CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
7/11/2022
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of Environmental Impact Report and California Environmental Quality Act Findings and Adoption of a General Plan Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:
A. 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 (CEQA);
B. Adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA;
C. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA;
D. Approve the General Plan Update, including the amendments incorporated into the May 2022 drafts of those documents identified by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and
E. Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
STAFF CONTACTS:
Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:
A. Public Engagement and Involvement in Development of the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan
The General Plan Update (GPU) (Attachment B) is the product of more than a decade of work by City staff, consultants, and the community. This meeting of the City Council is a milestone intended to conclude 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, Pacifica City Council 2
July 11, 2022
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 Sharp Park Specific Plan (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 • 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, or DEIR (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 DEIR, 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. 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.
Pacifica City Council 3
July 11, 2022
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 DEIR prepared for the 2014 draft General Plan, as well expanding the analysis in the DEIR to incorporate the SPSP.
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 DEIR for public review and comment in January 2022.
C. Planning Commission Review of General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Documents – June 2022
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings to consider the GPU, SPSP, and final environmental impact report (FEIR) prepared to assess potential environmental impacts from the GPU and SPSP on June 6 and June 11, 20222. The draft General Plan considered by the Planning Commission was the May 2022 version of the plan, included as Attachment B. 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.3
The Planning Commission’s recommendation included changes to the following elements of the draft General Plan, which are identified in a redline version of the May 2022 version of the draft General Plan (Attachment C4):
• 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)
• Glossary and List of Acronyms.
Accordingly, the proposed final version of the General Plan would incorporate all redline edits shown in Attachment C (these are not currently included in Attachment B), as well as any additional amendments made by the City Council.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Land Use Element (Chapter 4) included a recommendation of approval of the following land use plan changes to correct erroneous land 2 Video of these meetings is available on the Pacific Coast TV YouTube channel: June 6 | June 11 3 The Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the SPSP to June 20, 2022. 4 The redline document contains many mid-sentence hyphens. This is a result of differences in the formatting of the final layout of the document and the method used to convert that document into a format to enable redline edits. These mid-sentence hyphens will be resolved in final formatting of the General Plan document following adoption by the City Council.
Pacifica City Council 4
July 11, 2022
use designations included in earlier drafts and that have been incorporated into the figures contained in the redline version5(Attachment C):
1. Land Use Designation Change: APN 023-190-090, 023-190-060, 023-190-040 – Linda Mar
These properties are located adjacent to Linda Mar School (indicated with red arrow). They are privately owned and were 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 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.
Planning Commission recommendation: Change to Low Density Residential.
The Planning Commission also considered two property owner requests to change the land use designations of their properties as indicated in the May 2022 draft General Plan Land Use Element. These property owner requests are summarized below, and no changes to the land use designations have been made in any of the attached documents pending City Council confirmation:
5 The City received a late request from the property owner at 503-511 Monterey Road (APN 009-381-010) near the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Monterey Road objecting to the proposed change in land use designation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. Staff’s recommendation is to keep the proposed land use designation because the site is recommended for inclusion within the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay, and as a result, a very low density of development would be most appropriate for the site.
Pacifica City Council 5
July 11, 2022
2. 44 Carmel Avenue – West Sharp Park
APN 016-031-050
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) PC Recommend.: Deny Request (retain Low Density Residential) Evaluation of Request: The existing land use on the subject property is a detached single-family 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 highdensity infill, with the owner remarking that the existing low-density development (i.e., single-family residence) is increasingly unaffordable to maintain.
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.
Pacifica City Council 6
July 11, 2022
3. 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)6 PC Recommend.: Grant Request (Change to Mixed Use Neighborhood) 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.
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 6 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.
Pacifica City Council 7
July 11, 2022
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).
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.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation also included changes to the Safety Element (Chapter 8). While various changes are reflected in the redline version (Attachment C), the Commission discussed specific updates to certain hazard maps in the Safety Element. The Planning Commission received information from staff that it had been in recent discussions with staff from the California Geologic Survey (CGS), the state agency with expertise in geologic hazards. CGS staff had recommended inclusion of a landslide inventory map in the General Plan and provided geographic information system (GIS) data to City staff to facilitate creation of the map. City staff utilized the data, and included a proposed new map in the Planning Commission agenda report. Subsequent to publication of the agenda report for the Planning Commission public hearing, CGS staff alerted City staff that the GIS data contained errors and that it was working to identify the correct data. The City has since received updated GIS data and prepared an updated landslide inventory map for inclusion in the General Plan if approved by the City Council (Attachment D, updated Figure 8-X). The Planning Commission also accepted staff’s recommendation to revise Figure 8-3b to include “static” maps of historic debris flows covering the entire city (Attachment E). The revised map would be in lieu of the “dynamic” version of the map based on GIS data that was included in the May 2022 version of the draft General Plan, but for which GIS data were only available for the southern half of Pacifica.
Following its recommendation to the City Council to adopt the GPU and certify the FEIR, the Planning Commission then continued the public hearing to June 20, 2022, to undertake further deliberation on the SPSP. The City Council will consider adoption of the SPSP at a future public hearing following a recommendation by the Planning Commission7. 7 The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the SPSP on June 20, 2022. It is possible the Planning Commission will have made a recommendation on the SPSP following publication of this agenda packet but prior to the City Council special meeting on June 25, 2022.
Pacifica City Council 8
July 11, 2022
DISCUSSION
A. Action to Adopt the General Plan Update
As noted above, the May 2022 draft General Plan (Attachment B) is the document that was considered by the Planning Commission. However, upon adoption by the City Council, the final version of the General Plan would incorporate all redline edits shown in Attachment C (these are not currently included in Attachment B), as well as any additional amendments made by the City Council. For ease of review, the following table summarizes where the respective GPU components can be reviewed for their content as recommended by the Planning Commission:
General Plan Element/Component Source
Introduction (Chapter 1) Attachment B
Economic Sustainability Element (Chapter 2) Attachment C Community Design Element (Chapter 3) Attachment C
Land Use Element (Chapter 4) Attachment C
Circulation Element (Chapter 5) Attachment C
Open Space and Community Facilities
Element (Chapter 6)
Attachment C
Conservation Element (Chapter 7) Attachment C
Safety Element (Chapter 8) Attachment C
Noise (Chapter 9) Attachment B
References Attachment B
Glossary and List of Acronyms. Attachment C
Figures Relevant figures have been updated in each
element/chapter included in Attachment C
Tables Relevant figures have been updated in each
element/chapter included in Attachment C
As a legislative action, the City Council has discretion to adopt the GPU as recommended by the Planning Commission, to accept some or none of the recommendations by the Planning Commission, or provide alternative direction. Staff can guide the Council during consideration of any changes to determine if they would remain consistent with the scope of environmental review contained in the FEIR.
B. Action to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report An action to adopt the GPU 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) that evaluates both the GPU and the SPSP.
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). The FEIR also includes the RTC, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment I), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pacifica City Council 9
July 11, 2022
(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).
Although the SPSP is not the subject of potential adoption in this staff report, the full SPSP document is available electronically and is attached in Agenda Item No. 2 of this agenda packet, which is fully incorporated herein by reference.
Staff has analyzed whether additional environmental review would be required based on changes to the GPU made by the Planning Commission and concluded that no further environmental review is necessary. Changes that have been made/recommended to the January 2022 version of the draft General Plan that was used to prepare the DEIR include several recommended policy modifications and additions arising from the public comment period and Planning Commission hearings. Changes fall into three categories:
Minor text changes.
As shown in the redline version of the May 2022 version of the draft General Plan (Attachment C), the majority of the edits and additions in existing policies are minor text edits made to clarify or correct information in the GPU. For example, additions to Policy CI-G-10 clarify that vacation of public-rights-of way should not adversely impact coastal access or emergency access (new text in underline). These changes do not constitute new information, nor do they change any findings of significance in the EIR.
New policies.
Recommendations for new policies are found at the end of General Plan chapters 4, 6, 7, and 8:
Chapter 4: Land Use
LU-I-A Minimum FAR: As part of the Zoning Ordinance, establish appropriate minimum FARs in commercial and mixed-use zoning districts.
The GPU includes changes to some existing land use designations and includes densities and maximum intensities associated with these uses. This policy would establish minimum floor area ratios (FARs) through update of the Zoning Ordinance. These minimum FARs would be below those included as maximums in the GPU and, therefore, would not be more impactful in terms of intensity of use and other impacts than already evaluated in the EIR.
Chapter 6: Open Space and Community Facilities.
Pacifica City Council 10 July 11, 2022
OC-I-A Year-Round Park Use. Study ways to increase usability of City park facilities on a yearround basis. Seek Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission input in the identification of preferred solutions.
This policy merely commits the City to study of options to increase usability of City park facilities. Strategies that could have potential impacts (for example, adding evening stadium lighting to a field adjacent to residential uses) would be required to address any potential new or significant impacts as part of project-level CEQA review. Thus, this policy would not change any findings of significance in the EIR.
OC-I-B Impediments to Public Access Outside of Coastal Zone. Prohibit restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands except where necessary to protect public safety. Such restrictions include the installation of “private beach” and “private parking” signs, landscaping, and painting red curbs in the public right-of-way.
This policy is added to address impediments to public access such as recreational lands outside the Coastal Zone. It would not permit any new construction or result in any new or substantially more adverse environmental impacts, and as such, would not change the findings of the EIR.
Chapter 7: Conservation
CO-I-A Movement Corridor Study. 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 nonspecial-status species for wildlife connectivity, to be led and conducted by an appropriate agency.
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. This policy addition would only include further study and would not result in direct or indirect changes to the physical environment. Therefore, this policy would not change any findings of significance in the EIR and may result in further reductions to an already less than significant impact with respect to Impact 3.7-1 through 3.7-4 (Biological Resources) identified in the EIR.
Chapter 8: Safety
SA-I-A Work with PG&E to encourage regular maintenance of electrical and gas facilities including undergrounding electrical transmission and distribution facilities when feasible, to minimize utility-related disasters.
While maintenance of electrical and gas facilities is wholly in the jurisdiction of PG&E, this policy further reduces already less than significant impacts with respect to Impact 3.11-7 (Hazardous Materials and Fire Hazards) and impacts 3.11-2 and 3.11-3 (Wildfire.) Land use changes.
Planning Commission-recommended changes include a land use designation change to the property (APN 018-140-700) between 4320 and 4400 Coast Highway from Service Commercial (SC) to Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN). The subject property is approximately 3.48 acres in area and is undeveloped. The site is also contained within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) zoning overlay.
Pacifica City Council 11 July 11, 2022
Regardless of land use designation type, development would be subject to various federal, State, and local regulations and policies related to geologic and seismic hazards, as well as policies related to noise mitigation.
The MUN designation allows for 16-30 units of housing per acre; SC does not permit housing.
Theoretically, this could increase the total number of units resulting from buildout. However, site constraints, such as slopes, would limit the maximum buildout potential of the site. Additionally, there here is a small amount of redundancy in buildout calculations, given that buildout for the Coastal Residential Mixed Use parcels used estimates derived from the land use designation range (up to 15 du/ac) rather than the density range permitted as part of the zoning district to be applied in Implementing Policy LU-I-29 (3-5 du/ac)). Therefore, the overall increase in residential units would be de minimis, and findings of the EIR would remain valid regardless of land use designation change.
C. Public Comment
The City received numerous public comments on the General Plan update from members of the public and one comment from the California Coastal Commission (Attachment K).
As described in a preceding section, the Planning Commission received more than four hours of public comments from 37 speakers at a public hearing on June 6, 2022.
Also described in a preceding section, the City also provided a public review and comment period on the DEIR 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).
D. Staff Recommendation
The General Plan is intended to be a living document – one that is periodically amended over time to meet Pacifica’s needs. The City’s existing 1980 General Plan is more than 40 years old, and much has changed in those 40 years. Many of the goals of the 1980 General Plan have been accomplished. In addition, many aspects of Pacifica, the broader region, and the earth itself (in the form of climate change) have changed over four decades and necessitate a new General Plan to better serve the Pacifica community.
The GPU process has undertaken analysis of current and emergent issues facing Pacifica to develop policies to address them. The process has included extensive community engagement conducted over more than a decade. Each of the City’s commissions and committees has discussed the GPU and made it better with their inputs. Most recently, the Planning Commission considered the GPU and, following thorough deliberations, determined that adoption with their recommended modifications would serve to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution which would certify the FEIR to comply with CEQA and approve the GPU.
Pacifica City Council 12 July 11, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1) Amend components of the GPU as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2) Choose not to adopt the GPU. In this alternative, the City’s 1980 General Plan would remain in effect.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Adoption of the GPU would be consistent with the following Fiscal year 2021-2022 Council goals and Work Plan initiatives:
• Goal: “Fiscal Sustainability” includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities.
• Goal: “An Engaged Community” includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community. • Goal: “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.
• Goal: “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, investigating strategies related to homelessness, and supporting youth services.
• Goal: “Environmental Sustainability” includes mapping out parks and open space, preserving hillsides and beaches, paying attention to flora and fauna needs, environmental health, and climate adaptation.
• Goal: “Maintaining a Safe Community” includes supporting our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to storm emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness activities
• Priority No. 11: Complete a comprehensive General Plan update.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact. The GPU includes an Economic Sustainability Element (Chapter 2) and other policies such as an updated Land Use Element (Chapter 4) that could support increased economic activity in Pacifica resulting in increased City revenues.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - Draft General Plan (May 2022 Version) (PDF) Attachment C - Redline Edits to May 2022 Draft General Plan (includes only chapters with edits) (PDF)
Attachment D - Figure 8-X Mapped Landslides (Revised following Planning Commission hearing) (PDF)
Attachment E - Figure 8-3b Debris Flows (Revised following Planning Commission hearing) (PDF)
Pacifica City Council 13 July 11, 2022
Attachment F - Final EIR (FEIR) Chapters 1-3 (PDF)
Attachment G - FEIR Appendix A - EIR Comment Letters (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 - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (PDF)