6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-4
6.2.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The analysis in Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources identifies potentially significant impacts associated with archaeological resources (Impact C/TCUL-2), human remains (Impact C/TCUL-3), and tribal cultural resources (Impact C/TCUL-4). For all potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures are identified and the analysis concludes that impacts will be less than significant. Impacts to historical resources will be less than significant. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts.
6.2.5 Geology and Soils
The analysis in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils identifies potentially significant impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking (Impact GEO-1), erosion from construction activities (Impact GEO-2), soil instability (Impact GEO-3), location on an unstable geologic unit and on expansive soils (Impact GEO-4), and paleontological resources (Impact GEO-6).
The analysis concludes that potentially significant impacts will be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project does not involve installation of septic tanks and therefore the analysis concludes that there will be no impact associated with the project being located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils.
6.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions identifies potentially significant impacts associated with the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Impact GHG1). However, with implementation of mitigation measures, the analysis concludes that impacts resulting from project GHG emissions will be less than significant. Impacts resulting from a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions will be less than significant. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.
6.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The analysis in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials identifies potentially significant impacts associated with release of hazardous materials into the environment (Impact HAZ2), and as a result of exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (Impact HAZ-7), however, with implementation of mitigation, impacts will be
5.g
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-5
reduced to less than significant. The analysis concludes that impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, emission of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, proximity to an airport, and interference with emergency response and evacuation will be less than significant. The project will have no impact as a result of being located on a hazardous materials site. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
6.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysis in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality does not identify any significant or potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality as a result of project implementation including the potential for site runoff to violate water quality standards, a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, alteration of existing drainage patterns, pollutant release resulting from site inundation, or through conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
6.2.9 Land Use and Planning
The analysis in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning demonstrates that the proposed project will not physically divide an established community nor will the project conflict with land use regulations established by the City of Pacifica including the General Plan, zoning ordinance, and Plan Bay Area. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to land use and planning.
6.2.10 Noise
The analysis in Section 4.10, Noise identifies potentially significant impacts related to increases in ambient noise during project construction (Impact NOI-1), however with mitigation impacts will be less than significant. Impacts related to increases in ambient noise during project operation and groundborne vibration and noise will be less than significant.
The analysis concludes that there will be no impacts resulting from excessive noise associated with airport operations. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise.
6.2.11 Population and Housing
The analysis in Section 4.11, Population and Housing concludes that the project will result in less than significant impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth and
5.g
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-6
displacement of housing or people. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with population and housing.
6.2.12 Public Services
The analysis in Section 4.12, Public Services concludes that growth associated with the project has been planned for by the General Plan and will comply with applicable General Plan and Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) regulations that ensure public services are adequately funded. Therefore, impacts of the project on public services including fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities will be less than significant. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts to public services.
6.2.13 Transportation
The analysis in Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic identifies potentially significant impacts from an increase in hazards due to geometric design (Impact TRA-3), however, mitigation measures will reduce the impact to less than significant. Additionally, this Draft EIR identifies a significant project impact on VMT (Impact TRA-2) and VMT impact under cumulative conditions as detailed in Chapter 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations. Mitigation measures identified will not reduce VMT impacts to less than significant, and therefore, VMT impacts will be significant and unavoidable. All other traffic-related impacts will be less than significant.
6.2.14 Utilities and Service Systems
The analysis in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems concludes that impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities, water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, solid waste generation, and violations of federal, state, or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste will be less than significant. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts to utilities and service systems.
6.2.15 Wildfire
The analysis in Section 4.15, Wildfire concludes that impacts related to wildfire risk, evacuation, emergency plans, and post-fire landslide, runoff, slope instability, and drainage changes will be less than significant. The project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to wildfire.
6.2.16 Other Resource Topics
Section 4.0, Environmental Evaluation provides a brief discussion of other resource topics
5.g
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-7
including agricultural and forestry resources, energy, mineral resources, and recreation. The analysis concludes that the project will have no impact to these resource topic areas based on the project location and characteristics. Therefore, no additional analysis or discussion of these topics is needed.
Alternativ es Considered but Not Further Studied
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and therefore merit in-depth evaluation, and which alternatives are infeasible. The following alternatives were considered and found to be infeasible as discussed below.
6.3.1 Adaptive Reuse of Existing School Complex
Based on the developed condition of the site, an alternative that would adaptively reuse the existing school building was considered. This alternative was determined to be infeasible based on the age and current condition of the building which, as detailed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials discussion, contains asbestos and lead based paint, which would require full or partial abatement to ensure safety of future residents. In addition, reuse of the existing building would require modifications to increase energy efficiency and comply with seismic regulations. Furthermore, the objective of the project is to provide high quality housing for current and future staff members of the Pacifica School District. As proposed, the project includes 70 units. If the approximately 34,000 square foot school building were to be adaptively reused and converted to residential units, the resulting size of the units would be far less than that proposed by the project, with an average of only 485 square feet before considering common area, access, mechanical, and other needs. For reference, Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.2313(b) establishes a minimum dwelling unit size of 450 square feet for a studio unit (no bedrooms) and 600 square feet for a one-bedroom unit. In addition, other site modifications would be needed to accommodate parking, internal vehicular circulation, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and other amenities associated with residential developments. Therefore, a project alternative that would adaptively reuse the existing school building is not evaluated in this Draft EIR.
6.3.2 Increased Density Development
An alternative that would increase density would be inconsistent with the site’s General Plan designation, which allows for a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes the highest density allowed by the General Plan Land Use Designation.
Furthermore, increased density at the site would result in increased activity and demand on
5.g
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-8
public services, which would likely result in increased impacts. Based on the inconsistency with the General Plan as well as the likely increase in the severity of impacts, an increased density development alternative is not evaluated in this Draft EIR.
6.3.3 Alternative Site Location
As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, analysis of an infeasible off-site alternative is not required. The key consideration is whether an off-site location is available that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. The primary objectives of the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project are to provide housing within the city, including housing affordable to lower income households, and to redevelop an underutilized site owned by the Pacifica School District. The proposed project is in an area surrounded by single-family residences to the west, north. In addition to providing residential uses, the project also proposes to maintain the recreational field at the southern portion of the project site and will construct a restroom facility, both of which will be publicly available. No off-site alternative project location would meet the key project objectives of providing housing affordable to school district employees and staff, redeveloping an underutilized site owned by the Pacifica School District, preserving and expanding recreational opportunities for use by the surrounding community, and optimizing assets for the Pacifica School District. Therefore, an off-site alternative is not evaluated in this Draft EIR.
Alternativ es Ev aluated
Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR are intended to meet most of the project’s objectives while eliminating or reducing significant and unavoidable impacts as identified in Section 4.0, Environmental Evaluation. Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR include:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Development
• Alternative 2: Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences • Alternative 3: Variation of Site Layout and Unit Mix
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), any additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project.
The following sections describe each alternative, analyze impacts of each alternative as compared to the proposed project, identify significant impacts of the proposed project that would be avoided or lessened by each alternative, assess each alternative’s ability to meet the project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternative and the proposed project.
5.g
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-9
6.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Dev elopment
Description
Section 15125.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a No Project Alternative. This analysis must discuss existing conditions, as well as reasonably foreseeable future development if the proposed project were not to be approved, based on current plans, site zoning, and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.
As shown in Figure 4-3 of the 2040 General Plan, which was approved by City Council on July 11, 2022, the site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential, which allows a density range of 3 to 9 dwelling units per acre. The corresponding zoning designation of the site is Single-Family Residential (R-1), which permits single family residential uses, day cares, and other uses by-right, and conditionally permits uses such as churches, schools, parks, and visitor accommodations.
The No Project alternative is the continuation of existing conditions on the project site, which is developed with the former Oddstad School complex, closed by the Pacifica School District in 2005, and used for storage since 2019. The site includes a single-story school complex, circulation improvements such as driveways, parking areas, and pedestrian pathways, recreational fields and courts, landscaping, fencing, and an undeveloped hillside area along the eastern portion of the site. The existing recreational fields are publicly accessible and are used for both organized sports and individual recreation activities. Under the No Project alternative, no physical alterations would be made, and the site would continue to be used as storage and publicly accessible recreation.
Analysis
The following includes a discussion of the impacts of the No Project/No Development Alternative as compared to the proposed Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project.
Aesthetics
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no construction, grading, tree and vegetation removal, or development would occur on the project site and the existing aesthetic characteristics would remain unchanged. As such, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all potentially significant and less than significant impacts related to
5.g
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-10
aesthetics since the site would remain unchanged and in its current state.
Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no construction activities would occur on the project site. Thus, this alternative would not generate any fugitive dust or other pollutant emissions. Furthermore, under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no new area source emissions from the use of consumer products such as solvents, cleaners, paints, and operation of landscaping maintenance equipment nor would there be any new emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the project site by residents, delivery trucks, visitors, and recreational users. As such, relative to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all potentially significant and less than significant air quality impacts.
Biological Resources
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no changes to the site, including removal of existing trees or vegetation, would occur. This alternative would avoid all impacts of the proposed project related to special-status species including impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, obscure bumblebee, California red-legged frog, bats, nesting birds, and the Choris’ popcornflower. Additionally, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to identified wetlands. As such, relative to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all potentially significant and less than significant impacts to biological resources.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no construction activities would occur that could result in the accidental discovery of archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains. Therefore, this alternative would avoid all potentially significant and less than significant impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Geology and Soils
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new development would occur, and all existing structures would remain in place. As such, the current building would not be modified to comply with current seismic regulations and any existing seismic hazards and geologic and soil instabilities to the existing school complex and shed building would remain unchanged. Under this alternative, impacts resulting from seismic hazards would be greater than the proposed project as the existing buildings are of an age that do not incorporate current building code standards that set forth regulations for seismic safety.
5.g
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-11
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No new construction would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, and as such GHG emissions associated with construction activities would not occur. The existing school building would continue to be used by the School District for storage and operations would involve the same level of GHG emissions as currently exists, which are negligible. As such, relative to the proposed project, the all potentially significant and less than significant GHG impacts would be avoided under the No Project Alternative.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the existing environmental conditions, including the presence of buildings containing lead-based paint and asbestos, would remain.
All impacts identified as potentially significant and less than significant including transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials, safety hazards associated with excessive airport noise, interference with an adopted emergency plan, and risks associated with proximity to a wildfire area would be avoided.
Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would avoid impacts associated with construction activities including impacts to surface and groundwater water quality. Relative to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not implement design elements that could improve hydrology and water quality through installation of new drainage systems, bioretention features, and other low impact development design features.
Land Use and Planning
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no impacts related to division of a community. Conversely, because no housing development would occur, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be inconsistent with the City of Pacifica General Plan, which designates the site for development of low-density housing at a range of 3 to 9 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the land use conflict of this alternative would be greater than that of the proposed project.
Noise
No construction would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative. As such, there would be no temporary increase in ambient noise associated with construction activities nor would there be any increase in operational noise. Similarly, this alternative would not generate groundborne vibration or noise as no construction activities would
5.g
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-12
occur. As such, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the project’s potentially significant and less than significant noise impacts.
Population and Housing
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not introduce housing to the project site and therefore, would not increase population or housing at the project site or in the City of Pacifica. As such, the No Project/No Development Alternative, like the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to population and housing.
Public Services
This alternative would not induce additional demand for police or fire services beyond what currently exists. Because there would be no residents introduced under this alternative there would not be any induced additional demand on school services or other public facilities such as libraries. Under this alternative, the site would remain unchanged and as such use of the recreational fields would remain the same as current conditions. As with the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to public services.
Transportation and Traffic
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no development on the project site would occur and no new vehicle trips would be generated. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to VMT. Additionally, under this alternative, there would be no change to the existing site configuration, and as such there would be no impacts associated with a geometric design hazard nor result in inadequate emergency access. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative the project’s potentially significant and less than significant impacts related to traffic, including the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts (project-specific and cumulative) associated with VMT would be avoided.
Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not generate an increase in demand for utilities and service systems beyond what currently serves the former Oddstad School. As with the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, natural gas, electric, and telecommunication services, and solid waste generation.
Wildfire
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative no development on the site would occur
5.g
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-13
and all existing improvements including the single-story school complex, driveways, parking areas, pedestrian pathways, recreational fields and courts, landscaping, fencing, and undeveloped hillside would remain. The current building would not be modified to comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code for sites within the wildland urban interface (WUI) nor would the proposed project’s Vegetation Management Plan be implemented.
Under this alternative, there would be no impacts resulting from impairment of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan or through installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Given that the site is adjacent to a steep hillside and within an area designated as WUI, under the No Project/No Development Alternative, impacts resulting from exposure of occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be greater than the proposed project as the existing buildings are of an age that do not incorporate current building code standards that set forth regulations related to vegetation management, non-combustible materials, and the location of vents, which are intended to increase fire resistance of buildings located within the WUI.
Other Resource Topics
Similar to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not affect agricultural resources as the site is not designated nor currently used as agricultural land, would not result in impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflicts with plans for renewable and energy efficiency, would not result in loss of availability of known mineral resources as none are located on or adjacent to the site, and would not result in impacts to recreational facilities as the use of existing recreational facilities onsite would remain unchanged.
Conclusion
The following summarizes impacts of the No Project/No Development Alternative as compared to the proposed project and the alternative’s ability to meet the stated project objectives.
Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts
The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid or reduce project impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, archaeological resources, human remains, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Relative to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid construction related impacts as no physical development would occur. However, as discussed above, this
5.g
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-14
alternative would not abate hazards associated with lead based paint and asbestos contained within the existing building and would present greater wildfire hazards as compared to the project as it would not incorporate fire resistant building techniques or implement the Vegetation Management Plan of the proposed project. Furthermore, the No Project/ No Development Alternative would conflict with the General Plan as it would not achieve the property’s, highest and best use or realize residential development as provided by the land use designation.
Attain Project Objectives
The No Project/No Development Alternative would fail to meet all stated project objectives, would be inconsistent with the General Plan objectives and land use designations, and would not provide housing needed to meet the city’s RHNA obligation.
6.4.2 Alternative 2: Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Description
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences alternative represents an alternative that could occur based on the existing Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation, R-1 zoning designation, and underlying single family residential subdivision, originally recorded in 1965 with the County of San Mateo. The subdivision includes 56 single family lots, two remainder lots adjacent to the city-owned Frontierland Park, and four dedicated public rights-of-way. Since recordation of the subdivision in 1965, Lots 54 and 55, along Big Bend Drive to the north of the project site, have been developed.
As such, lots 54 and 55 are presumed to no longer be part of the subdivision and are therefore not considered in this alternative.
Under this alternative, the existing lots on the project site would be used for development rather than a re-subdivision of the land as proposed with the project. The entire 12.49-acre site, with the exception of the approximately 2.02-acre hillside area to the east (referred to as Lot D on the subdivision map), would be developed with single-family residences, including the existing recreational field at the southern portion of the site. Of the 54 single family residences, this alternative assumes construction of 16 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for a total of 70 units on 54 lots. Development of the single-family residences and ADUs would be subject to regulations contained in Section 9-4.402 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which permits a maximum of 40% lot coverage, and maximum building height of 35- feet. In addition, development of 54 single family residences and 16 ADUs would be subject to the minimum setbacks, landscaping, and parking requirements of the Municipal Code.
5.g
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-15
Under this alternative, new water, sewer, and storm drain facilities would be installed to accommodate the residential units and the four dedicated rights-of-way shown on the subdivision map would be paved, and curb, gutter, and sidewalks would be installed.
Analysis
The following includes a discussion of the impacts of the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision:
54 single family Residences Alternative as compared to the proposed Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project.
Aesthetics
Under the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative, the entire site, apart from the undeveloped hillside area along the eastern portion of the property, would be developed with single-family residences and associated improvements such as landscaping, fencing, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and the four public rights-of-way shown on the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision Map. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative would increase the overall site disturbance as it would result in development of the recreational field at the southern portion of the site, however, given the existing singlefamily residential character of the surrounding area, distance from eligible State Scenic Highways, limits on height established by the zoning designation, and general city regulations to reduce offsite light and glare, impacts under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.
As compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a greater impact to the existing visual character as additional protected trees along Oddstad Boulevard and throughout the project site would be removed to accommodate the four public rights-of-way and individual single family-residences. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measures AES-1 would be required to address removal of protected trees.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts resulting from the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would be the same as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) as it would include (1) infill development on a previously developed site within existing urban limits and consequently would limit urban sprawl, (2) would implement best management practices (BMPs) set forth by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to protect air quality during construction, and (3) would fall below the screening criteria level for single-family residential uses (325 du for operation and 114 du for construction) and thus
5.g
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-16
would not be result in significant air quality impacts. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not conflict with the regional air quality plan and with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants during construction or at operation or result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors. As a residential use, similar to the proposed project, localized odors during construction would be temporary and not likely noticeable beyond the limits of the site and would not generate odors during operation. As such, air quality impacts of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.
Biological Resources
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would increase the area of disturbance on the site and would consequently result in an increase in impacts to biological resources as compared to the proposed project. In addition to increasing the severity of impacts, under this alternative, additional potentially significant impacts would occur to special-status plant species, sensitive natural communities, seasonal wetlands, and jurisdictional features. As shown in Figure 6-1, additional impacts would potentially occur to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and sensitive natural communities as compared to the proposed project. Specifically, development at the southern portion of the site would result in disturbance to additional middens observed during the site survey conducted for the Biological Resources Analysis as well as along the eastern portion of the site which currently contains inaccessible dense scrub that supports habitat for the woodrat. Similarly, this alternative would result in removal of sensitive natural communities at the southern and northern portions of the project site. As shown in Figure 6-1, this alternative would also result in additional impacts to seasonal wetlands and jurisdictional features.
As with the proposed project, impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, obscure bumblebee, California red-legged frog, bats, and birds would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6, however, impacts to the Choris’ popcornflower, seasonal wetlands, and jurisdictional features would be more impactful under this Alternative relative to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in removal of protected trees, however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 impacts to protected trees would be the same as the proposed project. Impacts to wildlife movement would be the same as the proposed project, and as there is no adopted Habitat Conservation plans within the project area, like the proposed project, there would be no impacts under this alternative.
5.g
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-17
FIGURE 6-1: ALTERNATIVE 2 - ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND HABITATS
5.g
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-18
FIGURE 6-2: ALTERNATIVE 2 - ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO WETLANDS
5.g
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-19
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project.
Potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources could result if such resources were encountered during construction. As with the proposed project, under this alternative, implementation of Mitigation Measures C/TCUL-1 and C/TCUL-2 would be required.
Geology and Soils
Given that this alternative would be subject to the same geologic conditions and setting as the proposed project, impacts resulting from substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a result of strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and erosion as well as direct or indirect impacts to paleontological or unique geologic features would be the same as the proposed project. This alternative would be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed project including preparation of a design level geotechnical analysis and incorporation of all recommendations provided therein (Mitigation Measure GEO-1), compliance with regulations set forth in the Municipal Code as it relates to implementation of stormwater control measures (Mitigation Measure GEO-2), and steps to take in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction (Mitigation Measure GEO-3). As with the proposed project, the 54 single family residences under this alternative would connect to the existing sewer system. As such impacts related to septic tanks would be the same as the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Though the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would result in construction of fewer dwelling units as compared to the proposed project, a greater portion of the site would be disturbed, and it is assumed that more building materials would be utilized as the detached single-family residences would be larger than the proposed townhome and flat units proposed by the project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be subject to Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and GHG-1, which are aimed at reducing construction-related GHG emissions. At operation, GHG impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would not require additional mitigation. This alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and as such would result in the same impacts as the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.g
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-20
Under the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative, impacts resulting from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, use of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, exposure of people residing on the site to airport noise, interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan, and risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be the same as the proposed project.
As with the proposed project, under this alternative the existing buildings onsite would be demolished to accommodate construction of 54 single-family residences which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As such, this alternative would be subject to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure the proper demolition and disposal of asbestos containing material and lead-based paint. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site and as such, impacts resulting from being located on such a site would be the same as the proposed project. With implementation of mitigation measures impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would result in an increase in impervious areas as compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts related to water quality, groundwater recharge, soil erosion, runoff, and flooding would be greater as compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be subject to regulations intended to protect water quality and reduce soil erosion and runoff such as implementation of BMPs during construction, and preparation of a stormwater control plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan. Through compliance with standard regulations, impacts to water quality, groundwater recharge, soil erosion, runoff, and flooding would be reduced to less than significant, as with the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
Under the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative, no physical division of an established community would occur as this alternative would result in construction of 54 single-family residences in an established residential area. Under this alternative, single-family residence would be established on a site zoned for single-family uses and would therefore not conflict with applicable land use regulations. As with the proposed project, land use and planning related impacts would be less than significant.
Noise
Similar to the proposed project, the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family
5.g
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-21
Residences Alternative would result in temporary noise and vibration during construction.
To address potential impacts Mitigation Measure NOI-1 imposes noise abatement strategies which would reduce impacts to less than significant. Though this alternative would result in a greater project footprint, the same noise abatement measures would be required during construction and as such impacts would be the same as the proposed project. At operation, the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would generate noise typical of a single-family residential subdivision and similar to the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. Under this alternative, the site would be subject to the same impacts as the proposed project as it relates to exposing people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of being locating in an airport land use plan.
Population and Housing
Under this alternative, the same number of residential units would be constructed as compared to the proposed project and as such the resulting population would be the same.
Impacts related to substantial population growth would therefore be the same as compared to the proposed project. Impacts resulting from displacement of housing units or people would be less than significant, as with proposed project, as there are no existing housing units onsite.
Public Services
Under this alternative the same number of housing units would be constructed as compared to the proposed project, and as such demand for police, fire, school, library, and other public services would be the same. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would remove the recreational field at the southern portion of the site and as such there would be fewer recreational opportunities available to project residents and the surrounding neighborhood as compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would be subject to applicable development impact fees intended to offset incremental increase in use of park facilities. 54 single-family units would not necessitate the expansion or construction of new parks that could result in substantial adverse physical impacts to the environment and therefore impacts of this alternative to public services would be less than significant, as with the proposed project.
Transportation and Traffic
Under the proposed project, VMT impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Under the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences
5.g
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-22
Alternative, VMT impacts would be significant as the single-family residences would generate a VMT per capita equivalent to the average for the project site, which is above the existing city wide average VMT per capita and therefore exceeds the threshold of 15% below the existing citywide average. There are no feasible mitigation measures that could reduce VMT impacts of this alternative to levels below significance, and therefore impacts under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. This alternative would result in construction of additional residential uses to a site surrounded by other residential uses.
Development of the site under this alternative would be subject to all applicable policies and regulations related to parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, site design, and emergency access. As with the proposed project, compliance with applicable regulations would result in less than significant impacts to transportation and traffic including as a result of a conflict with applicable policies, plans, or programs, design hazards, or as a result of inadequate emergency access.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under this alternative, the same number of residential units would be constructed as compared to the proposed project, however, impacts would be greater than the proposed project as individual single-family residences would generate increased demand on public utilities as compared to the multi-family units proposed by the project. Though this alternative would generate more demand as compared to the proposed project, residential development at the site has been envisioned in the city’s General Plan and as such impacts to utilities including impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater, natural gas and other utilities, and solid waste, would remain at less than significant levels, as with the proposed project.
Wildfire
Under this alternative, as with the proposed project, impacts due to a conflict with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan would continue to be less than significant as the increase in trips on surrounding roadways would be nominal and capacity would be sufficient for access to or from the site in the event of an emergency. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code which sets forth requirements for development of sites located within the WUI. Compliance with applicable regulations intended to increase fire resistance of buildings as well as implementation of a vegetation management plan will ensure impacts associated with exacerbating wildfire risks would be less than significant, as with the proposed project.
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would
5.g
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-23
construct four new dead-end public rights-of-way to access individual single-family residences, however, these roadways would not exacerbate wildfire risk and impacts of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. This alternative would also maintain the eastern hillside of the site for defensible space, and as noted above would implement a vegetation management plan. As such, impacts to wildfire under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.
Other Resource Topics
Similar to the proposed project, the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would not affect agricultural resources as the site is not designated nor currently used as agricultural land, would not result in impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflicts with plans for renewable and energy efficiency, and would not result in loss of availability of known mineral resources as none are located on or adjacent to the site.
Under this alternative the existing recreational field located at the southern portion of the site would be removed, and as such impacts to recreational facilities would be greater as compared to the proposed project. Based on the size of this alternative, existing recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site, and the requirement to pay in-lieu fees to offset incremental increase in use of park facilities, impacts resulting from use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur would be less than significant. Similarly, this alternative would not necessitate construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could result in adverse physical impacts on the environment and impacts would be less than significant. As such, though this alternative would result in greater impacts to recreation as compared to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion
The following summarizes impacts of the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative as compared to the proposed project and the alternative’s ability to meet the stated project objectives.
Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would result in new or increased impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, recreation, utilities and service systems. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality, archaeological resources,
5.g
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-24
human remains, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, and wildfire would be similar or the same as the proposed project.
Attain Project Objectives
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would fail to meet some of the stated project objectives as it would not provide workforce housing for current and future staff members of the Pacifica School District, would not provide rental rates and lease terms that enable and improve the District’s ability to retain and attract qualified faculty and staff, and would not maintain and expand recreational opportunities on site for use by the surrounding neighborhood, future residents, and organized recreational groups.
6.4.3 Alternative 3: Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Description
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative assumes that Lot 1, at the southern portion of the project site, would be retained as a recreational field for use by the public, and Lots 2 and 3, totaling 7.47 acres would be developed in a varied layout and with a different unit mix as compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, Building A, located at the eastern portion of Lot 2 would be relocated to the area of Buildings B1 and B2 and would include an additional floor with 14 units. The height of Building A would increase from 30- feet to approximately 40-feet. Under this alternative, the site would be rezoned from R-1 to Planned Development (P-D), which provides for flexibility in building height if the findings in Section 9-4.2211(a) of the PMC can be made. In addition to modification of the location of Building A, under this alternative, Building B3would be modified to eliminate two units for a total of four units. Under this alternative, the unit count and mix would be as follows:
• Building A (41 units)
32 one-bedroom
9 two-bedroom
• Building B3
2 two-bedroom
2 three-bedroom
• Buildings C1 and C2 (no change)
2 two-bedroom
2 three-bedroom
• Building D (no change)
11 one-bedroom
5.g
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-25
6 two-bedroom
Analysis
The following includes a discussion of the impacts of the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative as compared to the proposed Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project.
Aesthetics
As with the proposed project, Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would result in a potentially significant impact associated with degradation of the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and surrounding area however, as this alternative would result in construction of one building with three stories as opposed to two, impacts to scenic vistas including views of the San Pedro and Montara Ranges would be greater as compared to the proposed project. Though impacts would be greater as compared to the proposed project, the three-story residential building would be generally consistent with surrounding residential uses and would be located in the central portion of the site, providing a buffer between existing single-family residences to the north. As with the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would be required for this alternative, which would ensure impacts related to degradation of the existing character as it relates to the removal of mature trees are reduced to a less than significant. All other impacts to aesthetics including impacts to a scenic vista, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and light and glare would be the same as compared to the proposed project.
Air Quality
Similar to the proposed project, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ2, the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants during construction or at operation or result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors. As with the proposed project, impacts due to a conflict with an applicable air quality plan, and other emissions such as odors will remain at less than significant.
Biological Resources
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would relocate Building A, providing for a greater distance from special-status species located onsite and would consequently result in decreased impacts to biological resources as compared to the proposed project.
Though impacts to biological resources would be less under this alternative, as with the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 and AES-1
5.g
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-26
would be required to reduce impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, obscure bumblebee, California red-legged frog, bats, birds, protected waters, and protected trees to less than significant. Impacts to wildlife movement under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, and as there is no adopted Habitat Conservation plans within the project area, like the proposed project, there would be no impacts under this alternative.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project. Potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources could result if such resources were encountered during construction. As with the proposed project, under this alternative, implementation of Mitigation Measures C/TCUL-1 and C/TCUL-2 would be required.
Geology and Soils
Under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative all elements of the proposed project would remain, except Building A would be relocated, and the number of units in Building B3 would be reduced by 2. Given that this alternative would be subject to the same geologic conditions and setting as the proposed project and would construct all other buildings and improvements the same as the proposed project, impacts to geology and soils under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Given that this alternative would install a three-story versus two-story building, specific geotechnical recommendations would need to be established. However, as with the proposed project, this alternative would be subject to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 which requires implementation of design-specific geotechnical recommendations as well as measures GEO-2 and GEO-3. The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would connect to the existing sewer system and therefore would not result in impacts related to septic tanks.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would result in construction of the same number of dwelling units and substantially the same disturbed area as compared to the proposed project. As such, GHG impacts are presumed to be the same as compared to the proposed project. During construction, this alternative would be subject to Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which is aimed at reducing construction-related GHG emissions. At operation, GHG impacts would be the same as compared to the proposed project as there would be the same number of dwelling units, and consequently the same GHG emissions
5.g
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-27
would be generated. This alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and as such would result in the same impacts as the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types y Alternative, impacts resulting from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, use of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, exposure of people residing on the site to airport noise, interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan, and risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be the same as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, under this alternative the existing buildings onsite would be demolished to accommodate construction of the residential development which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As such, this alternative would be subject to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure the proper demolition and disposal of asbestos containing material and lead-based paint. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site and as such, impacts resulting from being located on such a site would be the same as the proposed project. With implementation of mitigation measures impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would result in a marginal difference in impervious areas as compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts related to water quality, groundwater recharge, soil erosion, runoff, and flooding would be substantially the same as compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be subject to regulations intended to protect water quality and reduce soil erosion and runoff such as implementation of BMPs during construction, and preparation of a stormwater control plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan. Through compliance with standard regulations, impacts to water quality, groundwater recharge, soil erosion, runoff, and flooding would be reduced to less than significant, and as stated above would be substantially the same as compared to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
Under Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative, land use and planning impacts would be the same as the proposed project. No physical division of an established community or conflict with land use regulations would occur as this alternative would result
5.g
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-28
in redevelopment of an underutilized site within and established residential area on a site zoned for residential use. Therefore, as with the proposed project, land use and planning related impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.
Noise
Similar to the proposed project, the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would result in temporary noise and vibration during construction. Though this alternative would result in construction of fewer buildings than the proposed project, compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce noise impacts during construction to less than significant. At operation, the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would generate the same noise levels as compared to the proposed project as it would introduce the same number of residential units. As with the proposed project noise at operation would be typical of residential land uses and impacts would continue to be less than significant. Under this alternative, the site would be subject to the same impacts as the proposed project as it relates to exposing people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of being locating in an airport land use plan.
Population and Housing
Under this alternative, the same number of residential units would be constructed as compared to the proposed project and as such the resulting population would be the same.
Impacts related to substantial population growth would therefore be the same as the proposed project. Impacts resulting from displacement of housing units or people would be the same as the proposed project as there are no existing housing units onsite.
Public Services
Under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative the same number of residential units would be constructed as compared to the proposed project, and as such demand for police, fire, school, library, recreational, and other public services would be the same as the proposed project.
Transportation and Traffic
Under the proposed project, VMT impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative, the same number of units at the same affordability rates would be constructed and would therefore exceed the threshold of 15% below the existing citywide average and impacts would be significant.
For the reasons discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation measures that could reduce VMT impacts of this alternative to levels below
5.g
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-29
significance, and therefore impacts under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Though impacts under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 and TRA-2 would still be required.
All other transportation and traffic impacts under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would be the same as the proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-3 and TRA-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant as with the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under this alternative, the same number of residential units would be constructed as compared to the proposed project, and as such demand on public utilities as compared to the proposed project would be the same. Impacts to utilities including impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater, natural gas and other utilities, and solid waste, would remain at less than significant levels, as with the proposed project.
Wildfire
Under the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative, a greater degree of defensible space would be provided as Building A, which is located nearest to the undeveloped hillside, would be relocated. As such, impacts related to wildfire would be less than the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code related to WUI requirements and would also be required to implement a vegetation management plan. Through compliance with applicable regulations impacts associated with exacerbating wildfire risks as a result of the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would be less than significant, as with the proposed project.
Other Resource Topics
Similar to the proposed project, the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would not affect agricultural resources as the site is not designated nor currently used as agricultural land, would not result in impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflicts with plans for renewable and energy efficiency, would not result in loss of availability of known mineral resources as none are located on or adjacent to the site, and would not result in impacts to recreational facilities as the use of existing recreational facilities onsite would remain unchanged. As such, impacts to other resource topics would be the same as the proposed project.
5.g
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-30
Conclusion
The following summarizes impacts of the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative as compared to the proposed project and the alternative’s ability to meet the stated project objectives.
Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would result in decreased or substantially similar impacts as the proposed project to all resource areas including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, archaeological resources, human remains, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities, and wildfire. All mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to the Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative and no additional mitigation measures would be needed.
Attain Project Objectives
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative would meet all of the project objectives.
Env ironmentally Superior Alterna tiv e
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no physical changes would occur on the project site, and no new environmental impacts beyond what currently exists would occur.
As such, the No Project/No Development alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce or eliminate short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts in all categories when compared to the proposed project.
The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the project objectives, and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment. As stated above and as shown in Table 6-1, the No Project/No Development alternative would be the environmentally
5.g
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-31
superior alternative because it would eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. However, while the No Project/No Development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, it is not capable of meeting any of the project objectives.
After the No Project alternative, the environmentally superior alternative is that which would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. Based on the analysis contained herein and as shown in Table 6-1, Alternative 3: Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative is the environmentally superior. Though this alternative would not avoid the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impacts, it is an environmentally superior project alternative because it would construct the same amount of units in fewer buildings as compared to the proposed project which would reduce all other potentially significant impacts as compared to the proposed project. This alternative is considered environmentally superior, and would achieve the stated project objectives.
5.g
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-32
TABLE 6-1: COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
AES-1
Implementation of the proposed project
would not have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista.
LTS/LTS NI = +
AES-2
Implementation of the proposed project
would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway.
LTS/LTS NI = =
AES-3
Development of the project site would
substantially degrade the visual character
and quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings.
PS/LTS NI + =
AES-4
The project would not create a new source
of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime
LTS/LTS NI = =
AQ-1
Implementation of the proposed Pacifica
School District Workforce Housing project
would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of an applicable air quality
plan.
LTS/LTS NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-33
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
AQ-2
Construction and operation of the proposed
project would generate emissions that
would result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any critical pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.
PS/LTS NI = =
AQ-3
Implementation of the proposed project
would potentially expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
PS/LTS NI = =
AQ-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.
LTS/LTS NI = =
BIO-1
The project could result in a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on species identified
as candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
PS/LTS NI + -
5.g
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-34
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
BIO-2
The project would not result in a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
NI/NI NI + =
BIO-3
The project could 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.
LTS/LTS NI + =
BIO-4
The 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.
LTS/LTS NI = =
BIO-5
The project could conflict with local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance.
PS/LTS NI + =
5.g
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-35
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
BIO-6
The 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.
NI/NI NI = =
C/TCUL-1
Implementation of the proposed project
would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section15064.5.
LTS/LTS NI = =
C/TCUL-2
Implementation of the project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5
PS/LTS NI = =
C/TCUL-3
Implementation of the project could
potentially cause a significant impact due to
disturbance of human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
PS/LTS NI = =
C/TCUL-4
Implementation of the project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource.
PS/LTS NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-36
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
GEO-1
The proposed project could potentially
directly or indirectly result in substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving fault rupture,
strong seismic ground shaking, or seismicrelated ground failure including liquefaction and landslides.
PS/LTS NI = =
GEO-2
The proposed project could result in
substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. PS/LTS NI = = GEO-3
The proposed project would be located 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
PS/LTS NI = =
GEO-4
The proposed project would be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property.
PS/LTS NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-37
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
GEO-5
The proposed project will not be located on
soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste
water.
NI/NI NI = =
GEO-6
The proposed project could directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
PS/LTS NI = =
GHG-1
Implementation of the proposed Pacifica
School District Workforce Housing project
would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
would result in a significant impact on the
environment.
PS/LTS NI + =
GHG-2
Implementation of the proposed project
would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
LTS/LTS NI = =
HAZ-1
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.
LTS/LTS NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-38
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
HAZ-2
The proposed project could 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.
PS/LTS NI = =
HAZ-3
The proposed project would not emit
hazardous emissions or involve handling
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school.
LTS/LTS NI = =
HAZ-4
The proposed project would not be located
on a site included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.
NI/NI NI = =
HAZ-5
The proposed project would be located
within an airport land use plan, but would
not result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the
project area.
LTS/LTS NI = =
HAZ-6
The proposed project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan.
LTS/LTS NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-39
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
HAZ-7
The proposed project could expose people
or structures, either directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
LTS/LTS NI = =
HYDRO-1
Implementation of the proposed project
would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality.
LTS/LTS NI + =
HYDRO-2
Implementation of the project would not
substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
would impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.
LTS/LTS NI + =
5.g
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-40
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
HYDRO-3
Implementation of the proposed would not
substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would i) result
in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii)
create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect
flood flows.
LTS/LTS NI + =
HYDRO-4
Implementation of the proposed project
would not result in the risk of release of
pollutants due to project inundation as a
result of being located in a flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zone.
LTS/LTS NI + =
HYDRO-5
Implementation of the proposed project
would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.
LTS/LTS NI + =
5.g
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-41
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
LUP-1
The project would not physically divide an
established community.
LTS/LTS NI = =
LUP-2
The project would not conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental impact.
LTS/LTS NI = =
NOI-1
The proposed project could involve
generation of 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.
PS/LTS NI = =
NOI-2
The proposed project would not result in
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
LTS/LTS NI = =
NOI-3
The proposed project, would not expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels as a result of
being located in an airport land use plan.
NI/NI NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-42
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
POP-1
The project would not induce direct
substantial population growth in the area as
a result of construction of the proposed
units, nor would the project result in indirect
population growth in the area as a result of
expansion of public facilities, such as roads
or other infrastructure.
LTS/LTS NI = =
POP-2
The project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
LTS/LTS NI = =
PS-1
The project would not require expansion or
construction of new governmental facilities
which could result in substantial adverse
physical impacts as a result of increased
demand for fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, or other public
facilities.
LTS/LTS NI = =
TRA-1
The project will not conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
LTS/LTS NI = =
TRA-2
The project will conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (B).
S/SU NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-43
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
TRA-3
The project will not substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design or
incompatible uses.
PS/LTS NI = =
TRA-4
Implementation of the project will not result
in inadequate emergency access.
LTS/LTS NI = =
UTIL-1
Implementation of the proposed project
would not require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
LTS/LTS NI + =
UTIL-2
Implementation of project would have
sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years.
LTS/LTS NI + =
UTIL-3
Implementation of the project would 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.
LTS/LTS NI + =
5.g
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-44
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
UTIL-4
Implementation of the project would 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.
LTS/LTS NI + =
UTIL-5
Implementation of the project would
comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
LTS/LTS NI + =
FIRE-1
The project would not substantially impair
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
LTS/LTS NI = =
FIRE-2
The project would not exacerbate wildfire
risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, and thereby would not
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
LTS/LTS NI = =
5.g
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6-45
PROJECT IMPACT
PACIFICA SCHOOL
DISTRICT WORKFORCE
HOUSING PROJECT:
PROPOSED
PROJECT (BEFORE AND
AFTER MITIGATION)
ALT 1: NO PROJECT/NO
DEVELOPMENT
ALT 2: PARK PACIFICA
HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION:
54 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
ALT 3: VARIATION OF
SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT
TYPES
FIRE-3
The project would not require installation or
maintenance of 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.
LTS/LTS NI = =
FIRE-4
The 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.
LTS/LTS NI = =
Key:
S Significant
SU Significant and unavoidable
PS Potentially significant
LTS Less than significant
NI No impact
= Impact similar to proposed project
- Impact less than proposed project
+ Impact greater than proposed project
5.g
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930
5.g
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 7-1
7.0 References
Sources
The following sources were used in the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Each chapter/section lists the sources referenced at the end of the chapter/section.
1. 2019 California Fire Code, Chapter 1, Division 1, Section 1.1.3
2. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for North Coast County Water District, https://www.nccwd.com/images/North_Coast_County_Water_District_2020_UWMP.pdf
3. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2 Planning Partner Annexes, October 2021
4. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2 Planning Partner Annexes, October 2021
5. C.3 Regulated Project Guide, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Version 1.0, January 2020
6. California Air Resources Board, Sensitive Receptor Assessment https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/community-assessment/sensitivereceptor-assessment, accessed December 2021.
7. California Coastal Commission, Overview, https://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html, accessed February 25, 2022
8. California Code of Regulations, Title 5: Education Code
9. California Code, Government Code, Section 53311 et seq.: The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
10. California Code, Government Code, Section 65995 et seq.: Payment of Fees, Charges, Dedications, or Other Requirements Against a Development Project
11. California Code, Government Code, Section 66000 et seq.: Fees for Development Projects
12. California Code, Health and Safety Code, Sections 13000 et seq.: Fires and Fire Protection
13. California Department of Conservation, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones
5.g
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
7.0 REFERENCES
7-2
14. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2018.
15. California Department of Conservation, San Mateo County Tsunami Hazard Areas, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-mateo
16. California Department of Education Data Quest, Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade, Academic Year 2020-21, https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/, accessed March 11, 2022
17. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps
18. California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor, February 28, 2022.
19. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2017.
20. California Fish and Game Code
21. California Government Code, Title 7. Planning And Land Use [65000 - 66499.58], Division
2. Subdivisions [66410 - 66499.38], Chapter 4. Requirements [66473 - 66498], Article 1.
General [66473 - 66474.10], Section 6647.2(b)(2)
22. California State Water Resources Control Board, February 28, 2022.
23. CalRecycle Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends, Pacifica, 2020
24. CalRecycle SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41- AA-0002)
25. City of Pacifica 1980 General Plan
26. City of Pacifica 2015 - 2023 Housing Element
27. City of Pacifica 2040 General Plan EIR
28. City of Pacifica Climate Action Plan Implementation Report, October 2017
29. City of Pacifica Design Guidelines
30. City of Pacifica Municipal Code
31. City of Pacifica Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project Information Sheet
32. City of Pacifica, City Council Ordinance 884-C.S.
5.g
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
7.0 REFERENCES
7-3
33. City of Pacifica, Climate Action Plan Implementation Report, October 2017
34. City of Pacifica, Wastewater Treatment, Wastewater Collection, Sanitary Sewer System, https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/public-works/wastewatertreatment/wastewater-collection/sanitary-sewer-system
35. City/County Association of Governments, San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, Final Report, December 2019.
36. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
37. County of San Mateo, 2014 Five-Year Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Review Report, October 2014
38. Designated Scenic Route Map for San Mateo County, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highway Mapping System;
39. Income, Location Efficiency, and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy by Gregory L. Newmark Ph.D and Peter M. Haas Ph.D, Center for Neighborhood Technology, December 16, 2015.
40. Jack Schreder & Associates, Inc., Level I Developer Fee Study for Jefferson Union High School District, July 28, 2020
41. Jack Schreder & Associates, Inc., Level I Developer Fee Study for Pacifica School District, June 14, 2018
42. Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Plan Pacifica, https://www.planpacifica.org/local-coastalprogram, accessed February 25, 2022
43. Maps numbered 06081CO128E, 06081CO129E,
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=930%20Oddstad%20Blvd%2C%20P acifica%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor
44. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1990
45. North Coast County Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021
46. North County Fire Authority, 2020 Annual Report
47. Pacifica Police Department, Annual Report 2016
5.g
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
7.0 REFERENCES
7-4
48. Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Plan, Implementation Plan, and Environmental Impact Report https://www.planbayarea.org/
49. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, Revised Tentative Order, Amendment of Cease and Desist Order for City of Pacifica Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Wastewater Collection System in Pacifica, San Mateo County,
50. San Mateo County Datasets, Williamson Act Parcels, 2016.
51. San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Final Draft, January 8, 1999
52. San Mateo County Land Conservation (Williamson) Act, San Mateo County Planning and Building Department, 2013.
53. San Mateo County Libraries, Open for Exploration, Annual Report, 2020-2021
54. San Mateo County Recorder, Park Pacifica Highlands No. 1, Volume 63, Pages 13-15
55. State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines, prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, November 14, 2005
56. Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges, 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2019
57. The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Fact Sheet, February 2017
58. U.S. EPA, Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act, June 2004
59. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit 41 – Reshaping Existing Drainage and Irrigation Ditches, Effective February 25, 2022, NWP Final Notice, 86 FR 73522
60. United States Code
61. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Overview of Greenhouse Gases, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
62. United States Geological Survey, The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Persons Consulted
Patrick Kobernus, Principal Wildlife Biologist, Coast Ridge Ecology Gary Black, President, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
5.g
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.)
7.0 REFERENCES 7-5
Report Prepa rers
M-Group:
Olivia Ervin, Principal
Krystle Rizzi, Project Manager and Senior Planner
Ranu Aggarwal, AICP, Principal Planner
Justin Shiu, Senior Planner
Eric Roberts, Associate Planner
Alaina Lipp, Associate Planner
5.g
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Attachment G - Draft EIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.) PT1
PT2PT3PT4
5.h
Packet Pg. 823
Attachment: Attachment H - Comment letter from DEIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.) PT5
PT6
5.h
Packet Pg. 824
Attachment: Attachment H - Comment letter from DEIR (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 930 Oddstad Blvd.) Pacifica School District
Workforce Housing
Final Environmental Impact
Report
SCH Number: 2021100457
March 2023
PREPARED BY M-GROUP FOR:
THE CITY OF PACIFICA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 CRESPI DRIVE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANT
EVANS & DE SHAZO, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT
ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, AIR QUALITY AND ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT
5.i
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project -
5.i
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - i
Table Of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Public Participation............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 FEIR Process + Findings...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Organization of the FEIR .................................................................................................... 3
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DEIR ............................................................................................ 4
2.1 Agency and Individual Comments..................................................................................... 4
2.2 Comments on the DEIR and Responses to Comments ................................................... 4
2.3 Response to Peter Tang Comment Letter ........................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Response PT-1..................................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Response PT-2..................................................................................................................7
2.3.3 Response PT-3..................................................................................................................7
2.3.4 Response PT-4..................................................................................................................8
2.3.5 Response PT-5..................................................................................................................8
2.3.6 Response PT-6..................................................................................................................8
3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM......................................... 9
5.i
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project -
5.i
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - 1 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Overview
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15088, 15089, and 15132 of CEQA, the City of Pacifica has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, the City of Pacifica must certify the FEIR as complete and adequate prior to approval of the proposed project.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) and 15362, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document meant to inform public agencies, decision makers, and members of the public by disclosing potential significant impacts likely to result from a project and identify methods to avoid or otherwise mitigate those impacts. An EIR must also consider a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project to avoid or minimize impacts while still feasibly accomplishing the stated project objectives.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall be comprised of the following:
a. The Draft EIR or revisions of the Draft.
b. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary.
c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Regarding 15132(a), none of the comments received on the DEIR during the public review period necessitate revisions or clarifications and as such, the DEIR as published on November 23, 2022 for public review is incorporated herein by reference without revisions.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 the adequacy of an EIR is measured based on the extent to which the analysis provides decision makers with enough information to consider environmental consequences and make an informed decision. In general, courts have held that an EIR should not be held to a standard of perfection, but rather, should exhibit a good faith effort at full disclosure, and should be adequate and complete.
5.i
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
2 1.2 Public Participation
The environmental review process for the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project commenced with circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a thirty-day period from October 22, 2021, to November 22, 2021. A public scoping meeting was held on November 4, 2021. Subsequently, on November 23, 2022, the City of Pacifica released a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIR. The NOA announced a thirty-day comment period on the DEIR extending from November 23, 2022 until January 9, 2023. The Public Comment period provided an opportunity for interested parties to provide input regarding the adequacy of the environmental document. The City received one public comment during the public review period, as further described in Section 2.0.
No substantial revisions that would merit recirculation of the DEIR as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) were made to the project or analyses after public comment.
All comments received from the public, interested parties and decision makers on the DEIR are identified herein (Chapter 2). Chapter 4 provides a summary of comments received and responses to address comments.
1.3 FEIR Process + Findings
This FEIR includes written responses to environmental issues raised in comments received during the public review period in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. The FEIR will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Prior to the City Council acting on the proposed project, the decision makers must certify that the information presented in the EIR has been reviewed and considered, that the EIR has been completed in a manner that conforms with the requirements of CEQA, and that the City’s independent judgment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 is adequately reflected.
In accordance with Section 21002, 21002.1 and 21081 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects unless one or more of the following findings are made:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the FEIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
5.i
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
3 by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
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 FEIR.
When a lead agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state reasons to support the action in a “statement of overriding considerations” that is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
1.4 Organization of the FEIR
The Final EIR document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction provides an overview of the CEQA process, public participation process, and organization of the FEIR.
Chapter 2, Comments on the Draft EIR provides a list of all comments received during the public review and comment period and responses to comments.
Chapter 3, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program describes the identified mitigation measure, method of verification, timing of verification, responsible party, and completion of implementation of mitigation measures.
5.i
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
4 2.0 Comments on the DEIR
2.1 Agency and Individual Comments
During the more than forty five-day comment period on the DEIR extending from November 23, 2022 to January 9, 2023, the City of Pacifica received a one written comment. The agencies, organizations, and individuals who provided comments are listed below.
LETTER/PUBLIC COMMENT AGENCY/INDIVIDUAL DATE RECEIVED
Letter Comment 1 Peter Tang, Pacifica Resident 12/22/2022
2.2 Comments on the DEIR and Responses to Comments
This section of the FEIR includes copies of comments received by hand-delivered or electronic mail during the public review and comment period on the DEIR. Specific responses to individual comments follow the letter. The comment letter is cataloged using the sender’s first and last initial followed by a numeric designator for each individual comment (e.g. AB1) with the corresponding response provided below.
Responses focus on comments that pertain to the adequacy of the analysis in the DEIR or to other aspects pertinent to the potential impacts of the project on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Comments that address topics beyond the purview of this EIR or CEQA, such as comments on the merits of the project, are noted as such for the public record and will be considered by the City prior to making a decision on the project, however, no response is provided in the FEIR as they do not relate specifically to environmental effects.
5.i
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR5
Peter Tang Comment Placeholder (2 pages)
5.i
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
6 5.i
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
7 2.3 Response to Peter Tang Comment Letter
2.3.1 Response PT-1
The comment is acknowledged. This comment is related to the merits of the project and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is required.
2.3.2 Response PT-2
The comment is acknowledged. This comment is related to the merits of the project and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is required.
2.3.3 Response PT-3
Development of the project provides opportunities to house faculty and staff of the Pacifica School District to allow those seeking housing opportunities and shorter commutes to live and work locally. Providing affordable housing options within the City of Pacifica will also result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled for those who would otherwise commute from other cities, which is in line with State goals to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions.
As provided in the City’s Housing Element, there is an ongoing need to provide housing at all income levels to meet the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). As described in Chapter 4.11, page 4.11-4 of the DEIR, the development of housing in the city from 2014- 2022 (126 units) was short of the RHNA target (413). With an unmet need of 287 units, there remains an ongoing need for housing at all income levels, especially affordable housing, in the community. Moreover, 253 units of the unmet need (259 unit target compared to 6 units produced) were at income levels of moderate income or below, which are typical income levels for faculty and school staff. Development of the project is within the projected buildout under the General Plan, and is consistent with policies contained in the Housing Element that seek to prioritize in-fill residential development, provide housing opportunities for all income groups, and provide a choice of housing types and densities.
Additionally, housing proposed by the project can be made available to those not employed by the school district should the demand by district employees be lower than the supply of units. As described in Chapter 4.11, page 4.11-5 of the DEIR, the project proposes to construct 70 residential units with the intent of renting at least 45 units to faculty and staff of the Pacifica School District at below market rate rental costs. If not all of 45 units are occupied by faculty and staff of the Pacifica School District, units may be made available to faculty and staff of nearby school districts, community college districts, or other public
5.i
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
8 employees in the City of Pacifica and surrounding communities. Not more than 25 units in the project will be leased to market rate tenants including those who are not faculty or staff of any school district, community college district, or other public employees in the City of Pacifica or surrounding communities.
2.3.4 Response PT-4
As described in Chapter 4.13 of the DEIR, Oddstad Boulevard has a maximum capacity of 12,000 vehicles per day and is expected to operate substantially below capacity with the addition of project traffic. Oddstad Boulevard is an existing two-lane residential collector street serving the city’s southeast residential areas, including the project site which is located in a single-family residential area that does not contain high traffic-generating land uses. The project is estimated to generate 484 average daily trips, including 30 during the AM peak hour and 37 during the PM peak hour.
The increase in traffic on the roadway represents less than five percent of the total roadway capacity. Furthermore, the traffic analysis prepared for the project concluded that under existing, existing plus project, background, and background plus project conditions, study intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) with study intersections continuing to operate at LOS A or LOS B with the addition of project generated traffic. Additionally, the project is located in an area supporting alternatives to automobile travel including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities and as such would not introduce a conflict between multiple travel modes that could result in unsafe conditions.
Furthermore, the project will not obstruct sight distance at the driveways and the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure TRA-4 which requires 30 feet of red curb be painted to the left of the driveway along Oddstad Boulevard to ensure on-street parking does not obstruct sight lines at the project driveway. Therefore, the project will not introduce a design feature that creates hazardous conditions.
2.3.5 Response PT-5
The comment is acknowledged. This comment is related to the merits of the project and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is required.
2.3.6 Response PT-6
The comment is acknowledged. This comment is related to the merits of the project and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is required.
5.i
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project - FEIR
9 3.0Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
AESTHETICS
AES-1: All applicable Tree Protection Recommendations set forth in the Arborist Report prepared by Traverso Tree Service on March 18, 2020, for the subject property, including, but not limited to recommendations related to protection of Monterey pines (trees 25-27) and Monterey cypress (trees 1-12, 16-20) during the pre-construction, demolition, foundation, grading, construction, and landscaping phases of the project shall be implemented. Final grading plans, construction plans, and building plans shall demonstrate that recommendations set forth in the Arborist Report have been incorporated into the final design of the project.
Plans shall also demonstrate compliance with the planting size, species, and ratio recommendations set forth in the Tree Replacement Recommendation Memorandum prepared by Traverso Tree Services on June 17, 2020. Protection measures and replacement trees shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Pacifica Planning Department.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to
Issuance of
Demolition,
Grading, or
Building Permit.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Latest BAAQMD recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control for fugitive dust and exhaust during all construction activities shall be incorporated into all demolition and construction plans to require implementation of the following:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per Review and
Approval by
Planning and
Building
Department.
Prior to
Issuance of
Demolition,
Grading, or
Building Permit.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
10 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
AQ-2: Prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit, a plan to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by at least 60 percent shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and acceptance. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following strategies:
1. All construction equipment larger than 50 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S.
EPA Tier 4 emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible. Alternatively, the plan may include:
a. Equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control Review and
Approval by
Planning and
Building
Department.
Prior to
Issuance of
Demolition or
Grading Permit.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
11 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
devices that altogether achieve a 60 percent or greater reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment.
b. Alternatively fueled or electric equipment.
2. Alternatively, the applicant may develop a construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 60 percent or greater. The construction operations plan shall be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. Elements of the plan could include a combination of the following measures:
a. Use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment;
b. Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors;
c. Use of electric-powered equipment;
d. Use of electric or propane/natural gas-powered forklifts and aerial lifts;
e. Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases; f. Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify occupied San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat middens onsite. Where feasible, occupied middens shall be avoided and a minimum five (5) foot non-disturbance buffer, or as otherwise recommended by a qualified biologist, shall be established, maintained, and monitored throughout project construction. Additionally, a minimum five (5) foot non-disturbance buffer, or as otherwise recommended by a qualified biologist, shall be established between the eastern limit of proposed development activities and the densely vegetated, impenetrable hazelnut scrub habitat.
Survey by
Biologist,
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to
Commencement
of Construction
Activities.
Applicant,
California
Department
of Fish and
Wildlife
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
12 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
BIO-2: To address potential impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, a Relocation Plan prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Pacifica and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and approval. At a minimum, the Relocation Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Nests requiring relocation shall be dismantled by construction crews by hand and under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist. • Each member of the construction crew shall receive an environmental awareness training regarding San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat ecology and specifics of the Relocation Plan.
• All material removed during nest dismantling shall be moved into the Relocation Area, as determined by the qualified biologist, and constructed into piles suitable for habitation or use as refugia. • If an active nest requires removal, the following phased dismantling protocol shall be implemented:
o Remove at least 50-100% of the existing canopy cover and begin dismantling.
o After partially dismantling the nest, leave nest alone for two to four days to allow woodrats to disperse on their own. After two to four days, continue to disassemble nest by hand. Plan to completely dismantle in two to three sessions.
o If young are present, the construction crew and qualified biologist shall cease dismantling of the nest for 48 hours to allow the adult to move the young. If the young have been moved and the nest is vacant, nest removal may resume.
• If an inactive nest (as determined by a qualified biologist) needs to be removed, it may be removed completely in one day. If woodrats are observed within or fleeing from the nest, the nest will be considered active and relocated using a phased approach.
Plan by
Biologist,
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department
and CDFW.
Prior to
Issuance of
Demolition or
Grading Permit.
Applicant,
California
Department
of Fish and
Wildlife,
Planning
Department.
BIO-3: To offset the loss or disturbance of foraging habitat (native forbs and shrubs) for the special-status obscure bumble bee (Bombus Review and
Approval by
Prior to
Issuance of
Applicant,
Planning
5.i
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
13 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
caliginosus), native shrubs and herbaceous (forb) species known to benefit native bees shall be identified in a revised landscaping plan and introduced onsite. Plants known to benefit native bees shall be selected and may include but are not limited to coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), sage (Salvia spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), various species of Lotus and Acmispon, gumplant (Grindelia spp.), and Phacelia spp. As part of the update to the landscaping plans, selected bee-friendly species and planting locations shall be confirmed by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City of Pacifica.
Planning
Department.
CDFW
Building Permit. Department.
BIO-4: In the event the construction commences during the rainy season (between October 1 and May 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog no more than five days prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities and provide recommendations for installation of exclusion fencing, as warranted.
Results of the survey and recommendations for exclusion fencing shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica.
At the recommendation of a qualified biologists and based on factors including the migration window for red-legged frog, rainfall, and inundation, exclusion fencing shall be installed. Exclusion fencing shall be inspected and maintained under the supervision of a qualified biologist.
Survey by
Biologist,
Approval by
Planning
Department.
No More than 5
Days Prior to
Commencement
of Ground
Disturbing
Activities.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
BIO-5: To avoid potential impacts to special-status bats, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of all structures and trees that would be impacted by the project, no more than 15 days prior to demolition, tree removal, or commencement of ground disturbing activities. Results of the preconstruction survey shall be documented by a qualified biologist and provided to the City of Pacifica. If special-status bat species are found roosting in building or trees proposed to be removed, the biologist shall determine if there are young present (i.e., the biologist should determine if there are maternal roosts). If young are found roosting in any tree or building proposed for removal, such impacts shall be Survey by
Biologist,
Approval by
Planning
Department.
No More than
15 Days Prior to
Demolition, Tree
Removal, or
Commencement
of Ground
Disturbing
Activities.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
14 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
avoided until the young are flying and feeding on their own. A nondisturbance buffer installed with orange construction fencing shall be established around maternity site. The size of the buffer zone will be determined by a qualified bat biologist at the time of detection. If adults are found roosting in a tree or building on the project site but no maternal sites are found, then the adult bats can be flushed, or a one-way eviction door can be placed over the tree cavity for a 48-hour period prior to the tree removal or building demolition. If bats or evidence of bats are detected during the pre-construction surveys, the applicant shall notify the City of Pacifica and the CDFW regarding bat eviction protocol and submit a plan for review and acceptance by the City of Pacifica and the CDFW.
BIO-6: Should construction activities commence during the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. Areas within 300 to 500 feet of construction shall be surveyed for active nests. Should active nests be identified, a disturbance-free buffer shall be established based on the needs of the species as set forth by CDFW and shall be maintained until a qualified biologist verifies that the nestlings have fledged, or the nest has failed. Should construction activities cease for 14 consecutive days or more within the nesting season, an additional nesting bird survey shall be required prior to resuming construction. Results of the pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica.
Survey by
Biologist,
Approval by
Planning
Department.
No More than
14 Days Prior to
Ground
Disturbing
Activities.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
BIO-7: Indirect impacts to the seasonal wetlands and jurisdictional drainage feature shall be avoided through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) prior to earthwork. Construction exclusion zones shall be established by installing appropriate construction fencing, silt fencing, wildlife friendly hay wattles (no monofilament netting), gravel wattles, and other protective measures between project activities and the seasonal wetlands and drainage feature.
Inspection by
Biological
Monitor,
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to
Issuance of
Demolition or
Grading Permit.
Applicant,
Construction
Manager,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
15 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
All non-native, invasive vegetation removed shall be discarded offsite and away from wetland areas to prevent reseeding.
Prior to implementation of the construction project, a biological monitor shall inspect installation of BMPs to ensure proper protection of the seasonal wetlands and jurisdictional drainage feature areas are in place.
BMPs shall thereafter be routinely inspected by the construction manager to ensure BMPs remain in place for the duration of construction activities.
Upon completion of project construction all exclusion fencing shall be removed along with any temporary BMPs.
BIO-8: A total of 0.063 acres of potential wetlands were identified in the project area. In the event that wetland plants are removed, altered, or destroyed along the edges of the concrete drainage ditch during repair/replacement of the concrete drainage ditch, the applicant shall replant these areas with native wetland plants at a 1:1 ratio to ensure continued viability of the wetlands.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to Final
Inspection.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
BIO-9: To avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands throughout project operation, plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include a split rail fence along the boundary between the recreational field and seasonal wetlands and concrete drainage ditch located at the southeast portion of the project site to preclude access and limit foot traffic within the drainage and wetland features.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to
Issuance of
Building Permit.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
C/TCUL-1: Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, project supervisors, equipment operators, and other members of the construction team overseeing or conducting ground-disturbing activities shall receive one or more preconstruction Cultural Awareness Trainings by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. The Training shall educate and familiarize supervisors, contractors, and equipment operators with the potential to encounter archaeological resources, the types of archaeological material that could be encountered, and Training
Conducted by
Archaeologist.
Prior to
Commencement
of Ground
Disturbing
Activities.
Applicant,
Construction
Team,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
16 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
procedures to follow if archaeological deposits and/or artifacts are encountered during construction.
C/TCUL-2: In the event that an archaeological deposit is encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 50-feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist is retained to inspect the material and provide recommendations for appropriate treatment of the resource pursuant to regulations and guidelines set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, including the involvement of Native American monitors if a prehistoric archaeological resource is identified. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not feasible, the archaeological resource shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are identified as eligible for listing on the CRHR, recommendations for proper treatment and handling shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist including, but not be limited to, avoidance or excavation in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, which may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant and the Northwest Information Center.
Construction
Team with
Cultural
Awareness
Training.
Observation
by Native
American
Monitor.
Evaluation by
Archaeologist.
Planning
Department
Required to
be Notified of
Any
Discovery.
During Ground
Disturbing
Activities.
Applicant,
Construction
Team,
Planning
Department.
C/TCUL-3: In the event that human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Construction
Team with
Cultural
Awareness
During Ground
Disturbing
Activities.
Applicant,
Construction
Team,
Planning
5.i
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
17 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
Coroner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin, and if any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the remains are believed to be precontact period Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person believed to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. An archaeologist should also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD.
Training.
Archaeologist
evaluation.
Planning
Department
Required to
be Notified of
Any
Discovery.
Department.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: All applicable recommendations set forth in the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical on August 20, 2020, for the subject property, including, but not limited to recommendations related to grading, drainage, excavation, foundations systems, and compaction specifications shall be implemented. Final grading plan, construction plans, and building plans shall demonstrate that recommendations set forth in the geotechnical reports have been incorporated into the final design of the project and to the satisfaction of the City of Pacifica City Engineer.
Review and
Approval by
Public Works
and Building
Department.
Prior to Grading
and Building
Permit Issuance.
Applicant,
Public
Works
Department,
Planning
Department.
GEO-2: Upon submittal of grading and drainage plans, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements of Title 6, Chapter 12 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code. Plans shall include identification of appropriate best Review and
Approval by
Public Works
Department.
Prior to
Demolition,
Grading, and
Building Permit
Applicant,
Public
Works
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
18 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
management practices (BMPs) to prevent the discharge of construction wastes or contaminants from construction materials, tools, equipment, stockpiles, or exposed soil from entering the City storm water system or watercourses. Plans shall also demonstrate compliance with stormwater treatment requirements set forth in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008.
Issuance.
GEO-3: In the event that paleontological resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing activities shall halt, and a qualified paleontologist shall be procured to evaluate the discovery and make treatment recommendations.
Review and
Coordination
between
Applicant and
Planning
Department.
During Ground
Disturbing
Activities
Applicant,
Construction
Team,
Planning
Department.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit, a GHG reduction plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and acceptance. The plan shall, at a minimum demonstrate that the project will use at least 10 percent local building materials and will reuse/recycle at least 50 percent construction waste and demolition material. In the event that these measures are not feasible, the plan shall identify suitable replacement measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions reductions.
Review and
Approval by
Planning and
Building
Departments.
Prior to
Demolition or
Grading Permit
Issuance.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of the existing structures an asbestos survey shall be performed by a licensed asbestos inspector to identify all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). The survey shall adhere to sampling protocols outlined by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and shall incorporate the findings of the survey into a report to be submitted to the City. In the event that such substances are found, the report shall include appropriate removal and disposal protocols subject to requirements set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) AHERA requirements, lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62, and any other local, Survey by
Asbestos
Inspector.
Review by
Building
Department.
Prior to
Demolition
Permit Issuance
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
19 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
state, or federal regulations. Treatment, handling, and disposal of these materials shall be performed by qualified professionals in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.
HAZ-2: Upon submittal of a building permit the applicant shall submit a site-specific Vegetation Management Plan for review and approval by the City of Pacifica and the North County Fire Authority. The Plan shall:
1. Remove all vegetation within the site listed on the San Mateo County list of “Fire Prone (Pyrophytic) Plants” except for isolated specimen plants.
a. Existing isolated or newly planted specimens shall meet the vertical and horizontal spacing guidelines.
2. Maintain and plant all trees and shrubs to the specifications identified in ‘Plant and Tree Spacing’, ‘Vertical Spacing’, and ‘Horizontal Spacing’ as outlined in the Plan “Fire Safe Landscaping” guide.
a. An evaluation of slope implications shall be reflected when determining the landscape.
b. All plantings shall be from the Plan “Firescaping with Native Plants” or otherwise fire resistive plantings.
3. Maintain an ember zone of 5 feet around all buildings pursuant to CGC 51182 (5)(1), (2) within the Project.
a. The ember zone be maintained on a minimum monthly basis.
4. Maintain all landscaping and vegetation on the Project site on a regular basis as part of a regular landscape maintenance program. a. All vegetation shall be irrigated as needed to maintain the vegetation.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department
and North
County Fire
Authority.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance.
Applicant,
Planning
Department,
North
County Fire
Authority.
NOISE
NOI-1: Construction activities shall comply with the following best management practices to minimize noise levels from the proposed development:
• Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
During
Construction.
Applicant,
Construction
Team,
Planning
5.i
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
20 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Any work outside of these hours by the construction contractors should require a special permit from the City Engineer.
There should be compelling reasons for permitting construction outside of these designated hours.
• The contractor shall use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.
All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components.
• Staging areas and stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors, such as residential uses (a minimum of 200 feet).
• Ensure that generators, compressors, and pumps are housed in acoustical enclosures.
• Locate cranes as far from adjoining noise-sensitive receptors as possible.
• During final grading, substitute graders for bulldozers, where feasible.
Wheeled heavy equipment are quieter than track equipment and should be used where feasible.
• Substitute nail guns for manual hammering and electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible.
• The adjacent residences shall be notified early and frequently of the construction activities.
• A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be designated to respond to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator would be conspicuously posted at the Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
21 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
construction site.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TRA-1: Upon submittal of plans for building permit, the applicant shall submit a list of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to be implemented district-wide. TDM strategies shall be clearly defined in terms of location, extent, timing, and responsibility for implementation.
Strategies may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Safe Routes to School. Pursue grants to fund pedestrian and bicycle improvements around Pacifica School District schools to increase safety for students and staff walking and bicycling.
• Install Bike Racks. Identify Pacifica School District schools where more bicycle racks are needed. Once identified, install as needed. • Install e-bike Charging Stations. Install e-bike charging systems in secure bike parking facilities at Pacifica School District schools. • Samtrans Flex Services. Continue to partner with Samtrans to establish fixed-route services to Pacifica School District schools. Coordinate with Samtrans on possible flex services (such as dial-a-ride) to serve schools with lower demand.
• Shuttle Services. Partner with the Jefferson Union School District to fund shuttle services to Pacifica schools.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
TRA-2: To promote electric vehicle ownership and reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site, install electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and equipment as required by the 2022 California Building Standards Code and any City of Pacifica local amendments thereto.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School FEIR
22 MITIGATION MEASURES
METHOD OF
VERIFICATION
TIMING OF
VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
COMPLETION
(DATE/INITIAL)
TRA-3: To maintain adequate sight lines at the project driveways, signage and landscaping introduced onsite within close proximity of the driveways shall be maintained such that low-lying shrubs remain at a height lower than three feet from ground level and that tree branches be no less than seven feet in height from ground level. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining adequate sight lines from the project driveways.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department.
Prior to Final
Inspection.
Applicant,
Planning
Department.
TRA-4: Parking shall be prohibited south of the project driveway along Oddstad Boulevard for a distance of at least 30 feet. To ensure parking does not occur in this area, curbs shall be painted red subject to review and approval by the Pacific Fire Department.
Review and
Approval by
Planning
Department
and Fire
Department.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance,
and Prior to
Final Inspection.
Applicant,
Planning
Department,
Fire
Department.
5.i
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (5327 : Pacifica School
5.j
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Role of CEQA Findings........................................................................................................ 1
2.0 FINDINGS UNDER CEQA............................................................................................... 2
2.1 Impacts Determined not to be Significant........................................................................ 3
2.2 Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant............................................................. 3
2.2.1 Aesthetics:.........................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Air Quality: ........................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Biological Resources:.......................................................................................................3
2.2.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................................................4
2.2.5 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................4
2.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................4
2.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................4
2.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................................................5
2.2.9 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................5
2.2.10 Noise..................................................................................................................................5
2.2.11 Population and Housing .................................................................................................6
2.2.12 Public Services..................................................................................................................6
2.2.13 Transportation and Traffic..............................................................................................6
2.2.14 Utilities and Service Systems..........................................................................................6
2.2.15 Wildfire ..............................................................................................................................7
2.3 Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant with Mitigation................................... 7
2.3.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................8
2.3.3 Biological Resources......................................................................................................11
2.3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................16
2.3.5 Geology and Soils...........................................................................................................19
2.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................................22
2.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................23
2.3.8 Noise................................................................................................................................25
2.3.9 Transportation and Traffic............................................................................................26
2.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.............................................................................. 27
2.5 Findings Regarding Feasible Alternatives ....................................................................... 29
2.5.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development................................................................29
2.5.2 Alternative 2: Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences ..29
2.5.3 Alternative 3: Variation of Site Layout and Unit Mix .................................................30
2.5.4 Findings Regarding Alternatives ..................................................................................31
3.0 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 32
3.1 Project Benefits................................................................................................................. 33
3.2 Statement of Overriding Considerations........................................................................ 34
3.3 General Findings............................................................................................................... 35
5.j
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 1 CEQA requires the Pacifica City Council to balance the benefits of the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project (project) against its significant and unavoidable environmental effects in determining whether to approve the project. Since the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies significant impacts of the project 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the specific reasons supporting the City’s action in approving the project, based on the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR or FEIR, which incorporates the Draft EIR or DEIR 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 project despite its potentially significant adverse environmental effects, and provide conclusions.
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).
These Findings and Facts in Support of Findings relate to the approval of the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project for which the City Council of Pacifica is the Lead Agency.
5.j
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2 The Findings state the City Council’s conclusions regarding the significance of the potential environmental impacts of the project after all feasible mitigation measures 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 EIR for the project and on all other relevant information contained in the administrative record.
CEQA requires agencies to identify mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen a project’s significant impacts or potentially significant impacts if such measures are feasible. The mitigating measures identified in the Final EIR mitigate the potentially significant impacts of the project, to the extent feasible, as described in the Final EIR. All mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR (as listed in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR) that are within the City Council’s authority to impose are hereby adopted by the Council.
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[.]” 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.” Section 21002 further provides 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).)
The EIR examined the environmental impacts of the project in the areas of Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Transportation and Traffic; Utilities and Service Systems; Wildfire; Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; Growth-Inducing Impacts; and Cumulative Impacts.
5.j
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 3 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a brief statement disclosing the reasons why various possible significant effects of a project were found not to be significant, and therefore would not be discussed in detail in the EIR. Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of the DEIR identified the following issue areas that would not be impacted by the proposed project, and thus, does not include a detailed discussion of:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
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 as a result of the project or would be less than significant, as identified in the EIR:
Impact AES-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Impact AES-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Impact AES-4: The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime.
Impact AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
Impact AQ-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.
Impact BIO-2 (no impact): The project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
5.j
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4 policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact BIO-4: The 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.
Impact BIO-6 (no impact): The 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.
Impact C/TCUL-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section15064.5.
Impact GEO-5 (no impact): The proposed project will not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Impact GHG-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Impact HAZ-1: 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.
Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact HAZ-4 (no impact): The proposed project would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Impact HAZ-5: The proposed project would be located within an airport land use plan, but would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
5.j
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5 project area.
Impact HAZ-6: The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact HYDRO-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Impact HYDRO-2: Implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Impact HYDRO-3: Implementation of the proposed would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.
Impact HYDRO-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation as a result of being located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone.
Impact HYDRO-5: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Impact LUP-1: The project would not physically divide an established community.
Impact LUP-2: The project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not result in generation of excessive
5.j
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 6 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Impact NOI-3 (no impact): The proposed project, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of being located in an airport land use plan.
Impact POP-1: The project would not induce direct substantial population growth in the area as a result of construction of the proposed units, nor would the project result in indirect population growth in the area as a result of expansion of public facilities, such as roads or other infrastructure.
Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Impact PS-1: The project would not require expansion or construction of new governmental facilities which could result in substantial adverse physical impacts as a result of increased demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Impact TRA-1: The project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Impact TRA-4: Implementation of the project will not result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Impact UTIL-2: Implementation of project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
Impact UTIL-3: Implementation of the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have
5.j
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7 adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Impact UTIL-4: Implementation of the project would 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.
Impact UTIL-5: Implementation of the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Impact FIRE-1: The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact FIRE-2: The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and thereby would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
Impact FIRE-3: The project would not require installation or maintenance of 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.
Impact FIRE-4: The 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.
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 project that mitigate to a less than significant level or avoid the following potentially significant effects on the environment:
Impact AES-3: Implementation of the proposed project could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and could result in a conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
5.j
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 8 AES-1: All applicable Tree Protection Recommendations set forth in the Arborist Report prepared by Traverso Tree Service on March 18, 2020, for the subject property, including, but not limited to recommendations related to protection of Monterey pines (trees 25-27) and Monterey cypress (trees 1-12, 16-20) during the pre-construction, demolition, foundation, grading, construction, and landscaping phases of the project shall be implemented, except that the tree replacement ratio for removal of heritage and protected trees shall be 2:1. Final grading plans, construction plans, and building plans shall demonstrate that recommendations set forth in the Arborist Report have been incorporated into the final design of the project. Plans shall also demonstrate compliance with the planting size, species, and ratio recommendations set forth in the Tree Replacement Recommendation Memorandum prepared by Traverso Tree Services on June 17, 2020.
Protection measures and replacement trees shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Pacifica Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council, as applicable.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of the project will result in removal of seven mature heritage and nonheritage trees that contribute to the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
However, measure AES-1 requires planting of replacement trees at a 2:1 ratio, as well as protection of trees to be retained onsite which reduces the project’s potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact AQ-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
AQ-1: Latest BAAQMD recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control for fugitive dust and exhaust during all construction activities shall be incorporated into all demolition and construction plans to require implementation of the following:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
5.j
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 9 unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of measure AQ-1 will reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction activities as recommended by BAAQMD. Exhaust emissions from operation of construction equipment and trucks for criteria pollutants will also be reduced through implementation of measures during construction activities. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact will be less than significant.
Impact AQ-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
AQ-1: (see above under Impact AQ-2)
5.j
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 10 AQ-2: Prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit, a plan to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by at least 60 percent shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and acceptance. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following strategies:
1. All construction equipment larger than 50 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible. Alternatively, the plan may include:
a. Equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 60 percent or greater reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment.
b. Alternatively fueled or electric equipment.
2. Alternatively, the applicant may develop a construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 60 percent or greater. The construction operations plan shall be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. Elements of the plan could include a combination of the following measures:
a. Use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment;
b. Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors;
c. Use of electric-powered equipment;
d. Use of electric or propane/natural gas-powered forklifts and aerial lifts; e. Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases; f. Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Construction Community Risk Assessment, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin for the project used the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to compute construction
5.j
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 11 period emissions with implementation of mitigation measures. The model inputs assumed all construction equipment met U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim engines standards and all BAAQMD best management practices for construction were included. With these mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the project’s construction cancer risk impact, assuming infant exposure, would be reduced by 90 percent to 2.48 per million and the project’s annual PM2.5 concentrations would be reduced by 65 percent to 0.12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).
A plan that reduces DPM emissions by 60 percent would reduce cancer risk to approximately
9.7 chances per million and a plan that reduces total PM2.5 emissions by 15 percent would reduce PM2.5 concentrations to 0.29 μg/m3. Based on these calculations, the project’s construction cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations would be reduced below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds and as such project impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-1: The project could result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
BIO-1: Prior to the start of grading, construction, or any other ground-disturbing activity, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify occupied San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat middens onsite. Where feasible, occupied middens shall be avoided and a minimum five (5) foot non-disturbance buffer, or greater buffer as otherwise recommended by a qualified biologist, shall be established, maintained, and monitored throughout project construction. Additionally, a minimum five (5) foot non-disturbance buffer, or greater buffer as otherwise recommended by a qualified biologist, shall be established between the eastern limit of proposed development activities and the densely vegetated, impenetrable hazelnut scrub habitat.
BIO-2: To address potential impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, a Relocation Plan prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Pacifica and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and approval. At a minimum, the Relocation Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Nests requiring relocation shall be dismantled by construction crews by hand and under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist.
• Each member of the construction crew shall receive an environmental awareness
5.j
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 12 training regarding San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat ecology and specifics of the Relocation Plan.
• All material removed during nest dismantling shall be moved into the Relocation Area, as determined by the qualified biologist, and constructed into piles suitable for habitation or use as refugia.
• If an active nest requires removal, the following phased dismantling protocol shall be implemented:
Remove at least 50-100% of the existing canopy cover and begin dismantling. After partially dismantling the nest, leave nest alone for two to four days to allow woodrats to disperse on their own. After two to four days, continue to disassemble nest by hand. Plan to completely dismantle in two to three sessions. If young are present, the construction crew and qualified biologist shall cease dismantling of the nest for 48 hours to allow the adult to move the young. If the young have been moved and the nest is vacant, nest removal may resume. • If an inactive nest (as determined by a qualified biologist) needs to be removed, it may be removed completely in one day. If woodrats are observed within or fleeing from the nest, the nest will be considered active and relocated using a phased approach.
BIO-3: To offset the loss or disturbance of foraging habitat (native forbs and shrubs) for the special-status obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus), plant species that are known nectar sources of the obscure bumble bee shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, or as otherwise recommended by a qualified biologist and CDFW and shall be included in a revised landscaping plan. Plant species shall be sited in concentrated locations selected in consultation with a qualified biologist and CDFW as necessary to ensure the long-term survival of such plants and to limit disturbance throughout project operation. Plant species known to benefit the obscure bumble bee include but are not limited to Ceanothus, Cirsium, Clarkia, Lathyrus, Lotus, Lupinus, Rhododendron, Rubus, Trifolium, and Vaccinium. As part of the update to the landscaping plans, selected bee-friendly species and planting locations shall be confirmed by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City of Pacifica.
BIO-4: If construction commences during the rainy season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for California red-legged frog no more than five days prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. In the event that California red-legged frogs are found onsite, the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW shall provide recommendations for relocation of individuals and installation of exclusion fencing. At the recommendation of CDFW and the qualified biologist and based on factors including the migration window for red-legged frog, rainfall, and inundation, exclusion fencing shall be installed. Exclusion fencing shall be inspected and maintained under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Results of the survey and recommendations for relocation and exclusion
5.j
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 13 fencing shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica.
BIO-5: To avoid potential impacts to special-status bats, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of all structures and trees that would be impacted by the project, no more than 15 days prior to demolition, tree removal, or commencement of ground disturbing activities. Results of the preconstruction survey shall be documented by a qualified biologist and provided to the City of Pacifica. If special-status bat species are found roosting in building or trees proposed to be removed, the biologist shall determine if there are young present (i.e., the biologist should determine if there are maternal roosts). If young are found roosting in any tree or building proposed for removal, such impacts shall be avoided until the young are flying and feeding on their own. A 100 foot non-disturbance buffer, or as otherwise specified by a qualified biologist, installed with orange construction fencing shall be established around maternity site. If adults are found roosting in a tree or building on the project site but no maternal sites are found, then the adult bats can be flushed, or a one-way eviction door can be placed over the tree cavity for a 48-hour period prior to the tree removal or building demolition. If bats or evidence of bats are detected during the pre-construction surveys, the applicant shall notify the City of Pacifica and the CDFW regarding bat eviction protocol and submit a plan for review and acceptance by the City of Pacifica and the CDFW.
BIO-6: Should construction activities commence during the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. Areas within 500 feet of construction shall be surveyed for active nests. Should active nests be identified, a 100 foot buffer for passerines and 300 foot buffer for raptors shall be established, or as otherwise specified by a qualified biologist based on the needs of the species as set forth by CDFW and shall be maintained until a qualified biologist verifies that the nestlings have fledged, or the nest has failed. Should construction activities cease for 14 consecutive days or more within the nesting season, an additional nesting bird survey shall be required prior to resuming construction. Results of the pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
5.j
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 14 The required surveys and protection measures for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, California red-legged frog, special status bats, and nesting birds would prevent harm to these species as a result of construction activities. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measures listed above, impacts to special status species would be less than significant.
Additionally, though foraging habitat for the obscure bumblebee will be removed as part of the project, the provision for planting of replacement habitat would result in less than significant impacts to this species.
Impact BIO-3: The project could 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 mean (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
BIO-7: Indirect impacts to the seasonal wetlands and jurisdictional drainage feature shall be avoided through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) prior to earthwork.
Construction exclusion zones shall be established by installing appropriate construction fencing, silt fencing, wildlife friendly hay wattles (no monofilament netting), gravel wattles, and other protective measures between project activities and the seasonal wetlands and drainage feature.
All non-native, invasive vegetation removed shall be discarded offsite and away from wetland areas to prevent reseeding.
Prior to implementation of the construction project, a biological monitor shall inspect installation of BMPs to ensure proper protection of the seasonal wetlands and jurisdictional drainage feature areas are in place. BMPs shall thereafter be routinely inspected by the construction manager to ensure BMPs remain in place for the duration of construction activities. Upon completion of project construction all exclusion fencing shall be removed along with any temporary BMPs.
BIO-8: A total of 0.063 acres of potential wetlands were identified in the project area. In the event that wetland plants are removed, altered, or destroyed along the edges of the concrete drainage ditch during repair/replacement of the concrete drainage ditch, the applicant shall replant these areas with native wetland plants at a 1:1 ratio to ensure continued viability of the wetlands.
BIO-9: To avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands throughout project operation, plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include a split rail fence with minimum
5.j
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 15 three foot and maximum 6 foot height along the boundary between the recreational field and seasonal wetlands and concrete drainage ditch located at the southeast portion of the project site to preclude access and limit foot traffic within the drainage and wetland features.
The design of the fence shall be submit to review and approval by the Planning Director.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project includes construction within 100 feet of an existing wetland which could result in impacts associated with construction activities. However, the project is required to implement best management practices such as establishment of construction exclusion zones installation of silt fencing, wildlife friendly hay wattles, gravel wattles, and other measures that would ensure the protection of wetlands onsite during construction. In addition, the project proposes repair of an existing drainage ditch, which is subject to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 41. The project does not propose removal, fill, or hydrological interruption of existing wetlands adjacent to the drainage ditch, however, it is possible that construction activities could result in damage or removal of wetland plants. The project has been provisioned to replace wetland plants at a ratio of 1:1 in the event that such plants are removed, altered, or destroyed during construction. With implementation of best management practices and the provision for wetland plants to be replaced, impacts of the project on wetlands during construction would be less than significant.
As the wetlands onsite are located in an area that will be used for recreation purposes, operation of the project could result in impacts to wetlands onsite. However, the requirement to include split rail fencing to exclude foot traffic from the wetland area will reduce impacts during project operation to less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: The project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
AES-1: (see above under Impact AES-3)
Finding
5.j
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 16 Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of the project will result in removal of seven mature heritage and nonheritage trees that contribute to the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
However, measure AES-1 requires planting of replacement trees at a 2:1 ratio, as well as protection of trees to be retained onsite which reduces the project’s potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact C/TCUL-2: Implementation of the project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
C/TCUL-1: Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, project supervisors, equipment operators, and other members of the construction team overseeing or conducting ground-disturbing activities shall receive one or more preconstruction Cultural Awareness Trainings by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. The Training(s) shall educate and familiarize supervisors, contractors, and equipment operators with the potential to encounter archaeological resources, the types of archaeological material that could be encountered, and procedures to follow if archaeological deposits and/or artifacts are encountered during construction.
C/TCUL-2: In the event that an archaeological deposit is encountered during grounddisturbing activities, all work within 50-feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist is retained to inspect the material and provide recommendations for appropriate treatment of the resource pursuant to regulations and guidelines set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, including the involvement of Native American monitors if a prehistoric archaeological resource is identified. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not feasible, the archaeological resource shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are identified as eligible for listing on the CRHR, recommendations for proper treatment and handling shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist including, but not be limited to, avoidance or excavation in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, which may include
5.j
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 17 data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant and the Northwest Information Center.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Due to past disturbance of the project site and surrounding area, including removal of native soils, placement of artificial fill, and undergrounding of the North Fork San Pedro Creek, there is a possibility that disturbed or redeposited archaeological resources could be encountered during excavation and grading of the site. Without proper care during the grading and excavation phases of the proposed project, unknown and potentially significant historic and prehistoric archaeological resources could be damaged or destroyed, if present. With implementation of Mitigation Measures C/TCUL-1 through C/TCUL-2, the proposed project impacts to archeological resources would be less than significant.
Impact C/TCUL-3: Implementation of the project could potentially cause a significant impact due to disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
C/TCUL-3: In the event that human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin, and if any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the remains are believed to be precontact period Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person believed to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations
5.j
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 18 within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. An archaeologist should also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
No known human burials have been identified on the project site or within recorded resources located in the vicinity. However, it is possible that unknown human remains could occur on the project site, and if proper care is not taken during grading and excavation, damage to or destruction of these unknown remains could occur, if present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure C/TCUL-3 would ensure that impacts to buried human remains, if present onsite, would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact C/TCUL-4: Implementation of the project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, including resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources, or that are determined by the City of Pacifica to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Section 5024.1(c) of Public Resources Code (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
C/TCUL-1: (see above under Impact C/TCUL-1)
C/TCUL-2: (see above under Impact C/TCUL-1)
C/TCUL-3: (see above under Impact C/TCUL-3)
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
There are no known Native American Sacred Sites on or within the immediate vicinity of the site nor are there any known tribal cultural resources on the project site. However, as stated
5.j
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 19 above under Impact C/TCUL-2, there is a possibility to encounter buried resources onsite.
The project is subject to Mitigation Measures T/TCUL-1 through T/TCUL-3 which require avoiding inadvertent impacts to prehistoric resources and human remains, should they be encountered during excavation and grading, the proposed project would not affect any known or unknown tribal cultural resources in the area. Therefore, with mitigation the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources.
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project could potentially directly or indirectly result in substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
GEO-1: All applicable recommendations set forth in the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical on August 20, 2020, for the subject property, including, but not limited to recommendations related to grading, drainage, excavation, foundations systems, and compaction specifications shall be implemented. Final grading plan, construction plans, and building plans shall demonstrate that recommendations set forth in the geotechnical reports have been incorporated into the final design of the project and to the satisfaction of the City of Pacifica City Engineer.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Due to the site’s location in a region of high seismicity the project would likely experience moderate to severe ground shaking during a seismic event, which could affect the proposed residences and other buildings onsite. The proposed project would comply with building requirements set forth by the State, which have been designed to reduce the likelihood of damage as a result of ground shaking. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of recommendations set forth in the design-level geotechnical report related to grading, drainage, excavation, foundation systems, and compaction specifications.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 the potential for seismically induced impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
5.j
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 20 Impact GEO-2: The proposed project could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
GEO-2: Upon submittal of grading and drainage plans, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements of Title 6, Chapter 12 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code. Plans shall include identification of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to prevent the discharge of construction wastes or contaminants from construction materials, tools, equipment, stockpiles, or exposed soil from entering the City storm water system or watercourses. Plans shall also demonstrate compliance with stormwater treatment requirements set forth in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction of the project involves ground disturbing activities that have the potential to result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. However, the project is subject to the erosion and sediment control requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code which requires incorporation of erosion, sediment, and pollution prevention BMPs during to prevent sediment from reaching the streets or entering the stormdrain system. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires that the project demonstrate compliance with the City’s requirements, which would result in less than significant impacts related to erosion during construction.
Impact GEO-3: The proposed project would be located 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 (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
GEO-1: (see above under Impact GEO-1)
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
5.j
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 21 The project is proposed on a relatively flat portion of the site and would not result in on- or off-site landslides. Though the eastern portion of the project site includes steep slopes, the project proposes a 10-foot retaining wall which is designed to resist lateral pressure from the adjacent hillside. Though existing soil conditions have the potential for geologic and soil instability, the project would not be affected by lateral spreading or liquefaction. To address existing soil instability, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO1, which incorporates recommendations set forth in the design level geotechnical report.
Through incorporation of geotechnical recommendations, impacts resulting from construction on an unstable geologic unit or soils would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-4: The proposed project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
GEO-1: (see above under Impact GEO-1)
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Based on the findings of the geotechnical analysis prepared for the project, the site contains 35 feet of artificial fill comprised of loose to very dense gravels and sands with varying amounts of clay, underlain by alluvium and sandstone bedrock. To address the presence of expansive soils onsite, the Geotechnical Investigation provides recommendations related to site preparation, treatment of fill, and foundation design which are required to be implemented into the final design through Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Compliance with measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts related to the site’s location on expansive soils to less than significant.
Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
GEO-3: In the event that paleontological resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing
5.j
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 22 activities shall halt, and a qualified paleontologist shall be procured to evaluate the discovery and make treatment recommendations.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Though there are no known paleontological resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, there remains a potential for inadvertent discovery of unique paleontological or geological resources during ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 identifies procedures to be followed in the event of a paleontological discovery. With implementation of measure GEO-3, impacts resulting from direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant.
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would result in a significant impact on the environment (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
GHG-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit, a GHG reduction plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and acceptance. The plan shall, at a minimum demonstrate that at least 10% of the total building materials used for the project will be local building materials sourced from the San Francisco Bay Area Region and will reuse/recycle at least 50 percent construction waste and demolition material. In the event that these measures are not feasible, the plan shall identify suitable replacement to achieve equivalent or greater GHG emissions reductions.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction of the project would result in greenhouse gas emissions associated with mobile sources including operation of construction equipment, worker, and vendor trips. To reduce
5.j
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 23 GHG emissions during construction, the project is required to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires preparation of a GHG reduction plan. With implementation of measure GHG-1, impacts of the project would be less than significant.
Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project could 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 (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an asbestos survey shall be performed by a licensed asbestos inspector to identify all asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. The survey shall adhere to sampling protocols outlined by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and shall incorporate the findings of the survey into a report to be submitted to the city. In the event that such substances are found, the report shall include appropriate removal and disposal protocols subject to requirements set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration AHERA requirements, lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62, and any other local, state, or federal regulations.
Treatment, handling, and disposal of these materials shall be performed by qualified professionals in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations, and shall be completed prior to demolition of the existing structures.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Based on observations made during site surveys as well as the age of the school building and shed to be demolished as part of the project, asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) are presumed to be present in existing structures onsite. Disturbance to ACMs and LBP during demolition activities has the potential to result in impacts to construction workers or the environment if not properly treated and removed. However, consistent with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, a full survey of the building would be performed to identify all ACMs and LBP and appropriate removal and disposal protocols would be established prior to demolition. With implementation of measure HAZ-1, impacts would be less than significant.
5.j
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 24 Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project could expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Mitigation Measure(s)
HAZ-2: Upon submittal of a building permit the applicant shall submit a site-specific Vegetation Management Plan for review and approval by the City of Pacifica and the North County Fire Authority. The Plan shall:
1. Remove all vegetation within the site listed on the San Mateo County list of “Fire Prone (Pyrophytic) Plants” except for isolated specimen plants. a. Existing isolated or newly planted specimens shall meet the vertical and horizontal spacing guidelines.
2. Maintain and plant all trees and shrubs to the specifications identified in ‘Plant and Tree Spacing’, ‘Vertical Spacing’, and ‘Horizontal Spacing’ as outlined in the Plan “Fire Safe Landscaping” guide.
a. An evaluation of slope implications shall be reflected when determining the landscape.
b. All plantings shall be from the Plan “Firescaping with Native Plants” or otherwise fire resistive plantings.
3. Maintain an ember zone of 5 feet around all buildings pursuant to California Government Code (CGC) 51182 (5)(1), (2) within the Project.
a. The ember zone shall be maintained to remove weeds and other combustible materials on a minimum monthly basis.
4. Maintain all landscaping and vegetation on the Project site on a regular basis as part of a regular landscape maintenance program.
a. All vegetation shall be irrigated as needed to maintain the vegetation in a healthful condition.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project site is located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and is adjacent to an
5.j
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 25 area designated as a moderate fire hazard severity zone which could expose people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires. Based on the site’s vulnerability to wildland fires, compliance with California Building Code for construction within the WUI would be required. Furthermore, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which requires preparation of a site-specific Vegetation Management Plan that complies with the Vegetation Management Plan Memo prepared for the project as well as the Fire Safe San Mateo County Defensible Guidelines. Through compliance with the California Building Code as well as implementation of measure HAZ-2, impacts related to hazardous conditions caused by wildland fires would be less than significant.
Impact NOI-1: The proposed project could involve generation of 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 (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
NOI-1: Construction activities shall comply with the following best management practices to minimize noise levels from the proposed development:
• Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
• The contractor shall use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-ofthe-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components.
• Staging areas and stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors, such as residential uses (a minimum of 200 feet). • Ensure that generators, compressors, and pumps are housed in acoustical enclosures. • Locate cranes as far from adjoining noise-sensitive receptors as possible. • During final grading, substitute graders for bulldozers, where feasible. Wheeled heavy equipment are quieter than track equipment and should be used where feasible. • Substitute nail guns for manual hammering and electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible.
• The adjacent residences within 200 feet of the project site shall be notified not less than 96 hours prior to the start of each phase of the project, including but not limited to demolition, grading, and construction. Notifications shall indicate the hours of operation and planned timeline for the respective phase.
• A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be designated to respond to any local complaints
5.j
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 26 about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The temporary or periodic increases in noise that would result from activities such as demolition, site preparation, grading, excavation, material hauling, deliveries, and foundation work would be significant. To minimize noise levels during construction, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires implementation of noise abatement measures including limiting construction hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends (consistent with standard Pacifica construction hours); staging equipment as far as possible from sensitive uses; using acoustical enclosures; substituting certain equipment for quieter alternatives where possible; notifying residents of construction; and designating a noise disturbance coordinator. With implementation of measure NOI-1 project impacts associated with construction activities would be reduced to less than significant.
Impact TRA-3: The project will not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design or incompatible uses (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
TRA-3: To maintain adequate sight lines at the project driveways, signage and landscaping introduced onsite within close proximity of the driveways shall be maintained such that lowlying shrubs remain at a height lower than three feet from ground level and that tree branches be no less than seven feet in height from ground level. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining adequate sight lines from the project driveways.
TRA-4: Parking shall be prohibited south of the project driveway along Oddstad Boulevard for a distance of at least 30 feet. To ensure parking does not occur in this area, curbs shall be painted red subject to review and approval by the North County Fire Authority.
Finding
Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which avoid
5.j
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 27 or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project could result in significant transportation hazards if not designed properly.
Mitigation Measures TRA-3 and TRA-4 require that the project be designed to provide adequate site lines for vehicles exiting the site onto Oddstad Boulevard. Compliance with measures TRA-3 and TRA-4 would reduce potential impacts resulting from a geometric design hazard to less than significant.
Impact TRA-2: The project will conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (B) (significant impact).
Mitigation Measure(s)
TRA-1: Upon submittal of plans for building permit, the applicant shall submit a list of Transportation Demand Management strategies to be implemented district-wide. TDM strategies shall be clearly defined in terms of location, extent, timing, and responsibility for implementation. Strategies may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Safe Routes to School. Pursue grants to fund pedestrian and bicycle improvements around Pacifica School District schools to increase safety for students and staff walking and bicycling.
• Install Bike Racks. Identify Pacifica School District schools where more bicycle racks are needed. Once identified, install as needed.
• Install e-bike Charging Stations. Install e-bike charging systems in secure bike parking facilities at Pacifica School District schools.
• Samtrans Flex Services. Continue to partner with Samtrans to establish fixed-route services to Pacifica School District schools. Coordinate with Samtrans on possible flex services (such as dial-a-ride) to serve schools with lower demand. • Shuttle Services. Partner with the Jefferson Union High School District to fund shuttle services to Pacifica schools.
TRA-2: To promote electric vehicle ownership and reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site, install electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and equipment as required by the 2022 California Building Standards Code and any City of Pacifica local amendments thereto.
Finding
Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that impacts related to the project’s vehicle miles traveled
5.j
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 28 (VMT) generation remain significant and unavoidable despite incorporation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and TRA-2, set forth above. Further, the City finds that the significant and unavoidable impact is acceptable due to the overriding considerations described below. The City also finds that further mitigation measures and Alternatives that may reduce the significance of any of these impacts are rejected as infeasible for the reasons provided below.
Facts in Support of Finding
There are no feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce project-level VMT impacts to less than significant. Other potentially effective on-site VMT measures, such as increasing the density would not result in a quantifiable reduction of project-generated VMT given the project site’s location within the regional context and at the edge of City limits, the project site’s land use designation, and zoning provisions.
The project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which sets forth transportation demand management (TDM) strategies implemented throughout the Pacifica School District. Given that there is limited evidence to support VMT reductions from such TDM strategies, it is not feasible to quantify VMT reductions of the alternative mode programs. Programs identified as potential mitigations are intended to encourage staff and students to walk, bike, or use transit, however, given the conceptual nature of these programs and the level of staff and student participation, the resulting VMT reduction could not be known at the time of preparation of the EIR. Furthermore, many of the strategies identified in measure TRA-1 are complementary to one another such as Safe Routes to School and installation of more bike racks and e-bike charging stations, which makes isolating their effectiveness difficult. Nonetheless, measures that encourage alternative transportation can help reduce VMT, and as such the project would be required to incorporate such measures. Programs that are intended to increase bus or shuttle service to the schools would also help to reduce VMT, however, these services are not in place at the time and therefore the level of reduction is not known. Based on the lack of quantitative data available, project VMT cannot be reduced below the VMT threshold of 15% and there are no additional feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce project-level VMT impacts to less than significant.
Though the project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to project VMT, as noted in the DEIR, the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2012022046), certified by the City Council on July 11, 2022, also concludes that implementation of the General Plan will result in significant and unavoidable impacts related
5.j
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 29 to VMT and the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations for the General Plan (Resolution 45-2022). The project is consistent with the General Plan as residential development at the project site has already been anticipated and significant and unavoidable VMT impacts have already been considered.
The above Findings are made in conjunction with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is simultaneously being adopted for the project (see Section 3).
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 3 (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 4 (Environmental Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR. Brief summaries of the alternatives analyzed are provided below. All analysis in Final EIR Chapter 6 is incorporated by reference.
The No Project alternative is the continuation of existing conditions on the project site, which is developed with the former Oddstad School complex, closed by the Pacifica School District in 2005, and used for storage since 2019. The site includes a single-story school complex, circulation improvements such as driveways, parking areas, and pedestrian pathways, recreational fields and courts, landscaping, fencing, and an undeveloped hillside area along the eastern portion of the site. The existing recreational fields are publicly accessible and are used for both organized sports and individual recreation activities. Under the No Project alternative, no physical alterations would be made, and the site would continue to be used as storage and publicly accessible recreation.
The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences alternative represents an alternative that could occur based on the existing Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation, R-1 zoning designation, and underlying single family residential subdivision, originally recorded in 1965 with the County of San Mateo. The subdivision includes 56 single family lots, two remainder lots adjacent to the city-owned Frontierland Park, and four dedicated public rights-of-way. Since recordation of the subdivision in 1965,
5.j
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 30 Lots 54 and 55, along Big Bend Drive to the north of the project site, have been developed.
As such, lots 54 and 55 are presumed to no longer be part of the subdivision and are therefore not considered in this alternative.
Under this alternative, the existing lots on the project site would be used for development rather than a re-subdivision of the land as proposed with the project. The entire 12.49-acre site, with the exception of the approximately 2.02-acre hillside area to the east (referred to as Lot D on the subdivision map), would be developed with single-family residences, including the existing recreational field at the southern portion of the site. Of the 54 single family residences, this alternative assumes construction of 16 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for a total of 70 units on 54 lots. Development of the single-family residences and ADUs would be subject to regulations contained in Section 9-4.402 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which permits a maximum of 40% lot coverage, and maximum building height of 35- feet. In addition, development of 54 single family residences and 16 ADUs would be subject to the minimum setbacks, landscaping, and parking requirements of the Municipal Code.
Under this alternative, new water, sewer, and storm drain facilities would be installed to accommodate the residential units and the four dedicated rights-of-way shown on the subdivision map would be paved, and curb, gutter, and sidewalks would be installed.
The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Types Alternative assumes that Lot 1, at the southern portion of the project site, would be retained as a recreational field for use by the public, and Lots 2 and 3, totaling 7.47 acres would be developed in a varied layout and with a different unit mix as compared to the proposed project. Under this alternative, Building A, located at the eastern portion of Lot 2 would be relocated to the area of Buildings B1 and B2 and would include an additional floor with 14 units. The height of Building A would increase from 30- feet to approximately 40-feet. Under this alternative, the site would be rezoned from R-1 to Planned Development (P-D), which provides for flexibility in building height if the findings in Section 9-4.2211(a) of the PMC can be made. In addition to modification of the location of Building A, under this alternative, Building B3 would be modified to eliminate two units for a total of four units. Under this alternative, the unit count and mix would be as follows:
• Building A (41 units)
2.0 32 one-bedroom
3.0 9 two-bedroom
Building B3
4.0 2 two-bedroom
5.0 2 three-bedroom
5.j
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 31 Buildings C1 and C2 (no change)
6.0 2 two-bedroom
7.0 2 three-bedroom
Building D (no change)
8.0 11 one-bedroom
9.0 6 two-bedroom
1. The City Council finds that changes or alterations to the project as evaluated in the Draft EIR have been required of, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects.
2. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. The City Council adopts the EIR's analysis and conclusions eliminating alternatives for an adaptive reuse of the existing school complex, increased density, and alternative site location from further consideration.
3. The potentially feasible alternatives analyzed in the EIR, including the No Project/No Development alternative required by CEQA, represent a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that reduce one or more significant impacts of the proposed project.
These alternatives include: (1) Alternative 1: No Project/No Development; (2) Alternative 2: Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences; and (3) Alternative 3:
Variation of Site Layout and Unit Mix. As presented in the EIR, the alternatives were described and compared with each other and with the proposed Project.
4. The City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment as to alternatives. The City Council finds that the project provides the best balance between the project sponsor's objectives, the City's goals and objectives, the project's benefits, and mitigation of environmental impacts. The three CEQA alternatives evaluated in the EIR are rejected for the following reasons. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the alternatives.
5. No Project/No Development Alternative: The No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve the property’s, highest and best use or realize residential development as provided by the Low Density Residential land use designation and as planned for in the City of Pacifica 2040 General Plan. Furthermore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would fail to meet all stated project objectives, would be inconsistent with the General Plan objectives and land use designations, and would not provide housing
5.j
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 32 needed to meet the city’s RHNA obligation.
6. Alternative 2: Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences: The Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would result in new or increased impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, recreation, and utilities and service systems relative to the proposed Project.
Furthermore, the Park Pacifica Highland Subdivision: 54 Single Family Residences Alternative would fail to meet some of the stated project objectives as it would not provide workforce housing for current and future staff members of the Pacifica School District, would not provide rental rates and lease terms that enable and improve the District’s ability to retain and attract qualified faculty and staff, and would not maintain and expand recreational opportunities on site for use by the surrounding neighborhood, future residents, and organized recreational groups.
7. Alternative 3: Variation of Site Layout and Unit Mix Alternative: The Variation of Site Layout and Unit Mix Alternative would be incompatible with the surrounding singlefamily residential neighborhood as it would introduce an approximately 40-foot (3 story) building to an area predominantly consisting of one and two story single family homes.
Additionally, VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and other environmental impacts identified would not be substantially reduced.
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record.
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen virtually all of the significant effects identified in the Draft and Final EIR. Nonetheless, one significant impact of the project is unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. The significant unavoidable impact is identified and discussed in Section 2.4 of
5.j
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 33 these Findings. The City further specifically finds that notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant unavoidable impacts, there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, and other reasons for approving the project. Each of the following reasons in Section 3.1 provides an independent basis to support the override of the following significant and unavoidable impact:
Impact TRA-2: The project will conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (B) (significant impact).
1. The project will redevelop a previously developed and underutilized 12.4-acre property in an established residential neighborhood.
2. The project would enhance the property by removing aging facilities, upgrading utilities, and improving landscaping, including providing stormwater management facilities onsite.
3. The project will maintain the eastern portion of the lot in a natural state providing a visual and biological transition to the Frontierland Park which is owned and operated by the City.
4. Through a Development Agreement (DA), which would vest the right to develop the property for 15 years, the School District would dedicate 1.4 acres onsite as parkland and would preserve an additional 3.5 acres for public use for at least 20 years.
5. The DA also seeks to make the 3.5 acres available for public use beyond 20 years. As provided therein, the Pacifica School District would provide notice to the City on how the
3.5 acres may be used to further the School District’s mission. Should removal of the 3.5 acres from public use be proposed, such removal and any new use would be subject to review and approval by the City; and if the School District intends to sell the 3.5 acres, the City has the right of first offer to purchase the 3.5 acres.
6. Other public benefits provided by the project include a bathroom/changing room, field drainage improvements, parking lot striping, and periodic use of residents’ commons building.
7. The Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project would benefit Pacifica residents by attracting quality teachers and school employees to work and live in the city.
8. The project would contribute 70 new residential units to the city inclusive of 11 below market rate (BMR) units, affordable to low- and moderate-income households consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Below Market Rate Program, 34 subsidized units for teachers
5.j
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 34 and School District employees, and up to 25 market rate units to assist in subsidizing the other units.
9. By providing subsidized and below market rate housing, the project would help to address challenges experienced by the Pacifica School District in competing for and retaining qualified teachers and other School District employees due to the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area. The proposed project will help to attract and retain teachers by lowering the cost of living associated with housing.
10. The project would contribute to the City’s existing housing inventory and assist in meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation across a variety of income levels.
11. Though the EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact associated with VMT, providing affordable housing options proximate to jobs is consistent with state and local goals as it would help to reduce vehicle miles traveled associated with living and working in a different city, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Council finds that the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing Project has been carefully reviewed and that mitigation measures have been included in the Final EIR to be certified by the Council. Nonetheless, the proposed project, as was previously concluded by the EIR prepared for the 2040 General Plan, will result in environmental effects due to VMT 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 project.
The Council has carefully considered all 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 project, as listed above, and compared these with the benefits and impacts of the alternatives. The Council has balanced the fiscal, economic, social, and environmental benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, has determined that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh, and therefore override, the remaining adverse environmental effects. Such benefits provide the substantive and legal basis for this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
5.j
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 35 In approving the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project, 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:
1. The Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all 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.
2. The Council has carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed project against any adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance, which are listed below. While the Council has required all feasible mitigation measures, such impacts remain significant for purposes of adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations:
a. Impact TRA-2: The project will conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (B) (significant impact).
1. The City, acting through the Planning Division, is the “Lead Agency” for the project evaluated in the EIR. The City finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR for the project, that the Draft EIR which was circulated for public review reflected its independent judgment and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3).
2. The DEIR evaluated the following potential project and cumulative environmental impacts: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Additionally, the EIR considered, in separate sections, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth Inducing Impacts.
The significant environmental impacts of the project, as well as other alternatives were identified in the DEIR.
3. The City finds that the DEIR provides objective information to assist the decision makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the
5.j
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 36 project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period.
4. The Planning Division evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Division prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The Planning Division reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The Lead Agency has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the FEIR.
5. Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the administrative record, as well as the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, the City finds that there is no new significant impact, substantial increase in the severity of a previously disclosed impact, significant new information in the record of proceedings or other criteria under CEQA that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR, or that would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Specifically, the City finds that:
a. The Responses to Comments contained in the Final EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR and include substantial evidence that none of these comments provided substantial evidence that the project would result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably different or feasible mitigation measures, or new or more severe significant impacts than were discussed in the Draft EIR.
b. The City has thoroughly reviewed the public comments received regarding the Project and the Final EIR as it relates to the project to determine whether under the requirements of CEQA, any of the public comments provide substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to its adoption and has determined that recirculation of the EIR is not required.
c. None of the information submitted after publication of the Final EIR, including testimony at the public hearings on the project, constitutes significant new
5.j
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 37 information or otherwise requires preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
The City does not find this information and testimony to be credible evidence of a significant impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact disclosed in the Final EIR, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative not included in the Final EIR. d. The mitigation measures identified for the project were included in the Draft and Final EIR. The final mitigation measures for the Project are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Each of the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP is incorporated into the project. The City finds that the impacts of the project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP.
6. CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a project to adopt a MMRP or the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The mitigation measures included in the EIR as certified by the City and in the MMRP as adopted by the City serve that function. The MMRP includes all mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with approval of the project and has been designed to ensure compliance with such measures during implementation of the project. In accordance with CEQA, the MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the MMRP.
7. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the City hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions of approval for the Project.
8. The custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City decision is based its decision making is the City of Pacifica, Planning Division.
9. The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made herein is contained in the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, or is in the record of proceedings in the matter.
10. The City is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting Findings for, the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the EIR as comprising the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project.
11. The EIR is a project EIR for purposes of environmental analysis of the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project. A project EIR examines the environmental effects of
5.j
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 38 a specific project. The EIR serves as the primary environmental compliance document for entitlement decisions regarding the project by the City and the other regulatory jurisdictions.
5.j
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Michael
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 2:30 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian; Connie Subject: March 20 Planning Commission Meeting - Please advance housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight’s Planning Commission Meeting. However, I am writing to you to STRONGLY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY support the Pacifica School District Workforce Housing project at 930 Oddstad Blvd.
I live just down the street from the proposed project. My two children graduated from Oddstad Elementary School. I was on the PSD Board of Trustees for six years and served ten years on the PSD Bond Review Committee. This housing project will be an excellent and sorely-needed addition to our community. Enduring a little construction dust and congestion is a welcome trade-off for beautiful and affordable housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. We’ve lost too many quality teachers and needed staff to far-flung cities due to lack of affordable housing in our expensive area.
I urge you to approve the Final EIR and advance this matter to the City Council for final consideration. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Connie Menefee
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.
5.k
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District 2 Murdock, Christian
From: Michael
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: March 20 Planning Commission Meeting - Please advance housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. I have lived 3 blocks away From Oddstad school for 31 years.
I feel it’s imperative to support Pacifica School District employees to retain their services. If we do not offer more affordable housing, it’s difficult to retain the current staff. Offering affordable housing will also attract new employees to our district. This perk can help offset other school districts that pay substantially higher salaries.
This proposal is the best solution & use of the vacant Oddstad school parcel. I hope our City Planners approve this project for the sake of our children & attract & retain school employees in Pacifica.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Haase
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.
5.k
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District 3 Murdock, Christian
From: Suzanne Moore
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: March 20 Planning Commission Meeting - Please advance housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
Thank you for all your hard work.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Moore, Manor District
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.
5.k
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District 4 Murdock, Christian
From: Matthew Patout
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2023 9:41 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian
Subject: March 20 Planning Commission Meeting - Please advance housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
Sincerely,
Matt Patout
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.
5.k
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District 5 Murdock, Christian
From: Pete Shoemaker
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 4:55 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: March 20 Planning Commission Meeting - Please advance housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
Sincerely,
Pete Shoemaker
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.
5.k
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Attachment K - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christy N < >
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 8:41 AM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. It is extremely challenging for folks to rent, let alone buy a home, in San Mateo county. If we wish to have sustainable, quality educators and employees, this will be a significant step in doing so. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christy P. Novack
Pacifica School District employee
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 2 Murdock, Christian
From: Veronica Mosqueda < >
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:16 PM
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members, I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
Sincerely,
Veronica Mosqueda
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 3 Murdock, Christian
From: Eriko Morales < >
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 9:01 PM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
I strongly request to add a playground in the plan. Pacifica does not have enough playgrounds. Frontier land park is beautiful but we have to drive up there and it's not easy for small children to get there. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eriko Morales
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 4 Murdock, Christian
From: Stephen Jonas
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 10:53 AM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
I hope there is enough parking and a plan for charging electric vehicles. We do not have a robust public transit system in Pacifica and those living at this location will want / need to drive.
Sincerely,
Dana Jonas
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 5 Murdock, Christian
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 11:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
Thank you,
Jesse Patterson
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sincerely,
[Name]
Jesse
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 6 Murdock, Christian
From: crissie mcbride < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 9:14 PM
To: _City Council; Public Comment; [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dear City Council Members,
I fully support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. what a great plan and project to assist such an integral part of our community, our teachers. we moved to pacifica in 2013 when i was still pregnant with our oldest son. we had our daughter in 2017 and now have two elementary students in the pacifica school district.
we love our town, we love our community, we love our school. we hope you’ll move forward with the housing plan for our teachers and staff. they are part of why we love where we are. thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
crissie mcbride
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 7 Murdock, Christian
From: Dan Beatty < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 9:02 PM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I whole-heartily support affordable housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. Collectively these devoted professionals are a huge asset to this community!
Sincerely,
Dan Beatty
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 8 Murdock, Christian
From: David Nebenzahl < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:41 PM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
Your current plan to consider utilizing the area around Oceana Highschool is ludicrous and poorly conceived. Has a study been done during the time when traffic is at its highest at the beginning of school and end of the school day? As it is, we see spill over traffic from Paloma on Carmel Ave. There are limited ways to access Oceana High School and Paloma.
Have you examined the issues for parking in the surrounding area? Even with plans to build an above or below ground parking structure, you should realize that most families with at least two adults living under one roof have more than just one vehicle.
You mention the beautiful ocean views from Oceana High School in your report, yet fail to mention what this type of construction may do to the surrounding areas including wildlife areas such as Milagra Ridge.
I do support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. Yet, I strongly oppose any endeavor that will increase the population and traffic density near the Ocean High School. There have been no solutions proposed that could possibly ease the congestion that this would create. It is not only irresponsible but may also become dangerous.
Sincerely,
David Nebenzahl
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 9 Murdock, Christian
From: Vuskovic Vuskovic < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:25 PM
To: _City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I am a lifelong Pacifica resident and a teacher in the Pacifica School District. I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff. I appreciate the efforts made by the Pacifica School District to provide critically needed affordable housing for teachers and staff on surplus District-owned land. This project will help attract and retain District employees. The plan results from an eight-year community effort and will contribute to the community's overall vitality.
Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
Sincerely,
Laura Vuskovic
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 10 Murdock, Christian
From: Chris Baldwin @ Conveyance Media < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 5:14 PM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
I support housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff.
I agree with the values and the fiscal logic of this plan to support the quality and consistency of our community's education system.
I also hope that the increase in residents in the Back of Valley could help spur some MUCH needed renovation and revitalization of the dining options and community resources in the Sun Valley shopping square.
Thank you for your work to get this project completed.
Sincerely,
Chris Baldwin
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Matthew Levie < >
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 12:58 PM
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Subject: April 24 City Council Meeting - Please approve housing for Pacifica teachers and District staff
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
Some of you know personally how hard I have worked for and how enthusiastically I have supported the Pacifica School District's workforce housing plan. For those who do not, the District has created a very solid plan, with deep community input, which will dramatically improve life in our city.
We are in dire need of every kind of affordable housing we can build, and this project meets an urgent need for the District, for its employees, and for our schoolchildren.
The Planning Commission has supported it unanimously, and I hope you will too.
Sincerely,
Matthew Levie
Park Pacifica
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.
5.l
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication (5327 : Pacifica School District Workforce Housing
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/24/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of Resolution Creating the Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider and Adopt the attached Resolution of the City Council Creating the Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee.
STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION:
On June 27, 2022, the City Council unanimously placed Measure Y on the November 8, 2022 Municipal Election ballot to address community priorities identified during a Spring 2022 Community Survey:
• Maintaining 911 fire, police, and emergency medical response times • Maintaining fire protection services
• Keeping pollution and trash off local beaches
• Attracting and retaining local jobs and businesses
• Maintaining storm drains to prevent flooding
On November 8, 2022 a majority of the voters of the City of Pacifica approved the ½ Cent Measure Y Transactions and Use Tax in Ordinance No.887-C.S. This measure is projected to generate $2,600,000 annually to maintain the City of Pacifica’s vital services for the next 9 years. Measure Y funds are intended for the purpose of maintaining Pacifica’s vital services and cannot be taken by the State.
The City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring the Canvass of Returns and Results of the General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022 at their meeting held on December 15, 2022.
On January 9, 2023 the City Council approved a Resolution and Agreements with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) pursuant to Section 7270 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the administration of the Ordinance imposing the 1/2 Cent Transactions and Use Tax prior to the new tax taking effect. The CDTFA performs all functions related to the administration and operation of the ordinance. The ½ cent Transactions and Use Tax went into effect on April 1, 2023.
Ordinance No.887-C.S. provides for a Citizens’ Oversight Committee to review the revenue and expenditure of funds from the tax imposed by Measure Y. This agenda item presents background and a recommended process for establishing a committee, and requests the City Council’s approval of a Resolution Establishing this Committee.
6 Packet Pg. 907
Pacifica City Council 2
April 24, 2023
BACKGROUND:
Section 3-19.15 of the Ordinance Adopting the Measure Y Transactions and Use Tax (Ordinance No. 887-C.S.) requires the City Council to adopt a resolution that establishes a Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee to review the revenue and expenditure of funds from the tax imposed under this chapter. This includes establishing the Committee members’ terms and qualifications, and duties and scope of the committee. The recommended Resolution for a Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee is provided as an Attachment.
Staff conducted research of cities that passed local transactions taxes. A number of cities, like Redwood City, East Palo Alto, and Daly City do not seem to have an oversight committee. Staff also reviewed similar Revenue Oversight Committees in cities around the Bay Area with particular attention to the 5 cities in San Mateo County with such committees. A summary of the 5 oversight committees in San Mateo County are shown below:
COMMITTEE TERMS AND DUTIES:
Based on research and review of the operation of these other local Citizens’ Oversight Committees, the City Manager recommends the following set of Committee Terms and Duties.
These are shown in Exhibit A of the Draft Resolution, and include:
• Membership: 3 to 5 members
• Member Terms: 4 years
• Member Qualifications: experience in accounting, investment banking, venture capital and general financial management in a public corporation, municipal government or privately held business.
• Duties: Review of the Annual Audit of Measure Y Revenues and Expenditures (to be prepared by the City’s independent auditor) and review of an Annual Committee Report on the Accuracy of the Auditor’s Measure Y findings (to be prepared by City staff). In addition, Committee members will also serve as representatives of the Committee while engaging with members of the public to provide information and education about the use of Measure Y revenues, and provide community ambassador work to facilitate and promote community education about the variety of government services, mandates and diverse community needs funded by Measure Y.
6 Packet Pg. 908
Pacifica City Council 3
April 24, 2023
• Conflicts: To preserve the independence of the Oversight Process, Committee members shall not have a role in determining the use of revenue raised by Measure Y. • Meetings: The Committee will meet twice a year -- Once to be briefed on the Annual Budget (mid-year) and again to review the Measure Y Audit Report and adopt an Annual Report on Measure Y revenues and expenses as described under Committee Duties. • General Terms: The Committee will follow the General Terms for other City of Pacifica Committees and Commissions including electing a Chair and Vice Chair, holding meetings subject to the provisions of the Brown Act, and following the rules in the Commission and Committee Handbook. The Committee will be disbanded when its purpose is completed unless extended by action of the City Council.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
These items advance the Vision 2025 & Beyond Council Priority and further the City Council’s Strategic Goal of Fiscal Sustainability.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to adoption of this resolution. Establishment of the Measure Y Oversight Committee is provided for in the Measure Y adoption by the voters. The Oversight Committee will be staffed by the City Manager’s Office and the Finance Department.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
6 Packet Pg. 909
Pacifica City Council 4
April 24, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CREATING THE MEASURE Y CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council approved placing a one-half cent transactions and use tax for funding general city services on the General Election held on November 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022 the voters of the City of Pacifica approved the transaction and use tax in Ordinance No.887-C.S.; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022 the City Council certified the election results in Council Resolution No. 88-2022 where the voters approved Ordinance No. 887-C.S. amending the City Municipal Code and providing for a Local Transactions and Use Tax; and WHEREAS, Sec. 3-19.15 of Ordinance No. 887-C.S. requires the City Council to adopt a resolution that establishes a Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee to review the revenue and expenditure of funds from the tax imposed under this chapter. The members’ terms and qualifications, and duties and scope of the committee, shall be as established by the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set forth the procedures by which the Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee members will be selected and appointed for the proper implementation Sec. 3-19.15 of Ordinance No. 887-C.S.; and WHEREAS, the Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee duties, membership, terms, and general provisions shall be as described in Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby authorize the creation of the Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 910
Pacifica City Council 5
April 24, 2023
Exhibit A
Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Purpose
The Measure Y Citizens’ Oversight Committee (“Committee”) is created to report annually to the City Council regarding the collection and expenditure of revenue from Measure Y, a one-half cent Transaction and Use Tax.
Membership
The Committee shall consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members.
Committee Member Terms
Appointments to the Committee are for a 4-year term unless otherwise determined by the City Council. The Council may remove at any time by majority vote any committee member.
Committee Duties
1. Review of the annual audit report prepared by the City’s independent auditor related to the prior fiscal year’s collection and expenditure of Measure Y revenue.
2. Review and discuss staff’s presentation regarding the annual revenue projections and allocation of expenditures as part of the annual budget resource planning
3. Provide community ambassador work to facilitate and promote community education about the variety of government services, mandates and diverse community needs funded by Measure Y.
Avoidance of Conflicts
To preserve the integrity and independence of the advisory process, Committee members shall not have a role in determining the use of revenue generated by Measure Y.
Committee Meetings
The Committee shall meet once to be briefed on the Annual Budget (mid-year) and again to review the Measure Y Audit Report and adopt an Annual Report on Measure Y revenues and expenses as described under Committee Duties, Item 2.
General Terms
When the specific purpose for the Committee is accomplished, the Committee will be disbanded unless extended by action of the City Council.
The Committee shall select one of its members to act as Chair and another to act as Vice Chair on an annual cycle as of date of establishment.
The Committee shall hold open meetings subject to the Brown Act and shall abide by the rules set out in the Commission and Committee Handbook as amended from time to time. 6 Packet Pg. 911