Pacifica City Council
August 31, 2022

To: City of Pacifica Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comments on Sharp Park Specific Plan
The Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) has a major flaw. Environmental justice and economic justice issues are at risk.

Let’s fix the SPSP. Now, while we still can.

Essentially, the Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) is spot-on. Visionary. Essential. Brilliant. The vision for Palmetto Ave as a vibrant and walkable small “Downtown Pacifica” is just what we need. A new hotel at 2212 Beach Blvd. is key to making this happen. Adding shops, eateries and other businesses will make Pacifica thrive. And the increased tax revenue to our city treasuries is essential to our economic viability as a city.

The SPSP goes into detail about the potential for Sea Level Rise. Yet, the SPSP is virtually silent about a commitment to seek a simple sea level rise solution for Pacifica and Sharp Park… A RUBUST SEAWALL. Pacifica has completed an exhaustive Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Study (BBIRP). This BBIRP plan concludes a robust seawall is the best comprehensive and simple solution to the future effects of potential sea level rise in Sharp Park. Unless the SPSP includes a commitment to pursue a robust seawall… within the Sharp Park Specific Plan itself, the SPSP becomes a plan for failure.

Furthermore, without a commitment to pursue a robust seawall…. investment in Sharp Park … will never happen. Why would investors build a hotel, restaurant, offices or affordable homes envisioned in the SPSP… without Pacifica’s commitment to pursue a robust seawall? Not a rhetorical question. Why would they make such a large investment? This single flaw in the SPSP is easy to fix though. The Sharp Park Specific Plan requires a strong policy commitment statement that Pacifica will pursue the design and funding to build a robust seawall. A plan to guard against the potential for sea level rise. Public infrastructure, family homes, retirement nest eggs, businesses, and affordable

1.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 22 recreation are at stake. As well as future projects like a hotel, with vital tax income critical to Pacifica’s economic survival!
Hundreds of millions of dollars of public infrastructure are at risk, without a robust seawall. This critical essential public Infrastructure must be protected from potential sea level rise. Without the existing standing sewer pump station alone, which would be lost to sea level rise, 40% of Pacificans will lose their sewer service. Not just lost in Sharp Park, but 40% of all Pacifica! The golf course, pier and access to coastal trails provide affordable recreation that need the protection of a robust seawall. A robust seawall is both an environmental justice issue, and an economic justice issue.

Pacifica family investments in homes & businesses must be protected. Homeowners who invested their life savings never thought they should fear their government might abandon them and effectively condemn their homes by not protecting public infrastructure and places to live… with a robust seawall. Again, key environmental and economic justice issues.

Candidly, a robust seawall north of the pier is a no brainer. The Sharp Park Specific Plan needs to be clear that we are working to make a robust seawall north of the pier happen. The simple solution is a robust seawall north of the pier.

Let’s fix the Sharp Park Specific Plan, with a clear policy statement within the SPSP itself that we will work to make a robust seawall happen.

Page two here includes a more detailed list of what is at stake, unless we make a commitment to pursue a robust seawall… within the Sharp Park Specific Plan itself.

Tom Thompson
Sharp Park property owner and taxpayer for 35 years.

June 6,
2022

Sharp Park Specific Plan Public Comments
PRIORITY SOLUTION: WE NEED TO COMMIT, WITHIN THE SPSP ITSELF, TO BUILDING A SEAWALL NORTH OF THE PIER, so we can:

A) Protect Public Infrastructure Investment. Economic & Social Justices Issues Involving:
1) Streets & Roads
2) Sidewalks
3) Beach Promenade
4) Storm Drains
5) Access to Coastal Trails
6) Sewer Lines
7) Natural Gas Lines
8) Electrical Service
9) Internet and Cable lines
10) Water Service Lines
11) Golf Course
12) Fishing Pier
13) Existing major sewer pumping station at 2212 Beach Blvd. Sewer service for 16,000 people. That’s 40% of all Pacificans. Not just Sharp Park.

B) Protect Private Investment. Economic & Social Justices Issues Involving:
1) 1,000 + of our most affordable existing homes.
2) 100+ existing small businesses.

1.c
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 23 3) Future Investment to make Palmetto a thriving walkable downtown district. 4) 2212 Beach Blvd Hotel won’t happen without a commitment to a seawall.

Pacifica’s financial future depends upon a new hotel on that site. 5) No commitment to pursuit of a robust seawall. Means no commitment to a hotel. How and why would investors move forward without this assurance? 6) The same holds true for other investors in Sharp Park. Why would any investors come to Sharp Park, if the city is not committed to protecting Sharp Park? C) Again, Protect Environmental and Economic and Social Equity Justice Issues including:
1) Think of the environmental & economic mess if 40% of Pacifica loses their sewer service because we didn’t protect the sewer pumping station with a robust seawall. 2) Preserving Pacifica’s 1,000+ most affordable homes in Sharp Park. 3) Preserving 100+ small businesses in Sharp Park.
4) Homeowners and small businesses have their nest eggs and retirement invested in Sharp Park.
5) These homeowners and businesses never dreamed their city might abandon them by not making it a policy to protect their homes & investments with a robust seawall. 6) Affordable access to our fishing pier provides affordable food to many families. 7) Access to affordable recreation like fishing, picnicking, golf & hiking trails are at risk. 8) Protecting Sharp Park with a simple robust seawall, north of the pier, is essential to getting the investment we need to make Sharp Park thrive. 9) And the increased tax revenue to our city treasuries from these investments is essential to our economic viability as a city. Economic justice for the city itself.

Tom Thompson, Sharp Park property owner and taxpayer for 35 years.

From: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Tom Thompson < >
Subject: RE: Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council Tom, thanks for resending. I’m still unable to open the PDF. My apologies for the inconvenience.

Regards,
Christian

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]
From: Tom Thompson < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>

1.c
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 24 Cc: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council [CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Christian:

Here again is the PDF for today’s 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council. I verified the PDF is working fine.

Tom Thompson
From: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 3:57 PM
To: Tom Thompson < >
Subject: RE: Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council Hi Tom,
There appears to be a problem with the PDF you attached to your comment email. Can you resend, please? Regards,
Christian

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]
From: Tom Thompson < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:14 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Cc: ; Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council [CAUTION: External Email]

1.c
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 25 Honorable Planning Commissioners, City Council and city staff:

The Sharp Park Specific Plan is spot-on, with one major flaw we can fix.

It goes into detail about potential Sea Level Rise… yet is virtually silent about a commitment to seek a solution for Pacifica and Sharp Park… A RUBUST SEAWALL north of the pier. Pacifica completed an exhaustive Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Study… which concludes a robust seawall is the best comprehensive and simple solution to future effects of potential sea level rise in Sharp Park.

Without a commitment to pursue a robust seawall…. investment in Sharp Park … will never happen. Why would investors build a hotel, restaurant, offices or affordable housing without Pacifica’s commitment to pursue a robust seawall? Not a rhetorical question. Why?
The Sharp Park Specific Plan requires a strong policy commitment statement that Pacifica will pursue the design and funding to build a robust seawall. A plan to guard against the potential for sea level rise. Public infrastructure, family homes, retirement nest eggs, businesses, and affordable recreation are at stake. As well as future projects like a hotel and the tax revenues we desperately need!
Pacifica families invested their life savings, and built their nest eggs, never thinking they should fear their government might abandon them and effectively condemn their homes and businesses by not protecting public infrastructure and places to live… with a robust seawall. Billions
Hundreds of millions of dollars of public infrastructure alone are potentially at risk. Without the existing sewer pump station alone, 40% of ALL Pacificans will lose their sewer service. The golf course, pier and access to coastal trails provide affordable recreation that need the protection of a robust seawall. A robust seawall north of the pier are both huge environmental justice and economic justice issues.

Let’s fix the Sharp Park Specific Plan, with a clear policy statement added… Pacifica will work to make a robust seawall north of the pier happen.

I also submitted into the public record by email, a 2-page detail (attached to this email) of what is at stake, unless we make a commitment to pursue a robust seawall north of the pier… within the Sharp Park Specific Plan itself.

Thanks for listening,
Tom Thompson
Sharp Park Property Owner and Taxpayer for 35+ years.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 2 Murdock, Christian
From: David Whitney
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 6:57 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Sharp Park Specific Plan, Planning Commission, 6/5/2022 [CAUTION: External Email]

It seems Pacifica’s is in financial denial when it is dependent on sales tax increase passing in November 2022, just to keep operating expenses covered, and nothing left over for this plan. Does Pacifica imagine it has Biotech industry to pay for such expansive ideas. Who accounts for plans that will not get approved and then waste money to redo plans. Pacifica lost2 million years ago in bad accounting, David Whitney
Pacifica, Ca 94044
Sent from Mail for Windows
2 million
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 5 Murdock, Christian
From: Inna Gorsky
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 12:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Pacifica Beach boulevard
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hello,
In light of discussion of Pacifica General Plan, I would like to express my concerns pertaining to view and look of Beach Boulevard: this place obviously fell into disrepair (both car road and pedestrian walk). Many Pacifica residents consider Beach boulevard as “face” of Pacifica as it is mostly visited place in our town. But awful condition of street pavement, lack of appealing benches, constant sand on pedestrian walk don’t allow to enjoy of this beautiful rest area.

So, Beach Boulevard improvement has to be a highest priority - before any other major investment and constriction .

Regards
Inna Gorsky

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 6 Murdock, Christian
From: Vicki Sundstrom
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Domurat, George; Hauser, Samantha
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Traffic and Transportation Analysis in Pacifica General Plan Update and EIR Attachments: Planning Commissioners - GPFEIR transportation issues.pdf; Pacifica DEIR rev.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

June 8, 2022
Planning Commissioners -
Following up on my comment, from the 6/6/22 Planning Meeting, regarding the inadequacies of the transportation/traffic analysis in the Pacifica General Plan/EIR updates. It’s irresponsible and a disservice to everyone in Pacifica, and coming to Pacifica, to proceed with these plans without adequately addressing the traffic and transportation issues.

Before I dive into the nuts and bolts of all things transportation - I looked up the purpose of the planning commission and the City’s website says:
“ The Planning Commission shall also advise the Council on private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes.”
I am confused by why the Planning Commission is being asked to look at documents that do not comply with state law. Pacifica and its planning commission do not have the authority to disregard requirements set forth by the California Coastal Commission (page 263) nor the Air District (VMT mitigation). And no one should ask you to disregard the law/regulations and incur risk on behalf of the residents of Pacifica. What is the liability associated with these decisions and what is the cost of non compliance? Now onto transportation and traffic. You have a lot on your plate and this isn’t meant to inundate you. Only to inform you that the analysis for transportation/traffic is lacking, the GP docs have changed from what was posted and in the last three months with respect to traffic/transportation. And also, it’s going to take a lot of work to get the transportation portion right.

I’ve spent a great deal of time looking through these and other development project documents, in the last two years, with respect to traffic and transportation impacts. It’s clear to me that the City of Pacifica has not adopted standard/required practices with transportation analysis.

Given their general lack of transportation planning understanding, traffic grows unnoticed, mitigation is not addressed and important transportation improvements opportunities are missed. Cities are required by state law to develop and maintain transportation demand management programs, as well as congestion management plans. Pacifica has neither.

The question isn’t whether or not the General Plan or EIR requires the detailed traffic and transportation analysis nor is it about what methodology. The General Plan is about where we are as a community and

1.c
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 7 where we want to be - and if traffic and transportation need to be a part of the discussion, include it and use the methodology needed to speak to the problem. VMT is required but others may be included. Budget for the work accordingly. Traffic data is easy to obtain for free and relatively inexpensive to collect new data if needed. See attachment A.

We have seen a great deal of organic growth over the years and the growth associated with all the projects under the General Plan will also generate traffic. Sharp Park, The Quarry, Pedro Point, “a robust city center”, “a tourist location” will all generate traffic. Where will they park, what will the traffic congestion look like for any one of the projects and what will it look like across town? The analysis is lacking, to say the least, and to throw our hands up in the air and claim it’s unavoidable is irresponsible and keeps us from actually understanding what the fixes are, how we should proceed and where to fund fixes.

With respect to the General Plan Update and related documents. I’ve attached the comments I submitted in March. And also offer the following -

1. There are references to “existing conditions” but no clarity on what specifically the conditions were and whether they included traffic counts.

2. Traffic counts, in order to understand commute patterns, are done during the week, when schools are in session on Tuesdays/Wednesdays/Thursdays. Given our weekend “tourism” traffic, traffic should be counted on the weekend as well. The traffic counts done are not consistent in that they weren’t done on the same days, some were done on a Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday and at least one was done Thursday/Friday/Saturday.

3. There is no information on how study intersections were selected - there was no community input on the matter and no transparency on counts, complaints or the like.

4. There are a number of different dates floating around in the document - 2010, 2014, 2018, 2019 etc. Again no clarity on what they specifically relate to and how that impacted the data or analysis.

5. The documents posted online prior to 2022 are not consistent with the documents released this year with respect to transportation/traffic. The horizon year in the prior documents was 2035, the General Plan released in 2022 changed the horizon year to 2040 - this matters with respect to traffic, locally and regionally. At least one study intersection was removed (with no explanation) - a problematic intersection that should have been addressed some time ago and still needs attention.

6. There is some difference between the draft released earlier in the year and the May documents - I noticed discrepancies in table numbering but never explored beyond the fact that something was different.

7. None of the analysis speaks to Pacifica’s ability to address evacuations during a fire nor how first responders from other cities’ can respond in an evacuation. For example, if Linda Mar Woods is to become a reality, should it have a secondary access route. What should evacuation look like from Pedro Point? What supporting/enabling projects are required to support evacuations?

8. If we are to proceed with the development as proposed in the general plan, what are the transportation impacts (avoidable or not) and what are the mitigation measures? Can Pacifica afford to implement the mitigation? Should it be on the developers to fund? This ultimately is what needs to be addressed and is lacking.

9. I’ve explained in the March comments about the vagueness of the mitigation measures provided in the documents. Mitigation needs to be measurable, monitored and reported.

Feel free to reach out should you have any questions.

Regards
Vicki Sundstrom
Appendix A

1.c
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 8 Based on traffic counts from Caltrans - traffic volume growth through Pacifica ranges from 13%-57% CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) June 8, 2022
Planning Commissioners -
Following up on my comment, from the 6/6/22 Planning Meeting, regarding the inadequacies of the transportation/traffic analysis in the Pacifica General Plan/EIR updates. It’s irresponsible and a disservice to every one in Pacifica, and coming to Pacifica, to proceed with these plans without adequately addressing the traffic and transportation issues.

Before I dive into the nuts and bolts of all things transportation - I looked up the purpose of the planning commission and the City’s website says:
“ The Planning Commission shall also advise the Council on private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes.”
I am confused by why the Planning Commission is being asked to look at documents that do not comply with state law. Pacifica and its’ planning commission do not have the authority to disregard requirements set forth by the California Coastal Commission (page 263) nor the Air District (VMT mitigation). And no one should ask you to disregard the law/regulations and incur risk on behalf of the residents of Pacifica. What is the liability associated with these decisions and what is the cost of non compliance?
Now onto transportation and traffic. You have a lot on your plate and this isn’t meant to inundate you. Only to inform you that the analysis for transportation/traffic is lacking, the GP docs have changed from what was posted and in the last three months with respect to traffic/ transportation. And also, it’s going to take a lot of work to get the transportation portion right.

I’ve spent a great deal of time looking through these and other development project documents, in the last two years, with respect to traffic and transportation impacts. It’s clear to me that the City of Pacifica has not adopted standard/required practices with transportation analysis.

Given their general lack of transportation planning understanding, traffic grows unnoticed, mitigation is not addressed and important transportation improvements opportunities are missed. Cities’ are required by state law to develop and maintain transportation demand management programs, as well as congestion management plans. Pacifica has neither.

The question isn’t whether or not the General Plan or EIR requires the detailed raffic and transportation analysis nor is it about what methodology. The General Plan is about where we are as a community and where we want to be - and if traffic and transportation need to be a part of the discussion, include it and use the methodology needed to speak to the problem.

VMT is required but others may be included. Budget for the work accordingly. Traffic data is easy to obtain for free and relatively inexpensive to collect new data if needed. See attachment A.

We have seen a great deal of organic growth over the years and the growth associated with all the projects under the General Plan will also generate traffic. Sharp Park, The Quarry, Pedro Point, “a robust city center”, “a tourist location” will all generate traffic. Where will they park, what will the traffic congestion look like for any one of the projects and what will it look like across town? The analysis is lacking, to say the least, and to throw our hands up in the air and claim it’s unavoidable is irresponsible and keeps us from actually understanding what the fixes are, how we should proceed and where to fund fixes.

1.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) With respect to the General Plan Update and related documents. I’ve attached the comments I submitted in March. And also offer the following -

1. There are references to “existing conditions” but no clarity on what specifically the conditions were and whether they included traffic counts.

2. Traffic counts, in order to understand commute patterns, are done during the week, when schools is in session on Tuesdays/Wednesdays/Thursdays. Given our weekend “tourism” traffic, traffic should be counted on the weekend as well. The traffic counts done are not consistent in that they weren’t done on the same days, some were done on a Tuesday/ Wednesday/Thursday and at least one was done Thursday/Friday/Saturday.

3. There is no information on how study intersections were selected - there was no community input on the matter and no transparency on counts, complaints or the like.

4. There are a number of different dates floating around in the document - 2010, 2014, 2018, 2019 etc. Again no clarity on what they specifically relate to and how that impacted the data or analysis.

5. The documents posted online prior to 2022 are not consistent with the documents released this year with respect to transportation/traffic. The horizon year in the prior documents was 2035, the General Plan released in 2022 changed the horizon year to 2040 - this matters with respect to traffic, locally and regionally. At least one study intersection was removed (with no explanation) - a problematic intersections that should have been addressed some time ago and still needs attention.

6. There is some difference between the draft released earlier in the year and the May documents - I noticed discrepancies in table numbering but never explored beyond the fact that something was different.

7. None of the analysis speaks to Pacifica’s ability to address evacuations during a fire nor how first responders from other cities’ can respond in an evacuation. For example, if Linda Mar Woods is to become a reality, should it have a secondary access route. What should evacuation look like from Pedro Point? What supporting/enabling projects are required to support evacuations?

8. If we are to proceed with the development as proposed in the general plan, what are thetransportation impacts (avoidable or not) and what are the mitigation measures? Can Pacifica afford to implement the mitigation? Should it be on the developers to fund? This ultimately is what needs to be addressed and is lacking.

9. I’ve explained in the March comments about the vagueness of the mitigation measures provided in the documents. Mitigation needs to be measurable, monitored and reported.

Feel free to reach out should you have any questions. In the interest of time, I’ve forgone supporting links to state laws and citing actual pages/screenshots - happy to share if you should require the assistance.

Regards

1.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) Appendix A
Based on traffic counts from Caltrans - traffic volume growth through Pacifica ranges from 13%-57%

1.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) - Free parking is the biggest deterrent to Transportation Demand Management Programs and parking charges should be considered as an option both for Congestion Management and Economic Development.
- Stated TDMs options read like a textbook of available strategies rather than targeted policy to meet objectives. Please provide targeted strategies appropriate to our community and identify programs based on type of property (residential, commercial, etc)

13. Circulation element – How does the city plan to reduce congestion on roadways before reducing roadway capacity to implement complete streets?

14. Before subjecting Commuter Trip Reduction programs expenses onto employers in Pacifica, please quantify how many people commute long/er distances to Pacifica and would use said programs. Also quantify how many of these jobs can be done remotely. These programs appear to add cost to doing business in Pacifica without any real impact to congestion.

15. Given that the Sharp Park Specific Plan related community meetings were limited to Sharp Park, the items stated below should be addressed with the greater Pacifica as it relates to all of Pacifica.

1.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) Please let me know you’d like to discuss any of these comments further.

Regards,
Vicki Sundstrom

1.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) Appendix
A

1.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) San Luis Obispo
– TDM policy and monitoring program
Belmont– Residential TDM

1.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: peter k
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:36 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: _City Council Group; City Manager; Murdock, Christian; O'Connor, Bonny; Christine Boles
Subject: Pacifica General Plan & Sharp Park Specific Plan [CAUTION: External Email]
Do not approve the GP or SPSP
0) Neither the GP nor the SPSP adequately address climate change. 1) The fact that Pacifica's LCP is inadequate means that the SPSP will not get approved by the CCC. It is a waste of Pacifica's time and money to be submitting this seriously inadequate plan. 2) The fact that the proposed seawall will make erosion worse on the north end of the wall opens Pacifica to lawsuits from private property owners.
3) The fact that the Planning commission has been approving developments while missing or ignoring fire hazard and geological instability is bordering on criminal negligence. 4) The General Plan does not adequate address the fact that Pacifica is literally falling into the Ocean, after decades and millions of dollars of loss, you'd think the current plan would have a substantive plan. 5) Pacifica owes the county 1800+ units of housing. There's no real plan in the GP for this. Further development west of Highway 1 should be curtailed, except in more stable areas like the quarry. 6) The fact that plans were not made to move the sewer line by the shore, instead of spending millions on a seawall that will not last 50 years is arguably in violation of tax laws about the fair share of residents paying to protect private property.
7) Pacifica really needs to get SF to help with fact that the golf course floods after every major storm, and in violation of clean water laws pumps water straight into the ocean.
8) Because of sea level rise there are many houses by Linda Mar Beach and Shelter Cove and north of Beach Blvd that are in danger in the next decade of needing to be demolished at city cost.

Peter Key
Linda Mar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 2 Murdock, Christian
From: Suzanne Moore < >
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 3:12 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Public Comment
Cc: Suzanne Moore
Subject: Sharp park Specific Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hello Commissioners and Staff:

Again, thank you for the work done on this document to date.

I first want to address goals expressed for supportive housing and preservation of affordability, goals 3 - I -34 and 3-I-35. I appreciate that the SPSP addresses the community need for affordable housing at all income levels and resident abilities. As mentioned in the document, our community suffers when housing is not available for all its residents. While I think the stated goals are laudable, I do not detect the particulars needed for their success - specifically dedicated Pacifica housing funds to collaborate with non-profit builders and established housing preservation specialists. It is imperative for Pacifica to dedicate funds which can be accomplished through a vacancy fee and title transfer fee.

I also want to address anti-displacement goals. As this document states, 70% of Sharp Park residents are tenants. Current data is not provided since 2019, but housing costs have increased. There is not Pacifica data collection on displacement, but our school districts report difficulty with staff retention due to cost of living. Goal 3-I-36 discusses displacement indicators - and perhaps Concord could provide a model (with an estimated cost of $5-15/unit) which would provide data on rents and rent increases, vacancy rates, evictions, condo and Air B&B conversions - data which could be used to monitor compliance.

Anti-displacement efforts and tenant protection should be incorporated into the development plan, especially when 70% of Sharp Park residents are tenants. - Eviction without cause is financially and emotionally devastating because it is unplanned. In this time of a housing crisis and the economic downturn from COVID, tenants should be evicted only with just cause. - If a tenant is displaced through no fault of their own, they should be supplied with relocation benefits equivalent to three months of market-rate rent.
- Sadly, some landlords have been known to harass tenants, and communities, like Richmond, have adopted anti-harassment ordinances.
- To reduce loss of housing stock to short-term rentals, communities like Half Moon Bay have restricted short-term rental limits.
- When tenants are asked to leave for substantial renovation, along with relocation benefits, a tenant should be supplied evidence that renovation permits have been pulled, given an estimate of when the refurbished unit will be available, and offered first right of return.

1.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 3 I feel this language should be incorporated into the SPSP as evidence of the intent to reduce displacement as plans for future development unfold.

Thank you
--
Suzanne Moore
Home
Cell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 4 Murdock, Christian
From: Peter Loeb < >
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Subject: 6-20-22, Item 2, Continued Public Hearing, Consideration of Sharp Park Specific Plan and Recommendation to City Council.
[CAUTION: External Email]

Recommended CEQA Action: Find adoption of the Sharp Park Specific Plan substantially consistent with the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046.

Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution to recommend City Council approval of the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

The Sharp Park Specific Plan cannot be approved because it is inconsistent with the current certified Local Coastal Plan.

The Sharp Park Specific Plan cannot be approved until there is a new certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 5 Murdock, Christian
From: Clif Lawrence < >
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Coffey, Sarah; Clif Lawrence
Subject: Item 2 of Planning Commission Agenda - 20 June 2022 [CAUTION: External Email]

RE: Consideration of Sharp Park Specific Plan and Recommendation to City Council.

Honorable Commissioners,
Is it a fact (i.e. correct) that ultimately the SPSP needs the City Council's APPROVAL, but it is only the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which can grant it CERTIFICATION?
What exactly is the current working relationship between the City and the CCC?
The City's approved LCLUP lingers at the CCC a year and a half so far waiting for CERTIFICATION.

Has the CCC been clear as to what they would require before providing Certification?
What is the City's plan? Do we plan to get Certification of the SPSP before the LCLUP?
Or will the SPSP join our LCLUP in "Limbo" at the CCC?
Pardon the analogy, but to an outsider, it looks like a game of "Chicken".

1.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 6 How then is not the current consideration of the SPSP not a moot exercise?
Thank you,
Clifford (Clif) Lawrence
(resident Pacifica "greybeard")

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 10 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 12:00 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Berman, Lauren; Godwin, James; Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law]; Public Comment; Woodhouse, Kevin; Leal, David; Hauser, Samantha; Wright, Greg; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex
Subject: Sharp Park Specific Plan
Attachments: AirBnB.PNG; Christine Boles Comment Letter #A 6.6.22 PC Hearing.pdf; Christine Boles Comment Letter #5.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Commissioners and staff,
In addition to the two comment letters I previously sent in about the SPSP(attached for reference), I have the following comments.
1) Land Use Plan Figure 3-3 fails to identify the Pacifica Resource Center as Public and Semi-Public facilities. It is identified as such under Parks, Public and Community Uses, see image below. 2) There is no discussion of moving infrastructure out of harm's way as a potential strategy of Climate change adaptation.

1.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 11 3) There is no discussion of loss of existing housing, and especially affordable units in section 3.6, in relation to the short term rentals. Sharp Park is one of the communities most affected. See attached image. 4) Parking studies were done pre-pandemic in 2019 and are no longer accurate given Pacifica's "COVID" discovery. 5) As previously commented on the GP and DEIR, the Coastal Resilience section has not been updated with current documents, including the Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan. It also fails to note that the 2018 ESA Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment is a draft and has not been finalized and approved.

Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
478 Monterey Road
Pacifica, CA 94044
415.587.2004
www.beausoleil-architects.com
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com DATE: June 5, 2022
TO: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

RE: City of Pacifica General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) and EIR Comments, letter A Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners:

I want to first raise my objections to this flawed process that limits public and agency engagement on critical environmental and life safety issues that will define Pacifica for the next 20-40 years. Given the ridiculously short time frame allowed (12 calendar days which include a major holiday) to review this new set of documents, totaling 4,795 pages including the FEIR, I have not had time to read, much less research and respond to many items of concern.

I will focus my comments on a few items I noticed that feel are substantial deficiencies in the documents and underlying data that will require edits and recirculation. This letter will focus on issues in the Coastal Zone. 1) There are many references through the FEIR, General Plan and SPSP documents to the 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment prepared by ESA. Thank you for the clarification based on my comment C49-1 that this document is only a draft and has not been finalized nor officially adopted or certified by the City of Pacifica. Please clarify how this document can legally be used to fully evaluate environmental and safety issues and write policy, much less certify the FEIR. 2) The FEIR has been modified to include new references to this ESA study without labeling it as draft.

See highlighted section in green.
3) The response to my comment C49-11 regarding the accuracy of the dune shoreline erosion numbers of 115-116 meters by 2025 was not answered and the information remains grossly in error. See screenshot from above from redlined DEIR. If our dunes are eroding 115 meters (over 377 feet) by 2025, we are in deep trouble losing our major arterial road, SR1, and these documents are seriously deficient.

Note that there is also confusing duplicated text in the newly added redlined text.

1.c
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com 4) The FEIR (COI-44) and the General Plan both refer to the Regional Sediment Management Plan. From the GP page 732, “Pacifica participates in the Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan (CRSMP) process for the San Francisco Littoral Cell (the stretch of coastline in which Pacifica is included). The CRSMP will establish policies for management of coastal sediment resources in the area, addressing:
• Shoreline erosion and coastal storm damage reduction; • Environmental restoration and protection, including beach nourishment, sediment transportation, and natural sediment supply to the coast;
• Sea level rise;
• Coastal access and recreation;
• Water quality along beaches; and
• Identification of beneficial uses for dredged sediment.” Note the highlighted section above. The San Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan was actually completed in 2017. It has already established policies for the management of coastal sediment resources, and yet there is no mention of this final document, and it is missing from the bibliography. The FEIR identifies coastal erosion as Pacifica’s greatest environmental hazard and I fear that key analysis, policies and mitigation measures are missing from the FEIR, GP and SPSP. Please update accordingly, include this current and readily available data as required by CEQA.

The final CRSMP document can be accessed through the California Department of Boating and Waterways website: https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page id=29337
5) Please explain why COI-46 was deleted. I see there was a duplicate item with the same reference number in the DEIR, but I cannot find this text with a new number. Deletion of this important mitigation measure constitutes a significant change that must be re-reviewed by agencies including the CCC. 6) The FEIR, General Plan and SPSP documents also include multiple references to Pacifica’s Draft LCLUP, which has not been certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and which still contains major points of disagreement regarding sea level rise and coastal erosion adaption planning.

The CCC has made it very clear that until our LCLUP is certified, we must use the actual certified 1980 Local Costal Plan.1 The documents therefore need to be revised to comply with the Coastal Act and the 1980 LCP, or this update process paused until the draft LCLUP is certified. 7) Detailed maps of projected coastal erosion and sea level rise are still missing from both the FEIR and General Plan. The responses to my comments refer to ESA’s 2018 Draft Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment as the latest best information on the subject, and this document provides very detailed maps with coastal erosion and sea level rise projections. These maps should be added to the FEIR and GP Safety Element so that decision makers have the visual data to be able to analyze potential projects, including the SPSP. I have copied below ESA’s map of Sharp Park, with my annotations of the proposed redevelopment areas identified in the SPSP to assist the Planning Commission in their deliberations in relation to existing and projected hazards. Remember that all development in the Coastal Zone must be designed with a 100-year life, which will necessitate mitigation measures such as elevating 1 5.24.22 email from Oceane Ringuette of the CCC to Christian Murdock

1.c
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com structures above projected water levels. This analysis is missing from the FEIR, GP and SPSP and therefore the documents are inadequate and in violation of CEQA law.

Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
Principal
Cc: Honorable Mayor Mary Bier
Pacifica Planning Commissioners Berman, Domorat, Ferguson, Godwin, Hauser, Leal, White [email protected]
California Coastal Commission staff:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

1.c
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)

1.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com DATE: March 8, 2022
TO: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

RE: City of Pacifica General Plan and DEIR Comments, letter #5, DEIR questions related to Sharp Park Specific Plan and other miscellaneous items
Dear Mr. Murdock,
Please accept my preemptive apology that these comments are not well organized or complete, but my time is limited due to today’s deadline. I have a number of concerns and questions about the City’s focus on Sharp Park as the preferred project for concentrating development increases. The Sharp Park areas is heavily burdened due to environmental, climate change and safety factors, and I wonder if it is really the best place to put all of the city’s energy into redevelopment. Below are my concerns, not in any particular order of importance.

1. As mentioned previously in my Comment Letter #2, detailed maps of projected coastal erosion and sea level rise are missing from both the DEIR and General Plan. In fact, the city’s own Existing Conditions Report from July 2010 showed much better maps to help decision makers and developers analyze these conditions, in that they are more complete. Using less complete information in subsequent updates leaves the City vulnerable to confusion and lititgation by artificially adding perceived value by rezoning to higher allowed densities.

1.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

2. In addition, the City’s hired consultant, ESA, in the 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment provides even more detailed information about coastal erosion and sea level rise projections. There is no link to this document in the DEIR and it is not listed in the Bibliography. Please add the references to ensure we are working on the same information. The copy I have of this report is dated January 2018 and is labeled DRAFT. Has this report been finalized with the consultant and approved by the City Council? Why were these maps not incorporated into the DEIR and GP Safety Element when sea level rise and coastal erosion are some of our greatest hazards, and have already cost the city greatly in lost housing and fees to tear down inappropriately built structures?

3. I spoke with one of the report authors at ESA about a year ago to try to understand the map in Sharp Park in particular. I was confused because there is no storm flood area shown in the diagram when I have personally observed major flooding along Beach Boulevard and the properties across the street from the ocean in winter storms and king tide events. I was told that flooding was not analyzed due to the presence of the sea wall. I would suggest that this issue needs further scientific study and mapping to understand the real hazards in this area and this information needs to be added to the DEIR.

4. In addition, new development cannot be permitted in the Coastal Zone that relies on a sea wall or other armoring, which makes it imperative to redo this modeling without a sea wall in place. In previous letters I have documented that this is actually a state requirement for General Plan Safety Elements for flood areas. As these properties in the Coastal Zone must be designed for 100-year life, which is 50 years beyond the design life of the sea wall currently being proposed, this modeling is essential to understanding how building design life criteria can be met.

Specifically, Section 30253 prohibits new development if it would require a coastal armoring structure:

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

5. Below is the map of the Sharp Park Area from this ESA study, showing considerable threat. I have roughly overlaid the map with the areas indicated on Figure 4-3 Land Use Diagram, to be the highest density allowed, where height is increased to 55’ or more (there was one reference to more than 55’ somewhere that I can’t find now) with the provision of low-income housing. Note that several of these overlap these high hazard zones. I believe the General Plan Safety Element calls for avoidance of building in high hazard areas.

Please remember that the Coastal Commission needed to assert jurisdiction over the Coastal Zone, and overturned the City of Pacifica’s questionable approval of Coastal Development Permit Application Number CDP-395-18, which had been previously green-lighted by the City, despite numerous objections and appeals by local residents who had pointed out the obvious hazards at 1567 Beach Blvd Pacifica. Failing to provide current information to the public further endangers Pacificans, misleads developers who wish to build sustainably in good-faith, and wastes staff and the public’s time and taxpayer funds. So, I would question the validity and wisdom of the current proposed land use maps for this area.

1.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

6. I am pretty certain there are restrictions about placing--or concentrating--vulnerable low-income population in areas of high hazards. If not, there are moral issues with placing vulnerable residents in the highest-risk areas. Please confirm and add appropriate conditions in the Land Use Element to comply with applicable laws, and explain how these could possibly be in conformance with the State’s Environmental Justice goals.

7. Please also note that Palmetto Avenue is threatened by sea level rise on the southern end. I have seen no discussion of the possible need to move the road and infrastructure inland. This should be discussed now before new high-density construction is allowed on the inland side of Palmetto.

8. As previously mentioned in Comment Letter #4, our sewage infrastructure will eventually need to be moved inland. Our sea wall consultant GHD specifically said that the sea wall would not protect us long term, it is only being designed with a 50-year life to buy us time for more wholistic and long-range resiliency planning. An alternate site for the Sharp Park Sewage Pump Station that serves the entire northern section of Pacifica must be identified now as part of this General Plan. Perhaps the city’s Salada parking lot would be a good location, but that is also zoned Mixed Use Center. This property has also recently been approved as part of the Civic Center Remodel as required parking for those buildings, so perhaps we need to find an alternate site?

9. SA-I-26 Tsunami Evacuation Zone. For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone, require use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures.

My understanding from my limited experience with the Coastal Act is that new development is not strictly prohibited in Tsunami Evacuation zones or areas with or projected flooding from sea level rise or seasonal rains, but that the structures and roads must be adaptable and allow the water to pass through. Their ground floor levels also need to be raised above projected sea level rise. These requirements and basic protections are missing in the DEIR, and are also conspicuously absent from the consultant’s pretty renderings of what Sharp Park development might look like under this General Plan.

These basic requirements will completely change the relationship of the buildings to the street and

1.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com require long handicapped ramps that require considerable space (1 foot of length for every inch of rise) and will therefore limit the amount of buildable space. This seems negligent on behalf of our planning consultant to not have raised this issue in the planning process.

10. SA-G-3 Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Establish policies to minimize the risk to persons and property posed by potential sea level rise.

Please confirm what measures this General Plan establishes to minimize risk. These measures that affect basic life safety cannot be deferred under CEQA.

11. Chapter 3.9 of the DEIR discusses visual resources. As a licensed architect, I am considered as a professional expert in commenting on these issues. Visual Resources Figure 3.9-1 from the DEIR is copied below for reference.

Please note the area circled in red, the coastal view corridors identified in Sharp Park. As you are well aware, the current design for the new Sharp Park sea wall recently approved by the City Council as a hybrid option of hard armoring with sand nourishment will entail an approximately 5’ high sea wall above the existing road. Please clarify how this will protect these scenic resources which will no longer be able to be seen from the sidewalk or the surrounding roads by the majority of the population.

1.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com Without expensive and regular sand nourishment the city’s consultant, GHD, said the sea wall would need to be 8’ high. I believe GHD also said that even with these heights the proposed hard armoring will not protect the area from future projected storm surge and wave overtopping, so flooding will still be an issue. Please confirm. Is there additional drainage planned for the area? I’m anxiously waiting for Public Work’s drainage study due to be completed later this year.

12. Highway One is also identified on the map as a scenic route. I have seen no analysis or visual simulations in the DEIR that show how the views from Highway One may be impacted by the rezoning of tall structures in Sharp Park along Palmetto and Francisco. Please provide these simulations so that the impacts of the rezoning to Mixed Use Center can be properly evaluated.

13. The importance of Highway One View Corridors is also written in the DEIR on page 3.9.21.

As essential parts to Pacifica’s identity, I would expect to see a real analysis of visual impacts with simulations from multiple viewpoints. The increased height limits and new zoning right up next to the freeway at Manor Plaza should also be evaluated with visual simulations. This is the first view that most visitors get of Pacifica coming down the hill and is particularly important to the city’s image.

14. Furthermore, on page 3.9-22 somehow without any visual analysis, the impact on visual corridors has been declared to be less than significant. Please explain in detail how this conclusion was reached.

1.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

15. Page 3.9-5 of the DEIR states
There are no renderings provided in the Sharp Park Specific Plan of the relationship between these tall new buildings along Francisco and Palmetto to all the one- and two-story existing homes in the area.

Please provide this analysis and renderings so the visual impacts can be understood. I remember Mayor Mary Bier commenting at a Council Meeting when the renderings were presented that she would want to see those as well as they directly affect her constituents.

16. Page 3.9-6 of the DEIR states

1.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com Again these important view corridors may be lost due to both the sea wall and the more bulky and tall strucutres proposed under this General Plan Land Use Element. Can you confirm that this is in compliance with CEQA for Visual Resources, and with the Coastal Act, see pae 3.9-10 of the DEIR?

17. Would there not be some lost economic benefits in Sharp Park if the ocean, which is one of the major draws of the area, was no longer visible? Has this financial analyis been done as part of the GP update or sea wall project? I have not seen this information.

18. Under Impacts and Mitigation Measures on page 3.9-14 somehow, without this detailed visual analysis, it has been determined that impacts are less than significant. Please provide actual information to back up this statement to avoid a CEQA challenge.

19. Further down on page 3.9-14 it talks about landscape screeing as a method to protect visual resources.

I believe there are other General Plan and Municipal Code regulations that prohibit the use of landscaping to hide an otherwise unacceptable structure. I don’t have time to find references, but this was discussed in my letters regarding the Vista Mar Project. Landscaping obviously does nothing to help blocked ocean vistas from buildings so this line of argument is flawed.

1.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

20. There is one image in the DEIR on page 3.9-17 that shows ocean views being blocked by buildings even 35’ in height at the city’s property at 2212 Beach Boulevard. Does this indicate that at this site the height must even be reduced beyond current zoning limitations? Please clarify. Note that this image and the others after it in the DEIR, were taken from a higher elevation, not street level on Palmetto, so they should be redone.

1.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

21. Page 3.9-22
Doesn’t this mitigation measure contradict the basic concept in the Land Use Diagram to allow heights up to 55’ in this area. I am very confused.

22. The Coastal Commission also brought up their concerns about visual impacts of increased heights in their comment letter to the NOP sent on September 9, 2020. I have copied the letter here below. Please provide a response to their comments.

23. In this letter, the Coastal Commission also asked for a thorough geotechnical analysis of the area in this letter. I also asked for that information in a public hearing about the Sharp Park Specific Plan in 2021.

Do we know that the area’s soils and ground water table can even support a 55’ high building? Please add this analysis to the DEIR to ensure this proposed project even feasible.

1.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

24. From page 3.9-22 of the DEIR
This statement is in error. The Little Brown Church is visible from Highway One, as is the adjacent Salada lot. This is why the Pacifica Historical Society has chosen the Salada lot facing Francisco as the ideal location for the refurbished Ocean Shore Railroad Car. Please revise this section as required per actual analysis of what is visible from Highway One.

25. I also asked previously in my comment letter #4 whether NCCWD currently has the fire capacity to serve 5 story buildings in this area as they will require different equipment than needed for 3 story buildings. Please confirm. If new equipment is needed, please confirm the city has the financial resources to make these basic infrastructure improvements before this General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan are adopted.

26. I have not had a chance to review the Historical Preservation section of the GP or DEIR, but I would like to see some explanation of how these important resources are protected in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. Several sites along Palmetto that are being rezoned to Mixed Use Center currently house these vibrant buildings and gardens that are important to the community and that are well used, and that speak to our history as a town. Here are three for example. Wouldn’t the economic value added by increasing density to 5 stories entice developers to tear down these treasures that contribute to this unique and desirable shopping area now?

27. Traffic and Parking Exceptions
Many residents complain that parking is very difficult in this area now, especially on sunny days, which are more numerous now with climate change and reduction in coastal fog.

real study that was done. Please confirm.

1.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com Dyett and Bhatia’s contract, it seems a parking study of the area was an optional service. Was the option taken and the additional fees for this important study approved? I have not seen that study in the DEIR documents.

Please provide it so we can understand these impacts under CEQA.

1.c
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com

28. Page 3.4.31 of the DEIR under Energy and Greenhouse Gases says that reduced parking requirements in Sharp Park are being used to actively discourage cars in the area. While I applaud the goal, the fact is that we do not currently have any reasonable public transportation in the area. Please show where this proposed policy was discussed at community meetings to get input on the SPSP. I have informally polled community members on the subject on Facebook and local residents are livid that reduced parking requirements are even being considered. Be prepared for pushback from the community on these assumptions.

At this point, with all these unanswered questions about the Sharp Park Specific Plan, I would really question whether this is the best location to focus most of the the city’s attention and funding for redevelopment as part of the General Plan. The new sea wall for this area also has major hurdles to clear before it can even be considered, and even if it somehow clears the environmental and technical review by the Coastal Commission, funding sources for such an expensive project are uncertain at best. I strongly suggest that the city expand its focus for this General Plan for redevelopment and increased density to include other areas of town that are less burdened.

For example, I am really puzzled why the Fairmont Area has not been included in this plan for increased density as it is on a high value transit corridor on Highway 35 which does not impact already burdened traffic in the rest of town. This area has already been identified in Plan Bay Area 2050 as a Priority Development Area, which I understand means that local and state funding grant opportunities are available for redevelopment. See below.

1.c
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 478 Monterey Road ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ Tel 415.587.2004 ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com In my opinion, the very first step needed now in this process is to update our DEIR sections about safety, including landslides, sea level rise, coastal erosion, fire, flooding, greenhouse gases, etc. so we understand our hazards. Vulnerability assessments as required by SB379 must also be prepared for the entire city, not just the coast, to understand our changing environment with climate change. Then we need to update the DEIR for the actual scale of the Proposed Project under this General Plan, which must consider the 1892 units allocated to us under RHNA at a minimum. We can simultaneously begin work on the Housing Element update which is due by January 2023 so we can get to work to find appropriate sites for these units, about half of which need to be affordable and out of harms way. Then we can have a General Plan that can comprehensively guide us for the next 20-30 years.

I hope that through this process of collecting public comments you will see the value of engaging the public, who basically works for free to help create the vision of Pacifica we all want to see for the next 20-40 years.

There are so many amazing people here; I’m so fortunate to have met so many recently, people with PhD’s in their respective fields like biology and oceanography, as well as trained and experienced professionals, architects, civil, structural and traffic engineers, EPA professionals, attorneys, historians, as well as general members of the public that have a passion for a particular issue like open space or a passion for particular creature like mountain lions or red legged frogs. Next to our beautiful mountains and ocean, we the people are your greatest resource.

Please use us and treat us as such.

Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect License #C-024448
Principal
Cc: Honorable Mayor Mary Bier
Tina Wehrmeister, Planning Director
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Pacifica Planning Commissioners Berman, Domorat, Ferguson, Godwin, Hauser, Leal, Nibbelin [email protected]
California Coastal Commission staff:

[email protected], [email protected]

1.c
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 12 Murdock, Christian
From: Richard Harris Jr.

Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:10 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; O'Connor, Bonny; Pacifica Permit Tech; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; [email protected]; Leal, David; [email protected] Cc: Coffey, Sarah; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; 'Potter, Spencer (REC)'; lisav744 @gmail.com; 'Lisa Villasenor'; 'HELEN DUFFY'; 'Leslie Davis'; 'Bob Downing'; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Bo Links'; 'Kathleen Manning' Subject: Pacifica Sharp Park Specific Plan / San Francisco Public Golf Alliance Comment / Plan.

Comm. Mtg. Jn.20
Attachments: SFPGA.Ltr.Pac.Plng.re.Sh.Pk.Specif.Pln.6.19.22.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]

Please find attached above, for the record, a pdf of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance comment re Pacifica’ Sharp Park Specific Plan (May 2022 Draft). Please include this in the record, and distribute to Individual Planning Commissioners in advance of the June 20 7 p.m. Special Meeting re hearing on the Sharp Park Specific Plan. Please acknowledge receipt.

Thank you.
 Richard Harris
 San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
 1370 Masonic Ave.
 San Francisco, CA. 94117
 415-290-5718
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

1.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 1 1370 Masonic Ave., San Francisco, CA 94117 • 415-290-5718 • [email protected] June 19, 2022
By e-mail
[email protected]
[email protected]
Pacifica Planning Commission
Pacifica Planning Department
Attn: Christian Murdock, Acting Director
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA. 94044
Re: Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting, June 20, 2022 Comment of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
Request correction of two errors in the Sharp Park Specific Plan (at Chapter 1.1, page 1-3 (Packet Page 360),
Regarding history of the Sharp Park Golf Course:
(1) the golf course was not used as an internment camp in WW II; rather the internment camp was located in the canyon to the east of the golf course, on San Francisco-owned land which is now the site of the Archery Range; (2) the Sharp Park Golf Course architect was Alister MacKenzie; John McLaren was San Francisco’s Superintendent of Parks.

Dear Pacifica Planning Commission and Planning Department, The non-profit San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, whose 6,500-plus mostly San Francisco and Peninsula public course golfer members include substantial numbers of Pacifica residents, respectfully requests correction of two errors in the “Sharp Park’s Past” subchapter (Ch. 1.1) of the Sharp Park Specific Plan (May 2022 revision), regarding the history of the Sharp Park Golf Course.

The errors appear Chapter 1.1, page 1-3 (at Packet Page 360 for the Commission’s June 20 meeting), which paragraph reads as follows (with problematic language highlighted in yellow):

To the south of the current Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, Sharp Park’s namesake, George F. Sharp, established a 400-acre estate in 1849, part of which became the current Sharp Park Golf Course. Sharp’s widow, Honora Sharp, bequeathed the estate to the City of San Francisco with specific instructions that the property be used for recreational functions.

Noted golf architect Alister Mackenzie and landscape architect John McLaren designed the course in the 1920s. Back in 1932 when the course opened, games cost 70¢ on weekdays and $1 on weekends. During the 1930s, the Sharp Park recreation area served as a state relief camp that provided shelter, food, medical services, and employment for Bay Area residents struggling during the Depression. During World War II, the Golf Course also

1.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 2 served as internment camp for Japanese Americans roughly where the San Francisco Archers range stands now along the east boundary of the Sharp Park recreation area.

1. The Golf Course was not used as an Internment Camp; rather, the Internment Camp was located on land to the east of the golf course, in the vicinity of the Archery Range
The above-quoted paragraph’s references to the “Sharp Park recreation area” and “the Golf Course” should be corrected to make clear that the Golf Course occupies only the westernmost approximately 120 acres of the approximately 400 acre Sharp Estate parcel that was bequeathed to the City and County of San Francisco, and that the Golf Course did not serve as Relief Camp or Internment Camp. A portion of the land lying to the east of the golf course, further uphill into the canyon – which area is currently occupied by the Archery Range – served as a Relief Camp during the Depression, and subsequently as a World War II Internment Camp. But the Golf Course itself did not serve as a Relief Camp or as an Internment Camp. This is clear from a contemporaneous news report in the March 31, 1943 San Francisco News, captioned: “193 Aliens, Chiefly Japanese, Moved to Sharp Park Camp to East Immigration Station”:
“Formerly an [one word missing] shelter, the Sharp Park camp, located in a canyon back of the Sharp Park Golf Course, is surrounded by a strong wire fence . . .”1 To the same effect is this excerpt from the Densho Encyclopedia:
“The Sharp Park Internment Camp is now the home of the San Francisco Archery Club. The former enemy alien site is located near Sharp Park Road off Highway 1 and is located in a canyon next to the Sharp Park Golf Course in the City of Pacifica, California, which is located south of the City and County of San Francisco along the Pacific Ocean.”2

2. Alister MacKenzie was the architect of the Golf Course; John McLaren was San Francisco’s Superintendent of Parks
The architect of Sharp Park Golf Course was Alister MacKenzie, who was commissioned by the City and County of San Francisco to design the course.3 John McLaren was San Francisco’s legendary Superintendent of Parks at the time.4 1 Museum of the City of San Francisco, reprinting article from San Francisco News, March 31, 1942, “193 Aliens, Chiefly Japanese, Moved to Sharp Park Camp to East Immigration Station”:
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist8/sharppark.html
2 Densho Encyclopedia, Sharp Park (detention facility)
https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Sharp Park (detention facility)/ 3 State of California Resources Agency, Form DPR 523, compiled by Julia Mates, Mar. 4, 2010, at pp. 4-5:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gBazm3mAc EhFLoHmu7cSU15bFImfY0L/view?usp=sharing 4 Wikipedia, John McLaren: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John McLaren (horticulturist)

1.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan) 3 3. Suggested Revision of the Paragraph in Question at page 1-3 of Chapter 1.1 Accordingly, we respectfully suggest the following revised language of the paragraph in question, found at the Sharp Park Specific Plan (May 2022 revision), Chapter 1.1, at page 1-3 with deletions in [bracketed and bolded red] typeface, and additions in boldface black:

To the south of the current Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, Sharp Park’s namesake, George F. Sharp, established a 400-acre estate in 1849 [part] of which the westernmost approximately 100 acres became the current Sharp Park Golf Course. Sharp’s widow, Honora Sharp, bequeathed the estate to the City of San Francisco with specific instructions that the property be used for recreational functions. Noted golf architect Alister Mackenzie [and landscape architect John McLaren] designed the course in the late 1920s for San Francisco, whose Superintendent of Parks at the time was [landscape architect] John McLaren. Back in 1932 when the course opened, games cost 70¢ on weekdays and $1 on weekends. During the 1930s, a portion of the Sharp Park recreation area to the east of the current golf course, roughly where the San Francisco Archers range now stands, served as a state relief camp that provided shelter, food, medical services, and employment for Bay Area residents struggling during the Depression. During World War II, the [Golf Course] relief camp area also served as an internment camp for Japanese Americans. [along the east boundary of the Sharp Park recreation area.] Respectfully submitted,
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
Richard Harris
Richard Harris, President
cc:

Pacifica City Council and Councilmembers
Pacifica City Manager Kevin Woodhouse
Pacifica Historical Society
Spencer Potter, SF Recreation and Park Department
Leslie Davis, Helen Duffy, Lisa Villasenor, Sharp Park Business Women’s Golf Club Bob Downing, Sharp Park Golf Club
Bo Links, Esq.

1.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment C - Public comments received through August 25, 2022 (5107 : Consideration of Adoption of Sharp Park Specific Plan)