be considered “Open Space for Public Health and Safety.” These include the greenbelts along the San Andreas Fault corridor in the West
Fairmont, Fairmont, and Westview-Pacific Highlands neighborhoods in the north, the greenbelts along steep slopes in the Linda Mar and Park Pacifica
neighborhoods in the south, and land on the steep
bluffs along Esplanade Avenue. Nearly all of this
land is owned by the City of Pacifica. The rugged
uplands of the Rockaway Quarry site and the cliffs
around Rockaway Headlands are also designated for
conservation and presented as Other Protected Open
Space on Figure 6-1. Overall, protected greenbelts
and coastal bluffs total approximately 170 acres.

RIPARIAN CORRIDORS
Calera Creek’s riparian corridor through the Rockaway Quarry site is owned by the City of Pacifica and preserved for its habitat value. Portions of Calera
Creek in the Vallemar neighborhood and San Pedro
Creek in Linda Mar and West Linda Mar are also set
aside for permanent conservation.

WATERSHED LANDS
The City and County of San Francisco owns 434
acres of land within the Planning Area directly east
of GGNRA land on Sweeney Ridge, as part of its
Table 6-4: OPEN SPACE INVENTORY
Open Space Type Category Acres
Regional Parks and Beaches Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources, Health & Safety 2,937 City Parks Outdoor Recreation 130
Other Protected Opace
Greenbelts, Coastal Uplands and Bluffs Public Health and Safety 170 Riparian Corridors Natural Resources 17
Peninsula Watershed Natural Resources 434
TOTAL 3,683
Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

2.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-11
much larger Peninsula Watershed. The land is managed to protect this critical natural resource.

Open Space Task Force Recommendation
An Open Space Task Force, convened by City Council in 1984 “to identify, prioritize, and seek means for long-range preservation of significant open space in
Pacifica,” identified 51 properties as priorities for preservation. Preservation strategies include public acquisition of land or conservation easements; General Plan and zoning changes; use of Transfer of Development
Rights; and action by a local land trust. The Open
Space Task Force recommendations include land that
has been permanently preserved since the Report was
produced. Land on Mori Point, Pedro Point Headlands, the Northern Coastal Bluffs, Esplanade Bluff, Sharp Park Beach, Pacifica State Beach, and upper
Cattle Hill were acquired by land trusts, the City of
Pacifica, the California Coastal Conservancy, or the
National Park Service for conservation. Land on Milagra Ridge has been permanently conserved as part of the Skyridge and Connemara developments, as well
as a portion of the Harmony @1 development (now
known as Ohlone Point) south of Rockaway Beach,
providing models for conservation with development.

Open Space Priorities
The General Plan identifies land on the Northern
Coastal Bluffs and the bluffs along Esplanade Avenue as priorities for permanent conservation because of the presence of sensitive natural communities and
the risks of development along the coast. Land may
be managed by GGNRA, the City, or others, with
development rights transferred with use of the City’s
TDR program.

On a variety of other sites shown on Figure 6-1 as
“Partial Conservation with Development,” open
space is expected to be preserved as part of development.

Open Space Conservation with Development
Land identified for “Partial Conservation with
Development,” as shown on Figure 6-1, includes portions of Gypsy Hill, the Quarry, and Fassler Ridge where conservation areas should be determined
based on habitat needs and site conditions. Having
Conservation will use strategies such as clustered
development, conservation easements, and transfer
of development rights.

This land is designated for very low-density or lowintensity development, and permanent open space protection is expected to occur along with development. Habitat and other natural resources also will be protected by federal and State laws that protect
wetlands, water quality, and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) in the Coastal Zone.

Development on steep or unstable sites also will be
limited to safe areas based on Chapter 8, Safety.

2.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
OC-G-1 Development of City Parks. Create
and enhance neighborhood and pocket
parks and plazas to provide access to
local recreational space to all Pacifica
residents.

OC-G-2 Recreation Facilities. Enhance outdoor recreation facilities and services in local parks, in coordination with youth
and adult leagues and community groups
with priority given to sports fields and
off-leash dog play areas.

OC-G-3 Community Gathering Place. Create or enhance one or more public plazas or central gathering places where all
Pacifica residents come together. This
place or places should be connected with
concentrated, mixed use areas.

OC-G-4 School Playfields. Continue to cooperate with the school districts to make school play fields available for public use
after school hours.

OC-G-5 Open Space Preservation. Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public
health and safety.

The top priority areas for conservation are
beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillsides areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and endangered species. See Figure 6-1.

OC-G-6 Coastal Areas Suited for Water-Oriented Recreation. Continue to protect coastal areas suited for water-oriented
recreational activities.

The City must work to ensure community use of recreation facilities at school sites (top). Dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees to provide park land at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents has resulted in pocket parks such as this one on Timber Hill Street (middle). The General Plan emphasizes improvements to enhance the quality of existing parks, including Sanchez Park (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-13
This policy applies to, but is not limited to,
the following: fishing at Pacifica Pier, surfing and other water recreation at Pacifica State Beach.

Implementing Policies
City Parks and School Playfields
OC-I-1 Park Land Dedication or In-Lieu
Fees. For new development, continue to
require the dedication of land or payment
of in-lieu fees to provide park land at a
ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents.

OC-I-2 Park Development to Meet Park
Standards. Develop new parks in a
timely manner using in-lieu fees or land
dedicated as part of new development, to
ensure that Citywide park and recreation
space is available to the community at a
ratio of 6.4 acres per 1,000 residents by
2040.

OC-I-3 Community Use of School Grounds
and Recreation Facilities. Explore jointuse agreements and seek to strengthen these as needed to ensure community use
of play areas and indoor recreation facilities at school sites.

OC-I-4 Emphasize Park Maintenance and
Improvements. Enhance existing parks
to improve the quality and usability of
Pacifica’s park land, and make improvements such that park facilities are equitably distributed throughout Pacifica. In particular:
• Improve existing sports fields in partnership with local non-profit youth and adult athletic groups;
• Add playgrounds or expand play areas
at Fairway, Imperial, and Oddstad
parks;
• Convert parking area to park space at
Oddstad, and make improvements at
the park’s entrance.
• Provide an off-leash dog area at a location in the northern part of the City.

OC-I-5 Sanchez Park Improvements. Target
Sanchez Park for improvements so that
it functions as a complete neighborhood
park, with a playground and passive use
areas, including a viewing area at San
Pedro Creek. Integrate the arts center in
the former school building into the park.

OC-I-6 Multi-Use Park Site. Pursue opportunities to provide a district-scale park, using existing public open space, that would be
a hub for group sports and athletic facilities. Potential locations may include:
• Oceana High School recreation facilities transferred from or shared with JUHSD, with City park improvements;
• New facilities developed on and
around the former rifle range in the
upland portion of Sharp Park; and
• Park land with a coastal setting on
developable portions of the Quarry
site.

OC-I-7 Community Center Park. Pursue development of a park with diverse and unique features, around and including the existing Community Center and Skate Park, with easy access by all modes of travel.

New features could include a more prominent interpretive setting for the historic Portola campsite; visitor orientation and
restrooms; a playground and picnic area;
and a viewing area facing adjacent wetlands.

2.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Greenbelts along steep slopes are designated for permanent conservation (top). Permanent conservation of private land on the Northern Coastal Bluffs would protect sensitive natural communities and protect against coastal erosion (middle). Future development on sites identified as “Partial Conservation with Development” should include conservation areas based on habitat needs and site conditions (bottom).

OC-I-8 Sanchez Adobe Park. Work with San
Mateo County to pursue development of
a more park-like setting for the Sanchez
Adobe while preserving historic and
cultural resources, following the 2007
Master Plan.

OC-I-9 Parks as Part of Future Development. Create future public spaces, accessible to the community, as part of
the redevelopment of publicly-owned
sites and of larger privately-owned sites,
including the Rockaway Quarry site, the
undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and
the Milagra Canyon site.

OC-I-10 Pocket Park Opportunity Sites on
Public Land. Explore opportunities to
develop pocket parks on public land that
is not otherwise needed as neighborhood
gathering places and play areas.

Potential sites are on street stubs or rightof-way not needed to serve future development, and within easy walking distance to adjacent residences. Amenities should
include, but not be limited to, play or exercise equipment in park-deficient areas, and benches or picnic tables at scenic overlook
points.

OC-I-11 Parks Landscaping. Promote landscapes
with native vegetation, which requires
little maintenance, little water, makes
good wildlife habitat, and is fire resistant,
in landscaping of City parks.

OC-I-12 Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. Continue to support the varied activities of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. Periodically review their activities to ensure that programs
are meeting public needs.

Regional Parks and Beaches
OC-I-13 Public Access Improvements and
Habitat Restoration. Support GGNRA
in implementing habitat restoration and

2.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-15
public access improvements at its park
units in the Planning Area, including
Sweeney Ridge, Milagra Ridge, Mori
Point, and the Northern Coastal Bluffs.

OC-I-14 Cattle Hill. Complete the planned transfer of City-owned land on Cattle Hill to GGNRA to allow the National Park Service to coordinate park land management and trail access and improvements.

OC-I-15 Pedro Point Headlands. Complete
the planned transfer of City-owned land
on Pedro Point Headlands to an appropriate public or private land steward, and pursue land and/or trail easement acquisition if necessary to connect Headlands trails with the Coastal Trail in Pacifica.

OC-I-16 Northern Coastal Bluffs. Promote
the permanent conservation of private
land on the Northern Coastal Bluffs
to protect sensitive natural communities and protect against coastal erosion.

Managed protected land together with
adjacent GGNRA land.

OC-I-17 Sharp Park. Support the continued
operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf
Course, and support development of
additional recreational uses in upland
portions of the Park.

The long-term management approach must
protect existing development from hazards;
protect and restore habitat; and maintain
public access to and along the beach.

OC-I-18 Sharp Park and Pacifica State
Beaches. Maintain partnership with the
State of California in ownership and
management of Sharp Park Beach and
Pacifica State Beach, balancing public
access with protection of habitat and
shoreline conditions.

OC-I-19 Rockaway Beach.Ensure that public
access to Rockaway Beach (from Points
17 and 19 through 20 on the Coastal
Access map, Figure 6-3) is maintained.

Other Protected Open Space
OC-I-20 Partial Conservation with Development. On sites shown on Figure 6-1 as “Partial Conservation with Development,” require that high-value open space be protected as part of any development.

Protected open space need not be publicly accessible, but trail easements may be required to complete trail segments identified in the General Plan.

OC-I-21 Development Strategies to Preserve
Open Space. Continue to promote
density-open space trade-offs, such as
clustering development, transferring
development rights from sensitive to less
sensitive land, and dedication or protection of open space through covenants or consecutive easements.

OC-I-22 Open Space Restoration. Continue to
support local volunteer or community
service organizations in implementing revegetation programs on the City’s greenbelts or elsewhere to reduce erosion
potential and enhance the visual quality
of these areas for adjacent neighborhoods.

The Coastal Trail runs nearly the length of the City, including this segment along the dunes at Pacifica State Beach.

2.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
De v il’s Slide T rail
Milagra RidgeTrail
PiertoRidge Trail
Sharp ParkTrail
Mori Ridge Trail
Baquiano Trail Farallon View Trail
Sweeney Ridge Trail(Bay Area Ridge Trail)
San Pedro ValleyTrail
PedroPo ni t Trail
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
Montara Mountain Trail
Weller Ranch Trail
Hazelnut Trail
Old SanPedro Mountian Rd
Harry Dean Trail

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

PALMETTOO AVE

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR
BEACH

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

WESTBOROUGH

KING DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PA RK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD

SAN JOSE AVE BLVD
O cea n
Pa cific
Pacica
Pier
Mi lagr a Ridge
(G GNRA )
Sha rp Par k
G ol f C ours e
Mor i Po int
(G GN RA)
Sha rp
Par k
Swee ne y Ridge
(G GNRA )
San Pedro Valley
County Park
Pedro Point
Headlands
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
Peni nsul a Wat e rshe d (SFPUC )
Fassler
Ridge
Cattle
Hill
McNee Ranch State Park
Sanchez
Adobe
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Planning Area
City Limits
100 Contour
School Play
elds
with Development
Partial Conservation
Other Protected Open Space
Beach
Golf Course
Neighborhood, District
and Pocket Parks
Regional Open Space
Proposed SR 1 Crossing
Existing SR 1 Crossing
Visitor Parking Lots
Trail Heads to be Improved
Existing Trail Heads
Coastal Trail
Trail Routes
Proposed On-Street
Trail Improvements
Proposed Trails or
Existing On-Street Trail Routes
Existing Trails
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Source: City of Paci
ca, 2020; San Mateo
County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Trail System
Figure 6-2:

Figure 6-2: Trail System 2.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-17

6.2 TRAIL SYSTEM
Existing Trails in the Planning Area
The Planning Area has 67 miles of trails through
GGNRA land in San Pedro Valley County Park,
and along the coast, including segments along City
streets. Historically, the City has sought to create a
system that includes a coastal trail, a ridgeline trail, and lateral trails connecting the ridgeline to the
coast, as shown in Figure 6-2.

Coastal Trail
Pacifica’s Coastal Trail currently runs almost the
length of the Planning Area, from the Daly City
boundary to Pedro Point Shopping Center. The
route follows Palmetto Avenue alongside the Northern Coastal Bluffs, turns onto Esplanade Avenue through the West Edgemar-Pacific Manor neighborhood, and follows Palmetto again through West Sharp Park. The trail then branches into two parallel routes. The western route travels along the levee between Sharp Park Golf Course and Sharp Park
Beach, and then east along the north side of Mori
Point. The eastern route follows Francisco Boulevard
south, meeting the other trail at the Mori Point trailhead. From this point, the Coastal Trail follows a path alongside Highway 1 and then arcs west along
the restored section of Calera Creek in the Rockaway Quarry site. After a short on-street segment in the Rockaway Beach district, the trail follows a path
over Aramai Point and then along the inland side of
the dunes at Pacifica State Beach. The trail currently
comes to an end at the south end of the beach.

The City in 2015 acquired an approximately fiveacre parcel in the Pedro Point Headlands, known as the Colt Property, which provided a critical link to
other publicly-owned land in the Headlands. As a
result, it should be possible to construct a trail west of Highway 1 to extend the Coastal Trail from its
current terminus southward through the Pedro Point
Headlands to connect with the Devil’s Slide Trail.

Ridge Trails
The Sweeney Ridge trail, a segment of the Bay Area
Ridge Trail, extends from the Portola Gate at the
boundary of the Peninsula Watershed in the south
to Milagra Ridge in the north. Lateral trail connections exist along Mori Ridge and Cattle Hill to the west, and the Sneath Lane right-of-way to the
east. Trailheads with parking lots are at Milagra
Ridge and Skyline College to the north and northeast, Shelldance Nursery off of Highway 1 to the west, and Sneath Lane off of Skyline Boulevard to
the east. There is also a trailhead at the top of Fassler Avenue where the City completed parking and access
improvements in 2020.

Milagra Ridge has a three-quarter mile hiking trail
on paved road and/or dirt trail, bringing visitors to
overlook points. Access to the trails is from a parking lot at the end of the College Drive extension north
of Sharp Park Road. A new trail, the Milagra Battery Trail, was completed in 2016 and provides access west across the lower Milagra Ridge from a small
parking lot at the end of Connemara Drive.

County and State Park Trails
In the San Pedro Valley County Park, approximately
ten miles of trails offer both easy walks and challenging climbs to the ridges, with views to the ocean. The park entrance at the south end of Oddstad Boulevard has parking, a small visitors’ center, restrooms, and picnic areas.

In McNee Ranch State Park trail connections allow
hikers beginning in Pacifica to reach the summit of
1,900-foot North Peak and the ocean at Montara
State Beach or Gray Whale Cove.

Pedro Point Headlands
Trails at Pedro Point bring hikers from a trailhead on
Highway 1 to an overlook point and to Pedro Summit. The trailhead created with the opening of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel in 2014 has created a new public
parking lot. As mentioned above, a trail connection
is planned to fill the gap in the Coastal Trail between Pedro Point Shopping Center and Devil’s Slide Trail.

2.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-18 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Trailheads and Parking Areas
Existing trailheads are located at the Beach Boulevard Promenade; Mori’s Point Road; Shelldance Nursery; Rockaway Beach; Crespi Drive at Highway 1; Pacifica State Beach; San Pedro Valley County Park; Milagra Ridge; and Fassler Avenue. Planning
Area trails also can be reached from trailheads outside the City Limits to the east at Skyline College and at Sneath Lane, and to the south on Highway 1
approaching Devil’s Slide.

Priorities for Enhancing Pacifica’s Trail
System
Developing an integrated trail system, as proposed
in this Plan, will enhance access to and enjoyment
of Pacifica’s natural resources for both residents and
visitors. It will make possible a variety of loop walks taking in a diversity of scenery and connecting large
open spaces with Pacifica’s activity centers. The trail system will function both as a system with a Pacifica
identity, and as a link in regional and state trail systems.

The Plan proposes four areas of improvement. First,
new trail segments are needed to connect the Coastal
and Ridge trails and to provide better access to and
through Pacifica’s neighborhoods. Second, new and
improved crossings of Highway 1 are needed to make
the new trail connections work. Third, new trailheads and improvements are needed to assure access at locations that reinforce existing activity centers.

And fourth, a signage and wayfinding program is
proposed to make the overall system legible both as a
Pacifica system and as part of the California Coastal
Trail and Bay Area Ridge Trail.

Develop a direct pedestrian route between the Sharp Park Beach Promenade and upper Sharp Park Road (top). Connect the Portola Expedition Camp with the San Francisco Bay Discovery Site on Sweeney Ridge, giving visitors the experience of this historic route (middle). Support the development of a new Highway 1 over-crossing at Mori Point, enhancing the Shelldance Nursery location as a central point from which to explore Pacifica’s trail system (bottom).

2.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-19

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a . See
also policies in section 5-4: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Network.

Guiding Policies
OC-G-7 Trail System Expansion. Expand
the trail system in Pacifica to create a
connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 6-2.

Implementing Policies
OC-I-23 New Segments of California Coastal
Trail in Pacifica. Create new trail segments through Rockaway Quarry uplands and the Headlands as part of
development or as separate Coastal Trail
initiatives.

OC-I-24 Coastal Trail at Devil’s Slide and
Between Pacifica and Devil’s Slide.

Work with involved agencies and property owners to achieve a trail connection west of Highway 1 between Pedro Point
Shopping Center and the Devil’s Slide
north trailhead.

OC-I-25 Pedro Point Headlands Trails. In
coordination with GGNRA and the
California Coastal Conservancy, support trail improvements on Pedro Point Headlands, and extension of these trails
to the new trailhead at the north end of
Devil’s Slide.

OC-I-26 Pedestrian Improvements on Palmetto and Esplanade. Make sidewalk and streetscape improvements along
Coastal Trail segments of Palmetto and
Esplanade Avenues a priority.

Streetscape improvements for Palmetto Avenue will also support a pedestrian-oriented mixed use district in West Sharp Park and
may provide for a separated path along the
Northern Coastal Bluffs.

OC-I-27 Lateral Ridge Trail Extensions.

In coordination with GGNRA, pursue
lateral ridge trail extensions, providing
new connections between the Coast and
Sweeney Ridge.
• Extend the Baquiano Trail and Ahni
Trail down Fassler Avenue and across
private land to Crespi Drive and Highway 1 as part of the Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail. This would connect the
Portola Expedition Camp with the San
Francisco Bay Discovery Site on Sweeney Ridge, giving visitors the experience of this historic route. • Extend the Farallon View Trail spur
west on a new easement with a new
trailhead on Caltrans land, or a shared
parking agreement with the church at
the base of the hill.
• Extend the Milagra Ridge trail west
across preserved land on the lower
ridge.
• Provide a safe and attractive connection between the foot of the Milagra Ridge Trail and the coastal access
point north of the San Francisco RV
Park.

OC-I-28 Highway 1 Over-Crossing at Mori
Point. Support the development of a
new over-crossing between Shelldance
Nursery and Mori Point, in coordination
with GGNRA and Caltrans to enhance
visitor facilities in Pacifica. As an interim
alternative, strengthen signage and safe
connections to the existing Sharp Park
Golf Course undercrossing in the East
Fairway Park neighborhood.

2.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-20 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
OC-I-29 Sharp Park Trail. Encourage GGNRA,
San Francisco Recreation and Parks or
others to create a new trail from Rifle
Range Road to the Sweeney Ridge Trail
to enhance recreational use of Sharp Park
and provide public access in a wooded
area unique in Pacifica.

OC-I-30 Harry Dean Trail. Improve and
extend existing trails connecting Cityowned parks and open spaces in Pacifica’s northern neighborhoods to reach Skyline
Boulevard on the east and Westline Drive
along the Northern Coastal Bluffs.

OC-I-31 Pier to Ridge Trail. Develop a direct
pedestrian route between the Beach Boulevard Promenade and upper Sharp Park Road, also connecting the West and East
Sharp Park neighborhoods. Improvements should include:
• A new trail extending east from the
top of Talbot Road to Sharp Park
Road, with a public access easement;
• Pedestrian improvements and trail signage along Talbot Road and San Jose or Santa Rosa Avenue; and
• Replacement or rehabilitation of the
Highway 1 over-crossing to enhance
pedestrian access between the West
and East Sharp Park neighborhoods.

OC-I-32 San Pedro Valley Trail. Develop a
pedestrian route between Pacifica State
Beach and San Pedro Valley County Park
through the Linda Mar and West Linda
Mar neighborhoods, including enhancement of the San Pedro Terrace right-ofway; sidewalk improvements and signage along Rosita Road; and connections to
the Sanchez Adobe and Old San Pedro
Mountain Road.

OC-I-33 Enhanced Visitor Services at Shelldance Nursery. Support the proposal for enhanced visitor services at the Shelldance Nursery site, including an education/visitors’ center, additional parking, and better access, to be implemented by
GGNRA.

Shelldance Nursery may become the hub of
Pacifica’s trail system, with direct access to
coastal and ridge trails, visitor amenities,
and proximity to visitor-oriented commercial areas.

OC-I-34 Hikers’ Huts and Related Amenities. Support the development of hikers’ huts, kiosks, or cabins for hikers on Sweeney Ridge and at Rockaway Headlands, and the development of campgrounds on sites where sufficient management and services can be provided by the property owner or operator.

OC-I-35 Signage and Wayfinding. Develop
the overall image and accessibility of
Pacifica’s natural assets, through a program of consistent and attractive signage for the trail system.
• Provide wayfinding signage along all
on-street portions of the trail system;
at junctions of off-street trails; and at
trailheads.
• Provide interpretive signage to identify landforms visible from viewpoints; provide information about the natural environment and sensitive species; information about historical and cultural points of interest; information
about unique features of Pacifica; and
other subjects.

2.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6-21

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

VEA OTTEMLAP

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

BEACH BLVD

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

WESTBOROUGH

KING DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PA RK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l
Pier
Pacica
G ol f C ou rse
Sha rp Pa rk
(G GN RA)
Mor i Poi nt
Headlands
Pedro Point
Beach
Park
Sharp
Beach
Rockaway
State Beach
Pacica
(GGNRA)
Blu
s
Coastal
Northern
O cea n
Pa cific
27 26 25 24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 Planning Area
City Limits
School Playelds
with Development
Partial Conservation
Conservation
Beach
Golf Course
District Parks
Neighborhood &
Regional Open Space
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points #
(Blu
-top/View)
Coastal Access Points #
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Source: City of Pacica, 2020; San Mateo
Coastal Access
Figure 6-3:

Provide public trail to overlook
point as part of development
or land conservation
Improve public access and
restore blu conditions
Pursue small public park and trail
in 400-block of Esplanade Avenue
if feasible
Support blu trail
development on
GGNRA land
Maintain public parking as part
of redevelopment of City-owned
Beach Boulevard property
Ensure public access
Ensure public access to beach
Trail and access
improvements
expected under
land steward
management; new
trails should provide
coastal views
from Pedro
Beach
Provide additional signage and
amenities at Crespi Drive parking
lot in relation to proposed extension
of Baquiano Trail
Improve new segment of
Coastal Trail along former
railroad berm
Figure 6-3: Coastal Access2.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (5015 : General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Recommendation

2.B
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - June 6, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 6-22 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 6-5: COASTAL ACCESS POINTS
Map Name Beach
Access?
Ownership Detail Proposed Improvement
1 North City
Boundary
No GGNRA Bluff top. Isolated beach access using
informal trails. Erosion concerns.

Support bluff trail
development on GGNRA land.
2 West Fairmont No GGNRA Bluff top. Isolated beach access using informal trails. Erosion concerns.

Support bluff trail
development on GGNRA land.

Foredune No GGNRA Bluff top.

Isolated
beach
access using
informal
trails.

Erosion
concerns.

Support bluff trail development on GGNRA
land.
3 Pacific
View Villas
Condominiums
No Private Bluff top. Accessible from Palmetto Avenue
or from trail at Oceanaire Apartments.
4 Lands End
Apartments
Yes Private High bluffs. Path and stairway to beach
available to public, privately maintained.
5 Esplanade at
Manor
No City Steep bluffs. Coastal erosion has resulted
in loss of houses, and fencing across entire
stretch.

Pursue small public park and
trail on bluff-top in 400-block
of Esplanade Avenue if
feasible
6 San Francisco
RV Park
No Private Bluff top. Lateral trail connects to
500-block of Esplanade Avenue.
7 South of San
Francisco RV
Park
Yes Private
(public
easement)
Coastal bluffs. Beach accessible by informal
path. Off-street parking provided. Erosion
concerns.

Improve public access and
restore bluff conditions.
8 Cottages at
Seaside
No Private Bluff top. Lateral trail along bluff.
9 Northern Beach
Boulevard
No City Seawall along Beach Boulevard and
armored bluff shoreline. No parking.
10 Pacifica Pier
and Vicinity
Yes City Access to beach at San Jose, Montecito
Avenues across armored bluffs, and to
Pier at end of Santa Rosa Avenue. Popular
fishing area. Erosion concerns. Parking at
City-owned lot.

Maintain public parking
as part of redevelopment
of City-owned 2212 Beach
Boulevard property
11 Beach
Boulevard
Promenade
Yes City and
State
Low bluffs between beach and park.

Popular for walking, jogging, fishing, ocean
viewing, beachcombing. Parking available
along Beach Boulevard.
12 Clarendon Road Yes City and
State
Access to long beach across very low bluffs,
protective berm. Parking available along
Beach Boulevard.

Pacifica City CouncilJuly 11, 2022

Pacifica City Council
July 11, 2022