vehicles; the standards were estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34 percent by 2025. The zero-emissions vehicle program acts as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of zero-emissions vehicles and plug-in hybrid EVs in the 2018 to 2025 model years.
Executive Order B-16-12
EO B-16-12 (March 2012) required that State entities under the governor’s direction and control support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero-emissions vehicles. The order directed CARB, California Energy Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve goals by 2015, 2020, and 2025.
On a statewide basis, EO B-16-12 established a target reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80 percent less than 1990 levels by 2050. EO B-16-12 did not apply to vehicles that have special performance requirements necessary for the protection of the public safety and welfare.
Assembly Bill 1236
AB 1236 (October 2015) (Chiu) required a city, county, or city and county to approve an application for the installation of electric-vehicle charging stations, as defined, through the issuance of specified permits unless the city or county makes specified written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and a feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact does not exist. The bill provided for appeal of that decision to the planning commission, as specified. AB 1236 required electric-vehicle charging stations to meet specified standards. The bill required a city, county, or city and county with a population of 200,000 or more residents to adopt an ordinance, by September 30, 2016, that created an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric-vehicle charging stations. The bill also required a city, county, or city and county with a population of less than 200,000 residents to adopt the ordinance by September 30, 2017.
Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20 (September 2020) establishes a Statewide goal that 100 percent of in-state vehicle sales of new passenger cars and trucks shall be zero-emission by the year 2035. The order directed the CARB to develop and propose passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles sold in the State in order to achieve the goal by 2035. In addition, the order required that a Zero-Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy be created and updated every three years to ensure coordinated and expeditious implementation of the EO.
Water
The following regulation relates to the conservation of water, which reduces GHG emissions related to electricity demands from the treatment and transportation of water.
Executive Order B-29-15
In response to a drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25 percent relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives subsequently became permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the State. In response to EO B-29-15, the
1.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Department of Water Resources modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency, and broadens the applicability of the ordinance to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.
Solid Waste
The following regulations relate to the generation of solid waste and means to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste produced within the State.
Assembly Bill 939 and Assembly Bill 341
In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the observed increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity.
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro]) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that the policy goal of the State is that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to develop strategies to achieve the State’s policy goal.
Other State Actions
The following State regulations are broadly related to GHG emissions.
Senate Bill 97
SB 97 (Dutton) (August 2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which has since been renamed to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. In 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The advisory indicated that the lead agency should identify and estimate a project’s GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine the significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a level that is less than significant.
The California Natural Resource Agency (CNRA) adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, and the amended CEQA Guidelines became effective in March 2010.
Under the amended CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis, or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to consider the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). The CEQA Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features or off-site measures. The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emission threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply the lead agency’s own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. CNRA acknowledges that a lead agency may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.
1.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state that lead agencies should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on “qualitative analysis or other performance based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]).
Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: (1) the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]).
Executive Order S-13-08
EO S-13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea-level rise. Therefore, the EO directs State agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009, and an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014. To assess the State’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the State for the following areas: agriculture, biodiversity and habitat, emergency management, energy, forestry, ocean and coastal ecosystems and resources, public health, transportation, and water. Issuance of the Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans followed in March 2016. In January 2018, the CNRA released the Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, which communicates current and needed actions that the State government should take to build climate change resiliency.
Local Regulations
The following are the regulatory agencies and regulations pertinent to the proposed project on a local level.
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 50) is a long-range transportation and land use/housing strategy through 2050 for the San Francisco Bay Area, designed to reduce GHG emissions from the mobile sector.14 PBA 50 was approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on October 21, 2021. PBA 50 also meets all State and federal requirements for a Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
PBA 50 provides an outline for growth in four focus areas: Priority Development Areas (PDA); Transit-Rich Areas; Priority Production Areas; and High-Resource Areas. The project site is not located within a PDA. According to the PBA 50 Forecasting and Modeling Appendix, by 2050, housing in San Mateo County is projected to increase by 129,000 households, or 48 percent, and jobs are projected to increase by 114,000, or 29 percent.15 14 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050: Final.
October 2021. 15 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Forecasting and Modeling Report, Appendix 1: Growth Pattern. October 2021.
1.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Local jurisdictions seeking to implement development projects consistent with PBA 50 are eligible for funding for PDA planning and transportation projects. In addition, jurisdictions have the option to streamline the development process for projects consistent with PBA 50 and meet the other criteria included in SB 375.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the public agency entrusted with regulating air pollution in the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, southwestern Solano, and southern Sonoma counties.
The BAAQMD has prepared Air Quality Guidelines, which are intended to be used for assistance with CEQA review. The BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance and project screening levels for GHGs, as well as methods to assess and mitigate project-level and plan-level impacts. The most recent BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines were released in April 2023.
City of Pacifica General Plan 2040
The following policies from the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 related to GHG emissions are applicable to the proposed project:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Guiding Policies
Policy CO-G-15 Energy Conservation. Support efforts to reduce energy use by increasing energy efficiency in buildings and promoting awareness of energy use.
Policy CO-G-16 Waste Reduction. Seek to reduce over-all solid waste by limiting packaging, controlling construction and demolition waste, and promoting composting and recycling.
Implementing Policies
Policy CO-I-54 Climate Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reductions. Maintain and update the Climate Action Plan that focuses on feasible actions the City can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from government, businesses, and residents in Pacifica.
Policy CO-I-55 Green Building. Monitor the effectiveness of the California Green Building Code in bringing about energy efficiency in architectural design and building construction.
Policy CO-I-56 Solar Orientation. When possible, require buildings to be oriented such that the use of passive and active solar strategies is maximized, in order to promote energy efficiency.
Policy CO-I-57 Encourage Solar Power Generation. Promote use of passive and active solar devices such as solar collectors, solar cells, and solar heating systems in buildings and parking areas by incentive programs and streamlining review.
Policy CO-I-64 Outdoor Lighting. Establish outdoor lighting performance standards to minimize energy use while ensuring appropriate light levels.
1.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Policy CI-I-49 Promotion of Transit Use. Promote transit use and reduce reliance on the private automobile in order to reduce congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve quality of life.
City of Pacifica Climate Action Plan
The City of Pacifica adopted a CAP on July 21, 2014, which includes goals to reduce GHG emissions within the City to below 35 percent of 2005 levels by 2020 and below 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. The City of Pacifica CAP includes GHG emission reduction measures and aims to outline the principles and policies for the City’s response to climate change. The reduction measures included within the CAP were developed to reduce the City’s GHG emissions associated with four emission sources: energy, transportation, solid waste, and water. The City of Pacifica’s 2014 CAP is not considered a qualified CAP, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.
Standards of Significance
Based on the recommendations of BAAQMD, City of Pacifica standards, and consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions if the project would result in any of the following:
x Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
x Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2), the lead agency is charged with determining a threshold of significance that is applicable to the project. For the analysis within this EIR, the City has elected to use the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
The BAAQMD’s adopted Air Quality Guidelines include GHG thresholds, which are qualitative and consist of two distinct categories of criteria that must be met: Buildings and Transportation.
The BAAQMD’s Buildings criteria require that a project must meet the following minimum project design elements:16
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under Sections 21100(b)(3) and 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The BAAQMD’s Transportation criteria require that a project must meet the following:
16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans [pg. 2]. October 2024.
1.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
c. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita; ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee; or iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT.
d. Achieve compliance with off-street EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
Alternatively, a project is not required to implement the foregoing design elements if the project shows consistency with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Because the City of Pacifica’s adopted CAP does not meet the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), the applicable threshold of significance for the proposed project would be compliance with the BAAQMD’s Building and Transportation criteria.
Method of Analysis
As discussed throughout this EIR, the proposed project would include the construction of 19 residential condominiums, 16 of which would include two-car garages, and 3,165 sf of retail space, as well as 15 uncovered parking spaces within the project site. In addition, the proposed project would include the construction of a new off-site driveway, and 17 parking spaces associated with the existing Pacifica Community Center located adjacent to the project site. The additional parking spaces for the Pacifica Community Center would accommodate the existing use of the community center and would not expand operations.
A comparison of the proposed project to the BAAQMD’s qualitative thresholds discussed above shall determine the significance of the potential impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change resulting from the proposed project. Where potentially significant impacts related to GHG emissions are identified, mitigation measures are described that would reduce or eliminate the impact.
In addition, for informational purposes, the proposed project’s short-term construction GHG emissions and long-term operational GHG emissions were estimated using California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.28, which is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including trip generation rates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, etc. However, where project-specific data was available, such data was input into the model. Further information regarding the inherent design features and project-specific information that was applied to the model is included in Section III, Air Quality, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix A of this EIR). Results of the modeling are expressed in MTCO2e/yr. All CalEEMod modeling results are included in Appendix E to this EIR. The estimated GHG emissions are presented for disclosure purposes only, as BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, not quantitative. It should be noted that the estimated GHG emissions are not used to determine the level of impact significance herein.
1.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Global climate change is, by nature, a cumulative impact. As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Emissions of GHG contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change (e.g., sea level rise, impacts to water supply and water quality, public health impacts, impacts to ecosystems, impacts to agriculture, and other environmental impacts). While GHG emissions from a project in combination with other past, present, and future projects contribute to the world-wide phenomenon of global climate change and the associated environmental impacts, a single project could not generate enough GHG emissions to contribute noticeably to a change in the global average temperature. Due to the existing regulations within the State, for the purposes of this analysis, the geographic context for the analysis of GHG emissions presented in this EIR is the State of California.
Because the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative by nature, separate discussions for projectlevel and cumulative-level impacts for the proposed project are not necessary for this chapter of the EIR.
4.2-1 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the project’s incremental contribution to the significant
cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable and
significant and unavoidable.
An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHGs are inherently considered cumulative impacts.
Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as CH4 and N2O. Sources of GHG emissions include area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste.
Based on the modeling conducted for the proposed project, construction of the project was estimated to generate annual maximum unmitigated GHG emissions of 255 MTCO2e/yr. The total unmitigated annual operational GHG emissions for the first year
1.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of project operation (assumed to be 2027) were estimated as presented in Table 4.2-
2. As noted previously, the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and the foregoing information is provided for disclosure purposes only. Potential impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project are considered in comparison with BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance below.
Table 4.2-2
Unmitigated Project Operational GHG Emissions
Source Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Mobile 295
Area 0.28
Energy 39.8
Water 2.19
Waste 15.1
Refrigerants 0.06
Total Annual Operational GHG
Emissions 352
Source: CalEEMod, July 2024 (see Appendix E).
As discussed above, the City’s CAP does meet the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Thus, this discussion evaluates project consistency with the BAAQMD’s Buildings and Transportation criteria.
With regard to Buildings criterion a., the proposed project would not include new gas service connections within the proposed buildings, and, as a result, appliances requiring natural gas would not be used. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with BAAQMD’s Buildings criterion a.
Consistency with Buildings criterion b. was evaluated in Section VI, Energy, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix A of this EIR). As noted therein, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. During project operations, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code, which would ensure that building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. As a result, the proposed project would comply with BAAQMD’s Buildings criterion b.
Consistency with Transportation criterion c. is evaluated in Chapter 4.3, Transportation, of this EIR. As presented therein, the proposed project would generate VMT per resident that exceeds 15 percent below the existing citywide average VMT per capita. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project could conflict with BAAQMD’s Transportation criterion c.
1.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With regard to Transportation criterion d., the 2022 CALGreen Code requires all singlefamily, townhomes, and duplexes be EV capable (i.e., each dwelling unit must have a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/40-volt branch circuit), which would be suitable for EV charging. For single-family residences and townhouses, compliance with the 2022 CALGreen Code would satisfy the requirements established by BAAQMD criterion d. With regard to the 15 on-site uncovered spaces, according to the 2022 CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards, a total of four spaces would be required to be EV capable. Similarly, four EV spaces would be required associated with the 17 community center spaces. Based on the CALGreen Code, electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) would not be required on-site. However, as noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, a total of three spaces on-site would include EV chargers. Nonetheless, because the number of EV capable spaces on-site is currently unknown, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) would be required to ensure project compliance with the 2022 CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards and BAAQMD Transportation criterion d.
Project Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans
Applicable plans, policies, and/or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and relevant to the proposed project were determined to be the PBA 2050, the City’s 2014 CAP, and the City of Pacifica General Plan.
With regard to PBA 2050, while the project site is not located within a Priority Development Area, the proposed project would be a mixed use, infill development located within a high-transit area, which would be generally consistent with PBA 2050 policy direction. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 4.3, Transportation, of this EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would require each new resident to be provided with two free one-year transit passes upon original purchase of the residence from the developer.
By providing residents with transit passes, new residents may be encouraged to use transit rather than driving to work. Several pedestrian and bicycle facilities are also available in the project area, which would further promote the use of alternative transportation. Thus, the proposed project would generally be consistent with the goals PBA 2050.
The 2014 Pacifica CAP is intended to guide the reduction of GHG emissions associated with existing operations and future development in the City. The GHG inventory contained in the City’s CAP was derived based on the land use designations and associated densities defined in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the CAP establishes a number of reduction measures, including the use of renewable energy, safe routes to school, and water conservation incentives. As discussed in Section VI, Energy, of the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A to this EIR), 46 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy per day used by the project would be generated by on-site renewable sources, the site is located adjacent to the Crespi Drive & Highway 1 SamTrans bus stop, and indoor water conservation strategies would be applied.
Thus, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the CAP reduction measures. Because the proposed project remains consistent with the CAP’s reduction measures, such as the Smart growth development, and the proposed project is consistent with the site’s existing General Plan land use designation, the project would remain consistent with the GHG inventory within the CAP.
1.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Finally, the proposed project would comply with the CALGreen Code, MWELO, and CBSC, which would ensure compliance with the majority of the applicable General Plan policies related to GHG emissions, such as Policies CO-G-15, CO-G-16, CO-I55 through CO-I-57, and CO-I-64. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would promote the use of transit services through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, consistent with the goals of General Plan Policy CI-I-49, and would be generally consistent with the goals of the City’s 2014 CAP, as encouraged by General Plan Policy CO-I-54. Thus, the proposed project would generally be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies related to GHG emissions.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would be generally consistent with PBA 2050, the City’s 2014 CAP, and the City’s General Plan policies related to GHG emissions. In addition, the proposed project would comply with Building Criterion a, related to the prohibition of natural gas and Buildings Criterion b., related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. However, the proposed project has the potential to conflict with Transportation Criterion c., related to VMT and Transportation Criterion d, related to the provision of EV charging stations. Because the proposed project could conflict with the BAAQMD’s applicable thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, the proposed project could generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, a cumulatively considerable and significant impact related to GHG emissions could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) would ensure project consistency with Transportation criterion d. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) would address Transportation criterion c. As discussed further in Chapter 4.3, Transportation, of this EIR, implementation of the measures required by Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) would reduce project VMT, but not to a level that would achieve 15 percent less than the regional average VMT. Therefore, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b), the project would not comply with BAAQMD’s Transportation criterion c.
Consequently, even with implementation of the following mitigation measures, the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulatively significant effects of GHG emissions and global climate change would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
4.2-1(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall implement the following measure:
x Consistent with BAAQMD’s Transportation criterion d., a total of four EV Capable parking spaces shall be installed throughout the 15 on-site uncovered parking spaces, and an additional four EV Capable parking spaces shall be installed throughout the 17 community center spaces, consistent with the current CALGreen Tier 2 standards.
1.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project improvement plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer indicating the required EV Capable parking spaces and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City’s Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Compliance with the foregoing measure shall be ensured by the City of Pacifica Planning Division.
4.2-1(b) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-3.
1.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
4.3 TRANSPORTATION
1.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Transportation chapter of the EIR discusses the existing transportation facilities within the project vicinity, focusing on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, as well as applicable policies and guidelines used to evaluate operation of such facilities. Where development of the proposed project would conflict with applicable policies or guidelines, mitigation measures are identified.
The information contained within this chapter is primarily based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Hexagon) (see Appendix F),1 as well as the City of Pacifica General Plan 20402 and the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan EIR (General Plan Update EIR).3 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, environmental documents must use VMT rather than level of service (LOS) as the metric to analyze transportation impacts. Therefore, the analysis included in this chapter focuses on VMT. The State’s requirement to transition from LOS to VMT is aimed at promoting infill development, public health through active transportation, and a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
4.3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The section below describes the physical and operational characteristics of the existing transportation system within the project vicinity, including the surrounding roadway network, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, as well as existing average VMT in the City.
Existing Roadways
The following provides a summary of the existing roadways within the project area.
State Route 1
State Route (SR) 1 is a multi-lane highway, which runs northeast to southwest in the vicinity of the project site. SR 1 becomes a freeway approximately 5.5-mile northeast of the project site, where the freeway connects to Interstate 280 (I-280) north of the City of Pacifica. The segment of SR 1 located west of the project site has two travel lanes in each direction. SR 1 traverses the City of Pacifica from north to south, connecting Pacifica to Daly City and San Francisco to the north, and to Half Moon Bay and the San Mateo County coastline to the south. The posted speed limit along the portion of SR 1 nearest the project site is 45 miles per hour (mph).
Crespi Drive
The City of Pacifica General Plan classifies Crespi Drive as a collector roadway, which have slower permitted speeds than arterial roadways; serve short, local trips; and accommodate travel between residential neighborhoods and arterials. Collector roadways are generally larger streets 1 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. VMT Analysis for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 570 Crespi Drive in Pacifica, California. September 10, 2024. 2 City of Pacifica. City of Pacifica General Plan 2040. Adopted July 11, 2022. 3 City of Pacifica. City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Adopted May 25, 2022.
I 4.3 T 4 RANSPORTATION
1.b
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
in residential areas, but have smaller widths than arterial roadways. Collector roadways, such as Crespi Drive, have moderate volumes of vehicular traffic, and equally accommodate automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians within the right-of-way.
Crespi Drive is a four-lane, northwest-southeast roadway that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Crespi Drive extends southeast from SR 1 and provides access to the residential neighborhood, school, and commercial uses located near the project site. The intersection of SR 1 and Crespi Drive is located northwest of the project site, across from the Pacifica Community Center. The posted speed limit along Crespi Drive near the project site is 25 mph.
Roberts Road
Roberts Road is a two-lane roadway that winds up a hillside from Crespi Drive to Fassler Avenue.
The intersection of Roberts Road and Crespi Drive is located northeast of the project site. The roadway does not have a posted speed limit.
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities
The sections below describe the existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities located within the vicinity of the project site. Figure 4.3-1 presents the existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the City of Pacifica.
Sidewalks and Paths
Within the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road. A pedestrian crosswalk is also provided at the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road, near the northeast corner of the project site. In addition, the Pacifica Rockaway Trail is located north of and runs parallel to SR 1 and can be accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail access point nearest to the project site is located at the intersection of Crespi Drive and SR 1.
Bicycle Facilities and Trails
Bicycle paths, lanes, and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following four classes:
x Bike Paths (Class I) – Bike paths provide a completely separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and walking with minimal crossflow traffic. Such paths can be well situated along creeks, canals, and rail lines. Class I bike paths can also offer opportunities not provided by the road system by serving as both recreational areas and/or desirable commuter routes.
x Bike Lanes (Class II) – Bike lanes provide designated street space for bicyclists, typically adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. Bike lanes include special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike lanes may be enhanced with painted buffers between vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at conflict zones (such as driveways or intersections).
x Bike Routes (Class III) – Bike routes provide enhanced mixed-traffic conditions for bicyclists through signage, striping, and/or traffic calming treatments, and to provide continuity to a bikeway network. Bike routes are typically designated along gaps between bike trails or bike lanes, or along low-volume, low-speed streets.
1.b
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Figure 4.3-1
Existing and Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Source: City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 [pg. 5-25, Figure 5-4]. July 2022.
Project Site
Pacific
0 c ea n
0 1/4 1/2 2
MILES
- Existing Class 1 ■■■■■■■• Proposed Class I
- Existing Class II ■■■■■■■• Proposed Class II
--- Existing Class lII
c======0 Proposed Class III
....... , Proposed Class IV
--- Unpaved Trails
--- Paved Trails
111111 Bicycle Lockers
~ Bicycle Parking
'CT Restroom/Changing Room
- Pedestrian Overpass
~ Pedestrian Underpass
&, Trailhead
~ Parks/Open Space
- -- CityLimits
- Planning Area
Source: Bicycle & Pedestrian .Master Plan, City o
Pacifica 2020; San Mateo County, 2020; Dyett &
Bhatia. 2020.
1.b
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Bicycle boulevards provide further enhancements to bike routes to encourage slow speeds and discourage non-local vehicle traffic via traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and/or speed tables. Bicycle boulevards can also feature special wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or other bikeways.
x Separated Bikeways (Class IV) – Separated bikeways are for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the bikeway and the through vehicular traffic.
The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.
As mentioned above, the Pacifica Rockaway Trail runs parallel to SR 1 and can be accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail access point nearest to the project site is located at the intersection of Crespi Drive and SR 1.
As illustrated on Figure 4.3-1, the City plans to develop a Class I bike path northwest of the project site, parallel to SR 1. In addition, as presented on Figure 4.3-1, the City has proposed to develop a Class II bike lane on a segment of Crespi Drive from SR 1 to Roberts Road and a Class III bike route along the remaining entirety of Crespi Drive. The City has also proposed to develop a Class IV separated bikeway along Roberts Road to the northeast of the project site in the future.
Transit System
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service throughout San Mateo County and into San Francisco and Palo Alto. SamTrans provides local service in Pacifica, as well as regional service to and from the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Caltrain stations.
Several SamTrans connections are located within the vicinity of the project site. For example, SamTrans runs lines 110, 112, and 118, with a stop on Crespi Drive, west of the project site frontage, a stop further east near the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road, and another stop near the intersection of SR 1 and Crespi Drive. Routes 110 and 112 provide service between the SR 1 corridor in the City of Pacifica and the Daly City and Colma BART stations, respectively; both lines terminate at Linda Mar Shopping Center. Routes 110 and 112 have half-hour to onehour headways, and run on both weekdays and weekends. Route 118 provides service to Colma BART station during the AM and PM peak hour periods of weekdays, on 15- to 35-minute headways. All SamTrans buses are accessible to persons with disabilities.
The BART provides heavy rail rapid transit to Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. The Colma, Daly City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco BART stations are accessible to Pacifica residents via bus connections or by car.
Caltrain is a passenger rail line providing commuter service over a 77-mile route between downtown San Francisco and Gilroy, through San Jose, and along the San Francisco Peninsula.
Service is provided with headways between five and 20 minutes during the peak hours on weekdays, 30 minutes during off-peak hours during weekdays, and one hour on weekends. The San Bruno station is approximately eight miles east of Pacifica.
Samtrans also operates dial-a-ride (or paratransit) service for persons who cannot use fixed-route bus service, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Paratransit service in the City of Pacifica is called RediCoast. Certified RediCoast customers may schedule trips over the phone.
1.b
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT is the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts under CEQA. VMT is a metric that accounts for the number of vehicle trips generated and the length or distance of those trips. VMT does not directly measure traffic operations; instead, VMT is a measure of transportation network use and efficiency, especially when expressed as a function of population (i.e., VMT per capita). VMT tends to increase as land use density decreases and travel becomes more reliant on the use of single-passenger vehicles.
The established baseline (2020) average daily VMT per resident in the City of Pacifica is 15.7.4 According to the VMT Analysis prepared by Hexagon for the proposed project, the project site is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1925, for which the daily VMT is estimated to be 17.3 miles per capita in the year 2024. The methodology used to calculate the existing VMT is described in further detail in the Method of Analysis section below.
4.3.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Existing transportation policies, laws, and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below and provide a context for the impact discussion related to the project’s consistency with the applicable regulatory conditions. Federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to transportation are not directly applicable to the proposed project. Rather, the analysis presented herein focuses on State and local regulations, which govern the regulatory environment related to transportation at the project level.
State Regulations
The following are the regulations pertinent to the proposed project at the State level, organized chronologically. It is noted that Caltrans has jurisdiction over State highways. Therefore, Caltrans controls all construction, modification, and maintenance of State highways, and any improvements to such roadways require Caltrans approval.
Senate Bill 743
In 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was passed to amend Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4 of the Government Code, amend Sections 21181, 21183, 21186, 21187, 21189.1, and 21189.3 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), to add Section 21155.4 to the PRC, to add Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 21099) to Division 13 of the PRC, to add and repeal Section 21168.6.6 of the PRC, and to repeal and add Section 21185 of the PRC, relating to environmental quality.
In response to SB 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which has since been renamed to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), updated the CEQA Guidelines to include new transportation-related evaluation metrics.
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package along with an updated Technical Advisory related to Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Full compliance with the Guidelines became effective July 2020.
As a result of SB 743, and Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, as discussed above and in further detail below, local jurisdictions may no longer rely on vehicle LOS and similar measures related to delay as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, and instead a VMT metric should be evaluated.
4 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. VMT Analysis for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 570 Crespi Drive in Pacifica, California [pg. 4]. September 10, 2024.
1.b
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA In December of 2018, OPR (now LCI) published the Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which is a guidance document to provide advice and recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. The Technical Advisory is intended to be a resource for the public to use at their discretion, and LCI does not enforce any part of the recommendations contained therein.
The Technical Advisory includes recommendations regarding methodology, screening thresholds, and recommended thresholds per land use type.
Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide In May of 2020, Caltrans adopted the VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) to provide direction to lead agencies regarding compliance with SB 743. The TISG replaces the Caltrans’ 2002 Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies and is for use with local land use projects, not for transportation projects on the State Highway System. The objectives of the TISG are to provide:5
a) Guidance in determining when a Lead Agency for a land use project or plan should analyze possible impacts to the State Highway System, including its users. b) An update to the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, 2002) that is consistent with SB 743 and the CEQA Guidelines adopted on December 28, 2018. c) Guidance for Caltrans land use review that supports state land use goals, state planning priorities, and GHG emission reduction goals.
d) Statewide consistency in identifying land use projects’ possible transportation impacts to the State Highway System and to identify potential non-capacity increasing mitigation measures.
e) Recommendations for early coordination during the planning phase of a land use project to reduce the time, cost, and/or frequency of preparing a Transportation Impact Study or other indicated analysis.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) is a non-profit association of the Air Pollution Control Officers from all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California. Given the connection between air pollution emissions and the use of motor vehicles, the CAPCOA has issued recommendations that can be used by development projects to reduce project-wide VMT.
One such document, the Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, provides methods to quantify the efficacy of certain methods in their ability to reduce VMT and, in turn, GHG emissions.
Local Regulations
Local rules and regulations applicable to the proposed project are discussed below.
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 50) is a long-range transportation and land use/housing strategy through 2050 for the San Francisco Bay Area, designed to reduce GHG emissions from the mobile sector.6 PBA 50 was approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and 5 Caltrans. Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. May 20, 2020. 6 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050: Final.
October 2021.
1.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on October 21, 2021. PBA 50 also meets all State and federal requirements for a Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.
PBA 50 provides an outline for growth in four focus areas: Priority Development Areas (PDA); Transit-Rich Areas; Priority Production Areas; and High-Resource Areas. The project site is not located within a PDA. According to the PBA 50 Forecasting and Modeling Appendix, by 2050, housing in San Mateo County is projected to increase by 129,000 households, or 48 percent, and jobs are projected to increase by 114,000, or 29 percent.7 Local jurisdictions seeking to implement development projects consistent with PBA 50 are eligible for funding for PDA planning and transportation projects. In addition, jurisdictions have the option to streamline the development process for projects consistent with PBA 50 and meet the other criteria included in SB 375.
San Mateo City/County Association of Governments
As the designated Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is primarily responsible for administering the State-mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP). San Mateo C/CAG-designated CMP roadway system components in the City of Pacifica include SR 1 and Skyline Boulevard (SR 35).
C/CAG is also responsible for preparing the Countywide Transportation Plan, which establishes a long-range transportation vision for the county and informs the PBA 50 prepared by the MTC and ABAG. San Mateo C/CAG also partners with local jurisdictions and other transportation agencies to develop transportation plans and studies for areas and projects with countywide and regional significance.
City of Pacifica Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Pacifica Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes a long-term vision for improving walking and bicycling in the City of Pacifica through policy, program, and project recommendations. Through the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the City can become a community where walking and bicycling is encouraged and the health of its residents and environmental sustainability is prioritized. The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by the City of Pacifica in February 2020.
City of Pacifica General Plan 2040
The following policies from the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 related to transportation are applicable to the proposed project:
Circulation Element
Guiding Policies
Policy CI-G-2 Serve All Users. Plan, design, build, and maintain transportation improvements to support safe and convenient access for all users with priority for “complete streets” projects that facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use wherever possible.
7 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Forecasting and Modeling Report, Appendix 1: Growth Pattern. October 2021.
1.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Policy CI-G-4 Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled by developing higher-density, mixed use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and improving transit options and efficiency.
Policy CI-G-6 Context Sensitivity. Plan, design, and build transportation improvements so that they respect the surrounding environment.
Policy CI-G-11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Establish trails, bike routes and pedestrian amenities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations, and fill in gaps in the existing network.
Policy CI-G-12 Walkable Neighborhoods. Improve pedestrian amenities to create more walkable neighborhoods, especially in mixed-use activity centers and around schools.
Implementing Policies
Policy CI-I-1 Connective Street Network. Require new streets created as part of new development to continue existing street patterns, and include stub access points to adjacent undeveloped areas.
Policy CI-I-5 Streetscape in Mixed Use Areas. Require pedestrian-oriented amenities and design in visitor-oriented commercial and mixed use areas, including wider sidewalks, curb bulb-outs at key intersections, outdoor seating, and public art.
Priority streetscapes include Palmetto between Paloma and Clarendon; Montecito, Santa Rosa, and San Jose Avenues in West Sharp Park; Rockaway Beach Avenue and Dondee Way in Rockaway Beach; lower Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard in Linda Mar; Manor Drive and Aura Vista Drive in West Edgemar-Pacific Manor; and Oddstad and Terra Nova Boulevards and new streets created as part of redevelopment of the Park Mall site.
Policy CI-I-22 Improvements for Existing Facilities. Maintain and upgrade local streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other City infrastructure in a manner that prevents deterioration and corrects existing deficiencies.
Policy CI-I-23 Design for Safety. Incorporate safety measures in improvement designs for intersections, roadways, pedestrians, transit, and bicycle facilities.
Policy CI-I-24 Development on Unimproved Streets. Continue to require a Site Development Permit for development on lots with unimproved streets to ensure off-site improvements meet City standards. This policy will protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillsides and minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources.
Policy CI-I-25 Emergency Access. Require all developers to incorporate emergency access needs consistent with Title 10 of the Municipal Code.
Policy CI-I-30 Universal Design. Require all pedestrian facilities to be ADA compliant and accessible to persons with disabilities.
1.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
4.3.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to transportation. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.
Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to transportation would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
x Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; x Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b); x Substantially increase hazards to vehicle safety due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or x Result in inadequate emergency access.
Specific application of the general thresholds is provided in the following section, based on guidance from the City of Pacifica and the San Mateo C/CAG.
VMT Thresholds
The City of Pacifica does not have adopted thresholds of significance related to SB 743, which requires VMT to be the metric to designate significant transportation impacts related to CEQA. As such, the VMT assessment follows the current LCI guidance related to VMT. The LCI Technical Advisory includes recommended thresholds of significance for residential and employment land use projects and recommends that VMT impacts be assessed on a per capita or per employee basis. The LCI-recommended threshold of significance is 15 percent below the existing regional VMT per capita for residential uses and 15 percent below the existing regional average daily VMT per worker for commercial uses. Therefore, the applicable threshold of significance for the proposed project’s residential components is 85 percent of the existing citywide average VMT per resident. Given that the existing City-wide VMT per resident is 15.7, the applicable threshold herein is 13.34 VMT per resident (15.7 x 0.85 = 13.34). With respect to the project’s commercial component, LCI recommends a threshold of generating or attracting fewer than 110 trips per day for small land use components. Therefore, if the project’s commercial component would attract 110 trips per day or fewer, the commercial component would meet the applicable screening criterion and a less-than-significant impact related to VMT would occur.
Method of Analysis
The analysis of this chapter is based on the VMT Analysis prepared on September 10, 2024 for the proposed project by Hexagon. The methods used in the VMT Analysis are described in further detail below.
Project Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed project was calculated by Hexagon using trip generation rates published in the 11th Edition Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Based on the size of the proposed commercial component and location of the project site, the highest probable use for the commercial component would be a medical/dental office. Therefore, the applicable rate for the commercial component of the project is category 720 (Medical-Dentist Office Building). The applicable rate for the condominiums and
1.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
townhomes are 220 (Multifamily Housing Low Rise) and 215 (Single-Family Attached Housing), respectively. Table 4.3-1 summarizes the estimated trip generation for the proposed project. As presented therein, the proposed project would result in a total of 225 daily trips, including 88 daily trips associated with the commercial component and 137 daily trips associated with the condominiums and townhomes. It should be noted that a medical/dental office use is not proposed as part of the project, but rather represents a use that is permitted by-right in the C-2 zoning district.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
LCI recommends that small land use projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact. Therefore, if a project/land use component would generate 110 trips per day or fewer, the project/land use component would meet the screening criterion and would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The project includes two types of land uses (residential and commercial), for which the potential VMT impact was evaluated separately and compared to the screening criteria and thresholds of significance based on the land use type.
Table 4.3-1
Project Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Code Size
Weekday Saturday Sunday Average
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips Daily Trips
ITE Medical-Dental
Office Building1 720 3.165 ksf 3.6 114 13.75 44 1.14 4 88 Total Average Daily Trips (Commercial Component Only) 88 ITE Single-Family
Attached Housing2 215 16 units 7.20 115 8.76 140 7.17 115 119 ITE Multifamily
Housing Low Rise3 220 3 units 6.74 20 4.55 14 3.86 12 18 Total Average Daily Trips (Residential Component Only) 137 Total Average Daily Trips (Commercial and Residential Components) 225 1 Average trip rates expressed in trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf) for Medical-Dental Office Building (Land Use 720) are used. 2 Average trip rates expressed in trips per dwelling unit for Single-Family Attached Housing (Land Use 215) are used. 3 Average trip rates expressed in trips per dwelling unit for Multifamily Housing Low Rise (Land Use 220) are used.
Source: Hexagon, 2024.
As presented in Table 4.3-1, the commercial component of the proposed project would generate 88 daily trips, which would meet the LCI screening criterion for small projects and would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. However, the proposed residences would generate more than 110 daily trips and would not meet the VMT screening criterion. As a result, Hexagon conducted a VMT analysis to evaluate the VMT impact associated with the proposed residences.
To conduct the VMT analysis for the proposed residential uses, Hexagon used the San Mateo C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool. Hexagon then compared the estimated daily VMT to the average citywide VMT to determine whether the proposed residences would generate VMT 15 percent below the average citywide VMT per capita. As previously discussed, the applicable CEQA threshold for VMT associated with the proposed project is 13.34 per capita, which is 15 percent below the citywide VMT of 15.7.
1.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
The project site is located within TAZ 1925 for which the daily VMT is estimated to be 17.3 miles per capita in the year 2024. In order for the proposed project to meet the applicable threshold of significance of 13.34 VMT per capita, a 23 percent reduction in VMT per capita would be required.
Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts related to transportation is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above.
4.3-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would include use of construction equipment, including on-site earth-moving vehicles, bulldozers, and other heavy machinery, as well as building materials delivery, and construction worker commutes. The transport of heavy construction equipment to the site, haul truck trips, and construction worker commutes could affect the local roadway network.
Construction workers typically arrive before the morning peak hour and leave before the evening peak hours of the traditional commute time periods. Deliveries of building material (i.e., lumber, concrete, asphalt, etc.) would also normally occur outside of the traditional commute time periods. In addition, any truck traffic to the site would follow designated truck routes, and project construction would likely stage any large vehicles (i.e., earth-moving equipment, cranes, etc.) on the site prior to beginning site work and remove such vehicles at project completion. However, detailed information related to the construction routes and equipment staging, or a construction management plan, is not available. Furthermore, Crespi Drive is the primary access roadway to the project site and provides access to the nearby residential neighborhood, school, and commercial uses. As a result, construction activities could include disruptions to the transportation network near the project site.
Without proper planning, construction activities, construction traffic and potential street closures could interfere with existing roadway operations, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, during the construction phase. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities, and a significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.3-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall prepare a construction traffic management plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include the following:
1.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
x A project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment;
x A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of construction access routes;
x Provisions for maintaining adequate emergency access to the project site;
x Permitted construction hours, per City of Pacifica standards; x Designated locations for construction staging areas;
x Identification of parking areas for construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors, including on-site locations; and x Provisions for street sweeping to remove construction-related debris on public streets.
4.3-2 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities during operations. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.
As discussed throughout this chapter, LOS is no longer the applicable metric when evaluating CEQA transportation impacts of a project. The evaluation of VMT is discussed in Impact 4.3-3 of this chapter. The proposed project is a relatively minor development project on a site previously anticipated for development by the City.
Therefore, the trip volume associated with the proposed project has been generally anticipated by the City, and the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact the existing circulation system. The following discussion focuses on whether the proposed project would result in impacts related to existing or planned pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, or transit facilities and services within the project area.
Pedestrian Facilities
Within the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road. A pedestrian crosswalk is also provided at the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road, near the northeast corner of the project site. In addition, the Pacifica Rockaway Trail is located north of and runs parallel to SR 1 and can be accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail access point nearest to the project site is located at the intersection of Crespi Drive and SR 1.
The proposed project would include construction of a new driveway entrance off of Crespi Drive and a looped internal roadway. The internal roadway would be designed to meet current City standards. The proposed project would also include pedestrian connections to the proposed driveway off of Crespi Drive and access points to the pedestrian sidewalk along the south side of Crespi Drive.
In addition, the project would provide pedestrian walkways within the site and implement off-site improvements north of the existing Pacifica Community Center, including pedestrian connections within the off-site improvement area, from the project
1.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
site to the Pacifica Community Center, and a new drop-off area intended for use by the Pacifica Community Center.
The proposed project would also include striped crosswalks, which would connect Building A and Building C. As part of the proposed project, a striped crosswalk would be located along the new east-to-west driveway at the Pacifica Community Center property.
Overall, the proposed project would provide new pedestrian connections to existing pedestrian facilities. The proposed on-site and off-site pedestrian improvements would not physically disrupt an existing pedestrian facility, nor interfere with implementation of a planned pedestrian facility. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in an increased presence of vehicles and/or pedestrians on pedestrian facilities, such that conflicts between pedestrians and other travel modes would be likely to increase.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Bicycle Facilities
As mentioned above, the Pacifica Rockaway Trail runs parallel to SR 1 and can be accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail access point nearest to the project site is located at the intersection of Crespi Drive and SR 1. As illustrated on Figure
4.3-1, the City plans to develop a Class I bike path, which would run parallel to SR 1, northwest of the project site. In addition, as presented on Figure 4.3-1, the City plans to develop a Class II bike lane on a segment of Crespi Drive from SR 1 to Roberts Road, a Class III bike route along the remaining entirety of Crespi Drive, and a Class IV separated bikeway along Roberts Road to the northeast of the project site.
While the proposed project would not provide new bicycle connections to existing bicycle facilities, development of the proposed project would not physically disrupt an existing bicycle facility, nor interfere with implementation of a planned bicycle facility.
Due to the relatively small size of the proposed project, the project is not expected to generate a significant amount of bicycle trips nor result in an increased presence of vehicles, such that conflicts between bicyclists and other travel modes would be likely to increase. Therefore, the demand generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding bicycle facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Transit Facilities
Several SamTrans connections are located within the vicinity of the project site. For example, SamTrans runs lines 110, 112, and 118 with a stop on Crespi Drive, west of the project site frontage, a stop further east near the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road, and another stop near the intersection of SR 1 and Crespi Drive.
Routes 110 and 112 provide service between the SR 1 corridor in the City of Pacifica and the Daly City and Colma BART stations, respectively; both lines terminate at Linda
1.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Mar Shopping Center. Routes 110 and 112 have half-hour to one-hour headways, and run on both weekdays and weekends. Route 118 provides service to Colma BART station during the AM and PM peak hour periods of weekdays, on 15- to 35-minute headways. All SamTrans buses are accessible to persons with disabilities.
Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 below requires implementation of CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-9 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program.
Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would require each new resident to be provided with two free one-year transit passes upon original purchase of the residence from the developer. By providing residents with transit passes, new residents may be encouraged to use transit rather than driving to work. It should be noted that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would not reduce potential project-related impacts to transit facilities to a less-than-significant level, as described below.
Given the small number of residents that would be added, the proposed project would only slightly increase transit riders, and the demands of the proposed project could be accommodated by the existing transit facilities and services.
Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (i.e., bus turnouts, bicycle lanes, bicycle racks, public transit, pedestrian facilities, etc.). Thus, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.
4.3-3 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Based on the analysis below, even with implementation of mitigation, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
As previously discussed, the commercial component of the proposed project would generate 88 daily trips, which would meet the LCI screening criterion for small projects and would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. However, the proposed residences would generate more than 110 daily trips and would not meet the VMT screening criterion. As a result, Hexagon conducted a VMT analysis to evaluate the VMT impact associated with the proposed residences. Table 4.3-2 summarizes the results of the VMT analysis prepared for the proposed project.
The average VMT per resident for the City of Pacifica was identified to be 15.7. As discussed previously, consistent with San Mateo C/CAG and LCI guidance, residential projects that generate average VMT per resident at 15 percent less than the regional baseline average may be considered to have a less-than-significant VMT impact.
1.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
Therefore, the VMT threshold applied to the proposed project is 15 percent less than the regional baseline, or 13.34 VMT per capita.
Table 4.3-2
Project VMT Analysis Results
City of Pacifica Proposed Project
VMT/Resident Threshold of Significance VMT/Resident
15.7 13.34 17.3
Source: Hexagon, 2024.
The project site is located within TAZ 1925 for which the daily VMT is estimated to be
17.3 miles per capita in the year 2024. The VMT for the TAZ, including the project site, is considered to be representative of the project itself because the proposed residences are equivalent in density and intensity to the other residential development in the area. As such, the proposed project is estimated to generate 17.3 daily VMT per resident, which exceeds the identified VMT threshold of significance. Because the daily VMT per capita associated with proposed residences is higher than the threshold VMT of 13.34 per capita, the project could have a significant impact related to VMT.
The CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity8 sets forth effective VMT reduction strategies, which are supported by substantial evidence. Potential CAPCOA VMT reduction strategies should be relevant to the project’s location and land use context.
It should be noted that most of the CAPCOA VMT reduction strategies also reduce GHG emissions and criteria pollutants, considered co-benefits, by reducing the source metric of VMT (i.e., vehicle ownership, number of vehicle trips, and trip distance).
Based on the VMT Analysis prepared by Hexagon, the CAPCOA strategies that are applicable to and feasible for the proposed project are:
x T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing – This measure requires below market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to job centers and achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. It is also an important strategy to address the limited availability of affordable housing that might force residents to live far away from jobs or school, requiring longer commutes. The quantification method for this measure accounts for VMT reductions achieved for multifamily residential projects that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable housing.
x T-9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program – This measure requires the provision of subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees and/or residents. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. x T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement – This measure requires an increase to sidewalk coverage to improve pedestrian access. Providing 8 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. December 2021.
I
I
1.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
sidewalks and an enhanced pedestrian network encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.
CAPCOA VMT reduction strategies T-4 and T-18 would be implemented through the proposed project’s design and proposed affordable housing. For example, consistent with CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-4, the proposed project would provide affordable housing units consistent with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to guidance from the CAPCOA Handbook’s GHG Reduction Formulas and calculations from the San Mateo C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, Hexagon determined that a 2.3 percent VMT reduction can be achieved as a result of the project’s compliance with CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-4. In addition, consistent with CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-18, the project would provide pedestrian walkways within the site and implement off-site improvements north of the existing Pacifica Community Center, including pedestrian connections within the improvement area and from the project site to the Pacifica Community Center. According to Hexagon, the creation of pedestrian-friendly connections reduces automobile trips and increases the likelihood of residents walking. Pursuant to guidance from the CAPCOA Handbook’s GHG Reduction Formulas and calculations from the San Mateo C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, Hexagon determined that a 1.7 percent VMT reduction can be achieved as a result of the project’s compliance with CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-18.
Based on the above, implementation of CAPCOA VMT reduction strategies T-4 and T-18 would result in a four percent VMT reduction. Thus, residential VMT associated with the proposed project would be reduced to 16.61, which is still above the LCIrecommended impact threshold of 13.34 VMT per capita. Because the proposed project would generate VMT that exceeds the applicable threshold, the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and a significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-9 would reduce the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit and would improve the competitiveness of transit against driving.
CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-9 is not already incorporated into the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the strategy would be required by Mitigation Measure 4.3-3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would reduce residential VMT per capita associated with the project residential component by implementing CAPCOA reduction strategy T-9 to reduce external vehicle trips generated by project residents and increase the total number of transit trips. According to CAPCOA, implementation of VMT reduction strategy T-9 would reduce project-generated residential VMT per capita by 0.6 percent. With Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, residential VMT per capita generated by the project’s residential component would be 18.4 percent above baseline local VMT per capita average. Therefore, even with mitigation, project-generated residential VMT per capita would be more than 15 percent below baseline local and regional residential VMT per capita averages, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
1.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
4.3-3 The project applicant shall implement the following CAPCOA VMT reduction strategy T-9 to reduce the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by future residents, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The timing for the strategy is set forth below:
Implement subsidized or discounted transit program (CAPCOA Handbook Strategy T-9)
The proposed project shall provide subsidized or discounted, or free transit passes for residents of the project’s 19 dwelling units.
Prior to occupancy of the multi-family residential units, the project applicant shall provide two free one-year transit passes to residents of the project’s 19 dwelling units.
4.3-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in
inadequate emergency access. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
The proposed project would not include the installation of any sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Given the proposed mixed-use development, the use of incompatible equipment would not occur. For example, given the proposed residential use, farming equipment would be unlikely to operate on-site. During construction, equipment would be staged on-site. In addition, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.3- 1, a construction traffic management plan would be implemented during construction, which would ensure that roadway hazards would not occur.
Several factors determine whether a project has sufficient access for emergency vehicles, including the following:
1. Number of access points (both public and emergency access only);
2. Width of access points; and
3. Width of internal roadways.
Vehicles would have access to and from the project site by way of a proposed driveway off of Crespi Drive. In addition, a new west-to-east driveway off Crespi Drive would be constructed along the northern boundary of the Pacifica Community Center. Egress from the site would be provided by way of a connection to the existing driveway from the Pacifica Community Center and then back onto Crespi Drive. The proposed project would not include any substantial modifications to the planned roadway system in the project area.
The proposed project would be required to comply with all building, fire, and safety codes and specific development plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, Pacifica Police Department, and the North Country Fire Authority (NCFA). The aforementioned departments have reviewed the proposed
1.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
circulation system for the project site and determined that proposed project would provide adequate emergency access. According to the NCFA, the required access of 26 feet would not be met with the proposed site plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure IX-3 as set forth in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A). As required by Mitigation Measure IX-3, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall demonstrate compliance with the 26-foot access road width, or obtain Fire Marshall approval of an Alternative Methods and Materials request by the NCFA to deviate from the 26-foot access road width requirement for the proposed project.
Based on the above, without adjustments to the existing driveway or approval of Alternative Methods and Materials request, emergency access to the project site would not be considered adequate. Thus, the proposed development project could substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access, and result in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.3-4 Implement Initial Study Mitigation Measure IX-3.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region. For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
It should be noted that increased traffic volumes on local roadway facilities under cumulative conditions would not substantially alter performance related to pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, transit facilities and services, hazards, and emergency vehicle access. Rather, impacts to such facilities under cumulative conditions would be identical to those discussed above under Impacts 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-4. In addition, construction activities associated with the project would be complete prior to the cumulative analysis year. Therefore, such topics are not discussed further in the cumulative analysis presented herein.
Similarly, the VMT impact analysis for buildout of the proposed project included under Impact 4.3- 3 would also apply to Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The VMT significance threshold compares project-generated residential VMT per capita to that of existing local and regional development. The VMT comparison is useful because the comparison provides information regarding how a project aligns with long-term environmental goals related to VMT established
1.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 4.3 – Transportation
based on existing development levels. Use of VMT significance thresholds based on existing development levels is recommended in the LCI Technical Advisory. The Technical Advisory indicates that VMT efficiency metrics, such as VMT per capita, may not be appropriate for CEQA cumulative analysis because they employ a denominator. Instead, the Technical Advisory recommends that an impact finding from an efficiency-based project-specific VMT analysis (i.e., Existing Plus Project conditions) would imply an identical impact finding for a cumulative VMT analysis.9 An example provided by LCI explains that a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Therefore, an analysis of VMT is not presented in this section as the conclusion would remain identical to that presented under Impact 4.3-3. 9 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA [pg. 6]. December 2018.
1.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
5. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS
1.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Statutorily Required Sections chapter of the Draft EIR includes discussions regarding those topics that are required to be included in an EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2.
The chapter includes a discussion of the proposed project’s potential to result in growth-inducing impacts; the cumulative setting analyzed in this EIR; significant irreversible environmental changes; and significant and unavoidable impacts caused by the proposed project.
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires an EIR to evaluate the potential growthinducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, an EIR must discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or by encouraging and/or facilitating other activities that could induce growth. Examples of projects likely to have growthinducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems (e.g. roadways, utilities) beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or office complexes in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped.
The CEQA Guidelines are clear that while an analysis of growth-inducing effects is required, it should not be assumed that induced growth is necessarily significant or adverse. This analysis examines the following potential growth-inducing impacts related to implementation of the proposed project and assesses whether these effects are significant and adverse (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2[e]):
1. Foster population and economic growth and construction of housing.
2. Eliminate obstacles to population growth.
3. Affect service levels, facility capacity, or infrastructure demand.
4. Encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
Foster Population and Economic Growth and Construction of Housing As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A of this EIR), the proposed 19-unit, mixed-use development would increase the housing available within the project vicinity, and lead to an increase of population in the area. Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2.71 persons per household estimate for the City of Pacifica average household size, the project is expected to accommodate approximately 52 new residents (2.71 x 19 dwelling units). The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the 2023 population of Pacifica to be approximately 36,426. The increase in population associated with the proposed project would constitute a 0.14 percent increase in the City’s population which would not be considered substantial growth. While the City of Pacifica’s General Plan currently designates Parcel 2 as Public and Semi Public, and Park, and, therefore, a General Plan Amendment would be required to redesignate the 0.70-acre portion of Parcel 2 to Mixed Use
5. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
Center, the majority of the project site (i.e., Parcel 1) is currently designated Mixed Use Center.
Mixed Use Center permits the construction of ground level housing and commercial uses, providing for a residential density range of 30 to 50 units per gross acre. The proposed project includes a Zoning Text Amendment to ensure the City’s zoning code allows residential uses to be constructed on the ground level consistent with the Mixed Use Center land use designation; however the amendment does not affect the overall allowable residential density. Thus, the population growth that would occur as a result of the project has generally been previously anticipated by the City and evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Additionally, the proposed project would not result in any indirect population growth from extension of major infrastructure because, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Initial Study, adequate utility infrastructure already exists in the project vicinity to support the proposed project.
In regard to economic growth, the proposed mixed-use development would include 3,165 square feet (sf) of commercial space on the ground floor of Building A. The 3,165 sf of commercial space would result in long-term employment within the area; however, the potential growth induced by the proposed commercial components of the project is not likely to be significant, given that the project is generally consistent with what has been anticipated in the General Plan EIR, as described above. In addition, the relatively small size of the commercial space, which could be used for any number of commercial purposes, would not result in economic growth on the scale of a new major employment center. Additionally, the development would provide short-term employment opportunities in the form of jobs associated with construction activities. Such jobs would likely be filled from the local employee base and would not generate long-term employment growth within the project area. Thus, the long-term economic growth generated by the proposed mixed-use development would not be significant or adverse.
Overall, all physical environmental effects of the proposed project, including the proposed residences and commercial use, have been addressed throughout this EIR and the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed project would not be anticipated to foster population or economic growth and construction of unanticipated housing.
Eliminate Obstacles to Population Growth
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growthinducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services, would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth.
Development of the proposed project would include the construction of new water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater conveyance connections to existing infrastructure within the project vicinity. The existing infrastructure would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. As concluded in Section XIX, Public Utilities and Service Systems, of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility systems. In addition, the utility infrastructure proposed for the project site would be sized to specifically serve the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the proposed on-site utility improvements would not eliminate a physical obstacle that would create a growth-inducing effect.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
Primary access to the project site would be provided from Crespi Drive. The proposed project would include internal roads and parking, as well as off-site improvements to the north of the site adjacent to the Pacifica Community Center, including a new driveway, 17 uncovered parking stalls, and a drop off area. The off-site improvements would not increase traffic or modify the existing operation of the Pacifica Community Center. Furthermore, the roadway improvements would not provide any connections beyond the improvements designed specifically to serve the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not eliminate a physical or regulatory obstacle that would create a growth-inducing effect.
Affect Service Levels, Facility Capacity, or Infrastructure Demand Increases in population that would occur as a result of a project could significantly strain existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. As discussed in Section XV, Public Services, of the Initial Study, increased demands for fire and police protection services attributable to the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Initial Study, wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP), and, pursuant to the North Coast County Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the City and the proposed project in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through 2045.
Finally, the Ox Mountain Landfill, Los Trancos Canyon Landfill, and/or the Apanolio Canyon Landfill, which would serve the proposed project, have adequate capacity to manage the solid waste generated as a result of the project. Furthermore, as discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the City’s storm drain system.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not increase population such that service levels, facility capacity, or infrastructure demand would require construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.
Encourage or Facilitate other Activities That Could Significantly Affect the Environment
This EIR and the accompanying Initial Study provide a comprehensive assessment of the potential for environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.
Please refer to Chapters 4.1 through 4.3 of this EIR and the Initial Study (see Appendix A of this EIR), which comprehensively address the potential for impacts from urban development on the project site.
5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 requires that an EIR discuss the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project that would adversely affect the environment. “Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). “[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, subd. [a]). “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, subd. [b]).
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
The need for cumulative impact assessment reflects the fact that, although a project may cause an “individually limited” or “individually minor” incremental impact that, by itself, is not significant, the increment may be “cumulatively considerable,” and, thus, significant, when viewed together with environmental changes anticipated from past, present, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, subd. [h(1)], Section 15065, subd. [c], and Section 15355, subd. [b]).
Accordingly, particular impacts may be less than significant on a project-specific basis but significant on a cumulative basis if their small incremental contribution, viewed against the larger backdrop, is cumulatively considerable. However, it should be noted that CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, Subdivision (h)(5) states, “[…]the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” Therefore, even where cumulative impacts are significant, any level of incremental contribution is not necessarily deemed cumulatively considerable.
Section 15130(b) of CEQA Guidelines indicates that the level of detail of the cumulative analysis need not be as great as for the project impact analyses, but that analysis should reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, and that the analysis should be focused, practical, and reasonable. To be adequate, a discussion of cumulative effects must include the following elements:
(1) Either (a) a list of past, present and probable future projects, including, if necessary, those outside the agency’s control, or (b) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior certified EIR, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact, provide that such documents are reference and made available for public inspection at a specified location;
(2) A summary of the individual projects’ environmental effects, with specific reference to additional information and stating where such information is available; and (3) A reasonable analysis of all of the relevant projects’ cumulative impacts, with an examination of reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to such effects (Section 15130[b]).
For some projects, the only feasible mitigation measures will involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis (Section 15130[c]). Section 15130(a)(3) states that an EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if a project is required to implement or fund the project’s fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.
A discussion of cumulative impacts is provided within each of the technical chapters of this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.
Cumulative Setting
The lead agency should define the relevant geographic area of inquiry for each impact category (id., Section 15130, subd. [b][3]), and should then identify the universe of “past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts” relevant to the various categories, either through the preparation of a “list” of such projects or through the use of “a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact” (id., subd. [b][1]).
As discussed above, two approaches exist for identifying cumulative projects and their associated impacts. The “list” approach identifies individual projects known to be occurring or proposed in the surrounding area in order to identify potential cumulative impacts. The “projection” approach uses a summary of projections in adopted General Plans or related planning documents to identify potential cumulative impacts. The majority of the cumulative analysis in this EIR is based upon the buildout projections included in the City of Pacifica General Plan.
Some situations exist where the geographic setting differs for the various resource areas. For example, global climate change is, by nature, a cumulative impact. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change (e.g., sea level rise, impacts to water supply and water quality, public health impacts, impacts to ecosystems, impacts to agriculture, and other environmental impacts).
A single project could not generate enough GHG emissions to contribute noticeably to a change in the global average temperature. However, the combination of GHG emissions from a project in combination with other past, present, and future projects could contribute substantially to the world-wide phenomenon of global climate change and the associated environmental impacts.
Although the geographical context for global climate change is the Earth, for analysis purposes under CEQA, and due to the regulatory context pertaining to GHG emissions and global climate change applicable to the proposed project, the geographical context for global climate change in this EIR is limited to the State of California.
Cumulative impacts are analyzed in the Initial Study prepared for the 570 Crespi Drive Project where appropriate, along with each of the technical chapters of this EIR, where the specific cumulative setting for each resource area is presented along with the cumulative impact discussion in the relevant resource area section of the EIR.
5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
As established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), this EIR is required to include consideration of significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project, should the project be implemented. An impact would be determined to be a significant and irreversible change in the environment if:
x Buildout of the project area could involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; x The primary and secondary impacts of development could generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to a previously remote area); x Development of the proposed project could involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or x The phasing and eventual development of the project could result in an unjustified consumption of resources (e.g., the wasteful use of energy).
The proposed project would likely result in, or contribute to, the following significant irreversible environmental changes:
x Conversion of predominantly vacant land to a mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses, thus precluding alternative land uses in the future; IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
x Irreversible consumption of goods and services, such as fire, police, and school services, associated with the future population; and
x Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources, such as water and electricity, associated with the future residential and commercial uses.
The impacts listed above result from the irreversible consumption of resources due to the buildout of the project and resulting residents, and would be significant and irreversible. The cumulative impacts of the proposed project are discussed throughout this EIR and the Initial Study, as appropriate.
5.5 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
According to CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable should the proposed action be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[b]). Such impacts would be considered unavoidable when the determination is made that either mitigation is not feasible or only partial mitigation is feasible such that the impact is not reduced to a level that is less than significant. This section identifies significant impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigations imposed by the City. The final determination of the significance of impacts and the feasibility of mitigation measures would be made by the City as part of the City’s certification action. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are summarized below.
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (Impact 4.2-1)
The proposed project would comply with applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Buildings Criterion a., related to the prohibition of natural gas and Building Criterion b., related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. However, the proposed project has the potential to conflict with BAAQMD Transportation Criterion c., related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and Transportation Criterion d, related to the provision of EV charging stations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) would ensure project consistency with Transportation criterion d. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) would address Transportation criterion c.
However, as discussed further in Chapter 4.3, Transportation, of this EIR, implementation of the measures required by Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) would reduce project VMT, but not to a level that would fall below the established significance threshold of 15 percent less than the regional average VMT. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b), the project would not comply with BAAQMD’s Transportation criterion c. Consequently, even with implementation of mitigation, the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulatively significant effects of GHG emissions and global climate change would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Impact 4.3-3)
The project’s VMT rate would exceed the applicable threshold of 13.34 VMT per capita.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would reduce residential VMT per capita associated with the project residential component, but not to a level below the applicable threshold of significance. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, project-generated IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 5 – Statutorily Required Sections
residential VMT per capita would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
1.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
6. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The Alternatives Analysis chapter of the EIR includes consideration and discussion of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Generally, the chapter includes discussions of the following: the purpose of an alternatives analysis; alternatives considered but dismissed; a reasonable range of project alternatives and their associated impacts in comparison to the proposed project’s impacts; and the environmentally superior alternative.
6.2 PURPOSE OF ALTERNATIVES
The primary intent of the alternatives evaluation in an EIR, as stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, is to “[…] describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” In the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 21061.1, “feasible” is defined as:
[...]capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.
Section 15126.6(f) of CEQA Guidelines states, “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” Section 15126.6(f) of CEQA Guidelines further states:
The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determined could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
In addition, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternative “cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” The CEQA Guidelines provide the following guidance for discussing alternatives to a proposed project:
x An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]).
x Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
6. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
/ 7
A ·g r
1.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]). x The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed.
The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination […] Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). x The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]). x If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]).
x The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project’s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]).
x If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2]).
Project Objectives
Based on the above, reasonable alternatives to the project must be capable of feasibly attaining most of the basic objectives of the project. The following objectives have been submitted by the project applicant:
1. Create a viable mixed-use project that responsibly maximizes the potential for the development of the site.
2. Accentuate and strengthen the commercial streetscape by fronting the mixed-use building on Crespi Drive.
3. Take advantage of combining vehicle circulation with the existing Pacifica Community Center.
4. Consider parking demand over time for commercial and residential uses to minimize the overall need to devote land to parking.
5. Concentrate development towards the front of the site, preserving a generous amount of open space at the rear of the property in its natural state.
6. Foster connectivity and interaction with the Pacifica Community Center.
Impacts Identified in the EIR
In addition to attaining the majority of project objectives, reasonable alternatives to the proposed project must be capable of reducing the magnitude of, or avoiding, identified significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. The significant impacts identified in the EIR are
1.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
presented in Table 6-1; the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR are also presented below.
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to generating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, the proposed project has the potential to conflict with Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Transportation criterion c., related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) as established by Chapter 4.3, Transportation, of this EIR, would reduce project VMT, but not to a level that would achieve 15 percent less than the regional average VMT. Therefore, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b), the proposed project would not comply with BAAQMD’s Transportation criterion c. and could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. x Transportation. The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to a conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which is related to VMT. CAPCOA strategies are currently incorporated to the proposed project through inherent project design features. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, residential VMT per capita generated by the project residential component would be 18.4 percent above baseline local VMT per capita average. As such, even with mitigation, project-generated residential VMT per capita would exceed the 15 percent below baseline local and regional residential VMT per capita thresholds, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The requirement that an EIR evaluate alternatives to the proposed project or alternatives to the location of the proposed project is a broad one; the primary intent of the alternatives analysis is to disclose other ways that the objectives of the project could be attained, while reducing the magnitude of, or avoiding, one or more of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives that are included and evaluated in the EIR must be feasible alternatives.
However, the CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” As stated in Section 15126.6(a), an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for “a range of reasonable alternatives” and thus limit the number and type of alternatives that may need to be evaluated in a given EIR. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f):
The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determined could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
Another consideration for alternatives in an EIR must be feasible. In the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 21061.1, “feasible” is defined as:
...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.
1.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Finally, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternative “cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further Analysis Consistent with CEQA, primary consideration was given to alternatives that could reduce significant impacts, while still meeting most of the basic project objectives.
As stated in Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:
(i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or
(iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
Regarding item (ii), infeasibility, among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
The Buildout Pursuant to the General Plan Alternative and Buildout Pursuant to the Existing Zoning Alternative were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis in this EIR. The reason(s) for dismissal, within the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), are provided below.
Buildout Pursuant to the General Plan Alternative
The Buildout Pursuant to the General Plan Alternative would consist of buildout of the site consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Center. Buildout of the project site pursuant to the existing General Plan land use designation would likely result in greater impacts to the environmental issue areas identified in this EIR, as alternative development projects are not guaranteed to preserve the biological habitat in the western portion of the site. In addition, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), the Alternative would not be feasible for the proposed project, as the requested General Plan Amendment is intended to redesignate the off-site improvement area from the Public and Semi-Public and Park land use designations to Mixed Use Center. Requiring the proposed project to develop Public and Park land uses in the off-site improvement area would result in failure to meet the project objectives.
Several project objectives do not serve as general goals that could be easily adapted to different uses, as alternative uses would likely not include the off-site improvements included as part of the proposed project. For example, Objectives 3 and 6 are related to the proposed connections and interaction with the Pacifica Community Center that alternative mixed-use projects are not guaranteed to include. Given these reasons, the Buildout Pursuant to the General Plan Alternative would fail to meet most of the basic project objectives. Thus, the alternative is hereby dismissed from further review.
Buildout Pursuant to the Existing Zoning Alternative
The Buildout Pursuant to the Existing Zoning Alternative would require the site to be developed consistent with the existing Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1) zoning designation. Pursuant
1.b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
to Section 9-4.1601 of the City’s Municipal Code, allowed uses under the M-1 zoning district are consistent with the uses in the C-3 zoning district, which include, but are not limited to, warehouses, storage facilities, large-scale production, and shops, such as glass, welding, cabinetry, sheet metal work, paint mixing, upholstery, machine shops, and sign shops. Such uses would not be compatible with the existing surrounding uses, which include the Pacifica Community Center, residences, and an elementary school. Buildout of the project site pursuant to the existing zoning designation would likely result in greater impacts, as alternative development projects are not guaranteed to preserve the biological habitat in the western portion of the site. Several project objectives, including Objectives 3 and 6, do not serve as general goals that could be easily adapted to different uses. In addition, developing the project site with uses consistent with the M-1 zoning designation would conflict with Objective 4, related to residential parking demand. Therefore, if the project applicant revised the proposed project to be consistent with the existing zoning designations, the majority of the objectives would likely not be met.
Given these reasons, the Buildout Pursuant to the Existing Zoning Alternative would fail to meet most of the basic project objectives. Thus, the alternative is hereby dismissed from further review.
Alternatives Considered in this EIR
The following alternatives are evaluated in this section:
1. No Project (No Build) Alternative;
2. 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative; and
3. Reduced Intensity Alternative.
Each of the project alternatives is described in detail below, with a corresponding analysis of each alternative’s consistency with the project objectives and evaluation of impacts to the existing environment in comparison to the proposed project’s identified impacts. While an effort has been made to include quantitative data for certain analytical topics, where possible, qualitative comparisons of the various alternatives to the project are primarily provided. Such an approach to the analysis is appropriate as evidenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), which states that the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The analysis evaluates impacts that would occur with the alternatives relative to the significant impacts identified for the proposed project. When comparing the potential impacts resulting from implementation of the foregoing alternatives, the following terminology is used:
x “None” = No Impact;
x “Fewer” = Less than Proposed Project;
x “Similar” = Similar to Proposed Project; and
x “Greater” = Greater than Proposed Project.
When the term “fewer” is used, the reader should not necessarily equate this to elimination of significant impacts identified for the proposed project. For example, in many cases, an alternative would reduce the relative intensity of a significant impact identified for the proposed project, but the impact would still be expected to remain significant under the alternative, thereby requiring mitigation. In other cases, the use of the term “fewer” may mean the actual elimination of an impact identified for the proposed project altogether. Similarly, use of the term “greater” does not necessarily imply that an alternative would require additional mitigation beyond what has been
1.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
required for the proposed project. To the extent possible, this analysis will distinguish between the two implications of the comparative words “fewer” and “greater.” See Table 6-1 for a comparison of the environmental impacts resulting from the considered alternatives and the proposed project.
No Project (No Build) Alternative
CEQA requires the evaluation of the comparative impacts of the “No Project” alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Analysis of the no project alternative shall:
“… discuss […] existing conditions […] as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” (Id., subd. [e][2]) “If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the ‘no project’ alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in the property’s existing state versus environmental effects that would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no project’ consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build,’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.
However, where failure to proceed with the project would not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (Id., subd. [e][3][B]).
The City has decided to evaluate a No Project (No Build) Alternative, which assumes that the current conditions of the project site would remain, and the site would not be developed. As described in this EIR, the project site is currently undeveloped and covered in dense vegetation.
Several trees and shrubs are located throughout the project site. The western portion of the site is disturbed due to landscape improvements, while the southern portion is predominantly characterized by a seasonal drainage and wetland area. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.
Biological Resources
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, construction activities, including ground disturbance, would not occur on the project site. As such, the Alternative would not have the potential to impact special-status plant species, the California red-legged frog, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, and other migratory bird and raptor species protected under the MBTA. The disturbance and possible fill of the on-site waters of the State would not occur, nor would any removal of potential riparian vegetation or trees. As such, the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project related to biological resources would not be required under the Alternative. Overall, impacts related to Biological Resources would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. As discussed in further detail below, because the impact related to VMT would be eliminated under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions would not occur. Thus, the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project
1.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
related to GHG emissions would not be required. Overall, significant impacts related to GHG emissions and VMT would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative.
Transportation
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. Because development of new residential and commercial uses would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Alternative would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities, result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to a conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. Thus, all mitigation measures identified for the proposed project related to transportation would not be required. Overall, significant impacts related to Transportation would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative.
Initial Study
Because the project site would remain undeveloped, the No Project (No Build) Alternative, would not result in any impacts related to the environmental issue areas identified for the proposed project in the Initial Study.
100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative
The 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would consist of similar buildout of the components of the proposed project, including a two-story mixed-use building (Building A), two three-story residential buildings (Buildings B and C), and the same off-site improvements as the proposed project north of the existing Pacifica Community Center. However, under the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative, the 19 proposed units would be made affordable units, available to buyers with low to moderate incomes. Because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would include development of the same uses as the proposed project, all of the project objectives would be met.
Biological Resources
Because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would involve the same buildout as the proposed project and associated ground-disturbing activities on the project site, the same potential to impact special-status plant species, the California red-legged frog, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, and other migratory bird and raptor species protected under the MBTA would occur as the proposed project. In addition, the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would include the disturbance and possible fill of the on-site waters of the State and the removal of on-site trees and potential riparian vegetation. As such, all mitigation measures related to biological resources would still be required. Overall, impacts related to biological resources would be similar under the Alternative compared to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in further detail under the Transportation section below, because VMT associated with the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would be less than significant, the Alternative would comply with BAAQMD Transportation criterion c. As a result, all mitigation measures related to GHG emissions would not be required. The Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project, and the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed project would be eliminated.
1.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Transportation
Under the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative, the commercial uses would generate similar daily trips to the proposed project and would screen out under the applicable 110 trip threshold from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). With respect to the residential daily trips, according to LCI, adding affordable housing to an area generally improves the jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT because lowwage workers in particular are more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace if one is available. Additionally, even in areas where the existing jobs-housing match is closer to optimal, affordable housing is still shown to generate less VMT than market-rate housing. As such, LCI advises that potential impacts related to VMT screen out as less-than-significant for projects with 100 percent affordable development.1 Because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would require all proposed residences to be affordable housing, the Alternative would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. However, because construction would still occur on-site, construction traffic and potential street closures could interfere with existing roadway operations. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 would still apply.
In addition, because the Alternative would not include adjustments to the existing driveway, emergency access to the project site would not be considered adequate and Mitigation Measure
4.3-4 would still be required.
Overall, because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would involve reduced VMT, the Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to transportation as compared to the proposed project, and the significant and unavoidable impact that would occur under the proposed project would be eliminated.
Initial Study
Because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would include the same disturbance area as the proposed project, impacts identified and fully mitigated in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project would be similar under the Alternative. Accordingly, a detailed comparison of potential impacts associated with the environmental issue areas as a result of the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative and the proposed project is not included. Rather, the mitigation measures within the Initial Study required to reduce significant impacts related to ground disturbance, such as impacts related to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, to less than significant, would still be required. Specific impacts in the Initial Study requiring mitigation are included in Table 6-1.
Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would eliminate four residences from the project by reducing Building C by three units and Building B by one unit, for a total of 15 units (see Figure 6-1). As discussed throughout this EIR, the proposed project would provide affordable housing units consistent with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The affordable units, which would be located within Building A, would remain as proposed. Buildings B and C would remove the units from the end closest to the existing wetlands, thereby increasing the buffer distance between the development and the wetlands. All other aspects of the proposed project would be similar under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, including the off-site improvements. 1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
December 2018.
1.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Figure 6-1
Reduced Intensity Alternative Site Plan
Residences Removed
---
1.b
Packet Pg. 448
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would include development of the same uses as the proposed project, all of the project objectives would be met. Objective 5 could arguably be better met under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, as the removal of four units would preserve more open space at the rear of the site.
Biological Resources
Although the Reduced Intensity Alternative would include the construction of fewer residential units, and, thus, smaller buildings, ground-disturbing activities would still occur on the project site.
Therefore, the Alternative would have the same potential to impact special-status plant species, California red-legged frog, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, and other migratory bird and raptor species protected under the MBTA, and the same mitigation measures would be required. In addition, although the buffer between the development and wetlands would be increased, because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still include the potential disturbance and possible fill of the on-site waters of the State, removal of potential riparian vegetation, and the removal of on-site trees, the associated mitigation measures would still be required.
Overall, impacts related to biological resources would be similar under the Reduced Intensity Alternative compared to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in further detail below, because VMT impacts associated with the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant, the Alternative would comply with BAAQMD Transportation criterion c. As a result, all mitigation measures related to GHG emissions would not be required. The Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project, and the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed project would be eliminated.
Transportation
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the commercial uses would generate similar daily trips as the proposed project and would screen out. With respect to the residential daily trips, according to the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed project, the average daily single-family residential trip rate would be 7.44 trips per day per unit. Based on the total of 12 single-family attached housing units in Buildings B and C, the Alternative would result in approximately 89 trips a day (12 units x 7.44 average trip rate = 89.28 daily trips). According to the VMT Analysis, the three multi-family units in Building A would result in 18 average daily trips. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in 108 total daily trips (89.28 + 18 Building A trips = 107.28 daily trips). As such, under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the residential component of the project would also screen out under LCI’s 110-trip threshold for small land use projects. However, because construction would still occur on-site, construction traffic and potential street closures could interfere with existing roadway operations. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 would still apply. In addition, because the Alternative would not include adjustments to the existing driveway, emergency access to the project site would not be considered adequate and Mitigation Measure
4.3-4 would still be required.
Overall, because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would involve lowered VMT rates, the Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to transportation as compared to the proposed project, and the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed project would be eliminated.
1.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Initial Study
Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would include the same disturbance area as the proposed project, impacts identified and fully mitigated in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project would be similar under the Alternative. Accordingly, a detailed comparison of potential impacts associated with the environmental issue areas as a result of the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the proposed project is not included. Rather, the mitigation measures within the Initial Study required to reduce significant impacts related to ground disturbance, such as impacts related to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, to less than significant, would still be required. Specific impacts in the Initial Study requiring mitigation are included in Table 6-1 at the end of this chapter.
6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. The environmentally superior alternative is generally the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the Lead Agencies. Section 15126(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states, “If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” In this case, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, because the project site is assumed to remain in its current condition under the alternative. Consequently, none of the impacts resulting from the proposed project would occur under the Alternative, as shown in Table 6-1 below.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative and Reduced Intensity Alternative would include development of the same uses as the proposed project, all of the project objectives would be met.
It should be noted that Objective 5 could arguably be better met under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, as the removal of four units would preserve more open space at the rear of the project site.
As discussed throughout this chapter and shown in Table 6-1, both the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to GHG emissions and transportation, and would result in similar impacts as the proposed project related to biological resources. Under both alternatives, impacts related to GHG emissions and VMT, which were identified as significant and unavoidable for the proposed project, would not occur. However, because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would only include a portion of affordable units on-site, the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would more effectively contribute to the City’s goals related to the provision of affordable housing.
Because the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would result in fewer significant impacts than the proposed project, would meet all project objectives, and would more effectively accomplish the City’s goals related to providing affordable housing, the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
1.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Table 6-1
Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives Impact
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
100 Percent Affordable
Housing Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
4.1 Biological Resources
4.1-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., threaten to eliminate a plant community) or through habitat modifications, on any plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
4.1-2 Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through habitat modifications, on saltmarsh common yellowthroat, and other migratory birds and raptors protected under the MBTA.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
4.1-3 Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through habitat modifications, on California red-legged frog.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
4.1-4 Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
4.1-6 Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
(Continues on next page) IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 451
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Table 6-1
Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives Impact
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
100 Percent Affordable
Housing Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.2-1 Generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Significant
and
Unavoidable
None Fewer Fewer
4.3 Transportation
4.3-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
4.3-3 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Significant
and
Unavoidable
None Fewer Fewer
4.3-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency access.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
Initial Study
V-a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
V-b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
V-c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
(Continues on next page)
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 452
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Table 6-1
Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives Impact
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
100 Percent Affordable
Housing Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
VII-a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction; or
iv. Landslides.
VII-c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
VII-d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
VII-f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
IX-b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
IX-c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
IX-f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
(Continues on next page) IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 453
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 6 – Alternatives Analysis
Table 6-1
Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives Impact
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
100 Percent Affordable
Housing Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
X-a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
X-e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
XIII-b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
XVIII-a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
XVIII-b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
None Similar Similar
Note: No Impact = “None;” Greater than Proposed Project = “Greater;” Less than Proposed Project = “Fewer;” and Similar to Proposed Project = “Similar” * Significant and Unavoidable impact(s) determined for the proposed project would still be expected to occur under the Alternative IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 454
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use
7. REFERENCES
1.b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 7 – References
1. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050: Final. October 2021.
2. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Forecasting and Modeling Report, Appendix 1: Growth Pattern. October 2021.
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2022.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans October 2024.
5. Cal-Adapt. Local Climate Change Snapshot for Pacifica, California. Available at: https://caladapt.org/tools/local-climate-change-snapshot/. Accessed November 2024.
6. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. December 2021.
7. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.
November 16, 2022.
8. California Energy Commission. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve Efficiency, Reduce Emissions From Homes and Businesses. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energy-commission-adopts-updated-buildingstandards-improve-efficiency-reduce-0. Accessed December 2024.
9. Caltrans. Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. May 20, 2020.
10. City of Pacifica. City of Pacifica Climate Action Plan. Adopted July 14, 2014.
11. City of Pacifica. City of Pacifica General Plan 2040. Adopted July 11, 2022.
12. City of Pacifica. City of Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Adopted May 25, 2022.
13. City of Pacifica. Tree Ordinance/Permits. Available at:
https://cityofpacifica.org/trees/ordinances.asp. Accessed December 2020.
14. City of Pacifica. Wet Weather Equalization Basin (EQ Basin). Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/public-works/wastewater-treatment/wetweather-equalization-basin-eq-basin. Accessed December 2024.
7. REFERENCES
1.b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 7 – References
15. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
16. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. VMT Analysis for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 570 Crespi Drive in Pacifica, California. September 10, 2024.
17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
Accessed October 2024.
18. Madrone Ecological Consulting. Peer review for the proposed 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. April 20, 2020.
19. Monk & Associates, Inc. Biological Constraints Analysis 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica San Mateo County, California (APNS: 022-162-310) (~1.7 Acres). October 8, 2014.
20. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In Removing Major Roadblock to State Action on Emissions Standards, U.S. Department of Transportation Advances Biden-Harris Administration’s Climate and Jobs Goals. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/pressreleases/cafe-preemption-final-rule. Accessed October 2024.
21. Stephen L. Kostka and Michael H. Zischke. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Volume 1. Continuing Education of the Bar: March 2022, Section 12.27.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climateindicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases.
Accessed November 2024.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rulerevise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. Accessed October 2024.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed November 2024.
25. Wood Biological Consulting. Biological Constraints Analysis – Updated. August 17, 2020.
26. Wood Biological Consulting. Response Letter: Determination of Incomplete Application – File No. 2016-004 Amendment to Biological Constraints Analysis 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA (APN 022-162-310). February 3, 2021.
27. Wood Biological Consulting. Response Letter: File No. 2016-004, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA (APN 022-162-310) – 570 Crespi – IS/MND Information Needed. September 22, 2021.
28. Wood Biological Consulting. Updated Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica CA. May 31, 2024.
1.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
8. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS
CONSULTED
1.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 8 – EIR Authors and Persons Consulted
RANEY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT, INC.
C. Timothy Raney, AICP President
Cindy Gnos, AICP Senior Vice President
Nick Pappani Vice President
Rod Stinson Vice President
Angela DaRosa Division Manager/Air Quality Specialist
Jesse Fahrney Senior Associate/Air Quality Specialist
Grace Olsen Air Quality Analyst
Elijah Bloom Senior Associate
Elizabeth Carr Associate
Taylor Hauft Associate
Stephanie McMindes Associate
CITY OF PACIFICA
Brianne Harkousha Deputy Director of Community Development
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Chris Rogers Principal Ecologist
ADVANCED TREE CARE
Robert Weatherill Certified Arborist
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Kai-ling Kuo, P.E. Transportation Engineer
8. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS
CONSULTED
8. S
1.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
APPENDIX A
1.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 1 DATE: October 4, 2024
TO: Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Interested Parties and Organizations
FROM: Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED 570 CRESPI DRIVE PROJECT
REVIEW PERIOD: October 4, 2024, to November 4, 2024
The City of Pacifica (“City”) is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 570 Crespi Drive Project (proposed project). The City has directed the preparation of this EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study, attached hereto, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which identifies the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project. The Initial Study satisfies the City’s obligation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 to identify the probable environmental effects of the proposed project. The scope of the EIR has been proposed by the City based upon the analysis within the Initial Study.
Once a decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency must prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to inform all responsible and trustee agencies that an EIR will be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082). The purpose of the NOP is to provide agencies with sufficient information describing both the proposed project and the potential environmental effects to enable the agencies to make a meaningful response as to the scope and content of the information to be included in the EIR. The City is also soliciting comments on the scope of the EIR from the general public.
PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The 1.68-acre project site is located just south of Crespi Drive in the City of Pacifica, California. The site consists of the entirety of the 0.98-acre lot identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 022-162-310, located at 570 Crespi Drive (“Parcel 1”), and the southeastern 0.70-acre portion of APN 022-162-420, located at 540 Crespi Drive (“Parcel 2”) (see Figure 1). Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, Parcel 1 is designated Mixed Use Center. Parcel 2 is designated Public and Semi-Public (approximately northern half) and Park (approximately southern half). Both parcels are zoned Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1).
The majority of the site is undeveloped and covered in dense vegetation. Several trees and shrubs are located throughout the project site. It is noted that the western portion of the site was recently disturbed during landscape improvements, while the southern portion of the site is predominantly characterized by a seasonal drainage and wetland area. The southeast portion of Parcel 2 is currently developed with a driveway and roadway to provide access to the parking lot associated with the Pacifica Community Center and Pacifica Skate Park.
Surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and State Route (SR) 1 to the west, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. The Cabrillo Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet
1.b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 2 east of the project site and SR 1 is approximately 0.75-mile to the west of the site. In addition, the Ocean View Senior Apartments are located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would include the purchase from the City of Pacifica of Parcel 2 and a Lot Merger and/or Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to combine the 0.70-acre portion of Parcel 2 and the 0.98-acre Parcel 1.
The new 1.68-acre parcel would be developed with one two-story mixed-use building (Building A) and two three-story residential buildings (Buildings B and C) (see Figure 2). The proposed project would include a condominium subdivision to create one commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums. Five on-site trees would be removed during construction of the proposed project. In addition, the project would involve off-site improvements, including removal of two trees and the construction of a new driveway and associated parking spaces within the northern portion of the existing Pacifica Community Center at 540 Crespi Drive.
The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or LLA, Parking Exception, Sign Permit, and tree removal permit. Additional details regarding the requested approvals, proposed buildings, access and circulation, landscaping, utilities infrastructure, and off-site improvements are discussed below.
General Plan Amendment / Rezoning / Zoning Text Amendment / Development Agreement / Site Development Permit / Use Permit / Parking Exception / Sign Permit / Tree Removal Permit A General Plan Amendment would be required to redesignate Parcel 2 from the two current General Plan land use designations (Public and Semi-Public, and Park) to Mixed Use Center, consistent with the existing land use designation of Parcel 1.
As part of the proposed project, the project site would be Rezoned from M-1 to the Community Commercial (C-2) zoning district. Per Municipal Code Section 9-4.1101(b)(8), residential dwelling units are conditionally allowable when located above the ground floor in the same building as a commercial use. As a result, approval of a Use Permit would be required in order to develop the three proposed units on the second story of Building A. A Site Development Permit and a Use Permit would be required to allow a clustered housing development pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9-4.2403. A Parking Exception would be required to allow an exception to the off-street parking requirements pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.2824(a). In addition, a Sign Permit would be required to include a Master Sign Program for the future commercial tenants of the project to be consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-42907(b). Finally, because the proposed project would include removal of at least eight on-site trees, a tree removal permit would be required prior to removing any protected or City trees, as defined by the City’s current tree protection ordinance.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in areas zoned C-2. Approval of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow for the development of Buildings B and C in the C-2 zoning district. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow residential-only buildings to be constructed on sites that also contain a commercial building in areas throughout the City zoned C-2, subject to approval of a Use Permit. Approval of Use Permits is subject to the requirements of CEQA. Consequently, development of new residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses on other parcels zoned C-2 would require site-specific environmental review and would not be allowed by-right by the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.
The proposed project would also include approval of a Development Agreement to require certain public benefits and to provide certain developer benefits, and to allow the construction of a driveway and 17 parking spaces at the adjacent Community Center, among other public benefits.
Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or Lot Line Adjustment The proposed project would include approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Lot Merger and/or LLA to combine Parcel 1 (APN 022-162-310), located at 570 Crespi Drive, and the southeastern 0.70-
1.b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 3 acre portion of Parcel 2 (APN 022-162-420), located at 540 Crespi Drive. The Tentative Subdivision Map would also include the creation of one commercial structure and 19 residential condominiums on the site.
Proposed Buildings
Building A would consist of 3,165 sf of commercial space on the ground floor and three residential units totaling 3,692 sf on the second floor for a total building square footage of 6,857 sf. Building B would consist of seven townhomes totaling 16,196 sf, and Building C would consist of nine townhomes totaling 20,643 sf, for a project-wide total of 19 units. Both Buildings B and C would be three stories and would be constructed on the northernmost half of the site, while the southernmost half of the site would remain largely undisturbed, except for a small emergency stormwater overflow drain inlet and pipe. Three residential units would be Below Market Rate ownership units affordable to buyers with low or moderate incomes. Construction would occur over an approximately two-year period. Grading would involve import of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil.
As discussed above, Building A would be developed as a mixed-use building with the ground floor consisting of 3,165-sf of commercial space and three residential units on the second floor. The westernmost unit in Building A would be approximately 1,312 sf with one bedroom, two bathrooms, and two balconies. The center unit in Building A would be approximately 925 sf with one bedroom, one bathroom, and a single balcony. The easternmost unit in Building A would be approximately 1,312 sf with one bedroom, two bathrooms, and two balconies.
Building B would include seven town homes, and Building C would include nine townhomes. All units would include a tandem garage on the first floor with a first-floor entry, with the residential space included on the second and third floors.
The first-floor entryway, second floor, and third floor of each unit would total approximately 1,521 sf, with the exception that the southernmost unit in Building B would be 2,212 sf, and the southernmost unit in Building C would be 2,227 sf. A roof deck would be provided above each unit in Buildings B and C.
Parking, Access, and Circulation
Primary access to the project site would be provided from Crespi Drive. The driveway entrance would be provided along the eastern side of Building A and loop around the southern portion of Building A, before exiting the site to the west. A two-way drive aisle would connect to the proposed loop to allow residents access to Building B and C. The first floor of Building B and Building C would include private tandem garages for each proposed unit. Additionally, a total of 15 uncovered parking spaces would be provided on the project site, five of which would be located on the east side of Building A, seven located directly south of Building A, two south of Building B, and one south of Building C. Of the 47 total parking spaces provided on-site, three would provide electric vehicle charging.
The proposed project would also include improvements to the northern portion of the Pacifica Community Center parcel. The improvements would include construction of a new east to west driveway with 17 uncovered parking spaces and a drop-off area intended for use by the Pacifica Community Center. The new driveway would connect to existing driveways located to the west and to the east of the Community Center.
Landscaping
The proposed project would include landscaping features throughout the development area, the off-site improvement area, and along the Crespi Drive frontage. Proposed plant types include, but are not limited to, crape myrtle, desert willow, sea lavender, dwarf mat rush, and Cleveland sage. All landscaping improvements would be consistent with the City’s landscape design requirements, which require a minimum of 10 percent of the area in commercial zoning districts to be landscaped, and would include at least two inches of mulch.
1.b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 4 Utilities
Sewer service for the project would be provided by the City. The proposed project would include connection to existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in Crespi Drive. Each building would be served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer line to connect to the proposed residential units. In addition, each building would be constructed with a new sanitary sewer cleanout connected to the eight-inch sewer lines. The eightinch lines would eventually connect to an existing sanitary sewer line within Crespi Drive to be routed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant.
Water service would be provided by the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) through connection to the existing water main located at Crespi Drive. A four-inch water line would be routed from all three buildings to provide fire service, while a three-inch water line would be routed from the proposed buildings to provide domestic water services.
Electricity services would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). A new vault would be constructed by PG&E in the northern portion of the project site, near Building A, to provide electricity to the proposed structures. In addition, the project would connect to existing telecommunications infrastructure in the project area.
All runoff from impervious areas within the project site, including all hardscape, parking areas, and driveways would be collected by new four-, six-, eight- and 10-inch storm drainpipes within the proposed driveway and parking area. Runoff flowing through the storm drains would empty into proposed bioswales on the western and eastern boundaries of the site or be directed to a bioretention area in the southeast corner of the project site. Treated stormwater would either be discharged into the vacant land to the south of the development area or into the City’s stormwater system through connection of an existing six-inch storm drain west of the site. An 18-inch emergency overflow riser would be installed in the southwestern corner of the project site, and would connect to the existing 12-inch storm drain that extends along the site’s southwestern boundary. The proposed driveway and parking area north of the existing Community Center would be a self-treating area.
Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project would include various off-site improvements associated with the access driveway and site circulation. As discussed above, the proposed project would include construction of a new west to east driveway off Crespi Drive along the northern boundary of the Pacifica Community Center.
Additional off-site improvements would include construction of 17 parking spaces to the west of the project site, a drop-off area, a new trash containment area, removal of two trees, and landscape improvements.
Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require City approval of the following:
x General Plan Amendment to redesignate Parcel 2 from Public and Semi-Public and Park land use designations to Mixed Use Center land use designation; x Rezoning of the site from M-1 to C-2;
x Zoning Text Amendment to allow residential uses in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in C-2 zoning district;
x Development Agreement to require certain public benefits and to provide certain developer benefits;
x Use Permit to allow residential uses within the C-2 zone; x Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow a clustered residential housing development; x Parking Exception to allow an exception to off-street parking requirements; x Sign Permit to allow a master sign program for commercial tenants; x Tentative Subdivision Map to create new residential and commercial condominiums; x Lot Merger and/or LLA to merge APN 022-162-310 and a portion of APN 022-162-420; and x Tree Removal Permit to authorize tree removal.
1.b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 5 PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Based on the analysis conducted in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Attachment), the EIR will address impacts pertaining to the topics identified below:
x Biological Resources;
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and
x Transportation.
Both of the foregoing chapters of the EIR will include identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of project-level and cumulative impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies, as required. The EIR will also include chapters that discuss Statutorily Required Sections and Alternatives to the proposed project. The EIR will incorporate by reference the City of Pacifica General Plan and General Plan EIR.
The following paragraphs summarize the anticipated analyses that will be included in the EIR.
Biological Resources: The Biological Resources chapter will include potential effects to plant communities, wildlife, wetlands, and heritage trees, including adverse effects on rare, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and special-status species from the activities of the proposed project. The analysis in the chapter will be based on an Updated Biological Resources Analysis prepared by the project applicant specifically for the proposed project, which will be subject to a peer review by a City-hired biologist. Mitigation measures for all identified impacts will be developed consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter will include analysis for the proposed project performed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software program according to the Bay Area Air Quality Managements District’s (BAAQMD’s) CEQA Guidelines. The chapter will include a discussion of emissions in comparison to the BAAQMD’s current GHG thresholds.
Mitigation measures will be identified, as appropriate, using BAAQMD to identify feasible mitigations for GHG emissions.
Transportation: The Transportation chapter will be based on project-specific trip generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analyses. Impact determination for CEQA purposes will be based on VMT, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which became effective statewide on July 1, 2020.
The VMT analysis will be prepared consistent with the City’s current guidance. The proposed project’s impacts to alternative modes such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will be assessed based on the applicable significance criteria. The EIR chapter will also include an analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts related to conflicting with applicable programs, policies, and ordinances addressing the circulation system, vehicle safety hazards, and emergency access. Feasible and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts will be identified, as needed.
Statutorily Required Sections: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the Statutorily Required Sections chapter of the EIR will address the potential for growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project, focusing on whether removal of any impediments to growth would occur with the project. The chapter will summarize significant and unavoidable, significant irreversible, and growth-inducing impacts, to the extent that such impacts are identified in the EIR analysis. The chapter will also summarize the cumulative impact analyses, which will be provided in each technical chapter of the EIR.
Alternatives Analysis: In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Alternatives Analysis chapter will evaluate, at a minimum, three alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. The Alternatives chapter will describe the alternatives and identify the environmentally superior alternative.
The alternatives will be analyzed at a level of detail less than that of the proposed project, which is permissible under CEQA; however, the analyses will include sufficient detail to allow a meaningful comparison of the impacts. The Alternatives Analysis chapter will include a qualitative-level analysis of all impacts for the alternatives, and will also include a section of alternatives considered but dismissed.
1.b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 6 SUBMITTING COMMENTS
To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed project are addressed and all significant issues are identified, written comments are invited from all interested parties on the scope and content of the EIR. Written comments should be directed to the name and address below:
Email (preferred):
[email protected]
Written comments are due to the City of Pacifica at the location addressed above by 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2024.
SCOPING MEETING
In addition to the opportunity to submit written comments, a public NOP scoping meeting will be held to inform interested parties about the proposed project, and to provide agencies and the public an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The scoping meeting will be conducted as a teleconference meeting (no physical location).
EIR Scoping Meeting on the 570 Crespi Drive Project
Tuesday | October 22, 2024 | 6:00 p.m.
Via Zoom teleconference (online only – no physical location):
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84813763301?pwd=aabU0h1xXb4hSvDvfD1bEozouDUEFd.1 Phone: (669) 900-6833 | Webinar ID: 848 1376 3301 | Passcode: 821883 For project information, please contact the Planning Division at [email protected]
Regular Mail:
City of Pacifica
Attn: Brianne Harkousha, Community
Development Department
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, CA 94044-2506
1.b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 7 Figure 1
Project Site Boundaries
Cabrillo
Elementary
School
Ocean View
Senior Apartments
Pacifica
Community
Center
Pacifica
Skatepark
Off-Site
Improvement Area
Overall
Project Site
Remainder
Portion
Development
Area
1.b
Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 8 Figure 2
Site Plan
\ \
I
\
I
1.b
Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Attachment
Initial Study
1.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
CITY OF PACIFICA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Prepared By
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento CA 95834
Office 916.372.6100 Fax 916.419.6108
1.b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
Page i
October 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 B. SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 3 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 5 D. DETERMINATION........................................................................................................... 6 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 7 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 24 I. AESTHETICS. ................................................................................................... 25 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. ................................................. 30 III. AIR QUALITY. ................................................................................................... 31 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................. 41 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................... 44 VI. ENERGY. .......................................................................................................... 47 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .................................................................................... 50 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ................................................................... 54 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. .................................................... 56 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ............................................................. 61 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ............................................................................ 67 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................. 69 XIII. NOISE. .............................................................................................................. 70 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. ......................................................................... 80 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. .......................................................................................... 81 XVI. RECREATION. .................................................................................................. 84 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. ......................................................................................... 85 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. .................................................................. 87 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. .............................................................. 89 XX. WILDFIRE. ......................................................................................................... 92 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ................................................ 93 APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Geotechnical Investigation and Response to Geotechnical Peer Review Appendix C: Environmental Noise Assessment
1.b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: 570 Crespi Drive Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pacifica
Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brianne Harkousha
Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
4. Project Location: 540 and 570 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
APNs 022-162-130
and 022-162-420
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Brendan Murphy
P.O. Box 301
San Mateo, CA 94401
(650) 401-3642
6. Existing General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Center, Public and Semi Public,
and Park
7. Proposed General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Center
8. Existing Zoning Designation: Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1)
9. Proposed Zoning Designation: Community Commercial District (C-2)
10. Potential Approvals from Other Public Agencies: Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The 570 Crespi Drive Project (proposed project) would include development on a 1.68-acre project site comprised of two parcels in the City of Pacifica, California. Parcel 1 is located at 570 Crespi Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 022-162-310) and is designated Mixed Use Center in the City’s General Plan. Parcel 2 is located at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). The northern portion of Parcel 2 is designated Public and Semi Public, while
INITIAL STUDY
SEPTEMBER 2024
1.b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
the southern half is designated Park. Both sites are zoned Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1). Surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and State Route (SR) 1 to the northwest, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. In addition, the Ocean View Senior Apartments are located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive.
12. Project Description Summary:
The proposed project would include a two-story mixed-use building (Building A) and two three-story residential buildings (Buildings B and C). The project would also include a condominium subdivision to create one commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums. Building A would consist of 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial space on the ground floor and three residential units totaling 3,692 sf on the second floor for a total building square footage of 6,857 sf. Building B would consist of seven townhomes totaling 16,196 sf, and Building C would consist of nine townhomes totaling 20,643 sf, for a projectwide total of 19 units. All three buildings would be constructed on the northernmost half of the site, while the southernmost half of the site would remain undisturbed. Three of the units would be ownership Below Market Rate (BMR) units pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance. In addition, the project would involve off-site improvements, including removal of two trees and construction of a new driveway and associated parking spaces within the northern portion of the existing Pacifica Community Center located immediately to the west at 540 Crespi Drive.
The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or Lot Line Adjustment (LLA), and Tree Removal Permit. The Development Agreement, among other things, would include the following developer requirements: (1) the creation of three BMR units; (2) an affordable housing contribution to City; (3) the construction of improvements at 540 Crespi Drive as noted above; (4) a driveway lease with City to allow the project to use the City’s driveway; and (5) wetland interpretative signage.
13. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.19:
Native American tribes in the project region have not requested notification of new development projects from the City as of the date of preparation of this Initial Study (IS).
Thus, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), project notification letters were not distributed and requests for consultation were not received. Nonetheless, information request letters were sent in June 2020 to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Batista and the Ohlone Indian Tribe. In addition, because the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Native American tribes were consulted on November 18, 2021, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18.
Responses from the tribes have not been received.
1.b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purposes of this IS:
1. Barry Biermann, Deputy Fire Chief, North County Fire Authority. Personal communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. June 4, 2020.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.
3. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
4. California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019.
5. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June 2021.
6. California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Montara Mountain Quadrangle. June 15, 2009.
7. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed June 2021.
8. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
9. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ ?myaddress=570+Crespi+Drive%2C +Pacifica%2C+CA. Accessed June 2021.
10. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Census Program. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. Accessed December 2022.
11. California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 2020.
12. CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/ SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed June 2021.
13. City of Pacifica. Climate Action Plan. July 14, 2014.
14. City of Pacifica. Design Guidelines. Revised April 1990.
15. City of Pacifica. Pacifica Demographics: 2018. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/eco_dev/census_facts_2000.asp. Accessed June 2021.
16. City of Pacifica. Pacifica General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified May 25, 2022.
17. City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-manager/sustainability/community-choice-energy #:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joined ,instead%20of%20going%20thr ough%20PG%26E. Accessed June 2021.
18. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California.
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012.
19. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Best Management Practices. Available at: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/stormwater_compliance/default.asp.
Accessed January 4, 2019.
1.b
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
20. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. June 2016.
21. City/County Association of Governments. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. April 9, 2020.
22. ENGEO, Inc. 570 Crespi Drive Pacifica, California Geotechnical Peer Review. March 2, 2020.
23. GeoForensics, Inc. Crespi Drive Property, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California, Response to Geotechnical Peer Review. April 30, 2020.
24. GeoForensics, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Townhouse Complex and Commercial Building. January 5, 2016.
25. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
26. Heather Olsen, Superintendent, Pacifica School District. Personal Communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. May 27, 2020.
27. Native American Heritage Commission. 570 Crespi Drive Project, San Mateo County.
February 28, 2020.
28. North Coast County Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
29. North Coast County Water District. 20-Year Long-Term Water Master Plan. February 2016.
30. Northwest Information Center. Re: Record search results for the proposed project located at 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. March 10, 2020.
31. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
February 2015.
32. Pacifica School District. Level I Developer Fee Study for Pacifica School District. June 14, 2018.
33. Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. City of Pacifica, Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Wastewater Collection System, Pacifica, San Mateo County. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/ board_info/agendas/2017/April/7_ssr.pdf. April 12, 2017.
34. RKH Civil and Transportation, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California. November 8, 2021.
35. San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 1996.
36. Saxelby Acoustics LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment, 570 Crespi Drive. June 9, 2021.
37. State of California. Division of Mines and Geology. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San Francisco Bay Production—Consumption Region.
Published 1996.
38. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June 2021.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). December 2016.
1.b
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
³ Biological Resources ³ Cultural Resources
Energy
³ Geology and Soils ³ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ³ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
³ Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
³ Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation ³ Transportation ³ Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
1.b
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
F I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
F I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
³ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
F I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
F I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
10/4/2024
Signature Date
Brianne Harkousha City of Pacifica
Printed Name For
13n.omu; 1/arhuslra
1.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This IS identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the 570 Crespi Drive project. The information and analysis presented in this document are organized in accordance with the order of the CEQA checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. All of the technical reports and modeling results used for the purposes of this analysis are available upon request at the City of Pacifica Planning Department.
Where the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, mitigation measures are prescribed. Where the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project that require additional analysis, further evaluation of such effects will be provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the project.
On December 8, 2021, the City released an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project. The public review period was from December 8, 2021, through January 10, 2022. Public hearings for consideration of the project or IS/MND were held on March 7, 2022 by the City Planning Commission and on November 14, 2022, by the City Council. Based on public comments and this revised IS, the City determined an EIR was required.
On January 5, 2022, the City of Pacifica released a Draft General Plan Update and associated Draft EIR, and on July 11, 2022, the Draft General Plan Update and associated Draft EIR were adopted and certified by the City. Therefore, the analysis contained within this IS relies on the guidelines and information contained therein.
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the project site location and setting, as well as the proposed project components and the discretionary actions required for the project.
Project Location and Setting
The 1.68-acre project site is located just south of Crespi Drive in the City of Pacifica, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site consists of the entirety of the 0.98-acre lot identified by APN 022-162-310, located at 570 Crespi Drive (“Parcel 1”), and the southeastern 0.70-acre portion of APN 022-162-420, located at 540 Crespi Drive (“Parcel 2”). Parcel 1 is designated Mixed Use Center (MUC) in the City’s General Plan , and Parcel 2 is designated Public and Semi Public (approximately northern half) and Park (approximately southern half). Both parcels are zoned Manufacturing District (M-1).
The site is currently undeveloped and covered in dense vegetation. Several trees and shrubs are located throughout the project site. It should be noted that the western portion of the site was recently disturbed during landscape improvements, while the southern portion of the site is predominantly characterized by a seasonal drainage and wetland area.
Surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and SR 1 to the west, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. The Cabrillo Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet east of the project site and SR 1 is approximately 0.75-mile to the west of the site. In addition, Ocean View Senior Apartments is located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive.
1.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
Bay
Mou1,t Tamalpais
1t ,Slsta Park
Golde~
Gate
Pacifica
'Q';S9(:),.._
Tibur on
BelvedereSa usa Ii to Tibur on
rancr1 oi
2.-;,,'.,s,'l
1:
I r
~j"I 1 .I
Montara
Moss
Beach
El Granada c "'
~
,e
...
._
l
G,-;~i!f;,
Berkeley "
'N OV
-,ai,
li1 lJ.
~Fr>-
Ala
Otr.\.O,.,
"
,l:
., "'
,j'
Sen
Francisco
Bay
Oaklard
lnt'I
A irp:irt
f,
Moraga ,,~
Ca nyon
~.,, '\
~--
"'
~
;.6,-~.,
,p
....,
"q,.
-P,,_
Lal<e Chal:ol
Regional
Park
Eden l.Bnding
Ecobgtcal
Re&erve
Mt Diablo
State Par~:
~·
?. "' ~~ton• y
'.>'Rd
Da -• Diablo
0..,_'i)"'" lo R
La& TrarnJ» "
~gonsJ s
W11demes.G
,
-
' :,,.,
...
. ' c•"'\onl\c1,
d''' ,, > o"R~
<;;;,,,'\
,,, ~\
<j<
San
Ramon
.4
'9,,
Gann
Re,gional
Parl<
le Rd 1-,
' -
~ii,_
_,.. Vargias
f1atesu
Fremont
\
- "
1.b
Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries
Cabrillo
Elementary
School
Ocean View
Senior Apartments
Pacifica
Community
Center
Pacifica
Skatepark
Off-Site
Improvement Area
Overall
Project Site
Remainder
Portion
Development
Area
1.b
Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Project Components
The proposed project would include the purchase from the City of Pacifica of a 0.70-acre portion of Parcel 2 and a Lot Merger and/or LLA to combine the 0.70-acre portion of Parcel 2 and Parcel
1. The new 1.68-acre parcel would be developed with one two-story mixed-use building (Building A) and two three-story residential buildings (Buildings B and C) (see Figure 3). The project would include a condominium subdivision to create one commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums. In addition, the project would involve off-site improvements, including the removal of two trees and construction of a new driveway and associated parking spaces within the northern portion of the existing Pacifica Community Center.
The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Parking Exception, Sign Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or LLA, and Tree Removal Permit. Additional details regarding the requested approvals, proposed buildings, access and circulation, landscaping, utilities infrastructure, and off-site improvements are discussed below.
General Plan Amendment / Rezoning / Zoning Text Amendment / Development Agreement / Site Development Permit / Use Permit / Parking Exception / Sign Permit
A General Plan Amendment would be required to redesignate the 0.70-acre portion of Parcel 2 from the two current General Plan land use designations (Public and Semi-Public, and Park) to Mixed Use Center, consistent with the existing land use designation of Parcel 1.
As part of the proposed project, the project site would be Rezoned from M-1 to the Community Commercial (C-2) zoning district. Per Municipal Code Section 9-4.1101(b)(8), residential dwelling units are conditionally allowable when located above the ground floor in the same building as a commercial use. As a result, approval of a Use Permit would be required in order to develop the three proposed units on the second story of Building A. A Site Development Permit and a Use Permit would be required to allow a clustered housing development pursuant to PMC Section 9-
4.2403. A Parking Exception would be required to allow an exception to the off-street parking requirements pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.2824(a). Additionally, a Sign Permit would be required to include a master sign program for the future commercial tenants of the project to be consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-42907(b).
In addition, a Zoning Text Amendment is proposed in order to allow residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in areas zoned C-2. Approval of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow for the development of Buildings B and C in the C-2 zoning district. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow residential-only buildings to be constructed on sites that also contain a commercial building in areas throughout the City zoned C-2, subject to approval of a Use Permit. Approval of Use Permits is subject to the requirements of CEQA. Consequently, development of new residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses on other parcels zoned C-2 would require site-specific environmental review and would not be allowed by-right by the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.
The project would also include approval of a Development Agreement which would require the proposed project to provide affordable units, and construct a driveway and 17 parking spaces at the adjacent Community Center.
1.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or Lot Line Adjustment The proposed project would include approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Lot Merger and/or LLA to combine Parcel 1 and the southeastern 0.70-acre portion of Parcel 2. The Tentative Subdivision Map would also include the creation of one commercial structure and 19 residential condominiums on the site. The Tentative Subdivision Map is provided as Figure 4.
Proposed Buildings
Building A would consist of 3,165 sf of commercial space on the ground floor and three residential units on the second floor. Buildings B and C would be three stories each and would contain seven and nine townhomes, respectively, for a project-wide total of 19 units. The buildings would be constructed on the northernmost half of the site, while the southernmost half of the site would remain undisturbed. Three residential units would be Below Market Rate ownership units. Refer to Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 for the first-, second-, and third-story floor plans for all proposed buildings. Construction would occur over an approximately two-year period. Grading would involve import of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil.
As discussed above, Building A would be developed as a mixed-use building with the ground floor consisting of 3,165-sf of commercial space and three residential units on the second floor. The westernmost unit in Building A would be approximately 1,312 sf with one bedroom, two bathrooms, and two balconies. The center unit in Building A would be approximately 925 sf with one bedroom, one bathroom, and a single balcony. The easternmost unit in Building A would be approximately 1,312 sf with one bedroom, two bathrooms, and two balconies.
Building B would include seven town homes, and Building C would include nine townhomes. All units would include a tandem garage on the first floor with a first-floor entry, with the residential space included on the second and third floors.
The first-floor entryway, second floor, and third floor of each unit would total approximately 1,521 sf, with the exception that the southernmost unit in Building B would be 2,212 sf, and the southernmost unit in Building C would be 2,227 sf. A roof deck would be provided above each unit in Buildings B and C.
Parking, Access, and Circulation
Primary access to the project site would be provided from Crespi Drive. The driveway entrance would be provided along the eastern side of Building A and loop around the southern portion of Building A, before exiting the site to the west (refer to Figure 3). A two-way drive aisle would connect to the proposed loop to allow residents access to Building B and C. The first floor of Building B and Building C would include private tandem garages for each proposed unit.
Additionally, a total of 15 uncovered parking spaces would be provided on the project site, five of which would be located on the east side of Building A, seven located directly south of Building A, two south of Building B, and one south of Building C. Of the 47 total parking spaces provided onsite, three would provide electric vehicle charging. A Parking Exception would be required as an exception to the off-street parking requirement established by the City’s Municipal Code in Section 9-4.2818(a)(1) and Section 9-4.5105(a).
The proposed project would also include improvements to the northern portion of the Pacifica Community Center parcel. The improvements would include construction of a new east to west driveway with 17 uncovered parking spaces and a drop-off area intended for use by the Pacifica Community Center. The new driveway would connect to existing driveways located to the west and to the east of the Community Center.
1.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 3
Site Plan
~
\
\
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
1.b
Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 4
Tentative Map
TENTATIVE MAP
For Lot Merger and Condominium Purposes
570 CRESPI DRIVE
T)H TM-l "
' '
.....
\
Site
·:~}::i
City of Pacifica, California
= lll!L!im£....II THIS~ TDfTAll\'C 11N' IS IIDIG fl.ID ti ACCCIIDNICI: '111!4 0W'TDI l,AR11Q.C:Z,SCcnc:t1-aor11€SIMIMSIONIIAPI/CI.
2. ;m;,nm;--;n,J'fr,1:::,~IIIAPC:CWORMSTOlHE:IEll.RlEITDr"lHE 1 llZ!l!lll6fla:. ~IS94EIOIISl.PPI.DIDITAI.P1ElDSUIICl'POIJ'tl!IIIDSYB4'H SUR\C!INCDA1(D,OCTOB(lt:IDl 4, (Sl!l:N-1)
t . ~ ~ANTTOOW'lVl3,""11Cll4,!iCCll0N-1Dr1H[
st.alMSIOII IIN'ACT,THl:~RESDl',IE!STHl:~TOFLC...._1FU:nHAI.........S.
WJD«HillflfffMll'MI'S:
TM-4
T)l-S TM-6
TM-7
nru: ANUTENT ATJVE M AP
EXISTING CONVl'l'IONS r LA."-
GRi<IJl/~G AND IJRAJ,'IIIAGI: Pl.AN
GRl< DI NG A/l;D DRAlNAGI: Pl.AN C:RADl.'IC AN D DRAlNAC:[ Pl.AN
UTILITY PLAN
STORM WAT[R M ANAGEM[1'T PLAN
Cl\'ILDETAII.S
1M10 r....._, __,r..._, lllUST
SAH MAltO.CAHtol
TRIJST[[ !IROl() .... A.llll,IRPHY
&»--'J0-~200 CUAAOl1\.T M-1
- M
---
= ----':; ~ !,JW..'L
I \ \C[Nl[ROROf'OFFj
' ' ),( \ \ l
=
OC',()_CffQC(MJ.ICN
ANO~SPACf
AREA (23,717.12 Sf.)
" '
r----7 VACANT,'llNOC\fiCffD AREA
ll-l.lll.lllC.:..VDJlYSllNGANOU>Cl,llOHSAIIC~.tllll~TOf'NAI. e.
--
:.a:'v'Pm.'V"'oJ:r'..;.,OH~i::.NIY SC'IIOI, Sfal!M - ANO WATOI STSlOIS WJ. i!IC
1. gr~ii~::i=f"~~=~:=
9. f'OR~IIIPRO'-OIO(fOMJISl0IIS.S£1BNl(S.BIJUIIIOll'f(K;AN0Wl'O<MR,t,O[ Cl<I..CU.A'IIOHSSEEPI..NISP!lD'AAEDBTElDNIOllCCTIK,SHE£l'S,._1.20-l<-l.24. 1~=!~8:°i~~~~~:::.
11.~n.~"'f:;r~NICA-~f~~~MS
ll'.NTl<lM: 11,.,"""'-0YN.... M.L.N1UIE~WllMT19SN«ASIWJ.BESl.8ZCT TOCITI'PCUTINGAN>Pl!OCD9fG, r,i ACal!IINICl:WlH lHl:aTTANO STl<TE SU:JD£NI!T""fP05f'Il!l!IIJY'S:
W&JPIOIMIJY SI&JDOIJ·
CURRCN'lloi.lGIS ll-l(CON1IIOU£O
-=I.FROYIJ,EN'l'S NIE: 5UIIJ[CTTOSTATE.
t:OUNlYAHDI.DCAL.lfATD!~AUTY, STORMWATOI
... '"
=~~~:c~~..s
="
-
!TIUUlfMC! CN!ZIITR
-
COIMCRCIAl.ANOll£SIOOfl\Al
(H 1!£9DEH'IIAl.aHICW«llilS)
(l(:()MM(IICIA1.INT$)
"51--0l'U.Rl,IORM;
f'OSTOICITY.CA9«of
D"'"DTQCM"'" $00-:H9--3la9
m~
412CU'4 A\8fUE: P~Al,.1ll,CAl4.lOII eoo-2::.-,rn
fl" ,;ih, \ •t "-~.: tHt :
,~jJ! \ hT·• 1 1
: !"\
.. --, \ \:? ""'""""''""' / -- -- :
\
/ ,,, t· 'f'" '-.: ... ~=T~i~:2,! - \ _! MOl[lO }1\ \ ~---~ ,/ ', ' - •• •--• 1 -7-e' '""°'' =u f • I~li . - - A A A A A A A A A•:-A n - - ~.,,;=T " / :; ····--··--· · -- ·-- •••• ~.\\ • : ..... $.,· I l I
\ .-c- !~-,i,;~w,~ -- : • \"":
1w!.k':"\ -~b.~r>'ffl,I_ \ • --- , j, ,_,,._~' ,""_
1r~J
L
____ J ~J~r)NOTE 11
......,. I ... , , •,
- ---- --- \- (P(RllClf"pARCEJ..~ i--"--:----=--------;-----;----;--' '-1\'i'-""!l.!-- "" :_ .J~-'ii,'r,i,'l':·t •• "' ~--REMO>tTRQ'. ==---- -1:o._';\.,'",ii'"•·
,.,,. ""'
0 ao.221 •I- "' n _ c' c' ;. 7 '""'';) :-_ \,
Al'N 021-162-220 .. -+-----+'- ¥ i RIJILOIN<lA • J ,
-------- ,---~--- =~---- =--_,.-___c_:= ,:_,_ --tfr~~!ll-- :"~;,';.,) ,,.=;,';;_,1 ,,!\ ~. _, ----- \ - ....... ,_....-<'-"1"'1 --- -i~ JO\IE TRQ'.
\
f· l/,'=-.. ~,, (""1C"-l
.ESSICAIJIN--IIARIC.GMHC\\ t PROPOSED PARCEL, I
72,984 + /- SQ. FT l' ... RO'I. H
(APH022-162-JIO) -~-:~
-~·~ 42,763+/-SO.rT
VWJ,JJYAN/NA .
APN022-162-200
~--:-
~ ::;---~:c,------------L __ _,:
\
-------\ /
Rl!ILOINC.C
{~
SEE OCIOl.l. NO'lt II)
II/CHI_._
-
\t
1.b
Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 5
Floor Plan – Level 1
a
,~ ,~ N 0 a
0 I
! i I -cit , I ! I • • • ~,! <( <D
' l ! l ;;!§1.
I I JI
I
iii •
,I' .t/11·1 "
L
; ~; I~ ..
; if ,; ~
., : :: :I IJ ~
; ii ~ ~
; ~ j
; i
. ; i .I ll
•: ., '' :I ~~
~ ,~ ~ \,~
ii !
j
:j ..,
~ f~ .. , . i N
,.
~ f.
"
-- ----
1.b
Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 6
Floor Plan – Level 2
_________ ....., _____________ _
1111111 fl 11 lfl
.._ ·);j
U; i F
i
t:: U; i
I
a
,~
-~ E
u i: i
"
,
I
I
I
I
i ~
I
i n :3
-------------
1 I
I
I
I
·' - ~ •
l
I
I
I
o
I
I
'I
1.b
Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 7
Buildings B and C Floor Plan – Level 3
---------------
,,,
-----~ -~ -----,.------------------ l'Z•fJ' / ,
Balcony- non~
40.SOSF
" I
Balcony - non p
42.00SF
Balcony - non OS
42.00 SF
UNITB7
Balcony - 090
42.00 SF
72.00SF
Batcony - non o s
42.00 SF UNIT B6
Balcony - 090 O~
42.00SF
= 72.00 SF
Bats;ony - non o s
42.00 SF UNIT as
Balcony -non~
42.00SF
42.00SF
UNITB4
Balcony - non~
42.00SF
Balcony - non o s
42.00 SF UNIT Bl
UNITC3
Balcony - non~
42.00SF
/
earcony - non o s
42.00 SF UNIT B2
UNITC2
Balcony _ 090
42.00 SF
= 72.00SF
• ~' 14•.r; ,.. ,,, r
BalCOQY - non O S
UNIT a 1 42.00 SF
Balcony - non~
42.00SF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b
Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Landscaping
The proposed project would include landscaping features throughout the development area, the off-site improvement area, and along the Crespi Drive frontage (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).
Proposed plant types include, but are not limited to, crape myrtle, desert willow, sea lavender, dwarf mat rush, and Cleveland sage. All landscaping improvements would be consistent with the City’s landscape design requirements (which require a minimum of 10 percent of the area in commercial zoning districts to be landscaped), and would include at least two inches of mulch.
Utilities
Sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the City. The proposed project would include connection to existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in Crespi Drive. Each building would be served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer line to connect to the proposed residential units (see Figure 10). In addition, each building would be constructed with a new sanitary sewer cleanout connected to the eight-inch sewer lines. The eight-inch lines would eventually connect to an existing sanitary sewer line within Crespi Drive to be routed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Water service would be provided by the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) through connection to the existing water main located at Crespi Drive. A four-inch water line would be routed from all three buildings to provide fire service, while a three-inch water line would be routed from the proposed buildings to provide domestic water services. Electricity services would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). A new vault would be constructed by PG&E in the northern portion of the project site, near Building A, to provide electricity to the proposed structures. In addition, the proposed project would connect to existing telecommunications infrastructure in the project area.
All runoff from impervious areas within the project site, including all hardscape, parking areas, and driveways would be collected by new four-, six-, eight- and 10-inch storm drain pipes within the proposed driveway and parking area (see Figure 11). Runoff flowing through the storm drains would empty into proposed bioswales on the western and eastern boundaries of the site or be directed to a bioretention area in the southeast corner of the project site. Treated stormwater would either be discharged into the vacant land to the south of the development area or into the City’s stormwater system through connection of an existing six-inch storm drain west of the site.
An 18-inch emergency overflow riser would be installed in the western corner of the project site and would connect to the existing 12-inch storm drain that extends along the site’s southwestern boundary (see Figure 12). The proposed driveway and parking area north of the existing Community Center would be a self-treating area.
Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project would include various off-site improvements associated with the access and circulation. As discussed above, the proposed project would include construction of a new west to east driveway off Crespi Drive along the northern boundary of the Pacifica Community Center. Additional off-site improvements would include construction of a driveway and 17 parking spaces to the west of the project site, a drop-off area, a new trash containment area, removal of two trees, and landscape improvements. Figure 13 presents the proposed off-site improvements.
Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require City approval of the following:
x General Plan Amendment to redesignate Parcel 2 from Public and Semi-Public and Park land use designations to Mixed Use Center land use designation x Rezoning of the site from M-1 to C-2;
1.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 8
Site Landscaping Plan
f: °[ (E) A ARROYO _ WI LLOW )
AREA-)
TO REMAIN f )
...__,,,....__,,,....__,,,....__,,,
~jti / -31 ,,
-
. . . .
• •
.
GRA5
.
5 .
-
.
__
.
- -
. : . _· -·_ . --
~)?. • •• '··-~-' --\:
~ -=- i" __:__ _/~--~ -·_ -·~ • -- ------ ·::.:,;:;;;.,..., ______ ---~
~- '~~~--
~::~~-:~::i7~~;:,~M
J _,,_, .. _c,oz,eur,:,--,:-o,_,,r,o.,.,,.,c,. ,:o.ruco,-,00••'"'~ __...,,.,,_..,~,,. .,. .o..,.,.,·- --., _,,,._ ,.... ..... ,..,..a.... __ ,...,."""'r:,, _..,..Q.Olll_,C_~ .... • •-i'911Ulf"'--.U'Olll'•l--•--J~Cl-lt-•,OT-.Jl>10 ... __ ,._ -
... ~w.i. .... ••---"'"~--.... -..----""~ ..
.... a. ..... 10<""""'"''""""' ""'"'°"
• ~--,U,UN;,7f<;t00"::,t--ll<--~-""'-'C)'l\1'-'6Cl.Olt'6 ~'0 .... --~ .......... , .......... ~(>.,.."""r:,ecQ~ .... ---..-lfWO"-'C">'
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
*SEE CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCS/PLANS
•-
...
~"--
.. C01!o:rtllll"'ll""1'1.'3f-"'"-="'OA"'--.,r,,,c,zocc,......AC'<1'~01'.:11t,5""" o,,tJO, Al,C,\,\'tt()l',;e,~,n,...O,...aitlH!_......,,lll __ X,,,-~ .. ',Oll.""1:.......-,lN<llll=rJt- =v.oact-OIC,C,:>JIC~ ..... NC'llt...,.,.,IP.IOl.._,,J"l,crl.........C•"'OI.*"'~"'"'-- <. ..,.,, ... ID.!l.....,_GIMlll,J.llt l, J.1"11 .... 0,IH!a,TML IH!""'5--<>'..,... ..... 911<1.ltlCJ#G POD-lf-<!'!'""'1 ,.0lll,l,/oCCCMl:>:sl' l t'l\!m5"11(;,o,_ ,v,r,c;,o,eo,...,,•,v.,r.,.,..,..,o.,.i:11' ..:0..,,' '0 ___ ""'t.......,,~~ ....,~e,5•..,_o.,,..,'"0-""1m,.'l:>T""-=. --•:1--A.lll<i<C.J'l!l....,"'lf;.....,..,eCll~-W, -•""'-"UO'T-T'1H<'1CJJt,U.
8 ,-
(1,l)l.M"IGWAU.l'tl'. I - ~ i
I ~ '1 i
'
t - £ 6~R£0
-
r
l
\LI
>
1 12,~"gf I • ::\· - oL
~M~W~ l'tR f•~
~ ~rr.-~~• I I 1 1 ,. 'll \. I_, -- \ I \ :
' 1~"""" ~ -
"""-'
,..,
\LI
at
coi):~
0 iTRffSTO
~--,,=--,; .. _:}J 7
poll /
r-··-··-··-··-··- ..,vwv• ... ~~IAv._,,.""' \ ' :' c8 \ ' \ : -· \ \ : \
\----- ', ~~-,J,r:-7 --~
-~ :
\___ _________ ] -- -- -- _____ J
SITE MAP ._ ______ saft{XWOfll-----~
PLANTING PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 1 o·-o·
1.b
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 9
Off-Site Landscaping Plan
1.b
Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 10
Preliminary Utility Plan
ND A-1 12b FOR SEE SHEETS A-1 .12 A PLIANCE INFORMATION / (( ""™'"'"''"':,,,,.oo,~~-AA-•=-
:,- o/ :..::.."l:l"~:,:,,:,~·:-:::S,~.:r'-M- ' ' • ,, ·--._ "'=-==:=,;;...:;.::
21 L DETAILED FIRE S~T:..~°!-
• '" ••• -=~=--- ..
"'-'-· C • ~- -=-~~~=o~•.• " 'V - , • ,, ' >,,::_ o, ' =;;==-••:,_ '----=-- --__ .. 'i • • .,,_ -= - : ~=r...::?-- 1/, ...
-
,., _______.. ___..----" " ' "" ' -- .,- ' I I ' . I '!lJ. I ffi"'" ,· ..... (•>"') ~ " " ', n-.. ' 1' ,, w1::, • •• -- -- " • " i , ~.r ·'°'"" c-~-.c ---------- (_.,,. ....... ___ ·=---- ,------------~-~. .. ·= ,, .,, --:-· •· -
~' \ ,. J '
• -- s;. -- s-:Lu - - "" _• ___ .,_.;.2- ,-<b i\ \ -~!;,'t'~;i~' • -
-
-
....
" - j I I .-------- - j 1 - ~ \ ;',,." ";',.ioo ~'to ,
v 'IL / illi.f. -S-0:-01
~1-1 ,iii
----, 'J = ~•pyt
~: SO(R
:: I.Al[RAI.
::. (T"TP.)
I
= ~· fl; r " I\ I I
= I! ~-
11''
;,, l::
. I
r ii
1']
,
,, \,,..,
,JI
I~
GRAPHIC SCALE
( •nrrJ
1- • IOII-
"l
IIUILl>ISGff RIJILOl,;GC
1j r ~,,11, .d
V
4°SE'IICRRISER
m(SPRtOO..ER .., °"""''
,1 f;'.
1 ,:,c , ". ' l.~.,1 ' -:~.... 7 .1 \ ""·' I
n.:( .. ,.l I I c2
:l:.:~ ' 1r o
;.,:",.> ~: -~ - " ..f.. 1 I I iii
-
" ,... ' u.i
~':: ,'i\ , t" I 7r:,
" "~··:1 1\ l.
8"P"«:(SOR~)
"""'"""' 110Lr. S.0.01
'~\ ' 1_gy:f' \ ··
1~1 l:·1 \ ~; / J;
I
-+-
r-= "
------ --
--
~ -
... - - l ' l
__ __, __
--
-.: •• - »·:r ,_, . .., /r -~,.. ....,..
'.
~II[ : f'fl(
UTILITY PLAN 1·-10·- o· t.~T ' '""'"''
1.b
Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 11
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan – Northeastern Portion :=:, •=~ TOT<(. JOCY J.OJOCT ~ ' -U_ ----"j ): J ' I
GRAPHIC SCALE IMP!IIT .1,000 C'f' ,.,: . 111N. r 1- 1
~ - I ~ ~~"::'.":~.::::. ---J .. ' ,• Y J ~nnn ,,!,!~>... ~s~>IA::.~ ::;;_:-_-~ <,"\.' ,'o •• --~~-~ f Al 1 (..,,~ \ REMAIN lOCOWPl.£TE.alP£FICON1!V.CllllHO.O. l \,;--1=•'!:""' "~ ~• Y1 C l,J \... .;?. I' I I ---- - - - - - - ----- - ,l,PRQ,l(J'\- ------ - - - - - --- --- - - --- - _ _c f --- - - - ----- - - - - ,c\!).Q- /i, - - -- _ .- - r r --iy I ii 1 \ t I 1 rn,:uro OOTRASHAREA~ CUR!ICPEMNG 1c1!).12 CCllroRM :S/ 1 l BUILOIN( {[)CURB @(TIP a'"4 co -. 4& '""'-- ~--1,I -- .._ \ I : PG&E -
oi<r«)+ WCI.It/ :'t:!,,;'!i:l,"'°' ~a:&U!l.A91 PARUIC.{TW)~ ')''''"" ffi e z- - -- ""'""" (E)C\IRS \ ' • \ I TRANSfURMER /~ \""'""' ~OO<lOOOSWMl'/4 f ,)""""1E '""" \ \ , "5.· 1"' I - / _____ j ___ (TW) 1/{N)4"8AU.ARO ,:(T'IP) l CfiMTO (E)::ro Cfil4 [ \I r _! 1 -------
_ , SAWOJT • SAW _.,,,.,... ...... 1== ~r'.1 I t14fi& J.J" L(IIIPT - - --- - ~ ------r t/@},c\49 [roT ---- :;;;-- ,t\!).ll ~j I I 1' ~ - ,+,1'-0 - 7 -------- -- '~ - - \\ '~ti ,It·~ 1t\~I& " .=.__ ~• Iii: , , - -_ -- -_- .... '# I 1 l ) " - lt 9+ 1111,1140 ,. Rll141 :-, :'.i:\i \,.,.,~, I I 4 l , 1 llPT ' INVl1.4 t/V12.0 lfV12.I I """ 'it'IO V l I -----. .~ o - f is.a~~, _J ~~TIER 11 \$.I ....,......~ :::.~ 10· l,l I 1CAl• 1 "" M M M ot ' I "lY Jf PA'
r-11 .-ii ..ii ,,d ..ii +1!1.r. # ~, 15..~ • 1' ·' '-- - vc, ,,1,. l!!IBl 1 l!!IBl 1 l!!IBl 1 Q!ID. 1 l!!IBl
r ~ 14 _.,.,T - - J__ P.U .. j4;0Q_iti,
fflM FT15.4 fftU ffl5.4 lf1U mn =••~ Ml.Pl -~ .,1 \ Vl
+!5.37 ' +!5.37 +l5.J7 +15.J7 +15.37 +l5.J7 (8S-Y80SF) L~CCT.""@~"" I 1 1 1 ~'" • ""'· m ""' £:"'"" '!W 15.0 j X 8"S0 6 ATRI.II IIOSWALE 2% v , S-0005WIN - 1 , - ATCO'lfORM 1 1 awu .. i 11111u {l!S-1300.o!t) WW. --- l... . I
11 TC15.5 i @ , ~~J!r= \ '. . . l
:J,r~TICH :1~50 !----~::io:o
~t ~, ~1 11rn~Ln11 ~, -
11 u~ (TW.) i ~g~g~gfl~gU~g~g -~ASS PA~· ffi ~~ri{~~- =~ l=-=:.L '; : It: U IM ru, .... ~·~-i::~ -~ II l\~(r;.f1 I 1 ! ;i;i;i;i;~:o~;;: r~(Nf AR(I, ~~l[D M ,_.,,,,.,. ~1: \ • ' .... •· n \~ ~1
,,.P
m
- s4o·ls·oo---:-w
@al YI/ SCDKNT TRAP RIIH.16 ~Jg~w>
~1
,,.P
FF15. """' 4
~ 2
.:c:__f
~1
=->,.'~
ff15. """' 4
~~~""tr
~1
,,.P
fF15. """' 4
{EJ ONE STORY &I/WING
{COMMERCIA!.}
~~ d ~ G C
~1
,,.ft
ff.
m
147rE£TIS
""""' (8S-4Je1.0~
~1
. s
ffl5. """' 4
~1
=->,.'~
IT"""' l5.4
~1
,,.ft
ff15.4 """'
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 1·-10·-o·
f!ESET(E)
510'""'
"""'"""' STANDARDS
l)Sl)[WAU(
-B&QJTlCR
CITY SID.
I
I
ii
11 -7.51 ""
II
n
:,0
m
V>
::2
0 :,0
~ll)WARNNC \J DOMES
I
l--7.5'.I
I ""
"-----SAWC1JT
"""""
1.b
Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 12
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan – Southwestern Portion ' ' \ \I \ 1
\ I
\ \
ACCESS HATCH
AC1:[S HA.Tl
--'-\ r
's -CONTROL :BUILOING
. I
>.. ),. .u-+ >.. >.. >.. >.. ),. I PG&E 'sL . TRANSFORt.tER \ I
,\ \- L L L L V V M M =------~-~ I I :ONTROL-
,\
\ \---------------- ----------- S 40"16 555.6'(10_'. 1 W __ _ ' - - ----- - ---- - \ I
r
----\l~
\ ~\\':; '3,"' li .. -:.. "' \
\ \
~-
J....-'; ~ ~--. RIM10.0 CCNIECTTO \ --~----------------- o:tSTWC 24•50
PER OTY REQUftMEHl'S
----\
___ \ I OJS'IWG24"SOPCR
___-- \ aTYEOOMJZAllCtlPROECT ~(SHECTC-60)
\ $7INQISOPERCJTY MAPS
\ ' (.,
,i.~\" ~-
\ 0· "-, '
-
'A,
- -
-- --
-
-
··
-
- \ 1"\ - -- - -- -
\ \ .0- -----------.- , -- \ t> /'",• ~-
\ \
\ \ GRAPHIC SCALE j,.._ _ W i
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 1·- 10·-o·
I I I ' I I I
,I
re,ss
TW15.0
8W1l.5
I
_
!1
I •1
\ 11 =IJNM.LAAEA
\ ~I SE[ A- 1.14 (T!P.)
I I re
l 1 .g.
11 __,,/11 ll' =~ 1y~11()18W9.'
UNE (Tl'P.) I I UNE (TIP.)
11 11
111 N4n4Anl
g"Arat.lM Rii7T.,
1.b
Packet Pg. 493
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 13
Off-Site Improvements
'
I
'
'
i
I
'
I
!~
l
'
'
i
'
I
'
'
\
'
1.b
Packet Pg. 494
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
x Zoning Text Amendment to allow residential uses in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in C-2 zoning district;
x Development Agreement to require certain public benefits and to provide certain developer benefits;
x Use Permit to allow residential uses within the C-2 zone; x Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow a clustered residential housing development;
x Parking Exception to allow an exception to the off-street parking requirement; x Sign Permit to allow a master sign program for commercial tenants; x Tentative Subdivision Map to create new residential and commercial condominiums; x Lot Merger and/or LLA to merge APN 022-162-310 and a portion of APN 022-162-420; and
x Tree Removal Permit to authorize tree removal.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
1.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
µ
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
µ
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
µ
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
µ
Discussion
a. Examples of typical scenic vistas would include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista.
Various policies throughout the City’s General Plan, including Policy CD-G-6 Scenic and Visual Amenities of the Coastal Zone, set the goal of protecting the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities, such as the coastal zone and the scenic routes along SR 1.
Surrounding uses to the project site include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and SR 1 to the northwest, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. In addition, the Ocean View Senior Apartments are located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive.
Parcel 1 of the project site is currently designated by the City of Pacifica General Plan as Mixed Use Center and Parcel 2 is designated Public and Semi-Public and Park. While the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment to redesignate Parcel 2, the redesignation would make Parcel 2 consistent with Parcel 1 and the MUC designation. In addition, the proposed project would include new development only on Parcel 1, and would be consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Parcel 1. As such, the proposed project would not be substantially different than what has been anticipated in the City’s General Plan. In addition, the proposed off-site improvements would consist of minor upgrades to the existing Pacifica Community Center. It should be noted that, although the project requires approval of a Rezoning and a Zoning Text Amendment, the proposed project would result in similar visual features as that of mixed-use commercial and residential development and would be consistent with the Mixed Use Center land use designation.
Based on the above, designated scenic vistas do not exist in the project area, and the project is consistent with the level of development that has been anticipated for the site in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
1.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
b. The City does not contain an Officially Designated Scenic Highway.1 SR 1, located approximately 0.75-mile west of the project site, is an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated. In addition, the project site is only partially visible from SR 1 due to existing development between the site and SR 1. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the developed nature of the surrounding area. It should also be noted that a portion of the trees at the project site frontage would be retained as part of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. As such, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City. As noted above, surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and SR 1 to the northwest, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. In addition, the Pacific Ocean is located further west of the site, beyond SR 1. Currently, Parcel 1 is vacant and partially covered in vegetation. Several trees and shrubs are located throughout Parcel 1. Parcel 2, which is comprised of the 0.70-acre portion of land north of Parcel 1 and adjacent to the Pacific Community Center, is currently partially paved. Because the proposed project would include a Rezoning, the proposed change in zoning has the potential to conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The following discussion evaluates the proposed project’s aesthetic consistency with surrounding land uses, and compliance with regulations related to scenic quality.
As shown in Figure 14, the primary view of the project site from Crespi Drive consists of vegetation, trees, and shrubbery, as well as the existing hillside to the east. Additionally, it is noted that the project site has been subject to previous disturbance related to development and subsequent demolition of buildings that had been located on the project site. As a result, the existing visual character of the project site does not represent natural and/or non-urban conditions. The anticipated view of the project site following development of the proposed project is shown in Figure 15. As demonstrated therein, the visual character of the project site would partially change as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project would include the removal of several on-site trees, the project would preserve trees along the project site frontage and within the off-site improvement area. In addition, the project site has been planned for development and, as a result, such a change in visual character has been previously anticipated and evaluated.
The existing views from SR 1 of the hills behind the proposed buildings would remain following implementation of the project. Additionally, the site is surrounded by existing development and the project would be consistent with the scale of existing nearby development. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and the surrounding area.
Furthermore, development of the proposed project and associated changes to the visual character and quality of Parcel 1, where the majority of the proposed development would occur, has been anticipated by the City’s General Plan through the MUC land use designation. Additionally, the proposed off-site improvements would include minor upgrades to the Pacific Community Center property to construct a new driveway and 17 parking spaces and would be consistent with the type and scale of the existing development.
1 California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/laplandscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 2020.
1.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 14
Current Views of Site
VIEW- I VIEW-2 VIEW-3 VIEW-4 VIEW-5
1.b
Packet Pg. 498
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 15
Proposed View of Project Site
1.b
Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Although the project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and a Zoning Text Amendment, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the surrounding land use types and development intensity. For instance, the surrounding area is currently occupied by single- and multi-family residences, as well as commercial uses.
Based on the above, the proposed project is within the scope of what has been anticipated for development on the project site by the City, and is consistent with the developed nature of the surrounding area.
Based on the above, the project site is located in an urbanized area, and development of the project has been generally anticipated by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic qualities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Parcel 1 is currently undeveloped and consists of areas with dense vegetation, ruderal grasses, and dirt patches. Sources of light and glare do not exist within Parcel 1, where the majority of the proposed development would occur. Therefore, development of the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare where none currently exist. Sources of light would include, but would not be limited to, illuminated signage, exterior and interior lighting associated with the proposed townhouses, and vehicle headlights within the site. The new structures would include windows which could reflect light and create glare in the surrounding area. However, the structures would be set back from the street by at least 15 feet and windows would not directly face the entrance of any nearby residence. Furthermore, because existing development is located to the south, east, and west, the increase in light and glare sources would be consistent with the existing setting and would not be expected to result in significant adverse effects to daytime and nighttime views in the area.
In addition, the Pacifica Design Guidelines require that exterior lighting is subdued and enhance building design.2 The Guidelines prohibit use of lighting that creates glare for occupants or neighbors, and require that large areas requiring illumination are lit with low, shielded fixtures. The proposed off-site parking spaces would be subject to such Guidelines as well. Compliance with the Pacifica Design Guidelines would ensure that the project would not introduce sources of light or glare that would pose a hazard or nuisance to neighboring development.
As such, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
2 City of Pacifica. Design Guidelines [pg. 3]. Revised April 1990.
1.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
µ
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
µ
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
µ
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
µ
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
µ
Discussion
a,e. Per the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, the project site consists entirely of Urban and Built-Up Land.3
Furthermore, the site is not zoned or
designated in the General Plan for agriculture uses. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use or involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
b. Currently, Parcel 1 of the project site is designated MUC by the City’s General Plan, while Parcel 2 is designated Public and Semi-Public, as well as Park. Both parcels are zoned M-1. Although the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment to redesignate Parcel 2 to MUC and Rezone of the site to C-2, the City has anticipated development of the site with non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, the site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c,d. The project area is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. 3 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June 2021.
1.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
µ
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
µ
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
µ
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
µ
Discussion
a,b. The City of Pacifica is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.
In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.
The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area
1.b
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), as well as for PM10, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 1. By exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Table 1
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2022.1.1.25 – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, and compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). Where project-specific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. Accordingly, the proposed project’s modeling assumes the following project and/or site-specific information:
x Construction would begin in June 2025;
x Construction would occur over an approximately two-year period; x Grading would involve import of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil; x Natural gas hearths were not included; and
x The project would comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the applicable CALGreen Code.
The modeling incorporated construction of the off-site improvements as well. The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well. All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this IS.
1.b
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project, including the off-site improvements, would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for NOX, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 2.93 54 NO
NOX 15.00 54 NO
PM10* 0.65 82 NO
PM2.5* 0.60 54 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, July 2024 (see Appendix A).
All projects under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which include the following:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed above would help to further minimize construction-related emissions.
1.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Even without consideration of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as shown in Table 2, construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants below BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with air quality plans during project construction.
Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in the maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance.
Table 3
Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 1.95 0.32 54 10 NO
NOX 0.80 0.12 54 10 NO
PM10* 0.02 0.01 82 15 NO
PM2.5* 0.02 0.01 54 10 NO
* Emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, July 2024 (see Appendix A).
Because the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not be considered to conflict with air quality plans during project operations.
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 1 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 1, the proposed project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Because the proposed project would not result in emissions above the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
1.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the proposed project would not result in construction-related or operational emissions of criteria air pollutants in excess of BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, conflicts with or obstruction of the implementation of regional air quality plans would not occur. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would result.
c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest sensitive receptors include the Pacifica Community Center, located approximately 50 feet to the west, the Ocean View Senior Apartments, located approximately 150 feet to the north, and the existing single-family residences, located approximately 200 feet to the south. Cabrillo Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet east of the project site.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood.
In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
x The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
x The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
x The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).
1.b
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, given that the project would generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and that Parcel 1 would remain consistent with the current MUC land use designation, the project would not conflict with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).4 In addition, based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) traffic counts for the State Highway System in 2019, the roadway segment of SR-1 closest to the project site, near Linda Mar Boulevard, experiences traffic volumes ranging from 2,000 to 3,200 trips per peak hour, which is far below BAAQMD’s threshold of 44,000 vehicles per hour.5
Thus, the minimal number of trips generated by
the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at an affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited due to tunnels, underpasses, or similar features do not exist in the project area.
As such, the proposed project would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk.
The proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. As such, the proposed project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations. However, shortterm, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, primarily DPM, from off-road equipment exhaust emissions. Consequently, the operation of off-road equipment within the project site during project construction could result in exposure of nearby students and residents to DPM.
BAAQMD has established thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts that may be used when siting new sources of pollution. The BAAQMD’s thresholds for analyzing health risks from new sources of emissions are presented below:
x Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan;
x An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution; or
x An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3 )
annual average PM2.5 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution. 4 City/County Association of Governments. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. April 9, 2020. 5 California Department of Transportation. Traffic Census Program. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafficoperations/census. Accessed December 2022.
1.b
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Although the proposed project would not involve the siting or operation of any permanent sources of TACs, in the absence of specific thresholds for use when analyzing health risks from short-term projects, the foregoing BAAQMD thresholds are applied to the project, for construction specifically.
To analyze potential health risks to nearby students and residents that could result from DPM emissions from off-road equipment at the project site, total DPM emissions from project construction were estimated. DPM is considered a subset of PM2.5 and, thus, the CalEEMod estimated PM2.5 emissions from exhaust during construction of the proposed structures as well as the off-site improvements was conservatively assumed to represent all DPM emitted on-site. The CalEEMod estimated PM2.5 exhaust emissions were then used to calculate the concentration of DPM at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor near the project site. DPM concentrations resulting from project implementation were estimated using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency (AMS/EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD). The associated cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index were calculated using the CARB’s Hotspot Analysis Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST), which calculates the cancer and non-cancer health impacts using the risk assessment guidelines of the 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.6
The modeling was performed in accordance
with the USEPA’s User’s Guide for the AERMOD and the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual.7,8 The results of the air dispersion modeling are presented in Figure 16. As shown therein, the maximally exposed receptor, depicted by a white X, would be located immediately northeast of the project site.
Based on the foregoing methodology, and the methodology presented in response to questions ‘a’ and ‘b’ regarding the estimation of construction emissions, the cancer risk and non-cancer hazard indices at the maximally exposed receptor were estimated and are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Maximum Unmitigated Cancer Risk and Hazard Index
Associated with Project Construction DPM
Cancer Risk
(per million
persons)
Acute
Hazard
Index
Chronic
Hazard
Index
Construction DPM Health Risks 4.80 0.00 0.003
Thresholds of Significance 10.00 1.00 1.00
Exceed Thresholds? NO NO NO
Source: AERMOD and HARP 2 RAST, July 2024 (see Appendix A).
As shown in Table 4, construction of the proposed project would not result in cancer risk, acute hazards, or chronic hazards in excess of BAAQMD’s standards.
6 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments [pg. 8-18]. February 2015. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). December 2016. 8 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.
1.b
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
Figure 16
Air Dispersion Modeling Results
Source: AERMOD, July 2024 (see Appendix A).
Cabrillo
Elementary School
Ocean View
Senior Apartments
1.b
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
In addition, the maximum annual concentration of DPM at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor from construction of the proposed project would be 0.016 μg/m3 , which is well
below the BAAQMD’s 0.3 μg/m3
threshold for a cumulatively considerable impact. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not result in exposure of nearby receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the federal and State AAQS, and are designed to aid the BAAQMD in achieving attainment of the AAQS.9 Although the
BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance are intended to aid achievement of the AAQS for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment, the thresholds of significance do not represent a level above which individual project-level emissions would directly result in public health impacts. Nevertheless, a project’s compliance with BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance provides an indication that criteria pollutants released as a result of project implementation would not inhibit attainment of the health-based regional AAQS. Because project-related emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds, and, thus, would not inhibit attainment of regional AAQS, the criteria pollutants emitted during project implementation would not be anticipated to result in measurable health impacts to sensitive receptors.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of criteria pollutants.
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of localized CO or criteria pollutants during construction or operation. In addition, construction of the project would not result in exposure of nearby receptors to cancer risks in excess of the BAAQMD’s standards.
Consequently, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Emissions such as those leading to odors have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors within the project area. Pollutants of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in section “a” through “c” above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.
Per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.10 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.
Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1].
May 2017.
1.b
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
October 2024
land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses.
Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.
However, as discussed above, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted per Section 8-7.5.07 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities.
It should be noted that BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have been received by the APCO for one year.
The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed and any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant.
As noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The aforementioned measures would act to reduce construction related dust, such as the watering of exposed surfaces, covering of haul trucks, and reduction of truck speed on unpaved roads, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, the project site would not include any exposed topsoil. Thus, project operations would not include any substantial sources of dust.
For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would result.
1.b
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study