Exhibit B to the Resolution. Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element + Attachments — Pacifica City Council, March 24, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

parking requirements for smaller bedroom types"
I recommend reducing parking requirements to 1 space for a studio or one-bedroom, 1.5 spaces for a two bedroom or larger. One uncovered parking space adds $50,000+ to development costs; covered parking can cost twice that. If we want to make housing more affordable, we need to plan for people, not cars, first.

Streamline the approval process for housing developments

Page 9 ends

removing or modifying the Site Development Plan and CUP (beyond objective standards) for multifamily housing in zones that are intended to permit multifamily housing"
Discretionary review of development applications adds massive costs and uncertainty to the development process. To the extent possible, Pacifica should seek to pre-specify clear rules and then allow developers to operate within those rules without further interference.

Promote multi-family housing in new neighborhoods

Page 14 ends

(beyond the RHNA) that target RCAA and relatively higher income neighborhoods"
In practice, promoting housing in higher income neighborhoods often means promoting housing in single-family neighborhoods, which are typically the most expensive in any jurisdiction. That might involve rezoning sites owned by religious institutions and other quasi-public mission-driven organizations. It could also include rezoning for "missing middle" housing--quadplexes, townhouses, and other lower-density multifamily housing types that are not necessarily deed-restricted affordable COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 468 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 but provide less costly options than standalone single-family residences.

Rezone all opportunity sites with local ordinance
"Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types." Several sites in Pacifica's inventory rely on state laws like AB 2011 to justify their inclusion. However, in order to utilize AB 2011 and other state legislation, developers have to jump through a number of hoops that limit the law's effectiveness. In order to justify its inventory, Pacifica may need to pursue a local rezone that is more flexible than state law.

These policies alone might not be enough to guarantee certification because Pacifica still needs to fully analyze its sites and the constraints to building housing on them.

Policy change in a handful of other areas, including fees, may help preemptively address issues that the city's analyses could uncover.

Lastly, I know there has been discussion about increasing Pacifica's inclusionary zoning requirement. HCD seems somewhat wary of this strategy, potentially because Pacifica has such a limited track record of any kind of multi-family housing development. (Page 10: "[The element] must also analyze the City’s inclusionary housing requirements, including its impacts as potential constraints on the development of housing for all income levels.")
As a result, it may be worth focusing more on creating new incentives for affordable housing rather than ratcheting up requirements that could be perceived as rigid.

Incentives for affordable housing could include a local density bonus more generous than the state rules, extra expedited permitting, and fee waivers or deferrals.

Hope this helps facilitate you're discussion, I'm happy to discuss further with you both anytime. Looking forward to learning about the outcome of your meeting! Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
(925) 451-4620
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:53 PM Jeremy Levine <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Suzanne, happy to provide some comments. I'm going to review the letter today and get back to you later this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Thank you for sharing and checking in!
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 469 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 (925) 451-4620
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 8:39 AM Suzanne Moore <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,
On SUN 8/20 at 1 pm, Christine is inviting some members of the community to her home to discuss the HCD response to Pacifica's daft housing element and next steps. Christine is wondering if you would be able to review the letter and provide some insights prior to that planned meeting. I have included her email on this thread.

Thank you for all the hard work HLC is doing on many multiple levels! On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 7:27 PM Suzanne Moore <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,
Sharing our response letter.
--
Suzanne Moore
Home 650.557.0867
Cell 650.243.7310
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

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

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 470 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 471 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 472 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 473 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 474 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 475 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 476 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 477 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 478 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 479 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 480 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 481 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 482 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 483 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 484 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 485 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 486 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 487 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Public Comments
Joint Study Session – Housing Element
Written Comments Received By 12pm on 10/16/2023
October 16, 2023
Joint Study Session
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 488 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Coffey, Sarah
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: TRANSMITTING Letter to Christian Murdock re The Sea Bowl Project [IWOVBN.FID3603943] Attachments: 10-13-23 Letter to Christian Murdock re Sea Bowl Project.pdf From: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 1:36 PM
To: Coffey, Sarah <[email protected]>; La, Emily <[email protected]> Cc: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>; Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>; Murphy, Karen W. <[email protected]>; Nicholas Hamilton <[email protected]>; Carol Johnson <[email protected]>; Sandy Council <[email protected]>; Sabina Mora <[email protected]> Subject: FW: TRANSMITTING Letter to Christian Murdock re The Sea Bowl Project [IWOV-BN.FID3603943] Comment letter – FYI.

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]
From: Sanderford, Vera <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 1:22 PM
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>; Michelle Kenyon [BWS Law] <[email protected]>; Guerra, Alicia C. <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; Alli Sweeney <[email protected]>
Subject: TRANSMITTING Letter to Christian Murdock re The Sea Bowl Project [IWOV-BN.FID3603943] [CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Christian,
On behalf of Alicia Guerra, please find attached Buchalter’s letter re The Sea Bowl Project.

Best regards,
Vera Sanderford
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 489 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 Legal Assistant to Alicia Guerra, Esq.

Buchalter
Vera Sanderford
Legal Assistant
T (415) 227-3625
[email protected]
425 Market Street, Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.buchalter.com
Buchalter
Vera Sanderford
Legal Assistant to Sharon Morrissey, John Epperson, Faith Bruins, Braeden Mansouri and Mary-Kate Haney.

T (415) 227-3625
[email protected]
425 Market Street, Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.buchalter.com
Notice To Recipient: This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For additional policies governing this e-mail, please see http://www.buchalter.com/about/firm-policies/.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 490 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 October 13, 2023
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Christian Murdock
Planning Director
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: The Sea Bowl Project
Dear Christian:

As you know, Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents Toll Brothers with its proposal to develop a residential townhome project on property located at 4625 Coast Highway in the City of Pacifica (the “City”) (APN: 022-150-440) (the “Property”). Toll Brothers is proposing to demolish the existing Sea Bowl bowling alley on the Property and to develop it with 79 townhome style units, 24 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), and 14 duet-style units, along with 186 resident parking spaces and 22 guest parking spaces (the “Project”). The 24 ADUs will be deed-restricted as rentals for lower income households. As you know, Toll Brothers filed with the City an SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Project on September 11, 2023.

We were initially encouraged to see that staff previously included the Property in the Sites Inventory of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (the “Draft Housing Element”). As you know, the Sites Inventory originally identified the site as suitable for accommodating 219 lower-income units. (Draft Housing Element, p. 12.) Although the City was required to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) by January 31, 2023, we understand that the City did not submit its Draft Housing Element to HCD until May 10, 2023. In any case, we understand that HCD rejected the City’s Draft Housing Element on August 8 because the City’s Housing Element did not comply with State Housing Element Law (“HCD August 8 Letter”). HCD noted in an Appendix to its August 8 Letter that, among other things, the Draft Housing Element failed to adequately analyze the realistic development of projects; failed to justify the use of AB 2011 to develop dense housing projects on commercial property; and failed to analyze the likelihood that identified sites COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 491 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 in nonresidential zones will be developed with housing. HCD’s findings echoed many of the challenges that we documented regarding the Housing Element in our earlier correspondence with the City.

We understand that on September 25, 2023, the City Council and Planning Commission met to consider and provide direction on the next iteration of the City’s Housing Element.

Unfortunately, the City Council and Planning Commission voted to remove the Property entirely from the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory. The City Council and Planning Commission’s determination conflicts with HCD’s recommendation to the City to “analyze projects including information on typical densities on all recent and pipeline projects. (August 8 HCD Letter, append., p. 2.)
We recognize that some people would rather not see residential development on the Property, but that is contrary to the City’s obligations to provide more housing as a matter of state law. Toll Brothers proposed a shovel-ready development project that will provide 117 housing units, 24 of which will be deed restricted as affordable for lower-income households. If approved, the Project would account for more than 6% of the City’s total Regional Needs Housing Allocation (“RHNA”) requirement.1
As we have explained in our prior correspondence, State Planning and Zoning Law requires housing elements to provide an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development” that have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3) (emphasis added).) To that end, Toll Brothers has submitted to the City a realistic housing proposal for the development of over 100 dwelling units on the Property, and City officials have ignored that proposal for a short-sighted effort to force a property owner to maintain recreational uses on his property without any evidence that such a use is even feasible. 1 The City is required to accommodate 1,892 units pursuant to its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. (Draft Housing Element, p. 7.) The 117 units Toll Brothers has proposed in this Project amounts to approximately 6.2% of this total requirement.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 492 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 We respectfully request that the City add the Sea Bowl Property back into the Housing Element Sites Inventory. In doing so, the City should update the Sites Inventory such that it reflects a realistic density potential of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

Thank you for your attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Alicia Guerra
AG:vs
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Kevin Woodhouse
Nick Kosla
Alli Sweeney
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 493 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Peter Loeb
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 10/16 Continued joint study session of City Council and Planning Commission to consider and provide direction on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica Housing 4 All (PH4A) recommended policies to address Housing and Community Development (HCD) required revisions of Housing Element (HE) re: tenant protection and displacement and low income housing.

Please include policies in the Housing Element to address tenant protections and displacement, and to incentivize low income housing:

Policies for tenant protection and preservation of affordable housing • Rental registry. Example: Concord, cost $5-15 per unit. Advantages: data source, track complaints, track displacement indicators referenced in Sharp Park Specific Plan, AirB&B tax compliance. • Anti-harassment ordinance, City of Richmond, January 2022. • Red Tag Ordinance, City of San Mateo, requires property owners to provide relocation payments to tenants displaced because of code violations.
• Short term rental regulations linked to vacancy rate, below 5% vacancy. • Substantial renovation ordinance: pulled permits required before tenant eviction, tenant first right of return, tenant 3 month relocation benefits.
• Just cause eviction protection from 1st day of rental. • Developer buyout allowing tenants first opportunity of purchase.

Policies to incentivize low-income housing
• Increase inclusionary rate to 20% to produce more low-income housing. In-lieu fees should be based on market values ($750K/unit)
• Create dedicated housing fund supported by:

1. Vacancy fee: all residential properties, NOT just rental properties – see Sand Francisco, Oakland, Vancouver BC 2017 – 1% non-primary residence unoccupied for more than 6 months annually including short term rentals.

2. In lieu fees, developer impact fees (to benefit low income housing), sale of city land.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 494 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 • Pathway for preservation of existing affordable housing – HIP housing and HEART: to leverage funds from dedicated housing fund. Redwood City has an established system to be ready in the event an opportunity for affordable housing presents.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 495 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: helen smith
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:21 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Beckmeyer, Sue
Subject: New homes New beginnings
[CAUTION: External Email]
HelloFor those of you who don’t know me, my name is Helen Nasser and I am the owner of the Pacifica Brewery. I was born and raised in Pacifica. My beloved hometown . My children were born and raised in Pacifica. I have given to this community my entire life. All 3 of my children have attended public schools in town throughout their education. Diligently supporting our public school system.

I’m a big advocate in donating whatever I can to the resource center and pacificas care .

Most recently, I opened Pacifica Brewery. This cost me millions of dollars. Now I am asking for the City Council and Planning Commission to do something for the community and for locals like me. Please, I beg you to reconsider your position and make the old bowling alley site a residential use in the housing element consistent with the Toll Brothers plan.

The Toll Brothers project will save my Brewery. Otherwise, to put it in context you will have two vacant buildings on a giant sea of asphalt for decades to come. Toll Brothers has agreed to do a number of improvements to my business including redoing my parking lot to make it function way better and building a proper loading area so that I can receive and deliver beer and supplies easier. The steep entrance for my parking will be replaced with easier safer access.

We will also be catering to their workers when the project is being built. Any Added business at this time is needed. Most importantly when their townhomes get completed, I will have built in customers right next door. The Toll Brothers project will SAVE my business this is not an Exaggeration.

Housing on the former Sea Bowl site is going to happen either now or in the next few years. Time os running out for us as we’ve been needing the extra business for the past year .

As very little housing continues to get built and the state puts more and more pressure on us to build, eventually there will be housing on the Sea Bowl site. You can allow my business to fail and then roll the dice with another developer in the future. Or you can go with Toll Brothers who will work with you as they worked with me to bring community benefits to the City of Pacifica along with much needed housing. They have promised me their goal is to work with myself and the city , while building this new development to enrich our community. I think the choice is very clear and the time to act is now. Please put the Sea Bowl site back into the Housing Element as a residential use to accommodate the Toll Brothers project. Your decision tonight will either help Pacifica Brewery to thrive and continue to be a major benefit to the community or you will put me out of business. I say this last statement with our livelihood on the line. Please help us stay to serve our community.

Thank you.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 496 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 Helen Nasser
President of Pacificabrewery
Sent from my iPhone
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 497 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Suzanne Moore
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:19 AM
To: Public Comment; [email protected]; Murdock, Christian Cc: Suzanne Moore
Subject: Pacifica Housing Element Draft 2
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Pacifica City Council, Planning Commissioners, Planning Director Christian Murdock, and City Staff,
Housing and Community Development Staff,
Pacifica’s needs assessment and the HCD response letter both provide important direction for the next draft of our Housing Element. It seems that there are critical priorities for our community, and I’d like to take excerpts from both sources to highlight three areas.

1. Low-income housing. From our needs assessment: Pacifica has not built low-income housing in decades.

The HCD suggested Pacifica meet the housing needs of special needs populations. a. Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. b. Group Homes of Seven or More Persons – zoning should implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses. These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones.
c. Describe the reasonable accommodation process and list the required approval findings - the element must analyze these findings for potential constraints on persons with disabilities. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or modify programs to remove any potential constraints.
d. Create programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households. Examples of actions could include proactive outreach with developers and the community, identifying potential sites, provide incentives (e.g., expedited permitting, flexible development standards, gap funding, fee waivers), and applying for state and federal funding.
e. Include strategies for community preservation and revitalization… For much-needed housing, we should clearly state what we are willing to do and create a pathway to achieve these housing resources.

A dedicated team seeking collaboration with nonprofits, a dedicated housing fund from a vacancy tax, use of public properties, and waivers for below market-rate housing properties - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 498 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 all these seem plausible actions. Low-income housing in perpetuity and maintained by a nonprofit would be a true community asset.

2. Homeless
Needs assessment: Pacifica’s homeless numbers are 3rd in the county: Pacifica is 5% of the County’s population but has 15% of the homeless - of which 75-80% have strong ties to Pacifica and many of whom were previously housed here.

The HCD response letter made several important suggestions:
a. Emergency Shelters: Zoning to permit emergency shelters without discretionary action was required as part of the 4th cycle housing element and prior to the 5th cycle housing element. b. Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: SROs provide a valuable source of affordable housing especially for persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income households. Based on complete analysis, the element may need to add or modify programs with a commitment to removing any potential constraints on the development of SROs.

3.Tenant housing stability
Needs assessment: Pacifica’s tenants face difficult challenges. - rents increased and wages stagnated: median contract rent increased 62% since 2009 - rental market in Pacifica is constrained partially due to vacation rentals - Some populations are disproportionately impacted by housing costs: female headed households, seniors, disabled, farmworkers, low-wage earners, homeless, Hispanics The HCD further recommends displacement protection.
- Pacifica with housing critically constrained by vacation housing, a short-term rental restriction linked to a vacancy rate below 5% is appropriate.
- An anti-harassment ordinance similar to that adopted by the City of Richmond can provide pertinent direction for those impacted.
- Expanded just cause eviction protection with clarity on substantial renovation, relocation benefits, right of first return in the event of continued loopholes in state tenant protection law - all can contribute to greater housing stability for tenants.

HCD notes that the element indicates the City has 101 affordable units with expiring affordability restrictions within the next eight years (e.g., 2025). The element must include an assessment of conversion risk and estimate and analyze the cost for replacing versus preserving the units.

Another HCD observation, the element should include a program committing to actions that preserve coastal housing units for lower-and moderate-income households. This Program could commit to annual monitoring, commitment to complying with replacement requirements and proactive noticing and outreach to non-profits and service providers in the event that future coastal housing is at-risk. A rental registry, similar to that of Concord, could be a tool to monitor rental costs.

Conclusion
Pacifica has critical needs: for below market-rate housing, interventions for our unhoused, and tenant protections. Those should be clearly prioritized in the second draft of our Housing Element as advised by HCD.
--
Suzanne Moore
Home
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 499 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 3 Cell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 500 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: David Szeto
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Woodhouse, Kevin
Subject: Sea Bowl Site
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Christian,
It has come to my attention from the last study session that my former Sea Bowl site is no longer being proposed to be in the Housing Element for residential uses. It seems that this decision was made very late at night without a lot of discussion and I would like to respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission reconsider the direction that they gave staff. The best use for my property is residential and we have a quality builder in Toll Brothers that can finally bring much needed market rate and below market rate housing to the City. Additionally, housing on the site will greatly benefit the current Pacifica Brewery. I improved that site from a construction storage site, Gem Patio, to Surf Spot Restaurant and Event Center back in 2010. As you know, Pacifica Brewery is a much loved community asset that can finally thrive with the construction of the Toll Brothers’ project.

I know that there was a study done saying that my property is good for visitor serving uses but that is not based in reality. There is no market for visitor serving use on my property. In my decades’ long ownership and operation of the former Sea Bowl site never have I been approached by a legitimate business to do this. To be extremely clear, I am not selling my property to an entertainment or visitor serving businesses that does not exist. Furthermore, Pacifica needs housing much more than even more tourists crowding our roads and beaches on the weekend.

For several decades I have provided the Community with incredible entertainment on my site at a great cost. I resurrected Sea Bowl Entertainment Center from the failed and bankrupted tenant, Pacifica Coast Lanes, back in 1992. I have given as much as I can for a very long time and now I am retired and want to move on to the next chapter of my life. Please, I sincerely ask that the City do the right thing for the community and put this site in the Housing Element as a residential use.

Thank you for your time.

David Szeto
Sea Bowl Pacifica Inc.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 501 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From: Angela Wilson
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Fwd: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:09:27 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello Ms Brianne Harkousha,
How are you? Hope all is well.

I’m reaching out to you today regarding the email I received below. Based on this email, it appears the Housing Element Project Initial Study (IS) was approved to have no significant impact to the environment. If that is the case, pls see my questions below. 1). What was the criteria in getting approval on the Housing Element Project Initial Study (IS)? 2). Who ensured that the approver/s of the IS was unbiased? 3). Many of the East Sharp Neighbors have attended in person/virtual meetings as well as sent written statements over our concerns to proceed with building low income housing at Oceana High School. It appears our concerns have not been taken into consideration. At what point will our voices be heard?
Thx in advance for your response!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Best,
Angela Wilson
Begin forwarded message:

From: Pacifica Housing Element Updates <[email protected]> Date: November 17, 2023 at 9:05:21 AM PST
To:

Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration Reply-To: [email protected]
38%/,&&200(176
:ULWWHQ&RPPHQWV5HFHLYHGIRU(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZRIWKH+RXVLQJ (OHPHQWDQG+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3URJUDP+(, COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 502 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From: Housing
To: Murdock, Christian; Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: FW: Housing at Oceana...

Date: Thursday, November 30, 2023 9:50:47 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
FYI – Public comment received re: Housing Element.

Thank you,
(/,=$%(7+%522.603$
VKHKHU
_0$1$*(0(17$1$/<67,,
3/$11,1*'(3$570(17_&,7<0$1$*(5
62)),&(
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 501-6025 | [email protected]
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:28 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing at Oceana...
[CAUTION: External Email]
To the Pacifica planning department and Mr. Christian Murdock. The community surrounding the Oceana High School has Scenic views of the Pacific Ocean. Nearly three quarters of the residences surrounding Oceana High school sometimes travel down Paloma Ave and when the community travels down Paloma Ave they have an unobstructed View of the Pacific Ocean. People of the community also walk down Paloma Ave and have a fantastic view of the Pacific Ocean. Many times people park and have their lunch (while in their vehicles)on Paloma Ave and gaze out onto the Pacific Ocean. Thus, I disagree that "no" scenic views will be compromised with building new housing on the Oceana High school site. Taking away this scenic view would have a significant negative effect on the environment of this neighborhood. Not only will the residences that have homes on Paloma Ave lose their views of the Pacific Ocean but also, the community as a whole who travel westward on Paloma Ave, daytime gazers who briefly park and have lunch, and lastly daytime walkers who frequently walk on Paloma Ave. These are facts.

Al Romero
Pacifica Ca.94044
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 503 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Pacifica City Council
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
Date: December 13, 2023
From: Samuel Casillas,
Subject: Housing Element Update Project's Initial Study intent to prepare a Negative Declaration Dear City Council:

The City of Pacific’s Housing Element Update Project's Initial Study to prepare a Negative Declaration instead of conducting a full environmental Impact Report (EIR) is in violation of multiple CEQA regulations that the city must comply with in order to satisfy the multiple issues that will be generated by the addition of approximately 1800 new housing units. The proposed lack of an EIR and the negative declaration determination that no EIR is necessary is non-compliant. It does not properly address hazards, traffic mitigation and water delivery and water sanitation issues therefore violating CEQA. Since the city is adding approximately 1800 units, in its entirety at once, for the housing element it cannot defer CEQA reviews to a project-by-project basis.

Without addressing the impact of traffic mitigation (and the air pollution it will cause), the impact of wastewater treatment plant expansion, not utilizing the best available data to determine hazard zones including fire, landslides, flooding and drinking water availability along with biological resources for protected species makes this housing element dismissal of an EIR non-conforming and in violation of multiple CEQA regulations. The city also neglected to address any development water runoff that would occur from this amount of additional housing that would potentially be detrimental to adjacent protected waterways where protected species are present.

Thank you,
Samuel Casillas
Board member, PPCA
Past Vice-Chair, Pacifica Economic Development Committee Past Member, Pacifica Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Committee Past Co-Chair GGNRA Board Liaison Committee
Past Member, Pacifica GPU Community Outreach Committee
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 504 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Clif Lawrence
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 10:18 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Clif Lawrence
Subject: Housing Element - Proposed Negative Declaration [CAUTION: External Email]

If you are looking for what could have a significant impact on our environment... I suggest you don't have to look further than that 2,000 new housing units would be nearly a 14% increase in the total housing of Pacifica.

Tell me that's not significant.

Clifford (Clif) Lawrence
Pacifican
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 505 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Clif Lawrence
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Cc: Clif Lawrence
Subject: Housing Element w/o EIR ... "The Emperor Has No Clothes" [CAUTION: External Email]

Premise: 2,000 Housing Units to be built in 8 years in a community that presently has 14,400 housing units.

Claim by Planning Department: There will be NO IMPACT on the environment.

How is it possible NOT to IMPACT the Environment?
x when you ADD 4,000 vehicles to the local traffic
x when you ADD 2,000 customers to Water, Sanitary Sewer, Water Treatment, Storm Sewer, Electrical & Gas Utilities, Refuse Collection, x when you have to increase all municipal services by 14% There is ONLY ONE Logical answer.... You DON"T build the 2,000 units.

During an 8 year period, there are 1,984 work days.
(52 weeks x 5 workdays - 12 holidays) x 8 years = 1,984 If nearly 2,000 units were built, that would average ONE UNIT per workday.

There is NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT... ONLY if the 2,000 units are NOT BUILT!
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 506 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 507 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
BN 80062504v1
December 18, 2023
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Christian Murdock,
Planning Director
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pacifica Housing Element Update – 2023-2031
Dear Christian:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Pacifica Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Draft Housing Element Update – 2023-2031 released for public review and comment on November 16, 2023 (“Housing Element Update IS/MND”).

As you know, Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents Toll Brothers with its proposal to develop a residential townhome project on property located at 4625 Coast Highway in the City of Pacifica (the “City”) (APN: 022-150-440) (the “Sea Bowl Property”). Toll Brothers is proposing to demolish the existing Sea Bowl bowling alley and to develop the property with 79 townhome style units, 24 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), and 14 duet-style units, along with 186 resident parking spaces and 22 guest parking spaces (the “Project”). The 24 ADUs will be deed-restricted as rentals for lower income households. Toll Brothers filed with the City an SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Project on September 11, 2023 which the City is currently processing.

In prior drafts of the Housing Element Update, the City included the Sea Bowl Property in the sites inventory and then deleted it. As we have explained in our prior correspondence (see attached letters which are incorporated by this reference), State Planning and Zoning Law requires housing elements to provide an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development” that have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 508 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Christian Murdock,
December 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

BN 80062504v1
planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3) (emphasis added).) Toll Brothers has submitted to the City a realistic housing proposal for the development of over 100 dwelling units on the Property, including significant affordable housing, consistent with State Law. As the Developer has proposed a realistic and feasible residential project that implements the Draft Housing Element Update policies, we would encourage the City (again) to add the Sea Bowl Property to the housing sites inventory in the Draft Housing Element Update.

The City has failed to provide any rationale as to why the property should not be added to the Housing Element Update sites inventory.

The City maintains throughout the Draft Initial Study/MND that the:
“Housing Element Update would facilitate housing development in the City; however, it does not propose specific projects but rather puts forth goals and policies that regulate housing and various aspects of new housing development in Pacifica.” The Draft Initial Study/MND analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed sites identified on the Draft Housing Element sites inventory. As you know, Toll Brothers has submitted a viable, realistic proposal with a demonstrated development potential, and has requested that the City include Toll Brothers’ proposal in the Housing Element Update. Consistent with our prior requests, we ask that the City consider Toll Brothers’ Project in its Initial Study/MND consistent with the level of analysis it provided for the other sites identified in the Housing Element Update sites inventory.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments.

Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
Attachment
cc: Nick Kosla
Alli Sweeney
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 509 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 August 9, 2023
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Brianne Harkousha
Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the City of Pacifica General Plan Amendments and Rezoning
Dear Brianne:

Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents Toll Bros., Inc. (“Toll Brothers”) in its efforts to redevelop the Sea Bowl property located at 4625 Coast Highway (identified as APN 022-150-440) (the “Sea Bowl Property”), in the City of Pacifica (the “City”). Toll Brothers appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the EIR to evaluate the City’s General Plan Amendment and rezoning to implement its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (SCH No. 2023070192).

Toll Brothers is proposing to develop a total of 115 dwelling units consisting of 78 townhomes with 23 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), as well as 14 duet style homes (the “Toll Brothers Project”) on the Sea Bowl Property, consistent with the attached updated “Conceptual Site Plan,” dated August 4, 2023.

We understand that the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (“Housing Element Update”) is currently under review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). We further understand that the Housing Element Update is required to demonstrate the City’s plans to accommodate 2,476 housing units, including 1,289 units affordable for lower income households, over the next eight years to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). To assist the City in its identification of potential housing developments to include in the Housing Element Update, on March 23, 2023, my client COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 510 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 submitted a comment letter on the Housing Element with a conceptual site plan describing their plan to redevelop the site with market rate and below market rate housing and/or in-lieu fees for those affordable units. This letter and site plan were incorporated into the Housing Element update. (Housing Element Update, pp. 358-363.) Unfortunately, the Housing Element Update still does not reflect Toll Brothers Project or any reasonable development proposal for the Sea Bowl Property. Consequently, we are submitting the following comments on Toll Brothers’ behalf to request that the City correct the site inventory for the Sea Bowl Site, and address the following comments as part of the preparation of the environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Housing Element Update.

The City must update the Housing Element, and the EIR should evaluate, a decreased housing density alternative for the Sea Bowl Property.

State Planning and Zoning Law requires housing elements to provide an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development” that have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3) (emphasis added).) This inventory must include an “analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” (Id.) “Land suitable and available for residential development” is defined to include “[s]ites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site . . . .” (Id., § 65583.2(a)(4).) The inventory of sites must “specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site.” (Id., § 65583.2(c).)
The City includes the Sea Bowl Property in its inventory of sites that can accommodate additional housing. (Housing Element Update, p. 12, Table 4.) The Housing Element Update additionally notes that this site would require a rezoning to meet the City’s RHNA capacity. (Id.) The City further acknowledges that the site is “underutilized” and that “discussions with a housing developer have been initiated for redevelopment of the site” since the owner of the bowling alley announced it would permanently close in Spring 2023. (Housing Element Update, p. F-17.) However, we believe that the Housing Element Update’s proposal that the site be rezoned does not accommodate the Property’s realistic capacity for development, as required under State Planning and Zoning Law. The Housing Element Update suggests that the Property could be rezoned to accommodate a density of 60 dwelling units per acre, in order to supposedly permit a total of 219 units affordable for lower income households. The Housing Element Update however, does not explain whether or how developing 219 units is even feasible on the Sea Bowl Property.

The Housing Element Update acknowledges that the Property owner has already initiated “discussions with a housing developer” (i.e. Toll Brothers). Despite this “realistic and demonstrated potential” for development, as required by Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 511 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Code, the City is proposing to designate the Sea Bowl Property to accommodate 60 dwelling units per acre, for a total of 219 lower income dwelling units. This is far denser than the proposed Toll Brothers Project, but the Housing Element Update does not provide any support for whether a 219-unit lower income housing project is feasible. Conversely, Toll Brothers has already proposed a 115-unit mixed-income Project (including ADUs). Given market conditions and Toll Brothers’ Project proposal, however, we believe that the Sea Bowl Property can only accommodate a housing development at a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre such as that reflected in Toll Brothers Project.

The proposed General Plan designation would preclude Toll Brothers’ Project because the proposed density for the Sea Bowl Property is twice the density required to develop Toll Brothers’ Project. Toll Brothers has proposed a plan to develop 115 residential units, comprised of housing affordable to both lower income and above moderate income households, whereas the type of project envisioned in the current draft of the Housing Element Update has not been shown to be feasible. Toll Brothers is proposing a realistic Project that will propel the City into meeting its 6th cycle RHNA requirements. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City designate the Sea Bowl Property with a land use designation that will accommodate a density of up to 30 units per acre with a mix of townhomes, ADUs, and duet-type units. The EIR should, therefore, evaluate this reduced density and housing type for the Sea Bowl Property as a reasonably foreseeable proposal.

The Toll Brothers Project is shovel-ready and presents a reasonably foreseeable opportunity to develop the Sea Bowl Property with housing at a desired mix of affordability levels.

The NOP explains that the Sea Bowl Property has an existing General Plan designation of Visitor Serving Commercial and a zoning designation of C-1. While the Housing Element Update does not propose an updated designation for the Property, it states that the Property is “eligible to take advantage of AB 2011 densities.” (Housing Element, pp. F-16—17.) Moreover, the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory explains that the Sea Bowl Property is to “assume 60 [dwelling units per acre] using AB 2011.” (Housing Element, Appendix F, p. F-29, Table F-9.) The Housing Element Update and the NOP do not identify the General Plan designation or zoning proposed for the Sea Bowl Property. Thus, given this limited information, we can only assume that the Sea Bowl Property will retain its commercial General Plan and zoning designations which, otherwise, do not permit residential development. For the reasons outlined below, we do not believe that AB 2011 can be used to develop the Sea Bowl Property with residential uses, but that an amended General Plan designation and rezoning are the only way the Sea Bowl Property can be feasibly developed to accommodate housing.

As you know, AB 2011 generally allows for the streamlined ministerial approval of either affordable or mixed-income housing in certain commercial zones. (See generally Gov. Code, § COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 512 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 65912.100 et seq.) For the different types of projects, AB 2011 imposes several conditions in order to achieve eligibility. For example, for 100% affordable residential projects, an AB 2011- eligible site must have at least 75% of its perimeter adjoining “parcels that are developed with urban uses.” (Id., § 65912.111(c).) “[P]arcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.” (Id.) Here, the Property cannot qualify. The adjacent parcels across Roberts Road, Fassler Avenue, and Sea Bowl Drive, which comprise a majority of the surrounding parcels, are all vacant and undeveloped. Accordingly, an entirely affordable project would not qualify for AB 2011 on the Sea Bowl Property.

Even a mixed-income housing development would be infeasible under AB 2011 here. For such projects, AB 2011 also imposes the 75% perimeter urban use requirement. (Id., § 65912.121(e).) These projects must also meet specified affordability criteria. (Id., § 65912.122(b).) Finally, mixed-income projects are required to meet strict labor standards, including payment of a prevailing wage to all contractors. (Id., §§ 65912.130, -.131.) The 75% adjacent urban use requirement, imposed by AB 2011, alone disqualifies the Sea Bowl Property from approval of an AB 2011 project. Additionally, any labor standards that are imposed on a mixed-income project would dramatically increase project costs, thereby rendering an AB 2011 project infeasible. Thus, an assumption that any affordable project could proceed on the Property under AB 2011 is misplaced. Again, State Planning and Zoning Law requires a housing element to provide a housing inventory with a “realistic and demonstrated” potential for development. (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3).) Assuming that the Sea Bowl Property could be developed under AB 2011 is simply unrealistic. Accordingly, the Housing Element cannot assume that the Sea Bowl Property can be developed with residential uses under both AB 2011 and the commercial General Plan designation and zoning.

To the contrary, Toll Brothers has presented a shovel-ready, financeable project that will provide the number of affordable ADUs as the City sees in an average year. Moreover, the Toll Brothers Project will result in the City achieving significant progress toward meeting its RHNA requirements. Any plans to develop the Property with residential uses will require appropriate General Plan and zoning designations that permit such uses at the up to 30 dwelling unit per acre density identified above.

Conclusion
While we appreciate the City’s inclusion of the Property in its Draft Housing Element Update Sites Inventory, the Housing Element Update’s assumptions for how the Property could be developed are not achievable. As explained above, Toll Brothers has proposed its own mixedincome project for the Property with 115 total units. This would require a reduction in the density that the Property can accommodate. Additionally, the Housing Element Update’s assumption that a housing development project could proceed on the Property under AB 2011 is COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 513 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 misplaced, given the criteria required of eligible projects.

Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the City: (1) modify the Draft Housing Element Update such that the Sea Bowl Property can accommodate a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre; and (2) apply a General Plan designation and rezone the Sea Bowl Property to permit residential development at a feasible density. The EIR should then evaluate the General Plan and zoning update for feasible residential development of the Sea Bowl Property.

Thank you for your attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
Enclosure
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 514 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 515 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 October 13, 2023
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Christian Murdock
Planning Director
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: The Sea Bowl Project
Dear Christian:

We were initially encouraged to see that staff previously included the Property in the Sites Inventory of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (the “Draft Housing Element”). As you know, the Sites Inventory originally identified the site as suitable for accommodating 219 lower-income units. (Draft Housing Element, p. 12.) Although the City was required to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) by January 31, 2023, we understand that the City did not submit its Draft Housing Element to HCD until May 10, 2023. In any case, we understand that HCD rejected the City’s Draft Housing Element on August 8 because the City’s Housing Element did not comply with State Housing Element Law (“HCD August 8 Letter”). HCD noted in an Appendix to its August 8 Letter that, among other things, the Draft Housing Element failed to adequately analyze the realistic development of projects; failed to justify the use of AB 2011 to develop dense housing projects on commercial property; and failed to analyze the likelihood that identified sites COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 516 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 in nonresidential zones will be developed with housing. HCD’s findings echoed many of the challenges that we documented regarding the Housing Element in our earlier correspondence with the City.

We understand that on September 25, 2023, the City Council and Planning Commission met to consider and provide direction on the next iteration of the City’s Housing Element.

1 The City is required to accommodate 1,892 units pursuant to its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. (Draft Housing Element, p. 7.) The 117 units Toll Brothers has proposed in this Project amounts to approximately 6.2% of this total requirement.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 517 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 We respectfully request that the City add the Sea Bowl Property back into the Housing Element Sites Inventory. In doing so, the City should update the Sites Inventory such that it reflects a realistic density potential of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

Thank you for your attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Alicia Guerra
AG:vs
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Kevin Woodhouse
Nick Kosla
Alli Sweeney
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 518 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cassie Leonardi
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 11:06 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Housing Element Negative Declaration
[CAUTION: External Email]

Hello,
My name is Cassie Leonardi, citizen of Pacifica. I am reaching out today to voice concern regarding city efforts to file a negative declaration for the housing element. The addition of 1800 units to Pacifica, deserves proper evaluation.

Personally, I am worried about the impact to traffic and fire safety, should an evacuation ever occur. As a resident of the back of the valley, fire danger is extremely high and the residents back here only have two roads to exit. Adding more units to this area and to other fire sensitive neighborhoods in Pacifica puts citizens at risk. An EIR is an essential part of development and not a step that should be bypassed.

Thank you,
Cassie
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 519 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cindy Abbott
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 1:24 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Public Comment: Housing Element Negative Declaration [CAUTION: External Email]

Dear City of Pacifica City Council and staff:

I'm writing to express my concern with the ongoing disregard of CEQA regulations proposed by city staff by proposing a Negative Declaration.

The Housing Element proposes a significant increase in development in the City of Pacifica, an area that is surrounded by sensitive areas both from a human, wildlife and hazard perspective. Taking a detour from sound and thorough planning should be a concern for all.

The cumulative impact of the additional buildings should warrant a thorough review of impacts and potential mitigation efforts.

Not doing so disregards already existing transit concerns, and will increase Vehicle Miles Traveled and resulting air quality/climate change impacts.

Staff has indicated "no impact" to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. How can adding close to 2000 units to a community with literally no public transit have no impact?

As we continue to encroach on the urban edge of wildlife habitat and the coast, with the community already expressing concerns about wildlife who have been pushed into built areas, we should be open and willing to do more than is required to protect all species and our environment. Staff has again disappointingly indicated "no impact" to biological resources.

A thorough review of hazard zones including landslides, flooding, drainage, fire and erosion is the prudent course for future generations and city sustainability.

Instead the City has checked the box of "no impact" including potentially placing city residents and visitors at risk due to limited evacuation routes.

And again, another "no impact" to issues with water runoff without conducting any thorough review.

Please take a more proactive approach and require a full CEQA review. Current and future generations are counting on you.

Cindy Abbott
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 520 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/7/23, 8:27 AM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - Public Comment Environmental Impact - Potential Housing at Oceana High https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773580374750357439&simpl=msg-f:1773580374750357439 1/1 Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Public Comment Environmental Impact - Potential Housing at Oceana High 1 message
Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:20 AM To: Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Hi Alison,
Please see public comment received below.

Thanks,
Brianne
From: Angela Wilson
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 8:51:30 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Subject: Environmental Impact - PotenƟal Housing at Oceana High [CAUTION: External Email]
Hello Ms Brianne Harkousha,
I’m writing to you regarding potential housing development at Oceana Hogh School. Below are my thoughts on the environmental impact.

Please forward this to the appropriate people that are decision makers. 1). Additional Traffic (3 schools in close proximity)
2). Impact on Wild life
3). Environmental Impact (pollution)
4). Impact on Event Parking (Soccer Games/Swim Meets)
Thank you,
Angela Wilson
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 521 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Harkousha, Brianne
From:

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 9:54 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Environmental for Oceana high.

Attachments: Video.MOV
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Housing
[CAUTION: External Email]
Oceana high is a Mecca for birds who constantly hunt here, it will ruin their environment.

Pacifica Resident,
Al Romero
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 522 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Harkousha, Brianne
From:

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 10:03 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Environmental Oceana
Attachments: Video.MOV
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Housing
[CAUTION: External Email]
Oceana high is a magnet for birds and development would ruin their environment.

Pacifica Resident
Al Romero
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 523 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Harkousha, Brianne
From:

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 10:19 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Environmental Oceana
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Housing
[CAUTION: External Email]
Oceana high school and its students have physical education and science projects on the field thus, development of housing here would ruin their environment.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 524 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 525 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 3 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 526 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 4 Pacifica Resident
Al Romero
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 527 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Harkousha, Brianne
From:

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 10:06 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Environmental Oceana
Attachments: Video.MOV
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Housing
[CAUTION: External Email]
Oceana high is a magnet for birds an nd coyotes and development here would ruin their environment.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 528 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 529 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 Harkousha, Brianne
From:

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 10:00 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Environmental…
Attachments: Video.MOV
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Housing
[CAUTION: External Email]
Oceana high is a magnet for birds and development would ruin their environment.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 530 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Environmental of Oceana High.

Date: Saturday, July 15, 2023 7:10:41 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
The field at Oceana high school is at some point the lowest elevation in this valley. With added infrastructure, this would create more rain run-off adding to erosion in our coasts that are already in despair. Because of the unique valley setting all the water from the adjacent hills rain run off gets absorbed in this field. These fields were once used for agriculture for these reasons. The soil is very nutrient rich because of thousands of years of rain-runoff collects here. Replacing the natural land with infrastructure cement/ asphalt/housing, would destroy the regular displacement/absorption of rainfall. This would create more pollution(Co2), contaminated runoff, more rain run-off.

Thus, would be detrimental to the Coast, sea life, further erosion of the coast and potentially unbalance what is already a balanced valley with housing only on one side of the valley. Example: Manor valley is completely built up with no field for absorption. Thus, constant erosion of the bluffs.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 531 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 C/CAG

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Millbrae • Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County •South San Francisco • Woodside July 12, 2023
Ms. Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee Staff Comments - Notice of Prep. Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program Dear Ms. Harkousha,
In response to your notice on the above matter, C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee staff offers the following input for your consideration:

Ȉ A portion of the community of Pacifica is located within Airport Influence Area B (AIA B), the Project Referral Area, for San Francisco International Airport. As described in a recent Airport Land Use Commission review of Pacifica’s Draft Housing Element update, four identified housing opportunity sites are located within AIA B:

Site # Location
1 323 Beaumont Blvd
19 533 Hickey Blvd
25 Skyline Blvd (Caltrans ROW)
28 777 Hickey Blvd
x Accordingly, the DEIR should discuss how the proposed policies in the Housing Element update will ensure Airport/Land Use Compatibility including the Airport Influence Area disclosure and ALUC project referral requirements, noise compatibility, and height/airspace protection policies contained in the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP).

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this NOP. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
____________________________
Susy Kalkin
ALUC Staff
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 532 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/8/23, 8:11 AM Public Comment HE EIR - [email protected] - Dyett & Bhatia Mail https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwWHnTNDQDcmFtNnGtMqggNNv 1/1 Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Connie Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 7:48 AM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding environmental impact
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Person -
I am writing to voice my concern regarding the environmental impact that building low cost housing at Oceana HS site. I am l hunting in the field where the low cost housing is proposed. Almost every day I see her . At night coyotes roam that land - I h -that is only one thing - the other issue with building on that property is the number of cars that will be put on the street here . will be used - more parking on city streets - it will disturb the peace of the citizens and this neighborhood .

I it l l
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 533 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

CITY OF PACIFICA HOUSING ELEMENT

EIR SCOPING COMMENTS
The following are concerns which should be considered in the EIR analysis, followed by a description of actions the City can take to address those concerns.

To : City of Pacifica
Re : EIR Housing Element/Re-Zoning Scoping Comments August 7, 2023 The Rezoning program contemplated by the City purports to "accommodate the RHNA sites inventory and promote development of multi-family housing, including missing middle housing and mixed-use development".

Despite this stated objective, the City continues to ignore multiple sites already zoned for these very stated objectives (in 3 cases), and ignore opportunities for recognizing already existing adjacent mixeduse high-density development (in 1 case), all 4 sites of which are immediately adjacent to &/or surrounded by, already existing high-density uses and designations, and within the central core of the City.

Sites with at least 12 potential units of the critically required affordable housing types described above, which are required by the RHNA.

The City has opined that the above sites "did not meet criteria due to being within the Coastal Zone".

Yet despite this, the City has in fact chosen to identify several sites within the Coastal Zone, despite “not meeting the criteria”. Furthermore, there is no lawful basis for such categorical exclusion of the Coastal Zone from Housing Sites Inventory.

The City further opined that these are within what the City called its "Vulnerable Zone". And yet despite this, the City has already expended very substantial funds to encourage the community development appeal & uses within one of these Zones (West Sharp Park), including performing many physical improvements to enhance its dynamism & vibrancy , and enlarging mixed-use opportunities within this district, as well as passing resolutions approving City-formulated plans to promote the continuation of this enhancement process.

Still further, the City has expended costly plans for its very own future municipal development within this very same "Coastal/Vulnerable Zone".

Pg. 1 of 2 Pacifica Housing/Re-Zoning EIR Scoping Comments COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 534 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Even further, the City (despite its claimed exclusions due to "Coastal/Vulnerable Zone reasons” ) has within its newest (Aug 1, 2023) re-zoning plan, proposed multiple re-zonings within the very same "Coastal/Vulnerable Zone". (West Sharp Park & Rockaway Beach) Thus, it is very challenging to view the above exclusions – which are at dramatic variance from City's own extensive prior actions & declarations of intent - as anything other than proclaiming one narrative to one Audience, and a completely opposing narrative to another Audience.

The 1 site (of the above 4) which does require re-zoning, is surrounded by existing high-density and mixed-use development, as well as existing zoning for high-density/mixed-use, and yet chose to keep the existing 6-unit apartment as a Single-Family zone.

We had described these material zoning inconsistencies to City staff prior to the adoption of the West Sharp Park Plan, with staff subsequently informing the Council in response to its query on this, that such corrections would be made during the forthcoming re-zoning.

Notwithstanding this prior assertion to the Council, the proposed re-zoning portrayed within this EIR does not fulfill this. Another site is entirely surrounded by an existing Mixed-Use district and located within Rockaway Beach, also an area which the City promotes such use and development, yet continues to exclude from its Housing Sites Inventory.

We therefore sincerely hope the City takes the present opportunity to correct its arbitrary "exclusions" of these sites from its Housing Sites Inventory (as well as perform the corrective re-zoning), and instead fulfill its long & amply-declared intentions to in-fact :
- Strengthen & further enhance the vibrancy of its downtown core - Increase & underscore the importance of mixed-use opportunities - Increase affordable missing-middle housing rental & ownership opportunities These intentions can readily & simply be accomplished at these affordable Housing-Ready sites by carrying out the City's already declared intent within its proffered documents.

The APN #'s are listed below :

1.) 022-027-030

2.) 016-031-130

3.) 016-050-390

4.) 016-050-410
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

David Beaumont
Pg. 2 of 2 Pacifica Housing/Re-Zoning EIR Scoping Comments COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 535 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 9, 2023 SCH #: 2023070192
GTS #: 04-SM-2023-00529
GTS ID: 30347
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/1/VAR
Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program (6th Cycle) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Brianne Harkousha:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program (6th Cycle). We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system.

The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2023 NOP.

Project Understanding
The proposed project will create the regulatory framework to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites inventory and will rezone specific sites in order to develop housing. The involved amendments to the General Plan will affect existing land use designations that will enable more housing production.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 536 of 625
Aug 07 2023
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing conditions for walking and biking along and across the State Transportation Network (STN) in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of location-based and prioritized needs.

Please note that any Complete Streets reference should be updated to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (link) that highlights the importance of addressing the needs of non-motorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.

Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning
Transportation and housing are integrally connected. The Housing Element Update process provides a mechanism to reflect current transportation and land use policy and adopt efficient land-use strategies such as transit-oriented, infill and mixed-use developments that can potentially reduce vehicle miles traveled and address climate change.

Please review and include reference to the current California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR. CTP 2050 envisions that the majority of new housing located near existing housing, jobs, and transit, and in close proximity to one another will reduce vehicle travel and GHG emissions, and be accessible and affordable for all Californians, including disadvantaged and low-income communities. The location, density, and affordability of future housing will dictate much of our future travel patterns, and our ability to achieve the vision outlined in CTP 2050. Caltrans encourages the City to consider and explore the potential of excess state-owned property for affordable housing development, per Executive Order N-06-19.

Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the DEIR that should demonstrate how the future housing development patterns align with the City’s adopted VMT policies. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through efficient and equitable land use planning and policies. The City should also continue to coordinate with Caltrans to identify and implement necessary network improvements and impact mitigation.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 537 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Climate Change/Sea Level Rise
In the 2020 Caltrans District 4 Adaptation Priorities Report, U.S. 101 adjacent to the project location is identified as a high-priority Caltrans asset vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge, and climate change impacts, including increased precipitation. Caltrans would like to be included in discussions, to stay informed as Caltrans is interested in engaging in multi-agency collaboration early and often, to find multi-benefit solutions that protect vulnerable shorelines, communities, infrastructure, and the environment.

Please contact Vishal Ream-Rao, Caltrans Bay Area Climate Change Planning Coordinator, with any questions at [email protected].

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Pacifica is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews, Transportation Planner, via [email protected].

For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact LDR[email protected].

Sincerely,

LAUREL SEARS
Acting District Branch Chief
Local Development Review
c: State Clearinghouse
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 538 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 August 8, 2023
Pacifica Housing Element
Response to Planning Commission Meeting June 19 and Scoping Meeting August 1, 2023 Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Department
After watching the PCT video of the June 19 meeting and the Scoping Meeting of August 1, I want to commend you all for the thoughtful consideration you are showing with regard to the state imposed requirements for our city’s housing element. Thank you for your preparation and attention to the public’s concerns. We all know you cannot control the demands of the State, but I believe we should still push back and ask for exceptions to the imposed formulas.. Local needs and limitations are understood at our local level and should be controlled here. Following are a few push-backs:
1) The State’s timeline for the prescribed “objective standards” is too short and the predetermined 10 year development timeline is too short. Our city’s infrastructure is not prepared for the scale of population growth that has been dealt to us. We will be forced to correct traffic gridlock and slow-response emergency services locally after the properties are developed. We know that engaging with Caltrans for highway improvements requires years of planning and construction - well beyond 10 years. We also know that the coast is very poorly served by limited SamTrans bus routes and schedules. We do not have a centrally located hub or transit options, but need them to serve increased housing. Our water, sewage, police and firefighting capacity is already stretched. Will we need bigger schools? We need improvements, or plans, in place as the population grows. We should ask for exceptions or a timeline extension until such concerns are addressed.
2) It is patently absurd that traffic congestion and “level of service” is not part of an Environmental Impact Report, except as a complicated calculation of “Vehicle Miles Traveled”. Traffic congestion is a major concern for each neighborhood, our whole city and also for our neighbors to the south. This concern is not about being inconvenienced during commute hours. More importantly, we must be prepared for eventual catastrophic emergencies. The scale of a wildfire, earthquake or tsunami is unimaginable, because we don’t want to think about it. I believe it is imperative, for the purposes of housing plans, that there are mitigations for emergency impacts! Publicly addressing traffic impacts and concerns, as clearly as possible, outside the EIR, to all of Pacifica, should be a step taken by city, county and state representatives. 3) Pacifica has unique geographic limitations that could call for exceptions in the Housing Element. Where not bordered by the ocean, much of Pacifica is within an Urban Wildland Interface zone. Not only does that limit development sites, but it limits the availability and affordability of property insurance. Housing cannot be affordable if buyers can’t get a mortgage because they can’t get insurance. Can we ask for recognition, by the State, of this designation and a decrease in our housing requirements?
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 539 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 4) To reach the designated 1,892 housing units I understand that Pacifica’s growth will mainly be multi-unit construction. I think many Pacificans are concerned about the scale of these projects. 1) We could begin to adjust the scale by counting the number of bedrooms as units. A family of five requires five habitation units. 2) We could allot sites for affordable multi-generational villages of small houses with shared community spaces that would be more cohesive with the nature of our existing neighborhoods. 3) With an extension of the building timeline, we can gradually adjust to the growth and changes in our community.

With a stretch of the imagination, I have wondered about a coalition of small, geographically-limited cities developing a kind of “cap and trade” system of off-setting the State imposed housing requirements. As an example, South San Francisco clearly has space, transportation and commercial establishments to support large-scale development for affordable housing. Could we compensate them to assume some of our share? They would get a tax base and we would offer our recreational open-space for future generations.

We are often encouraged to think that government begins at the local level. I encourage you, as city planners and commissioners, to make a statement to the State about the unique limitations we face for fulfilling imposed quotas and timelines.

Thank you for taking time to read the opinions and ideas of a concerned citizen.

Elaine McKeen
Pacifica, CA 94044
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 540 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Housing Element and ReZoning EIR Pacifica
August 9, 2023
To : City of Pacifica
Re: Designation of Housing Sites, and Re-Zoning to enable housing opportunities for missing-middle-income families
I wish to express my support for increasing housing opportunities for all income levels within the City of Pacifica, and in particular the “missing middle” category of housing. The cohesive strength of a small community like Pacifica is greatly enhanced when all community-members are able to continue to afford to remain present and vested participants within it, especially within its core neighborhood.

As a young multi-racial woman who is just starting her family and is seeking to create a modest family home on the very type of site contemplated by this Element, I am disappointed that the proposed re-zoning – which declares that it seeks to promote and accommodate this necessary affordable category - does not do so within the West Sharp Park neighborhood, where my future home is located.

Pacifica is so strongly centered around its Ocean/Coastal setting, and thus excluding the Coastal Zone from re-zoning to enable such critically necessary and desirable housing within it, is an exclusionary practice.

Please reconsider this exclusionary practice, and include the Coastal Zone in both the housing inventory sites, as well as necessary re-zoning to accomplish the City’s declared housing affordability and accommodation goals.

Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth Carey
016-050-410
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 541 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 542 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: feedback on EIR
Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:05:05 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Why Oceana High School should be removed from list of potential housing sites:

Additional Traffic
There are 3 schools in close proximity to each other here, resulting in morning and afternoon congestion in Sharp Park/Pacific Manor. Traffic on Paloma Ave. and Oceana Blvd. near the high school is particularly busy on a daily basis, and will probably be worse now that the Paloma Ave. bridge has been reduced to one lane only on each side. If housing were to be built on the Oceana HS site, traffic in the Sharp Park neighborhood could worsen considerably. The plan to revitalize and increase business on Palmetto Ave. would likely be negatively impacted by this increased traffic; visitors might see how difficult it is to get in and out of Sharp Park and take their shopping/service needs elsewhere.

Impact on Wildlife and Environmental Impact
The Mission Blue butterfly is an endangered species known to live in the area directly above the Oceana campus. A larger population of residents in the immediate area of the campus would create more frequent disturbance of the butterfly’s habitat. Since Covid-19, far more visitors frequent the Milagra Ridge hillside both on trail and off; dogs in particular are often seen off trail. This would exponentially increase if hundreds of new residents and their pets are housed on the Oceana HS land, thereby making the butterfly habitat and population even more vulnerable. Other wildlife would likewise be driven away with the increasing foot traffic that would occur on this hillside.

Impact on Event Pkg (Soccer Games/Swim Meets)/student parking The current student lot is used on a daily basis. Where would students park if housing were constructed here? Housing would take up considerable space and create a need for additional parking for its residents and visitors. There isn’t room for both uses. The faculty/staff/visitors parking lot is already in full use between those populations, and sports activities that utilize the nearby fields and campus buildings (swimming, basketball, soccer) fill all lots and street parking on Paloma Ave. as it is. There isn’t room in the staff lot for students to park here during the day, not to mention that if there were, staff and faculty would lose privacy/their cars could become targets of student vandalism.

Housing should not be on school campus
This is a potential safety issue for students and staff. A school should be an insular, safe place with a buffer from residences and businesses to protect the school from potential criminal activity. Schools need that buffer to be aware of potential trespassers and school administrators to see who is supposed to be there and who is not. If housing is constructed on the Oceana HS site, it would by necessity be so close to school buildings that monitoring who is supposed to be on campus and who is not would be exceedingly difficult.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 543 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Alison Moore; Clare Kucera
Cc: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Public Comment HE EIR
Please see public comment for HE EIR below.

Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From: Irene
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:36 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>; Christine Boles <[email protected]>; Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments to Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) [CAUTION: External Email]

Hi,
Do we really need the required housing per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)?Maybe we don't need as many as required.

Table 1Ͳrezoning suggestions:

Site 20, Public Works Corp YardͲHow about converting this into high rise/high density housing with retail spaces below.It is on the public transportation route.

Sites 25 and 26, Caltrans ROWͲThese could be potential high density housing with retail spaces below if Caltrans allows.

Sites 27, 28, and 29, Shopping CenterͲThese would require permission of the shopping owners to redevelop the shopping centers into mixed use, with housing on the upper levels and regular shops at the ground levels.Will still need to have parking spots for customers, or a parking garage at the site. Sites 30 and 31ͲCould rezone to Mixed use high density residential/commercial.

Sites 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36ͲThese are on the transportation route, so it would be beneficial to rezone to high density residential/commercial.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 544 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 Sites A, B, and HͲThese are on the transportation route, so it would be beneficial to rezone to high density residential/commercial.
____________________
What about changing the residential zoning to allow for multiplexes as long as there is a buffer set back of at least 3 to 5 feet from the adjacent houses.And increase the height limit to 3 stories height.

Do we have shelters for the unhouse in Pacifica?Does this EIR address homeless shelters and a place for the unhouse vehicles to park safely without the Pacifica homeowners having to deal with the trash from the unhouse vehicles or homeless camps along San Pedro Creek by the Linda Mar Shopping Center? If possible, any site that is on a public transportation route would be a candidate for Mixed use high density residential/commercial.

Thanks for the chance to comment on this important issue and Good Luck.

Irene Lee
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 545 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 City of Pacifica, California
Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program Date: 8/8/2023
To: Pacifica Planning Department c/o Brianne Harkousha
From: John Mikulin – Pacifica Property Owner
Subject: Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Comments As the City of Pacifica evaluates property rezoning and redevelopment options to accommodate additional residences, I encourage the Planning Department to consider how each program alternative will impact mobile source criteria pollutant, air toxic, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the city. While the following measures focus on mobile source emissions mitigation strategies and technologies, a more fundamental concern is how additional residences and the mobile sources engendered by them will impact local air quality, road congestion, and the city’s GHG inventory. Inevitably, adding residences will increase human exposure to mobile source emissions within neighborhoods and citywide. This is real concern for public health within Pacifica, and for the city’s contribution to anthropogenic climate change and its locally relevant impacts (e.g., sea level rise).

I appreciate your consideration of these comments, and I hope that you find this input useful.

Mobile Source Emissions Mitigation in Pacifica
x Minimize on-highway vehicle trips, nonroad operational hours and related emissions within the city.
o Reduce the number of commuter vehicles travelling to and from project sites. Include carpooling and/or transit subsidies for relevant employees. o Plan construction scheduling to minimize vehicle trips and/or nonroad operational hours.
o Prohibit projects that will significantly increase indirect source emissions within the city.
An indirect source is a facility, building, structure, or installation which attracts or may attract mobile source activity that results in additional localized emissions.
x Minimize unnecessary idling of on-highway vehicles and nonroad equipment during construction and operation of homes and businesses within the city. o https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/heavy-duty-diesel-vehicle-idlinginformation x Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence to manufacturer’s recommendations for vehicles and equipment used for project construction and operation. o https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/epa-tampering-policy-epa-enforcement-policyvehicle-and-engine-tampering-and COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 546 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 x Employ periodic, unscheduled inspections to limit unnecessary idling and to ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified consistent with established specifications.
x Lease new, cleaner equipment using the best available emissions control technologies that meets the most stringent of applicable federal or state standards.

Deploy Best Available Control Technology (BACT) - Require BACT during construction and operation of projects, employing the cleanest alternatives available, including but not limited to:
a) Soliciting bids that include use of energy and fuel-efficient fleets; b) Soliciting preference construction bids that use BACT, particularly those seeking to deploy zero-emission technologies (i.e., electricity and/or hydrogen); c) Using lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; d) Using the minimum feasible amount of greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting construction materials that is feasible;
e) Use of cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
f) Use of lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
g) Recycling construction debris to maximum extent feasible; and h) Planting shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible.

Electric Power during Construction - Projects should ensure to the extent possible that construction activities utilize grid-based electricity, onsite renewable electricity generation and/or hydrogen versus other, higher emitting sources of energy.

Definition of “clean truck” – Recommend defining the term “clean truck” in relation to applicable federal or state emissions standards. One option for defining this technology would be products certified to meet the US EPA GHG emissions standards for model year 2021 and newer heavyduty on-highway vehicles. Another option would be to define it as products certified to meet the CARB optional low NOx emission standards for heavy-duty engines. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhousegas-emissions-standards https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/optional-reduced-nox-standards Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement (VAVR) - Given the significant contribution of vehicle emissions to the poor air quality conditions throughout the nation, vehicle owners should be strongly encouraged to retire legacy light and heavy-duty vehicles and replace them with technologies that meet or exceed current emissions standards. Suggest the following mitigation measure:

Implement programs to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of legacy on-highway vehicles including scrappage incentives for pre-2017 light-duty vehicles and pre-2021 heavy-duty vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-air-pollutionmotor-vehicles-tier-3 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhousegas-emissions-standards COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 547 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Deploy Low and Zero Emission Technologies for Project Construction and Operation On-Highway Vehicles - On-highway vehicles servicing project sites should meet or exceed the US EPA exhaust emissions standards for model year 2017 and newer light-duty vehicles and model year 2021 and newer heavy-duty vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-air-pollutionmotor-vehicles-tier-3 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhousegas-emissions-standards Nonroad Vehicles and Equipment - Nonroad vehicles and equipment servicing infrastructure sites should meet or exceed the US EPA Tier 4 exhaust emissions standards for heavy-duty nonroad compression-ignition engines (e.g., construction equipment, nonroad trucks, cargo handlers, etc.). https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100OA05.pdf Locomotives - Locomotives servicing project sites should meet or exceed the US EPA Tier 4 exhaust emissions standards for line-haul and switch locomotive engines. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100OA09.pdf Marine Vessels – Marine vessels servicing project sites should meet or exceed the latest US EPA exhaust emissions standards for marine compression-ignition engines (i.e., Tier 4 for Category 1 and 2 vessels, and Tier 3 for Category 3 vessels).
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100OA0B.pdf Low Emission Equipment Exemptions – The equipment specifications outlined above should be met unless a piece of specialized equipment is not available for purchase or lease within California.

Advanced Technology Demonstration and Deployment - Project proponents should be encouraged to demonstrate and/or deploy mobile source technologies that exceed the latest US EPA emissions performance standards for the equipment categories that are relevant for a given project (e.g., plugin hybrid-electric vehicles-PHEVs, battery-electric vehicles-BEVs, fuel cell electric vehiclesFCEVs, advanced powertrain nonroad equipment, locomotives and marine vessels, etc.). https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technology-inventory/ Submitted via email on 8/8/2023 by:

John Mikulin
Owner, - Pacifica, California 94044
Cc via email:

Christine Boles
District 2 Councilmember, City of Pacifica
[email protected]
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 548 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 549 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 550 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 551 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 552 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 553 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 554 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 555 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 556 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 7/26/23, 5:07 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - FW: Environmental concerns about the potential housing development at Oceania High School https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1772529703668964272&simpl=msg-f:17725297036689642… 1/2 Alison Moore <[email protected]>
FW: Environmental concerns about the potential housing development at Oceania High School
2 messages
Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:00 PM To: Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Hi Alison,
Please see public comment for NOP below.

Thanks,
Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: K King >
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Subject: Environmental concerns about the potential housing development at Oceania High School [CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Brianna,
Many of my neighbors who live near Oceana High School have expressed a list of environmental concerns about the potential housing development there. I will not repeat the list here, but please add my voice to their objections to the development of this site.

Sincerely,
Kathleen King
Pacifica
Sent from my iPad
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.

Alison Moore <[email protected]> Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:06 PM To: "Harkousha, Brianne" <[email protected]>
Thanks, Brianne, received.
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Alison Moore
Associate Principal
415.956.4300
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 557 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 7/26/23, 5:07 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - FW: Environmental concerns about the potential housing development at Oceania High School https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1772529703668964272&simpl=msg-f:17725297036689642… 2/2 Cell: 713.818.4815

DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
4001 Howe Street
Oakland, CA 94611
dyettandbhatia.com
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 558 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Potential Low Income Housing Development at Oceana High School Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:30:38 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Anyone with half a brain knows Pacifica doesn't need more ghetto neighborhoods, let alone any new housing. The plan is to build low income houses in the high school parking lots, and the last thing a school needs is a bunch of scumbag crackheads dealing drugs to teenagers. A few other by-products of this development plan would include increased crime in the Sharp Park area, a mob of hikers on Milagra Ridge every day, dropping their trash everywhere, and a mile-long traffic backup on Paloma Avenue. Pacifica is a small town. If you want a ghetto concrete jungle, it's called San Francisco.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 559 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Clare Kucera
Cc: Alison Moore; Murdock, Christian
Subject: Public Comment HE EIR
Hi Clare,
Please see public comment for HE EIR.

Thanks,
Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 12:09 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft EIR for Housing Element Rezonng
[CAUTION: External Email]

Dear Ms. Harkousha,
This letter is submitted on behalf of my client, Rockaway Highlands LLC (Rockaway). It is with regards Pacifica’s request for comments on the programmatic EIR for the Housing Element Targeted General Plan amendments and Rezoning Program (Proposed Project).

Rockaway is the owner of 3 vacant parcels of land (APNs 018-140-220 {220}, 018-140-660 {660}, 018-140- 300 {300}). The land is located north-east of the Lutheran Church at 4400 Cabrillo Highway (Highway One), which is between Fassler and Reina del Mar.

On December 16, 2022 we submitted a request to the Planning Department for these parcels to be included in the Pacifica Housing Element as housing opportunity sites. The request included exhibits supporting why all three parcels are opportunity sites.

The parcels we not included in the February 24, 2023 draft of the Housing Element.

On March 21, 2023 we resubmitted the request, with supporting documents, to you all. Also, on that same evening (March 21) I attended the Joint City Council and Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element.

During the public comment portion of the hearing, I presented our housing opportunity request to the Council and the Commission. Hard copies of the request were distributed by staff to the Councilors and Commissioners.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 560 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 As a result of our outreach APNs 660 (1.25 acres) and 300 (.05 acres) were included in in the May 10, 2023 State Review Draft of the housing Element. Both of these parcels are zoned C-1.

We thank you for putting these two opportunity sites in the Housing Element.

Unfortunately, APN 220 (1.45 acres) was not included in the draft. It is currently zoned R-1.

The supporting documents for including 220 in the Housing Element demonstrated that a rezoning to a higher density would add a significant number on housing units to Pacifica’s RHNA requirements.

As a result of 220 not being in the Housing Element we now need to independently submit a General Plan amendment and rezoning request. We have begun that process.

Not being in the Housing Element means that 220 will not be part of the programmatic EIR for General Plan and Rezoning that you are about to undertake.

Our concern is that by 220 not being in the housing element, we may be forced to take extra individual steps to get the General Plan amendment and Rezoning accomplished.

We therefore request, again, that APN 018-140-220 be included in the Housing Element as an opportunity site…and that it be slated for rezoning.

Hopefully you will have the opportunity to include 220 when you again review the Housing Element as a result of HCD feedback.

Sincerely yours,
L. Kirk Miller CDS, FAIA emeritus
Development Strategist
Telephone 415-505-0106
The Process Determines the Product
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 561 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/8/23, 12:01 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - FW: addendum to concerned citizen re: housing project at Oceana High School https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773688586206772160&simpl=msg-f:1773688586206772160 1/2 Alison Moore <[email protected]>
FW: addendum to concerned citizen re: housing project at Oceana High School 1 message
Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:00 PM To: Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Hi Alison,
Please see revisions to the public commenters email.

Thanks,
Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From: Lara Garner
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:31 AM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: addendum to concerned citizen re: housing project at Oceana High School [CAUTION: External Email]
Addendum to my last email.

Dear Ms Harkousha,
I neglected to mention that Milagra Ridge is a protected habitat for Mission Blue butterflies and Red-Tailed hawks. This huge construction project may erode their habitat. If so, there may be litigation from environmental groups. Thank you.

Please add that to my grave concerns about this project.

Best, Lara Garner
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 10:31 AM Lara Garner <[email protected]> wrote:

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 562 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/8/23, 12:01 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - FW: addendum to concerned citizen re: housing project at Oceana High School https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773688586206772160&simpl=msg-f:1773688586206772160 2/2 Lara Garner
Pacifica, Ca 94044
Re: Housing project proposal at Ocean High School
Dear Ms. Harkoushka,
I am a resident of the East Sharp Park neighborhood and want to voice my concerns about your proposed low-income housing project at Oceana School. Environmentally, there is already a shortage of open space here as it is as the neighborhood is getting more and more crowded. People have built on smaller and smaller lots in this area, removing the space between houses. Locals look to this field as a place of respite for walking their dogs and socializing in a peaceful green space. Children play on the field.

Besides being too much construction for this small space, I think this is a very bad idea for this neighborhood, which houses a preschool and a highschool. Young children are always walking to and from school and passing this area where you propose to put low-income housing. It is also a popular area for residents walking their dogs. Oceana high school students use this field for running. I see them every day in their red gym clothes running down Paloma Blvd.

There has also been a presence at the high school every afternoon when school lets out to prevent drug sales. A gentleman sits on the corner every day at 3pm, watching out for traffic and also I assume watching to prevent drug dealers from approaching the children. This I assume has been an effective deterrent to crime.

Because of the heavy environmental impact of this project ultimately negatively affecting the quality of life in this neighborhood, as well as the liability of the city if more crime and drug sales occur near a high school and a preschool, I am adamantly opposed to this project. My concerns are echoed by all the local residents I have spoken with. This is a neighborhood where parents let their young children walk alone to go to a friend's house. That will not be the case if you implement this project. The preschool may have to relocate if the parents do not feel their 4-5 year olds are safe.

My children went to this preschool. In fact, we helped build the playground years ago and my children's hand prints are in tiles on the wall. Your proposal will forever change this neighborhood for the worse.

Thank you for taking the time to register my concerns about this project. Lara Garner 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 aƩachments or reply.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 563 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 7/24/23, 8:44 AM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - FW: Request for Comments - NoP Pacifica Housing Element Rezoning https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1772316426023974291&simpl=msg-f:1772316426023974291 1/2 Alison Moore <[email protected]>
FW: Request for Comments - NoP Pacifica Housing Element Rezoning 1 message
Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:30 AM To: Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Hi Alison,
Please see public comment received for NOP. Sorry, I’m still not able to save this in the one drive link you provided. IT is still working on the issue.

Thanks!
Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From: Lori Chelemedos
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 4:09 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Cc: _City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Comments - NoP Pacifica Housing Element Rezoning [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City of Pacifica Planning Department,
Thank you for sending the Request of Comments email regarding the Program Environmental Impact Report related to the Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program. As I will be unable to attend the August 1st meeting due to a family medical procedure on that day, I wanted to provide my initial thoughts via email.

Let me start by saying that I am not a great fan of the state mandates to increase low cost housing simply because it is forcing a change to neighborhoods that many (including myself) invested in simply because we thought that we would COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 564 of 625 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 7/24/23, 8:44 AM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - FW: Request for Comments - NoP Pacifica Housing Element Rezoning https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1772316426023974291&simpl=msg-f:1772316426023974291 2/2 enjoy the ambiance and attributes that were present when we purchased our homes. It is literally pushing out homeowners to alternative communities and states to retain the quality of life we paid for leaving the current mess that is the Bay Area (where I have lived my entire life) and much of the state. It reeks of the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the proletarians took over the Zhivago home "because it was fair". But, unfortunately, that is part of the sad state of thinking in Sacramento...

With that out of the way, the only way I can see this being both practical and feasible with minimal impact to the environment is to use infill which is what this plan is trying to do. I live in the BOV and I am aware of the proposed growth on Fassler (not represented in this plan), as well as the teacher housing proposed just down the street from me (which is listed in the plan) and now looking at the overall plan it has a few flaws.

More specifically, the plan to date does not recognize that there are two practical routes to get out of the BOV to the highway which are Linda Mar Blvd. and Everglades/Terra Nova/Fassler. These two routes are one lane residential streets until a driver gets within approximately a half mile or so of Hwy. 1. This plan (in Table 1) proposes rezoning seven different parcels (numbered 22, 23, 24, 29, 35, 36, and F) accounting for 728 units (e.g., in the proposed density column) that would impact both routes. Assuming each unit would have one to two cars, that would be an extra 728 - 1454 cars that may travel those routes.

At the same time, Page 10, paragraph 1 states, "There is reasonable potential that the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant effects related to ...Hazards and Hazardous Materials" with the rationale in paragraph 4 that "the construction and operation of housing generally does not involve the release -- accidental or otherwise -- of hazardous materials...". But what about the traffic congestion (for emergencies and non-emergencies) and emissions that it would cause? Why would the Planning Department signal that hazards are improbable prior to a full study? With that, and understanding that infill is the least impactful route, my thought is that there are more commercial areas that have better transportation routes that would be better to leverage. Doing so would continue the revitalization of the Palmetto downtown area and consolidate the population where the city initially intended it to be. The BOV is simply not built for the alternative.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Lori Chelemedos
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 aƩachments or reply.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 565 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Oceana High School proposed development - concerns Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:32:25 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Brianne,
As a resident at the East end of Loma Vista terrace, I"m concerned what adding 130+ units on the current Oceana High grounds will do to egress in the case of wildfire or other natural disaster. Paloma ave is the main, and really the only exit from what is essentially a box canyon.

SIncerely,
Martin Pacholuk
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 566 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 July 21, 2023
Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: 2023070192, Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program (6th Cycle), San Mateo County
Dear Ms. Harkousha:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 567 of 625
Governor’s Office of Planning & Research
:ƵůǇϮϰ 2023

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 AB 52

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 568 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).

The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 569 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 SB 18

SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.

Some of SB 18’s provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments

To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 570 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected]
Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 571 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

"#$

!#%&' (

)!!
)*+*,%&),
)
-

*
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS <<PAGE 1 of n>> Page 572 of 625 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

#$%

!

"$&'(
!
)
*""
*+,+-&'*-
*
.

+
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS <<PAGE 1 of n>> Page 573 of 625 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

#$%

!
"$&'( ! )

*""
*+,+-&'*-
*
.

+
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS <<PAGE 1 of n>> Page 574 of 625 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

#$%

!
"$&'(!)
*""
*+,+-&'*-
*
.

+
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS <<PAGE 1 of n>> Page 575 of 625 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 To: City of Pacifica Planning Department
From: Patricia Kremer, 5 Eastlake Avenue, Pacifica
Date: 9 August 2023
Subject: Written Response to Program Environmental Impact Report Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program
I am submitting these comments so they will be included in any revision required of the City of Pacifica’s EIR relevant to their draft Housing Element. This is not the first time I have raised this issue, but I have not received what I feel is a satisfactory response to my comments, so I am trying again.

Among the list of “Opportunity Sites” included in the Housing Element is site #26 “Caltrans, ROW, Coast highway/Quarry”. There is a fairly high probability that this site includes remains of Native American artifacts. On August 14, 1963, the Pacifica Tribune reported about “Bones, Relics Found Near Vallemar”. Although the precise location is not clear from the article, it is reasonable to think the area of the excavation was near or part of Site #26.

The Pacifica General Plan from Spring 2002 says the following: “As part of the General Plan update process, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a record search of the sacred lands file in 2009. The search did not indicate the presence of additional Native American cultural resources within the Planning Area. The NAHC response listed six tribes that may have historic ties to the Planning Area, and letters of inquiry were sent to the six tribal representatives; however, no responses were received.”
The Planning Staff from the City of Pacifica has replied to me that they have met their legal obligations of CEQA requirements by notifying a major indigenous organization about these findings. Apparently this notification has not resulted in a reply from the stated organization, but the City of Pacifica does not feel any further action is necessary or desirable before they “Initiate Caltrans decertification process for any Caltrans owned site (sites 18, 25, 26), including making an initial deposit of funds (approximately COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 576 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 $35,000 in 2022) by December 2024, designate sites as required. It is anticipated that the City may partner with nonprofit housing developers for these sites.” (p. 23 of May 2023 Housing Element document).

The bones and relics found in 1963 were undoubtedly linked with the small village of Timigtac, located near where Calera Creek was located at the time of Spanish colonization (1770’s). Although unlikely, living descendants from those inhabitants have been identified through records kept by Mission Delores, which had jurisdiction over the Aramai people who inhabited the area now known as Pacifica.

Perhaps the City of Pacifica and Caltrans have no legal obligation to notify these descendants, but in a time when native people are trying to regain confiscated lands, it seems to me the moral things to do. The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone < https://www.ramaytush.org> is active locally and would undoubtedly be interested in the possibility of having access to surplus land from Caltrans.

I am including as a part of this memo the relevant articles from the Pacifica Tribune 1963. There is also information about additional investigations by local Archeologist Shirley Drye in 1993, but I do not seem to have digital copies of those articles in my computer at this time.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 577 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:58 PM
To: Clare Kucera
Cc: Alison Moore; Murdock, Christian
Subject: FW: Environmental concerns... Oceana High School Hi Clare,
Please see public comment for HE EIR below.

Thanks,
Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From: Joe Buttifunew
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:54 PM
To: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Environmental concerns... Oceana High School [CAUTION: External Email]

My Environmental Concerns are for Oceana High School Pacifica, Ca.;

1. The land animals depend on this area for a food resource. There is a abundance of goffers here at the Oceana School.I constantly see Red Tail Hawks, Owls, Heron and Coyotes and eating here at Oceana High.Since mostly Pacifica is developed and or has dense trees, this field has become a essential part for the wildlife ecosystem.This field makes up what Man has done to the natural environment in these areas.There is constant wildlife activity on this field and around its border.The hawks and Owls sit on the surrounding trees/fences and snag their pray.

2. The acoustics of Ocean from this small valley will be diminished.At night when the noise pollution is less, the waves from the Ocean echo off the surrounding hills and valley of this field. Adding housing here will diminish that beautiful sound the Oceana High school neighborhood has enjoyed.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 578 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 3. The hydrodynamics of the collection of rain water from the surrounding hills drain naturally in this field. The added concrete will add more rain runͲoff to the Ocean.This could already disrupt the fragile coastline that is already deteriorating. This should be studied extensively.

4. The already congested traffic during school hours, Pool swim meets and soccer games.Added housing would cause even more congestion to this environment, which is bad for students, the community, the employees who work here, the residences surrounding the area.

5. The Students at Oceana High run and play around this field. The PE instructor watches from the gym as students run within eyesight of the instructor.Adding housing would totally disrupt that environment and the view of that PE instructor.

6. The local community have a view of the Ocean from their residences.These people purchased these homes (particularly the residences on Paloma Ave) with scenic views of the Ocean.Building housing here would totally disrupt that environment.Thier housing prices would diminish because of this proposed housing development.This in turn would ruin these people's environment.Some serious studies should be addressed to these people that live here with these views.

Thank you,
Rocky Roo
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 579 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/8/23, 1:36 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - Public Comment HE EIR. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773694450923139977&simpl=msg-f:1773694450923139977 1/2 Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Public Comment HE EIR.
1 message
Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:33 PM To: Alison Moore <[email protected]>, Clare Kucera <[email protected]> Cc: "Murdock, Christian" <[email protected]>
Please see public comment for HE EIR.

1. All existing commercial sites C-1. C-2, PD-commercial should consider mixed use multifamily developments so that we maintain the commercial tax base. Consider building on more parking lots with ground floor retail first followed by building over some of the existing retail to maximize density.

2. C-3 sites need to be carefully considered as not to reduce potential for additional hotel space which has high TOT revenue

3. Highest densities for housing (and commercial) should be permitted on sites closest to the HWY 1 bus route transit corridor to minimize traffic impact. DEIR/FEIR should carefully consider the additional ridership and improvements in head-ways/frequencies of bus service, and maybe study privately funded BART shuttles if SamTrans does not restore service

4. All sites to the west of the HWY1 in the Coast Zone needs to account for Coastal Commission Review.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 580 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/8/23, 1:36 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - Public Comment HE EIR. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773694450923139977&simpl=msg-f:1773694450923139977 2/2

5. Site 26 is problematic in that it is in the Quarry and would require the referendum rezoning for residential, and there are identified wetlands and potential endangered garter snake and CA red legged frog habitat from the HWY 1 widening project study that was rejected by the city and citizens previously. There is potential native American significance too to that site. Would recommend Site 26 be removed and housing distributed in other sites near the HWY 1 transit corridor

6. All public sites should be maximized for affordable housing as the city, school or CalTrans can grant land to affordable housing developers and densities maximized

7. On school and CalTrans sites City needs to confirm with those agencies if they are on board with the proposed affordable housing and maximizing densities

8. Traffic on HWY 1 needs to be carefully studied with worse case scenario if the proposed densities still not enough ridership to get better bus transit service. New technologies like shared driver-less electric ride-share service should be considered in the traffic/transportation analysis. Smart synchronized traffic signals on HWY 1or replacing those with traffic circles should be considered.

9. Avoid all hillside sites with landslide, erosion, wildfire danger and any coastal flooding and erosion sites.

Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment 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 aƩachments or reply.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 581 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:58 PM
To: Clare Kucera
Cc: Alison Moore; Murdock, Christian
Subject: FW: Pacifica Housing Element EIR NOP potential faults and Inadequacies Hi Clare,
Please see public comment for HE EIR below.

Thanks,
Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From: Samuel Casillas
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:53 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Subject: Pacifica Housing Element EIR NOP potential faults and Inadequacies [CAUTION: External Email]

To Whom it may concern,
After reviewing the Pacifica Housing Element NOP for the EIR I have come to the conclusion that the scope of the EIR will be inadequate and contain multiple faults that will require a new review and a reͲcirculation based on the scoping meeting and materials that are currently in circulation.Specifically the EIR needs to address the following:

1. Traffic Mitigation: the addition of any of these development sites and the whole plan for the entirety of the 1,892Ͳ2,476 housing unit plan does needs to address the increased traffic, pollution and additional waiting time that will be caused by new vehicles being added, nor is there adequate planning for increasing the ability of Pacifica's roads and highways.In fact, Pacifica has been negligent in doing even basic road repairs so how can they plan for the increased traffic that 1,892Ͳ2,476 housing units would bring to Pacifica?Even one of these sites where there would be consideration of approximately 30 new units would need a traffic mitigation plan that would need to be properly addressed in the EIR.

2. Sewage and Water Treatment capabilities:Wastewater treatment plant expansion would be needed to support significant new project development yet our sewage system is already over extended and we have sewage spills that violate California law on an annual basis due to incompetence, this EIR needs to adequately address how the city will increase the sewer system to handle approximately COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 582 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 2 2,000 new housing units and address how global warming and the impact of climate change will detrimentally impact Pacifica's already inadequate sewage system.

3. Increased Water Demand: The EIR needs to adequately address how 1,892Ͳ2,476 new households will get water supply needs in the coming changes to water supply due to global warming and climate change.There is simply not enough water to sustain these many units in Pacifica as proven by the onͲ going drought that will only worsen with manͲmade global warming and the onͲgoing climate crisis.

4. Additionally, the city is not addressing how the impact of the 1,892Ͳ2,476 units will have on our economy.By sacrificing commercial space for housing we will continue to have a structural budget deficit that will impact our environment.For example, the city is proposing to reͲbuild a sea wall at Sharp Park that will necessitate a "hybrid" plan for sand renourishment at Sharp Park Beach.If the city is to go bankrupt by adding these units, how would they be able to replace the sand that is being stripped away by the seawall in perpetuity?This needs to be addressed. Note that the plan also has two sites, 30 and 31, that are in the coastal zone that need to be removed.The LCLUP has been sent back to the city with major revisions and the city has not even planned to meet with the CCC to come up with a workable solution and has instead chosen to be intransigent in its approach with the CCC.The city is currently working off of a 1980 general plan that is woefully inadequate so any sites in the Coastal Zone need to be removed.
The appropriate solution is to go back to the state and determine what a much lower and realistic housing number is appropriate for Pacifica.
Thank you,
Sam Casillas
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 583 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 1 From: Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 4:13 PM
To: Alison Moore; Clare Kucera
Cc: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Public Comment for HE EIR
Hello,
Please find below public comment for HE EIR.

Brianne Harkousha (she/her), AICP | Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica, CA 94044
Direct: 650-738-7443 | Planning: (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
From: Suzanne Moore
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: EIR comments

[CAUTION: External Email]
In talking with neighbors, I hear that further traffic studies seem necessary as we plan for further housing.

Another concern: safety and the need to update a fire hazard map.

My concerns remain the same: policies to prevent displacement and preserve existing affordable housing. The needs assessment that cost of rents have increased while wages stagnated, our rental market is constrained, we have failed to build lowͲincome housing in the past, there are neighbors disproportionately impacted by housing costs, and Pacifica suffered from displacement, evictions, overcrowding, and homelessness. Pacifica needs policies in our Housing Element to address these issues. Thank you.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 584 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 585 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 586 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/1/23, 2:48 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - Pacifica Housing Element Public Comment https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773064275420751381&simpl=msg-f:1773064275420751381 1/2 Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Pacifica Housing Element Public Comment
1 message
Harkousha, Brianne <[email protected]> Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 2:37 PM To: Alison Moore <[email protected]>
Please see public comment below.

We have a few questions about the Program Environmental Impact Report:

1. What does the heading DU/A mean?

2. The sum of the Total Capacity for all sites, excluding the "Newly Added Sites", is 1623 units, not the 1612 the City is proposing. Why the discrepancy?

3. If it passes the EIR, would a public vote take place on the November ballot regarding the zoning for "Site A" in the "Newly Added Sites" list?

4. Why is Park Mall, at the intersection of Terra Nova Boulevard and Oddstad Boulevard not on the rezoning list? When we attended a public meeting earlier this year, it was on a list to consider for accommodating at least 40 units.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 587 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 8/1/23, 2:48 PM Dyett & Bhatia Mail - Pacifica Housing Element Public Comment https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=949decfb22&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1773064275420751381&simpl=msg-f:1773064275420751381 2/2 Our public comments:

At the very least, sites 26, 27, 30 and 31 should be removed from consideration. All are located west of Highway 1; these are areas at greatest risk to be challenged by sea level rise. It is irresponsible to consider locating housing in such unstable spaces.

Sites 2, 20, 21, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, E, D and H, while located east of Highway 1, are also dangerously close to the Pacific Ocean and, as such, should be considered only as last resorts for the Housing Element.

We appreciate all the work city staff, elected officials and residents have done for the Housing Element. We wish they would identify more inland sites as proposed housing locations. There is a lot of land at the archery range and although it is owned by the City of San Francisco, as communities in California, it is our responsibility to work together to improve our state and make it comfortable for all Californians. I would hope our city is in discussions with the City of SF to develop an altruistic plan for that land.

Thank you,
Catherine Wachtler and Jeff Martin
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 aƩachments or reply.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 588 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

Page 589 of 625 ends

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

Page 590 of 625 ends

From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: EIR question
Date: Saturday, May 4, 2024 8:55:36 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hi! Why isn't the former city hall and sewage plant site near the pier an area for possible RHYNA units?
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 591 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: another question
Date: Saturday, May 4, 2024 8:59:05 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
In the NOP - Pacifica Phase 1 Rezoning for Housing Element - 2024-05-03.pdf sent to me, an appendix F is mentioned but I don't see it in this document. Where can I find that? 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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 592 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Questions about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program (6th Cycle) Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 3:03:36 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your work on this. My husband and I own and live in a single family home in Pacifica which we purchased in 1997.

I have several questions about the EIR:
1)
Could you please explain these zoning designations listed on pages 3 and 4: HPD, B-1, A/B5, C-Z, O, B-3, P-C/Z ? They are not listed in the footnote on pages
2)
What is the proposed Zoning Designation for each property listed on pages 3 and 4? 3)
Will this project consider amending the ODS, beyond what is already in place, for privately owned R-1 sites in Pacifica in order to support owners to construct ADU's on their property and thus contribute to the city's Housing Element plan? Specifically, I am wondering about the current requirement that an ADU be setback at least 20 feet from the rear property line even though state of California requirements are less than that.

Thank you,
Catherine Wachtler
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 593 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Housing; Harkousha, Brianne; Brooks, Elizabeth; Murdock, Christian; Christine Boles; _City Council; Coffey, Sarah; Woodhouse, Kevin
Subject: Please read and do not Adopt or build at Oceana High school Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 5:52:46 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello planning departments and City Council. I am a resident of the Oceana High School neighborhood. Oceana high School is our de facto community courtyard if you all didn't know, and I am not sure if any of you all live in this neighborhood. Regardless, If you did live in this small neighborhood, you all would know that people from all over Pacifica come and enjoy the "Open Space" on the field 7 days a week. It is quite a peaceful environment and I encourage you to come play some ball sport activity, frisbee, enjoy the scenic view of the Ocean, spend some time with your family and or go for a peaceful walk. Maybe you'll see one of the many Herons that frequent the place or catch a glimpse at a redtail hawk getting some prey on the open space/field. A potential development of 178 units here would ruin everything here I mentioned and double the population in this specific neighborhood. In a nutshell, you all know what development would mean to this neighborhood, while taking away the only open space for individual recreation that is available from Manor Dr. to Vallemar that people and animals enjoy everyday. I highly oppose ANY development of housing in Oceana High School. Besides all this, this would have a substantial adverse effect on our scenic vistas/views of the Ocean, that which would be disrupted as well. (www.Planbayarea.org Aesthetics and Visual Resources Section 3.2.3, AES-1,2,3. and Coastal Act Section 30251)
:The attachment picture is of a Father and Son playing catch, which is quintessential to what typically happens here on a daily basis.

Thank you for reading this.

Albert Romero; second generation immigrant and resident of the Oceana High School neighborhood.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 594 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 595 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 596 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 597 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 598 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 599 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 600 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 May 22, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Christian Murdock, Planning Director
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Pacifica Housing Element Update - Sea Bowl Property Dear Christian:

Buchalter, a Professional Corporation (“Buchalter”), represents Toll Brothers with its proposal to develop a residential townhome project on the property located at 4625 Coast Highway in the City (APN: 022-150-440) (the “Property”). Toll Brothers is proposing to demolish the existing Sea Bowl bowling alley and subdivide one parcel into 25 parcels for the development of 15 - three story multifamily townhome buildings (81 townhome style units with 22 ADUs) and 5 - three story duet style buildings (10 duet style units) (the “Sea Cove Project”).

The Sea Cove Project would result in the development of 113-unit residential units, 178 resident parking spaces, and 22 guest parking spaces. Toll Brothers originally filed with the City of Pacifica (“City”) an SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Project on September 11, 2023, and a formal application on April 1, 2024.

For well over a year, Toll Brothers representatives have submitted comments on the City’s Draft Housing Element Update, and requested that the Property be identified in the Site Inventory to no avail. We have received the latest letter from Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) dated March 29, 2024 (the “March 29 Letter”) advising you that the City remains out of compliance with State Housing Element Laws. As you know, HCD noted that the necessary rezones are not complete (Programs 1-1 General Plan and Zoning Amendments to Achieve regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)), and the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the rezoning have been completed.

As noted in our prior letters to you and to the City Council, State law requires that a housing element provide an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 601 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 development” that have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65883(a)(3) (emphasis added).) The City even acknowledges this requirement in the Draft Housing Element.1 (Draft
Housing Element, p. F-2.) HCD has acknowledged this and other issues with the Housing Element in finding it out of compliance.

Once again, we reiterate our request to add the Sea Bowl Property to the Housing Element. Toll Brothers’ Sea Cove Project for the redevelopment of the Sea Bowl Property represents a realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment of the Property with housing.

In that regard, Toll Brothers intends to continue processing its formal development project application submitted under the Builder’s Remedy.

The Sea Cove Project presents a realistic opportunity to redevelop the Property with residential units and offset a portion of the shortage of RHNA units identified in the City’s Housing Element. As HCD identified in its March 29 Letter, the City’s Housing Element “should consider public comments received regarding the inclusion of sites from property owners” with a written interest in residential development. (March 29, Letter, append., p. 2.) The “[housing] element must analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses,” considering “development trends supporting residential development.” (March 29, Letter, append., p. 1.) As explained above, Toll Brothers and its representatives have submitted numerous comments to the City, requesting that the City include the Property in the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Thus, the Sea Cove Project is the exact type of residential project that is likely to be developed. Here, HCD is expressly recommending the City undertake Toll Brothers’ request, and we believe supports the City’s decision to include the Property within the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory.

HCD acknowledges the Housing Element’s discussion of the City’s planned infrastructure improvements to its sewer and water capacity. (March 29, Letter, append., p. 2.) Specifically, the Housing Element must include a program providing for the City’s commitments to these improvements in order to accommodate its RHNA requirement. As we noted in prior letters, Toll Brothers is willing to consider sharing in the cost of some of these improvements with the City and other benefitting developments.

The March 29 Letter additionally requested the City include in the Housing Element a timeline for implementing actions that encourage the development of ADUs. As you know, the Sea Cove Project proposes 22 ADUs. As the Draft Housing Element explains, ADUs can provide naturally affordable housing options for middle- and lower-income individuals and households which will contribute to the housing that will assist with satisfying the City’s RHNA 1 The Draft Housing Element explains that state law “requires an inventory of land suitable for residential development that can be feasibly developed during the 2023-2031 period and is sufficient to provide for the regional housing need for all income levels” (emphasis added).

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 602 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 requirement. (See Draft Housing Element, pp. F-6, F-12.) Accordingly, including the Sea Cove Project in the Housing Element Sites Inventory is consistent with both Draft Housing Element policies and HCD’s request.

Toll Brothers echoes HCD’s comment with respect to Program HE – 1-1. HCD explains that the City must commit to the necessary General Plan amendment and rezoning requirements that will accommodate all of the required affordable housing without discretionary action. (March 29, Letter, append., p. 4.) Toll Brothers has consistently requested that the City adopt measures like this in order to accommodate the Sea Cove Project, which will greatly contribute to the housing required under the City’s RHNA allocation.

Consistent with our request that the Sea Cove Project be included in the Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning and Objective Development Standards Program for the Housing Element Update, we also request that the City consider the Sea Cove Project in its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under preparation for the Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program (6th Cycle). As you know, we previously requested on December 18, 2023 that the Sea Cove Project be covered by the City’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. We supplemented that request with yet another request that the Sea Cove Project be included in the City’s EIR for the General Plan Amendments and Rezoning project as a comment on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR currently under preparation. Those requests are incorporated by reference into this comment letter in furtherance of Toll Brothers’ interest in accommodating the City’s need to provide more housing in accordance with State law.

Again, Toll Brothers respectfully requests that the City make these necessary changes in the next draft of the Housing Element. Doing so will ensure the necessary planning for badlyneeded residential capacity in the City.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 603 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Thank you for your attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
cc: Sarah Coffey
Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Nick Kosla
Alli Sweeney
Braeden Mansouri
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 604 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Housing; [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element EIR Scoping comments
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 6:37:30 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Brianne Wanted to add to my spoken comments tonight to make sure Planning is counting the projects in the pipeline ..

Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green Building
Real estate investment and brokerage
Sent from my iPhone
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 605 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From: Limon, Jessica@Wildlife
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Cc: Teichman, Jason@Wildlife; Stokes, Wesley@Wildlife; OPR State Clearinghouse; Culpepper, Amanda(Mandy)@Wildlife; Weightman, Craig@Wildlife; Coombes, Julie@Wildlife Subject: Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program-SCH2024050168
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 4:55:44 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program-SCH202405016.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached letter for your records. If you have any questions, contact Jason Teichman, cc’d above.

Thank you,
Jessica Limon
Staff Services Analyst/ Administrative Support Analyst
California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Bay Delta Region ----------------------------------------------------
2109 Arch Airport Rd., Stockton, CA 95206
δδ209-616-6011
[email protected]
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 606 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
May 28, 2024
Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
Subject: Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program, Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2024050168, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County
Dear Ms. Harkousha:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the City of Pacifica’s (City) Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect fish and wildlife resources of the State. Please be advised, by law, CDFW may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW is providing the City of Pacifica, as the Lead Agency, with specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information related to CDFW’s area of statutory responsibility that must be included in the draft EIR (See: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15082, subd. (b).).

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.). For purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 607 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority over the Project pursuant to the Fish and Game Code. For example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) regulatory authority, if the Project impacts the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake within the State (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent the Project may result in “take” as defined by state law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
A CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained from CDFW if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Under CESA, “take” means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” (Fish & G.

Code, § 86.). CDFW’s issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA and to facilitate permit issuance, any Project modifications and mitigation measures must be incorporated into the CEQA document analysis, discussion, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit.

CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance if a project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064 & 15065). In addition, pursuant to CEQA, the Lead Agency cannot approve a project unless all impacts to the environment are avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels, or the Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC) for impacts that remain significant despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation. FOC under CEQA, however, do not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with the Fish and Game Code.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for Project activities affecting river, lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat. Notification is required for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank (including

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 608 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

associated riparian or wetland resources); or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake, or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, drainage ditches, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains is generally subject to notification requirements. In addition, infrastructure installed beneath such aquatic features, such as through hydraulic directional drilling, is also generally subject to notification requirements. Therefore, any impact to the mainstems, tributaries, or floodplains or associated riparian habitat caused by the proposed Project will likely require an LSA Notification. CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has considered the final EIR and complied with its responsibilities as a responsible agency under CEQA.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
CDFW has authority over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active bird nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include section 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession, or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), section 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession, or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and section 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Pacifica
Objective: The objective of the Project is to amend City’s General Plan, rezone specific sites, and amend existing land use designations citywide, to promote the development of residential housing, specifically to focus new multifamily, higher density residential, and mixed-use developments in existing commercial shopping centers, and other infill locations (NOP, 2024). The Project proposes the new Housing Element to comply with state law. “The Housing Element is mandated by State law to be updated every eight years and certified by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)”2. Primary Project activities include policy changes described in the Housing Element to make land use redesignations to permit an additional 2,042 housing units currently not permitted under the existing General Plan and land uses (NOP, 2024).

Location: City of Pacifica, citywide (NOP, 2024, Table 1, and Figure 1) Timeframe: 2023-2031

2 City of Pacifica, Housing Element Update, Retrieved May 17, 2024, https://www.planpacifica.org/housing-element.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 609 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

The CEQA Guidelines (§§15124 & 15378) require that the draft EIR incorporate a full Project description, including reasonably foreseeable future phases of the Project, and that contains sufficient information to evaluate and review the Project’s environmental impact. Please include a complete description of the following Project components in the Project description including, but not limited to, the below information. x Land use changes resulting from, for example, rezoning certain areas. x Footprints of permanent Project features and temporarily impacted areas, such as staging areas and access routes.
x Area and plans for any proposed buildings/structures, ground-disturbing activities, fencing, paving, stationary machinery, landscaping, and stormwater systems.
x Operational features of the Project, including level of anticipated human presence (describe seasonal or daily peaks in activity, if relevant), artificial lighting/light reflection, noise, traffic generation, and other features.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Sufficient information regarding the environmental setting is necessary to understand any potentially significant impacts on the environment of the proposed Project and any alternatives identified in the draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines, §§15125 & 15360). CDFW recommends the draft EIR provide baseline habitat assessments for special-status plant, fish and wildlife species located and potentially located within the Project area and surrounding lands, including all rare, threatened, and endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, §15380). The draft EIR should describe aquatic habitats, such as wetlands or waters of the U.S. or State, and any sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat occurring on or adjacent to the Project site (for sensitive natural communities see:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%2 0communities), and any stream, riparian, or wetland set back distances the City may require. Fully protected, threatened or endangered, candidate, and other special-status species or sensitive natural communities that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur in or near the City include, but are not limited to: the species listed in Attachment A.

Habitat descriptions and species profiles included in the draft EIR should include robust information from multiple sources: aerial imagery; historical and recent survey data; field reconnaissance; scientific literature and reports; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Consultation System; California Aquatic Resources Inventory; and findings from “positive occurrence” databases such as California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Only with sufficient data and

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 610 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

information can the City adequately assess which special-status species are likely to occur in the Project vicinity.

CDFW recommends surveys be conducted for special-status species with potential to occur, following recommended survey protocols if available. Survey and monitoring protocols and guidelines are available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocol.

Botanical surveys for special-status plant species, including those listed by the California Native Plant Society (http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/), should also be conducted during the blooming period for all sensitive plant species potentially occurring within the Project area and include the identification of reference populations.

Please refer to CDFW protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to rare plants available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants.

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The CEQA Guidelines (§15126.2) necessitate the draft EIR discuss all direct and indirect impacts (temporary and permanent) that may occur with implementation of the Project. This includes evaluating and describing impacts such as:
x Land use changes that would reduce open space or agricultural land uses and increase residential or other land use involving increased development; x Potential for impacts to special-status species;
x Permanent and temporary habitat disturbances associated with ground disturbance, noise, lighting, reflection, air pollution, traffic or human presence; x Obstruction of movement corridors, fish passage, or access to water sources and other core habitat features;
x Water quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project; and
x Impacts to the bed, channel, and bank, in the reservoirs and creeks downstream of the Project.

The CEQA document also should identify existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Project vicinity, disclose any cumulative impacts associated with these projects, determine the significance of each cumulative impact, and assess the significance of the Project’s contribution to each impact (CEQA Guidelines, §15355).

Although a project’s impacts may be insignificant individually, its contributions to a cumulative impact may be considerable; a contribution to a significant cumulative

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 611 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
May 28, 2024

Page 6 ends

impact (e.g., reduction of available habitat for a listed species) should be considered cumulatively considerable without mitigation to minimize or avoid the impact.

The CEQA Guidelines direct the City of Pacifica, as the Lead Agency, to consider and describe in the draft EIR all feasible mitigation measures to avoid and/or mitigate potentially significant impacts of the Project on the environment based on comprehensive analysis of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15021, 15063, 15071, 15126.2, 15126.4 & 15370.). This should include a discussion of take avoidance and minimization measures for specialstatus species, which are recommended to be developed in early consultation with the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service and CDFW. These measures can then be incorporated as enforceable Project conditions to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels.

Fully protected species such as San Francisco gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), may not be taken or possessed at any time except in limited circumstances (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515). Therefore, the draft EIR should include measures to completely avoid “take” of fully protected species.

CDFW COMMENT
The Project baseline environmental setting should be determined using an appropriate geographic scale to understand potentially significant impacts on the environment. To meaningful evaluate potential impacts to special-status plant, fish and wildlife species, impact assessments should be provided for each parcel within redesignated or rezoned locations (see Table 1 of the NOP).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to prepare subsequent CEQA documents or to make supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (d) & (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online here:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found here: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-andAnimals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
CDFW anticipates that the proposed Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 612 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Brianne Harkousha
City of Pacifica
May 28, 2024

Page 7 ends

the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (See: Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub.

Resources Code, § 21089.).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP in order to assist the City of Pacifica in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jason Teichman, Environmental Scientist at 707-210-5104 or [email protected]; or Wesley Stokes, Senior Environmental Scientist, (Supervisory), at (707) 339-6066 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment A: Special-status species, City of Pacifica, California, May 17, 2024 ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2024050168)

REFERENCES
Notice of Preparation (NOP), Program Environmental Impact Report, Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle) Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program, May 3, 2024.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 613 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CDFW Status Rare Plant Rank Taxon Group Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula None None SSC Birds American badger Taxidea taxus None None SSC Mammals
arcuate bush-mallow Malacothamnus arcuatus None None 1B.2 Dicots big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis None None SSC Mammals California red-legged frog Rana draytonii Threatened None SSC Amphibians Choris' popcornflower Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus None None 1B.2 Dicots coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica None None 1B.2 Bryophytes congested-headed hayfield tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta None None 1B.2 Dicots foothill yellow-legged frog - central coast DPS Rana boylii pop. 4 Threatened Endangered Amphibians fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea None None 1B.2 MonocotsFranciscan onion Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum None None 1B.2 Monocots Franciscan thistle Cirsium andrewsii None None 1B.2 DicotsKellogg's horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. sericea None None 1B.1 DicotsKings Mountain manzanita Arctostaphylos regismontana None None 1B.2 Dicots Mission blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides missionensis Endangered None Insects monarch - California overwintering population Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 Candidate None Insects Montara manzanita Arctostaphylos montaraensis None None 1B.2 DicotsMyrtle's silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene myrtleae Endangered None Insectsobscure bumble bee Bombus caliginosus None None Insects pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi None None 1B.2 Dicotsperennial goldfields Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha None None 1B.2 Dicots Point Reyes horkelia Horkelia marinensis None None 1B.2 DicotsRobbins' broomrape Aphyllon robbinsii None None 1B.1 Dicots rose leptosiphon Leptosiphon rosaceus None None 1B.1 Dicotssaltmarsh common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa None None SSC BirdsSan Bruno elfin butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis Endangered None InsectsSan Francisco Bay spineflower Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata None None 1B.2 Dicots San Francisco campion Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda None None 1B.2 Dicots San Francisco collinsia Collinsia multicolor None None 1B.2 Dicots San Francisco gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Endangered Endangered FP ReptilesSan Francisco owl's-clover Triphysaria floribunda None None 1B.2 Dicots steelhead - central California coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Threatened None SSC Fishwestern bumble bee Bombus occidentalis None Candidate Endangered Insectswestern leatherwood Dirca occidentalis None None 1B.2 Dicotswhite-rayed pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Dicots woodland woollythreads Monolopia gracilens None None 1B.2 Dicots Attachment A: Special-status species, City of Pacifica, California Fully protected, threatened or endangered, candidate, rare, and other special-status species that may occur in the City of Pacifica California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), May 17, 2024

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 614 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: EIR on paloma north east sharp park
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 10:10:01 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Miss Harkousha , My name is Joyce Toomey and I`m contacting you again on this housing issue.

The first time I brought letter and photos into your office and Mr. Murdock`s about a year ago (it seems anyway ) I never received a response , although that time I didn`t request one. 1. Parking on Paloma ave is also needed and used by the people who live on Carmel , Loma Vista and more , due to very small streets with no sidewalks. There is absolutely no parking available for the people here let alone for all the people you would be bringing in.. 2. We lived through the construction of the track and football field at Oceana for two years. We had no regular sleep for those two years due to the trucks and noise at all hours. It was Hell !!! I`m losing sleep again at just the thought. Also , all the damage they left behind , like cracking my sidewalk by parking their huge equipment ten feet away from my bedroom window , pulling the electric wires by not lowering the backs of their trucks and crushing the sidewalk down the street which wasn`t fixed till two years later .4. There is one main road into north east Sharp Park. That is Paloma . How can that be enough for our now and the future planning ? 5.We have red tail hawks , Heron , mountain lions , bucks and does , to only mention a few of the wild life this will be affecting . The construction on the field kept our birds and owls away for two years after they were done and we were invaded by skunks , racoons during the construction . They were forced to move to concrete life . 6.

Please drive over here on weekends and 4:30 - 9:30 mon- fri . You can see for yourself if you never received my photos . 7> Are you going to get rid of PBR at Oceana ? Soccer , swimming meets , just swimming , ect. ???? Thank you for your time and I would love a response. I won`t expect soon as you will be buried by all us eleventh hour responders Deeply appreciated , Joyce or at this email.

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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 615 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 From:

To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: Paloma Ave
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 5:45:46 PM
Attachments: 20240602_171610.heic
20240602_171559.heic
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello
My name is Michelle Lavorini we live on Paloma Ave across the street from Oceana High School and the pool. I want to voice our concerns about the proposed housing project. We bought our house back in 1999 with the intentions of living here the rest of our lives as we knew there would be no building across the street. Now this is something that is being proposed. As it is now we have soccer, tennis, swim meets and more and with that the parking is horrendous It's even hard for us to park in front of our own house let alone across the street when these events are happening. With a new structure to be proposed to be built this would increase more traffic on our block as it is bad enough with school going in and out of the parking lot, as well as some of the drivers racing up and down are block during that time. As you can see from some of the pictures that are just from today which is a Sunday parking It's crazy right now. As it is now We have to sometimes deal with RVs parking across the street which takes up parking as well. We basically have a one-way in and a one-way out in this section of Sharp Park and with more cars coming in and out This will make things more difficult for people to do. And when school is in the students do their physical education running up and down Paloma avenue to me I feel that this would be putting our kids at risk just by having housing across the street, on school property. It's bad enough when the RVs are parked there and the kids are running up and down I personally don't feel that is safe. You're also talking about redoing the field with sewer systems being installed concrete going up and down our block dirt going up and down the block and just your basic construction when that was done when the football field was being redone all the wildlife that we had up on the hills were gone and we haven't had any of that back until just about last year or two and now you want to put up 300 400 housing units I don't think that's fair to the neighborhood. Maybe but should be thought about is redoing the baseball fields up there and giving our kids a place to play ball and maybe even the school having baseball teams. There are plenty of other places in Pacifica that have the land to build housing. Maybe one thought is to have some of the people on the board or what have you come out to our neighborhood during some of these events to see how it affects our neighborhood We even have people parking around the corners to get to these events. On some weekends there are two and three events going on at the same time.

After school we have school buses coming from other districts with kids for tennis matches swim meets soccer games And sometimes those events don't even end until about 8:00 p.m. at night. We hope your department will take deep consideration for all of our concerns of our neighborhood.

Thank you
Michelle Lavorini
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 616 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
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.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 617 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Send written comments to
[email protected].
or [email protected]
From: Patricia Kremer
Date: 3 June 2024
Subject: Environmental Impacts of list of properties in Table of properties to be rezoned (Figure 1: Overview of Housing Element Sites) #1. Six properties (# 10, 11, 12, 38, I and J) all lie east of Hwy #1 and are geographically adjacent to one another lying between Reina Del Mar and Fassler Ave., though none have direct access to those streets.

The total number of units estimated for these combined
properties is 523, over 25% of Pacifica’s total assigned RHNA number.

This represents a sizeable fraction of the total in a relatively small geographic area. Given the geographic distribution of these properties, it seems essential that planning for residences for these properties would be done in a co-ordinated way in order to be successful, but the focus here is the EIR implications.

Although there are several reasons why this area might be considered desirable for residential development, several environmental issues need attention.

A) TRANSPORTATION
Although the properties proposed for future residential development are adjacent to Hwy #1, this is the busiest section of the highway in Pacifica and ingress/egress to the few existing businesses is already problematical. If the number of proposed residences were actually to be built in this area, ingress/egress directly from Hwy 1 is unimaginable.

Many Pacificans would undoubtedly consider the challenge of providing car access to these properties enough to deny ANY residential development here, certainly not several hundred units. Both Reina Del Mar and Fassler are overcapacity certain times of day and the two stoplights of this area are regular bottlenecks during the morning, evening, and weekend.

Nevertheless, I think careful and coordinated planning of these properties could overcome the traffic/transportation challenge.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 618 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Among ideas that might alleviate the challenge:
1) minimize paved surfaces used by residents for driving inside the newly developed area.
2) No public parking inside the new residential except for a limited number of spots for guests of residents. Strict limits on the number of parking places allowed for each unit (e.g. 0-3), but allowing for bartering among the residents for the parking permits (some residents would require no parking and others would want more than 2). There should not be a “one size fits all” requirement for parking/unit.
3) No mixed use zoning. Commercial use brings in additional cars and traffic which should not be tolerated in this area, because of the traffic problems discussed above.
4) Creative design of how automobile traffic will intersect with existing roads in both Vallemar and Rockaway, including for example, one way driveways and restrictive turning at the traffic lights. Perhaps nearly the entire ground level of the housing development might become a parking garage with internal driveways to move traffic north and south.

B. LAND USE AND PLANNING; SAFETY (geology, soils, Wildfires, Terrain)
Several environmental considerations are critical to consider when developing these site. Some of the area has very steep terrain and encroachment of housing onto steep hillsides needs to be minimized.

Undeveloped hillsides has for a long time been a goal of Pacifica, and mitigations measures will be necessary if these properties are to be developed for an appreciable number of residential units. Given the topography, much of the acreage should already lie within the Hillside Protection District overlays and therefore restricted by city ordinance.

Land that was less desirable for actual construction in this area could be utilized for recreational facilities and trails. Danger from wildfires can be mitigated by appropriate clearing of vegetation, and should be a necessary requirement for developing these sites.

Thoughtful and cooperative design of the housing could minimize potential hazards and maximize the attractiveness and desirability of the housing units.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 619 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 C. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Over 500 units are included in the Table of the proposed Housing Element that need rezoning. The expectation would be that most of the units would be efficiencies and one bedroom units, but larger ones would also be included. “Affordable Housing” is the current War Cry of Pacificans, and many of the units proposed for this area would be for residrnts with less than what is know as “moderate”. Nevertheless, this location is desirable in many ways, so there should be accommodations for a range of income levels and unit sizes in this development.

C. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE -
These are generally straightforward with the exception of the infiltration of water in the sewage lines of the area. The City needs to require that any new development avoids the problem of infiltration of sewage lines, a make this problem a priority throughout the city.

Additional suggestions to minimize Environmental Impact:
• underground electrical
• no natural gas in new residences
• sewage dilution and flooding – these should be able to be avoided with appropriate engineering of the new development. The Rockaway pump station has been problematical during winter rains, but can be improved with appropriate expenditures by homeowners and the city.

D. NOISE
Noise is an important consideration for these housing units, although the housing units themselves will not be an appreciable source of environmental noise. The residential units would be VERY close to noise from Hwy #1, but appropriate building materials can mitigate noise. Some fraction of the units will have spectacular ocean and sunset views, and could be creatively designed with enclosed decks and other aesthetic amenities to compensate for their proximity to the highway.

E. AESTHETICS
This is a critical environmental consideration. The proximity of residential units to Highway #1 means that they will be VERY conspicuous to those driving on the highway. Since six different properties are included in the housing element for this same “strip” of land, appearance is a major consideration. There is an opportunity to COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 620 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 have development of this property be an example of intelligent/pleasing design or an absolute eyesore of disparate conflicting styles. The city should exert whatever control it has to force the developers to work together cooperatively in the design of this area. This is essential for the aesthetics as well as the major challenges associated with transportation (as stated above in “A”).
#2. Last summer 2023, during a Scoping discussion (8/1/23), I was surprise to learn that there had been little to no direct communication between some of the property owners and the City staff who were compiling the list of proposed properties for the Housing Element to achieve our RHNA quota. If the City expects to fulfill the RHNA targets, it does not make any sense to include properties on the list that neither the property owner nor the neighbors want to see developed.

The most glaring example of this is property #21, on Oceana High School property owned by the Jefferson High School District. 178 units (nearly 10% of the total RHNA units) in this space would be an absolute disaster for the neighborhood. The residents of the area have expressed their objections most strongly and the School District has no interest in developing housing on this land. Nevertheless, the property continues to be listed again and again in the series of Tables for the Housing Element that have been included in various documents for more than two years.

Although I am not trained as a professional, I think I have included here several reasonable and practical considerations that should be taken seriously. Please to not take the requirement for public comments as a opportunity merely to “check the box”. Also think in terms of the environment and long-term livability of our city.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 621 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
June 3, 2024 SCH #: 2024050168
GTS #: 04-SM-2023-00570
GTS ID: 30347
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/1/VAR
Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program (6th Cycle) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Brianne Harkousha:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Pacifica Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Program (6th Cycle). The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the May 2024 NOP.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project will create the regulatory framework to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites inventory and will rezone specific sites to develop housing. The involved amendments to the General Plan will affect existing land use designations that will enable more housing production.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 622 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include the reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing conditions for walking and biking along and across the State Transportation Network (STN) in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of location-based and prioritized needs.

Please review and include the reference to the current California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR. CTP 2050 envisions that the majority of new housing located near existing housing, jobs, and transit, and in close proximity to one another will reduce vehicle travel and GHG emissions, and be accessible and affordable for all Californians, including disadvantaged and low-income communities. The location, density, and affordability of future housing will dictate much of our future travel patterns, and our ability to achieve the vision outlined in CTP 2050. Caltrans encourages the City to consider and explore the potential of excess state-owned property for affordable housing development, per Executive Order N-06-19.

Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the DEIR that should demonstrate how the future housing development patterns align with the City adopted VMT policies. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through efficient and equitable land use planning and policies. The City should also continue to coordinate with Caltrans to identify and implement necessary network improvements and impact mitigation.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 623 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Equity and Public Engagement
We will achieve equity when everyone has access to what they need to thrive no matter their race, socioeconomic status, identity, where they live, or how they travel.

Caltrans is committed to advancing equity and livability in all communities. We look forward to collaborating with the City to prioritize projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities.

Caltrans encourages the City to foster meaningful, equitable and ongoing public engagement in the General Plan development process to ensure future transportation decisions and investments reflect community interests and values. The public engagement process should include community-sensitive and equity-focused approaches seeking out the needs of individuals from underserved, Tribal, and lowincome communities, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

Sea Level Rise
In the 2020 Caltrans District 4 Adaptation Priorities Report (link), S.R. 1 adjacent to the project location is identified as a high-priority Caltrans asset vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge, and climate change impacts, including increased precipitation. Caltrans would like to be included in discussions, to stay informed as Caltrans is interested in engaging in multi-agency collaboration early and often, to find multi-benefit solutions that protect vulnerable shorelines, communities, infrastructure, and the environment.

Please contact Vishal Ream-Rao, Caltrans Bay Area Climate Change Planning Coordinator, with any questions at [email protected].

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 624 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Melissa Hernandez, Associate Transportation Planner via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact [email protected].

Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – ATTACHMENTS Page 625 of 625
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Attachment D-1
San Mateo County Fair Housing Survey Findings
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 1
The survey instrument included questions about residents’ current housing situation, housing, neighborhood and affordability challenges, healthy neighborhood indicators, access to opportunity, and experience with displacement and housing discrimination.

Explanation of terms. Throughout this section, several terms are used that require explanation.
¾ “Precariously housed” includes residents who are currently homeless or living in transitional or temporary/emergency housing, as well as residents who live with friends or family but are not themselves on the lease or property title. These residents may (or may not) make financial contributions to pay housing costs or contribute to the household in exchange for housing (e.g., childcare, healthcare services). ¾ “Disability” indicates that the respondent or a member of the respondent’s household has a disability of some type—physical, mental, intellectual, developmental. ¾ “Single parent” are respondents living with their children only or with their children and other adults but not a spouse/partner.
¾ “Tenure” in the housing industry means rentership or ownership. ¾ “Large households” are considered those with five or more persons residing in a respective household.
¾ “Seriously Looked for Housing” includes touring or searching for homes or apartments, putting in applications or pursuing mortgage financing.

Community Engagement
This section reports the findings from the resident survey conducted of San Mateo County residents to support the AFFH analysis of Housing Elements. It explores residents’ housing, affordability, and neighborhood challenges and experiences with displacement and housing discrimination. The survey also asks about residents’ access to economic opportunity, captured through residents’ reported challenges with transportation, employment, and K-12 education. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish.

The resident survey was available online, in both Spanish and English, in a format accessible to screen readers, and promoted through jurisdictional communications and social media and through partner networks. A total of 2,382 residents participated.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 2
Sampling note. The survey respondents do not represent a random sample of the county or jurisdictions’ population. A true random sample is a sample in which each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. The selfselected nature of the survey prevents the collection of a true random sample. Important insights and themes can still be gained from the survey results, however, with an understanding of the differences among resident groups and between jurisdictions and the county overall. Overall, the data provide a rich source of information about the county’s households and their experience with housing choice and access to opportunity in the communities where they live.

Jurisdiction-level data are reported for cities with 50 responses or more. Response by jurisdiction and demographics are shown in the figure below. Overall, the survey received a very strong response from typically underrepresented residents including: people of color, renters, precariously housed residents, very low income households, households with children, large households, single parents, and residents with disabilities.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 3
Figure 1.

Resident Survey Sample Sizes by Jurisdictions and Selected Characteristics Note: Numbers do not aggregate either due to multiple responses or that respondents chose not to provide a response to all demographic and socioeconomic questions.

Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Total Responses 2,382 82 173 130 53 148 63 59 55 84 163 99 175 832 Race/Ethnicity
African American 134 7 4 9 8 10 6 4 4 5 14 4 17 15
Hispanic 397 9 14 26 27 13 8 1 8 12 59 13 31 149
Asian 500 9 26 43 6 32 6 8 13 14 11 19 23 249
Other Race 149 10 6 8 3 14 3 3 3 3 9 7 13 47
Non-Hispanic White 757 35 89 27 4 44 27 27 15 35 54 36 58 195 Tenure
Homeowner 1,088 51 96 39 9 89 26 46 18 42 37 48 58 409
Renter 1,029 30 65 67 36 43 28 7 33 38 105 41 88 324
Precariously Housed 309 8 12 26 12 17 14 5 7 13 23 16 29 87 Income
Less than $25,000 282 11 12 21 15 12 11 5 6 7 40 11 29 61 $25,000-$49,999 265 9 10 22 9 8 6 3 6 7 28 5 20 97
$50,000-$99,999 517 14 38 43 10 26 11 3 10 17 37 22 40 206 Above $100,000 721 24 69 16 8 64 12 30 14 32 31 40 40 251 Household Characteristics
Children under 18 840 24 53 50 26 44 17 18 20 29 61 37 64 287 Large households 284 7 11 20 18 8 3 5 7 8 20 13 15 133
Single Parent 240 8 15 19 11 12 9 3 7 7 30 9 21 49
Disability 711 25 41 38 22 40 22 13 17 29 62 34 65 210
Older Adults (age 65+) 736 27 66 37 11 54 25 25 18 33 44 32 37 248 San
Mateo
South
San
Francisco
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Bruno
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
Foster
City
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 4
Primary Findings
The survey data present a unique picture of the housing choices, challenges, needs, and access to economic opportunity of San Mateo County residents.

Top level findings from residents’ perspectives and experiences:
¾ The limited supply of housing that accommodates voucher holders presents several challenges. Specifically,
Ø Eight out of 10 voucher holders represented by the survey find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher to be “difficult” or “very difficult.” Ø According to the survey data, vouchers not being enough to cover the places residents want to live is a top impediment for residents who want to move in San Mateo County, as well as African American, Asian, and Hispanic residents, households with children under 18, single parents, older adults, households with a member experiencing a disability, and several jurisdictions.
¾ Low income is a barrier to accessing housing. The impacts are highest for large households, Hispanic households, and residents in South San Francisco and Redwood City.
¾ Nearly 4 in 10 respondents who looked for housing experienced denial of housing. African American/Black respondents, precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent respondents reported the highest denial rates.
¾ 1 in 5 residents have been displaced from their home in the past five years. One of the main reasons cited for displacement was the rent increased more than I could pay. The impacts are higher for African American households, single parents, households that make less than $25,000, and precariously housed respondents. ¾ For households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60% of children in those households have changed schools. The most common outcomes identified by households with children who have changed schools include school is more challenging, they feel less safe at the new school, and they are in a worse school.
¾ Nearly 1 in 5 residents reported they have experienced discrimination in the past five years. African American, single parent, precariously housed respondents reported the highest rates of discrimination. The most common actions in response to discrimination cited by survey respondents were Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do and Moved/found another place to live.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 5
¾ Of respondents reporting a disability, about 25% report that their current housing situation does not meet their accessibility needs. The three top greatest housing needs identified by respondents included installation of grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower, supportive services to help maintain housing, and ramps.
¾ On average, respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation. Groups with the highest proportion of respondents somewhat or not at all satisfied with their transportation options included African American, single parents, precariously housed, and Brisbane respondents.

There are some housing, affordability, and neighborhood challenges unique to specific resident groups. These include:
¾ Would like to move but can’t afford it—Most likely to be a challenge for Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City respondents, as well as Hispanic, renter, precariously housed, households making less than $50,000, and large household respondents.
¾ My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto respondents, as well as Hispanic households, large and single parent households, and households with children under 18. ¾ I’m often late on my rent payments—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto and renter respondents, as well as households that make less than $25,000. ¾ I can’t keep up with my utility payments—Most likely to be a challenge for Daly City, East Palo Alto, and San Mateo respondents, as well as African American and Hispanic respondents, single parent households, households with children under 18, and households that make less than $50,000.
¾ Bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not operate during the times I need— Most likely to be a challenge for African American, precariously housed, single parent household, Brisbane and Pacifica respondents. ¾ Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality—Most likely to be a challenge for East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno and South San Francisco respondents, as well as Hispanic respondents and households with children under 18.

Resident Survey Findings
Of survey respondents who reported their race or ethnicity, 40% of survey respondents identified as non-Hispanic White, followed by Asian (26%), Hispanic (20%), African American (7%), and Other Minority (8%) residents (Figure 2). Overall, 45% of the survey respondents were homeowners, followed by 42% of renter respondents. Thirteen percent of REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 6
respondents reported they are precariously housed (Figure 3). Four in ten respondents reported having household income greater than $100,000. Nearly 30% of respondents reported a household income between $50,000-99,999, followed by 15% of respondents who made between $25,000-49,999 and 16% of respondents making less than $25,000 (Figure 4).

The survey analysis also included selected demographic characteristics of respondents, including those with children under the age of 18 residing in their household, adults over the age of 65, respondents whose household includes a member experiencing a disability, those who live in large households, and single parents. Thirty five percent of respondents indicated they had children in their household, while 31% indicated they were older adults.

Thirty percent of respondents indicated they or a member of their household experienced a disability, 12% of respondents reported having large households, and 10% were single parents.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 7
Figure 2.

Survey Respondents
by Race/Ethnicity
Note:
n=1,937; 535 respondents did not
indicate their race or ethnicity.

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

Figure 3.

Survey Respondents
by Tenure
Note:
n=2,426.

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

Figure 4.

Survey Respondents
by Income
Note:
n=1,785.

Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.
39%
26%
20%
7%
8%
Non-Hispanic White (n=757)
Asian (n=500)
Hispanic (n=397)
African American (n=134)
Other Minority (n=149)
45%
42%
13%
Homeowner (n=1,088)
Renter (n=1,029)
Precariously Housed (n=309)
16%
15%
29%
40%
Less than $25,000 (n=282)
$25,000-$49,999 (n=265)
$50,000-$99,999 (n=517)
Above $100,000 (n=721)
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 8
Figure 5.

Survey Respondents
by Selected
Household
Characteristics
Note:

Denominator is total responses to the
survey (n=2,382)
Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.

Housing, Neighborhood and Affordability Challenges
Housing challenges: overall. Survey respondents were asked to select the housing challenges they currently experience from a list of 28 different housing, neighborhood, and affordability challenges. Figures 6a through 8c present the top 10 housing and neighborhood challenges and top 5 affordability challenges experienced by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and selected household characteristics.

These responses allow a way to compare the jurisdictions to the county for housing challenges for which other types of data do not exist. In this analysis, “above the county”—shaded in light red or pink—is defined as the proportion of responses that is 25% higher than the overall county proportion. “Below the county”—shown in light blue— occurs when the proportion of responses is 25% lower than the overall county proportion.

As shown in Figure 6a, residents in Redwood City and East Palo Alto experience several housing challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Conversely, Foster City and Hillsborough residents experience nearly all identified housing challenges at a lower rate than the county.

Notable trends in housing, neighborhood, and affordability challenges by geographic area include:
¾ Residents in Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City are less likely to move due to the lack of available affordable housing options.
¾ East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Mateo residents report living in housing that is too small for their families.
¾ Millbrae and Pacifica residents report being more reticent to request a repair to their unit in fear that their landlord will raise their rent or evict them. ¾ Nearly 1 in 5 Pacifica survey respondents report that their home or apartment is in bad condition.
35%
31%
30%
12%
10%
Children under 18 (n=840)
Older Adults (age 65+) (n=736)
Disability (n=711)
Large households (n=284)
Single Parent (n=240)
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 9
¾ Brisbane residents are more likely to experience a landlord refusing to make repairs to their unit.
¾ Residents in Daly City and Millbrae are more likely to report that they don’t feel safe in their neighborhood or building
¾ Half Moon Bay and East Palo Alto expressed the greatest need for assistance in taking care of themselves or their home.

When compared to the county overall, the most common areas where respondents’ needs were higher than the county overall were:
¾ Overall, half of the jurisdictions’ respondents reported I need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someone at a higher rate than the county. ¾ Nearly 40% of jurisdictions’ respondents reported a higher rate than the county for the following housing or neighborhood challenges: My home/apartment is in bad condition, my landlord refuses to make repairs despite my requests, and I don’t feel safe in my neighborhood/building.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 10
Figure 6a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 73 158 118 49 135 59 50 53 79 151 93 163 738
31% 12% 20% 51% 41% 16% 25% 4% 32% 28% 43% 30% 38% 35%
20% 11% 14% 24% 35% 10% 12% 4% 21% 11% 26% 20% 26% 21%
14% 10% 13% 17% 14% 9% 10% 2% 23% 15% 20% 11% 15% 13%
11% 14% 9% 15% 12% 3% 7% 0% 11% 18% 14% 5% 15% 10%
6% 14% 3% 5% 12% 4% 5% 2% 2% 9% 9% 5% 10% 5%
6% 5% 4% 8% 4% 5% 8% 6% 6% 3% 8% 4% 7% 5%
6% 5% 5% 13% 8% 0% 7% 6% 11% 10% 8% 3% 6% 3%
5% 7% 7% 7% 10% 2% 14% 2% 8% 9% 3% 4% 8% 4%
5% 5% 4% 3% 16% 2% 3% 4% 6% 9% 11% 6% 4% 3%
4% 5% 1% 3% 8% 11% 3% 2% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2%
42% 48% 50% 20% 33% 55% 44% 76% 36% 47% 28% 45% 35% 46% Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
Foster
City
I live too far from family/
friends/my community
I don't feel safe in my building/
neighborhood
I need help taking care of
myself/my home and can't find or
afford to hire someone
South San
Milbrae Francisco
Housing or Neighborhood
Condition
Valid cases
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
Bruno
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Mateo
I would like to move but I can't
afford anything that is
available/income too low
My house or apartment isn't big
enough for my family
I worry that if I request a repair it
will result in a rent increase or
eviction
My home/apartment is in bad
condition
My landlord refuses to make repairs
despite my requests
I have bed bugs/insects or rodent
infestation
The HOA in my neighborhood won't
let me make changes to my house
or property
None of the above
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 11
The following three figures segment the answers by:
¾ Housing affordability challenges only; and
¾ Neighborhood challenges only.

Housing challenges. As shown in Figure 6b, residents in San Mateo, Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Pacifica experience affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall.

Conversely, Hillsborough, Burlingame, and South San Francisco residents experience affordability challenges at a lower rate than the county.

The most significant geographic variations occur in:
¾ San Mateo city residents experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the county overall. In addition to being less likely to pay utility bills or rent on time, San Mateo residents are more than twice as likely than the average county respondent to have bad credit or a history of eviction/foreclosure that impacts their ability to rent. ¾ San Mateo, East Palo Alto, and Daly City residents are most likely to experience difficulty paying utility bills.
¾ Residents in East Palo Alto and Redwood City are most likely to be late on their rent payments.
¾ Millbrae residents experience the greatest difficultly paying their property taxes among jurisdictions in San Mateo County.
¾ Respondents from Brisbane, Half Moon Bay, and Pacifica are more likely to have trouble keeping up with property taxes.
¾ City of San Mateo, Daly City and Redwood City respondents are more likely to have bad credit or an eviction history impacting their ability to rent Overall, nearly 40% of jurisdictions’ respondents experienced the following affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county: I can’t keep up with my property taxes and I have bad credit/history of evictions/foreclosure and cannot find a place to rent. .

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 12
Figure 6b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 73 157 115 51 134 58 50 50 77 147 93 160 728
10% 5% 6% 15% 16% 5% 12% 4% 12% 8% 12% 9% 15% 9%
8% 5% 6% 10% 20% 3% 7% 2% 8% 4% 12% 4% 11% 7%
6% 10% 4% 3% 2% 8% 10% 0% 16% 10% 3% 5% 9% 5%
4% 4% 2% 13% 6% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 8% 4% 10% 2%
4% 7% 3% 3% 2% 7% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 3% 6% 2%
73% 68% 80% 65% 59% 78% 66% 88% 64% 71% 70% 77% 63% 80% South San
Francisco
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property
taxes
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Bruno
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
I have bad credit/history of
evictions/foreclosure and cannot
find a place to rent
I have Section 8 and I am worried my
landlord will raise my rent higher
than my voucher payment
None of the above
Affordability Challenges
San
Mateo
Foster
City
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 13
Neighborhood challenges. As shown in Figure 6c, residents in East Palo Alto, Brisbane, Daly City, and Pacifica experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county.

Burlingame and Foster City both experience neighborhood challenges at a lower rate than the county.

Hillsborough residents report divergent experiences related to neighborhood challenges — respondents identified more challenges around neighborhood infrastructure and access to transit but fewer challenges around school quality and job opportunities.

There are a handful of jurisdictions who experience specific neighborhood challenges at a disproportionate rate compared to the county. ¾ For instance, East Palo Alto residents experience neighborhood infrastructure issues (e.g., bad sidewalks, no lighting) more acutely than county residents overall. ¾ Brisbane residents experience transportation challenges in their neighborhoods. ¾ East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Bruno experience challenges with school quality in their neighborhoods.
¾ Residents in Brisbane, Hillsborough, Pacific, and Half Moon Bay report the highest rates of difficulty accessing public transit.
¾ Daly City, Millbrae, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto residents were more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities available in their neighborhoods.

Over 30% of jurisdictions’ respondents experienced the following neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county: I can’t get to public transit/bus/light rail easily or safely and There are not enough job opportunities in the area.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 14
Figure 6c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,079 72 153 116 48 130 56 53 46 75 145 91 151 712
17% 18% 13% 25% 40% 4% 18% 23% 20% 15% 21% 14% 12% 16%
15% 18% 3% 17% 25% 4% 14% 2% 7% 13% 20% 20% 15% 20%
15% 24% 8% 14% 15% 21% 18% 9% 15% 24% 17% 14% 17% 10%
14% 29% 7% 9% 10% 14% 18% 25% 17% 21% 12% 13% 15% 10%
12% 8% 7% 20% 17% 8% 14% 0% 20% 13% 11% 11% 18% 12%
50% 28% 69% 45% 33% 62% 46% 57% 50% 52% 41% 52% 52% 55% South San
Neighborhood Challenges Francisco
Valid cases
My neighborhood does not have good
sidewalks, walking areas, and/or
lighting
Schools in my neighborhood are poor
quality
Half
Moon
Bay Hillsborough Milbrae Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
County Brisbane Burlingame Bruno
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
Bus/rail does not go where I need to
go or does not operate during the
times I need
I can't get to public transit/bus/light
rail easily or safely
There are not enough job
opportunities in the area
None of the above
San
Mateo
Foster
City
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 15
Differences in needs by race and ethnicity and housing tenure. As shown in Figure 7a, and compared to the county overall:
¾ African American, Hispanic, and Other race respondents, and ¾ Renters and those who are precariously housed experience several housing challenges at a higher rate than the county overall.
¾ Conversely, non-Hispanic White residents and homeowners are less likely to experience housing challenges.

Specifically,
¾ Black or African American residents are more than three times as likely to have a landlord not make a repair to their unit after a request compared to county residents overall.

Hispanic, Other Race, and Precariously housed residents are also more likely to experience this challenge.
¾ African American, Asian, Hispanic, Renters, and Precariously Housed groups are more likely to experience bed bugs or rodent infestation in their homes. ¾ African American, Hispanic, Renters, and Precariously Housed groups are also more likely to live further away from family, friends, and their community. ¾ African Americans are three times more likely than the average county respondent to be told by their HOA they cannot make changes to their house or property. Asian households are twice as likely to experience this challenge.
¾ Hispanic, Other Race, and Renter respondents are more likely to worry that if they request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction and to report that their homes are in bad condition.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 16
Figure 7a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 132 489 392 144 734 986 974 301
31% 30% 32% 50% 31% 20% 7% 48% 56%
20% 16% 21% 35% 22% 11% 12% 29% 18%
14% 17% 13% 23% 19% 11% 2% 28% 13%
11% 12% 9% 16% 17% 10% 6% 17% 10%
6% 20% 7% 10% 10% 5% 2% 13% 10%
6% 15% 6% 6% 13% 6% 5% 8% 9%
6% 13% 6% 6% 9% 5% 4% 8% 7%
5% 14% 7% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 11%
5% 14% 8% 7% 5% 4% 4% 9% 9%
4% 14% 8% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 7%
42% 18% 37% 24% 38% 58% 68% 21% 13%
I need help taking care of myself/my home and can't find or afford to hire someone
I have bed bugs/insects or rodent infestation
The HOA in my neighborhood won't let me make changes
to my house or property
County
African
American Asian Hispanic
I would like to move but I can't afford anything that is available/income too low
Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Housing or Neighborhood Condition Housed
Valid cases
Other
Race
Non-Hispanic
White
None of the above
My house or apartment isn't big enough for my family
I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction
My home/apartment is in bad condition
My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my requests I live too far from family/ friends/my community
I don't feel safe in my building/ neighborhood
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 17
The above trends are similar for the most acute housing affordability challenges. As shown in Figure 7b, African American and Hispanic households, as well as renters and those precariously housed, experience affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Non-Hispanic White residents and homeowners experience these same challenges at a lower rate than the county.
¾ African American residents experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the county overall.
¾ In addition to being more likely to not pay utility bills or rent on time, African American residents are more than four times as likely than the average county respondent to have a Section 8 voucher and worry that their landlord will raise their rent more than the voucher payment.
¾ Along with African American residents, Hispanic households, renters, and precariously housed households are most likely to experience difficulty paying utility bills, as well as have bad credit or eviction/foreclosure history impacting their ability to find a place to rent. ¾ These groups, with the exception of those precariously housed, are also more likely to be late on their rent payments.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 18
Figure 7b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 132 487 391 146 739 983 953 293
10% 22% 11% 17% 14% 5% 5% 15% 15%
8% 13% 6% 12% 12% 4% 1% 15% 8%
6% 16% 8% 4% 5% 7% 9% 5% 14%
4% 5% 3% 8% 4% 2% 1% 6% 11%
4% 18% 5% 6% 7% 2% 2% 7% 8%
None of the above 73% 32% 70% 63% 64% 83% 84% 61% 54%
County
African
American Asian Hispanic
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property taxes
I have bad credit/history of evictions/foreclosure
and cannot find a place to rent
I have Section 8 and I am worried my landlord will
raise my rent higher than my voucher payment
Non-Hispanic
White Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Affordability Challenges Housed
Other
Race
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 19
As shown in Figure 7c, African American and precariously housed residents experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county. These two groups experience neighborhood issues related to transportation more acutely than county residents overall. In addition to Other race respondents, they are also more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their respective neighborhoods.

Additionally, Hispanic residents are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor performing schools than the average county respondent. Homeowners are also more likely to report that they cannot access public transit easily or safely.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 20
Figure 7c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,079 133 486 389 146 737 975 918 284
17% 14% 17% 19% 16% 18% 18% 15% 18%
15% 13% 18% 20% 17% 13% 18% 13% 13%
15% 33% 16% 13% 17% 17% 17% 14% 24%
14% 24% 15% 11% 16% 16% 18% 11% 19%
12% 22% 14% 12% 19% 9% 9% 15% 20%
50% 23% 46% 48% 45% 53% 49% 51% 36%
My neighborhood does not have good sidewalks, walking
areas, and/or lighting
County
African
American Asian Hispanic Homeowner Renter
Precariously
Neighborhood Challenges Housed
Valid cases
Other
Race
NonHispanic
White
Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality
Bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not
operate during the times I need
I can't get to public transit/bus/light rail easily or safely There are not enough job opportunities in the area
None of the above
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 21
Differences in needs by household status. As shown in Figure 8a, single parents, households making less than $50,000, households with children under 18 and those with a member experiencing a disability experience the majority of housing challenges are more likely to experience housing challenges. Conversely, households making more than $100,000 experience nearly all specified housing challenges at a lower rate than the county.

Single parents experience all ten housing challenges at a greater rate than the county overall.

Households making less than $25,000 also experience every challenge at a higher rate, with the exception of I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction.

Households making less than $50,000, single parents, and households with children under 18 are more likely to experience the following challenges:
¾ My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family; ¾ My house or apartment is in bad condition;
¾ My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my request; ¾ I live too far from family/friends/my community;
¾ I don’t feel safe in my building/neighborhood;
¾ I need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someone; and ¾ I have bed bugs/insects or rodent infestation.

Households with a member experiencing a disability are also more likely to experience landlords refusing their requests to make repairs, living further away from family/friends/community, and not being able to find or afford someone to help take care of themselves or their homes. These households are also more likely to experience bed bugs, insects, or rodent infestation, as well as HOA restrictions impacting their ability to make changes to their home or property.

Additionally, large households have the highest proportion of respondents among the selected groups that would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available or because their income is too low.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 22
Figure 8a.

Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,159 280 260 505 701 827 278 240 701 709
31% 47% 48% 37% 16% 35% 51% 40% 36% 25%
20% 25% 25% 23% 16% 34% 43% 32% 20% 13%
14% 16% 18% 19% 9% 19% 19% 28% 16% 11%
11% 15% 20% 12% 6% 15% 17% 17% 12% 9%
6% 13% 13% 8% 2% 9% 8% 14% 10% 6%
6% 9% 9% 6% 5% 10% 5% 10% 8% 6%
6% 9% 9% 6% 3% 8% 4% 10% 7% 5%
5% 9% 9% 5% 3% 7% 6% 12% 11% 6%
5% 10% 9% 5% 3% 9% 4% 15% 9% 6%
4% 7% 3% 4% 3% 7% 4% 11% 6% 5%
42% 21% 21% 37% 61% 28% 26% 12% 32% 49%
Above
Housing or Neighborhood Condition $100,000
Valid cases
I would like to move but I can't afford anything
that is available/income too low
My house or apartment isn't big enough for my
family
I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a
rent increase or eviction
My home/apartment is in bad condition
My landlord refuses to make repairs despite my
requests
None of the above
County
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$99,999
I live too far from family/ friends/my community
I don't feel safe in my building/ neighborhood
I need help taking care of myself/my home and
can't find or afford to hire someone
I have bed bugs/insects or rodent infestation
The HOA in my neighborhood won't let me make
changes to my house or property
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability
Adults
(age 65+)
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 23
As shown in Figure 8b, households making less than $50,000, as well as large households, single parents, households with children under 18, and households with a member experience a disability, experience the most acute affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. Households making more than $50,000 and adults over the age of 65 are less likely to experience affordability challenges.

Households making less than $25,000, single parents, and households with children under 18 experience all five affordability challenges at a greater rate than the average county respondent.

Households making less than $25,000 and households with a member experiencing a disability also disproportionately report affordability challenges.

Of households experiencing major affordability issues, single parent households are most acutely impacted. These households are more than three times as likely to have a Section 8 voucher and fear their landlord will raise the rent impacting the viability of their voucher, more than twice as likely to miss utility payments and have bad credit/eviction or foreclosure history impacting their ability to rent, and twice as likely to have trouble keeping up with their property taxes.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 24
Figure 8b.

Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
2,130 276 260 509 703 830 279 239 699 716
10% 16% 16% 12% 3% 16% 14% 23% 15% 8%
8% 19% 16% 6% 1% 11% 12% 15% 11% 4%
6% 7% 9% 8% 5% 9% 4% 12% 8% 7%
4% 8% 7% 4% 1% 5% 6% 10% 6% 3%
4% 11% 6% 4% 1% 7% 3% 14% 8% 5%
73% 46% 56% 72% 90% 59% 70% 32% 59% 75%
Adults
(age 65+)
I have Section 8 and I am worried my landlord
will raise my rent higher than my voucher
payment
None of the above
County
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
Affordability Challenges $99,999
Valid cases
I can't keep up with my utilities
I'm often late on my rent payments
I can't keep up with my property taxes
I have bad credit/history of
evictions/foreclosure and cannot find a place
to rent
Above
$100,000
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 25
As shown in Figure 8c, households with children under 18, as well as single parents, households with a member experiencing a disability, and households making less than $25,000 are more likely to experience neighborhood challenges. These households are most likely to report that the bus/rail does not go where I need to go or does not operate during the times I need. In addition to households that make between $25,000-$100,000, these groups are more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their respective neighborhoods.

Households with children under 18 are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor quality schools. Large households are more likely to report issues with neighborhood infrastructure (e.g., bad sidewalks, poor lighting) and households with a member experiencing a disability are more likely to report they cannot access public transit easily or safely.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 26
Figure 8c.

Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Income and Household Characteristics Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. 25% Above County average
25% Below County average
County
2,079 273 259 503 709 824 277 234 692 714
17% 17% 15% 18% 17% 19% 22% 16% 19% 14%
15% 17% 14% 11% 19% 24% 19% 17% 14% 9%
15% 19% 16% 15% 16% 19% 11% 28% 19% 16%
14% 15% 12% 14% 14% 15% 12% 15% 19% 17%
12% 21% 17% 16% 6% 17% 12% 19% 15% 11%
50% 40% 45% 51% 53% 38% 48% 31% 41% 53%
Above
Neighborhood Challenges $100,000
Valid cases
My neighborhood does not have good
sidewalks, walking areas, and/or lighting
Schools in my neighborhood are poor
quality
There are not enough job opportunities
in the area
None of the above
Less than
$25,000
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$99,999
Bus/rail does not go where I need to go or
does not operate during the times I need
I can't get to public transit/bus/light rail
easily or safely
Children
under 18
Large
Households
Single
Parent Disability
Adults
(age 65+)
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 27
Experience Finding Housing
This section explores residents’ experience seeking a place to rent or buy in the county and the extent to which displacement—having to move when they do not want to move—is prevalent.

For those respondents who seriously looked for housing in the past five years, this section also examines the extent to which respondents were denied housing to rent or buy and the reasons why they were denied.

Recent experience seeking housing to rent. Figure 9 presents the proportion of respondents who seriously looked to rent housing for the county, jurisdictions, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as the reasons for denial.

Over half of county respondents (56%) have seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

The most common reasons for denial included:
¾ Landlord not returning the respondent’s call (26%),
¾ Landlord told me the unit was available over the phone but when I showed up in person, it was no longer available (22%), and
¾ Landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (14%).

Jurisdictions with the highest percentage of respondents who seriously looked for housing include Millbrae (74%), San Mateo (73%), and Redwood City (72%). While all three jurisdictions reported that landlord not returning the respondent’s call was one of their main reasons for denial, 18% of Redwood City respondents identified landlord told me they do not accept Section 8 vouchers as a main reason for denial.

Eighty percent of African American respondents reported that they had seriously looked for housing in the past five years while the lowest percentage of respondents who reported seriously looking for housing were non-Hispanic White (46%). The main reasons for denial experienced by African American respondents included landlord told me the unit was available over the phone but when I showed up in person, it was no longer available (39%), landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (34%), and landlord told me I couldn’t have a service or emotional support animal (28%).

Among respondents by tenure, renters (75%) and precariously housed (74%) tenants reported the highest rates of seriously looking for housing. Among respondents by income, households making less than $25,000 (71%) had the highest rate. However, the main reasons for denial reported by these households were landlord told me I couldn’t have a service or emotional support animal (36%) and landlord told me it would cost more because of my service or emotional support animal (30%).

Single parents (79%) and households with children under 18 (66%) also reported the highest percentage of those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years among the selected REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 28
household characteristics respondent groups. In addition to sharing the top two reasons for denial with the county, 25% of single parent household respondents also reported they were denied housing because the landlord told me I can’t have a service or emotional support animal.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 29
Figure 9. If you looked seriously for housing to rent in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Note: The "Percent Seriously Looked for Housing" column includes all respondents, not just those who indicated they rent.

Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 56% 26% 22% 14% 45% 928
Brisbane 59% 41% 22% 26% 27
Burlingame 48% 19% 23% 54% 57
Daly City 63% 33% 16% 16% 44% 61
East Palo Alto 58% 35% 30% 26% 23
Foster City 50% 12% 16% 14% 55% 51
Half Moon Bay 68% 17% 17% 48% 29
Hillsborough 42% 14% 29% 14% 57% 14
Milbrae 74% 25% 46% 36% 28
Pacifica 51% 16% 26% 16% 55% 31
Redwood City 72% 31% 18% 40% 99
San Bruno 57% 22% 22% 39% 36
San Mateo 73% 30% 34% 39% 98
South San Francisco 47% 24% 13% 56% 248
Race/Ethnicity
African American 80% 39% 34% 28% 15% 101
Asian 56% 19% 29% 40% 199
Hispanic 63% 32% 22% 41% 230
Other Race 70% 29% 22% 45% 91
Non-Hispanic White 46% 29% 20% 48% 263
Tenure
Homeowner 36% 25% 15% 54% 183
Renter 75% 29% 22% 43% 641
Precariously Housed 74% 23% 32% 26% 188
Income
Less than $25,000 71% 30% 36% 29% 182
$25,000-$49,999 60% 39% 32% 27% 149
$50,000-$99,999 58% 24% 20% 45% 251
Above $100,000 48% 19% 14% 64% 216
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 66% 30% 29% 33% 447
Large Households 60% 33% 19% 18% 44% 139
Single Parent 79% 25% 35% 25% 19% 173
Disability 63% 24% 24% 34% 386
Older Adults (age 65+) 48% 20% 29% 39% 282
n
Overall
Percent
Seriously
Looked for
Housing
Reason for Denial
Landlord did not
return calls
and/or emails
asking about a
unit
Landlord said unit
was available over
phone, but when I
showed up in
person, it was no
longer available
Landlord told me it
would cost me
more for my
service or
emotional animal
Landlord told me
I can't have a
service or
emotional
support animal
Landlord told
me it would cost
me more to rent
because I have
children
Landlord told me
they don't rent to
families with
children
Landlord told
me they do not
accept Section 8
vouchers
Landlord told me they
couldn't make
changes to the
apartment/ home for
my disability
None
of the
Above
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 30
Recent experience seeking housing to buy. Figure 10 presents the proportion of respondents who seriously looked to buy housing in the county, by jurisdiction, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as the reasons for denial. As noted above, 56% of county respondents have seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

The most common reasons for denial included:
¾ Real estate agent told me I would need to show I was prequalified with a bank (29%) and ¾ A bank would not give me a loan to buy a home (22%).

For the jurisdictions with the highest percentage of respondents who seriously looked for housing (Millbrae, San Mateo and Redwood City), all three cities shared the same top two reasons for denial as the county. Additionally, 21% of Millbrae respondents reported that the real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation when I asked.

For African American respondents who looked to buy housing in the last five years, the most common reason for denial was the real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation when I asked (47%). African Americans, along with Other Races, also most commonly reported that they needed a loan prequalification before real estate agents would work with them. While between 43-54% of respondents from other racial/ethnic groups reported they did not experience any reason for denial when seriously looking to buy housing over the past five years, 12% of African American respondents reported similarly.

Among respondents by income, the main reasons for denial for households making less than $25,000 were the real estate agent told me I would need to show I was prequalified with a bank (32%) and real estate agent only showed me or only suggested homes in neighborhoods where most people were of my same race or ethnicity (26%).

Among the selected housing characteristics category, single parent households and households with children under 18 reported shared the same top two reasons for denial as the county. Additionally, 36% of single parent household respondents reported that the real estate agent would not make a disability accommodation when I asked, as well as 25% of respondents over the age of 65.

Residents in Redwood City, Millbrae, and South San Francisco, as well as large households, also reported that a bank or other lender charged me a high interest rate on my home loan as a reason for denial.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 31
Figure 10. If you looked seriously for housing to buy in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Note: The "Percent Seriously Looked for Housing" column includes all respondents, not just those who indicated they rent.

Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. n
Jurisdiction
County 56% 29% 23% 50% 870
Brisbane 59% 36% 30% 42% 33
Burlingame 48% 22% 14% 61% 51
Daly City 63% 19% 27% 56% 52
East Palo Alto 58% 24% 33% 48% 21
Foster City 50% 25% 20% 49% 51
Half Moon Bay 68% 35% 23% 23% 50% 26
Hillsborough 42% 18% 23% 59% 22
Milbrae 74% 25% 29% 21% 21% 54% 28
Pacifica 51% 35% 35% 42% 31
Redwood City 72% 30% 22% 27% 50% 64
San Bruno 57% 14% 21% 62% 42
San Mateo 73% 40% 32% 38% 82
South San Francisco 47% 26% 18% 16% 57% 251
Race/Ethnicity
African American 80% 40% 38% 47% 12% 89
Asian 56% 30% 25% 43% 223
Hispanic 63% 29% 28% 49% 174
Other Race 70% 36% 21% 21% 50% 90
Non-Hispanic White 46% 29% 23% 54% 250
Tenure
Homeowner 36% 29% 17% 54% 332
Renter 75% 32% 27% 46% 467
Precariously Housed 74% 36% 36% 30% 30% 154
Income
Less than $25,000 71% 32% 25% 26% 41% 131
$25,000-$49,999 60% 42% 40% 29% 106
$50,000-$99,999 58% 35% 30% 38% 216
Above $100,000 48% 22% 13% 10% 64% 296
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 66% 33% 28% 40% 443
Large Households 60% 33% 25% 25% 49% 126
Single Parent 79% 38% 43% 36% 24% 143
Disability 63% 35% 26% 38% 330
Older Adults (age 65+) 48% 35% 29% 25% 38% 252
Percent
Seriously
Looked for
Housing
Reason for Denial
The real estate agent told
me I would need to show I
was prequalified with a
bank
A bank or other
lender would not
give me a loan to
buy a home
The real estate agent would
not make a disability
accommodation when I
asked
Only showed homes in
neighborhoods where
most people were same
race/ethnicity
A bank or other lender
charged me a high
interest rate on my
home loan
None of
the
Above
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 32
Denied housing to rent or buy. Figure 11 presents the proportion of those who looked and were denied housing to rent or buy for the county, jurisdictions, and selected respondent characteristics, as well as reason for denial. As shown, nearly 4 in 10 county respondents who looked for housing experienced denial of housing. African American/Black respondents, precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent respondents have denial rates of 60% or higher. African American (79%) and single parent (74%) respondents report the highest rates of denial.

Among the reasons for denial:
¾ Income too low was a major reason for denial for all groups except homeowners and households with incomes above $100,000. Additionally, all jurisdictions report this as a common reason for being denied housing with the exception of Foster City, Hillsborough, and San Bruno. ¾ Haven’t established a credit history or no credit history was also a common reason of denial for most groups. The impacts are higher for Asian, Hispanic and African American households, along with renter and precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent households, households with children under 18, and households with a member experiencing a disability.
¾ Another top denial reason among certain groups is the landlord didn’t accept the type of income I earn (social security or disability benefit or child support). Source of income was the most common reason for denial among African American households (28%). Other groups with denial rates of 25% or higher for this specific issue include precariously housed respondents, single parent households, and households with a member experiencing a disability, as well as Foster City and San Bruno residents.
¾ Bad credit is another barrier for accessing housing, particularly for Hispanic and Other Race households, households with income between $50,000-$100,000, and large households. This also impacts East Palo Alto, San Mateo, Daly City, Redwood City, Burlingame, and South San Francisco residents.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 33
Figure 11. If you looked seriously for housing to rent or buy in San Mateo County in the past five years, were you ever denied housing?
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 39% 1154 18% 44% 19% 21% 449
Brisbane 42% 38 25% 19% 31% 16
Burlingame 30% 71 24% 29% 21
Daly City 49% 73 28% 53% 28% 19% 36
East Palo Alto 55% 29 38% 44% 25% 16
Foster City 30% 63 25% 40% 30% 19
Half Moon Bay 41% 34 29% 29% 14
Hillsborough 23% 22 40% 5
Milbrae 36% 33 67% 25% 33% 25% 12
Pacifica 38% 39 47% 27% 33% 15
Redwood City 41% 105 28% 63% 26% 26% 43
San Bruno 25% 51 31% 31% 38% 13
San Mateo 48% 112 30% 38% 28% 53
South San Francisco 30% 331 19% 58% 28% 17% 98
Race/Ethnicity
African American 79% 107 25% 25% 25% 28% 27% 85
Asian 42% 281 38% 28% 21% 21% 117
Hispanic 49% 253 28% 60% 26% 26% 125
Other Race 43% 105 22% 49% 24% 45
Non-Hispanic White 31% 351 40% 19% 23% 25% 108
Tenure
Homeowner 26% 348 24% 22% 23% 91
Renter 45% 687 48% 20% 24% 310
Precariously Housed 61% 208 42% 22% 25% 126
Income
Less than $25,000 64% 199 47% 31% 29% 127
$25,000-$49,999 65% 158 48% 21% 20% 20% 103
$50,000-$99,999 38% 302 21% 51% 24% 114
Above $100,000 18% 346 27% 16% 20% 16% 64
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 51% 558 42% 26% 19% 283
Large Households 43% 171 27% 64% 41% 74
Single Parent 74% 189 41% 27% 25% 138
Disability 54% 446 39% 21% 25% 239
Older Adults (age 65+) 44% 350 35% 22% 21% 153
I had/
have
COVID
The
language I
speak Foreclosure n
Reason for Denial
Too many
people in my
household
Other
renter/
applicant
willing to pay
more for rent
Haven't
established a
credit
history/no
credit history
Don't have a
regular/
steady job/
consistent
work history
Landlord didn't
accept the type of
income I earn
(social security or
disability)
Lack of
stable
housing
record
Real or
perceived
sexual
orientation or
gender
identity
Criminal
background
Percent
Denied
Housing Total n
Bad
Credit
Eviction
history
Income
too low
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 34
Experience using housing vouchers. It is “difficult” or “very difficult” for eight out of 10 voucher holders to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher (Figure 13).

As shown in Figure 12, this is related to the amount of the voucher and current rents and the lack of supply (inability to find a unit in the allotted amount of time). Over half of voucher holders (53%) who experienced difficulty indicated the voucher is not enough to cover the rent for places I want to live and almost half of voucher holders (49%) who experienced difficulty indicated there is not enough time to find a place to live before the voucher expires.

Other significant difficulties using vouchers identified by respondents included landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders (46%) and can’t find information about landlords that accept Section 8 (36%).

Among respondents by race/ethnicity, African American respondents had the greatest proportion of those with a housing choice voucher (60%). Of those respondents, 76% found it difficult to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher. While 13% of Hispanic respondents have a housing voucher, 85% have found it difficult to use the voucher. Fourteen percent of Asian respondents have housing vouchers— nearly three quarters of these respondents reported that the voucher is not enough to cover the rent for the places I want to live.

Other groups of respondents with higher proportions of voucher utilization include single parent households (43%), precariously housed respondents (30%), and households with income below $25,000 (29%). For each of the aforementioned groups, more than 75% of their respective respondents reported difficulty in utilizing the housing choice voucher. The voucher is not enough to cover the rent for places I want to live was one of the main reasons cited for not using the voucher.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 35
Figure 12.

Why is it difficult to
use a housing
voucher?
Source:

Root Policy Research from the 2021-
2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident
Survey.
53%
49%
46%
36%
6%
Voucher is not enough to cover the
rent for places I want to live
Not enough time to find a place to live
before the voucher expires
Landlords have policies of not renting
to voucher holders
Can't find information about landlords
that accept Section 8
Other
Voucher is not enough to cover the
rent for places I want to live
Not enough time to find a place to
live before the voucher expires
Landlords have policies of not
renting to voucher holders
Can't find information about
landlords that accept Section 8
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 36
Figure 13. How difficult is it to find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher? Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 12% 18% 55% 27% 250 53% 49% 46% 36% 6% 203
Brisbane 22% 20% 73% 7% 15 50% 50% 42% 33% 0% 12
Burlingame 8% 0% 75% 25% 12 50% 50% 25% 8% 0% 12
Daly City 12% 14% 50% 36% 14 83% 25% 42% 17% 25% 12
East Palo Alto 14% 29% 57% 14% 7 20% 20% 40% 60% 0% 5
Foster City 12% 18% 47% 35% 17 47% 40% 27% 33% 7% 15
Half Moon Bay 19% 22% 56% 22% 9 71% 29% 29% 43% 14% 7
Hillsborough 8% 25% 75% 0% 4 67% 67% 33% 0% 0% 3
Milbrae 22% 50% 20% 30% 10 60% 40% 20% 40% 0% 5
Pacifica 11% 13% 50% 38% 8 86% 43% 43% 43% 0% 7
Redwood City 16% 13% 61% 26% 23 40% 50% 70% 45% 5% 20
San Bruno 12% 9% 64% 27% 11 40% 60% 50% 10% 10% 10
San Mateo 24% 24% 50% 26% 38 43% 54% 43% 39% 7% 28
South San Francisco 4% 11% 33% 56% 27 63% 50% 71% 63% 8% 24 Race/Ethnicity
African American 60% 24% 60% 16% 82 55% 52% 40% 31% 6% 62 Asian 14% 23% 63% 14% 71 73% 44% 31% 31% 0% 55
Hispanic 13% 15% 40% 45% 53 58% 42% 51% 49% 11% 45
Other Race 19% 29% 50% 21% 28 55% 45% 65% 35% 5% 20
Non-Hispanic White 8% 14% 61% 25% 64 43% 61% 57% 38% 4% 56 Tenure
Homeowner 8% 23% 59% 18% 78 58% 49% 42% 31% 0% 59
Renter 18% 19% 52% 30% 165 55% 52% 48% 43% 6% 134
Precariously Housed 30% 14% 66% 20% 86 57% 54% 35% 26% 7% 74 Income
Less than $25,000 29% 17% 58% 25% 84 47% 41% 47% 37% 10% 70 $25,000-$49,999 18% 17% 52% 31% 48 63% 55% 63% 40% 5% 40 $50,000-$99,999 12% 23% 52% 26% 62 55% 55% 51% 37% 2% 49 Above $100,000 5% 20% 57% 23% 35 43% 61% 29% 32% 4% 28
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 21% 20% 60% 20% 179 59% 51% 44% 35% 1% 143 Large Households 7% 20% 45% 35% 20 63% 56% 63% 56% 6% 16 Single Parent 43% 17% 58% 24% 103 62% 52% 38% 33% 2% 85 Disability 22% 18% 58% 24% 158 57% 52% 42% 29% 5% 129
Older Adults (age 65+) 17% 18% 63% 19% 123 56% 53% 44% 34% 3% 102 Not enough time to
find a place to live
before the voucher
expires
Landlords have
policies of not
renting to
voucher holders
Can't find
information about
landlords that
accept Section 8 Other n
Percent
with a
Housing
Voucher
Not
difficult
Somewhat
difficult
Very
difficult n
Voucher is not
enough to cover the
rent for places I
want to live
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 37
Displacement. Figure 14 presents the proportion of residents who experienced displacement in the past five years, as well as the reason for displacement. ¾ Overall, 21% of survey respondents experienced displacement in the past five years. Among all survey respondents, the main reason for displacement was rent increased more than I could pay (29%).
¾ Respondents who are precariously housed have higher rates of recent displacement than homeowners or renters; this suggests that when displaced a unit these housing-insecure tenants are more likely to couch surf or experience homelessness for some period of time before securing a new place to live.
¾ Among respondents by race/ethnicity, African American respondents reported the highest rate of displacement (59%). The primary reason reported by African American respondents for their displacement was housing was unsafe (e.g., domestic assault, harassment).

Twenty eight percent also reported that they were forced out for no reason. ¾ Asian households, as well as homeowners, households that make less than $25,000, single parent households, households that include a member experiencing a disability, and Millbrae, Brisbane and Pacifica residents are also more likely than other respondents to have been displaced due to an unsafe housing situation (e.g., domestic assault, harassment). ¾ Additionally, Asian, precariously housed respondents, households making less than $25,000, and single parent households are more likely than other respondents to have been displaced and not given a reason.

For respondents that had experienced displacements, they were asked to identify which city they moved from and which city they moved to. The most common moves to and from cities included:
¾ Moved within South San Francisco (28 respondents)
¾ Moved from outside San Mateo County to San Mateo (10 respondents) ¾ Moved from San Bruno to South San Francisco (9 respondents) ¾ Moved from Daly City to South San Francisco (9 respondents) ¾ Moved within Burlingame (8 respondents)
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 38
Figure 14. Displacement Experience and Reasons for Displacement Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 21% 2066 29% 19% 18% 417
Brisbane 24% 67 25% 31% 25% 16
Burlingame 22% 152 24% 30% 18% 33
Daly City 25% 115 35% 27% 31% 26
East Palo Alto 32% 50 20% 20% 20% 15
Foster City 11% 130 21% 21% 21% 43% 14
Half Moon Bay 31% 51 31% 25% 16
Hillsborough 12% 52 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 6
Milbrae 27% 44 42% 33% 25% 25% 12
Pacifica 21% 75 31% 31% 31% 16
Redwood City 29% 146 31% 21% 42
San Bruno 25% 89 33% 29% 24% 21
San Mateo 37% 153 35% 31% 20% 54
South San Francisco 12% 712 42% 15% 16% 81
Race/Ethnicity
African American 59% 134 29% 30% 28% 79
Asian 22% 500 31% 22% 22% 109
Hispanic 29% 397 33% 22% 18% 115
Other Race 28% 149 54% 20% 24% 41
Non-Hispanic White 14% 757 27% 20% 31% 102
Tenure
Homeowner 8% 975 27% 25% 31% 75
Renter 34% 905 32% 18% 22% 292
Precariously Housed 48% 280 23% 24% 23% 132
Income
Less than $25,000 45% 282 28% 20% 20% 20% 127
$25,000-$49,999 30% 265 31% 19% 18% 78
$50,000-$99,999 22% 517 32% 22% 18% 115
Above $100,000 8% 721 27% 20% 23% 60
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 30% 840 27% 20% 19% 249
Large Households 20% 284 32% 19% 18% 57
Single Parent 55% 240 24% 24% 20% 131
Disability 34% 711 26% 20% 20% 20% 241
Older Adults (age 65+) 22% 736 23% 22% 22% 162
Reason for Displacement
Percent
Displaced Total n
Rent
increased
more
than I
could pay
Personal/
relationship
reasons
Landlord
was selling
the home/
apartment
Landlord
wanted to
move back
in/move in
family
Landlord
wanted
to rent to
someone
else
Housing
was unsafe
(e.g.,
domestic
assault,
Forced
out for
no
reason
Health/
medical
reasons
I was
behind
on rent
Poor
condition
of
property
Utilities
were too
expensive/
shut off
Natural
disaster/
flooding/
fire n
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 39
Children changing schools after displacement. Overall, for households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60% of children in those households have changed schools. The most common outcomes reported among these respondents included school is more challenging (28%), they feel less safe at the new school (25%), and they are in a worse school (24%) (Figure 15).

Among respondents by race/ethnicity, non-Hispanic White households (44%) were the only subgroup to report that being displaced resulted in their children being in better schools. Of African American households that were displaced and have children, 87% reported that their children changed schools.

Of these respondents, 32% reported that their children feel safer at the new school but also have fewer activities.

Among respondents by tenure, precariously housed (78%) and homeowner (74%) households had the highest proportion of children who changed schools. The most common outcomes for precariously housed households included School is less challenging/they are bored (35%) and their children feel less safe at school (34%). For homeowner households, 39% reported that school is more challenging, followed by 31% who reported that their children feel less safe at school.

Among respondents by selected household characteristics, older adult (77%), single parent (74%), households with a member experiencing a disability (70%), and households with children under 18 (67%) all reported high proportions of children who changed schools. The most common outcomes for these respondents included School is more challenging and they feel less safe at the new school.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 40
Figure 15. Children Changing Schools and Outcomes, Displaced Households Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 60% 306 28% 24% 25% 183
Brisbane 81% 16 38% 31% 31% 13
Burlingame 55% 22 33% 33% 33% 12
Daly City 41% 17 43% 29% 29% 29% 7
East Palo Alto 54% 13 43% 57% 29% 7
Foster City 62% 13 50% 8
Half Moon Bay 58% 12 43% 29% 29% 43% 7
Hillsborough 60% 5 67% 3
Milbrae 82% 11 33% 44% 44% 33% 9
Pacifica 91% 11 50% 10
Redwood City 52% 23 25% 33% 25% 12
San Bruno 67% 18 33% 33% 33% 12
San Mateo 66% 35 32% 32% 22
South San Francisco 36% 56 26% 26% 26% 19
Race/Ethnicity
African American 87% 69 30% 30% 32% 32% 60
Asian 73% 91 27% 32% 32% 27% 66
Hispanic 49% 91 23% 30% 23% 25% 44
Other Race 65% 31 40% 30% 25% 25% 20
Non-Hispanic White 60% 60 28% 31% 44% 28% 36
Tenure
Homeowner 74% 66 39% 29% 31% 49
Renter 58% 213 25% 30% 25% 122
Precariously Housed 78% 104 35% 34% 30% 80
Income
Less than $25,000 65% 92 22% 32% 35% 60
$25,000-$49,999 66% 56 25% 28% 28% 25% 36
$50,000-$99,999 55% 85 30% 28% 23% 47
Above $100,000 59% 44 35% 31% 38% 26
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 67% 237 32% 23% 25% 158
Large Households 45% 44 32% 26% 32% 19
Single Parent 74% 124 32% 28% 29% 92
Disability 70% 188 26% 28% 30% 132
Older Adults (age 65+) 77% 117 35% 29% 29% 89
n
Percent of
Children
that
Changed
Schools
School change outcomes
Total n
School is less
challenging/
they are
bored
School is
more
challenging
School provides more/less
support for students with
disabilities, IEP, and/or 50
They are
in a
better
school
They are
in a
worse
school
They feel
less safe at
the new
school
They
feel
safer at
the new
school
They
have
fewer
activities
They
have
more
activities
Things
are about
the same
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 41
Experience with housing discrimination. Overall, 19% of survey respondents felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area.1 As shown in Figure 16, African American respondents (62%), single parent households (44%) and precariously housed respondents (39%) are most likely to say they experienced housing discrimination. Residents with income above $100,000 and homeowners are least likely (11%).

Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county reported when the discrimination occurred. Nearly half of respondents (45%) reported that the discrimination they experienced occurred between 2 and 5 years ago. Twenty eight percent of respondents reported that the discrimination occurred in the past year, 20% reported more than 5 years ago and 7% of respondents did not remember when the discrimination happened.

How discrimination was addressed. Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county were asked to describe the actions they took in response to the discrimination. Overall, the most common responses to discrimination experienced by survey respondents were Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do (42%), Moved/found another place to live (30%), and Nothing/I was afraid of being evicted or harassed (20%).

Among top responses for actions taken in response to experienced discrimination, every group reported Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do with the exception of African American households and Brisbane residents (both groups top response was Moved/found another place to live). Similarly, survey respondents from Foster City and Redwood City were the only groups not to include Moved/found another place to live among their top responses. African American and Asian households, as well as single parent households, were more likely than other groups to contact either a housing authority, local fair housing organization, or the California Department of Housing or Civil Rights to report their discrimination incident.

Reasons for discrimination. Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the county provided the reasons why they thought they were discriminated against. Note that the basis offered by residents is not necessarily protected by federal, state, or local fair housing law, as respondents could provide open-ended and multiple reasons why they thought they experienced discrimination.

Examples of how respondents described why they felt discriminated against, which they provided as open-ended responses to the survey, include:
1 Note that this question applies to all respondents, not just those who seriously looked for housing in the past five years.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 42
Appearance/Characteristics
¾ “Because of my race and ethnicity”
¾ “[We] were given a subprime loan for home purchase for being Latinx, low-income and primarily Spanish-speaking; refinance last year was lower than expected.” ¾ “It was clear my disability is the reason”
¾ “I have a child and a couple places told me they wouldn’t rent to me due to my son.” ¾ “The agent asked if I was a tech worker. When I said no, the agent said the place was just rented, even though it was on the listing as active.”
¾ “I was approved for the unit and when they met my partner, who is Black, they said [the unit] was rented.”
Source of Income/Credit
¾ “Income was through SSDI”
¾ “The landlord wanted an excellent credit score…”
¾ “We were not able to provide all the requirement to rent, like SSN [social security number], income proof, employment, and we don’t make enough income…” ¾ “They wanted someone with income from employment not due to disability.” ¾ “I was discriminated against because of my race and the fact that I had Section 8 at the time.

Being African American and having Section 8 made a lot of people feel like I wouldn’t take care of their property.”
¾ “I am currently being discriminated against due to my need with rental help and because two of us in our household have a need for an emotional support animal.” Immigration status
¾ Mi hermana llamo a los departamentos donde yo vivo y la manager le dijo que no había disponible pero no era verdad también le dijo que hablara inglés y le pidió seguro social pensando que no tenia y le dijo que tenía que ganar una cierta cantidad de dinero para poder rentar. (My sister called the apartments where I live and the manager told her that there was no one available but it was not true. She also told her to speak English and asked for social security thinking that she did not have it and told her that she had to earn a certain amount of money to be able to rent).

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 43
Figure 16. Percent of respondents who felt they were discriminated against and how was it addressed Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. n
Jurisdiction
County 19% 28% 45% 20% 7% 357 42% 30% 20% 359
Brisbane 22% 29% 36% 29% 7% 14 64% 21% 21% 14
Burlingame 14% 25% 50% 20% 5% 20 35% 25% 20% 20% 20
Daly City 15% 20% 40% 33% 7% 15 56% 25% 25% 16
East Palo Alto 29% 23% 54% 15% 8% 13 38% 38% 23% 23% 13 Foster City 18% 15% 40% 45% 0% 20 38% 24% 24% 21
Half Moon Bay 26% 27% 55% 9% 9% 11 27% 36% 36% 11
Hillsborough 15% 14% 71% 0% 14% 7 29% 57% 7
Milbrae 29% 36% 50% 7% 7% 14 31% 23% 38% 23% 13
Pacifica 21% 29% 36% 36% 0% 14 50% 21% 29% 21% 21% 14
Redwood City 24% 34% 34% 19% 13% 32 47% 26% 21% 21% 34
San Bruno 12% 30% 60% 0% 10% 10 50% 30% 30% 30% 10
San Mateo 30% 35% 45% 15% 5% 40 53% 26% 26% 38
South San Francisco 13% 30% 40% 23% 6% 82 59% 27% 83
Race/Ethnicity
African American 62% 16% 59% 25% 0% 83 36% 29% 27% 26% 27% 24% 84 Asian 16% 24% 50% 20% 6% 82 28% 25% 29% 29% 24% 24% 83
Hispanic 27% 25% 42% 24% 8% 107 52% 27% 107
Other Race 30% 28% 47% 14% 12% 43 47% 30% 26% 43
Non-Hispanic White 12% 38% 41% 14% 7% 91 44% 27% 18% 91 Tenure
Homeowner 11% 26% 46% 20% 7% 95 32% 29% 22% 96
Renter 28% 26% 47% 20% 6% 232 42% 32% 23% 232
Precariously Housed 39% 21% 54% 20% 4% 98 24% 28% 35% 26% 100 Income
Less than $25,000 36% 29% 51% 11% 9% 100 39% 30% 25% 102 $25,000-$49,999 24% 31% 41% 22% 6% 64 42% 36% 25% 22% 64 $50,000-$99,999 19% 27% 45% 25% 3% 97 44% 29% 18% 97
Above $100,000 11% 28% 45% 21% 7% 76 45% 22% 16% 16% 76 Household Characteristics
Children under 18 26% 21% 57% 15% 6% 216 36% 31% 26% 218 Large Households 19% 26% 52% 9% 13% 54 65% 24% 15% 55
Single Parent 44% 13% 65% 17% 5% 106 33% 32% 27% 26% 26% 107 Disability 33% 27% 48% 21% 4% 215 33% 30% 22% 219
Older Adults (age 65+) 20% 20% 51% 20% 8% 144 24% 34% 24% 24% 146 Moved/
found
another
place to
live
Nothing/ I
was afraid
of being
evicted/
harassed
Called/
emailed
housing
authority
Called/
emailed local
fair housing
organization
Don't
remember
Called/
emailed
California
Department
of Housing/
Civil Rights
Called/
emailed City
office, County
office, or
human rights
department/
agency
Filed a
complaint Other
Percent who
felt they
were
discriminated
against
In the
past
year
2 to 5
years
ago
More
than 5
years
ago n
Nothing/
I wasn't
sure
what to
do
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 44
Experience of persons with disabilities. Overall, 35% of respondents’ households include a member experiencing a disability. Of these households, 26% said their housing does not meet their accessibility needs; 74% report that their current housing situation meets their needs. The three top greatest housing needs expressed by respondents included grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower (34%), supportive services to help maintain housing (33%), and ramps (26%). Other needs expressed by a substantial proportion of groups included wider doorways, reserved accessible parking spot by the entrance, and more private space in the facility in which I live.

Of respondents by jurisdiction, East Palo Alto (64%) has the lowest proportion of respondents with disabilities whose current housing situation meets their needs. Of these respondents, 63% indicated they needed supportive services to help maintain housing.

The highest proportion of respondents by group reporting that they or a member of their household experiences a disability were African American (71%), households making less than $25,000 (59%), single parent households (58%), and precariously housed respondents (56%).

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 45
Figure 17. Respondents experiencing a disability and their top three greatest housing needs Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey. n
Jurisdiction
County 35% 74% 711 34% 33% 26% 171
Brisbane 37% 72% 25 29% 29% 29% 29% 7
Burlingame 27% 80% 41 63% 50% 50% 8
Daly City 34% 68% 38 36% 36% 45% 36% 11
East Palo Alto 44% 64% 22 63% 8
Foster City 31% 83% 40 29% 29% 7
Half Moon Bay 45% 68% 22 29% 29% 7
Hillsborough 26% 100% 13 n/a
Milbrae 40% 82% 17 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
Pacifica 39% 93% 29 100% 2
Redwood City 42% 68% 62 33% 28% 28% 33% 18
San Bruno 40% 82% 34 50% 33% 33% 6
San Mateo 43% 72% 65 41% 47% 41% 17
South San Francisco 30% 68% 210 35% 28% 32% 57
Race/Ethnicity
African American 71% 87% 95 40% 40% 33% 15
Asian 31% 77% 157 29% 34% 26% 26% 35
Hispanic 41% 70% 162 37% 54% 35% 46
Other Race 38% 71% 56 63% 50% 44% 16
Non-Hispanic White 32% 77% 241 33% 27% 21% 52
Tenure
Homeowner 29% 82% 280 35% 37% 37% 43
Renter 39% 73% 347 41% 40% 27% 88
Precariously Housed 56% 71% 154 37% 26% 33% 43
Income
Less than $25,000 59% 71% 167 42% 27% 23% 48
$25,000-$49,999 40% 67% 107 45% 45% 45% 31
$50,000-$99,999 35% 77% 180 43% 26% 24% 42
Above $100,000 23% 82% 167 52% 34% 41% 29
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 35% 78% 293 40% 29% 32% 63
Large Households 35% 70% 99 41% 45% 34% 29
Single Parent 58% 81% 139 48% 28% 41% 29
Older Adults (age 65+) 46% 76% 337 44% 29% 30% 79
Alarm to
notify if a
nonverbal
child
leaves
the home
Fire
alarm/doorbel
l made
accessible for
person with
hearing
disability/deaf
Better
navigation
for person
who is
blind
Wider
doorways
Reserved
accessible
parking
spot by
entrance
More
private
space in
the
facility
in which
I live
Service or
emotional
support
animal
allowed
Would like
to live
alone (not
with a
roommate)
Fewer
restrictions/
more
freedom
Percent of
respondents
with a
disability
Current
housing
situation
meeting
needs
Total
n
Grab bars
in
bathroom
or bench
in shower
Supportive
services to
help
maintain
housing Ramps
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 46
Transportation. Over 80% of respondents indicated the type of transportation used most often is driving a personal vehicle. This share was relatively similar across the majority of jurisdictions and was the number one type of transportation used across all jurisdictions and demographic characteristics.

The groups with the lowest proportion of those who primarily drive included African American (40%), households making less than $25,000 (53%), single parents (57%), and precariously housed (57%) respondents.

As shown in Figure 18, on average respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation.

Those groups somewhat or not at all satisfied with their transportation options include African American (58%), Brisbane (51%), single parents (45%) and precariously housed (44%) respondents.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 47
Figure 18.

Are you satisfied
with your current
transportation
options?
Source:

Root Policy Research from the
2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH
Resident Survey.

Jurisdiction
County 29% 45% 20% 6% 1,903
Brisbane 17% 33% 38% 13% 64
Burlingame 32% 45% 21% 1% 139
Daly City 19% 52% 20% 8% 109
East Palo Alto 31% 36% 24% 9% 45
Foster City 29% 43% 20% 9% 115
Half Moon Bay 30% 35% 26% 9% 46
Hillsborough 50% 34% 14% 2% 44
Milbrae 30% 45% 13% 13% 40
Pacifica 28% 42% 15% 15% 65
Redwood City 30% 36% 27% 8% 142
San Bruno 23% 54% 19% 4% 81
San Mateo 29% 52% 14% 4% 134
South San Francisco 34% 48% 15% 3% 666
Race/Ethnicity
African American 22% 21% 48% 10% 134
Asian 23% 49% 24% 4% 500
Hispanic 29% 43% 22% 7% 397
Other Race 29% 41% 21% 9% 149
Non-Hispanic White 32% 45% 17% 5% 757
Tenure
Homeowner 31% 45% 18% 6% 905
Renter 27% 44% 23% 6% 834
Precariously Housed 20% 36% 35% 9% 254
Income
Less than $25,000 22% 39% 29% 10% 282
$25,000-$49,999 25% 42% 26% 8% 265
$50,000-$99,999 28% 52% 16% 4% 517
Above $100,000 34% 44% 18% 4% 721
Household Characteristics
Children under 18 25% 43% 25% 6% 840
Large Households 29% 50% 18% 4% 284
Single Parent 20% 36% 38% 7% 240
Disability 25% 40% 27% 8% 658
Older Adults (age 65+) 30% 43% 21% 6% 736
Entirely
satisfied
Mostly
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not at all
satisfied n
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 48
Solutions offered by residents. Respondents were asked a series of questions about how to improve their situations related to housing, employment, health, education and neighborhood.

Improve housing security. When asked what could improve a respondent’s housing security, the top answers among respondents by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics were none of the above and help me with a downpayment/purchase.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
¾ Hillsborough, 71%
¾ Owners, 65%
¾ Income greater than $100,000, 54%
¾ Residents of Foster City, 53%
¾ White, 51%
¾ Residents of Burlingame, 50%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Help me with a downpayment or purchase includes:
¾ Renters, 44%
¾ Large households, 42%
¾ Residents of Daly City, 41%
¾ Hispanic, 39%
¾ Precariously housed, 39%
¾ Residents of the City of San Mateo, 37%
Other solutions to improve housing security identified by several different groups included Help me with the housing search, help me pay rent each month, and find a landlord who accepts Section 8. The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected these solutions includes:

Help me with the housing search
¾ Precariously housed, 39%
¾ Income less than $25,000, 34%
¾ Income between $25,000-$50,000, 29%
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 49
¾ Half Moon Bay residents, 27%
Help me pay rent each month
¾ Income less than $25,000, 35%
¾ Single parent, 31%
Find a landlord who accepts Section 8
¾ Black or African American, 37%
Improve neighborhood situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s neighborhood situation, nearly every respondent group by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics identified Better lighting. Other solutions flagged by multiple respondent groups to improve their neighborhood situations includes Improve street crossings and none of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Better lighting includes:
¾ East Palo Alto residents, 45%
¾ Millbrae residents, 45%
¾ Other race, 42%
¾ Daly City residents, 41%
¾ Hispanic residents, 40%
¾ Income between $25,000-$50,000, 40%
¾ Income between $50,000-$100,000, 40%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Improve street crossings includes:
¾ San Mateo residents, 34%
¾ Single parent, 31%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
¾ Foster City residents, 37%
¾ Hillsborough residents, 36%
¾ Burlingame residents, 28%
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 50
Additionally, 42% of Millbrae respondents chose Reduce crime, 40% of Brisbane respondents chose More stores to meet my needs, and 33% of Half Moon Bay respondents chose Build more sidewalks.

Improve health situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s health situation, the majority of respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected Make it easier to exercise, More healthy food and None of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Make it easier to exercise includes:
¾ Redwood City residents, 48%
¾ Hispanic, 42%
¾ South San Francisco residents, 41%
¾ City of San Mateo residents, 41%
¾ Asian, 41%
¾ Renters, 40%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected More healthy food includes:
¾ East Palo Alto, residents 48%
¾ Precariously Housed, 47%
¾ Single parent, 41%
¾ Daly City residents, 40%
¾ Income less than $25,000, 38%
¾ Black or African American, 37%
¾ Large Households, 37%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes residents from:
¾ Hillsborough, 48%
¾ Burlingame, 47%
¾ Foster City, 42%
¾ White, 41%
¾ Owners, 39%
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 51
Additionally, African American (34%) and San Bruno (29%) respondents identified Better access to mental health care as a solution to help improve their health situations.

Improve job situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s employment situation, the majority of respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected Increase wages and None of the above.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Increase wages includes:
¾ Renters, 52%
¾ Single parents, 50%
¾ Hispanic, 49%
¾ Households with children, 49%
¾ Daly City residents, 49%
¾ Income between $50,000-$100,000, 49%
¾ Large households, 48%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
¾ Hillsborough residents, 76%
¾ Owners, 58%
¾ White, 57%
¾ Over 65+, 53%
¾ Income greater than $100,000, 53%
¾ Foster City residents, 53%
Additionally, 29% of households with income less than $25K identified Find a job near my apartment or house as a solution to help improve their situation.

Improve education situation. When asked what could improve a respondent’s education situation for their children, the majority of respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected None of the above, Have more activities, and Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school.

The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected None of the above includes:
¾ Burlingame residents, 55%
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 52
¾ White, 52%
¾ Over 65+, 51%
¾ Hillsborough residents, 49%
¾ Foster City residents, 46%
¾ Brisbane residents, 45%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Have more activities includes:
¾ Single parent, 45%
¾ Households with children, 41%
¾ Large households, 41%
¾ Other race, 37%
¾ Daly City residents, 34%
¾ Hispanic, 34%
The highest proportion of respondents among groups that selected Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school includes:
¾ East Palo Alto residents, 38%
¾ Precariously housed, 31%
¾ Other race, 30%
¾ Redwood City residents, 29%
¾ Hispanic, 29%
¾ San Mateo residents, 28%
Additionally, 29% of Millbrae respondents identified Have better teachers at their schools as a means to improve the education situation in their respective households.

REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Attachment D-2
ABAG Housing Needs Data Packet
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1
Attachment D-2 – Housing Needs Data Packet
This attachment includes additional data provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as a part of the Housing Needs Data Workbook as well as additional maps from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

Fair Housing
Complaints Filed
with HUD by
Basis, San Mateo
County, 2017-
2021
Source:

HUD
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2
FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, San Mateo County, 2013-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4
Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 5
Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 6
Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 7
Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, City of Pacifica, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 8
Percent Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 9
Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 10
Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11
Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12
Housing Type by Tenure, City of Pacifica, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13
Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 14
Percent of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 15
Percent of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 16
Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17
Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 18
Jobs by Industry, City of Pacifica, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 19
Job Holders by Industry, City of Pacifica, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 20
CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 21
Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 22
Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, City of Pacifica, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 23
Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 24
SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 25
Population by Disability Status, City of Pacifica, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 26
Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), City of Pacifica, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 27
Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 28
Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 29
Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Location of Population One Year Ago, City of Pacifica, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 30
Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, City of Pacifica, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 31
Location Affordability Index by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 32
Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33
Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of Pacifica, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of Pacifica, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 34
This page intentionally left blank
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Attachment G-1
FY2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

MASTER FEE AND CHARGES

SCHEDULE
2022‐2023
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 2022
236 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted Previously Adopted

CITY CLERK
City Council Agenda Packets
Photocopies (per page) $0.25 $0.25
Storage Media Fee (CDs, thumb drives, etc.) $16.00 $15.00 Photocopies Per page Fee Per page Fee
8 1/2" x 11"; $0.25/black; $1.00/color " "" "
8 1/2" x 14"; $0.50/black; $1.50/color " "" "
11" x 17"; $1/black; $2/color " "" "
24" x 36" or larger; $3/sq ft ‐ black; $4/sq ft ‐ color Per Square Foot Fee Per Square Foot Fee Appeals to the City Council $550.00 $523.00
Short‐Term Rental ‐ Appeal Notice of Violation, Suspension or Revocation to Hearing Officer $550.00 $523.00
City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
237 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted Previously Adopted

FINANCE
Fireworks Permit
Part 1 (Per Booth due March 31) $800.00 $800.00
Part 2
8% of gross receipts due
September 1, 2022
8% of gross receipts due
September 1, 2021
Business License
See the Finance Department for
fee calculation
See the Finance Department
for fee calculation
Sidewalk Vendor Permit Fee $107.00 $102
Online Payment Convenience Fee $3.00 $3.00
Annual Cannabis Operation Registration Fee
(PMC Sec. 3‐18.05(c)) $500 $500
Photocopies (per page) $0.25 $0.25
Storage Media Fee (CDs, thumb drives, etc.) $16.00 $15.00 On Website Free Free
Non‐Sufficient Funds Charge $25.00 $25.00
Short Term Rental Application Fee $158.00 $152.00
City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
238 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted  Previously Adopted
FIRE
Operational Permits
Annual Fire Code Permits (Each) $259.00 $246.00
Permitted activities less than 90‐days.  Hourly charge. Temporary Permit Required. Per Hour ‐ 1 hour minimum $183.00 $174.00
Plan Review New Construction and/or Tenant Improvements Base rate‐ all occupancies. New Construction, major changes, additions, or as‐builts Initial fee includes first hour, hourly charge thereafter. $305.00 $290.00 Plan Check Re‐Submittals, minor changes, additions, or as‐builts for approved plans ; initial fee includes first hour; hourly charge thereafter. $183.00 $174.00 Misc. items w/o sq. footage‐ e.g. Install hazardous material, storage tank, HVAC smoke detection, partition wall, etc.  hourly charge. $183.00 $174.00
Additional Plan review beyond the first hour.; per hour $183.00 $174.00 Subdivision map review; per hour fee. $195.00 $185.00
Construction Permits
Underground
Alteration/repair of existing underground pipe system.  Includes hydro/flush, rough and final each ‐ Flat Rate "Plan review fee may be required check with Fire Marshal" $447.00 $425.00 Commercial underground pipe system installations. Includes hydro/flush, rough and final each ‐ Flat Rate $631.00 $600.00
Fire Suppression Systems
Fire Sprinklers and standpipes
New commercial & residential sprinkler installations. Includes hyrdro/flush, rough and final inspections. $.15 per square foot ‐ Minimum $550.00 $523.00 New manufactured home sprinkler systems. Includes hyrdro/flush, rough and final inspections each ‐ Flat Rate $587.00 $558.00
Standpipe system installation,  includes hydro/flush, rough and hydro, flow test, and final inspections each ‐ Flat Rate $769.00 $731.00
Tenant improvements. 9 or less sprinkler heads Unlimited head change‐outs each ‐ Flat Rate $174.00 $165.00 Tenant Improvements‐ installation/alteration of 10 or more heads. (Head change‐outs are not included in count). $.15 per square foot ‐ Minimum $317.00 $301.00 Plan Review and Field Inspection/ Acceptance $660.00 $627.00 Other Fire Protection Systems, New & Upgraded installations                                  (Hood and Duct, FM 200, Fixed Extinguisher, Pre‐engineered) each ‐ Flat Rate $906.00 $861.00 Fire Alarms $0.00
Existing Fire Alarm Panel Upgrades. includes rough and final inspections.  $.15 per square foot  ‐ Minimum $317.00 $301.00
Installation of additional devices on existing system, includes rough and final inspections ‐ Minimum $497.00 $472.00
New installations. , includes rough and final inspections.  $.15 per square foot ‐ Minimum $587.00 $558.00 New installations‐‐ Other Fire Protection Systems, includes rough and final inspections.  $.15 per square foot ‐ Minimum $550.00 $523.00
Fire alarms‐ repair or exchange devices and radio transmitters ‐ Per Device $174.00 $165.00 Requested Services $0.00
All Other Reports. Cost per report. $47.00 $45.00
Digital Photographs‐ CD, plus 1 for CD cost $83.00 $79.00 Digital Photographs‐ Print. Plus $1.40 per photo cost. $89.00 $85.00 Fire Code Variance Application ‐  per request and none‐refundable. $755.00 $718.00 Fire incident reports (per report charge) $47.00 $45.00 Non‐Subpoenaed Fire Investigation Reports (per report) $47.00 $45.00 Pre‐Inspection I Consultation for daycare facilities, construction projects, etc. Initial $154.00 $146.00 Pre‐Inspection of care facilities with 25 or fewer occupants. (Flat Fee) $154.00 $146.00 Pre‐Inspection of care facilities with 26 or more occupants. (Flat Fee) $290.00 $276.00 Processed Photographs, plus cost of developing $93.00 $88.00 Site Inspections
Additional inspections beyond the first, Inspection for which no fee is indicated. $174.00 $165.00 Installation of hazardous materials storage tank $229.00 $218.00 City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
239 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Removal of hazardous material storage tank. Per tank charge. Temporary permit required. $174.00 $165.00 Replacement of hazardous material storage tank piping, dispensers. Per tank charge. If piping work is done as part of tank installation, there is no charge. $229.00 $218.00 Inspection Outside Normal Business Hours (Per hour, OT rate) O.T. Rate O.T. Rate Penalties
Unpermitted construction work Fee plus 2 times fee
False Alarms‐ 1st Response $0.00 $0.00
False Alarms‐ 2nd Response $365.00 $347.00
False Alarms‐ 3rd Response $465.00 $442.00
False Alarms‐ 4th+ Response $665.00 $632.00
Annual Fire Safety Inspection & Re‐inspections
A 1 ‐4 Assembly Occupancies $203.00 $193.00
B Business Office Occupancies $117.00 $111.00
E Educational Occupancies $203.00 $193.00
F Factory Occupancies $203.00 $193.00
H Hazard Occupancies $203.00 $193.00
I Institutional (Nursing Homes) Occupancies $203.00 $193.00 M Mercantile Occupancies $153.00 $145.00
M Mercantile Occupancies (Motor Fuel Sales) $168.00 $160.00 R‐1 Occupancies Hotels $203.00 $193.00
R‐2 Residential 3 to 20 units $104.00 $99.00
R‐2 Residential 21 ‐ 40 Units $124.00 $118.00
R‐2 Residential41‐ 70 Units $153.00 $145.00
R‐2 Residential 71‐ 90 Units $184.00 $175.00
R‐2 Residential 91 ‐ 120 Units $240.00 $228.00
R‐2 Residential Over 120 units $302.00 $287.00
R‐3 Residential Care less than 24 hours $168.00 $160.00 R‐3.1 Licensed Residential Care 24 hour 6 or less $203.00 $193.00 R‐4 Residential care 6 or more $203.00 $193.00
S Storage Facilities $168.00 $160.00
U Utility Structures $168.00 $160.00
240 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted  Previously Adopted

PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION
Special Classes
General recreation class fees will be adjusted as required to insure that program revenues fund 100% of total program costs. The non‐resident fee is $5.00 more than the resident fee. All registration transactions have a $7.00 administrative fee. Senior Discount: 10% at age 60.

Please contact 738‐7381
for more information
Please contact 738‐7381 fo
more information
Recreational Facilities Rental other than the Pacifica Community Center The following rental charges shall apply for the use of recreational buildings or portions thereof. Rates are per hour and shall not be prorated for part of an hour. If additional City personnel are needed to assist with rental, the additional amount will be actual cost of salary, plus administrative charges.

Community Picnic Areas
Frontierland Park – Small Group Picnic Area $75.00 $75.00 Frontierland Park – Large Group Picnic Area $250.00 $225.0 Fairmont/Oddstad Park $100.00 $100.0
4th of July ‐ info/craft booth $50.00 $50.00
4th of July ‐ food booth $65.00 $65.00
Aquatic Classes
Evening ‐ 8 lessons/30 min. per lesson:

Semi‐Private $130.00 $130.0
Private $200.00 $200.0
Little Bobbers and Tiny Tots $72.00 $72.00
Preschool Levels I, II, III $80.00 $80.00
Learn to Swim Levels I ‐ III $80.00 $80.00
Learn to Swim Levels IV ‐ VI $80.00 $80.00
Daytime ‐ (summer only):

Semi‐Private $82.00 $82.00
Private $125.00 $125.0
Little Bobbers and Tiny Tots $45.00 $45.00
Preschool Levels I, II, III $50.00 $50.00
Learn to Swim Levels I ‐ VI $50.00 $50.00
Oceana Pool Rental
Swim meets $175.00/hour   $175.00/hou
PSL swim team (home team) $125.00 $125.0
Pool Party Program $175.00/hour   $175.00/hou
Recreation Swim, Water Aerobics, Lap Swim
Youth (17 and younger) $5.00 $5.00
Adults (18 to 59) $6.00 $6.00
Senior Citizens (60 & over) $5.00 $5.00
All Access Pass: Adults
$72/mo, $206/qrt., or
$792/yr.
$72/mo, $206/qrt., o
$792/yr
All Access Pass: Seniors 60+
$65/mo, $185/qtr., or
$713/yr.
$65/mo, $185/qtr., o
$713/yr
City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
241 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Swim Pass (20 swims) ‐ Adults $99.00 $99.00
Swim Pass (20 swims) ‐ Children/Senior Citizens $85.00 $85.00 Swim Pass (10 swims) ‐ Adults $54.00 $54.00
Swim Pass (10 swims) ‐ Children/Senior Citizens $45.00 $45.00 Water Polo Drop In $6.00 $6.00
Recreation Playground Program
Membership Fee:  September thru June $275.00 $275.0
Membership Fee:  July/August $275.00 $275.0
J‐Teen Center/Afterschool Program
Membership Fee:  September‐May $350.00 $300.0
NEW ‐Membership Fee: January‐May $250.00 $225.0
LITE (Leadership in Training Education) $75.00 $75.00
LITE Fieldtrip fees for additional weeks 25.00/week 25.00/wee Special Interest Classes
For special interest classes where no fee has been charged because instructor volunteers his/her time, a $5.00 per student fee will be assessed to cover program administration costs.

Please contact 738‐7381
for more information
Please contact 738‐7381 fo
more information
Senior Programs
Annual membership (includes monthly newsletter and additional costs for special events) $25.00 $25.00
Child Care Services
Child care registration fees:

Wait list fee $25.00
One‐time, non‐refundable fee per child at the time of entry into full cost program. $75/child $75/child
Annual registration per child for summer program slot. $25.00/yr per child $25.00/yr per child One Time registration, non‐refundable fee per child at the time of entry into program (full cost state preschool). $75/yr per child $10/yr per child Late Payment per month for payment after 10th operating day. $25.00 $25.00 Late Pick‐up: for pick‐up after 6:01 p.m. or other designated closing time. $2.00 per minute $2.00 per minute Preschool Monthly Rates ‐‐ Per Child:

Flat rate. (includes field trips.) 7a.m. ‐6 p.m. $980/mo $970/mo Preschool ½ day (Ocean Shore School) $435/mo $425/mo
State Preschool ½ day (Fairmont Park & Sunset Ridge School) $650/mo $640/mo Kindergarten/School‐age School Year (September‐June) Monthly Rates Per Child
Annex Program: Before school and includes additional time during breaks and June after school ends. $285/mo $285/mo
Annex Program: Before and/or after school‐School age. Includes school breaks and last two weeks in June. $575/mo $565/mo
State Sponsored Child Care Program: Before and/or after school, School‐age.

Includes school breaks and last two weeks in June. $655/mo $655/mo Daily rate: drop in ‐ school year; non‐school days, 24‐hours notice for space availability; additional charge for field trips and special events; both Kindergarten and School age.
242 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Kindergarten/School‐age Summer Rates (July‐August) Monthly Rates Per Child Annex Summer Program: Flat rate per month for families who are currently enrolled in the year‐round program, includes field trips. $585/mo $585/mo Annex Summer Program: 4 week Summer School / Thinkbridge 1/2 day program.

Non‐operational in FY
2021‐22
Non‐operational in FY 2021
2 State Sponsored Child Care Summer Program: Flat rate per month for families includes field trips. $800/mo $800/mo
Drop‐in: per blocks of 10 days: 24 hour advance notice for space available or each day used; field trips & special events are extra.

Non‐operational in FY
2021‐22
Non‐operational in FY 2021
2 Field trip charge per child, per event, drop‐ins. $15.00 $15.00 Beach Parking
Annual Beach Parking Pass $72.00 $72.00
Daily Parking
0 ‐ 4 hours $                                 7.00  $                                     7.00 5 ‐ 8 hours $                                 9.00  $                                     9.00 Pacifica Beach Resource Parking Pass (annual) $                                25.00 $                                   25.00 *eligibility ‐ income is 80% or less of the median income level (of where they reside in California) determined by the Pacifica Resource Center Beach Use (not including surf events): Contest/beach event ‐ (small beach events with 50 or fewer participants and spectators).  Fees based on city staff time required for general review, administrative duties and approval. $200/day $175/day/even Beach Use over 50 or more participants (max 300) $300/day Surf Events/Skatepark Events  ‐ (security/cleaning deposit required) Whole skatepark contest
$350/day plus cleaning
deposit of $251
$300/day plus cleaning
deposit of $25
Half day skatepark
$200/day plus cleaning
deposit of $125
$150/day plus cleaning
deposit of $125
Surf event for local surf clubs, local businesses and non‐profit groups. $350 per day $325 per da Out of town and commercial groups per surf contest/event with. Maximum participants are 150.  An event with vendors, demonstrations, major sponsors, expo‐like environment, fees based on city staff time required for general review, administrative duties and approval, as well as impact on public works department and police department.
$650 per day  (Additional
fees MAY be determined
based on impact on the
area and staff FOR ALL
EVENTS.)
$650 per day  (Additiona
fees MAY be determined
based on impact on the
area and staff FOR AL
EVENTS.

Surf Camps
Small Camp (maximum 12 students) & Large Camp (maximum 25 students) for a facility use permit per year, covers all camps in a calendar year. Camp operators must have a Pacifica business license, insurance and adhere to Parks, Beaches and Recreation surf camp requirements. Rates change each January.

Small Camp $1,120.00 $1,100.00
Large Camp $1,340.00 $1,320.00
Community  Access Partner Permit/Non‐profit (15 students) $93 for 1 month *pending Coastal Commission approval $280 for 3 months
$560 for 6 months
$840 for 9 months
Film/Photo Shoots
243 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Student/amateur rate/non‐profit; Students must show current student ID and non‐profits must submit non‐profit status letter. $100 per day $100 per da Commercial filming (less than 3 support vehicles) $600 per day $600 per da Major commercial filming.  (Additional fees may be determined based on vehicles/additional staff time/impact on area.) $900 per day $900 per da Weddings/Ceremonies on Beaches, Pier or in Parks
99 or fewer participants $250 per day $250 per da
100 or more participants (maximum 150) $350 per day   $350 per da Recreation Trail Use $150.00 per day/event $150.00 per day/even Community Center Rentals ‐ Weekdays (per hour)
Pacifica Community Center Rental
All rates are hourly.  Warming Kitchen ($100.00 flat fee with rental of Auditorium) and additional rooms may be added for an additional fee.

Weekend rates begin Friday after 1:30pm through Sunday.

Please contact 738‐7381
for more information
Please contact 738‐7381 fo
more information
Resident ‐ Weekdays
Auditorium $60.00 $60.00
Dance Studio $45.00 $45.00
Card Room $40.00 $40.00
Portola Room $40.00 $40.00
Craft Room $35.00 $35.00
Ceramics Room $20.00 $20.00
Game Room $20.00 $20.00
Art Gallery $20.00 $20.00
Meeting Room $20.00 $20.00
Non‐Resident ‐ Weekdays
Auditorium $100.00 $100.0
Dance Studio $60.00 $60.00
Card Room $45.00 $45.00
Portola Room $45.00 $45.00
Craft Room $40.00 $40.00
Ceramics Room $25.00 $25.00
Game Room $25.00 $25.00
Art Gallery $25.00 $25.00
Meeting Room $25.00 $25.00
Non‐Profit ‐ Weekdays
Auditorium $35.00 $35.00
Dance Studio $25.00 $25.00
Card Room $20.00 $20.00
Portola Room $20.00 $20.00
Craft Room $15.00 $15.00
Ceramics Room 15.00 15.00
Game Room $15.00 $15.00
Art Gallery $15.00 $15.00
Meeting Room $15.00 $15.00
Commercial ‐ Weekdays ‐ provided no items are sold
Auditorium $125.00 $125.0
Dance Studio $85.00 $85.00
Card Room $50.00 $50.00
Portola Room $50.00 $50.00
Craft Room $45.00 $45.00
Ceramics Room $30.00 $30.00
244 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Game Room $30.00 $30.0
0 Art Gallery $30.00 $30.00
Meeting Room $30.00 $30.00
Community Center Rentals ‐ Weekends (per hour)
Resident ‐ Weekends
Entire Building $210.00 $210.0
Auditorium $100.00 $100.0
Dance Studio $80.00 $80.0
0 Card Room $75.00 $75.00
Portola Room $75.00 $75.00
Craft Room $65.00 $65.00
Ceramics Room $50.00 $50.00
Game Room $50.00 $50.00
Art Gallery $50.00 $50.00
Meeting Room $50.00 $50.00
Non‐Resident ‐ Weekends
Entire Building $265.00 $265.0
Auditorium $150.00 $150.0
Dance Studio $110.00 $110.0
Card Room $80.00 $80.0
0 Portola Room $80.00 $80.00
Craft Room $70.00 $70.00
Ceramics Room $55.00 $55.00
Game Room $55.00 $55.00
Art Gallery $55.00 $55.00
Meeting Room $55.00 $55.00
Non‐Profit
Entire Building $195.00 $195.0
Auditorium $75.00 $75.0
0 Dance Studio $60.00 $60.00
Card Room $55.00 $55.00
Portola Room $55.00 $55.00
Craft Room $45.00 $45.00
Ceramics Room $45.00 $45.00
Game Room $45.00 $45.00
Art Gallery $45.00 $45.00
Meeting Room $45.00 $45.00
Commercial ‐ Weekends ‐ provided no items are sold
Entire Building $275.00 $275.0
Auditorium $170.00 $170.0
Dance Studio $120.00 $120.0
Card Room $80.00 $80.0
0 Portola Room $80.00 $80.00
Craft Room $75.00 $75.00
Ceramics Room $55.00 $55.00
Game Room $55.00 $55.00
Art Gallery $55.00 $55.00
Meeting Room $55.00 $55.00
Philanthropic/City‐Sponsor
245 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Philanthropic, non‐profit events that financially benefit the City by a minimum of $10,000 . Rental charges for the event shall be waived for the usage of the Community Center.  Organization will be responsible for any additional cost pertaining to janitorial or garbage.  Building attendant will be provided.  Organization will be responsible for obtaining and paying for any insurance or permits required for event.  Event must be presented to the PB&R Director (or designee) and approved by City Manager (or designee).
246 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted  Previously Adopted
POLICE
False Alarms
First Response No Charge No Charge
Second through fifth responses $153.00 $145.00
Six or more responses $238.00 $226.00
False Alarms without permit
First Response No Charge No Charge
Second through fifth responses $238.00 $226.00
Six or more responses $238.00 $226.00
Photograph (digital)
Disc of photos $37.00 $35.00
Audio/Video Request
Audio/Video Request $96.00 $91.00
Audio/Video Request with Redaction Required (per hour) $180.00 $171.00 Arcade Permit
Annual Renewal Fee $61.00 $58.00
Application Fee $36.00 $34.00
Block Party Permits $62.00 $59.00
Masseur/Masseuse
New ‐Non State Certified (Non‐Practicioner) $404.00 $384.00 Non‐State Certified Live Scan (Plus DOJ & FBI Fee) $32.00 $30.00 New ‐ State Certified (Owner‐Practicioner) $62.00 $59.00 Renewal $31.00 $29.00
Amendment to City Registration Certificate $31.00 $29.00 Administrative Fee for Firearms (Per Penal Code 12021.3Jl) For release to owner $410.00 $390.00
Taxi Cab Operation
Permit / Background Investigation $157.00 $149.00
Taxi Cab Permit Live Scan (Plus DOJ & FBI Fee) $32.00 $30.00 Vehicle Inspection $121.00 $115.00
General
Case Reports (Per Public Records Act) No Charge No Charge Good conduct letter for Visa (record review) $65.00 $62.00 Bingo Permit: New $36.00 $34.00
Bingo Permit: Annual Renewal Fee $36.00 $34.00
Second Hand Dealers $158.00 $150.00
Tow Service Contract $240.00 $228.00
Tow Driver Live Scan (Plus DOJ & FBI Fee) $32.00 $30.00 Alarm Permit $101.00 $96.00
Alarm Permit Renewal $53.00 $50.00
Subpoena Deuces Tecum for Records (1563(b)(6) CA Evidence Code $16.00 $15.00 Fortune Telling $70.00 $67.00
Private Property abatement $268.00 $255.00
Vehicle Release Administrative Costs (all but victims) $162.00 $154.00 Franchise Tow Fee $50.00 $50.00
General Research (per hour) $95.00 $90.00
Storage of Property (Per Civil Code 2080.1(b) 1.00/Per Day 1.00/Per Day Tobacco Retailer License $92.00 $87.00
Ink Roll Fingerprinting $30.00 $30.00
Live Scan Fingerprinting $30.00 $30.00
San Mateo County Booking Fee Based on Current County Fee Based on Current County Fee City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
247 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 DUI with Incident   Cost of hours and car   Cost of hours and car Tape Transaction Cost of Outside Service Cost of Outside Service  Cost of Outside Service Dance Permit $60.00 $57.00
Repossession Fee (Per G.C. 26751) $15.00 $15.00
Temporary Recreational Vehicle Loading/Unloading Permit $15.00 $15.00 Municipal Code Violations
4‐10.118(a)(5) Parked in Unmarked Parking $43.00 $43.00 4‐10.304(a)  Parking w/o Valid Permit $43.00 $43.00
4‐10.304(a)  Parking w/o Valid Permit (Pacifica State Beach) $50.00 $50.00 4‐7.1101(a) Parked in Posted No Parking Zone $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1102(a) Making Repairs on Roadway $43.00 $43.00
4‐7.1104(b) Parking Where Prohibited $43.00 $43.00
4‐7.1106(b) No Parking on Narrow Street‐Where Posted $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1108(b) Parking in Violation of Temporary No parking Sign $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1109(a) Parked the Wrong Way on One‐Way Street $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1109(b) Parked the Wrong Way on Divided Highway $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1110(b) Improper Angle‐Marked Angle Parking (Not within Marks) $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1111 Failed to Curb Wheel – 3% Grade $43.00 $43.00
4‐7.1112 Trailer Parked over 12 Hours $78.00 $78.00
4‐7.1113(a) Selling from Vehicle without Permit $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1114(b) Occupied Motorhome on Public Property $53.00 $53.00 4‐7.1201  Parked in Excess of Posted Limit $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1203(2) Restricted parking (Council Chambers) $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1204(c) Unlawful Parking of Oversized Vehicle $78.00 $78.00 4‐7.1302(b) Red Curb $43.00 $43.00
4‐7.1306(d) No Stopping/Standing/Parking in Bus Zone $43.00 $43.00 4‐7.1403 Operate vehicle on Fassler/Sharp Park Rd. with Weight over 14,000 GVWR $43.00 $43.00
4‐7.1404 Parking Commercial Vehicle in Commercial Area (0200‐0600) 10,000 GVWR $78.00 $78.00
5‐1.13 Abandon Vehicle $203.00 $203.00
5‐2.03(a) Vehicle Parked over 72 Hours $43.00 $43.00
5‐13.03 Operate Vehicle ‐ Private Property without written Permission $53.00 $53.00 5‐18.03 Operate/Park/Stand Vehicle Off Road (Beach Area) $53.00 $53.00 9‐4.2808(a) Parking on Residential Property (other than driveway) $43.00 $43.00 9‐4.2809(a) Parking Commercial in Residential Area Anytime (10,000 GVWR) $78.00 $78.00 9‐4.2809(b) No Parking in Vacant Lot $43.00 $43.00
9‐4.2809(e) Parking on Commercial Property. Not in Conjunction with Business $78.00 $78.00 9‐4.2801(a) Repairing Vehicle on Vacant Lot $43.00 $43.00 Administrative Violations

4.3.202(a) Sale, Use, or Discharge of dangerous Fireworks $1,000.00 $1,000.00 4‐3.202(b) Possession of 25 pounds or less of dangerous fireworks* $1,000.00 $1,000.00 4‐3.203(a) Discharge of "safe and sane" fireworks during prohibited hours $200.00 $200.00 Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.203(b) Discharge of "safe and sane" fireworks at prohibited location $200.00 $200.00 Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.203(c) Prohibited discharge of "safe and sane" by minors (under 18 years of age) $200.00 $200.00
Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00

4.3204(a) Sale of "safe and sane" fireworks without a valid permit $200.00 $200.00 Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.204(b) Sale of "safe and sane" fireworks outside of approved stand $200.00 $200.00 Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.204(c) Sales of "safe and safe" fireworks duirng prohibited hours $200.00 $200.00 Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
248 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 4‐3.204(d) Sales of "safe and sane" fireworks to minors $200.00 $200.00 Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.209 (a) Adult responsible for minor strictly liable for dangerous fireworks violation $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.209(a) Adult responsible for minor strictly liable for "safe and sane" fireworks violation $200.00 $200.00
Second Offense $400.00 $400.00
Third Offense $1,000.00 $1,000.00
4‐3.209(b) Social Host strictly liable for dangerous fireworks violation $1,000.00 $1,000.00 *In addition to the fine, the citee shall be assessed and shall be liable for the payment of the actual costs associated with the collection, transportation, and disposal of any seized fireworks.
5‐28.04(b) Social Host‐allow minor to be in possession, consume or served alcohol, alcoholic beverage, cannabis, or controlled substance at any gathering.** $1,000.00 $1,000.00
5‐28.05 Allow a loud or unruly gathering after a first response warning has been issued** $500.00 $500.00
Second Offense** $750.00 $750.00
Third Offense** $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Cannabis Public Safety License Fee ‐ Phase 1 (Plus Background Fee) $425.00 $425.00 Cannabis Public Safety License Fee ‐ Phase 2 $750.00 $750.00 Cannabis Operation ‐ Employee Background : Live Scan (Plus DOJ & FBI Fee) $30.00 $30.00 Cannabis Operation‐ Owner/Operator Background: Live Scan (Plus DOJ & FBI Fee) and Consultant
Background Fee (Payable to City Consultant) $330.00 $330.00 Cannabis Public Safety License Fee ‐ Yearly License Renewal $23,577.00 $22,412.00 249 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted Previously Adopted

PLANNING
Planning Division
Planning / Engineering Hourly Rate $238.00 $226.00
All development applications shall require a deposit
based on estimated number of staff hours to process
an application (including materials, postage, etc.).  The deposit will be expended during application processing
according to the adopted hourly rate, billed at each
quarter hour.  Additional funds may be requested if
necessary.  Remaining deposit will be returned at
project completion.

Deposit based on estimated number of staff
hours.

Deposit based on estimated
number of staff hours.

City Attorney's Review of Projects and Permits ‐ If
necessary, an additional deposit amount will be
required for City Attorney review of projects.

Deposit based on estimated number of
attorney hours. Hourly cost of Contract
Attorney
Deposit based on estimated
number of attorney hours. Hourly
cost of Contract Attorney
Study Sessions ‐ payment of deposit and staff hourly
rate as stipulated above.

Payment of deposit and staff hourly rate as
stipulated above
Payment of deposit and staff
hourly rate as stipulated above Request for extension of Development Application permits $713.00 $678.00 Applicant shall pay CEQA document filling fees adopted by the San Mateo County Clerk and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. These fees are pass
through to other agencies and amounts are not
controlled by the City of Pacifica. See Planning
Division staff for current fee schedules or visit
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Fees
Fees as adopted by State of California and
San Mateo County Clerk.

Fees as adopted by State of
California and San Mateo County
Clerk.

Specialized Planning Services inc. Environmental
Document Preparation with Supporting Technical
Studies
Applicant shall pay full consultant cost. Full Contract amount Full Contract amount General Planning Fees
General Research Fee $238.00/hr, plus actual material cost $226.00/hr, plus actual material
cost
Business License request for zoning consistency (half‐
hourly rate)
$119.00 (per half hour of work)
New fee required if License is denied and
resubmitted
$113.00 (per half hour of work)
New fee required if License is
denied and resubmitted
Home Occupation Permits $119.00 $113.00
Other Administrative Permits; hourly rate plus actual
material cost. $238.00/hr $226.00/hr
General Plan maintenance fee See Building Division section of schedule See Building Division section of
schedule
Review of Building Permit (hourly rate) $238.00/hr $226.00/hr Zoning verification letter $119.00 $113.00
Biennial Wireless Communications Facility Certification (PMC 9‐4.2608(a)(7) $238.00/hr $226.00/hr
Banner /Temporary Signage Requests (private
property) $119.00 $113.00
City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
250 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Requests for Public Necessity and Convenience
Determinations for ABC License $238.00 $226.00
Special Events on Private Property $238.00 $226.00
Pumpkin /X‐Mas Tree Lots $714.00, plus $500 refundable deposit $679.00, plus $500 refundable
deposit
Requests for Address Assignment/Change $238.00 $226.00
Growth Management Allocations pursuant to PMC
Title 9, Chapter 5 $238.00 $226.00
Mobile Home Fair Return Adjustment Requests
Deposits and payment of actual costs based
on estimated number of staff hours,
Hearing Officer costs, and City Attorney
costs.

Deposits and payment of actual
costs based on estimated number
of staff hours, Hearing Officer
costs, and City Attorney costs.

General
Planning Agenda Packets, Planning Related
Documents, and oversized plan sets Actual Cost of Reproduction Actual Cost of Reproduction Code Books or Other Technical Manuals Publisher's Cost + 10% Handling Fee Publisher's Cost + 10% Handling
Fee
Building Division
Building Permit Fee (Based on Dollar Valuation)**
$1.00 to $500 $67.00 $64.00
$501 to $2,000
$67.00 for first $500 plus $4.00 for each
additional $100 or fraction thereof.
$64.00 for first $500 plus $4.00
for each additional $100 or
fraction thereof.
$2,001 to $25,000
$135.00 for first $2,000 plus $19.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
$128.00 for first $2,000 plus
$19.00 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
$25,001 to $50,000
$591.00 for first $25,000 plus $17.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
$562.00 for first $25,000 plus
$17.00 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
$50,001 to $100,000
$1,054.00 for first $50,000 plus $9.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
$1,002.00 for first $50,000 plus
$9.00 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
$100,001 to $500,000
$1,109.00 for first $100,000 plus $8.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
$1,504.00 for first $100,000 plus
$8.00 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
$500,001 to $1,000,00
$5,095.00 for first $500,000 plus $6.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
$4,843.00 for first $500,000 plus
$6.00 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
$1,000,000 and above
$8,303.00 for first $1,000,000 plus $5.00
for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof.
$7,893.00 for first $1,000,000 plus
$5.00 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
** Building Valuation Data is published by the ICC.

Construction cost valuation is adjusted by the Building Cost Index (BCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area,
published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) by
McGraw‐Hill Publishing Company.
251 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Plan Check and Other Building Permit and Inspection
Fees
Plan Check fee 65% of Permit Fee 65% of Permit Fee
Building Standards Administrative Fee
$1– 25,000 valuation = $1 fee
$25,001 – 50,000 valuation = $2 fee
$50,001 – 75,000 valuation = $3 fee
$75,001 – 100,000 valuation = $4 fee
Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above $100,000 Add
$1
Fees shall be calculated at a rate of $4 per
$100,000 of permit valuation, but not less
than one dollar, with appropriate fractions
thereof, as shown to the left.

Fees shall be calculated at a rate
of $4 per $100,000 of permit
valuation, but not less than one
dollar, with appropriate fractions
thereof, as shown to the left.

Education Fee $2 per permit $2 per permit
General Plan Maintenance 0.05% of construction value 0.05% of construction value Archive Fee
$15 plus one dollar per plan page for sheets
larger than 11x17
$15 plus one dollar per plan page
for sheets larger than 11x17
Certified Assess Specialist Consultation Fee
Actual Consultant Cost + 10%
Administrative Fee
Actual Consultant Cost + 10%
Administrative Fee
Hourly plan check fee ‐ Planning, Engineering,
Wastewater, etc. $238.00 $226.00
Swimming Pools and Spas
Building Permit fee based on contract
valuation.  All other applicable fees apply
Building Permit fee based on
contract valuation.  All other
applicable fees apply
Inspections outside normal business hours
For contracted positions, fee is actual
consultant cost.  For in‐house City
employee positions, fee is time and a half,
two hour minimum
For contracted positions, fee is
actual consultant cost.  For in‐
house City employee positions,
fee is time and a half, two hour
minimum
Grading Permits Actual Time and Materials Actual Time and Materials Changes to existing permits
Hourly plan review fees based on rates for
all Departments required to review revised
permit.  Additional Building Permit fees
may apply if valuation is affected by
modification.

Hourly plan review fees based on
rates for all Departments required
to review revised permit.

Additional Building Permit fees
may apply if valuation is affected
by modification.

Inspection Fee. Hourly rate with a minimum 30
minutes.

For contracted positions, fee is actual
consultant cost.  For in‐house City
employee positions, fee is time and a half,
two hour minimum $136.00
Building without Permit Double Building Permit Fee Double Building Permit Fee See Engineering for other encroachment, plan check,
drainage fee, and other applicable fees
Solar Photovoltaic System
Residential
$238 flat fee, plus $15 per kilowatt (kw)
above 15 kw.  State required SMIP and
Building Standards Fee based on valuation
will be applied.
$220 flat fee, plus $15 per
kilowatt (kw) above 15 kw.  State
required SMIP and Building
Standards Fee based on valuation
will be applied.
252 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Commercial
$357 flat fee up to 50 kw, plus $7 per kw
between 51‐250 kw and plus $5 per kw
above 250kw.  State required SMIP and
Building Standards Fee based on valuation
will be applied.
$387 flat fee up to 50 kw, plus $7
per kw between 51‐250 kw and
plus $5 per kw above 250kw.

State required SMIP and Building
Standards Fee based on valuation
will be applied.

Strong‐Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fees
pursuant to California Codes, Public Resources Code
Section 2700‐2709.1
SMIP  (All other structures) 0.00028 times valuation 0.00028 times valuation SMIP   (Residential up to three stories) 0.00013 times valuation 0.00013 times valuation Electrical Permit Fees
Private Swimming Pools $79.00 $75.00
Nonresidential Appliances; cost for each $7.00 $7.00
Temporary Power Service; cost for each $40.00 $38.00
(N) Residential Bldg.; cost per square foot $0.12 $0.11 Electrical Services (<=200 AMP); cost for each $50.00 $48.00 Electrical Services (<200 to 1000 AMP); cost for each $102.00 $97.00 Electrical Services (<1000 AMP); cost for each $205.00 $195.00 Residential Appliances; cost for each $7.00 $7.00
(N) Multi‐Family Bldg.; cost per square foot $0.11 $0.10 Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees; cost for each $28.00 $27.00 Misc. Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors; cost for
each $31.00 $29.00
Light Fixtures (First 20 fixtures); cost for each $1.00 $1.00 Light Fixtures (Additional fixtures); cost for each $1.00 $1.00 Power Apparatus (Up to and including 1) $7.00 $7.00
Power Apparatus (Over 1 and not over 10) $20.00 $19.00
Power Apparatus (Over 10 and not over 50) $41.00 $39.00 Power Apparatus (Over 50 and not over 100) $82.00 $78.00 Power Apparatus (Over 100) $123.00 $117.00
Receptacles, Switch & Light Outlets (First 20 fixtures); cost for each $1.00 $1.00
Receptacles, Switch & Light Outlets  (Additional
fixtures) $1.00 $1.00
Electrical Permit Issuance; cost for each $41.00 $39.00 Electrical Permit Issuance (Special Cases) $15.00 $14.00 Mechanical Permit Fees
Furnace (<=100k BTU) $27.00 $26.00
Furnace (>100k to 500k BTU) $35.00 $33.00
Appliance Vents $14.00 $13.00
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems (<=3hp
or 100k BTU) $25.00 $24.00
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems
(<=15hp or 500k BTU) $48.00 $46.00
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems
(<=30hp or 1000k BTU) $66.00 $63.00
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems
(<=50hp or 1750k BTU) $96.00 $91.00
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems
(>=50hp or 17500k BTU) $96.00 $91.00
Hood $20.00 $19.00
Air Handlers (<=10k CFM) $20.00 $19.00
253 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Air Handlers (>10k CFM) $33.00 $31.00
Evaporative Cooler $20.00 $19.00
Vent Fan (Single Duct) $14.00 $13.00
Vent System $20.00 $19.00
Incinerators (Residential) $20.00 $19.00
Incinerators (Comm) $20.00 $19.00
Miscellaneous Mechanical $20.00 $19.00
Mechanical Permit Issuance $41.00 $39.00
Mechanical Permit Issuance (Special Cases) $15.00 $14.00 Plumbing Permit Fees
Fixtures & Vents; $14.00 $13.00
Fixtures & Vents (Repair/Alteration) $14.00 $13.00
Cesspool $18.00 $17.00
Sewage Disposal System $70.00 $67.00
Grease Interceptors $12.00 $11.00
Rainwater systems $18.00 $17.00
Water Piping $18.00 $17.00
Water heater $18.00 $17.00
Public Spa $107.00 $102.00
Gas Piping $9.00 $9.00
Public Pool $162.00 $154.00
Private Pool $107.00 $102.00
Private Spa $107.00 $102.00
Sewer $27.00 $26.00
Backflow $18.00 $17.00
Backflow device over 2" $18.00 $17.00
Miscellaneous Plumbing $18.00 $17.00
Plumbing Permit Issuance; cost for issuing each
permit. $41.00 $39.00
Plumbing Permit Issuance (Special Cases).  For issuing
each supplemental permit for which the original
permit has not expired, been cancelled or finalized. $15.00 $14.00 New Construction Development Impact Fees
(calculated by Public Works, Engineering Division)
In‐Lieu Park Dedication Fee (PMC 10‐1.803 and 8‐

19.02)
Contact Engineering Division for fee calculation
Oceana/Manor/Palmetto Mitigation Fee (PMC8‐

18.04)
Contact Engineering Division for fee calculation
See Engineering Section for other encroachment, plan
check, drainage fee, and other applicable fees
Capital Improvement Fee
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code Title
7, Chapter 4.

As required by Pacifica Municipal
Code Title 7, Chapter 4.

Sewer Connection, Inspection, and Plan Check Fees
See Wastewater Treatment Plant Section of
Master Fee Schedule
See Wastewater Treatment Plant
Section of Master Fee Schedule
Code Enforcement
Administrative Citations (PMC1‐6.06)
First Violation $100.00 $100.00
Second Violation $200.00 $200.00
Third Violation $500.00 $500.00
Misdemeanor Citation $1,000.00 $1,000.00
254 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Late Fees ‐ Failure to pay a civil fine within 10 calendar days of citation issuance, or within 10 calendar days
following decision on an appeal to uphold the citation
when a hardship waiver has been granted for the
appeal hearing shall result in the following late charge. 50% of fine, plus full fine amount 50% of fine, plus full fine amount Public Nuisance Abatement Assessment
Actual abatement cost ‐ 100% to property
owner plus 10% administrative fee
Actual abatement cost ‐ 100% to
property owner plus 10%
administrative fee
255 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Adopted Previously Adopted

PUBLIC WORKS
Encroachment permits and inspection; hourly charge rate basis $238.00 $226.00 Sidewalk repair and street openings by private contractor; hourly charge rate basis $238.00 $226.00 Penalties
Unpermitted construction work Double Engineering Permit Cost  Double Engineering Permit Cost Publication vending machine permit $515.00 $490.00
City Maps 24" x 36'
Printed: 24" x 36" or larger; $3/sq ft ‐ black; $4/sq ft ‐ color Per Square Foot Fee Per Square Foot Fee Electronic Copy on CD $15/CD $15/CD
Electronic Copy on USB Portable Thumb Drive $51/4MB Drive $51/4MB Drive Photocopies Per page Fee Per page Fee
8 1/2" x 11"; $0.25/black; $1.00/color " "" "
8 1/2" x 14"; $0.50/black; $1.50/color " "" "
11" x 17"; $1/black; $2/color " "" "
24" x 36" or larger; $3/sq ft ‐ black; $4/sq ft ‐ color Per Square Foot Fee Per Square Foot Fee Engineering Standard Drawing
Picked up Per page fee Per page fee
Mailed (Regular mail ‐Series 100) Per page fee + Mailing Per page fee + Mailing Mailed (Regular mail ‐Series 200) Per page fee + Mailing Per page fee + Mailing Mailed (Regular mail ‐Series 300) Per page fee + Mailing Per page fee + Mailing Street Excavation Handbook $38.00 $36.00
General
Heritage Tree Permit (removal, destruction, or substantially trim); hourly rate $238.00 $226.00 Heritage Tree Permit Appeal Fee $426.00 $405.00
General Engineering Development Application Reviews; hourly charge $238.00 $226.00
Residential and non‐residential public improvement plan checking and inspection; hourly charge $238.00 $226.00
Final Subdivision Map Checking.  Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum.  All costs for contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost and may require additional deposit. 10 hours minimum and contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost. Total $5,000 initial deposit. $5,000 initial deposit; charged at the rate of
$238/hour and for Contract or consultant
services
$2,226 initial deposit; charged at
the rate of $226/hour
Certificate of Compliance, notices of violation, property mergers, parcel map waivers, minor boundary line adjustments, reversions to acreage, and parcel map checking; hourly charge. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum and contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost. Total $5,000 initial deposit. Applicant shall pay full consultant services cost plus 10% of contract amount for administration $5,000 initial deposit; charged at the rate of
$238/hour and for Contract or consultant
services
$2,226 initial deposit; charged at
the rate of $226/hour
Street/curb openings by utilities; hourly charge $238.00 $226.00 Subdivision Improvement Plan check and construction inspection, hourly charge. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum and contract or consultant services including legal shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost. Total $5,000 initial deposit. Applicant shall pay full consultant services cost plus 10% of contract amount for administration
$5,000 initial deposit; charged at the rate of
$238/hour and for Contract or consultant
services
$2,226 initial deposit; charged at
the rate of $226/hour
Subdivision Improvement Plan check and construction inspection, hourly charge. Staff may require an initial deposit equivalent to 10 hours minimum.  All costs for contract or consultant services shall be charged separately to the applicant as additional cost and may require additional deposit. Applicant shall pay full consultant services cost plus 10% of contract amount for administration
$2,226 initial deposit; charged at the rate of
$238/hour
$2,226 initial deposit; charged at
the rate of $226/hour
Applicant shall pay full consultant services cost plus 10% of contract amount for administration Contract amount plus 10% admin fee
Contract amount plus 10% admin
fee
Barricade Rentals for Block Party (8 Barricades Minimum) $2/Barricade +$50 deposit $2/Barricade +$50 deposit Surface Mining and Reclamation Annual Inspection Fee; hourly charge $238.00 $226.00 Surface Mining Violation (found during inspection)
Paint Driveway Curb Tips $238.00 $226.00
Pollution Prevention Inspection Fee, Hourly charge, Per Municipal Code Sec. 6‐12.301 $238.00 $226.00
New Construction Development Impact Fees
Highway 1 Improvement Fee (PMC 8‐15.04)
Contact Engineering Division for fee calculation
City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code
PMC 8‐15.04 As required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 8‐15.04 256 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 In‐Lieu Park Dedication Fee (PMC 10‐1.803 and 8‐19.02)
Contact Engineering Division for fee calculation
Oceana/Manor/Palmetto Mitigation Fee (PMC8‐18.04)
Contact Engineering Division for fee calculation
Capital Improvement Fee
Contact Building Department for fee calculation
Subdivision Drainage Fee (PMC 7‐4.101)
Contact Engineering Division for fee calculation
Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Parking In‐Lieu Fee (PMC 3‐13.02(d)(6), Updated by Resolution 22‐2020)
Per Parking Space. (Fee adjusted each year based on CCI.) Sharp Park Specific Plan Parking In‐Lieu Fee (Established by Resolution 25‐2020) Per Parking Space. (Fee adjusted each year based on CCI.) <10 years
≥10 years
<10 years
≥10 years
$43,497.00
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 10‐

1.803 and 8‐19.02, and updated by Ordinance 878‐
C.S., adopted May 9, 2022.

As required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC8‐18.04
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code Title 7,
Chapter 4.

As required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 7‐4.101
$43,497.00 $41,347.00
$41,347.00
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code
PMC 10‐1.803 and 8‐19.02
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code
PMC8‐18.04
As required by Pacifica Municipal Code
Title 7, Chapter 4.

As required by Pacifica Municipal Code
PMC 7‐4.101
Utility Pavement Cut Fee
Functional Class Age Group
Cut Area (Percent Section Area)
<10% of Section Area
Arterials/Collectors
$2.50
$1.50
Residential
$1.50
$1.00
Per Square Foot ‐ $1.19/sq. ft.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) : Construction Vehicle Impact Fees shall not be charged for any ADU that is under 750 square feet or an ADU of any size when the ADU is being constructed at the same time, under the same permit, as a new main residential unit or an expansion of the main unit that make payment of the fees as required.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) : Utility Pavment Cut Fee shall not be charged for any ADU that is under 750 square feet or an ADU of any size when the ADU is being constructed at the same time, under the same permit, as a new main residential unit or an expansion of the main unit that make payment of the fees as required.

Partial or Full Credit Utility Cut Fees for Developments with Pavement Improvements : A credit my be applied against the Utility Cut Fees for completing frontage roadway paving.

Reduced Utility Cut Fees Related to Sewer Lateral Repairs Not Requiring a Lateral Compliance Certificate : A minimal fee of $500 will be charged for pavement cuts fees related to fixing a sewer lateral not requiring a Sewer Lateral Compliance Certificate.

Construction Vehicle Impact Fee
Residential Unit / Multi‐Family Fee
257 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Fee Description Previously Adopted

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

DEVELOPMENT CONNECTION FEES
(Account No. 34.900000.46751.0000.000)
Connection Fees (Sec. 6‐11.102)
Water Meter Size Cost
1" $12,391
1 1/2" $24,782
2" $39,651
3" $74,346
4" $123,910
6" $247,820
8" $369,512
Water Meter Size Cost
1" $12,391 x Commercial Strength Factor
1 1/2" $24,782 x Commercial Strength Factor
2" $39,651 x Commercial Strength Factor
3" $74,346 x Commercial Strength Factor
4" $123,910 x Commercial Strength Factor
6" $247,820 x Commercial Strength Factor
8" $369,512 x Commercial Strength Factor
Cost Per DFU $652
Cost Per ADU Total DFU x $652.16
Inflow/Infiltration Fees (Sec. 6‐11.104)
Residential Units: (Single, Town, Condo, Multi‐
Family)
[Estimated: (Number of Units x $801) or (Number of Acres x $1706) ‐ Whichever is Higher] Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐

11.104
Commercial Units:
[Estimated:(Number of Fixture Units/12 x $801) or (Number of Acres x $1706) ‐ Whichever is Higher]Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐11.104
Trunk Line Fees (Sec. 6‐11.103)
Residential Units: (Single, Town, Condo, Multi‐
Family)
[Estimated: (Number of Units x $1098) or (Number of Acres x $2193) ‐ Whichever is Higher]Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐

11.103
Commercial Units:
[Estimated: (Number of Fixture Units/12 x $1098) or (Number of Acres x $2193) ‐ Whichever is Higher]Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐11.103
Sewer Tap Fee (Sec. 6‐11.301)
(Estimated: Number of Taps x $474) Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐11.301
(Estimated: Number of Fixture Units/12 x $1,463) Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐11.102
Commercial Units
City of Pacifica
2022‐2023 Fees & Charges Master Schedule
Adopted
SECTION 6‐11.102 AMENDED ON MAY 23, 2022
Residential Units (Single, Town, Condo)
and Multi‐Family Dwellings
(Estimated: Number of Units x $1,452) Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐11.102
SECTION 6‐11.104 REPEALED ON MAY 23, 2022
Cost will be based on the Total Drainage Fixture Unit "DFU" as defined in the latest Uniform Plumbing Code Table 702.1
Multiply by Cost Per DFU Accessory Dwelling Unit "ADU"
(Estimated: Number of Taps x $474) Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st as required by Pacifica Municipal Code PMC 6‐11.301 SECTION 6‐11.103 REPEALED ON MAY 23, 2022
258 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025 Inspection and Plan Review Fee
Estimated: Number of Hours x $227 Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st.

SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
(Account No. 18.940000.46755.0000.000)
Annual Sewer Service Charges
(Sec. 6‐6.401 to 6‐6.407)
Residential Units: (Single, Town, Condo, Multi‐
Family)
Actual Annual Water Consumption (March 2020‐February
2021) x 90% x 18.81373. Minimum of $903.06
Commercial Units:

Actual Annual Water Consumption (March 2020‐February
2021) x 18.81373 x strength factor.

Commercial Strength Factors:

Restaurants with functioning grease traps = 1.60
Restaurants without functioning grease traps = 1.80
Gymnasiums = 0.90
Any other Business = 1.0 or Calculated Value whichever is higher FORMULA:

Commercial Strength Factor = 44% + (28% x (BOD + TSS)/175) *BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
**TSS = Total Suspended Solids
Car Washes = 0.90 Cleaners = 1.20 Laundromats = 0.75 Estimated: Number of Hours x $227 Fee shall be increased based on CCI as of July 1st.

Actual Annual Water Consumption (March 2021‐February 2022) x 90% x $19.47221. Minimum of $934.67
Actual Annual Water Consumption (March 2021‐February 2022) x Commercial Strength Factor x $19.47221
259 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (ATTACHMENTS) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025

Pacifica City CouncilMarch 24, 2025

Pacifica City Council
March 24, 2025