Need to add into Fig 5-1 some alternate sub-routes to Hwy 1 in case of emergency. Sub-routes from Rockway beach ave to Reina del Mar Ave to Lundy Way that lead to Sharp Park Road.
Also need wildlife corridor tunnels underneath Sharp Park Road and Manor Drive. See attached map of propose subroutes and wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.
The proposed illustrative roadway for Linda Mar Blvd and Crespi Drive do not seem to take into account the near future development of more housings on the Linda Mar hillside nor the mega church in the back of Linda Mar area which would increase traffic congestion on normal days. By reducing the traffic lanes, the city is essentially creating a fire trap for residents during emergencies.
P129, 5.5 Public transportation and transportation demand management
P131, fig 5-5 Existing transit routes
713
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Need more high-density housing at transportation routes.
Suggest having some areas set aside near transportation routes for homeless and van folks.
P134, 5.7 Parking
Suggest installing parking meters at public street parking area.
Allow local resident to show some type of QR bar code to the meter and be able to park free. All other visitors would have to pay some parking fees. This would generate revenue for the City of Pacifica. We have a lot of visitors to the Pacifica Beach and having them pay a small fee will help to offset some environmental costs.
P137, 6 Open space and community facilities
P161, 6.3 Coastal Access
P164, fig 6-4 School and Community facilities
Converting closed public school into either high-density housing, a new civic center with local shops, cafes, homeless shelter and clinics.
P170, OC-I-59 Beach Blvd property
Consider either use this site as the new Civic center, or highdensity public housing, expand homeless shelter and clinics.
Need to mitigate for Coastal management retreat, sea level rise, beach erosion, and future levee improvement that are acceptable to the Coastal Commission.
P 180, Planned Improvements
Need to include wildlife corridors as part of the conservation.
See attached map of suggested wildlife corridor
tunnels/crossing.
What is the city doing about future plan for use of desalination of sea water and coordinating with the North Coast County Water District? Maybe work with the North Coast County
Water District to develop water conservation plan such as rebate for water harvesting with rain barrels.
P186, Fig 7-2 Vegetation
P188, Eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress
We need to remove invasive plants in our parks area such as eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress, English ivy,and plant more native plants. The Eucalyptus is also a fire hazard due to it high oil content. Suggest working with the various other agencies who are management of various parks and local areas to
combat these invasive plants.
P190, Fig 7-3 Sensitive and Critical Habitat
P194, Wildlife Movement Corridors
Need wildlife corridors at obstructions such as Sharp Park Blvd, Manor Drive and other roads that blocked wildlife from
traveling to various habitats. See attached map of suggested locations for wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.
714
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
P191 Beach/Intertidal
What is the city future plans about coastal management
retreat, climate change, and sea level rise?
P201 7.3 Land and soil resources
Need to pay attention to slope stability, earthquake, erosion, liquefaction, and downslope drainage for any future planned development for buildings. Don’t let developers put up a smokescreen on their future developments within Pacifica.
P216, 7.7 Environmental Justice
Did not see any solution to environmental justice at all for homeless and van parking at designated places in this general plan and in the draft EIR. Need to provide plans for placing the homeless in some type of living and rehab areas with
bathroom facilities along with place for vans to park without further increase of pollution by them around our beaches, roads, and wetland areas.
P218, 8 Safety
P219, Seismic Hazards
P221, Fig 8-1 Seismic hazard zones
Need to pay more attention on earthquake problems on
building at unstable slope, including erosion, landslide, and drainage issues. Also, the potential of liquefaction and landslide in fig 8-1. Don’t let developers build at unstable areas. P222, Tsunami and Seiche Sharp Park, Rockaway, lower Linda Mar Blvd, Manor Plaza, and Fairmont are prone to tsunami. This plan needs to provide tsunami evacuation routes for all these areas. That is why it is very important to have alternative evacuation routes in case Hwy 1 is not usable either due to flooding and obstructions.
See attached map of suggested alternative sub-routes around Hwy 1.
P222, Slope Failure and Erosion
Where are the tables showing history (when it happened) of slope failure, erosion, liquefaction, earthquake, landslides, earthquake damages?
P233 Increased coastal flooding from potential sea level rise If the 2009 report from the Pacific Institute mentioned potential flooding, what are the solutions?
P235, 8.3 Coastal Resilience
What are the solutions to the problem raised in this section of potential sea level rise, flooding, etc.
P249, 8.4 Hazardous Materials and Operations
P253, fig 8-7 Fire hazards and public safety services
We need to remove invasive trees such as Eucalyptus to lessen fire hazard as shown on the map.
P260, 9 Noise
715
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Suggest planting of native trees (not invasive trees) to reduce noise level around the noise corridors.
P272, 10 Implementation
This chapter mentioned implementation responsibility by various agencies, but there is no implementation solutions in the general plan. So, what are you implementing? I did not see a section on conclusions and recommendations. Also, the General plan did not spell out the alternatives as shown in the DEIR, why?
C181-3 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report P2 Executive Summary
Glad to see there is an executive summary in the DEIR, but am dismayed that it was just another report and not very clear.
Usually, executive summary is about 10 pages at most.
It seems the Executive Summary just copied and repeat word for word what were stated in the document. Someone need to clean up the Executive Summary so it is concise and to the point.
The executive summary should summarize the alternatives within the 10 pages at most and the alternatives should be mentioned in the General Plan in parallel. Also, the alternatives were switching from numbering to alphabets. Need to clean that up.
Thank you for your comment.
Please see redlined executive
summary for more detail.
C181-4 Irene Davies 1/21/22 There is a disconnect between the Pacifica General Plan 2040 with the DEIR since the General plan did not spell out the alternatives as shown in the DEIR.
The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.
According to CEQA, an EIR must
describe a reasonable range of
alternatives to a proposed
project that could feasibly attain
most of the basic project
objectives, and would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the
proposed project's significant
effects. Additionally, a “No
Project” alternative must be
analyzed as part of a DEIR. As
noted on DEIR p.4-3, Alternative
B represents the closest
alternative to what became the
Preferred Plan (in this case, the
General Plan), which is analyzed
in the DEIR.
C181-5 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P162, fig 2.1-1 Regional Setting P163, figure 2.1-2 Planning Area an Coastal Zone
The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
716
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
It seems foolish to plan future development of Sharp Park specific plan when it is mostly in the Coastal zone of
management retreat. Better to plan on the east side of Hwy 1 of Sharp Park for long term stability and to account for climate change and sea level rise.
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.
Development in the Coastal Zone
is regulated by the Local Coastal
Program.
C181-6 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Did not see any concise solutions to offset coastal management retreat, beach erosion, liquefaction, climate change, and sea level rise for these proposed high-density developments.
Coastal management is
addressed in the LCLUP and not a
required topic of analysis under
CEQA. Please see comment C69-8
for more information on where
the DEIR addresses coastal
erosion, and how compliance
with federal, state, and local
regulations and Proposed Plan
policies reduce impacts to less
than significant. Please see
response to comment 13-3 for
more information on sea level
rise analysis and regulations and
policies that reduce the impact,
as well as policies in the LCLUP
regarding sea level rise
monitoring.
C181-7 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P164, fig 2.1-3 Sharp Park Specific Plan Planning Area More high-density development of Eureka Square Shopping Center is warranted, but not the west side of Hwy 1 unless the city can get permission from the Coastal Commission to offset future climate change and sea level rise issues.
Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.
Please see response to comment
C47-3 for more information
about coastal flooding and
coastal erosion. Please see
response to comments C181-76
and C15-5 for more information
about tsunami.
C181-8 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P165, Local Coastal Planning P166, Fig 2.1-2 General Plan Land Use
P167, Fig 2.1-3 Sharp Park Specific Plan Land Use Diagram Need to address sea level rise and climate change in this Sharp Park Specific Plan on the west side of Hwy 1.
Policies within the LCLUP related
to effects of climate change and
sea level rise are addressed in the
LCLUP. See response to comment
C13-3 for more information
about coastal flooding and sea
level rise.
C181-9 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P205, Sharp Park Specific Plan Area More high-density development of Eureka Square Shopping Center is warranted, but not the west side of Hwy 1 unless the city can get permission from the Coastal Commission for future climate change and sea level rise protection.
Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward Please see response to comment
C-181-74 and C-181-76.
717
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.
C181-
10 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P235, fig 3.2-1 Roadway Network and Planned Improvements P678, Fig 3.12-3 Trail System
Need wildlife corridors along Sharp Park road, Manor Drive, and other road obstructions to wildlife. See attached map showing potential wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
11 Irene Davies 1/21/22 More high density along transit corridors. Where are the designated parking for homeless and vans since there are environmental hazards produced by these folks who park along the beach area with their trash and other hazards. The
homeless and travel vans need a designated place along with bathroom facility, and trash bins.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
12 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to have sub-routes from Rockaway beach Ave to Reina del Mar Ave to Ridgeway Dr to Sharp Park Road for emergency access in case Hwy 1 is not usable in either direction. These sub-routes are also critical during emergency evacuations. See attached map of suggested sub-routes to bypass Hwy 1 in case Hwy 1 is not useable.
Please see response to comment
C54-13 for more information on
congestion and evacuation
routes.
C181-
13 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P241, Fig 3.2-3 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network The proposed bike lanes along Linda Mar Blvd and Crespi drive could be a people trap during fire and other emergencies, especially with the proposed high-density development on the hill of Linda Mar and at the back of Linda Mar. How is the city going to mitigate for this potential fire trap?
The comment is noted. The DEIR
addresses evacuation routes on
DEIR p. 3.14-8, noting "Future
development would be required
to adhere to all policies, goals,
and standards in the MJ-LHMP,
Pacifica Municipal Code, and CBC,
including vehicular access and
emergency access.
Implementation of the following
Proposed Project policies will
ensure that inadequate
emergency access does not
occur, and will result in a less
than significant impact."
C181-
14 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P366, Reduced Parking
P372, LU-I-18 Parking Requirements
It is a bad idea of proposed General Plan policy LU-I-18 to allow developers to reduce parking spaces unless we have a robust and almost free public transportation for folks in Pacifica. What is the city going to do for the residents who need to be able to drive and find free parking? Suggest providing buses for local The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decision-
718
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
travel only to locals and tourists, and charge a daily or monthly nominal fee to use the buses. Allow the locals to use some type of Id or QR codes to ride the local buses for free.
makers in that context. Please
see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
15 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P366, Water Conservation
P723, Water Conservation
Is the city and the North Coast County Water District going to provide and help residents to install rain barrels to capture rain water and to provide recycled water containers and truck the recycled water to the residents to use to improve water conservation. What are the future plans by the city and the North Coast County Water District to develop seawater
desalination?
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
16 Irene Davies 1/21/22 What are the future plans by the city and the North Coast County Water District to develop seawater desalination? This is not a required topic of
analysis under CEQA. As this
comment doesn't relate to the
adequacy of analysis, no further
response is required. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
17 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P370, Trees and Native Vegetation What is the city going to do to reduce invasive trees such as Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Monterey cypress, English ivy, and other invasive plants in our area? We need to educate folks to plant more native plants instead of invasive plants. Suggest the city work with other agencies who are managing various parks and places to work together to get rid of these invasive plants and plant native plants instead.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
18 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P371, Impact of the Sharp Park Specific Plan Did not see specific plan to offset future climate change and sea level rise for these future developments.
This comment is noted. The
Sharp Park Specific Plan area is
within the Coastal Zone. Policies
within the LCLUP related to
effects of climate change and sea
level rise are addressed in the
LCLUP. See response to comment
C13-3 for more information
about coastal flooding and sea
level rise.
719
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
C181-
19 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Bad idea to do long term development of Sharp Park west of Hwy 1 due to coastal management retreat, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, beach erosion, and other hazards. If the City can mitigate all of these issues, maybe we can move forward and let everyone know that the various hazards are still in place to avoid future lawsuits.
This comment is noted. The
Sharp Park Specific Plan area is
within the Coastal Zone. Policies
within the LCLUP related to
effects of climate change, coastal
erosion, sea level rise are
addressed in the LCLUP. See
response to comment C13-3 for
more information about coastal
flooding and sea level rise.
Policies that address risks from
hazards, including flooding,
tsunami, and geologic hazards
are addressed in the following
DEIR chapters:
3.5 Hydrology and Flooding
3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismic
Risk
C181-
20 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Where in the General Plan are the proposed housing for lowincome folks, homeless, and vans along our streets? The homeless and vans are producing human environmental waste along with other trash.
They need a place where they can live with bathroom facility, mental health services, and job training? See attached
suggested high-density developments.
Do like the stepback for high-density buildings to reduce sun shadowing.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
21 Irene Davies 1/21/22 What are the mitigations for areas under the Tsunami evacuation areas especially for Sharp Park area and Linda Mar Blvd close to Hwy 1 on the west side? How are the mitigations being in line with the Coastal Commission on management retreat?
As noted in DEIR p. 3.12-2, "San
Mateo County has an established
emergency plan for tsunamis.
The City of Pacifica has identified
tsunami hazards in their local
annex to the San Mateo County
Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan for the Bay Area.
As part of this program, the City
of Pacifica installed a tsunami
warning system, consisting of
three solar powered alarm
towers. Two are located in the
Sharp Park neighborhood and
one is located at Rockaway
Beach. This system links into a
San Mateo County alert system
that can reach email and cell
phones." Policies that reduce
risks from tsunamis include SA-G2, SA-I-9, SA-I-10, SA-I-26, and SAI-27.
All development in the Coastal
720
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
Zone is subject to Coastal
Commission jurisdiction and falls
under the purview of the LCLUP.
C181-
22 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to show Tsunami evacuation plan for folks to reach high ground.
Thank you for your comment.
Tsunami evacuation routes are
available at the City's website,
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/ci
vicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Bl
obID=2499. Policy I-A-106 also
addresses periodic public
information programs to raise
awareness of the City's
emergency preparedness
programs, including evacuation
routes. Please also see Master
Response 9: Emergency Access.
C181-
23 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P407-408, Coastal flooding
How is the improvement of the seawall/revetment structure match up with the Coastal Commission on management
retreat, future climate change, and sea level rise?
Please see Master Response to
comment regarding the LCLUP.
C181-
24 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to provide tables to show the historical seismic events, liquefaction, flooding, landslides, slope failure, and erosions at various locations in Pacifica and pinpoint within the fig for better understanding of these issues.
Historical events are adequately
described in the DEIR as well as in
the MJ-LHMP.
C181-
25 Irene Davies 1/21/22 What protection measures are planned for the Sharp Park area future high-density development with the volubility of
liquefaction, flooding, climate change, sea level rise, earthquake, and Tsunami?
Please see response to comment
C-181-74 and 1-181-76.
C181-
26 Irene Davies 1/21/22 P458, Beaches and Coastal Erosion Need a table and fig of historical beaches and coastal erosions for better understanding of these issues.
The comment is noted. Coastal
erosion due to sea level rise is
discussed on p. 3.6-14 and
adequately describes ongoing
and future risk of coastal erosion,
as well as historical events of
erosion in Pacifica. Please see
response to comment C164-12
for more information on where
the latest maps of coastal erosion
can be found.
C181-
27 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to show in fig wildlife corridors for wildlife. See attached map for suggested wildlife corridor tunnels/crossings.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
28 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to provide a plan to eliminate Eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress, English Ivy, and other invasive plants/vegetations to The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
721
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
reduce wildfire, increase plant diversity, and improve climate change.
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
29 Irene Davies 1/21/22 We need to educate folks to plant more native plants instead of invasive plants. Suggest the city work with other agencies who are managing various parks and places to work together to get rid of these invasive plants and plant native plants instead.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
30 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Need to show the closed school of Fairmont in the Fig to match the figure shown in the Pacifica General Plan 2040. See P164, fig 6-4 School and Community facilities, from the General Plan.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
31 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Suggest reuse the closed school for high-density public housing, mix up facilities, weekly food truck area, or use as a place for homeless and van parking so the homeless and van parking folks won’t pollute the roads, beaches, and wetland areas with human waste and trash.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
32 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Suggest high-density development at the Sea Bowl area, including having weekly food trucks gathering.
The comment is not related to
the adequacy of the DEIR,
therefore no further response is
required in the FEIR. However,
the comment addresses the
content of the Proposed Plan and
will be shared with decisionmakers in that context. Please 722
Letter Commenter Date Comment Combined Response
Individuals (C)
see Master Response: EIR
comments for more information
about GP- or SPSP-related
responses.
C181-
33 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Why are the alternatives listed as Alt 1, 2 and No Project Alt in page 8 of the Executive Summary and changed to Alt A, B, and C, and change again in page 807. Need to be consistence in naming the alternatives.
As noted in DEIR p. 4-3, lettered
alternatives refer to concepts
that were considered for analysis.
Alternative B becomes the
Proposed Project, the
environmental impacts of which
are evaluated in DEIR chapters
3.1-3.14. Numbered alternatives
represent those concepts that
were evaluated in Chapter 4,
with "Alternative A from the
alternatives phase renamed here
as Alternative 1, and Alternative
C renamed as Alternative 2."
C181-
34 Irene Davies 1/21/22 How is this alternative stand up to climate change, sea level rise, coastal management retreat?
The comment is noted. Climate
change, coastal management
retreat are not required topics of
analysis under CEQA. Please see
response to comment C13-3 for
more information on coastal
flooding and sea level rise.
C181-
35 Irene Davies 1/21/22 Where is the plan for a parking place for the homeless vans and other vehicles so to reduce environmental hazards along the beach and wetland areas?
The comment is noted. As the
comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental
analysis contained in the DEIR, no
further response is required.