Pacifica General Plan
Update and Specific Plan
EIR
CEQA Findings and Facts
in Support of Findings
and Statement of
Overriding
Considerations
SCH No. 2012022046
May 25, 2022
Prepared for the
City of Pacifica by
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR ii
Table of Contents
Role of Findings ..............................................................................................................1 Findings Under CEQA.....................................................................................................2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................15 Proposed General Plan Benefits ...................................................................................18 Overriding Considerations Conclusions.........................................................................21 CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR iii
This page intentionally left blank.
CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of
Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Pacifica
General Plan EIR
CEQA requires the Pacifica City Council (the Council) to balance the benefits of the City of Pacifica General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan (Plan) against its significant and unavoidable environmental effects in determining whether to approve the Project. Since the EIR identifies significant impacts of the General Plan that cannot feasibly be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City must state in writing its specific reasons for approving the Project in a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to Sections 15043 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. This Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the specific reasons supporting the City’s action in approving the General Plan Update, based on the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR, which incorporates the Draft EIR by reference) and other information in the administrative record.
In making the statement of overriding considerations, “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable’.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, subd. (a).)
The following sections provide findings and statements of facts supporting the findings, describe the general Project benefits considered by decision makers in determining to adopt the proposed General Plan Update despite its potentially significant adverse environmental effects, and then provide conclusions.
Role of Findings
The following findings are hereby adopted by the City Council of Pacifica pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines).
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
These Findings and Facts in Support of Findings relate to the approval of the Pacifica General Plan. The City Council of Pacifica is the Lead Agency for the Plan.
The Findings state the City Council’s conclusions regarding the significance of the potential environmental impacts of General Plan after all feasible mitigating policies have been adopted.
These findings have been prepared to comply with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and are based on information in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Plan and on all other relevant information contained in the administrative record for the Plan.
CEQA requires agencies to identify mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen a project’s significant impacts or potential significant impacts if such measures are feasible. The mitigating measures identified in the Final EIR mitigate the potential significant impacts of the Plan, to the extent feasible, as described in the Final EIR. All mitigating policies identified in the Final EIR (as listed in Table ES-3 of the Draft EIR) that are within the City Council’s authority to impose are hereby adopted by the Council. Future projects must comply with CEQA, including implementation of project-specific mitigation measures where applicable and feasible. Subsequent environmental review for specific projects identified in the Plan may tier off the programmatic analysis or incorporate information from this analysis by reference (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15150, 15152, and 15168).
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002.) The mandate and principles set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a).)
Findings Under CEQA
The Final EIR examined the environmental impacts of the General Plan in the areas of Land Use; Transportation; Air Quality; Energy and Greenhouse Gases; Hydrology and Flooding; Geology, Soils and Seismic Risk; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Visual Resources; Noise; Hazardous Materials and Fire Hazards; Parks, Public Services and Facilities; Wildfire; Utilities; Mineral Resources; Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; Growth-Inducing Impacts; and Cumulative Impacts.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that the following potential impacts would not occur or would be less than significant, as defined by the EIR:
a) Land Use and Housing: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.1-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.
ii. Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
iii. Impact 3.1-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. iv. Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
b) Transportation: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.2-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
ii. Impact 3.2-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). iii. Impact 3.2-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
c) Air Quality: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.3-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. ii. Impact 3.3-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
iii. Impact 3.3-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. iv. Impact 3.3-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
d) Energy & Greenhouse Gases: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction, operation, and/or maintenance.
e) Hydrology & Flooding: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
i. Impact 3.5-1: New development and other improvements under the Proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater quality. ii. Impact 3.5-2: New development under the Proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with rates of groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
iii. Impact 3.5-3: New development under the Proposed Project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff resulting in erosion, siltation, polluted runoff, and flooding on- or off-site; an exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or impediment or redirection of flood flows.
iv. Impact 3.5-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation by seiche, tsunami, or flood. v. Impact 3.5-5: The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
vi. Cumulative Impact 3.5-8: Increased construction activity and new development facilitated by the Proposed Project, in conjunction with past, present, reasonably foreseeable future development in the San Francisco Peninsula, would not significantly affect stormwater flows and water quality. f) Geology, Soils, and Seismic Risk: The following impacts would not occur or were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.6-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and landslides.
ii. Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss.
iii. Impact 3.6-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not locate structures on expansive soils or on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, therefore creating substantial risks to life or property.
iv. Impact 3.6-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
v. Impact 3.6-5: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
vi. Impact 3.6-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
g) Biological Resources: The following impacts would not occur or were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.7-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ii. Impact 3.7-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. iii. Impact 3.7-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
iv. Impact 3.7-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
v. Impact 3.7-5: Implementation of Proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
vi. Impact 3.7-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
h) Cultural Resources & Tribal Cultural Resources: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.8-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial change to the significance of a historical resource, defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired (Guidelines Section 15064.5).
ii. Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
iii. Impact 3.8-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project could disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. iv. Impact 3.8-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native Tribe. i) Visual Resources: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
i. Impact 3.9-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
ii. Impact 3.9-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
iii. Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Planning Area and its surroundings.
iv. Impact 3.9-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
j) Noise: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.10-1: New development under the Proposed Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ii. Impact 3.10-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. iii. Impact 3.10-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. k) Hazardous Materials: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.11-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
ii. Impact 3.11-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
iii. Impact 3.11-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. iv. Impact 3.11-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not allow development on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
v. Impact 3.11-5: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, where located within the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for San Francisco International Airport.
vi. Impact 3.11-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
vii. Impact 3.11-7: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
l) Parks, Public Services, and Facilities: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.12-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
ii. Impact 3.12-2: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated.
iii. Impact 3.12-3: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities in a manner which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
m) Utilities: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.13-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
ii. Impact 3.13-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. iii. Impact 3.13-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. iv. Impact 3.13-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project will not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. v. Impact 3.13-5: Implementation of the Proposed Project will not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
vi. Impact 3.13-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in solid waste disposal needs that exceed the permitted landfill capacity serving the project.
n) Wildfire: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.14-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ii. Impact 3.14-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
structures to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
iii. Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
iv. Impact 3.14-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. o) Mineral Resources: The following impacts would not occur or were found to be less than significant:
i. Impact 3.15-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
ii. Impact 3.15-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 (a)(1) and 15092(b), and to the extent reflected in the EIR, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan that mitigate to a less than significant level or avoid the following potentially significant effects on the environment:
GHG and Energy, Impact 3.4.1 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR assessed mass and per capita greenhouse gas emissions under the proposed General Plan buildout, which are expected to decrease over time. The total GHG emissions under proposed General Plan buildout with quantifiable Proposed Project policies and the Climate Action Plan goal of achieving 75 percent diversion of solid waste community-wide is estimated to be 79,851 MTCO2e in 2040, or 1.9 MTCO2e per capita. Projected emissions meet the CARB and SB 375 emissions targets for 2035, but exceed the interpolated GHG reduction target of 1.53 established in the City of Pacifica CAP for 2040, and for the SB 32 emissions reduction target of 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040. The DEIR found that additional quantifiable policies would further reduce mass and per capita emissions; however, these reductions are not sufficient to meet the threshold of 1.53 MTCO2e per capita as the threshold for meeting the 2050 reduction target articulated in EO S-3-05 and the 2014 Pacifica Climate Action Plan (CAP), or the SB 32 emissions reduction target.
Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: As the transportation and energy sectors are the largest source of emissions within the Planning Area in 2020 and is projected to remain the largest sources in 2040, these sectors have the most opportunity for reductions. There are many Proposed Project policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions, CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
especially those that relate to pedestrian improvements and increased connectivity; streetscape improvements and traffic calming measures; transit service; trip reduction programs; clean city fleet; increased density and affordability; reduced parking; water conservation; waste reduction; commute trip reduction programs; teleworking; municipal energy efficiency; and outdoor lighting.
The Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the interpolated CAP reduction target on both a per capita and mass emissions basis assuming full implementation of quantifiable General Plan policies and 75 percent solid waste diversion, though it would achieve the target on a per service population basis. Other policies that would generally reduce GHG emissions but cannot be quantified include those related to renewable energy; energy efficiency; trees and native vegetation. However, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP. Therefore, on a local scale, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required.
Rationale and Conclusion: Implementation of the Proposed Project would reduce generation of GHG emissions by 47 percent compared to existing conditions. Per capita GHG emissions under the Proposed Project with and without the reduction potential of proposed policies incorporated would also be consistent with GHG emissions targets established by CARB of 6.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2050 to help local governments meet SB 32 and EO S-3-05 targets. The Proposed Project, assuming implementation of quantifiable policies, would result in 1.59 MTCO2e per capita in 2040, and a reduction of mass emissions by 59 percent below 1990 levels, just short of the 60 percent target. This is consistent with the interpolated target of 4.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2040 and the target established by CARB of 2.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2050.
However, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP. Therefore, on a local scale, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required. The impact will be mitigated with imposition of required Mitigation Measures MMGHG-1 and MM-GHG-2 and feasible, voluntary Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-3 which include implementation of the following actions:
MM-GHG-1: For new residential and commercial development, require installation of the electric vehicle recharging stations and other alternative fuel vehicle support infrastructure and adopt requirements for electric vehicle parking in new developments, consistent with Title 24 requirements, , with the goal of increasing electric vehicle ownership by 20%.
MM-GHG-2: Require installation of photovoltaic systems in new single family residential, multifamily residential, and commercial developments to increase solar capacity per the requirements of State law, with a target of an equivalent of 15 percent of projected electricity by 2040. Photovoltaic panel installation is required for new low-rise residential buildings which include single-family dwellings, and multifamily dwellings with three habitable stories or less pursuant to California Energy Code section 150.1.c.14. Photovoltaic panel installation is also required for new CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
nonresidential buildings with three habitable stories or fewer, other than health care facilities; hotel/motel occupancies; and, high-rise multi-family buildings with 10 habitable stories or fewer, pursuant to a local amendment to the California Energy Code codified in PMC section 8-6.08.
MM-GHG-3: Develop and implement a program to encourage the use of available grants for residential and commercial efficiency retrofits and voluntary cool roofing practices in new development with the goal of a 50 percent energy reduction compared to baseline in 30 percent of the total existing residential units and nonresidential square feet citywide by 2040. This measure is voluntary.
Table 3.4-5: Additional GHG Emissions Reduction from General Plan Policies Measure Sector Assumed Effectiveness Emissions Reduction (MTCO2e) MM-GHG-1 Transportation 20% 9,978
MM-GHG-2 Energy 15% 5,082
MM-GHG-3 Energy Voluntary Voluntary
Total Emissions Reduction 25,224
Total 2040 Emissions with Proposed Project Policies 50,100 Emissions per Capita 1.22
Emissions per Service Population 1.03
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
Implementation of these measures would reduce GHG emissions to 50,100 MTCO2e or 1.22 MTCO2e per capita. Both total and per capita emissions would achieve the interpolated GHG emissions reduction target established by the Pacifica CAP and the SB 32 mass emissions reduction target for 2040. Because existing GHG (2020) represents a 35 percent reduction over 1990 levels, and the Proposed Project is estimated to result in an approximately 69 percent reduction of MOTCO2e from 1990 levels, it is reasonable to assume that Pacifica will meet its 2030 SB 32 goal, The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
GHG and Energy, Impact 3.4-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Plan could conflict with Pacifica’s 2014 CAP, a roadmap that outlines a path for the City to achieve its GHG reduction goals of 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. CAP GHG emissions reduction targets of 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as described in Impact 3.4-1.
Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The CAP features goals and reduction strategies in the categories of energy, transportation and land use, solid waste, water, and education and outreach. Table 3.4-6 compares the goals of the 2014 CAP and CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
supportive Proposed Project policies and shows that the Proposed Project would directly support all CAP measures. However, without mitigation, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP.
Rationale and Conclusion: GHG emissions under the Proposed Project would be consistent with the CAP targets with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MMGHG- 3. Additionally, proposed policy CO-I-59 requires the City to maintain and update the CAP based on the General Plan update. The Proposed Project is consistent with the GHG reduction targets established by the CAP and supports all of the goals and strategies included in the CAP. The impact will be mitigated with imposition of Mitigation Measures GHG1, GHG-2, and GHG-3, as described in Impact 3.4-1.
GHG and Energy, Impact 3.4-4Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Facts in Support of Finding: The Proposed Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it would result in conflicts with regulations adopted for the purpose of increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency. Energy consumption throughout the City may increase as development anticipated by the Proposed Project occurs, therefore, resulting in more consumption than existing conditions and has the potential to conflict with State Goals of reducing GHG emissions, including CalGreen and Title 24, Plan Bay Area and SB 375, SB 32, and the City of Pacifica CAP.
Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts:
Development anticipated by the Proposed Project would be designed in a manner that is consistent with relevant energy conservation plans that encourage efficient use of energy resources. The Proposed Project would comply with CALGreen and Title 24 requirements to reduce energy consumption by implementing energy efficient building designs, reducing indoor and outdoor water demand, providing EV charging spaces, and installing energy-efficient appliances and equipment. Specifically, proposed General Plan policy CO-I-60 calls for the City to monitor the effectiveness of CALGreen in bringing about energy efficiency in architectural design and building construction. Additionally, policy CO-I-67 would increase energy efficiency in existing public buildings and require that any new municipal space exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 20 percent. As a result, the Proposed Project’s impacts would be considered less than significant.
Overall, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of Plan Bay Area 2050 by supporting reduction in transportation-related emissions. Although Plan Bay Area 2050 is not technically an energy efficiency plan, consistency with the RTP/SCS has energy implications (such as the reduction of VMT and thereby fuel energy consumed), including proposed General Plan policies aimed at reducing per capita VMT, which subsequently reduces GHG emissions and reduces fossil fuel consumption from travel. Impact 3.4-2 details the features incorporated into the Proposed Project to reduce vehicle trips, resulting in less gasoline and diesel fuel use. As discussed, implementation of State and local actions, General Plan land use and circulation CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
elements, proposed General Plan policies, and Mitigation Measure MMGHG- 1 would reduce transportation-related emissions by 68 percent between 2020 and 2040 (68,394 MTCO2e and 21,885 MTCO2e, respectively). Without mitigation, the Proposed Project could conflict with GHG emission-reduction targets set by CARB through SB 375 by reducing VMT to achieve a 10 percent reduction in per capita passenger vehicle emissions by 2020 and 19 percent reduction by 2035 compared to the 2005 level.
As discussed in Impact 3.4-1, the Proposed Project, assuming implementation of quantifiable policies, would result in 1.59 MTCO2e per capita in 2040. This is consistent with the interpolated target of 4.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2040 and the target established by CARB of 2.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2050. Additionally, proposed policy CO-I-59 requires the City to maintain and update the CAP based on the General Plan update. However, implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions in excess of targets established in the existing Pacifica CAP and 2040 SB 32 mass emissions reduction targets without mitigation.
Rationale and Conclusion:
The Proposed Project would incorporate project design features and policies such that it would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of promoting renewable energy and overall energy efficiency. Any other potential impacts related to conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be mitigated with Mitigation Measures described in Impact 3.4-1.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that the following significant effects on the environment, as reflected in the EIR, and as mitigated as shown below, remain significant and unavoidable despite the fact that changes or alterations to the Project have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Further, the City finds that the following significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described below. The City also finds that further mitigation measures and a No Project Alternative that may reduce the significance of any of these impacts are rejected as infeasible for the reasons given below.
Impact 3.2-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Significant and Unavoidable) Facts in Support of Finding: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 requires that the determination of significance for transportation impacts be based on VMT instead of a congestion metric such as LOS. The change in the focus of transportation analysis is the result of SB 743. For the purposes of this EIR, the following thresholds of significance are used to determine if the proposed General Plan has an impact under the terms of Criteria 2:
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
(a) Vehicle Miles Traveled: 1. A significant impact would occur if the proposed General Plan Update increases the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per person above the baseline conditions.
As described in the Methodology, Table 3.2-6 shows VMT calculations for the 2015 baseline scenario for various geographic regions including the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, and the nine-county Bay Area. As shown, both VMT per capita and VMT per employee are higher for the City of Pacifica than for the county or Bay Area statistics. Table 3.2-6 also establishes thresholds based on a 15 percent reduction from the various baseline VMT rates. The threshold of significance based on a 15% reduction would be a VMT per capita of 13.40 miles per resident for the City of Pacifica; and a home-based work VMT per employee of 14.22 at the Countywide level.
Table 3.2-7 summarizes the VMT calculations for Pacifica under the No Project condition and Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3.2-7, VMT is expected to increase under the proposed General Plan and No Project scenarios. With the smallest increase in population, the No Project scenario would decrease home-based VMT and VMT per capita. Home-based work VMT per employee for jobs located in Pacifica would increase by 14.6 percent under the No Project scenario.
Home-based work VMT per employee for jobs located in Pacifica is expected to increase by 22.9 percent under the Proposed Project. While VMT per capita would decrease by 8.6 percent and home-based VMT would increase by only 0.5 percent, these rates all fall above the threshold of significance.
Effects of Proposed General Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Proposed policies listed below would reduce potential impacts by supporting TDM measures and requiring that new developments prepare transportation impact assessments to determine project specific impacts of new development under the proposed General Plan such that impacts can be appropriately mitigated. Additionally, City goals and policies strive to develop a multi-modal transportation network that would provide transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle and encourage complete street design.
The City shall implement all policies identified in the proposed General Plan Circulation Element to reduce the demand for vehicle travel within and through the Planning Area, as well as work with local, regional, and state agencies to implement regional transportation improvements.
Additionally, new developments would be required to evaluate their project-specific impacts on the transportation system and fund improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service, except where exemptions are identified in the Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan.
However, even with implementation of these policies, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Rationale and Conclusion:
Mitigation of VMT is required because levels of VMT per service population is not expected to fall below the threshold of significance without additional measures. Two measures have been proposed:
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
MM-TRA-1: Require applicants for non-residential projects that employ 20 or more people— which is equivalent to 12,000 square feet of retail space, 6,000 square feet of office space, 20,000 square feet of industrial space, or 22 hotel rooms to implement an employee commute trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program shall identify alternative modes of transportation to the project, including transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool/vanpool availability. Information regarding these programs shall be readily available to employees and clients. The project applicant or designee shall implement at least one of the following incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program, or another equally effective incentive:
• Ride-matching assistance
• Subsidized public transit passes
• Vanpool assistance or employer-provided vanpool/shuttle • Car-sharing program (e.g. Zipcar)
• Bicycle end-trip facilities, including bike parking, lockers, and showers.
MM-TRA-2: Develop an informational program that encourages local businesses to implement telecommuting, hybrid, and alternative work schedules that allow employees to utilize remote work options while reducing vehicle-based commutes. Implementation of commute trip reduction programs and remote work options could reduce home-based work VMT, home-based work VMT per employee, and VMT per capita.
Implementation of commute trip reduction programs and remote work options could reduce home-based work VMT, home-based work VMT per employee, and VMT per capita. It is difficult to quantify the exact reduction potential of these mitigation measures as MM-TRA-1 applies only to new non-residential development of a certain size and MM-TRA-2 is a voluntary measure.
MM-TRA-2 responds to the recent surge of remote and hybrid work schedules following the COVID-19 pandemic. While both measures could reduce VMT metrics, it is unlikely that either would be sufficient in reducing these metrics to the proposed thresholds and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
VMT is by its nature a cumulative impact influenced by regional development patterns and policies. As a result there is little that Pacifica can do on its own to address VMT. As a result even after compliance with existing policies and regulations, implementation of Proposed Project, and implementation of feasible mitigation measures impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
FINDINGS
Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Council, the Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of the rate of increase in VMT or vehicle trips exceeding the rate of increase in population with implementation of the Plan.
Although there are polices in the General Plan to reduce this impact, the Council finds the impact significant and unavoidable.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Alternatives
The Final EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project, examining the environmental impacts and feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project objectives. The Project objectives are listed in Chapter 2(Project Description) of the Draft EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible mitigation measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 3 (Environmental Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 4 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR. Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives.
All analysis in Final EIR Chapter 4 is incorporated by reference.
ALTERNATIVE 1: STRONG CENTER AT QUARRY SITE
In Alternative 1, Pacifica gains a new city center on the Quarry site, extending from the Rockaway Beach district and including a new civic center. This alternative assumes the greatest amount of development on the Quarry site, and the least amount of development on underutilized sites elsewhere. Palmetto Avenue develops as a main street, though at a lower intensity than the Proposed Project, and mixed-use redevelopment occurs at Park Mall.
The “Flats” portion of the Quarry site is developed with a compact mix of offices and housing over retail leading north from the Rockaway Beach district. A new civic center including city offices and a library/learning center is built west of the Reina del Mar intersection, near the Water Recycling facility and the Police station. This civic area meets the mixed use development at a new city park bordering the Calera Creek greenway. Also relating to this park is a Visitors’ Center, with immediate access to both the new shopping district and the regional trail system. The “Pad” portion of the site is reserved for a resort hotel/conference center, with views along the coast and down to the expanded Rockaway Beach district. The remainder of the Quarry uplands is permanently conserved as open space, with public trail access to Mori Point and beyond. Across Highway 1, new mixed-use and high-density residential development takes place along lower Fassler Avenue.
In West Sharp Park, Palmetto Avenue continues to develop as currently envisioned, but at lower intensities than the Preferred Plan, with streetscape improvements helping to stimulate mixed use development on vacant and under-utilized sites. The fishing pier, the revitalized Palmetto shopping area, and a new park and boutique hotel on the site of the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant draw locals and visitors to West Sharp Park. Residential areas are proposed to have the same or nearly the same designations as under the proposed Plan, with an emphasis on conserving sensitive areas, steep slopes and open space; respecting neighborhood character; and facilitating higher-density housing at appropriate locations.
Alternative 1 concentrates the greatest amount of development on the environmentally sensitive Quarry site and the least amount of development on underutilized sites elsewhere in the City, in contrast to the other alternatives. While it has lower population projections to Alternative 2, there are over 710 more jobs forecasted for Alternative 1 compared to the lower growth scheme of CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Alternative 2. This additional job growth would result in greater environmental impacts from additional vehicle trips and greater demand for parking. Ultimately, Alternative 1 has a greater impact on the environment than Alternative 2 and the Proposed Project.
ALTERNATIVE 2: CONSERVATION AND REDEVELOPMENT
In Alternative 2, a balance is created between four smaller centers in a sequence along the Coast Highway: Pacific Manor, West and East Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar/Pedro Point. Each has a distinct identity. Most of the Quarry site is conserved. Pedro Point and Linda Mar shopping centers experience redevelopment.
A new civic center is developed in the West Sharp Park neighborhood. Mixed use development also occurs along Palmetto Avenue, as in the other alternatives. Here it is anchored by a visitor attraction at the site of the former Treatment Plant.
Only minimal development takes place on the Quarry site, with the great majority conserved as habitat or open space. The Rockaway Beach district expands slightly to the north with visitororiented uses and a Visitors’ Center with primary access to the regional trail system. The Sea Bowl is developed as a retail commercial center, with a pedestrian bridge across the highway to the Headlands providing trail access to both Rockaway and Pacifica State Beach.
Pedro Point Shopping Center retains its use, with direct access to Pacifica State Beach and visibility from the highway. The undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site is developed with a mix of coastal-related and residential uses. Across Highway 1, mixed-use transit-oriented development occurs on both sides of Linda Mar Boulevard and on Crespi Drive.
Pacific Manor Shopping Center is redeveloped as an office district, with a smaller amount of retail serving the neighborhood. New medical and professional offices could be clustered here, where they have the greatest visibility and access to the largest population.
Residential areas are proposed to have the same or nearly the same designations as under the proposed Plan, with an emphasis on conserving sensitive areas, steep slopes and open space; respecting neighborhood character; and facilitating higher-density housing at appropriate locations.
Alternative 2 creates fewer acres of non-residential buildout than the Proposed Project or Alternative 1, which would result in smaller environmental impacts from less development. It conserves the Quarry site, an environmentally sensitive area. It would result in fewer jobs, population, and housing units than the proposed Plan or Alternative 1, which would lower its environmental impacts.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when the project is the revision of a plan, as in this case, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan. The No Project scenario represents the continuation of the current City of Pacifica General Plan land use designations. It uses projections from C/CAG’s Travel Demand Model for the year 2040. It assumes that the existing Plan and Zoning Ordinance would continue to guide development in the Planning Area until buildout in 2040. While the proposed Project and the two alternatives share an updated set of land use designations, the No Project alternative uses the existing General Plan designations. This means that there is only one commercial category, compared to five in the proposed Plan and alternatives; and one mixed use category, compared to three designations in the other scenarios.
The No Project alternative would result in more low density residential development compared to the proposed Project, but less residential development overall, including much less in a mixed-use format. The No Project alternative assumes a similar amount of commercial development as the proposed Project, with most commercial development occurring at the Gypsy Hill site, as well as intensification of commercial uses in northern Palmetto and east of Highway 1 near Rockaway Beach, and at the Pedro Point Shopping Center. The No Project Alternative would result in less non-residential development at the Quarry than the Proposed Project and Alternative 1, but more than Alternative 2.
The No Project Alternative creates the least amount of population growth and housing and a similar number of jobs as the Proposed Project. While the Proposed Project results in the least amount of population growth, it does not accommodate the anticipated housing need for Pacifica.
Importantly, the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the Proposed Project goals, such as preserving open space and trails, providing for sustainable development and practices, and creating a unique, vital center for the City.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. The Guidelines also require that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. Based on a comparison of the alternatives’ overall environmental impacts and their compatibility with General Plan goals and objectives, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative for this EIR.
The Proposed Project would fully accommodate the anticipated population and job growth in Pacifica with orderly, sequential growth focused in multiple centers, with the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area and Rockaway Beach as the two main centers of the city. The key difference between the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 is the amount of job growth accommodated, and the location and amount of land that is urbanized. With more commercial development and more job CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
growth than Alternative 2, the Proposed Project would create more environmental impacts. It creates more development on the environmentally sensitive Quarry site than Alternative 2.
Ultimately, Alternative 2 would result in lower environmental impact than the Proposed Project; however, the Proposed Project achieves all plan objectives while establishing policies to reduce environmental impacts of the city’s growth and development. However, though Alternative 2 creates less environmental impacts, it may not result in the city center that would be welcomed by community members under the Proposed Project.
Although the No Project Alternative would create less population growth and housing than Alternative 2, it assumes a higher amount of commercial development. In terms of environmental impacts, Alternative 2 would result in impacts similar to the proposed General Plan analyzed in this EIR, as population and housing levels are relatively the same. In some impact areas, such as solid waste, this alternative would result in a lower environmental impact than the proposed General Plan. In addition, this alternative creates less total nonresidential buildout acres than the proposed General Plan, which also leads to a smaller impact as a result of non-residential buildout. Alternative 2 would result in the creation of the four distinct activity centers. With these four centers, the objective to create a strong city center for Pacifica would not be met. Alternative 2 also would not allow for the transition of developable portions of the Quarry site to reuse and integration into the city fabric.
Alternative 2 also does not plan for as much housing as the Proposed Project, a key consideration as Pacifica enters its next housing element cycle.
Proposed General Plan Benefits
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze “beneficial impacts” in an EIR. Rather, EIRs focus on potential “significant effects on the environment” defined to be “adverse” (Public Resources Code Section 21068). Nevertheless, decision makers may be aided by information about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Council’s decision to adopt the proposed General Plan rather than any of the alternatives is based on considering the balance of these benefits of the Plan against its identified unavoidable environmental impacts.
Each benefit of the proposed Project, as stated below, is determined to be a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified above. This Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the specific reasons supporting the Council’s actions in approving the proposed Plan. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the findings of fact and the project, the Council has considered the information contained in the Findings and in the documents comprising the record of proceedings for the project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) provides the following guidance for a statement of overriding considerations:
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” The results of the environmental analysis on the proposed Plan are discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the Findings. The Council reached the conclusions below pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The following statements describe the proposed Plan’s benefits considered by decision makers in determining whether to adopt the proposed Plan despite its potentially significant adverse environmental effects. The Council concludes that any one of the statements below is independently sufficient to justify approval of the project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits of the project can be found in public records on the General Plan update process, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings.
Statement 1: The Proposed Plan prioritizes open space preservation and expands Pacifica’s trail system. Pacifica’s hillsides, beaches, and other protected open space are prized by community members for their scenic, recreational, and habitat values. Continued preservation is seen as a key accomplishment over the next 20 years. The Plan identifies priorities for open space preservation and strategies to protect open space while allowing limited development, to be clustered and designed to fit into its natural setting. It also proposes an enhanced trail system connecting the coastline and ridges throughout Pacifica.
Statement 2: The Proposed Plan promotes sustainable development and practices. Pacifica residents want to allow a responsible amount of development while ensuring that habitat and the community’s unique, small-town character are protected. Residents also want to see green building and other sustainable practices promoted by the City. The Plan aims to set a good land use balance and to promote sustainable site planning and design, water conservation, waste reduction, and use of alternative transportation modes.
Statement 3: The Proposed Plan creates a destination for tourism. Throughout the update process, community members and stakeholders emphasized the need for more economic activity.
There is a widely shared sense that Pacifica has the potential to attract more tourists, and that this should be a key component of the City’s economic development strategy. The Plan includes strategies to enhance tourism by leveraging Pacifica’s natural assets, creating more attractive places in visitor-oriented districts, marketing, and pursuing destination hotels and inns at key sites, including Rockaway Beach and Quarry.
Statement 4: The Proposed Plan revitalizes shopping areas and produces walkable, mixed-use areas. Pacifica residents desire more attractive and successful commercial areas, and also envision the development of walkable, mixed-use areas with good transit access. The Plan seeks to support commercial revitalization and redevelopment at key locations, advancing the City’s fiscal health, its quality of life, and its sustainability all at once.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Statement 5: The Proposed Plan creates a unique, vital center for Pacifica. Many community members expressed interest in creating a center for Pacifica, to provide a community gathering place and strengthen the City’s identity. Palmetto Avenue was most often pointed to as having great potential to grow into such a vital, unique district. The Plan aims to facilitate the enhancement of Palmetto as a pedestrian-oriented retail area, anchored by new development at the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant site, linking the retail district to the Promenade and the Ocean. New civic facilities, such as a City Hall and a new Library/Learning Center, could be valuable assets to this area as well.
Statement 6: The Proposed Plan ensures diversity of housing and population. Only a small amount of new housing—about 990 units—is expected to be developed during the planning period. Residents are proud of the diversity of housing in the community, and want to ensure that this is carried on. In addition, many observed that new housing types should help provide additional options for residents as they age. The Plan aims to make Pacifica more accessible and ensure adequate housing options for people of all ages and incomes by providing enough sites at a higher density, and creating opportunities for mixed use development in transit-accessible locations.
Statement 7: The Proposed Plan provides recreational facilities and activities for youth.
Pacifica has limited recreation facilities, and community members expressed concern about the lack of things to do, especially for youth. The Plan identifies top priorities for recreation improvements, with an emphasis on improving park land that exists and providing some small new parks. Creating more accessible and vibrant commercial areas with a sense of place that appeals to visitors will also help make Pacifica a better place for young people.
Statement 8: The Proposed Plan improves existing infrastructure. The need for the City to maintain and improve streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure was a clear consensus point for the community. Most notable is the need to fix the bottleneck on Highway 1. The Plan supports ecoordination and solutions that ease traffic congestion for greatest benefit and least environmental impact as possible, seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and sets priorities for sidewalk and street repairs based on location and safety.
Statement 9: The Proposed Plan devises protective measures against natural hazards. Pacifica faces a variety of natural hazards, including fires, earthquake-induced landslides, flooding, and coastal erosion. The Plan establishes a land use pattern that reflects hazardous conditions, such as steep slopes and coastal bluffs, and includes policies to improve public safety services and emergency management. The need to respond over the long term to coastal erosion will be an ongoing challenge for the City.
These key goals and initiatives were developed through an extensive public outreach process that accompanied the General Plan, which engaged stakeholders, decision-makers, the General Plan Outreach Committee, and members of the general public in discussion and debate over priorities for Pacifica’s future. Members of the public as well as elected officials were consulted and engaged at each key decision point in the update process, ensuring that the proposed General Plan reflects the community’s priorities to the greatest extent possible. During this public process, the Council CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
examined alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update, none of which meet the stated project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project.
Overriding Considerations Conclusions
The Council finds that the proposed General Plan has been carefully reviewed and that mitigating policies have been included in the Final EIR to be certified by the Council. Nonetheless, the proposed General Plan may have certain environmental effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. As to these significant environmental effects that are not avoided or substantially lessened to a point less than significant, the Council finds that specific fiscal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make additional mitigation of those impacts infeasible, in that all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed General Plan.
The Council has carefully considered all of the environmental impacts that have not been mitigated to a less than significant level, as listed above. The Council has also carefully considered the fiscal, economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposed General Plan, as listed above, and compared these with the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, which were evaluated in the Final EIR. The Council has balanced the fiscal, economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposed Plan against its unavoidable and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, has determined that the benefits of the proposed General Plan outweigh, and therefore override, the remaining adverse environmental effects. Such benefits provide the substantive and legal basis for this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
In approving the proposed General Plan, the Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 in support of its findings on the Final EIR:
The Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council specifically finds and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The Council has carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed General Plan Update against any adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance, which are enumerated below. While the Council has required all feasible mitigation measures, such impacts remain significant for purposes of adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations:
Impact 3.3-1 (Implementation of the proposed Pacifica General Plan would cause the rate of increase in VMT or vehicle trips to exceed the rate of increase in population with implementation of the Plan for the years covered by the proposed Plan (Significant and Unavoidable).
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
FINDINGS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These specific considerations have been analyzed in the context of the proposed General Plan and the project alternatives. Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council finds the proposed General Plan is critical in meeting the following key guiding policies relating to economic sustainability, community design, land use, circulation, open space and community facilities, conservation safety, and noise as follows:
Economic Sustainability
• Leverage Assets. Leverage Pacifica’s coastal location and unique assets as a primary means to strengthen the local economy, focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops, hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails. • Maintain Fiscal Sustainability. Foster a fiscally healthy City government and enlarge the City’s revenue base as necessary to sustain and support the community. • Promote a Positive Image. Promote a positive image of Pacifica as a desirable place to work, live, and visit.
• Support Existing Businesses. Retain and foster the growth of existing Pacifica businesses, and foster a positive relationship between the business community and the City government.
• Attract New Businesses and Jobs. Seek out new businesses that will employ and serve Pacifica residents, improving the City’s jobs/housing ratio. • Ensure Environmental Protection. Ensure that economic development in Pacifica proceeds synergistically with environmental protection.
Community Design
Urban Structure
• Identifiable City Structure. Reinforce a clear city structure, characterized by a progression of ridges, neighborhoods, and activity centers. • Distinct Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica.
Neighborhoods and Districts
• Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods.
• Enhanced Mixed Use Areas. Create distinctive mixed-use areas by ensuring good building form and building-sidewalk interface, and providing pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Hillside and Coastal Development
• Hillsides and Prominent Ridgelines. Maintain development standards that ensure that new development does not detract from the visual qualities of Pacifica’s hillsides and visually prominent ridgelines.
• Scenic and Visual Amenities of the Coastal Zone. Protect the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities in the Coastal Zone by protecting landforms, vegetation, special communities, and important viewsheds.
Scenic Routes
• Views from Scenic Routes. Ensure that designated viewsheds from Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are preserved and enhanced. These views are an essential part of Pacifica’s identity.
• Gateways. Create strong entrances and preserve the quality of experience of movement along primary travel routes.
Land Use
Land Use Framework
• Coastal Development. Ensure that development maximizes beach and coastal open space access and is oriented as much as possible to each particular coastal environment in use, design, and intensity.
• Concentrated Development. Focus new development in or directly adjacent to alreadydeveloped areas, where it can be served by existing public services and where it will not have significant impacts on coastal or other resources. • Future Residential Development. Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony with the surrounding natural setting.
• Higher-Density Housing. Locate higher-density housing in accessible places close to community shopping areas.
• Commercial Area Revitalization. Facilitate the revitalization of shopping areas and the creation of distinct commercial districts in Pacifica, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.
• Compact Mixed Use Development. Facilitate compact mixed-use development on sites with good access to transit. Mixed-use development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or personal service businesses. • Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.
• Citizen Participation. Continue broad-based citizen participation in the planning process.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Circulation
Roadway Network and Planned Improvements
• Comprehensive Circulation System. Create a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system with streets and highways; transit facilities; a continuous network of sidewalks and bicycle routes.
• Serve All Users. Plan, design, build, and maintain transportation improvements to support safe and convenient access for all users with priority for “complete streets” projects that facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use wherever possible. • Safety. Make safety a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations. • Level of Service (LOS) for All Modes of Travel. Assess the performance of the transportation system by measuring how well pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles as well as automobiles are able to move within and through the community. • Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled by developing higher-density, mixed use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and improving transit options and efficiency.
• Context Sensitivity. Plan, design, and build transportation improvements so that they respect the surrounding environment.
Transportation improvements will be undertaken in consultation with local residents and businesses.
• Congestion on Highway 1. In consultation with Caltrans, seek solutions to ease the traffic congestion that occurs on Highway 1 near the Reina Del Mar, Fassler Avenue, and Linda Mar Boulevard intersections. Strive for the greatest benefit with the least environmental impact possible.
• Congestion on Hickey and Skyline. Improve travel to and from Pacifica’s northern neighborhoods by easing congestion on Hickey Boulevard through coordinated signalization or other changes, and working with the County to improve operations on SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard).
• Coordination of Local and Regional Actions. Coordinate local transportation planning and improvements with State, Regional and County agencies to ensure consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan, the Congestion Management Program, and other regional actions.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Establish trails, bike routes and pedestrian amenities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations, and fill in gaps in the existing network.
• Walkable Neighborhoods. Improve pedestrian amenities to create more walkable neighborhoods, especially in mixed-use activity centers and around schools.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
• Recreational Access. Provide recreational access to coastal resources and public open space in keeping with Pacifica’s natural environment, with links to regional trails and bicycle corridors.
See Chapter 6 of the proposed General Plan for additional Trail System policies. • Mobility for All Users. Create a safe and attractive walking environment accessible for all users, particularly persons with disabilities, seniors, and younger residents and visitors. • Connections Across Highway 1. Enhance under- and over-crossings of Highway 1 for pedestrians and bikes to improve accessibility and connect neighborhoods to each other and to the coast.
• Coastal Trail and North-South Bikeway. Complete the Coastal Trail and the northsouth bikeway from the north to sound end of the City parallel to Highway 1, providing clear, safe and efficient means to traverse coastal Pacifica.
Public Transportation and Transportation Demand Management • Improved Public Transit. Advocate for SamTrans and other public transit providers to improve transit service and facilities, to enable trips to be made without use of a car. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Support TDM strategies to reduce congestion and single-occupant vehicle travel.
Truck Movement
• Truck Movement and Quality of Life. Balance commercial goods movement with the health and quality of life priorities of the community.
Parking
• Private Parking. Ensure adequate off-street parking in all new development. • Public and Visitor Parking. Facilitate beach and recreational use by providing safe and well-located public parking.
• Commuter Parking. Facilitate transit use by providing safe, well-located park-and-ride lots.
Open Space and Community Facilities
Parks, Beaches and Open Space
• Development of City Parks. Create and enhance neighborhood and pocket parks and plazas to provide access to local recreational space to all Pacifica residents. • Recreation Facilities. Enhance outdoor recreation facilities and services in local parks, in coordination with youth and adult leagues and community groups with priority given to sports fields and off-leash dog play areas.
• Community Gathering Place. Create or enhance one or more public plazas or central gathering places where all Pacifica residents come together. This place or places should be connected with concentrated, mixed use areas.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
• School Playfields. Continue to cooperate with the school districts to make school play fields available for public use after school hours.
• Open Space Preservation. Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety.
The top priority areas for conservation are beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillsides areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and endangered species. See Figure 6-1 in the General Plan. • Coastal Areas Suited for Water-Oriented Recreation. Continue to protect coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities.
This policy applies to, but is not limited to, the following: fishing at Pacifica Pier, surfing and other water recreation at Pacifica State Beach.
Trail System
• Trail System Expansion. Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 6-3 of the General Plan.
Coastal Access
• Coastal Access and Recreational Opportunities. Provide maximum coastal access and recreational opportunities for all people consistent with public safety and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse, including access at each point identified on Figure 6-4 of the General Plan. • Management of Public Access. Provide public access in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner that access is provided, based on such factors as topographic and site constraints; the fragility of natural resources; and the privacy of adjacent residential uses.
• Distribution of Public Coastal Facilities. Continue to distribute public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, so as to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Schools and Community Facilities
• Optimize School Facilities. Coordinate with the school districts to ensure facilities are adequate, and to plan for reuse and redevelopment opportunities that help to meet goals of both the districts and the City.
• Public Facilities Improvements. Enhance public community facilities in Pacifica, with top priorities being a new library/learning center and a new City Hall or civic center. • Youth Activities. Create more facilities and activities for youth in Pacifica, especially teenagers, at locations accessible by bus and bicycle as well as by car. • Community Services. Continue to provide services to seniors and others in need, either directly or through support to other organizations.
• Cultural Facilities. Foster the expansion and creation of programs and facilities for the visual and performing arts and the study and appreciation of natural resources.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Conservation
Water Resources
• Water Quality. Support the improvement of Pacifica’s water quality, including both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration. • Watershed Management. Recognize the interrelated nature of Pacifica’s hydrology system, its watersheds, and development in the Planning Area, and protect water resources through comprehensive management of entire watersheds. • Maintain Creeks as a Resource. Ensure both access to and ecological functionality of the creek system in Pacifica.
• Water Conservation. Work with the NCCWD to meet water conservation objectives as required by State law.
• Wastewater Treatment. Ensure that the City maintains adequate capacity to handle wastewater, and continue to expand wastewater recycling. • Retain Natural Processes. Enable natural processes to occur on developed sites, and utilize these processes to enhance the built environment and users’ experiences of it.
Biological Resources
• Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat.
Habitat areas shall be identified as top priorities for permanent conservation, and as such habitat shall be protected by avoiding development or buildout to occur in areas of critical habitat for special status species. Additionally, public land shall be managed to ensure species protection. Critical Habitat in the Coastal Zone is considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).
• Coastal Environment and Sensitive Natural Communities. Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and other habitats for special status species, particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs. • Creeks and Riparian Areas. Protect year-round creeks and their riparian habitats.
San Pedro Creek has been designated an “impaired waterway” by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and provides critical habitat to a federally-listed threatened species, the California coast population of steelhead.
• Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.
• Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect High Value or High Habitat Value areas, Wildlife Movement Corridors and Coastal Commission-designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas from development.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Land and Soil Resources
• Preserve Agricultural Open Space. Promote the preservation of agricultural open space in the Planning Area.
• Protect Significant Mineral Resources. Cooperate with regional agencies to protect coastal sediment and significant mineral resources in the Planning Area.
Air Quality
• Improve Air Quality. Reduce emissions of ozone-producing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of Pacifica and Bay Area residents.
Energy and Greenhouse Gases
• Renewable Energy. Support the use and development of renewable energy through City purchasing, and facilitation of local renewable energy generation. • Energy Conservation. Support efforts to reduce energy use by increasing energy efficiency in buildings and promoting awareness of energy use. • Waste Reduction. Seek to reduce overall solid waste by limiting packaging, controlling construction and demolition waste, and promoting composting and recycling.
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
• Historic and Cultural Sites. Conserve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Pacifica’s identity and character and increase public awareness and appreciation them.
• Ensure Mitigation. Require mitigation for any new development that would adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources.
Safety
Seismic and Geologic Hazards
• Reduce Risk. Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
Flooding and Drainage
• Development in Hazardous Areas. Protect new development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones with flood damage prevention programs. • Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Establish policies to minimize the risk to persons and property posed by potential sea level rise.
Hazardous Materials and Operations
• Contaminated Sites. Facilitate clean-up programs at contaminated sites, particularly on properties with the potential to develop or be reused for public purposes. • Safe Disposal. Continue to promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education and awareness.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
Fire Hazards
• Fire Prevention. Protect Pacifica residents and businesses from potential wildland fire hazards.
Public Safety and Emergency Management
• Emergency Response. Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.
• Public Awareness. Support continuing public awareness of hazards, including avoidance, disaster preparedness, and emergency response procedures. • Disaster Preparation. Make infrastructure investments, enforce regulations, and disseminate information that will improve disaster response and recovery, with the goal of minimizing damage to people and property.
Noise
Noise Exposure Standards
• Coordination with Other Agencies. Continue to work with other agencies, airports and jurisdictions to reduce noise levels in Pacifica created by their operations. • Acceptable Noise Environment. Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the environmental, health and safety needs of present and future residents of Pacifica. • Sensitive Land Uses. Protect noise sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise.
This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Final EIR and the record of these proceedings. In addition, this Statement of Overriding Considerations applies to those impacts that have been substantially lessened but not necessarily lessened to a level of insignificance.
Based upon the goals and objectives identified in the proposed General Plan and the Final EIR, following extensive public participation and testimony, and notwithstanding the impacts that are identified in the Final EIR as being significant and potentially significant and which arguably may not be avoided, lessened, or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the Council, acting pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that specific economic, legal, social, environmental, technological, and other benefits and overriding considerations of the proposed General Plan sufficiently outweigh any remaining unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Update and that the proposed General Plan should be approved.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Council further determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the proposed General Plan are acceptable, and that there are overriding considerations that support the Council’s approval of the proposed General Plan, as stated in the above sections.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR
The Council believes that it is prudent to select the proposed General Plan over the alternatives because it provides dramatic improvements over the continuation of the existing General Plan, and most closely embodies the project objectives. In making this determination, the Council incorporates by reference all of the supporting evidence cited within the Draft and Final EIR, and in the administrative record.
In reaching this conclusion and approving the proposed Plan:
• The Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council specifically finds and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
• The Council has carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed Plan against any adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. While the Council have required all feasible mitigation measures, some impacts remain potentially significant.
This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be potentially significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Final EIR and the record of these proceedings.
CEQA Findings of Fact in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacifica General Plan Update and Specific Plan EIR