articulation that would enable it to appropriately protect public views and to be visually compatible with the surrounding shoreline area and neighborhood.
In short, there are a range of project modifications that could be applied to help limit such range of public view impacts. However, the project must be denied because it cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act’s habitat requirements, and thus the Commission does not here require these project changes. Thus, although corrections would be possible absent the habitat inconsistencies, the Commission finds the proposed project has not been sited and designed in a manner that adequately protects public views and character, and, as a result, it is not consistent with the Coastal Act’s public view requirements as cited above.
H. Public Access
Applicable Coastal Act Provisions
The Coastal Act provides that maximum opportunities for public recreational access shall be provided, including in new development projects, taking into account considerations including the location of existing public accessways and parties responsible for maintenance of new public accessways, including:
30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. 30212(a). Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
LCP Policy Guidance
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
The LCP further highlights that public recreational access to the coast must be maximized:
LUP Policy 25 (Coastal Act 30252). The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
IP Section 9-4.4300 (c) Purpose. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.
IP Section 9-4.4400 (g) Purpose. Maximize public access to and along the shoreline, while protecting the established rights of private property owners… Analysis
The project includes a proposed public recreational access pedestrian pathway spanning the length of the site from south to north, abutting the western property line, along and adjacent to the unnamed watercourse. The walkway would lead from San Pedro Avenue and connect to an existing coastal access pathway at the northern end of the site, near the Pedro Point Shopping Center, leading to Pacifica State Beach. The pathway is proposed to be paved with concrete and covered in artificial sod. As it is located along the western property line, where there is a downslope and significant grade change down to the adjacent watercourse, a concrete retaining wall and wood railing is proposed along the western property line. As such, the pedestrian walkway would not be set back from the property line and is located in ESHA, as previously described.
The only way that access pathways are allowed in ESHA is if they are low-key recreational features that require a location within the resource in order to function at all as an interpretive facility. The pathway in this case does not meet those criteria, including as it proposes hardscape that would significantly disrupt the habitat resources (e.g., as opposed to a pervious pathway absent hardscape that minimizes alteration of natural topography). Therefore, while the intent of the pedestrian walkway would be aligned with Coastal Act public access provisions, its proposed implementation would not be consistent with Coastal Act habitat requirements, and, as such, the proposed walkway cannot be approved in its current form.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
In addition, the proposed development is required by the LCP to have 50 parking spaces (47 spaces for the commercial area and 3 spaces for the residential units).
However, the City approved a parking exception for the subject development to reduce the required parking to 26 spaces (24 spaces for the commercial area and 2 spaces for the residential units). The Pedro Point neighborhood already experiences highly constrained parking, and there are ongoing conflicts between nearby businesses and public access parking for the beach. Public access parking issues in this neighborhood were recently discussed by the Commission for CDP 2-19-0586 with regard to parking fees at the nearby Pacifica State Beach parking lot, and a CDP application was recently submitted to the Commission to allow for proposed pay parking machines in the parking lot adjacent to the subject site. In short, there are already public access parking deficits in the project area, and at a minimum, the project site needs to account for and accommodate all of its parking needs onsite to avoid exacerbating those issues, including the potential for site users to occupy scarce on-street public parking spaces.
As such, a reduction in required parking at this location is inappropriate given existing constraints, and thus the proposed development does not provide adequate parking facilities and would be inconsistent with the public recreational access policies of the Coastal Act.
Again, it would likely be possible to apply project modifications to help address such parking impacts. However, the project must be denied because it cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act’s habitat requirements, and thus the Commission does not here require these project changes. Thus, although corrections would be possible absent the habitat inconsistencies, the Commission finds the proposed project has not been sited and designed in a manner that adequately protects public recreational access, and, as a result, it is not consistent with the Coastal Act’s public recreational access requirements as cited above.
I. Violation
A violation of the Coastal Act exists on the subject property including, but not limited to, a wooden skate ramp that was constructed and is operating on the subject property without benefit of a CDP (V-2-21-0002). The CDP application proposes to remove the unpermitted skate ramp and redevelop the subject parcel. If the skate ramp were to be removed, that would resolve this Coastal Act violation. However, Commission staff is recommending denial of the proposed project; if the project is denied, the unpermitted skate ramp will remain. In that case, Commission enforcement staff will address this violation accordingly.
Although development has taken place prior to submission of a CDP application, consideration of the development of the proposed CDP was made by the Commission solely based upon the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Commission review and action on this CDP does not constitute a waiver of any legal action with regard to the alleged violation, nor does it constitute an implied statement of the Commission’s position regarding the legality of any development undertaken on the subject site without a CDP, or that all aspects of the violation have been fully resolved. Accordingly, 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
the Applicant remains subject to enforcement action for engaging in unpermitted development.
J. CEQA
Section 13096(a) of the Commission’s administrative regulations requires that Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit application be supported by a finding showing that the application, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, is consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15042 states that “[a] Responsible Agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of that part of the project which the Responsible Agency would be called on to carry out or approve.”
The City of Pacifica, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared and certified an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project in 2018. The Coastal Commission, acting as a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the project. The findings in the staff report also address and respond to all issues pertaining to significant adverse environmental effects that were raised in public comments received prior to preparation of the staff report.
The Commission incorporates its findings on inconsistency with the Coastal Act at this point as set forth in full. As discussed above, the proposed development is inconsistent with various, applicable policies of the Coastal Act, and is denied on that basis. Section 21080(b)(5) of CEQA, as implemented by Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, provides that CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Accordingly, the Commission’s denial of this project represents an action to which CEQA, and all requirements contained therein that might otherwise apply to regulatory actions by the Commission, does not apply.
K. Takings
As discussed above, the proposed project is fundamentally inconsistent with the sensitive resources, coastal hazards, visual resources, and public access policies of the Coastal Act and certified LCP. In other words, applying Coastal Act policies to the proposed project requires denial of the CDP application. If and when the Commission denies a project, however, a question may arise as to whether the denial results in an unconstitutional “taking” of the applicant’s property without payment of just compensation. Coastal Act Section 30010 addresses takings and states as follows:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this division is not intended, and shall not be construed as authorizing the commission, port governing body, or local government acting pursuant to this division to exercise their power to grant 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
or deny a permit in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use, without the payment of just compensation therefore. This section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or the United States.
Consequently, although the Commission is not a court and may not ultimately adjudicate whether its action constitutes a taking, the Commission must assess whether its action might constitute a taking so that the Commission may take steps to avoid it. If the Commission concludes that its action does not constitute a taking, then it may deny the project with the assurance that its actions are consistent with Section 30010.
In addition, the Commission has the authority, under Section 30010, to approve some level of development otherwise inconsistent with Coastal Act policies in order to avoid a “taking”.
11 In this situation, the Commission finds that the Applicant’s proposed project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and that a denial would not constitute a taking, as the City approved a building and associated parking in the portion of the property within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction. Therefore, the Applicant has a right to develop the City-approved project (Building #3), and, as such, the Commission’s denial does not constitute a taking.
General Takings Principles
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”12 Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation…has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”
The idea that the Fifth Amendment proscribes more than the direct appropriation of property is usually traced to Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon ((1922) 260 U.S. 393).
Since Pennsylvania Coal, most of the takings cases in land use law have fallen into two categories (see Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519, 522-523). First, there are the cases in which government authorizes a physical occupation of property (see, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419). Second, there are the cases in which government merely regulates the use of property (Yee, supra, 503 U.S. at pp. 522-523). A taking is less likely to be found when the interference with property is an application of a regulatory program rather than a physical appropriation (e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n. v. DeBenedictis (1987) 480 U.S. 470, 488-489, fn. 18). The Commission’s actions here would be evaluated under the standards for a regulatory taking.
In takings cases, the United States Supreme Court (“Court”) has identified two circumstances in which a regulatory taking might occur. The first is the “categorical” 11 See, for example, Beach & Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 272; and Surfrider Found. v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 257–58. 12 The Fifth Amendment was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (see Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago (1897) 166 U.S. 226).
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
formulation identified in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1014. In Lucas, the Court found that regulation that denied all economically viable use of property was a taking without a “case specific” inquiry into the public interest involved (Id.). The Lucas court emphasized, however, that this category is extremely narrow, applicable only “in the extraordinary circumstance when no productive or economically beneficial use of land is permitted” or the “relatively rare situations where the government has deprived a landowner of all economically beneficial uses” or rendered it “valueless” (Id. at pp. 1016-1017 [emphasis in original]) (see Riverside Bayview Homes, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 126 [regulatory takings occur only under “extreme circumstances”]).13
The second circumstance in which a regulatory taking might occur is under the threepart, ad hoc test identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. (Penn Central) v. New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124. This test generally requires an examination into the regulation’s economic impact, its interference with reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. (Id. at p. 134; Ruckelshaus v.
Monsanto Co. (1984) 467 U.S. 986, 1005). In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, the Court again acknowledged that the Lucas categorical test and the threepart Penn Central test were the two basic situations in which a regulatory taking might be found to occur.
14 Final Government Determination
Before a landowner may seek to establish a taking under either the Lucas or Penn Central formulations, however, it must demonstrate that the takings claim is “ripe” for review. This means that the takings claimant must show that government has made a “final and authoritative” decision about the use of the property.15 Premature adjudication of a takings claim is highly disfavored, and the Supreme Court’s cases “uniformly reflect an insistence on knowing the nature and extent of permitted development before adjudicating the constitutionality of the regulations that purport to limit it” (Id. at p. 351).
Except in the rare instance where reapplication would be futile, the courts generally require that an applicant resubmit at least one application for a modified project before it will find that the taking claim is ripe for review (e.g., McDonald, supra).
In this case, although the Commission denies the project proposed by the Applicant, the City-approved development within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, Building #3, a two-story mixed-use building, is already authorized to be constructed on this site.
Alternatively, the Applicant could withdraw the City CDP and resubmit a CDP to the Commission for consolidated permit processing, with a revised, reduced scope project 13 Even where the challenged regulatory act falls into this category, government may avoid a taking if the restriction inheres in the title of the property itself; that is, background principles of state property and nuisance law would have allowed government to achieve the results sought by the regulation (Lucas, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 1028-1036).
14 See id. (rejecting Lucas categorical test where property retained value following regulation but remanding for further consideration under Penn Central). 15 See, for example, Williamson County Regional Planning Com. V. Hamilton Bank (1985) 473 U.S. 172; and MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo (1986) 477 U.S. 340, 348. 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
that better considers the coastal resource constraints on the parcel. Therefore, this denial is not a final adjudication of potential development within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and the Applicant is unlikely to be successful in arguing that the Commission’s denial is a taking because the takings claim is not “ripe.” Development Allowed to Avoid a Taking
The Commission interprets Section 30010, together with the Lucas decision, to mean that if Commission denial of the project would deprive an applicant’s property of all reasonable economic use, the Commission may be required to allow some development even if a Coastal Act or LCP policy would otherwise prohibit it, unless the proposed project would violate background principles of state property and nuisance law (e.g. if it constitutes a nuisance under state law). In complying with this requirement, however, a regulatory agency may deny a specific development proposal, while indicating that a more modest alternative proposal could be approved, and thus assure the property of some economically viable use.
As described above, the subject parcel is designated commercial, which allows for visitor-serving, commercial uses. The parcel is currently vacant, with the exception of a wooden skateboard ramp. As the parcel is within split CDP permitting jurisdiction, the City of Pacifica approved a CDP for the southernmost proposed building within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, referred to as Building #3 on the project plans. This building is a 3,346-square foot two-story, mixed-use building containing retail space on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor. Because residential development at this location is a conditional and discretionary use under the LCP, the City also approved a Use Permit to conditionally allow for the residential use to be located on the second floor, above a commercial, visitor-serving use. Thus, as the Applicant has the required City approvals to construct the building within the City’s CDP jurisdiction on this subject parcel, under the Lucas takings analysis, the Commission’s denial of the project would not be found to constitute a taking.
Taking under Penn Central
Although the Commission has already determined that the City’s approval of the building within the portion of the parcel that is in the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction constitutes an economic use on this property and thus avoids a categorical taking under Lucas, a court may also consider whether the permit decision would constitute a taking under the ad hoc inquiry stated in Penn Central. This ad hoc inquiry generally considers the extent of the applicant’s property interest, the regulation’s economic impact, the regulation’s interference with reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
Property Interest
In the subject case, the Applicant purchased the property (APN 023-072-010) for $353,508 on April 26, 2011. On October 12, 2011, a Grant Deed was recorded as document number 2011-127592 in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo’s Recorder’s Office, effectively transferring and vesting fee simple ownership to the Applicant.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectations
In this case, the Applicant’s expectation that he could develop some type of structure on the property was both a reasonable and investment-backed expectation. The Applicant purchased the 37,538 square-foot (or 0.86-acre) property for $353,508 in 2011. It was zoned then as it is now for visitor-serving commercial uses, not as open space. At the same time, the Applicant should also have been aware that the parcel was adjacent to a watercourse, and that such watercourses also include additional development constraints via the Coastal Act and the LCP. And, in fact, the Applicant was aware of these issues inasmuch as he had had conversations with Commission and City staff prior to acquisition regarding such development constraints as it affected his property (see also below). Thus, the Applicant did have an investment-backed expectation that he had purchased developable property, albeit one that was encumbered by a coastal resource likely to require project modifications, and his investment reflected that future development could likely be accommodated on some portion of the subject parcel, but that such development would need to address potential coastal resource constraints, primarily associated with the unnamed watercourse bordering the site.
The question remains whether the Applicant had an investment-backed expectation to construct three two-story buildings, a skate park, a graded pathway with retaining wall, and a parking lot. In order to analyze this question, one must assess, from an objective viewpoint, whether a reasonable person would have believed that the property could have been developed for the Applicant’s proposed use, taking into account all the legal, regulatory, economic, physical, and other restraints that existed when the property was acquired.
When the Applicant purchased the property in 2011, there was no existing development on the site. The property was zoned for visitor-serving commercial uses, as is the adjacent property to the east. The adjacent property on the inland side of the subject lot was developed with commercial buildings. The adjacent property on the seaward side of the subject lot was vacant. Farther seaward, as well as to the south of the subject lot, were residential buildings. Thus, the property was zoned for visitor-serving uses and was located near both visitor-serving commercial and residential uses.
In communication with the City of Pacifica and Applicant, 16 including communications
prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property, Coastal Commission staff expressed documented concerns in 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2018 with regards to potential impacts of development on the habitat resources located on and adjacent to the subject site, indicating that any proposed development should consider measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts on the adjacent watercourse area, which most likely would meet the one-parameter definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act, and stating that a oneparameter wetland delineation should be conducted. See Exhibit 6 for prior communications from Coastal Commission staff related to the subject site and site constraints.
16 Personal telephone communications between Commission staff and Applicant between May 2010 and May 2018.
2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
At the time, Commission staff was not aware of the degree of wetlands and/or habitat resources present at the site because there had been no analysis and no wetland delineation, but the Applicant could have availed himself through the due diligence purchasing process to Commission reports to help understand the site constraints more clearly, including in consultation with City and Commission staff, but he did not. In fact, it was not until November 2019 that the Applicant finally provided the wetland delineation that was long advised, which delineation precipitated discovery more precisely of the constraints that affect this site, as described now in this report.
Consequently, while the Applicant may have had a reasonable investment-backed expectation that he had purchased a lot that could be developed, it was not reasonable to assume that the site could be developed to the extent the Applicant proposes, which in effect would develop the entirety of the site, encroach into required sensitive habitat, and develop all the way up to the bank of a watercourse that he was on notice could contain protected wetlands and sensitive species. In short, while investment-backed, the Applicant’s expectation in this regard was not reasonable.
Economic Impact
The Penn Central analysis also requires an assessment of the economic impact of the regulatory action on an applicant’s property. Although a landowner is not required to demonstrate that the regulatory action destroyed all of the property’s value, the landowner must demonstrate that the value of the property has been very substantially diminished.
17 If the Commission were to deny the Applicant the right to all development on the property as a whole, consistent with the requirements of the LCP and the Coastal Act, then the Applicant could argue that the economic impact of the Commission’s action was significant enough to constitute a taking. However, in this instance, due to the City’s prior authorization for one of the three proposed buildings that is located within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, the Applicant has the right to develop the proposed building within the City’s CDP permitting jurisdiction, granting him ability to gain some economic benefit from his property. As such, while this decision does not allow for further development on the subject property and is not precisely the development proposed by the Applicant, the right to develop one two-story, mixed-use building provides for an economic use of the property.
Character of the Government Action
This final prong of the Penn Central test , namely the character of the government’s action, has been downplayed in recent years.18 Nevertheless, it is still part of the Penn 17 See, for example, Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc., supra, (citing William C. Haas v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F. 2d 1117 (diminution of property’s value by 95% not a taking)); and Rith Energy v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2001) 270 F. 3d 1347 (applying Penn Central, court finds that diminution of property’s value by 91% not a taking).
18 See, for example, Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 529 (governmental action that substantially advances a public purpose alone does not insulate the government from a takings claim).
See also Lewyn, Michael, Character Counts: The “Character of the Government Action” In Regulatory Takings Actions, 40 Seton Hall L. Rev 597, 599 (2010) stating that Lingle holds that the existence of a 2-19-0026 (Rhodes Mixed-Use Development)
Central analysis, and the Coastal Commission advances a legitimate public interest when it regulates various uses according to the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, specifically protection of coastal resources. With the Coastal Act, the Legislature sought to protect natural resources and the ecological balance of the coastal zone while allowing for future development consistent with the Act’s policies (see, for example, Coastal Act Sections 30001(b), (c), and (d)).
Conclusion
The Commission finds that the project as proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and the certified Pacifica LCP and must therefore be denied. The Commission also finds, however, that the City’s CDP authorization for the portion of the proposed project that is within the City’s CDP jurisdiction provides for an economic use of the site.
Further, given the significant impacts to coastal resources that would result from approval of the project, the inconsistencies with the Coastal Act described above, as well as legitimate questions as to whether there are alternatives to the proposed project currently before the Commission that would minimize impacts to coastal resources, the Commission finds that it is premature to approve any development located in the Commission’s retained CDP jurisdiction area in order to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property at this time. Specifically, this denial is not a final determination by the Commission of the potential for development overall on this site, as it does not preclude the Applicant from withdrawing the City-approved project and resubmitting a new CDP to the Commission for consolidated permit processing as originally recommended and applying for some other development or use of the overall site, such as a smaller-scale development that more carefully addresses the applicable Coastal Act and LCP policies, in particular as they relate to ESHA, wetlands, coastal hazards, public views, and public recreational access. The Commission, therefore, denies the proposed project because it is inconsistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and denial of this project will not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property.
3. APPENDICES
A. Substantive File Documents19
GeoSoils Sea Level Rise & Coastal Hazard Analysis, dated March 12, 2019 GeoSoils Supplemental Memo, dated August 20, 2019
B. Staff Contact with Agencies and Groups
City of Pacifica
USFWS
valid public purpose standing alone may not justify an otherwise problematic regulation (emphasis in original).
19 These documents are available for review from the Commission’s North Central Coast District office.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415)
FAX: (415)
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
2-19-0026 (RHODES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT)
MARCH 12, 2021
EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Site Photos
Exhibit 3 – City-Approved Project Plans
Exhibit 4 – City of Pacifica Final Local Action Notice
Exhibit 5 – Wetland Delineation
Exhibit 6 – Coastal Commission comment letters to City
Exhibit 7 – Peter Baye Biology Memo dated May 4, 2005
Exhibit 8 – Peter Baye Biology Memo dated July 7, 2014
Exhibit 9 – Photographic Documentation of CRLF
Exhibit 10 – CNDDB Field Survey Report
Exhibit 11 – Commission Staff Ecologist memo
505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE – PROJECT LOCATION MAP
City of Pacifica, San Mateo County
Pacifica
State Beach
San Pedro
Creek
Shelter
Cove
Old Railroad
Berm
Project Site
Drainage
Channel
2-19-0026
Exhibit 1
505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE – SITE PHOTOS
Drainage
Channel
Project Site
Drainage
Channel
Project Site
Old Railroad
Berm
Old Railroad
Berm
2-19-0026
Exhibit 2
Scenic Pacifica
lncorporated Nov. zz, 1957
CITY OF PACIFICA
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
1800 Francisco Blvd. . Pacifica, California 94044-2506
. www.citvofpacifica.orq
Efl ME
November20,2018
VIACERTIFIED MAIL
MAYOR
John Keener
MAYOR PROTEM
Sue Vaterlaus
couNctr
Sue Digre
Mike O'Neill
Deirdre Martin
t8
Califomia Coastal Commission
Attn: Patrick Foster, Coastal Planner
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Attachments: E ResolutionofApprovalwithconditions X StatrReport(s) EI Meeting Path of Portola L769. San Francisco Bay
RE: Coastal Development Permit CDP-346-,|4, 505 San Pedro Avenue (APN 023.072.010) Pursuant to CoastalAct Section 30603(d), Coastal Commission Regulations Section 13571, and Pacifica Zoning Code Section 9-
4.4304(n), this notice will serve to confirm that the City of Pacifica approved the above-referenced Coastal Development Permit, and to fumish the following additional information:
APPLICANT NAMUADDRESS:Shawn Rhodes,5460 Coast Highway, Pacifica, CA 94M4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:(Note:A portion of the site is located within the CoastalCommission's permit jurisdiction;however, the following description is applicable to the prolect as a whole.) File No. 2014-002- Construction of firee buildings and associated improvements as follows: Building #1 - two-story surf shop building for retail sales, surfboad rentals, lockers, and office/storage space with a stonage basement and outdoor shower; Building #2 - two-story building for storage and surboard shaping attached to a covered skatepark enclosed by an open-work fence; Building #3 - two-story mixed-use building with retail space and office/storage on the ground floor and two residential unib on the second story; Off-street parking area for 24 uncovered car spaces and two garage spaces on the first floor of Building #3 for the residential unib above with the rcquest for a reduction in off-street parking and covered parking requirements; and, removal of two heritage trees.
DECISION: The subject permit was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica on November 5, 2018, based on the required findings contained and adopted in the resolution of approval.
APPEAL PROCEDURES: The appeals prccess may involve the following:
t (nil X The local appeal period ended on 1111512018, and no appeal was filed; or, n The permit was appealed to and decided by the City Council, exhausting the local appeals prccess. .srlrF I The project lS within the Appeals Zone and the permit lS appealable to the State of Califomia Coastal Commission if the appeal is made in writing to the Coastal Commission prior to the close of business on the 10th working day from the date of receipt of this notice by the Executive Director of the Commission. For additional information, contact the Califomia Coastal Commission, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219, (4151 or,
tr The project is NOT in the Appeals Zone and the permit is NOT appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Pacifica Planning 94044, (650)
Tina Wehrmeister
Planning Director
D
FINAL LCCAL
ACT!Ci.{ NOTICE
I Project
REFERENCE
2-19-0026
Exhibit 4
505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE, PACIFICA
WETLAND DELINEATION
PREPARED FOR:
Shawn Rhodes
PREPARED BY:
Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC
1410 31st Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
November 2019
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
Table of Contents
1. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 1
2. SETTING ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3
2.3 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket.................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Coastal Brambles.......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Eucalyptus Grove ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.4 Kikuyu Grass Sward ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.5 Monterey Cypress Stand.............................................................................................................. 7
2.3.6 Ornamental .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.7 Perennial Rye Grass Fields ........................................................................................................... 7
2.3.8 Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh........................................................................................................ 8
2.3.9 Smartweed Patch ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.10 Upland Mustards and Ruderal Forbs......................................................................................... 8
2.4 SOILS .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 HYDROLOGY............................................................................................................................... 8
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................................................. 10
3.2 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 U.S Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 California Coastal Commission................................................................................................... 13
3.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................... 14
3.2.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board ...................................................................................... 14
3.3 DELINEATION METHODS........................................................................................................... 15
3.4 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................. 15
3.5 FIELD SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.1 Vegetation Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 15
3.5.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 16
3.5.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 16
3.6 FEDERAL WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION .................................................................... 16
3.6.1 Acreage Calculations.................................................................................................................. 17
3.7 STATE WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION........................................................................ 17
4. RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 18
4.1 FEDERAL WETLANDS................................................................................................................. 18
4.1.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 20
4.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 20 2-19-0026 Exhibit 5
4.2 STATE WETLANDS..................................................................................................................... 20
4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (ESHA)............................................................ 21 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 21
5. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES .......................................................................... 24
5.1 REPORT PREPARATION............................................................................................................. 24
5.2 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDICES
1. Wetland Determination Data Forms……………………………………………………...A-1
2. Representative Photographs………………………………………………………………B-1
3. Soils Survey Map...……………………………………………………………………….C-1
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Project Location and Study Area…………………………………………………………....5
2. Federal and State Wetland Delineation Map……...…………………………...…………..19
LIST OF TABLES
1. Total acreage of wetland areas within study area……………………………………………18
2. Setback distances for proposed project and state and federal wetlands………………...……22 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 1
1. SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a formal delineation of waters of the United States, including wetlands, at an undeveloped property (drainage channel) adjacent to 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, California (APN 023-72-010). The property drainage channel is within an unaccepted city of Pacifica Right of Way. The purpose of the delineation of the drainage channel is to assist the California Coastal Commission in identifying the type and extent of waters subject to federal and state jurisdiction and to inform potential impacts from future development of the adjacent property at 505 San Pedro Avenue.
Fieldwork was performed by Coast Ridge Ecology staff biologists in September and October 2019 using the routine determination method described in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual, in incorporation with the USACE 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Wetland vegetation types were mapped in the field using a Trimble GeoExplorer unit on September 18, October 21, and October 25, 2019.
Field data was analyzed to determine a wetland boundary. A total of 0.088 acres of potentially jurisdictional federal wetlands (i.e. three-parameter) are present within the study area and may be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. A total of 0.248 acres of potentially jurisdictional state wetlands (i.e. oneparameter) are present within the study area, and may be subject to jurisdiction under the California Coastal Commission. Wetland areas within the study area are composed of freshwater wetlands dominated by water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), and perennial rye grass (Festuca perennis). These wetlands are all located within portions of the channel bottom of the drainage channel, with the exception of the one-parameter Arroyo willow wetlands on the north side of the drainage channel, which extend up the channel bank. Appendix A provides completed data sheets for the study area. Appendix B provides representative photographs.
The drainage channel feature adjacent to the property at 505 San Pedro Avenue is a man-made constructed feature, that is highly degraded due to construction and ongoing maintenance of a City of Pacifica sewer line that runs underneath the feature. The channel has been used as an illegal dumping area for decades and refuse such as gas cans, mattresses, appliances, plastic garbage, concrete rubble, bricks, and other refuse are present within the channel and buried within the soil.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 2 In the city of Pacifica, construction projects within the coastal zone are regulated through the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). The City regulates construction projects through the LCLUP, to bring projects into conformance with the California Coastal Act of 1976.
The LCLUP states that “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”. The California Coastal Commission has required buffers of 100 feet from the edge of riparian vegetation in areas where such buffers are feasible. However, it is not unusual for the Commission to allow smaller buffers in urbanized areas where the existing land use patterns do not allow for increased riparian buffer areas.
Based on the existing condition of the drainage channel, and the setback distances, the proposed project would not present a source of physical, chemical or biological disturbance to the wetland habitats including the arroyo willow stand (AW-1). Additional measures to ensure the channel is not impacted by construction activities would include planting of native plant species suitable for the boundary area adjacent to the channel, and installation of appropriate erosion/ sediment controls such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, and erosion control blankets along the top of the bank.
These measures would be suitable to protect the resource and improve the quality of this resource.
Any economic use of the subject property would result in a reduction of the recommended 100- foot buffer because of the proximity of any development on the property to wetland habitat. The CCC has established precedent by issuing permits allowing even more intensive uses that resulted in direct impacts to sensitive coastal resources, consistent with the mandate of Coastal Act § 30010 that prevents taking of private property without compensation (see CCC Appeal Numbers A-2-SMC-11-040 & A-2-SMC-11-041 concerning a controversial project near Half Moon Bay that was ultimately approved).
These conclusions should be regarded as preliminary and subject to verification by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers prior to performing any work that would impact wetland resources on site.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 3
2. SETTING
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The study area encompasses approximately 1.6 acres of land located at 505 San Pedro Avenue (project site) and the drainage channel adjacent to the property in Pacifica, California. The applicant (Shawn Rhodes) is proposing to develop the parcel at 505 San Pedro Avenue, which is
0.86 acres. The adjacent drainage channel is 0.74 acres. The drainage channel is located to the west of the property within an unaccepted city right of way. This delineation was conducted to provide additional information on the drainage channel, in response to California Coastal Commission letter dated July 2, 2019 regarding Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application Number 2-19-0026 (construction of a mixed-use scheme, including three buildings, a skate park, and a parking lot in Pacifica.
The site is bordered by the Pedro Point Shopping Center to the East, San Pedro Avenue to the south, and residential properties to the north. The area is highly developed, and the property is surrounded by residential and commercial developments on all sides. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 210 feet to the northwest. Topography on the project site is variable, as is located on an elevated berm-like feature. The top of the berm runs southwest-northeast through the approximate center of the property, and slopes downwards towards the drainage channel on the west side and the shopping center on the east side. Elevations at the study area range from approximately 14 to 23 feet. Figure 1 shows the project boundaries and location. Photographs of the project site can be found in Appendix B.
The drainage channel was created most likely as an irrigation ditch for farming prior to the 1950’s. The City of Pacifica constructed a sewer line below the channel, with sewer manholes in two locations within the channel, at some point later (in the 1960’s possibly). The channel bed and banks are categorized as ‘urban’ soil type due the history of disturbance to the channel and its location adjacent to a 5-acre commercial shopping center and parking lot. Urban runoff from the local community of Pedro Point flows into the channel which then empties through a culvert and into San Pedro Creek on the north side of the 505 San Pedro Avenue property.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property (APN 023-72-010) is located on San Pedro Avenue in Pacifica, California. The property is 0.86 acres in size (37,273 ft.2) and is located on the west side of Highway 1 in the Pedro Point area. The site is located within the coastal zone and is subject to the City of 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 4 Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The property is zoned as commercial and is within the Pedro Point – Shelter Cove Land Use Plan Area, and is outside of any special areas delineated in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Pacifica, 1992). The site is a narrow, rectangular strip of land (755 feet long x 55 feet wide) and is bounded by San Pedro Road on the south, a drainage channel and open field on the west, a strip mall/shopping area to the east and a parking lot on the north. San Pedro Creek and the Pacific Ocean are located further to the north, and northwest of the parking lot. The surrounding area is single family residential homes and small businesses.
The project intends to develop a currently vacant lot into commercial and residential buildings.
The development will consist of a 2-story surf shop building with storage basement (3,500 ft2 ), a
skatepark enclosed within chain-link fencing and a roof (4,730 ft2), a 2-story storage building for the surf shop (1,540 ft2), 2 parking lot areas (16,513 ft2), a 2-story building with retail space at the lower level and 2 residential units above (2,516 ft2 ), and various areas of landscaping (7,302
ft2). The project would be constructed within an upland area that is behind an existing shopping center, and would include a public access easement (pedestrian trail) that would extend along the western boundary of the site, along the top of bank of an adjacent drainage channel. The project area and adjacent drainage channel have been heavily disturbed by grading activities in the past.
The adjacent drainage channel would not be directly impacted by the proposed project.
This wetland delineation was conducted on the adjacent drainage channel, which is designated as an unaccepted right of way (identified as ‘Chester Way’) on the most current San Mateo County Assessor’s parcel map.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 5 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 6
2.3 VEGETATION
Vegetation at the study site (drainage channel) can be categorized into several different natural communities based upon plant species composition. The boundaries between communities can be distinct, or can change gradually over an area. Due to the semi-developed nature of the project site, vegetation types in this analysis are based upon, but do not strictly follow, species alliances described by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Manual of California Vegetation. Natural communities on the site include arroyo willow thicket, coastal brambles, eucalyptus grove, kikuyu grass sward, Monterey cypress stand, perennial rye grass fields, smallfruited bulrush marsh, smartweed patch, upland mustards/ruderal and ornamental.
2.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket
The arroyo willow thicket community is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). This plant community is found within the drainage at the northeast terminus of the drainage. It is comprised of dense arroyo willow trees. Arroyo willows are a facultative wetland (FACW) plant, found more frequently in wetlands than outside of them.
2.3.2 Coastal Brambles
The coastal brambles plant community is characterized as being heavily dominated by brambles (Rubus sp.). Within the study area, this plant community is primarily made up of dense California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) vines, with the ornamental species multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and California privet (Ligustrum ovalifolium) occasionally present at lower densities.
The coastal brambles plant community is found along the banks of the drainage channel, sometimes extending into the channel itself. California blackberry is a Facultative plant (FAC), found equally often in wetland and upland habitats. Multiflora rose and California privet are considered upland species (UPL). Due to the prevalence of dominant upland species within this habitat, it is not considered a wetland.
2.3.3 Eucalyptus Grove
Two groves of mature blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) trees are present at the western and southwestern portions of the study area. Large blue gum trees make up the overstory of this community, while the understory is primarily composed of eucalyptus duff and English ivy (Hedera helix). Blue gum is an upland (UPL) species, and English ivy is considered a Facultative Upland (FACU) species more likely to be found in upland habitats. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 7
2.3.4 Kikuyu Grass Sward
Swards of the invasive Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) are present within the bottom of the drainage channel. These areas are completely dominated by Kikuyu grass with no other vegetation present. This species is considered a Facultative Upland (FACU) plant, being found more often in upland habitats. The presence of Kikuyu grass indicates that there is unlikely to be significant soil inundation (and thus wetland habitat) in this portion of the drainage channel.
2.3.5 Monterey Cypress Stand
One stand of Monterey cypress (Hesperocyperus macrocarpa) is present within the study area along the western bank of the channel. Vegetative cover within this stand is entirely made up of Monterey cypress, as the density of the trees prevents any understory vegetation from growing beneath them. Monterey cypress is ranked UPL.
2.3.6 Ornamental
The ornamental vegetation community is made up of non-native ornamental plant species that are not widespread enough in natural areas to possess a community designation. Within the study site, areas of ornamental vegetation are dominated by garden nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), English ivy (Hedera helix), or cape ivy (Delairea odorata). Where present, each species provides nearly 100 percent of the vegetative cover. These areas heavily dominated by non-native vegetation are primarily found along the eastern bank of the drainage channel. All of these plants are considered upland species.
2.3.7 Perennial Rye Grass Fields
This plant community is dominated by perennial rye grass (Festuca perennis). Individual curly and green dock (Rumex crispus/Rumex conglomeratus) plants are also present at lower densities.
Perennial fescue is a Facultative wetland plant (FAC), equally likely to be found inside or outside of wetland habitats. Curly dock is also a FAC plant, while green dock is considered a FACW plant.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 8
2.3.8 Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
This plant community is dominated by small-fruited bulrush (Scripus microcarpus). One small patch of these plants is present within the drainage channel, where they make up 100 percent of the vegetative cover. Small-fruited bulrush is an Obligate wetland species (OBL), only being found within wetland habitats.
2.3.9 Smartweed Patch
This plant community is primarily dominated by smartweed (Persicaria sp.). Within the study area, this community is dominated by water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia), a wetland obligate species (OBL). Other plant species observed growing beneath and around the smartweed include silverweed cinquefoil (Potentilla anserina), dock (Rumex sp.), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). These plants are only found within the wetter portions of the drainage channel.
2.3.10 Upland Mustards and Ruderal Forbs
This plant community is dominated by non-native mustards and other invasive species. Within the study area, this habitat is heavily dominated by wild radish (Raphanus sativus), which dominates the vegetative cover along the eastern bank/berm and upland portions of the site.
Small patches of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) can also be found within this community. These plants are designated as upland (UPL) species.
2.4 SOILS
Only one soil type is present within the study area: Urban land. Urban land is defined by the USDA NRCS as areas where 85% or more of the ground surface is covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other structures (USDA SCS 1991). Appendix C provides a soils map of the study area.
2.5 HYDROLOGY
The project site consists of a vacant lot and does not contain any watercourses or wetland habitats. Aquatic features within a 100-meter radius of the project site include the Pacific Ocean, San Pedro Creek (approximately 75 meters northeast of the site), and an intermittent drainage channel on the west side of the project site
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 9 The drainage channel was created most likely as an irrigation ditch for farming prior to the 1950’s. At some point later (in the 1960’s possibly), the City of Pacifica constructed a sewer pipe that runs below the open channel for most of the channel’s length. Two sewer manholes are located in the channel bottom. During rain events, urban stormwater runoff from the local community of Pedro Point flows into the channel which then empties through a culvert into San Pedro Creek to the north side of the property.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 10
3. METHODOLOGY
This wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the USACE 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual along with the USACE 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. A Level 3 Determination (i.e., a combination of onsite inspection and aerial review) was conducted as defined in the Wetland Delineation Manual.
The location of the project site is within the boundary zone between the Arid West Region and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. The climatic conditions and vegetation in Pacifica overlaps with what is described in both supplements. Both regional supplements include coastal areas, and a reasonable justification could be made to support the use of either supplement. The Western Mountains regional supplement was chosen as the appropriate manual based on vegetation and climate; including the following:
Arid West: Generally hot and dry with long summer dry season. Average annual precipitation mostly <15”, except along the coast. Most precipitation falls as rain.
Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast: Cooler and more humid with a shorter dry season.
Average annual precipitation mostly >20” except near the coast. Much of the annual precipitation falls as snow, particularly at higher elevations.
Average annual precipitation in Pacifica is approximately 32”1. Due to heavy fog during the summertime especially, the amount of water available to vegetation is much greater due to fog drip.
3.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following section provides key definitions of terms used in this report that are relevant to the delineation of wetlands and other waters of the US.
Waters of the United States: Title 33, Chapter II, Part 328.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines waters of the United States as:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 1 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 11 (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
a. which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
b. or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
c. or which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4); (6) Territorial seas; and
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (1) through (6).
Federal Definition of Wetlands: In Title 33, Chapter II, Part 328.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations, wetlands are defined as: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” For the purposes of a USACE wetland delineation, an area must meet three diagnostic environmental characteristics in order to be considered a wetland. These three characteristics include the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
Hydrophytic Vegetation: The USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual describes hydrophytic vegetation as “sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. The vegetation occurring in a wetland may consist of more than one plant community (species association). Emphasis is placed on the assemblage of plant species that exert a controlling influence on the character of the plant community, rather than on indicator species.”
Hydric Soil: Defined by the USACE Western Mountains Supplement as “a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of saturation or inundation for more than a few days…These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods.” 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 12 Wetland Hydrology: The USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual describes wetland hydrology as “all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively.”
Navigable Waters of the United States: Title 33, Chapter II, Part 329.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines navigable waters of the U.S. as “those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for us to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.” For the purposes of a USACE jurisdictional determination, navigable waters of the United States are considered Traditionally Navigable Waters.
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): Title 33, Chapter II, Part 328.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines the OHWM as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter or debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area.”
Mean High Water (MHW): Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), which regulates certain activities in navigable waters of the U.S., defines the landward limit of Section 10 jurisdiction as the Mean High Water (MHW) mark. The MHW mark, with respect to ocean and coastal waters, is defined as: “The line on the shore established by the average of all high tides. It is established by survey based on available tidal data (preferably averaged over a period of 18.6 years because of the variations in tide). In the absence of such data, less precise methods to determine the mean high water mark are used, such as physical markings, lines of vegetation or comparison of the area in question with an area having similar physical characteristics for which tidal data are readily available.”
In the case of non-tidal waters regulated by the RHA, the MHW is defined as the OHWM.
State Definition of Wetlands: The State defines wetlands more broadly than the federal wetlands program by recognizing that wetlands may have evidence of only one of the three federal parameters. The State definition also conforms to the USFWS definition:
"Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 13 predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year" (Cowardin, 1979).
Additionally, for the purposes of identifying Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) regulated by the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Act of 1976 further specifies that wetlands are:
“Land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats” (CCR Title 14, Section 13577).
Although the State definition may require only a single parameter to establish the presence of wetlands (and ESHA), in practice, such decisions are based on a case-by-case interpretation of data that either support or disprove the presumption of whether wetlands are indicated by a single parameter.
3.2 REGULATORY SETTING
3.2.1 U.S Army Corps of Engineers
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. USACE also regulates dredging, filling, and construction activities in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Activities involving dredged or filled materials require a Section 404 permit, and/or a Section 10 permit, issued by the USACE. Section 404 projects may be authorized under general permits, also known as nationwide permits, or may require individual permits in the case of more complex projects that exceed the threshold for impacts under the nationwide permits.
3.2.2 California Coastal Commission
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) exercises jurisdiction over development activities within the coastal zone. In the city of Pacifica, construction projects within the coastal zone are regulated through the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). The City regulates construction projects through the LCLUP, to bring projects into conformance with the California Coastal Act of 1976.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 14 The project site is within the Pedro Point/ Shelter Cove Land Use Plan area, and is not located within a designated environmentally sensitive wetland area (LCLUP 1992). However, in the Plan Conclusions section, under Development Near Wetlands and Creeks; the LCLUP states:
“Riparian vegetation along all intermittent and year-round creeks shall be protected, enhanced and restored where feasible, and buffer zones required.”; And; “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”
3.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates projects that will:
(1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake; or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. (Section 1602, California Fish and Game Code)
To complete projects which will affect these characteristics of any river, stream, or lake, within the state of California, projects must apply for a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1600 Series Permit). The jurisdictional boundary of the CDFW typically follows the top-of-bank or the outermost edge of riparian vegetation adjacent to the regulated stream, river, or lake.
3.2.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has authority over projects that could result in negative impacts to waters of the State and wetlands. The RWQCB, defines “waters of the State” as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters within the boundaries of the State of California (Cal. Water Quality Control, Division 7, January 2011). In addition, it defines “water quality control” as the regulation of any activity that may affect the quality of the waters of the State, and includes the prevention and correction of water pollution and nuisance.
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of State waters. Regulated discharges include any substances associated with human habitation that are harmful to the aquatic environment, including stormwater runoff associated with construction projects and other activities that could discharge soil, pollutants, or other materials into waters of the State. Projects that could produce pollutants or discharge into waters of the state must apply for a Section 401 Certification from 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 15 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that any discharges will be in compliance with California’s water quality standards.
3.3 DELINEATION METHODS
This wetland delineation was conducted through the analysis of aerial photography, historical records, and other relevant data sources, as well as an onsite survey to characterize vegetation, soils, and hydrology.
3.4 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to the field survey, aerial photographs were reviewed for current and historical data on lake levels and vegetation. Soil types were assessed using the online USDA Natural Resource Conservation Science Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2019). Historical and current land use data was accessed from various sources, including historical aerial photographs (UCSB 2019).
3.5 FIELD SURVEY
The field delineation for the study area was conducted by Patrick Kobernus of Coast Ridge Ecology on October 21, 2019. Wetland vegetation was mapped by P. Kobernus and CRE Biologist Greg Pfau on September 18, 2019. Weather conditions at the time of the field visits included clear skies, temperatures in the 70’s (ºF), and no wind. The onsite inspection evaluated the three parameters that identify and delineate the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands, including (1) the dominance of wetland vegetation; (2) the presence of hydric soils; and (3) hydrologic conditions that result in periods of inundation or saturation on the surface from flooding or ponding.
Survey methods follow the protocol outlined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual for Areas Less Than Five Acres in Size. GPS coordinates of each sample location were recorded in the field with a Trimble GeoExplorer 6000 series unit. Vegetation, soils and hydrology data were taken at each of these points. The completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains Region are located in Appendix A.
3.5.1 Vegetation Data Collection
Vegetation data was collected at each sample point taken during the field survey. As per the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regional Supplement, plants in the tree stratum are defined as woody plants with a diameter three inches or more at breast height (DBH). Saplings/shrubs are defined as woody plants with a diameter of less than three inches DBH, and herbs are defined as non-woody plants regardless of size. Species type and percent dominance of each species was recording at each sample point.
The USACE National Wetland Plant List was used to determine the wetland indicator status of 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 16 plants observed in the study area. Wetland indicator status refers to the probability that a plant will occur within a wetland or upland area. The indicator status categories are defined as follows:
• Obligate (OBL): almost always occurs in wetlands
• Facultative wetland (FACW): usually occurs in wetlands, sometimes may occur in uplands
• Facultative (FAC): equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands • Facultative upland (FACU): usually occurs in uplands but may occasionally occur in wetlands
• Obligate upland (UPL): almost never occurs in wetlands • No indicator (NI)/ No status (NS): no indicator or status assigned due to lack of information
The presence of hydrophytic vegetation data was then determined using the dominance test and prevalence index described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Western Mountains Regional Supplement.
3.5.2 Soils
Soil pits were taken at each of the eight sample point sites. Soil pits were excavated to the maximum depth possible and soil color and texture was assessed and recorded onto the Western Mountains data sheets. Soil color was determined by matching samples to Munsell Soils Color Charts (Munsell Colors 2000). Soils were then assessed for hydric features described in the Western Mountains Regional Supplement, such as the presence of redoxomorphic concentrations, mucky soils or hydrogen sulfide odor.
3.5.3 Hydrology
Hydrology at each of the sample points was assessed based upon the USACE Western Mountains, Valleys, And Coast Region hydrology guidelines. Positive hydrological indicators include the presence of a visible water table, saturation and/or muck, water marks or drift deposits.
3.6 FEDERAL WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
A preliminary wetland boundary line, based on the 3-parameter wetland definition was determined based on data points and vegetation mapping. Based upon the location of wetland versus non-wetland sample points, the wetland boundary was determined to correspond to specific discrete locations within the channel bottom (Figure 2). 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 17
3.6.1 Acreage Calculations
The area for each individual vegetation polygon within the wetland boundary was calculated in ArcMAP 10.2. All vegetation areas were then added to obtain a total area for wetlands within the study area.
3.7 STATE WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
The state definition of wetlands requires only a single parameter to be met in order to indicate the presence of wetlands. Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology were used to determine the state upland wetland boundary.
Areas of wetland vegetation were identified and mapped using a Trimble GeoExplorer 6000 unit.
Vegetation units were mapped based upon the dominant species.
Areas of hydric vegetation were defined using the dominance test, and by assessing the indicator status of the dominant species. Vegetation defined as obligate or facultative wetland by the USACE National Plant List was mapped as wetland vegetation.
Wetland acreage was determined using the methods described in Section 3.6.1 Acreage Calculation.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 18
4. RESULTS
4.1 FEDERAL WETLANDS
A total of 0.088 acres of potential federally jurisdictional wetlands occur within the delineation study area. Table 1 provides the calculations for the total acreage for wetland areas within the study area. Jurisdictional areas lie within the vegetated central portions of the drainage channel.
These areas are within the primary flow of the channel, where the soil remains saturated even after water is no longer visible at the surface. Wetland areas are represented by sample points A2 and A4 within the study area. Figure 2 provides an illustration of potentially jurisdictional wetlands within the study area. Appendix B provides representative photographs of the sample points and study area.
TABLE 1: TOTAL ACREAGE OF WETLAND AREAS WITHIN STUDY AREA Wetland Type Federal State
Area (acres) Area (sq ft) Area (acres) Area (sq ft)
Arroyo Willow Wetland
AW-1
Perennial Rye Grass Wetland
PR-1 0.010 437.146 0.001 35.026
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
BM-1 0.003 116.769 0.003 120.651
Smartweed Wetland
SW-1 0.012 508.292 0.004 161.820
SW-2 0.019 833.803
SW-3 0.019 844.048 0.022 963.699
subtotal
Ephemeral Channel
FC-1
Wetted Channel
WC-1 0.017 722.949
Total 0.248 10803.370
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
FC-1
A1
A2
A4A3
AW-1
SW-3
SW-2
SW-1
WC-1
PR-1
BM-1
Figure 2: Federal and State Wetlands
Legend
Site Parcel Boundary
Delineation Point
Waters of the State/State Wetland
Wetted Channel
Federal Wetlands
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Perennial Rye Grass Fields
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Smartweed Patch
State Wetlands
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Perennial Rye Grass Fields
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Smartweed Patch
Flow Channel
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica, CA
0 20 40 80 120 160
Feet
±
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 20
4.1.1 Vegetation
Freshwater wetlands on the study site are composed of a variety of plant species. Areas with the greatest water availability, at the northern end of the drainage, are dominated by arroyo willow and small-fruited bulrush. Wetlands within the primary flow of the channel are dominated by water smartweed and perennial rye grass, with curly and green dock also present at lower densities. Silver weed cinquefoil (Potentilla anserina) (OBL) can also be found here beneath the smartweed.
4.1.2 Soils
Within the wetland sample points, soils tended to be dark brown and homogenous with a color matrix of 10YR 3/1 at sample points A2 and A4; and 5YR 3/2 at sample point A1; and 5YR 3/3 at sample point A3. Soil texture ranged from sandy loam at sample points A1, A3, and A4 to sandy clay loam at sample point A2. Several unusual soil compositions were noted at the study site within the channel, due to the site being graded in the past, and the site used as an illegal dumping area. Within each of the sample point areas, concrete rubble, brick, plastic and metal refuse were present on the soil surface and/or within the soil. Soils determined to be wetland soils were based on one indicator (redox dark surface), likely due to a lack of ponding in the channel during most times of year. In addition, dark parent materials and the fact that the drainage feature has only been in existence for a few to several decades likely limits the formation of more hydric soil indicators.
4.1.3 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology indicators at sample points A2 and A4 included mud cracks at the surface of the channel bottom (Photo 9 in Appendix B). No other hydrology indicators were present. No ordinary high water mark was visible in the channel, likely due to a lack of flow through the channel at most times of year.
4.2 STATE WETLANDS
A total of 0.248 acres of potential state jurisdictional wetlands occur within the delineation study area. The acreage of state wetlands exceeds that of the federal wetlands since determination state wetlands is based upon only one parameter (hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soils or wetland hydrology) rather than the presence of all three required by the federal wetland definition. Table 1 provides the calculations for the total acreage for state and federal wetland areas within the study area.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 21 The entire portion of the channel exhibiting hydrology features was mapped and designated as FC-1. This area qualifies as a state wetland due to hydrology and soil indicators, but vegetation is either lacking or composed of upland plant species in many places. Areas where the hydrophytic vegetation is dominant within the channel satisfy the criteria for federal wetlands.
4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (ESHA)
The CCC defines an ESHA as an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities.” (California Coastal Act §30107.5).
The CCC Guidelines contain definitions for specific types of ESHAs, including: wetlands, estuaries, streams and rivers, lakes, open coastal waters and coastal waters, riparian habitats, other resource areas, and special-status species and their habitats. For the purposes of this report, ESHAs include any areas that may meet the definition of any ESHA defined by the CCC guidelines or the City of Pacifica LCLUP. A “special-status natural community” is a natural habitat community that is unique in its constituent components, restricted in distribution, supported by distinctive soil conditions, considered locally rare, potentially supporting specialstatus plant or wildlife species, and/or that receives regulatory recognition from municipal, county, state, and/or federal entities such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Within the study area, the arroyo willow stand is consistent with the description of Arroyo willow thickets (61.201.01 – Salix lasiolepis), which is listed by CDFW as sensitive plant community. This species is common in coastal California and does not have a rarity ranking. However, based on this classification and that it is often associated with riparian habitat, the arroyo willow stand, would be considered an ESHA. Discrete portions of the drainage channel where one or more wetland parameters are present would also be considered an ESHA.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect, temporary or permanent impacts to wetlands, other waters, or any ESHA’s. The drainage channel feature adjacent to the property at 505 San Pedro Avenue appears to be a man-made constructed feature, that is highly degraded due to construction and ongoing maintenance of a City of Pacifica sewer line that runs underneath the feature. The channel has been used as an illegal dumping area for decades and refuse such as gas cans, mattresses, appliances, plastic garbage, concrete rubble, bricks, and other refuse are present within the channel and buried within the soil. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 22 The project as proposed would create a retaining wall and public access easement (pedestrian trail) along the western property boundary, and the following setbacks from the wetlands are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2. STATE AND FEDERAL WETLANDS AND SETBACK DISTANCES FROM PROPOSED PROJECT AT 505 SAN PEDRO AVENUE, PACIFICA, CA
From Retaining Wall/Trail From Structures (approximate) Name Wetland Type
Distance to
closest point(ft)
Distance (ft) max
to near edge
Distance to closest
point (ft)
Distance (ft) max to
near edge
AW-1 Federal Wetland 4.10 13.34 32.9 84.7
AW-1 State Wetlands 0.00 0 29.31 63
BM-1 Federal Wetland 12.47 13.7 26.9 33.67
BM-1 State Wetland 6.16 10.5 23.17 31.5
FC-1 State Wetland 6.35 18.45 19.4 26.3
PR-1 State Wetland 10.86 12.8 23.46 26.19
PR-1 Federal Wetland 12.79 15.7 26.36 28.18
SW-1 State Wetland 2.31 7 15.31 19.95
SW-1 Federal Wetland 5.52 10.4 17.85 25.59
SW-2 Federal Wetland 8.51 21.4 20.61 33.4
SW-3 State Wetlands 0.00 6.13 8.67 18.64
SW-3 Federal Wetland 7.66 12.3 20.9 24.5
WC-1 State Wetland 0.00 5.5 10.06 22
The LCLUP states that “As a general rule, a buffer of at least 100 feet measured from the outward edge of riparian vegetation would be appropriate unless such a width is determined to be unnecessary for protecting the resources of the habitat area”. The California Coastal Commission has required buffers of 100 feet from the edge of riparian vegetation in areas where such buffers are feasible. However, it is not unusual for the Commission to allow smaller buffers in urbanized areas where the existing land use patterns do not allow for increased riparian buffer areas.
Based on the existing condition of the drainage channel, and the setback distances, the proposed project would not present a source of physical, chemical or biological disturbance to the wetland habitats including the arroyo willow stand (AW-1). Additional measures to ensure the channel is not impacted by construction activities would include planting of native plant species suitable for the boundary area adjacent to the channel, and installation of appropriate erosion/ sediment controls such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, and erosion control blankets along the top of the bank.
These measures would be suitable to protect the resource and improve the quality of this resource.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 23 Any economic use of the subject property would result in a reduction of the recommended 100- foot buffer because of the proximity of any development on the property to wetland habitat. The CCC has permitted more intensive uses that resulted in direct impacts to sensitive coastal resources, consistent with the mandate of Coastal Act § 30010 that prevents taking of private property without compensation (see CCC Appeal Numbers A-2-SMC-11-040 & A-2-SMC-11- 041)2 concerning a controversial project near Half Moon Bay that was ultimately approved). 2 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/12/W18a-12-2013.pdf 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 24
5. REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES
5.1 REPORT PREPARATION
Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC
1410 31st Ave
San Francisco, CA 94122
Field work and report preparation were completed by Patrick Kobernus (Senior Biologist) and Greg Pfau (Associate Biologist).
5.2 REFERENCES
Commercial Development for Norcal Surf Shop 505 San Pedro Ave., A.P.N. -23-072-010, Pacifica. Project Plans dated: 01/20/2016.
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
ERDC/EL TR-10-03. May 2010.
CNPS. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; searched on October 21, 2019. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
NorCal Surf Shop Project Wetland Delineation – November 2019 Page 25 Lichvar, R.W, D. L. Banks, W. N. Kirchner and N. C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Available online at http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/# . Accessed on September 17, 2019.
Munsell Soil Color Charts Year 2000 Revised Washable Edition. 2000. Munsell Color. Grand Rapids, MI.
Sawyer, John; Keeler-Wolf, T.; and Evans, J., 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed October 21, 2019.
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Science (USDA SCS). 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov . October 21, 2019.
UCSB, 2019. University California Santa Barbara, California Aerial Photography by County (On-Line Library). Accessed October 25, 2019.
https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos/california-aerial-photography-county Wood Biological Consulting. 2019. One-Parameter Wetland Delineation for the Proposed Norcal Surf Shop Mixed-use Development, San Mateo County, California. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 5
ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
Annapolis, California 95412
1 MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Browning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SFWO, Sacramento From: Peter Baye, Ph.D., coastal plant ecologist
Date: 4 May 2005
SUBJECT: Documentation of California red-legged frog occurrence at Pedro Point, Pacifica, San Mateo County
Jim, I am reporting to USFWS directly the attached documentation of a California redlegged frog population at Pedro Point. The site is a drainage ditch in an historic floodplain of Pedro Creek, recently proposed for residential development. The site is somewhat isolated from Pedro Creek by Highway 1, a road, buildings, and parking lots, but has drainage connections to the mouth of the creek.
LOCATION: Pedro Point Road opposite Grand Avenue, Pedro Point, Pacifica, San Mateo County. Southeast corner of Calson/”Archdiocese” Pedro Point Field.
SETTING: Drainage ditch through blue gum windbreak between commercial shopping plaza and mown grassy field with seasonal wetlands, approximately 0.25 mi from Pedro Creek. See photo attached.
HABITAT CONDITIONS: Road drainage ditch and culvert fed by seasonal to perennial seeps in hillslopes of developed residential area and historic blue gum/Monterey pine plantation. Blue gum-shaded pool less than 3 m diameter, up to 25 cm deep currently, minimal vegetation; mostly flood-deposited sand and silt; abundant non-native wetland vegetation downstream, but no perennial ponds or cattail/tule marsh.
OBSERVED OCCURRENCE: 3 Adult CRLF observed; one within culvert, one at pool edge of concrete culvert support, one submerged at depth of 10 cm. No tree frogs present in pool, but present in downstream portions of ditch system. Photos attached of two CRLF, one highly visible, one obscure (submerged silhouette). Visual observation and photos 5/3/05. Multiple aural detections of diving frogs April; no visual detections in turbid water.
No egg masses observed within visible upper 10 cm of water column.
NEARBY OCCURRENCES: Other confirmed CRLF observations in last 2 years at mouth of Calera Creek (Quarry), with San Francisco garter snake, approx 1.5 mile north. Likely 2-19-0026
Exhibit 7
ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
Annapolis, California 95412
2 occurrence in Pedro Creek floodplain wetlands, perennial freshwater marsh. Garter snakes (likely San Francisco ssp.) also present in residential area gardens, yards.
POTENTIAL THREATS: Residential development proposed for adjacent field; likely to require improved drainage. Drainage problems of adjacent Pedro Road may require repair work; some recently implemented.
(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) Culvert and scour pool with lobe of flood sediment. (b) Detail of pool and sack-concrete dam. Adult CRLF head emergent at edge of sack-concrete, next to woody debris (sticks) at extreme left. 5/3/05.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 7
ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
Annapolis, California 95412
3 Figure 2. Adult California red-legged frog at edge of sack-concrete dam of culvert. 5/3/05 2-19-0026
Exhibit 7
ANNAPOLIS FIELD STATION
Coastal Plant Observatory
Plant Ecology Serving Conservation
Annapolis, California 95412
4 Figure 3. Submerged silhouette of second CRLF in pool. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 7
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 1 Lee Diaz July 7, 2014
Associate Planner
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Pacifica General Plan Update Project – SCH No. No. #2012022046
Dear Mr. Diaz,
The comments below regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project (DEIR) are submitted on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association, but represent my independent, best professional judgment.
I have reviewed the DEIR sections relevant to assessment of biological resources, land use policies, and selected relevant portions covering hydrology and geology for CEQA compliance and for LCP amendment compliance with the Coastal Act. I have also conducted site visits of the Pedro Point field (also “undeveloped San Pedro Ave site” and described as “vacant” in the DEIR, General Plan and Local Coastal Plan documents) in all seasons since 2000.
My qualifications to provide expert comments are based on nearly 35 years of professional work in coastal wetland and terrestrial ecology, with over 20 years in San Francisco Estuary wetlands, including long-term direct knowledge of the estuarine wetlands, special-status species, and diked baylands in the project area. A statement of my qualifications is attached hereto as Attachment A.
My comments focus on the potentially adverse environmental impacts of proposed changes in the land use designation of the Pedro Point neighborhood. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 2 Summary of Comments
1. Environmental Baseline: The DEIR provides contradictory information about the vegetation of the Pedro Point field, asserting that it supports “northern coastal scrub”, an upland vegetation type absent in the grassy field, and that it supports wetlands. The field supports seasonal wetlands. The DEIR fails to disclose the importance of these wetlands in terms of the environmental setting of San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands in the Coastal Zone (the field is the last remaining historical floodplain of the lower San Pedro Creek Valley that has not been developed in the Coastal Zone) and the local distribution of ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas) supporting California red-legged frogs.
2. Biological Impacts to Wetlands and Special-status Species: The DEIR fails to analyze any biological impacts caused by conversion of the existing Pedro Point field to a land use designation of “Coastal Residential Mixed Use development”. The DEIR fails to programmatically assess impacts at a neighborhood-specific level as it did in the 1980 General Plan, and it fails to consider general impacts of residential development on extensive seasonal wetlands and ESHA in and around the field. The proposed land use change for the field is likely to cause significant impacts to wetlands, wildlife, and special-status species for which no feasible mitigation has been identified, and for which no feasible mitigation probably exists.
3. Land Use Impacts. The DEIR fails to analyze land use impacts caused by changing the land use of the field from a general “Commercial” use (1980 General Plan) to a more specific and different “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” designation. This change for the field’s designated land use causes significant impacts (conflicts with) to the City’s own land use policies and numerous Coastal Commission land use policies that cannot be mitigated, and are not mitigated by the vague, programmatic mitigation measures cited in the DEIR.
4. Conclusion. The DEIR fails to disclose important biological resources, and their distribution and relationship to other biological resources and communities in the environmental setting of lower San Pedro Creek. This precludes meaningful public comment and DEIR analysis of significant impacts to biological resources and land use policies that are likely to occur. The DEIR should be recirculated to correct the flawed environmental baseline and defective impact analysis, and should identify reasonable alternatives that either lessen significant impacts, or are otherwise environmentally preferable.
1. Environmental Baseline
The DEIR presents inconsistent and erroneous biological baseline description of the existing conditions of the Pedro Point field and its vicinity. The errors, omissions, and contradictory environmental baseline description results in erroneous conclusions that the project (General Plan) will have no significant biological impacts. Neighborhood-specific assessments of proposed General Plan land use changes are lacking for Pedro Point, its field, and for the DEIR in general. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 3 Assessment of biological and land use impacts to the Pedro Point neighborhood requires reference to existing physical and biological environmental conditions (2014; approximately the time of the EIR’s notice of preparation), and the existing land use designations from the 1980 General Plan. The existing biological conditions of the Pedro Point field – the last undeveloped lowland open space within the historical floodplain of San Pedro Creek – is inaccurately and inconsistently represented in the DEIR’s figures and text. These errors result in underestimation of significant biological impacts, as discussed below.
1.1 Mapped DEIR Wetlands, Vegetation and Habitats – physical and biological baseline The DEIR provides contradictory and confused (and confusing) information about the existing biological conditions of the Pedro Point field. Figure 3.7-1 (Vegetation; DEIR p. 3.7-3) maps most of the field in the color-code (pale olive green) corresponding with “Northern Coastal Scrub” (an upland vegetation type associated with coastal hillslopes and bluffs), and part of the field color-coded gray as “urban” land use but overlapping with the “wetlands” symbol. This is contradictory and erroneous environmental baseline information. There are in fact no stands of northern coastal scrub vegetation at all within or around the Pedro Point field. The shrubs on the railroad berm are ornamental non-native plantings. No part of the field is “urban” cover type, as misrepresented in the figure; no paved or developed areas with structures exist in the field. Figure 3.1-1 shows the “Existing land use” color-coded gray as “Vacant/Undeveloped”, which is also inconsistent with “urban” land use, but consistent with “wetlands”. The map also misrepresents mixed ornamental, non-native, and native coastal bluff scrub vegetation northwest of the field as “beach/intertidal” habitat. The two major color-coded map units for the Pedro Point field, “urban” and “northern coastal scrub” are incorrect.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 4 Excerpted section of Figure 3.7-1 of the DEIR “Vegetation” map (above) showing Pedro Point field with paper streets between Dannman and San Pedro Ave. The setting within the Draft Local Coastal Plan (2014) as represented as “Undeveloped San Pedro Ave Site”, is shown in a portion of Figure 4.8 (left).
Only one map symbol (pattern) for the vacant/undeveloped Pedro Point field in Figure 3.7-1 is accurate: “wetlands” classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory at coarse scale, as shown also in DEIR figure 3.7-2. The Pedro Point field itself is dominated by non-native grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plants, including seasonal wetland and non-wetland vegetation. Both maps omit the distinct seasonal and perennial wetlands of the drainage swale at the east end of the field, which drain to San Pedro Creek through a series of culverts. The drainage swale wetlands, the wetland connectivity to San Pedro Creek mouth, and the extensive perennial wetlands (Freshwater Marsh) of San Pedro Creek are entirely missing from the vegetation map of Figure 3.7-1.
Other errors describing habitat and vegetation are evident in the DEIR’s descriptions of existing conditions in the coastal zone. For example, the DEIR confuses coastal strand (beaches and dunes) with coastal bluff scrub, and states that the plant sea-rocket (Cakile maritima) is a dominant species of “coastal bluff scrub”. Sea-rocket is a non-native species common on sand beaches and low foredunes (like those 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 5 of Pacifica State Beach), but does not occur at all in coastal bluff scrub in Pacifica or elsewhere, let alone as a dominant species. The description of coastal bluff scrub combines species that simply do not occur together in natural or disturbed environments of Pacifica.
1.2. Wetland classification of the Pedro Point field and vicinity: existing conditions Based on my recent and past site visits, I know that the existing vegetation of the Pedro Point field consists of predominantly annual and perennial, herbaceous, non-native seasonal wetland and upland grassland vegetation. Seasonal wetland grassland occupies a mosaic of depressions, ditches, and swales.
Mesic grassland (seasonally wet but lacking a prevalence of wetland indicator plants) occupies portions of the higher elevation zones of the site, primarily to the southwest corner. The wetland depressions are indicated by seasonally high density of toad rush (Juncus bufonius, FACW, facultative-wet indicator in arid west), co-occuring with European ryegrass (Festuca perenne; syn. Lolium perenne; FAC, facultative wetland indicator in arid west) and buck’s-horn plaintain (Plantago coronopus; FACW, facultative-wet indicator in arid west). Some of the wettest depressions support populations of Lilaea scilloides (flowering quillwort). Flowering quillwort is evident only in the wettest years when pools stay flooded for many weeks or months. Accurate wetland plant identification and measurement of the seasonal wetland patches at this site are possible only during winter to spring months. Desiccation, disturbance (trampling, mowing, discing) eliminates or degrades wetland vegetation and precludes accurate identification in fall and summer. Similarly, accurate assessment of wetland hydrology is feasible only during the rainy season, during and within two weeks following major rainfall events.
The USFWS classification of Pedro Point Field wetlands shows wetlands distributed over approximately all of the site, as shown in DEIR Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2. Past and current National Wetland Inventory (“NWI”) maps consistently apply wetland classifications to approximately all of the field. Two current classifications of the field’s wetlands include the codes “PEMah” and “PUSCh”, both “palustrine” (freshwater emergent, non-tidal) seasonal, and consistent with the seasonally flooded hydrology associated with surrounding berms. The “U” (unconsolidated shore) probably is associated with intermittent unvegetated (disced, vegetation disturbed) conditions. The NWI wetland mapping of the field broad-brush treatment of prevailing past wetland distribution, but the precision of the NWI wetland type boundaries is not precise enough for the DEIR to represent as “existing conditions” in 2014 CEQA assessment. In my professional opinion, “wetlands” meeting the jurisdictional criteria for Coastal Commission (“Commission”) policies, and classification as “wetland” under the Cowardin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS) system, are in fact present and widely distributed over the Pedro Point field today, despite past unauthorized ditching and drainage activities (see wetland history, below).
Despite DEIR’s inclusion of NWI mapped wetlands in some figures, the DEIR fails to apply the NWI wetland mapping and classification (as well any current field reconnaissance observations to update or verify them) to any meaningful biological assessment of potential wetland impacts of land use 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 6 designation changes to the field, and assessment of alternatives. The DEIR fails to assess the extent and distribution of the field’s seasonal wetlands (meeting Cowardin/California Coastal Commission wetland criteria) in relation to land use changes proposed. The DEIR does not consider the accuracy or distribution of the (old) NWI wetland maps based on existing field conditions. Specifically, the DEIR does not analyze whether the field’s wetlands are localized or extensively distributed in the field, so it cannot analyze whether it is even feasible to designate a coastal residential mixed-use development without committing the City’s General Plan to significant wetland impacts, in conflict with its own land use policies and Coastal Act policies.
Further, because of the DEIR’s omissions about wetland impacts, comparison of alternatives will lack relevant information about feasible land use alternatives that may avoid or minimize wetland impacts, and which may be environmentally preferable. Examples of environmentally preferable alternatives consistent with City and Coastal Act policies include existing “Commercial” land use (with and without “Commercial-Recreation” zoning) compatible with low-intensity visitor-serving commercial recreation/tourism-promoting uses; or “Conservation” - all of which are consistent with City policies for tourism destination, avoidance of natural hazards, wetland conservation, and consistency with recreational, scenic values that Coastal Act policies give priority over residential development.
1.3. Wetland jurisdiction and CEQA
The DEIR cites multiple state and federal wetland jurisdictions. With respect to assessment of biological impacts to wetlands, USFWS (NWI, Cowardin wetland classification), California Coastal Act, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife wetland policy definitions are applicable because these are fundamentally based on habitat, hydrogeomorphic features, and ecological functions. In contrast the narrowest federal definition (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency; USACE/EPA) under the Clean Water Act is specifically limited to legal wetland definition for jurisdiction over authorization of discharges of earthen fill regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE/EPA wetland definition contains federal exemptions and policy disclaimers that are not relevant to biological impact assessment under CEQA, and it is a narrower and more exclusive definition that is likely to underestimate the extent of habitat-based or hydrogeomorphic definitions appropriate for impact assessment.
The California Coastal Act Section 30231 defines a wetland as:
…lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 7 Similarly, the Cowardin (USFWS, NWI) wetland classification uses a general broad definition of wetlands:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
California Coastal Act jurisdictional wetlands criteria in the California Code of Regulations at 14 14 CCR Section 13577 establish a “one-parameter definition” that only requires evidence of a single wetland parameter to establish wetland conditions, in contrast with federal wetlands criteria under the Clean Water Act:
Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts…
The Commission’s one-parameter definition is similar to the USFWS wetlands criteria, which state that wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:
(1) at least periodically the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.
In contrast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency use a three parameter definition for delineating wetlands under Clean Water Act jurisdiction, which is relevant only in context of USACE permit authorization for discharges of fill in jurisdictional waters of the United States. The USACE definition is narrower than those of the Coastal Commission (relevant to LCP) and USFWS (relevant to wetland impact assessment under CEQA, not limited to fill discharges and subject to federal exemptions irrelevant to CEQA).
The City’s wetland policies (Land Use; DEIR p. 3.1-21) cite both USACE/EPA and Coastal Commission wetland definitions. CO-I-5, CO-I-6 cites both, and CO-I-8 cites State (CDFW/CCC) wetlands only. The narrower USACE/EPA definition is relevant only to those land use policy elements that specifically cite it in context of wetland fill permits. The USACE/EPA jurisdictional wetlands are not the proper standard for determining consistency of GPU consistency with Coastal Act wetlands policies, or wetland impacts under CEQA. This should be corrected in the EIR, or else the EIR will not provide accurate conclusions about Pedro Point field land use impacts regarding wetlands in context of CEQA or Coastal Act policies.
1.4. Special-status species and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA): California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) environmental baseline 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 8 California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii; CRLF) occur in the freshwater marsh drainage swale bordering the Pedro Point Field along its eastern edge. I reported their presence to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered Species Program in 2005. If the DEIR preparers had consulted properly with state and federal wildlife agencies, or local residents, about the local distribution of special-status or other wildlife species, this information would have been available to include in the DEIR. The DEIR, however, failed to disclose the local sub-population of CRLF in the drainage swale bordering the field, and its relationship with the population of the lower San Pedro Creek wetland complex.
I have observed adult red-legged frogs are most often observable basking along muddy or prostrate grass banks near the culverts draining San Pedro Avenue at the southeast corner of the field. The perennial moisture in this swale provides year-round hydration habitat for CRLF, as well as foraging and potential breeding habitat. CRLF breeding is indicated by intermittent local population increases in redlegged frogs here, most notably in 2010. Foraging activities of CRLF likely extend to adjacent nonwetland flats (rich in invertebrate prey) in the field during moist, foggy nighttime and early morning conditions. I am not aware of protocol nighttime surveys for California red-legged frog conducted either in the freshwater marsh swale adjacent to the field, or in the field itself. The vicinity of the freshwater marsh swale and field are a complex of foraging, basking, dispersal, and breeding wetland and upland habitat for California red-legged frogs. It thus also meets criteria for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) under California Coastal Commission regulations. The DEIR fails to include this information about CRLF at and in proximity to the field.
In addition, the DEIR fails to analyze the potential adverse, significant impacts to CRLF from the proposed land use changes. Land use designations that would foreseeably increase the intensity of land use, such as the proposed redesignation to allow residential development or other substantial increases in the built environment, may have significant direct and indirect impacts on CRLF. The proposed residential mixed-use development of the field would likely (a) substantially reduce available nocturnal foraging habitat for CRLF (food and prey base impacts to growth and survival; (b) increase contaminant loads in the drainage swale due to runoff from driveways, roads, and backyard sources of pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, and detergents (reproductive impacts); (c) increase peak flow velocities in the swale during major storm runoff events (juvenile mortality impacts).
Not only has the DEIR not assessed such impacts, it has not identified feasible programmatic mitigation measures. Feasible mitigation for ESHA/California red-legged frog habitat and frog populations must include measures to (a) avoid and minimize “take” of individual frogs, (b) avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF habitat; and (c) provide adequate buffer zones to minimize adverse effects of incompatible adjacent land uses. The spatial structure of CRLF mitigation aligned with the freshwater marsh swale bordering the field may substantially constrain the feasibility of some incompatible land use designations, especially any that increase runoff, contaminants or pesticides, predator pressure on CRLF, 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 9 or reduce the extent or quality of potential productive nighttime foraging habitat. The Bolsa Chica court decision [Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court 71 Cal. Ap.4th 493, 507] confirmed that the Coastal Act requires that ESHA be avoided and buffered from development impacts and that providing compensatory mitigation alone is insufficient as ESHA mitigation.
Intermittent breeding habitat of California red-legged frogs in freshwater marsh swale bordering the southeast corner of the field, near roadside culverts. An adult CRLF is shown at the concrete base of foundation culvert on August 20, 2006, after the field ditch connections were breached to the swale north of this pool. CRLF frequently bask in the western muddy or grassy banks of this pool in wet (non-drought) years.
1.5. Wetland context and cumulative impacts: environmental setting of Pedro Point The DEIR also omisrepresents the existing environmental setting and context of the wetlands of the Pedro Point field. The field’s wetlands are represented as completely isolated from any other significant wetlands or potential wetland-dependent endangered species habitats. See Figures 3.1-1, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and
3.7-3, all of which fail to show the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands and their riparian wetland habitat, vegetation and hydrological connections with Pedro Point field and its wetlands. The San Pedro Creek stream mouth wetlands, however, are shown as red-legged frog habitat (marsh, creek, and riparian vegetation) in Figure 3.7-1, but without their wetland connections to the Pedro Point field and drainage swale wetlands. The omission of the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands in the Coastal Zone is either arbitrarily selective or at least inconsistent in the DEIR: the riparian corridor and wetlands upstream of Highway 1, outside the coastal zone, are represented in Figure 3.7-1 and 3.7-4, but not in Figure 3.7-2.
This error of selective omission of wetlands in the project vicinity appears to be due to the DEIR’s failure to critically interpret and update National Wetlands Inventory map with even cursory examination of readily available current aerial or satellite imagery of San Pedro Creek mouth (e.g., Google Earth), or field reconnaissance surveys of the conspicuous restored freshwater marsh there. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 10 Figure 3.7-2, “National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands”, completely fails to represent the perennial freshwater emergent marsh and freshwater streams of San Pedro Creek mouth as they existed at the time of the DEIR’s notice of preparation, and as they have existed for about a decade. The DEIR cannot uncritically transfer NWI map data without checking for errors of omission due to outdated data layers.
The NWI wetland classification (Cowardin USFWS classification system) provides sufficient clear wetland criteria to identify the obvious wetlands (cattail and tule marsh vegetation 6 to over 10 feet tall with standing water) at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. This marsh is clearly known to the City of Pacifica, which was the local partner in the project that restored it.
The adjacent San Pedro Creek mouth freshwater marsh is very significant as an environmental setting of the seasonal wetlands of the Pedro Point field. Ecological connectivity (wildlife corridors for wetland-dependent wildlife) exists between the creek mouth marsh and the field, provided by the drainage swale wetlands (not currently channelized; infilled with sediment and wetland vegetation) consisting of willow swamp (riparian scrub) and freshwater marsh dominated by broadleaf wetland forbs and grasses.
The environmental setting and potential Project and cumulative impacts to wetlands at the Pedro Point field are related to their hydrogeomorphic setting and historical origins and development. The preagricultural “natural” condition of the field was freshwater nontidal marsh within the floodplain of San Pedro Creek (San Pedro Valley lowlands). The modern field was part of complex of freshwater marsh and swamp (alder-willow) surrounding Lake Mathilda (the freshwater lagoon outlet of San Pedro Creek prior to channelization), behind the barrier beach (San Pedro Beach). The rich organic fine-grained alluvial soils were converted to agricultural cropland (artichoke fields) by draining and ditching in the late 19th century. The field apparently persisted with either low-intensity agricultural use (grazing, haying) into the 1950s or early 1960s when Linda Mar was extensively developed. Some fill was placed on at least portions of the field in recent decades, but differential subsidence in the flat to very gently sloping (<2%) field maintained depressional microtopography (shallow swales, pools) to the present day.
I have observed the Pedro Point field since the year 2000 in all seasons. Wet (saturated to seasonally flooded) depressions in the field persisted for weeks to months, supporting typical seasonal wetlands grasslands dominated by ryegrss, toad rush, buck’s-horn plaintain in winter-spring months. In addition, a regionally rare vernal pool/pond plant, the flowering quillwort (Lilaea scilloides) occurred in local abundance in several pools. In January, 2006, the current landowner and assistants manually excavated diagonal ditches and side-cast fill (ditch spoils) across the field, apparently with the intent of draining the field. In August 2006, mechanical equipment breached wide gaps in the berm between the field and the adjacent drainage swale marsh. These drainage activities were apparently completed without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit or authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Despite the 2006 drainage ditching and subsequent maintenance and repeated discing of the field, depressional wetlands have persisted and re-emerged (due in part to differential settlement and choking of 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 11 ditches) in the field. The ditching appears to have reduced the duration and extent of wetland hydrology, but significant wetland areas remain widely distributed across most of the field, including the original seasonal wetland plant community.
Excerpt of U.S. Coast Survey map of San Francisco Peninsula, 1869, based on 1850s topography: San Pedro Creek Valley and beach, now Linda Mar. Approximate location of San Pedro Field (Calson/former Archdiocese property) in red shows the relationship of the modern field wetlands to the historical valley floodplain wetland complex.
Parallel horizontal hatched lines indicate freshwater marsh. Stippled shoreline area indicates sandy beach, dune, washover. Fine horizontal hatching is open freshwater (Lake Mathilda; historical Pedro Creek Lagoon, drained for agriculture 19th century). Irregular circles/dots within marsh = wooded freshwater swamp (alder, willow). No scale.
Extensive seasonal flooding of
the Pedro Point Field during the
transition between the historical
agricultural era (derelict or lowintensity agricultural use) and suburban development of Linda
Mar in San Pedro Valley
lowlands (background), likely
1950s-early 1960s. View to
E/SE. The eucalyptus and
Monterey cypress trees at the
fenceline correspond the mature
trees present today along the
drainage swale at the east end of
Approximate
location modern
San Pedro Field flats
SAN PEDRO
VALLEY
FRESHWATER
MARSH
FRESHWATER MARSH
(horizontal hatching)
FRESHWATER SWAMP
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 12 the field. The extensive seasonal pond likely represents flooding patterns prior to partial filling of the wetlands.
Flooding patterns delineate undrained depressions of shallow open water in a matrix of saturated soils in San Pedro Field following heavy rainfall. December 26, 2005. View to N.
Shorebirds (likely sanderlings) forage in the seasonally saturated and flooded field during high tide and storm wave conditions that restrict foraging habitat availability on the adjacent San Pedro (Pacifica State) Beach. December 27, 2005, prior to unauthorized ditching of the field. Red-necked phalaropes also forage in the saturated to flooded field during winter storms.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 13 January 19, 2006. Manual excavation of drainage ditches in flooded field at the east end of the field. Grass grows above water surface. Water in bare spots can be seen as reflected sunlight on the field; emergent unvegetated mud is dark brown.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 14 During discing of the field in summer, the berm along the east end of the field was mechanically breached at multiple locations to connect new drainage ditches (excavated in seasonal wetlands of the field) to the large drainage swale occupied by California red-legged frogs, draining to San Pedro Creek through culverts at the northwest end.
August 20, 2006.
Despite new unauthorized ditching and drainage connections of the field, ditches merely reduce the extent and duration of soil saturation and flooding; they do not eliminate wetland conditions in the winter following ditching.
December 27, 2006
Today, wildlife in the seasonal wetlands of the Pedro Point field includes shorebirds, meadowlarks, black-tail deer, tree frogs, small mammals, and raptors, all of which move between the field wetlands, the adjacent drainage swale wetlands, uplands, and the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Sanderlings and red-necked phalaropes occur intermittently in the flooded to saturated fields, particularly during high tides and storm wave conditions that flood the beach.. In summer, meadowlarks inhabit the field some years, particularly when grass and forb vegetation cover is thick. Small mammals, including mice, pocket gophers, and voles, occur frequently in the field (indicated by burrows, runs) and provide a prey base for raptors, including great horned owls (roosting in eucalyptus trees near the field), and red-tail hawks. Deer browse in the field at night, and at times in the morning as well. The marsh swale bordering the east end 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 15 of the field has supported a breeding population of tree frogs (Pseudacris sierra) and a population of federally listed threatened California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) most years at least since 2000 (see special-status species, below). The DEIR fails to disclose intermittent red-legged frog populations in the vicinity (and sometimes directly bordering) the field, and the existence of probably nocturnal foraging habitat (for this species spring-fall non-breeding adults) within in the field itself. The DEIR failed to identify these significant wildlife movement and habitat connections between the field and habitats in its wetland setting. The DEIR fails to analyze potentially significant impacts to red-legged frogs using the field that would be affected by proposed conversion to coastal residential mixed use development.
The DEIR’s failure to correctly characterize the wetland environmental setting (the wetland complex comprising the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands, the drainage swale wetlands, and the historical and existing condition of the Pedro Point field wetlands) prevents the DEIR from accurately analyzing potentially significant cumulative impacts caused by wetland habitat loss, degradation or fragmentation in the lower San Pedro Creek corridor, and the Pedro Point neighborhood.
Given the outstanding biological significance of the field as the only open, level (flatland) space left in the Pedro Point neighborhood, and despite years of being the focus of substantial public concern and comment in scoping and other public meetings, the DEIR’s failure to provide even minimally accurate, consistent baseline environmental description of the field is a very serious defect in the DEIR.
It precludes accurate assessment of potentially significant impacts that are not mitigated at the policy or site-specific level.
1.6. Biological Resource Impact Assessment and Mitigation in the DEIR Despite identifying wetlands occurring potentially throughout the field, the DEIR fails to assess potential adverse, significant impacts to Coastal Act wetlands from the proposed land use designation changes at the Pedro Point Field. The DEIR provides no explanation why converting existing wetlands of the Pedro Point field to residential mixed use development would have no significant biological or land use policy impacts. The DEIR omits any specific reference at all to the Pedro Point field wetlands in discussion of biological impacts.
Further, the DEIR’s cumulative impact analysis must consider that the extent of Coastal Act wetlands in the field was modified by ditching and drainage activities conducted by the landowner and assistants on January 19, 2006, during conditions of saturation and widespread flooding of the field. As far as I am aware, ditching and draining activities of these wetlands occurred without issuance of a Coastal Development Permit or analysis of environmental impacts. The apparently unauthorized drainage of the field probably results in underestimation of the actual extent of proper Coastal Commission jurisdictional wetlands in the field. See wetland history, below. The errors in the DEIR’s environmental baseline, described above, contribute to basic errors in assessment of significant biological impacts and mitigation to wetlands and special-status species.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 16 The DEIR identifies only two potential general city-wide biological impacts, without areaspecific reference to Pedro Point neighborhood and the specific land use changes proposed in the revised General Plan. Both of these impacts are incorrectly assessed with respect to Pedro Point biological resources, and their proposed programmatic (policy-level) mitigation is infeasible applied to Pedro Point field.
Figure 3.1-2 of the DEIR (p. 3.1-9; “Existing General Plan Land Use”) shows the majority of the Pedro Point field mapped in red (“Commercial”), and apparently one small lot in the northwest corner of the field mapped in light yellow-orange (“low density residential”). The biological impacts of this proposed land use change must be assessed at a programmatic level, commensurate with the level of detail of land use designation change in the programmatic EIR at neighborhood-scale. The DEIR, however, fails to assess biological impacts at this geographic scale even at a programmatic level. It merely assesses biological impacts at a sweeping, vague, city-wide, policy level, omitting neighborhoodlevel biological impacts of specific land use changes proposed (DEIR p. 3.7-48 Impact 3.7-1; p. 3.7-57, Impact 3.7-3). The DEIR also provides only vague, policy-level “mitigation” (pseudo-mitigation; purely speculative policy without reference to physical or biological conditions) for land use change impacts in the aggregate, city-wide:
Impact 3.7-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant)
Impact 3.7-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Less than Significant)
The DEIR provides no substantial evidence and no arguments for either impact findings or their level of significance. It is inconsistent with proposed land use changes (coastal residiential mixed-use development) for the field, and the presence of extensive seasonal wetlands and adjacent special-status species populations.
Although the DEIR does not need to assess impacts of land use change at a project-specific level (i.e., it cannot speculate about the design of specific project proposals or their impacts in site-specific detail), it must address biological impacts that are reasonably foreseeable for the type of land uses proposed in the environmental setting under existing conditions. There is only one major land use change proposed in Pedro Point, and the DEIR provides no biological impact or mitigation discussion about it at 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 17 all – not even the cursory programmatic wetland discussion presented in the Draft Land Use plan itself (LUI-30, p. 4-36, Pacifica Draft Land Use Plan, March 2014). The boilerplate, standard wetland permit discussion in the DEIR at p. 3.7-42 has no substantial bearing on impact or mitigation analysis for wetlands at Pedro Point.
Potentially significant biological impacts of proposed residential land use (development) at the Pedro Point Field and adjacent habitats are enumerated below. These are based on a more adequate characterization of the Pedro Point field wetlands, their relationship to San Pedro Creek wetlands, and their wildlife and hydrological attributes described above. None of these potentially significant biological impacts were analyzed in the DEIR.
Coastal Zone Wetland impacts
o Direct filling (loss) of the last coastal zone seasonal wetlands in Pedro Point watershed due to residential development. Lack of available off-site compensatory mitigation area within the coastal zone of the San Pedro Creek watershed (no feasible compensatory mitigation).
o Degradation of remaining coastal zone wetlands (wetland swale east of field) the San Pedro Creek watershed due to hydrological changes; increased impermeable surfaced area, decreased groundwater infiltration, increased storm runoff from drained residential lots within basin (historic floodplain).
o Degradation of remaining wetlands (wetland swale east of field) due to increased contaminant loading from adjacent residential development: pesticides (residential pesticide use and pesticide loading from runoff and drainage), increased petroleum hydrocarbon contaminant loads from street and driveway runoff; increased surfactant runoff to the drainage swale from residential car washing.
Wildlife and Special-status species impacts
o Loss of storm high tide refuge habitat for shorebirds o Loss of meadowlark foraging habitat
o Loss of nocturnal deer browsing habitat
o Loss of raptor foraging habitat (Great Horned Owl, red-tail hawk, kestrel) o Loss of terrestrial foraging habitat for California red-legged frogs o Loss of flood refuge habitat for California red-legged frogs during peak flood events of San Pedro Creek.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 18 2.0 Land Use Impacts – Coastal Zone
The DEIR proposes to change the land use designation of the Pedro Point field from “Commercial” (Pacifica General Plan, pp. 86 and 90; DEIR Figure 3.1-2) to “Coastal Residential Mixed Use“ (CRMU; DEIR Figure 2.2-1). The DEIR inaccurately states that the new proposed CRMU designation corresponds with an existing “Mixed Use” land use category (Table 3.1-3), but no such independent or category or subcategory of “mixed use” exists in the 1980 General Plan; “mixed use” is simply described as a contingent allowable use of “commercial” land use in the original General Plan (1980 General Plan p. 32-33). The project description is inconsistent, incorrect, and confusing in terms of existing and proposed land uses.
The 2014 Draft General Plan Land Use element states the following with regard to the CRMU designation on p. 4-24: “The Plan retains flexibility for any future development on the vacant site west of the shopping center, which could have residential and small-scale commercial and visitor-oriented uses.
Future development should include a small park and access to the berm and the beach beyond”. Table 4.1 of the Draft General Plan states that residential density with CRMU designation may range between 10- 15 gross units per acre.
The DEIR, in contrast with the original 1980 General Plan, fails to assess even at a programmatic level the area-specific effects of proposed land use designations for the Pedro Point neighborhood, and specifically for the vacant Pedro Point field, in terms of land use impacts (cf. 1980 General Plan, pp. 84- 89). The DEIR gives no reason why the level of specificity for impact assessment should be broader and more programmatic than the level of specificity for individual parcel land use designations like the Pedro Point field, or why the level of neighborhood-specific assessment should be significantly less than that of the 1980 General Plan’s treatment of Pedro Point, especially in the Coastal Zone.
The existing land use designation of the field, “commercial” is compatible with low-intensity, visitorserving commercial recreational land uses that support coastal-dependent (beach and coastal scenic) recreation and associated economic uses, which matches the existing zoning (commercial-recreation) of the field. Low-intensity commercial land uses that do not involve ditching, draining, filling, paving, or construction in the field (open-space and recreational uses, special events, coastal agriculture) are potentially compatible with conservation of wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and special-status species, and relevant Coastal Act policies. Proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use land uses, however, are likely to have significant impacts on Coastal Act land use policies (cited in Draft Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, March 2014, Appendix A) and Pacifica General Plan policies involving these elements, as discussed below.
The extensive distribution of Coastal Act jurisdictional wetlands in the Pedro Point field, and the presence of California red-legged frog habitat and population in the adjacent freshwater marsh swale, 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 19 both indicate that land use designations for the field must be compatible with ESHA policies of the Coastal Commission. According to the Coastal Commission’s LCP Update Guide: Sensitive Habitats and Natural Resources (April 3, 2007 update), the DEIR and LCP should clearly state that only “resource dependent” development, such as restoration or nature study, is allowed in ESHA, consistent with Coastal Act §30240. No ESHA assessment for the proposed changes in land use designation of the Pedro Point field has been provided in the DEIR, which is likely related to the DEIR’s failure to accurately identify wetlands and special-status species at the site. The DEIR must be revised to include this analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts even at a programmatic level.
The 1980 Pacifica General Plan provided a programmatic analysis of consistency between proposed (commercial) land use designation of the Pedro Point Field and specific Coastal Act policies (1980 General Plan p. 86), including assessment of unimproved coastal access through foot trails (p. 88).
The DEIR for the General Plan update has provided no such analysis for proposed changed land use designation of the field or coastal access impacts. It merely included the Coastal Act policies as an appendix, without analysis of proposed land use designation change impacts. The changed land use designation has potential significant land use policy conflicts (impacts) with Coastal Act land use policies, each of which affects ESHA (wetlands and special-status wetland-dependent wildlife). Some examples are provided below. The DEIR should fully assess at a programmatic level all such potential significant land use impacts, and compare the compatibility (conflict) of existing, proposed and alternative land use designations for the field in terms of Coastal Act policies.
Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where:
(1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources,
(2) adequate access exists nearby, or,
(3) agriculture would be adversely affected.
Pedro Point field has three well-established and persistent foot trails that lead from San Pedro Avenue (the nearest public roadway to the shoreline) to a private beach with long-established open public access.
The foot trails are visible in aerial photographs dating back to at least 1993 (Google Earth images) and reemerge after being temporarily erased by discing, ditching, or mowing. The foot trails are formed by trampling patterns established between physical points of access from the roadway to a stairway from the beach to the historic railroad berm, and to a public path to the beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek.
Foot trails are frequently used by beach visitors and surfers seeking minimal travel distances to the beach.
The foot trails evidently established long before the current ownership of the property. The foot trails are the most efficient short cuts from San Pedro Avenue to the public shore; alternative routes along public 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 20 roads would nearly double foot trail distance from the public roads to the shore from established access points.
Pedro Point field in relation to public and private ocean shores, and freshwater marsh and stream habitat of San Pedro Creek mouth. 2013 Google Earth image.
Pedro Pt
Field
Private beach
with public
shore access
Pacifica
State
Beach
Freshwater
marsh
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 21 Foot trail network (2013) of Pedro Point Field, showing connections to levee trail access to private shore with long-established public access. Freshwater wetland drainage swale connecting to San Pedro Creek mouth is shown in dashed blue line. 2013 Google Earth image.
Pedro Pt
Field
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 22 Detail of Pedro Point field foot trail connection to the public access walkway to privately owned beach (with public access) across the historic railroad berm. 2013 Google Earth image.
Proposed coastal residential mixed-use development may potentially eliminate or significantly impair existing long-established public access from San Pedro Avenue to the public shore. This could be mitigated by requirements to provide public access easements along existing trails or equivalent efficient alignments (similar travel distance, slopes, road access points), but the DEIR proposed no mitigation or policy that would ensure such mitigation. The impact and mitigation for this Coastal Act policy were not assessed in the DEIR. There are no military needs, fragile coastal resources, or existing agriculture to provide exemptions for this policy.
Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and Development Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.
PEDRO POINT FIELD
stairs
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 23 The Pedro Point field is separated from the ocean only by the railroad berm, and in its original condition (backbarrier floodplain marsh) it was “oceanfront”, with line of sight to the ocean over the low barrier beach. According to Pedro Point long-term residents, the field has been used for recreation for years prior to and during the current land ownership. Recent recreational uses include children’s games, domestic animal feeding and observation (former llama and emu enclosure along the toe of the railroad berm), ball sports, playground activities extending from the adjacent Pedro Point firehouse playground, and dog walking. The field is suitable for these established recreational uses, and is suitable for other recreational uses as well.
Proposed Coastal Mixed Use Residential land use changes could eliminate, reduce, or substantially interfere with long-established recreational uses of the oceanfront land. This impact is not assessed in the DEIR. The feasibility of mitigation for this impact is not assessed, and no mitigation is proposed.
Recreational uses that depend on extensive area or open scenic views may not be feasible to mitigate with small parks enclosed by development.
Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
The proposed change in land use from an open field (compatible with public access, coastal views, and recreation) to a mixed-use private residential development would conflict with this coastal act policy.
This would be a significant impact that, by definition, could not be mitigated. General industrial or commercial development of the field would also conflict with this policy. Commercial development by agriculture including public access and visitor-serving commerce (such as a coastal berry farm, pumpkin farm with visitor-serving amenities), in contrast, would not conflict with this policy. No mitigation is feasible for this conflict, by definition of “priority” of land uses cited in the policy.
Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA); adjacent developments (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 24 The field contains extensive seasonal wetlands (winter-saturated and temporarily flooded depressional wetlands and drainage swales, ditches). The perennial wetlands of the drainage swale at the east end of the field supports California red-legged frog habitat and is typically occupied by a population (see comments in this letter, above). The seasonal wetlands and the zone bordering the frog habitat of the swale meet the definition of ESHA. Residential and mixed use commercial development would likely eliminate, significantly reduce, or degrade existing wetlands and ESHA on the site. Since the field is the last undeveloped lowland floodplain of San Pedro Creek within the Coastal Zone that is available for wetland restoration and enhancement, it is infeasible to mitigate impacts to these wetlands off-site; compensatory mitigation is not available for the red-legged frog populations in lower San Pedro Creek in the coastal zone. The DEIR failed to assess impacts to this Coastal Act policy or propose any feasible mitigation for it. The only feasible mitigation for this policy impact would be avoidance of impacts by not applying the residential mixed use land use designation.
Section 30242. Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (l) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. (emphasis added)
The Pedro Point field was historically prime agricultural land, but was abandoned. Nonetheless, renewal of prime agricultural use of the field is potentially feasible (physically and economically) and could be integrated with visitor-serving recreational and economic development aligned with the new coastal trail to Devil’s Slide. The original prime agricultural soils are present beneath shallow fill. The site is suitable for coastal commercial visitor-oriented berry farm or produce farm and related recreational or visitorserving uses (viz. Half Moon Bay to Davenport). Renewed agricultural use combined with tourism, some recreational uses, or eco-tourism may be compatible with conservation of seasonal wetlands and specialstatus wildlife if properly designed. The DEIR failed to consider feasible alternatives compatible with this section.
Section 30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.
The Pedro Point field is former prime agricultural land (historic artichoke farm) on rich alluvial soils (drained marshland). The soils have been degraded by placement of fill, but may be remediated by either 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 25 removal of fill or addition of soil amendments to restore agricultural productivity similar to farms on the marine terraces and valleys along the San Mateo Coast south of Pacifica. There are no other potential highly productive historic farmland soils left in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica. Residential development of the field would conflict with this policy that requires the protection of long-term soil productivity. This impact was not assessed or mitigated in the DEIR.
Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The Pedro Point field is the last undeveloped lowland (floodplain) in the Coastal Zone of San Pedro Creek’s watershed that retains the original overall floodplain topography and visual character of the historic farms that dominated the valley. All other valley lowlands have been developed in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica, including the Salada Valley (the historical Salada Valley farmland has been developed, drained and filled, with only the deepest lagoon bed remaining as a wetland). The visual character of the adjacent historic railroad berm is dependent on the contrast between the steep relief of the berm and the adjacent lowland flats of the field. Residential development (with or without “pocket parks”) would not protect the scenic and visual qualities of the field and adjacent historic berm. Residential development of the field would fully fill the lowland open space visual character of Pedro Point. This would conflict with the policy.
Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. […]
Most of the Pedro Point field lies approximately 15-17 feet in elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL), only about 3-5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. In addition, the 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 26 alluvial soils (historical wetland) of the field have the same relative liquefaction (earthquake shaking) potential as diked bay muds and marshes in San Francisco Bay, like those that underlie filled San Francisco peninsula baylands. (Witter, Robert C., Keith L. Knudsen, Janet M. Sowers, Carl M.
Wentworth, Richard D. Koehler, and Carolyn E. Randolph. 2006. Maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1; shown in Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014, Figure 5.1). This condition contrasts with relatively low risk of liquefaction affecting residential and commercial development in adjacent lands built over bedrock. Structural (residential or commercial) development of the field may cause significant conflicts (impacts) with this section. In contrast, this section would be potentially compatible with recreational or other low-intensity commercial development or agricultural redevelopment of the field. The DEIR failed to analyze alternative land use designations compatible with this section.
Similarly, placing additional residential development in the last undeveloped floodplain area within the coastal zone of San Pedro Valley – currently able to function as a flood detention and storage basin when San Pedro Creek is at extreme high flood stage during extreme high tides – would conflict with this land use policy (Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014 p. 5-19). The intensity, frequency, and significance of this land use policy conflict would likely increase as sea level rises, and as intense storm frequency increases with climate change. In addition, the field lies within a Tsunami evacuation area of the Coastal Zone (Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014, Figure 5.3). Flooding, liquefaction, sea level rise impacts, increasing over time as indicated by the draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use plan (2014) demonstrate the conflict between this Coastal Act policy and the proposed land use change for Pedro Point field.
Section 30255 Priority of coastal-dependent developments Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate, coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.
Residential development itself is not fundamentally “coastal dependent”, even if the land use designation nomenclature is “Coastal Residential Mixed Use”. “Coastal” as a modifier does not denote any essential distinction in the nature of residential development, but merely describes its location in the coastal zone.
Other types of commercial development based on recreational access to the shoreline or the distinctive coastal climate (e.g., surfer recreational events, coastal agritourism like berry farm stands with berry farming) would have priority over residential development at this location. Residential development would conflict with this policy. In addition, development within wetlands as defined in the Coastal Act 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 27 (whether or not they meet federal wetland criteria for fill authorization under the Clean Water Act) would conflict with this policy.
City of Pacifica Land Use Policy Impacts
The DEIR’s proposed change in land use for the Pedro Point field also conflicts (and thus causes a significant land use policy impact) with the City’s own policy on Wetlands Conservation:
p. 3.1-22 CO-I-8 Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands. Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game must be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, or nature study, according to the California Coastal Act.
The “functional capacity” of the existing wetlands at the Pedro Point field and adjacent to them are dependent on their geographic setting and landscape position – their relationship to San Pedro Creek (offchannel flood velocity refuge; population buffer for California red-legged frogs; infiltration and groundwater recharge potential; flood detention and flood peak attenuation) and other hydrogeomorphic and ecological functions (red-legged frog nocturnal foraging habitat potential; shorebird storm refuge and roost sites). There are no other undeveloped historic floodplain locations within the lower San Pedro Creek valley, let alone the Coastal Zone, where loss or degradation of these functions could be compensated by wetland restoration Residential development of the field would likely have a significant impact on existing wetlands of the site and its vicinity, and without any feasible mitigation identified.
This City policy is also vague and unenforceable as mitigation for wetland impacts because: (a) it does not cite or define the scope or meaning of the jargon of wetland “functional capacity”; (b) it does not identify any geographic setting within Pacifica for ‘functional capacity” (on-site or off-site/withinwatershed) and (c) it fails to cite or provide any meaningful criteria for what constitutes maintenance or enhancement of “functional capacity”. Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife does not delineate or identify coastal wetlands as a service to local governments. The Department and the Coastal Commission use approximately the same wetland indicator criteria for determination of wetlands, but the agencies themselves generally do not conduct wetland delineations. The policy is also misleading as proposed policy-level mitigation in the DEIR because potential wetland fill in context of proposed land use designation changes in the DEIR do not involve restoration, nature study, or public facilities. The DEIR identifies wetlands at the Pedro Point field exactly where it proposes private mixed use residential and commercial development as the new land use designation. This “alteration” does not meet the criteria cited in the policy, and does not involve “enhancement” of functional capacity if the wetlands must be filled or drained for residential or commercial development. The land use designation proposed basically conflicts with this policy, and appears to be an unmitigated significant impact, since no feasible 2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 28 mitigation is identified. Furthermore, the DEIR alleges that no mitigation is even required because it wrongly asserts that there is no impact.
3.0 Conclusions
The DEIR fails to provide adequate analysis of potential impacts and feasible mitigation measures for the proposed land use changes at the Pedro Point field, compared with (a) existing conditions; (b) existing land use designations under the General Plan/LCP, and (c) alternatives that are environmentally superior and compatible with Coastal Act policies. Because the DEIR is fundamentally inadequate, after such revisions, the DEIR should be recirculated for further public review.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Peter Baye
Cc: Pedro Point Community Association
Law Offices of Brian Gaffney APC
Richard Grassetti
California Coastal Commission
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Annapolis, California 95412
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist, Pacifica General Plan Update DEIR comments 29 ATTACHMENT A – STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS - Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
I am a coastal ecologist and botanist with over 30 years of professional and academic experience. My Ph.D. research in coastal ecology (University of Western Ontario, Canada, Department of Plant Sciences, 1990) was followed by a career in applied ecology in California. I worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, where I served as a senior environmental scientist and regulatory project manager conducting endangered species consultation, wetland jurisdictional determinations, wetland assessments, preparing Environmental Assessments and managing joint NEPA/CEQA Environmental Impact Statements/Reports. My Corps regulatory projects included sites adjacent to Port Sonoma (Sonoma Baylands, Carl’s Marsh). Subsequently I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where I prepared endangered species recovery plans (including comprehensive plans covering all of Marin Baylands and tidal marshes) and endangered species biological opinions. I was a contributing author and participant in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report (Goals Project 1999), its companion volume on Bayland species and community profiles (2000), and its 2014 update (in preparation), for which I developed many Marin bayland recommendations. I have developed or substantially contributed to estuarine wetland restoration and management plans for many Marin coastal wetland sites, including some adjacent to the plan area: Corte Madera Baylands Conceptual Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy, prepared by The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and ESA PWA (specific focal area: Corte Madera Ecological Reserve marshes); Aramburu Island, Richardson Bay (with Wetlands and Water Resources) and wetland restoration projects at Bahia, Novato (with ESA-PWA) and Bolinas Lagoon (Kent Island, with William Carmen & Associates).
2-19-0026
Exhibit 8
! #$ $"$"
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
!
! ! &
"%
"&
$
"%
'
#$
.,$.,., 5%/1%04
!
$ )
.,.,,1-5(-225&
$.,.,,1-5(-243&
$.,.,,1-5(-24/&.&
$.,.,,1-5(-231&.&
$
.,.,,1-5(-253&.&
$.,-5,.,.(13/2&0&
%9Ā'C;91
$0& Ā1Ā=1BC@1;9ABĀ6@95=4ĀB>>:ĀB85Ā?93BC@5AĀ25;>EĀ>D5@Ā>=Ā*54@>Ā *>9=BĀ;1ABĀ'1=C1@GĀ16B5@Ā>C@Ā.,$/, E9=B5@Ā?;>D5@ĀAC@D5GĀ1BĀ(9=41Ā)1@ !Ā-85Ā;1ABĀ?8>B>ĀE9B8ĀB85Ā3G?@ 5AAĀB@55Ā9AĀ>=ĀB85ĀA<1;;Ā3@55:Ā2589= AB@9?Ā<1;;ĀB81BĀ4@19=AĀB85Ā5=B9@5Ā1@51!ĀĀ-85Ā#+($AĀ6>@175ĀE5ABĀ C?Ā>=B>ĀB85Ā#1;A>=Ā?@>?5@BGĀ1BĀ=978B %>?9=7Ā6>@ĀA><5Ā?5135Ā1=4Ā@5;1F1B9>=Ā6>@ĀG>CĀ>D5@ĀB85Ā8>;941GA! Ā"=4Ā%1??GĀA>;AB935 ĀB>>Ȁ )1@71@5B
----- Forwarded Message -----
Subject: Red-legged Frogs
May 19, 2020
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
!$
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
"$
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
#$
36D>Ā2#Ā1A@6<D9
artist - naturalist - photographer
-)-Ā/@F6Ā1B=E9
2-19-0026
Exhibit 9
Pa
ge 8 of 8
California Natural Diversity Database
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 9th Street, Suite 1266
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax:
CNDDB Online Field Survey Form Report
www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Source code_____________________
Quad code______________________
Occ. no. ________________________
EO index no._____________________
Map index no.____________________
This data has been reported to the CNDDB, but may not have been evaluated by the CNDDB staff VAS20F0001
3712254
Scientific name: Rana draytonii
Common name: California red-legged frog
Date of field work (mm-dd-yyyy): 04-12-2020
Comment about field work date(s): Field observation in a drainage channel along road near my home on San Pedro Road
Observer: Michael C. Vasey
Affiliation: San Francisco State University
Address: 368 San Pedro Avenue , Pacifica, CA 94044
Email:
Phone: (650)
Other observers: Sheila Harman and Jon Harman
DETERMINATION
Keyed in: Visually and from close up photograph
Compared w/ specimen at:
Compared w/ image in: https://www.nps.gov/rlc/pacificcoast/california-red-legged-frogs.htm By another person:
Other:
Identification explanation: The individual frog was in drainage channel along road. Observation was about 3' away.
Close-up photo taken by Jon Harman (my neighbor) is attached Identification confidence: Confident
Species found: Yes If not found, why not?
Total number of individuals: 1
Collection? No Collection number:
Museum/Herbarium:
ANIMAL INFORMATION
How was the detection made? Seen
Number detected in each age class:
Age class comment: Appears to be juvenile (relatively small) but I'm not an expert adults juveniles larvae egg mass unknown
1 Level of survey effort: Low. Drainage channel along road. Drainage known to harbor CRLF in the past (a few years ago) but they have not been present recently.
OBSERVER INFORMATION
Submitted: 04/20/2020 VAS20F0001 Page 1 of 3
2-19-0026
Exhibit 10
Site use description: Drainage channel that drains water from Pedro Point down, across San Pedro Road, and then along east side of Calson field into a willow swale and then into San Pedro Creek near its entry into the ocean.
What was the observed behavior? Resting on floating vegetation half submerged.
Describe any evidence of reproduction: None observed.
SITE INFORMATION
Habitat description: Drainage channel along roadway
Slope: 0 Land owner/manager: City of Pacifica
Site condition + population viability: Fair
Aspect: standing water
Immediate & surrounding land use: 5 acre vacant field known to have been filled during mid 1900's, drainage channel flows east down to 'dogleg' bend and then along eastern boundary of the field until going under some culverts and a swale before entering San Pedro Creek near ocean
Visible disturbances: Recent tree trimming near site but frog observed to persist after this activity. Human and dog traffic into the field but frog about 2-3 feet below banks of channel so reasonably well protected.
Threats: Water could dry up but persisting due to run-off from neighborhood. Non-point source run-off could be polluted. Possible disturbance by people and dogs passing by.
General comments: First sighting of CRLF in around five years. Used to be a larger population, apparently breeding, in the dogleg portion of the channel near the road. So far, only one individual observed.
The mapped feature is accurate within: 5 m
Source of mapped feature: CNDDB Field survey form
ID
County
San Mateo
1 24K Quadrangle Elev. (ft) Latitude
NAD83
Longitude
NAD83
UTM E
NAD83
UTM
Zone
Montara Mountain 18 37.59432 -122.50808 543426 4160920 10 Public Land Survey
M T04S R06W 10
Feature Comment
Drainage channel in 2 feet of standing water
UTM N
NAD83
MAP INFORMATION
Submitted: 04/20/2020 VAS20F0001 Page 2 of 3
2-19-0026
Exhibit 10
Attachment(s): CRLF in drainage channel Pedro Point, Pacifica.pdf Mapping notes: Drainage channel along north side of San Pedro Road near junction with Grand Ave in floating algae but clearly visible. Frog has been there persistently since first observed.
Location/directions comments: Take turn off from Hwy 1 and San Pedro Road, cross creek by shopping center, take big curve by Ace Hardware, just past Grand Ave is the drainage channel on north side of road.
Submitted: 04/20/2020 VAS20F0001 Page 3 of 3
2-19-0026
Exhibit 10
Presumed California red-legged frog in drainage channel along San Pedro Road – Observed by Sheila Harman, Jon Harman, and Michael Vasey on April 12, 2020. Photo by Jon Harman. 2-19-0026 Exhibit 10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM,
GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
VOICE (415) 904- 5200
FAX
WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Lauren Garske-Garcia, Ph.D. – Senior Ecologist
TO: Julia Koppman Norton – North Central Coast District Analyst Jeannine Manna – North Central Coast District Manager
Dan Carl – North Central Coast District Deputy Director Jessica Reed – North Central Coast Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: 505 San Pedro, Pacifica (APN 023-72-010): Ecological Resources DATE: January 25, 2021
Documents Reviewed:
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), latest query: January 10, 2021. • Coast Ridge Ecology. Biological Resources Assessment for APN 023-72-010. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; March 2015. • Coast Ridge Ecology. 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica Wetland Delineation. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; November 2019. • Coast Ridge Ecology. Letter to Shawn Rhodes RE: Observed Change of Flow Conditions of Drainage Channel Adjacent to the Pedro Point Shopping Area and the Proposed NorCal Surf Shop Mixed-Use Development Project, San Mateo County, California. CDP Application 2-19-0026; June 13, 2020. • Live Oak Associates, Inc. Letter to Nick Pappani RE: Biological Resources Assessment Peer Review for the Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop project, located in the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (PN 2110-01); January 19, 2017.
• Thomas Reid Associates. 2005a. Biological Assessment Report. APN (023-72-10) Pacifica, CA 94044. For Compliance with San Mateo County Local Coastal Program Policies. Prepared for Rick D Lee and Richard Lee. August 2005.
• Thomas Reid Associates. 2005b. Site Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog. APN (023-72-10) Pacifica, CA 94044. For US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office. Prepared for Rick D Lee and Richard Lee. August 2005.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 2 • Wood Biological Consulting. One-Parameter Wetland Delineation for the Proposed NorCal Surf Shop Mixed-Use Development, San Mateo County, California (CDP Application 2-19-0026). Prepared for Shawn Rhodes, 5460 Pacific Coast Highway, Pacifica, CA 94044; May 14, 2019.
The North Central Coast District has requested a technical analysis of the ecological resources that could be adversely impacted by proposed development at 505 San Pedro Avenue in Pacifica, California (APN 023-72-010).
The project would almost entirely cover the approximately 600-ft long by less than 60 ft-wide parcel with several buildings, a skate park, parking, and pedestrian pathways. The parcel is bounded by Halling Way and a strip mall to the east, San Pedro Avenue to the south, a drainage and an open field to the west, and to the north, a footpath leading to the southern reach of Pacifica State Beach (Figure 1). The adjacent drainage intermittently conveys water, including from westward San Pedro Avenue to a culvert at the northern end of the subject parcel, which connects to the mouth of San Pedro Creek on the opposite side of a shopping center parking lot, approximately 270 feet to the east. Importantly, the parcel is divided between jurisdictions, with approximately one third nearest the sea occurring within the Commission’s retained jurisdiction and the remainder nearest San Pedro Avenue within the City’s jurisdiction – the applicant did not elect to pursue a consolidated permit and the City approved a permit for the portion of the project in its jurisdiction in 2018. The following analysis addresses the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application submitted to the Commission and my conclusion is summarized on page 12.
History
Since May 2010, when the applicant preliminarily sought consultation with Commission staff, staff has consistently identified concerns regarding wetlands and other biological resources both on and adjacent to the project site. In a letter dated May 8, 2015 to the City of Pacifica concerning review coordination for the proposed project, staff cited a 2005 biological report that characterized the drainage as an intermittent stream, that California red-legged frogs (CRLF) were likely present and breeding in the area surrounding the property, and that the drainage likely served as a dispersal corridor from nearby San Pedro Creek. In the 2015 letter, staff concluded that the proposed project would not conform to Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies protecting sensitive habitats. In May 2018, staff commented on the project’s Initial Study/Minimum Negative Declaration (IS/MND)1 and again
reiterated concern for both wetlands and sensitive species that may be affected, specifically citing concern for CRLF use of the drainage as a corridor and its movement across adjacent areas including the subject parcel. The City’s response largely dismissed these concerns2
and since that time, staff has continued to reiterate them to the applicant.
Following review of several submitted documents, initial desktop research, and having made an informal roadside visit to the site in March 2019, I and several District staff met with the applicant and their representatives on-site on October 3, 2019. During this visit, ecological concerns were again discussed at length. 1 Email from Patrick Foster, Coastal Commission Analyst, to Christian Murdock, Senior Planner at City of Pacifica RE: 505 San Pedro CEQA Document. May 1, 2018.
2 City of Pacifica. 2018. Response to Comments: 505 San Pedro Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Public Review Draft – Agency Comments. June 2018.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 3 Wetlands
The 2005 biological report referenced in the Commission staff 2015 letter regarded the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel as an intermittent stream and the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) maps it as part of a natural fluvial drainage sourcing from across San Pedro Avenue and the forested area behind existing development (Figure 2). The drainage receives flows from the Pedro Point neighborhood, which primarily enter through a culvert directly east of the subject parcel and flow northward until meeting San Pedro Creek. A scour pool has formed at the mouth of the culvert, next to the roadside, and water generally ponds for some distance thereafter, even well after seasonal flows cease (Figure 3). During larger flows, surface water continues along the full length of the drainage paralleling the subject parcel and exits through a culvert largely obscured by the willow thickets at its north end, which daylights within a restoration area on City land for a short distance, enters another culvert, and then flows into San Pedro Creek on the other side of the San Pedro Shopping Center. Aerial imagery shows that throughout the year, the drainage remains largely green with vegetation even when surrounding areas dry out (Figure 4).
Despite suggestions that the drainage be characterized as a stream, I believe it is more accurately treated as wetlands for several reasons. First, while there may be intermittent seasonal surface flows along the length of the drainage between San Pedro Avenue and the northern willow thickets, the scour pool near San Pedro Ave appears to remain a largely wetted feature year-round, while mid-way ponding and flow beyond this is more seasonal, and in the area furthest north, limited to the largest flows. Second, apart from the planted windbreak along the western side of the drainage, which is above the banks and/or normal extent of flows, the drainage largely lacks the multi-strata structure of a typical riparian corridor; instead, the vegetation is primarily composed of an herbaceous layer with some vines and brambles along the eastern bank. Third, the presence of emergent vegetation typical of wetlands (e.g., willows and bulrush) has reportedly increased over time despite the drainage’s relatively degraded state, suggesting the persistence of subsurface water.3 Fourth, a previous biological
assessment report references delineated three-parameter wetlands within the drainage totaling approximately
0.02 ac (Thomas Reid Associates 2005a). Fifth, as detailed in a 2014 comment letter provided by Dr. Peter Baye to the City regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project, this area was historically a complex of freshwater marsh and alder-willow swamp surrounding what was once Lake Mathilda, a freshwater lagoon outlet of San Pedro Creek prior to its channelization and infill to support the development observed today.4
Finally, the project’s 2018 IS/MND regarded the drainage as a man-made intermittently flowing swale that would be exempt from creek protections under the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and asserted that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on sensitive resources even though it acknowledged that the drainage would meet the Coastal Commission definition of a wetland (and despite the lack of a proper delineation at that time).5 Wetlands are protected under the Coastal Act by several policies including §30231, which emphasizes the importance of protecting and enhancing water quality and states:
Biological productivity; water quality
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes 3 Baye, P. 2014. Letter to City of Pacifica RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project – SCH #2012022046. 29pp
4 Baye, P. 2014. Ibid.
5 City of Pacifica. 2018. 505 San Pedro Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Public Review Draft. April 2018. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 4 appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Another key policy is §30233, which limits the allowance of direct impacts to wetlands to specified situations, requires that such action would constitute the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, and that the impact is minimized and mitigated for:
Diking, filling or dredging; continued movement of sediment and nutrients (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(l) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities… Wetland Delineations
In May 2019, the applicant submitted a wetland delineation to inform the proposed project’s potential to impose adverse impacts on wetland resources, both on the subject parcel and in the adjacent drainage. This delineation had several issues and shortly following our site visit in October 2019, a second delineation was completed; the delineation dated November 2019 has since been used as a basis for technical analysis. Despite having been completed outside of the wet season when wetlands are best detected and delineated, all three wetland parameters were present in at least some areas6
and six different wetland types were identified within the drainage channel, characterized as: arroyo willow thicket, perennial rye grass, small-fruited bulrush marsh, smartweed, ephemeral channel, and wetted channel. Two of these have been mapped on the subject parcel itself (a small area of smartweed within the City’s jurisdiction and a large portion of the arroyo willow wetlands at the
6 United States Army Corp of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands, based upon the presence of all three parameters (hydrology, vegetation and soils), totaled 0.088 ac; Coastal Commission wetlands, based upon the presence of at least a single parameter, totaled 0.248 ac. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 5 northern end, in the Commission’s jurisdiction). Of note is that the increase in area delineated in 2019 relative to what was reported from 2005 (Thomas Reid Associates 2005a) supports observations also made by Dr. Baye that wetland areas have expanded at this location.7
According to estimates provided in the analysis of the November 2019 wetland delineation, the proposed development would occur inside the wetland boundary at the arroyo willow thickets where a retaining wall to support an existing earthen berm and proposed pedestrian pathway along the full length of the subject parcel would be constructed. Figure 5 illustrates that the retaining wall would in fact encroach roughly 20 ft into the willows and directly remove wetland habitat; however, the project fails to qualify as an allowable use under Coastal Act §30233 and moreover, the willow stand also qualifies as ESHA (see next section). Elsewhere along the length of the drainage, the retaining wall would be sited no more than 11 ft from the delineated Commission wetlands while the buildings and other development features would sit between 9 and 30 ft of the wetland boundaries at their nearest points.
Wetland Buffers
Typically, staff recommends at minimum 100-ft buffers surrounding wetland habitats to adequately protect them from the many impacts that they may experience due to adjacent development. Such impacts can include altered drainage patterns and runoff, noise, debris, visual disturbance to wildlife, and inadvertent trampling. In some situations, reduced buffers have been recommended after taking into consideration wetland quality, the surrounding landscape, habitat functions, and the wetland’s susceptibility to various impacts; however, buffers sufficient to provide meaningful protection are still generally required.8 Here, based on the information available
to us prior to April 2020, including a lack of records affirming concerns for sensitive species use, I have advised that with the proposed BMPs and additional project modifications to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and to protect water quality, that wetland buffers might be reduced to no less than 25 ft along most of the drainage except where delineated by willow thickets and bulrush marsh. Around the willow thickets and bulrush marsh, which constitute arguably robust features providing relatively more habitat value and support for other species (e.g., complex shelter, refuge, foraging), my recommendation was a minimum 50-ft wetland buffer. Further informing my recommendation is that the willow thickets and bulrush marsh are characterized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as sensitive natural communities that qualify as ESHA (see discussion below). These recommended wetland buffers are reflected in Figure 5 except around a small patch of smallfruited bulrush marsh, which would extend further onto the subject parcel than as depicted.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Coastal Act §30107.5 defines environmentally sensitive [habitat] areas as:
… any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
Rarity determinations for habitats and species are made by CDFW, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and are used to support Coastal Commission ESHA
7 Baye, P. 2014. Ibid.
8 For example, see: Blackman and O’Connell (A-2-PAC-15-0046) where wetland buffers surrounding a willow stand were reduced to 50 ft, or Trask (A-1-DNC-07-036) where wetland buffers surrounding emergent vegetation were reduced to a minimum 68 ft. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 6 determinations.9 An ESHA determination may also be made on the basis of an area constituting ‘especially valuable habitat’ where it is of a special nature and/or serves a special role in the ecosystem, such as providing a pristine example of a habitat type or supporting important ecological linkages.
The key policies addressing ESHA follow under §30240:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
This is notably more restrictive than the preceding wetland policies, as it limits uses of ESHA to those dependent upon it and requires protection from not only direct impacts, but also indirect impacts that may result from adjacent development.
Sensitive Natural Communities
Arroyo Willow Thickets
The arroyo willow thickets located at the northern end of the subject parcel and continuing into the adjacent drainage are classified by CDFW as a natural vegetation community. Although the broader alliance Arroyo Willow as a whole is not considered rare, the more specific association characterized by stands exclusively composed of the namesake species, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), is represented at this site and is considered sensitive.10 While this association does not presently have a rarity ranking, CDFW guidance is to treat communities designated as sensitive, whether or not they are ranked, with comparable protections. Under the Coastal Act, the arroyo willow thickets delineate as a wetland on the basis of their facultative wetland indicator status and therefore, must be treated as wetlands under Coastal Act §30233 rather than as ESHA under §3024011; however, the sensitive natural community status gives weight to the ecological significance of the thickets and is reflected in my more protective buffer recommendation of 50 ft relative to that for other wetlands at this site (except smallfruited bulrush marsh), as detailed above. Though not documented at this location, sensitive species such as the saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa; CA Species of Special Concern) are known to use willow thickets as breeding habitat and many birds and smaller animals use them more generally.
Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh
Similar to the arroyo willow thickets, the small-fruited bulrush marsh identified in the wetland delineation is characterized by CDFW as a sensitive natural community. Specifically, the alliance Small-Fruited Bulrush has a state rarity ranking of S2 indicating that is considered imperiled within the state and at high risk of extirpation.
The association characterized by stands exclusively composed of the namesake species, small-fruited bulrush
9 CDFW defines natural communities, animals, and plants with a global or state ranking of 1, 2, or 3 as rare and the CCC typically finds these to be ESHA. CCC also typically considers plant and animal species listed by the federal and state endangered species acts (ESA and CESA, respectively) and/or identified under other special status categories (e.g., California Species of Special Concern), and/or identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as ‘1B’ and ‘2’ plant species as constituting ESHA. 10 Explanation of alliance vs. association; see Arroyo Willow Thickets alliance (CaCode: 61.201.00) and Salix lasiolepis association (CaCode:
61.201.01) in California Sensitive Natural Communities list (version: September 9, 2020) – accessible online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline. 11 Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 493 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 7 (Scirpus microcarpus), is represented at this site and though unranked, is considered sensitive.12 The species is an obligate wetland indicator and like the arroyo willow, is necessarily treated under wetland policies but warrants the protection of a 50-ft buffer due to its ecological significance. Species such as the California red-legged frog (see below) frequently use bulrush habitat for breeding.
Sensitive Wildlife
California Red-Legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is federally-listed as threatened and recognized by the state as a Species of Special Concern, is state-ranked as S3 indicating that it is considered vulnerable, and is the official state amphibian.13 It is the largest native frog in the western United States and is frequently associated with freshwater emergent wetlands, marshes, and riparian corridors throughout the central California coast but can also inhabit lagoons, ephemeral water bodies, stock ponds, and man-made drainages as well as drier habitat types within the wetter and cooler coastal fogbelt. CRLF uses both aquatic and upland habitat, the former for refuge and breeding, and the latter for foraging, dispersal, and aestivation. Breeding habitat is often characterized by perennial bodies of water with emergent vegetation providing structural complexity such as cattails, bulrush (see above), or dense riparian cover; however, sub-optimal habitats with little to no emergent vegetation and/or that periodically dry out are also known to be used.14 Dispersal habitat is generally considered to be areas within 1-2 miles of breeding areas, and can include forests, grasslands, coastal scrub, root masses formed by brambles or thickets, and oak woodlands in addition to those already named above.15 CRLF movement across habitat tends to peak during rainy periods and can vary widely among individuals.
CRLF breeding occurs from November to April. Reproduction rates tend to be highly variable and responsive to climate conditions (e.g., drought vs. wet years). Individuals may remain at breeding sites year-round or disperse to neighboring areas. Along the central coast, the species is particularly mobile and has been documented traversing areas that would not otherwise be expected, especially during wet conditions.16 CRLF has a diverse diet, which changes throughout its life cycle. Early in its life, it is believed to primarily consume algae, diatoms and detritus.17 As it matures, terrestrial and aquatic insects tend to make up the largest fraction of its diet, although larger frogs have been documented as consuming smaller invertebrates, including the smaller Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris sierra), which is also common throughout this region.18 CRLF are considered diurnal but primarily forage at night.
12 See Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh alliance (CaCode: 52.113.00) and Scirpus microcarpus association (CaCode: 52.113.01) 13 California Assembly Bill 2364, approved June 28, 2014 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2364 14 USFWS. 2004. Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); Proposed Rule. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol 69. No. 71: 19620-19642. 15 Fellers, G. 2005. Rana draytonii Baird and Girard, 1852b California red-legged frog. Pages 552-554 in M. Lannoo (editor). Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press. Berkeley, California; CWHA database 16 Bulger, JB, NJ Scott Jr. & RB Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110(1): 85-95. 17 Fellers, G. 2005. Ibid. 18 Hayes, MP & MR Tennant. 1985. Diet and feeding behavior of the California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (Ranidae). The Southwestern Naturalist 30(4): 601-605; Fellers, G. 2005. Ibid. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 8 Key threats to CRLF are recognized as habitat loss, urban encroachment, and the introduction of non-native species such American bullfrogs that can compete with CRLF for habitat as well as prey upon them. Several introduced freshwater fish species are also known prey on CRLF. Herbicide and pesticide use as well as disease may be other significant threats to CRLF, as has been documented for many amphibians around the globe.19 Prior to April 2020, we were unaware of any records affirming the presence of California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) at the subject parcel or its immediate surroundings although it has been well-documented at nearby San Pedro Creek.20 While I and the consulting reports I had initially reviewed for this project considered the species to have at least a moderate potential to occur given records from the nearby creek, there has also been recognition of the degraded state of the subject parcel and adjacent drainage as relatively unfavorable when compared to nearby habitat opportunities. No published record had appeared in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) beyond the creek’s main channel, the project’s IS/MND, or the other known reports for the location that staff generally relies upon. In addition, recent neighboring developments within the City’s jurisdiction along San Pedro Avenue had truncated the drainage’s corridor extension to more forested areas in the south and potential foraging, aestivation, and dispersal areas to the east (Figure 2). As such, my recommendations had focused on the wetlands and ensuring that appropriate measures would be taken during construction, in the off chance a frog was encountered.
On April 18, 2020, Commission staff received a report and accompanying photo from Pedro Point resident and San Francisco State University ecologist, Michael Vasey, documenting the presence of CRLF in ponded water at the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel six days prior.21 I was able to validate that the animal in the photo (Figure 6a) was a CRLF based upon diagnostic markings that were clearly visible and advised Dr. Vasey to submit his documentation to CDFW for further validation and inclusion to the CNDDB; District staff informed the applicant of this new finding. On April 24, another Pedro Point resident, Sheila Harman, contacted staff on behalf of herself and Jon Harman, with additional reports of having observed as many as four CRLF at the same location at one time and provided both time-stamped photos and a video also showing the surrounding location in relation to San Pedro Avenue to confirm this (Figure 6b-c)
22. She also commented that this was the first time in the past seven years that they had observed CRLF at the site, indicating previous but undocumented observations. On April 28, Dr. Vasey communicated with staff again, indicating that he and the Harman’s had now seen as many as five CRLF at a time in the drainage ditch along San Pedro Avenue and the pool just past the culverts feeding into the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel at 505 San Pedro Avenue.23 He also relayed a 2014 comment letter he had discovered through conversation with Peter Baye, another ecologist working along the central coast. This letter is referenced above in the discussion on wetlands.24
Dr. Baye’s 2014 letter provides important insights specific to CRLF, the surrounding area, and the drainage itself.
19 Davidson, EW, M Parris, JP Collins, JE Longcore, AP Pessier, & J Brunner. 2003. Pathogenicity and transmission of chytridiomycosis in tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum). Copeia 2003(3): 601-607. 20 CNDDB records for Occurrence Number 652 cover the lower half-mile of San Pedro Creek since 2002, when a total of 5 frogs were recorded from approximately 0.2 mi north of the subject parcel; reports since 2014 have more frequently detailed occurrences, including as many as 129 frogs caught in June-October in 2014 and notes that that adults were observed year-round in 2015. Egg masses were documented in 2014 and 2015.
21 Vasey, M. (personal communication, April 18, 2020)
22 Harman, S. (personal communication, April 24-29, 2020) 23 Vasey, M. (personal communication, April 29, 2020)
24 Baye, P. 2014. Ibid.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 9 He presents information on CRLF not found in the research various parties had conducted, including reporting having observed CRLF at the drainage over different seasons since at least 2005 and having submitted an official report to USFWS in 2005.25 Dr. Baye specifies that his observations have occurred regularly at the drainage and that CRLF have been most frequently found in the ponded, perennially wet area [scour pool] nearest San Pedro Avenue, the location neighborhood residents made reports from in April 2020. He hypothesizes that these animals may represent a local sub-population with a relationship to the lower San Pedro Creek wetland complex and that this perennially wet area may be breeding habitat given his observations of intermittent local population fluctuations and observation of other habitat requirements being immediately proximate, including the large field just west of the drainage. He also states that he believes this area would qualify as ESHA. Dr. Baye’s report goes on to note that CRLF was apparently absent throughout the drought period beginning in 2012 through the time of his report in 2014. As the drought ended in the winter of 2017, it is not all the surprising that the applicant’s consultants would not have observed CRLF at the site when conducting the biological assessments in 2015 (Coast Ridge Ecology) or January 2017 (Live Oak Associates) as the area was just coming out of drought status.26 I reached out to colleagues at CDFW and the USFWS in May 2020 to further investigate whether there was any other unpublished CRLF occurrence information, either from the drainage or otherwise nearby apart from San Pedro Creek. CDFW staff at the Biogeographic Branch were able to confirm that Dr. Vasey’s April 2020 CNDDB submission appeared to be valid, including the species identification; since then, his record has been processed and officially incorporated to the state database (Figure 2). USFWS staff from the Bay-Delta Regional Office indicated that while they did not have the 2005 record submitted by Dr. Baye available digitally, it was likely that it has been held as a paper file that cannot be accessed readily due to constraints imposed by the current pandemic. Nonetheless, they were not surprised by the contemporaneous observations and were able to provide comments on recent observations from nearby San Pedro Creek27 as well as advise that ESA Section 10 permitting may be necessary and that recommended habitat corridors for CRLF are typically 300 ft, which is consistent with Commission decisions elsewhere along this part of the coast.28 In response to the discovery of CRLF in April 2020 at the drainage channel, the applicant’s consultant at Coast Ridge Ecology (2020) has observed that significantly more water appears to be flowing through the drainage now than during their initial assessment in 2015. Notably, 2015 would have been several years into a drought (stage 3:
extreme drought) whereas conditions were less severe in 2020 (stage 1: moderate drought), so this might be reasonably expected.
29 The consultant speculates that the differences could be a result of supplemental water inputs from nearby residential properties but does not provide any evidence thereof or consider alternative explanations (including relative drought conditions). They also express doubt concerning CRLF’s ability to have moved from San Pedro Creek into the drainage and suggest that they may have been “assisted by humans (i.e. planted in the drainage)”. They consider the area “isolated” without acknowledging the dispersal range and known movement patterns of the species, particularly in the coastal fogbelt, where culverts connect the drainage channel directly to a City restoration area and ultimately, San Pedro Creek only 300 ft away from the north end of
25 Baye, P. 2005. Letter to United States Fish and Wildlife Service RE: Documentation of California red-legged frog occurrence at Pedro Point, Pacifica, San Mateo County. May 4, 2005.
26 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information for January 2017 27 For example: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Consultation Letter to United States Army Corps of Engineers RE: Formal Consultation on the San Pedro Terrace Project in San Mateo County, California. Reference #08ESMF00-2017-F-1370. April 5, 2018. 28 UC Santa Cruz Marine Science Campus - Coastal Long Range Development Plan. January 2017. 344pp. 29 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information for March 2015 and April 2020 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 10 the subject parcel. Though these avenues of dispersal are perhaps not the most idyllic, the species is capable of having used any variety of these. Finally, the consultant argues that the location is unlikely to provide “consistent, stable long-term habitat for [CRLF] over time” and that it would likely be considered a population sink. However, CRLF is known to use (and require) a mosaic of habitat types across the landscape and we cannot ignore that the species has been documented using this location intermittently for decades, even in the absence of focused study.
Moreover, it is not necessary for CRLF to carry out its full life cycle in the drainage for the area to have ecological value for this sensitive species.
In August 2020, I reached out to Dr. Baye to inquire whether he had a copy of his 2005 report to the USFWS, which had been referenced in his 2014 letter. He was able to forward this report to staff, including photos of CRLF, thus providing additional information that had not been otherwise available through standard data searches or inquiries during the pandemic. On May 4, 2005, Dr. Baye reported to USFWS having observed three adult CRLF at the [scour] pool adjacent to San Pedro Avenue on the previous day, at the southern end of the drainage ditch directly adjacent to the subject parcel. He also states that he had observed “multiple aural detections of diving frogs in April” and indicates that water turbidity limited visual detections but “no egg masses were observed within the visible upper 10 cm of water column.” Figure 7 is excerpted from Dr. Baye’s report and also appears in his 2014 letter to the City.
In the course of my research, I also sought out the biological assessment report from 2005, which had been referenced in the May 8, 2015 staff letter to the City regarding review coordination for the proposed project.
Although such reports are generally considered outdated after five years for the purposes of evaluating current conditions at a site, they can be informative in the context of habitat change as well as documenting patterns of use (or likely use). Where data is limited and/or species may not be readily detected, historical reports can be especially helpful. In this situation, I located not only the biological assessment report (Thomas Reid Associates 2005a) but also discovered a site assessment specifically for CRLF (Thomas Reid Associates 2005b). Both 2005 reports had been intended to inform a different project at the same location, which would have restored habitat over approximately 60% of the subject parcel including the willow thickets and upland areas to be contiguous with the then-planned wetland restoration at San Pedro Creek. Concerning CRLF, while the species was not explicitly confirmed on-site by these two reports, it was regarded that “there is a high potential for them to be present within proximal aquatic habitats… [including] the drainage ditch adjacent to the property as a traveling corridor or nearby upland areas for aestivation” and the consultants recommended “that this report be submitted to the [USFWS]” for further consultation, though it remains unclear whether it ever was. The proposed restoration was apparently anticipated to benefit CRLF among other species.
The recent repeated daytime observations of multiple CRLF at the roadside end of the drainage indicates that even in the absence of formal surveys, the area has been functioning as habitat for more than an individual transient CRLF. Consideration of this, the multiple reported occurrences of CRLF at the drainage since at least 2005, and the concurrence of information from colleagues at partner resource agencies informs my revised opinion that CRLF occurrence here is not a moderately hypothetical possibility but in fact, a demonstrated pattern of use. Given the connection to San Pedro Creek, including by way of the underground culvert, the observations of CRLF near San Pedro Avenue, wetlands, and evidence of the drainage’s role as a green corridor year-round, the full length of the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel should be considered habitat. In addition, because CRLF requires not only wetted areas but also makes use of upland habitats for foraging, dispersal, and estivation, this habitat is very likely extends to adjacent upland areas on either side of the drainage. Though we cannot presently delineate the full extent of CRLF use in these areas without protocol-level surveys, we can interpret that at a 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 11 minimum, the drainage itself constitutes ESHA and is likely functioning as a habitat corridor for this species between San Pedro Creek and upland areas.
Habitat Corridors
The drainage running adjacent to the subject parcel arguably constitutes a habitat corridor for CRLF but additionally, likely supports several other species moving across the landscape as well. As evident from the timeseries of aerial imagery (Figure 4), the drainage remains relatively green throughout the seasons and as compared to adjacent parcels. It also connects to San Pedro Creek (through culverts), the shore, and the Pacific Ocean in the north; a large open space to the west; historically, to spaces in the east beyond the subject parcel (i.e. the parcel due east of Halling Way, along San Pedro Avenue); and to a major forested area to the south, which again connects to San Pedro Creek, though this connection was somewhat fragmented by recent development.
Despite the more recent encroachments of development, it remains that the drainage provides a connection across the landscape capable of supporting many species including birds and small mammals that may be less affected by some of these interruptions. For example, birds move primarily by line of sight rather than on-theground conditions and while raptor nests have not been observed in the trees immediately along the drainage, the forested area to the south is better-suited for such and the large open space just west of the drainage provides excellent conditions for foraging on fossorial rodents and small reptiles; raptors have been regularly observed using the area.30 These same small animals (and others) are likely to find refuge within the drainage relative to sun, wind, and predator exposure where surrounding areas are paved, mowed, or otherwise devoid of vegetation. During my brief roadside visit in March 2019, I observed a duck resting among ponded waters of the drainage (Figure 3e) indicating that waterfowl also use the shaded and wetted area at least occasionally. Small mammals such as skunks, raccoons, and coyote would all be likely to make use of the drainage area as well.
In addition, the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project identifies a major natural landscape block beginning in Pacifica and extending south through the San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties coast and mountains (Figure 8).31 It also recognizes “small” natural areas (defined as < 2000 ac), with one of approximately 140 ac occurring some 800 ft south of the project site, in the forested area that has already been discussed (Figure 9). All of this emphasizes the especially valuable role of the drainage in facilitating connections across a semi-developed landscape, from the shore and creek mouth to forested areas inland, as well as open spaces that can function as upland habitat and foraging grounds, and I recognize it as a habitat corridor rising to the level of ESHA.
ESHA Delineation & Buffers
The sensitive natural communities of Arroyo Willow Thickets and Small-fruited Bulrush Marsh both constitute ESHA in addition to wetlands, as delineated in the November 2019 wetland delineation report. As stated above in the wetlands section, buffers of 50 ft should be applied to these two areas.
As a federally-threatened and California Species of Special Concern, the California red-legged frog qualifies for Coastal Act protection under ESHA policies. Thus, the revelation that CRLF does, and has, in fact occurred at this location necessitates consideration of habitat beyond that of the wetlands. With the limited documentation available, it is not possible to precisely delineate boundaries for CRLF habitat but we can observe that there is no
30 eBird records for the area include white-tailed kites, golden eagles, sharp-shinned hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and red-tailed hawks – www.ebird.org
31 Spencer, WD, P Beier, K Penrod, K Winters, C Paulmann, H Rustigian-Romsos, J Strittholt, M Parisi and A Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation and California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. 313 pp. 2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 12 biological argument that would exclude CRLF from the subject parcel or limit its movement to the narrow drainage immediately adjacent. Provided the species ecology, including dispersal and foraging patterns along the central coast, I expect it will readily use nearby upland areas and move freely with little regard for topography or substrate. Given the USFWS recommendation of providing CRLF with at least a 300-ft dispersal corridor where it is known, we can conclude that even if this width was centered on the drainage, it would extend across and beyond the subject parcel well to the east (Figure 5); therefore, I find that the entire subject parcel constitutes CRLF ESHA and that this extends some yet-to-be-defined distance beyond the parcel. No buffer recommendation is provided since it is irrelevant in the absence of an outer habitat limit from which to apply.
Habitat corridors are increasingly critical to preserve as natural lands are converted and encroached upon by development; however, their delineation can be challenging since each species will use the space differently.
Often, riparian areas are treated as corridors with the outermost extent of riparian vegetation being recognized as the edge, from which buffers are then applied to ensure that wildlife movement in and out of riparian cover is protected for some distance. In this case, it is clear that the drainage adjacent to the subject parcel is part of a larger network connecting different habitats but its boundaries are less well-defined by a canopy than riparian areas and it is likely somewhat more permeable within the landscape mosaic. Because we know that CRLF is almost certainly using the drainage as a corridor but cannot clearly define the bounds of such use with the data available, the same determination must transfer to the EVH-based ESHA – I find that the subject parcel is part of a general habitat corridor ESHA, which extends some yet-to-be-defined distance beyond the parcel. No buffer recommendation is provided since it is irrelevant in the absence of an outer limit from which to apply.
In conclusion, I find that the subject parcel includes wetlands, Arroyo Willow Thicket ESHA, California redlegged frog ESHA, and habitat corridor ESHA. These sensitive habitat resources are continuous with the immediately adjacent drainage, which additionally includes Small-fruited bulrush marsh ESHA. The boundaries of at least some of these sensitive resources extend beyond both the drainage and subject parcel, resulting in the entire subject parcel necessarily being recognized as ESHA in addition to the wetlands that have also been delineated there.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 13 Figure 1a: 505 San Pedro Avenue parcel (approximated in yellow) as situated in the broader surrounding landscape, and b: relative to specific features including the adjacent drainage (approximated by dashed white arrow), scour pool (red asterisk), and willow thickets. restored wetlands
forested area,
minor drainages
open field
(grassland, likely
wetlands)
willow
thickets
*
restored wetlands
open field
(grassland, likely
wetlands)
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 14 Figure 2: CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Viewer display of the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) stream layer and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records surrounding the subject parcel (yellow box). CARI data shown as blue lines, including the drainage immediately west (left) of the parcel and San Pedro Creek (far right). Red thatching represents areas with known occurrences of California Red-Legged Frog.
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 15 Figure 3: Photos from site visits in March and October 2019, showing seasonal variation in drainage conditions – a-b: culvert running parallel to San Pedro Avenue, immediately west of the drainage and subject parcel; c-d: from San Pedro Avenue, facing north with scour pool in foreground; e-f: from San Pedro Avenue, facing northnorthwest into drainage (note Eucalyptus wind break on left (west) before open field and subject parcel on right (east), and duck (white circle) using drainage as resting area in e); g: from western side of drainage, looking south towards San Pedro Avenue (note continuation of tree canopy into forested area south of San Pedro Avenue). a b
c d
subject parcel
subject parcel
San Pedro Ave
San Pedro Ave
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 16 z
f
e
g
subject parcel
field
subject parcel
field
subject parcel
field
(forest)
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 17 Figure 4: Subset of larger aerial time series (2002-2020) of the subject parcel (yellow box) and the surrounding landscape, showing wet versus dry season patterns of vegetation. Note how the drainage immediately adjacent to the subject parcel consistently provides a green corridor and effectively links San Pedro Creek with the open field to the west while providing a valuable secondary connection to the forested habitat south of the site.
May 2003
December 2003
City wetland restoration
not yet completed
City wetland restoration
not yet completed
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 18 May 2010
September 2003
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 19 April 2020
July 2020
recently developed parcels
& interrupted tree canopy
recently developed parcels
& interrupted tree canopy
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 20 Figure 5: Delineated single-parameter wetlands (solid green lines) and approximate wetland buffers (dashed green lines) relative to proposed project. Note that 50-ft buffer was drawn around the willow ESHA but should also extend slightly further south around some small-fruited bulrush marsh ESHA, which would further overlap with the proposed footprint, even as potentially modified (red lines). * small-fruited
bulrush marsh ESHA
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 21 Figure 6a: CRLF as observed at San Pedro Avenue on April 12, 2020 by Michael Vasey, Sheila Harman and Jon Harman (photo credit: Jon Harman); b-d: CRLF as observed at San Pedro Avenue on April 23, 2020 by Sheila Harman. Individual CRLF circled in white for visibility.
a b
c d
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 22 Figure 7a: From San Pedro Avenue, looking northeast, view of scour pool in drainage with subject parcel as grassy area immediately behind the fence, and b: CRLF observed in scour pool by Peter Baye. Photos by Peter Baye, as submitted to USFWS in May 4, 2005 letter.
a
b
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 23 Figure 8: Excerpt from California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project displaying the San Mateo-Santa Cruz Counties coastal corridor (within red box). The project location in Pacifica is approximately located at the black arrow, near the northern edge of the extent. Areas in green represent connected stretches of habitat and the yellow-brown spectrum represents areas that would ideally be added to provide better linkages. The Pedro Point area is among those areas identified as valuable additions to improving connections through this corridor.
Approximate
site location
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 24 Figure 9: CNDDB display of the Pedro Point area in Pacifica, with CRLF occurrences observed in thatched red areas and finer-scale features identified as particularly valuable by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project in solid green. The proposed project site (yellow bar) is largely covered by the upper two CRLF occurrences and is situated to link multiple habitats across the landscape mosaic, including riparian, wetland, forest, and grassland.
GRASSLAND &
WETLANDS
RIPARIAN
FOREST
CEHC FEATURE
CEHC FEATURE
2-19-0026
Exhibit 11
From: Deb Wong [ ]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 11:32 AM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on the DEIR and General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock & City Council:
I read the Sharp Park Specific Plan, and do have some concerns. My family and I live on . I grew up here (moved here in 1954), and have seen many changes, but none that have altered the basic "personality" of our city. I agree that this plan, if fully implemented, would change some of the special character of our town. When we visit other small towns (and I still see my home town of Pacifica as a "small town"), what makes them charming is their distinctive character/quirks, etc. Economic viability doesn't necessarily mean adding more shopping areas, or making things more generic. People visit our community for the pier, the ocean, the hiking trails, and the beautiful scenery. That is destination enough. I live 1/2 block from the pier. Why not fix what needs fixing, before new construction projects? That pier needs repair. That, and the seawall, is priority. It is folly to even start building until we know that the ground that we are building on is relatively safe (and let's face it - in the event of a large quake/tsunami, all bets are off).
The plan to widen the sidewalk in front of our home by 2 feet will just eliminate our front planter box, which shouldn't be a problem (less work for me), and I agree that Sharp Park could use some improvements. Some of the ideas are positive ones. But having 4-5 story buildings on Palmetto (or elsewhere in Sharp Park) would definitely affect the look and feel of our town, and not in a good way. That look is generic and over-built. If future grants depend upon having buildings higher than 3 stories - max - I vote no to those future grants (not that I get a vote, but if I did).
The illustrations in the Sharp Park Pacifica Plan of the buildings on Palmetto make Pacifica look like the peninsula. What if some of these buildings eventually become vacant, as they often do on the peninsula? Covered in graffiti, vandalized? There are already vacant buildings on Palmetto. We don't need more. One of the contradictions I found when reading up on this proposal is that hotels right now are not doing well, so the solution offered is to...build more hotels! As you have seen, more hotels do not necessarily mean more visitors.
Nope. Do not like it. We live in a small town, surfing-fishing village. THAT is why visitors come here. Why add restaurants when the ones we already have need the business? We DO need affordable housing, especially for those who work here. I'm all for that, but in the section dedicated to "affordable housing" there are no specifics of how much of the housing would be used for lower-income residents. If that percentage is small, and the rest of it for outside investors, etc., how does that benefit those who already live and work here? If there MUST be plan for 990 new housing units in Pacifica, three-story buildings on Palmetto should accommodate some of those units, right? Anything over 3 stories high is too much for our area.
Sharp Park and much of the Manor area are already user-friendly for those who walk and bike. I like the improvements made on Palmetto, the bike lanes, and clean-up. The banners on Palmetto need replacing - the one for the Easter Egg hunt is 2 years out of date. The Manor Drive overpass could use a makeover. So could the Manor Shopping Center, which I say with slight regret, since I remember that shopping center when it was first built, and is one of the places which is consistent with my memories of growing up here. But still - it has gotten a bit rundown, after 60 years.
The plan description for Sharp Park nightlife activities has its pluses and minuses. I am in bed by 7 PM, so do not appreciate the idea of noise after hours. We like it quiet here at night. That is why we are a "bedroom community". But I know that others might welcome more nightlife in Sharp Park. Don't know anyone specifically, but I am sure they are out there! Bottom line is that my main concern are those 4-5 story buildings, along with possible influx of traffic and overcrowding. The rest can be worked around.
Sincerely,
Deborah L. Wong
,
Pacifica, CA. 94044
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
From: Patrick I. Mora [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
CC: O'Connor, Bonny [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on the Draft General Plan
Attachments: The Rock Comments to General Plan Ammendment - Google Docs.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Patrick Mora
MORA ARCHITECTS
San Francisco, CA 94103
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Mora Architects
Planning Engineering
San Francisco, CA 94103
March 8, 2022
Christian Murdock
Deputy Director of Planning
Planning Department
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica CA 94044
COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PURPOSE
To acknowledge the efforts by the Planning Department, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, Consultants, and the General Public to produce a comprehensive draft that is now scheduled for review and adoption.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESCRIPTION
Commercial
Potential commercial uses that the City might attract, including visitor-serving commercial, retail commercial, office, heavy commercial and light industrial.
Mixed residential and commercial uses are allowed when the dwelling units are located above the commercial uses.
Analysis and comments:
Please see enclosed diagrams with possible locations of commercial and residential.
Type I Residential over commercial, as stated in the general plan.
May apply only to level, flat sites, fronting a street with pedestrian activity. It works well in a situation where the building commercial frontage at ground level is cohesive.
Type II Separate commercial and residential buildings, where the pedestrian activities and visitor serving commercial interact at pedestrian level, without the separation in different levels.
Example would be Main Street Half Moon Bay south end, where U-shaped courts with fountains provide rest areas for visitors and locals.
Type III Hybrid interaction between commercial and residential. An arrangement where there’s residential over commercial and commercial over residential. To adapt to unusual conditions and slopes, where the standard specified residential over commercial arrangement would be difficult to implement. Or where the strict application of the code would not render the desired results in terms of practicality, business success, views, aesthetics and neighborhood coherence.
PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Visitor Parking Where the code requirement is an extra parking space for every four residential units.
Suggested to provide one parking space for approximately every six units, not for visitors but for service, maintenance, manager calls, emergency vehicles or contractors.
Experience shows that most visitors parking spaces are being used by the same residents or tenants for additional vehicles and not by visitors. Whereas a designated yellow zone for service parking may serve a better purpose.
General Parking Where the code requirement is two off street parking spaces for a typical two-bedroom unit.
Most communities are moving towards electric powered vehicles and public transportation. Even densely populated cities are not requiring off street parking.
Examples would be the requirements for an ADU close to transportation, where the ADU would not need its own off street parking space that could take valuable land or space that could be used for open space, greenery, or more housing if feasible.
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION
Code required height must not exceed 35’-0”.
This limitation has applied to all growth from the beginning. Now we face different challenges. If we wish to have some of our hills preserved then we must accept growth and in fill development where it is allowed,
A bonus in the height limitation may add an extra floor, where appropriate, to a 3-story existing fabric that could look too uniform or tedious for a vibrant city.
Terraces and balconies above could provide life and texture to streets that are in the process of becoming favorite for strolls or outings.
Architectural features that partially increase the height are often allowed and encouraged.
Example, the Clock Tower on Old County Road
Connected Buildings - Height Computation
Where two or more buildings are connected the height might be measured not from the lowest point of the lower building, but rather from the lower ground level of each individual building
A compound of individual buildings allowed to be measured in this way may offer potential uses that encourage visitor serving commercial and tourist attractions that otherwise could go unexplored.
Perhaps the connection can be limited to a percentage of the face of each connected building.
Pacifica is a jewel in the rough. All of us who come in contact, as professional, residents, or visitors would like to protect it and enhance it. Well planned development by educating the community must always be a part of local growth.
The work of Pacifica Planners is underestimated but much respected and appreciated by all of us.
Respectfully,
Patrick I. Mora
Architect
enclosure: Commercial-Residential Relationship Diagram
R
R
C
TYPE II
C
R
R
R
C
TYPE III
R
R
C C
R
R
35'-0"
35'-0"
35'-0"
35'-0"
TYPE I
MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS 35'-0"
view
walk
architectural
feature
grade
From: Allison West [
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 11:11 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on the GPU/DEIR from PPCA
Attachments: PPCA Comment Letter-030722 GPU DEIR-Final.pdf; Attachment B - CRMU_Adverse Impact Photos_2022 PPCA GPU-DEIR.pdf; Attachment A - PPCA Pacifica GPU DEIR 2022 Baye Pedro Point memo 030722.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello -
Attached please find the following documents submitted by the Pedro Point Community Association in response to the request for public comments to the GPU/DEIR:
1. Comment letter by the PPCA on the GPU/DEIR
2. Exhibit A: Letter by biologist Pete Baye, Ph.D
3. Exhibit B: CRMU Adverse Impact Photos
If possible, I would appreciate a reply to let me know you could open the attachments.
Thank you,
Allison West
President
Pedro Point Community Association
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
PPCA – Pedro Point Firehouse | | Pacifica, CA 94044 | www.pedropoint.org Pedro Point Community Association
Board of Directors 2022
OFFICERS
Allison West
President
Joanne Gold
Vice President
Breck Hitz
Barbara Lubben
Treasurers
Cherie Chan
Secretary
MEMBERS
Sam Casillas
Rebecca Smith-Coggins
Camille Keating,
Firehouse Manager
Leo Leon
Barbara Lubben
Marcia Settel
Helen Brönte Stewart
March 7, 2022
Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Via email: [email protected]
RE: Comments on City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and 2022 Draft EIR (SCH:2012022046)
Dear Mr. Murdock:
I am writing in my capacity as President of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), a neighborhood-based, all-volunteer nonprofit organization that serves as a strong and well-informed voice for the entire Pedro Point community and actively seeks to represent the expressed opinions and desires of its residents.
The PPCA is submitting the following comments on the City of Pacifica’s January 2022 Draft General Plan Update (GPU) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our comments incorporate by reference the GPU/DEIR comment letters prepared on our behalf and submitted under separate cover by CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, our attorney Brian Gaffney, and attached memo from consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye (Exhibit A).
Land use designations are the heart of the General Plan, as a guiding document for the city’s development and policy making decisions. That is why the purpose of this letter is to clearly state that the PPCA emphatically objects to the GPU and DEIR’s proposed land use designation change to “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” (CRMU) for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site in Pedro Point (locally referred to as the Pedro Point field).
It should be noted that the PPCA made similar objections to this same CRMU designation change when it was proposed in a previous draft GPU and DEIR released for public comment in 2014, but never approved.
For decades, the PPCA has made extensive efforts to collect residents’ input to inform city planners about our community’s preferences for land use and development, and the value that is placed on maintaining our community’s environmental assets and natural aesthetics to ensure harmony with the scale and character of existing neighborhood conditions. (These efforts and preferences have been well documented and are on record with the City of Pacifica, as well as on the PPCA website at www.pedropoint.org.) PPCA – Pedro Point Firehouse | | Pacifica, CA 94044 | www.pedropoint.org
2002 GPU/DEIR Comments
Based on residents’ continued input and support, the PPCA previously urged the City to revise the proposed land use for the Pedro Point Field site in the GPU and DEIR to be designated as either “Low-Intensity VisitorServing Commercial” (LIVC) or “Conservation” (C). However, due to more recent evidence presented in CDP application 2-19-0026 related to the adjacent property’s ESHA and hazards identification (which - under state law - development would be a nuisance) it now appears that only the designation of “Conservation” (C) should be applied.
Pedro Point residents have consistently registered strong preference for maintaining the existing open space of the Pedro Point field and opposition to any residential development, due to a number of expressed negative impacts. In its current existing state, the field is an open space with seasonal wetlands.
It should be noted that reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed CRMU land use designation for the Pedro Point field would result in:
1. Significant adverse aesthetic impacts. (see Exhibit B) Natural environmental beauty is an integral part of the existing visual character of our small coastal Pedro Point community. Generations of residents have treasured the scenic environment of the field which affords unique views of the surrounding hillsides and provides an open space that serves as a park-like setting for residents and visitors. The proposed CRMU designation would have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, substantially degrade the existing visual character of the neighborhood, and create new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect views.
2. Significant adverse biological impacts. (see Exhibit B) The development flowing from the CRMU designation would diminish an environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat. Neighbors have long-enjoyed sightings of many species of birds, animals and reptiles that inhabit the field, including documented photos of endangered species such as the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF). The opportunities for wildlife encounters with diverse species found in and around the field have become an essential part of our neighborhood identity.
a. NOTE: The City was also recently made aware from the denial of CDP application 2-19-0026 dated 12/7/2020 that the adjacent unnamed watercourse to this property has been identified as ESHA by CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Senior Biologist Dr. Garske-Garcia of the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and that the CRLF require a minimum 300-foot foraging buffer zone. In addition, CCC found the watercourse likely also supports several other species as a habitat corridor. Coastal Act Section 30240 prohibits non-resource dependent development within an ESHA.
3. Significant adverse traffic impacts. (see Exhibit B) With San Pedro Avenue serving as the only singlelane road in and out of the Pedro Point neighborhood, the increased traffic volume, congestion, and vehicle miles travel generated by CRMU-related residential development in the field would make this main thoroughfare un-navigable, and present significant adverse hazards for emergency access or evacuation. This increased traffic would also have related air quality and GHG impacts.
4. Significant adverse transportation, air quality and GHG impacts. Our narrow streets are already choked with parked cars from increased commercial, residential and beach tourism parking demands. Increased parking generated by scores of CRMU-related residential units and visitors would result in excessive congestion and overwhelm on-street parking in our already overburdened neighborhood, and further exacerbate the transportation, air quality and GHG impacts.
5. Increase pedestrian safety hazards. (see Exhibit B) Increased street parking and vehicular traffic along San Pedro Avenue where there are no sidewalks or crosswalks would obstruct the only pedestrian routes,
PPCA – Pedro Point Firehouse | | Pacifica, CA 94044 | www.pedropoint.org
2002 GPU/DEIR Comments
creating significant adverse safety hazards for pedestrians and emergency vehicles, and put residents (and pets) increasingly at risk.
6. Significant adverse flooding impacts. (see Exhibit B) In its undeveloped state, the field serves as a natural catch basin for street run off from the surrounding the community and steep hillsides, and has historically been subject to flooding, occurring as recently as the 2021-2022 rainy season.
Residents have also identified above ground, year-round spring percolation in the southwest corner of this property (see Exhibit B). Residential development adding more impervious surfaces would put businesses and homes along San Pedro Avenue at risk for even greater flooding and safety hazards.
Additionally, the CCC has been in communication with the City of Pacifica for more than a decade to express concern about negative impacts of development on the habitats of a watercourse adjacent to the Pedro Point field, which likely would meet the one-parameter definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act. The CCC asked that a one-parameter wetland delineation be conducted. The City denied the request. The CCC has also identified the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site as potential wetlands. Any development on this field would reduce the biological productivity or water quality of the wetlands due to runoff created by new development, in violation of the Coastal Act.
Comment letters submitted by Pedro Point residents, our environmental and legal experts provide additional specific details how a proposed change of the existing land use of the Pedro Point field to CRMU is reasonably likely to cause direct and indirect significant adverse impacts and would conflict with CEQA and Coastal Act policy. They also document how these impacts have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated in the DEIR. Nor does the DEIR identify any meaningful reasonable alternatives to the proposed CRMU designation that are 1) environmentally superior, 2) consistent with Coastal Act policies, and 3) compatible with the unique coastal character of Pedro Point and conservation of its important remaining open spaces.
Most notably, the GPU Land Use map for the entire City of Pacifica (section 4-6, p. 67) shows the one main property proposed for the new CRMU designation is the privately-owned, undeveloped San Pedro Avenue field. We assert that the GPU should be a guiding document for the development and policy making decisions of the entire community – not just for the benefit of a single landowner.
In conclusion, based on our counsel’s review of the law, our experts’ opinions - and in order to address the noted DEIR deficiencies as well as be in compliance with CEQA and Coastal Act policies – the most expedient solution would be to change the proposed land use designation for the Pedro Point field from CRMU to Conservation (which is most consistent with the current state of the undeveloped property). The PPCA strongly encourages you to consider this option, so that we can all look forward to soon having an updated General Plan that will put Pacifica on the map for being a smart, vibrant, environmentally savvy, jewel of a city.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association, Allison West
PPCA President
[email protected]
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Memo from Dr. Peter Baye, Coastal Ecologist Exhibit B - Community Sourced Photos related to CRMU Negative Impacts Attachment B
PPCA Comment Letter on the
January 2022 Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU)
Community Sourced Photos
Undeveloped San Pedro Ave. Site
Pedro Point, Pacifica
(ie: the Pedro Point Field)
Reasonably Foreseeable Negative Impacts of Proposed CRMU Significant adverse aesthetic impacts
Existing Conditions:
Unique views of the surrounding hillsides and open space that serves as a park-like setting Reasonably Foreseeable Negative Impacts of Proposed CRMU Significant adverse biological impacts
Existing Conditions:
California red-legged frog (CRLF) is a California special-status species and a federally-listed threatened species have been documented in the unnamed watercourse adjacent to the Pedro Point field as recently as summer of 2021 CLRF Habitat – unnamed watercourse
CLRF - May 2020 CLRF Tadpoles - Summer 2021
CLRF - August 2021
Existing Conditions:
Many species of birds utilize the Pedro Point Field as a feeding and roosting area Mallard Ducks - Spring 2019
Vultures - Dec. 2019
Blue Heron - July 2019
Western Meadowlarks
March 2021
Seasonal wetlands support
shorebirds flooded off Linda
Mar Beach during stormy
conditions, December 26,
2005
Red-tailed hawks (pictured)
and Red-Shouldered hawks
forage in the field and
inhabit the trees directly
above the culvert
Existing Conditions:
Many species of birds utilize the Pedro Point Field as a feeding and roosting area Reasonably Foreseeable Negative Impacts of Proposed CRMU Significant adverse traffic, parking impacts
Pedestrian safety hazards
Existing Conditions:
San Pedro Avenue serves as the only single-lane road in and out of the Pedro Point. This main thoroughfare is already choked with cars. Lack of sidewalks puts pedestrians at risk.
Existing Conditions:
San Pedro Ave. is routinely packed with parked cars from increased commercial, residential and beach tourism traffic.
Reasonably Foreseeable Negative Impacts of Proposed CRMU Significant adverse flooding impacts
Berm entrance to beach
& shopping center is
breached
Existing Conditions:
Massive flooding in Pedro Point Field in the October 2021 (frequency of intense storms increasing due to climate change) Existing Conditions:
Massive flooding in Pedro Point Field in the October 2021 (frequency of intense storms increasing due to climate change) Existing Conditions:
Pedro Point Field is a floodplain for underground springs from surrounding hillsides. Water comes up to surface in southwest corner of the field year-round Late June 2019; shortly
after field being
mowed
July 19, 2019; Midsummer and still full
of water
November 2019;
late fall, water is still
percolating
Jan 23, 2022; pond
formation in fully
declared drought
year
Proposed CRMU & GPU Land Use Diagram
Only one main property in the
proposed Land Use map has a
CRMU designation:
“The undeveloped
San Pedro Ave. field”
GPU development and policy
making decisions must be made
for the benefit of
the entire community – not just a
single private landowner
Detail: CRMU proposed for field
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
M E M O R A N D U M
To: PEDRO POINT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (PPCA), attention: Joanne Gold Cc: Brian Gaffney, Richard Grassetti
Date: March 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Sharp Park Specific Plan SCH: 2020089010, January 7, 2022: Pedro Point special-status species, vegetation, and wetlands
1. Scope of review: I am providing critical review of sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Pacifica General Plan Update (GPU) and Sharp Park Specific Plan SCH: 2020089010, January 7, 2022. I am incorporating by reference and attaching my previous comments on the highly similar 2014 DEIR for the GPU. My current comments are updated with recent information about existing conditions since 2014, and address relevant sections of the DEIR that pertain to Pedro Point, with emphasis on coastal lowlands from San Pedro Creek to the Pedro Point Field bordering San Pedro Road. My review focuses on biology, ecology, and related physical environmental influences (hydrology, geomorphology) and land uses.
2. Summary of findings:
• The 2022 DEIR presents an inconsistent and inaccurate description of existing environmental conditions regarding environmentally sensitive endangered fish and wildlife species distributions, movements, and wetland habitats in the vicinity of Pedro Point.
• The substantial errors and omissions regarding existing environmental conditions, particularly occupied environmentally sensitive habitats (ESHA) of federally listed tidewater goby and California red-legged frog, and coastal seasonal and perennial wetlands connected to the mouth of San Pedro Creek, are apparently related to arbitrary conclusions that underestimate potential significant impacts that are neither identified nor mitigated.
• Programmatic mitigation measures in the GPU that claim to address endangered species and wetlands impacts are mere restatements of long-standing existing state and federal regulations and policies beyond City of Pacifica jurisdiction, and provide no additional or independent mitigation.
• The proposed GPU zoning for the Pedro Point Field is apparently inconsistent with Coastal Act policies that depend on accurate factual baseline information describing existing environmental conditions.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
3. Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment: Significant Errors and Omissions
3.1. Tidewater Goby. The DEIR fails to disclose the presence of a federally listed fish that inhabits San Pedro Creek, the northern tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). The DEIR impact assessment and GPU zoning proposals fail to account for potential significant indirect and cumulative impacts to the tidewater goby.
The northern tidewater goby is a small (< 6 cm total length), cryptic, annual fish that inhabits isolated lagoons, sloughs, and stream-mouth estuaries that are widely separated from each other. This federally listed species has experienced a reduction in the number of isolated estuarine sites it inhabits because of coastal development, droughts, and invasive non-native species (USFWS 2005).
Sutter (2018) used highly sensitive environmental DNA methods (eDNA) to monitor the presence or absence of an endangered tidewater goby species, the northern tidewater goby through its coastal range in California. He detected northern tidewater goby using eDNA methods at four sites where they have not previously been detected, including San Pedro Creek (Sutter and Kinziger 2019). San Pedro Creek showed a strong signal of tidewater goby presence.
No recent field detection survey records based on traditional methods (seining, trapping) are available for San Pedro Creek. San Pedro Creek had previously been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potential re-introduction sites in the tidewater goby recovery plan, based on presumed absence (USFWS 2005).
The DEIR existing conditions descriptions in biological resources and hydrology sections fail to account for the presence of this federally listed endangered species in San Pedro Creek. The DEIR assessments of indirect and cumulative impacts fail to account for potential significant impacts of new development near the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts of new development on Pedro Point may occur because of hydrologic linkage between Pedro Point Field and the mouth of San Pedro Creek, where a culvert drains the swale/ditch at the east end of the field into the small estuarine lagoon at the stream mouth.
The potential impacts of tidewater goby are not dependent on the distribution of federally listed critical habitat, which is a legal designation of a sub-set of sensitive habitats for the species made after considering economic factors. Figure 3.7-3, Sensitive and Critical habitat, does not represent any potential or likely habitat of tidewater goby in San Pedro Creek, especially near the estuarine mouth, the most likely location of resident populations. This figure is incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading regarding potential significant impacts of the GPU zoning proposals to tidewater goby.
The DEIR Hydrology section at 3.5-4 states that San Pedro Creek is a key coastal watershed because it contains federally listed anadromous steelhead trout. This description of existing hydrological conditions in context of federally listed aquatic species repeats and reinforces the significant omission of the other resident federally listed non-anadromous fish species, tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) that has been conclusively been determined to be present in the watershed by environmental DNA (eDNA) methods (Sutter and Kinsiger 2019).
Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
The GPU proposes zoning changes for the Pedro Point Field that support new development. The potential impacts of proposed zoning and land use changes to the tidewater goby population were not considered in the DEIR. New development runoff could transport sediment, pesticides, surfactants (detergents from automobile washing), spilled fuels, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), fertilizer runoff, and heavy metals, and point-discharge directly to the likely primary habitat of tidewater gobies at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Adverse impacts to water quality in the lowest (estuarine lagoon) reach of the creek could significantly adversely affect growth, survivorship, and reproduction of the population of this listed fish species. This potentially significant impact was not identified or assessed in the DEIR at all.
3.2. California red-legged frog. The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) inhabits the mouth of San Pedro Creek and neighboring wetlands and non-wetland foraging habitats. Since 2005, I have observed multiple adult California red-legged frogs basking on the banks of the roadside pool at the corner of San Pedro Avenue and the Pedro Point Field, and diving into the pool when disturbed. I first documented this locality and reported it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2005. This pool, which is perennial (standing water most of the year), is connected to the mouth of San Pedro Creek by a continuous wetland swale and channel, ending in culverts that discharge to the freshwater estuarine reach of San Pedro Creek. The wetland swale provides a continuous habitat movement corridor (dispersal, foraging) for adult California redlegged frogs. The pools also provide potential breeding habitat when they have standing water through at least early summer.
The main local (core) source population of the California red-legged frog is likely the restored freshwater marsh at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. In 2014, during construction of the Highway 1 bridge retrofit that required dewatering of the creek mouth and authorized capture and translocation of California red-legged frogs, I observed contract biologists capturing many dozens (total over 100) of adult California red-legged frogs from the path of excavator operations, and from wetland soil loaded in excavator buckets from marsh at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. This main population is likely to provide adult frog colonizers of intermittently available habitats along the wetland swale corridor bordering San Pedro Field.
None of these known occupied habitats is shown in Figure 3.7-3 Sensitive and Critical habitat.
The map omits all occupied existing California red-legged frog wetland habitats (marsh and willow wetland) at the mouth of San Pedro Creek, as well as the known occupied wetland swale at the east end of Pedro Point field. The extensive freshwater marsh here is not even mapped as wetland habitat in the DEIR. Individually and in combination, these are highly significant and misleading omissions about existing conditions for California red-legged frog habitat and populations.
Sensitive habitats of California red-legged frogs are not limited to federally listed, legally designated “critical habitat”. In a CEQA and Coastal Act (ESHA) context, all breeding and adult habitat, including terrestrial dispersal and foraging habitats (especially where “take” of the species may occur) must be considered “sensitive” habitat. The description of existing conditions is not the same as the description of designated critical habitat, which is a federal listing (Federal Register) of lands with special legal status under the Endangered Species Act, not Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
factual existing conditions about habitat and species distributions relevant to impact assessment. The Figure 3.7-3 map is incorrect and misleading in respresenting actual sensitive species habitats, by omitting known occupied and suitable habitats that are not federally listed.
As a CEQA (State) document, this omission is particularly inappropriate for a state-listed wildlife species.
The habitat of California red-legged frogs is not limited to aquatic breeding habitat or perennial freshwater marsh, but includes nearby coastal terrestrial habitats that produce prey, regardless of habitat quality or cover. Nocturnal foraging of adult red-legged frogs occurs terrestrial, nonbreeding habitats in moist, coastal climates. Telemetry study of California red-legged frogs on the Central coast has shown that 66% of female and 25% of male frogs moved 150 m (median; up to 1400 m) to nonbreeding terrestrial areas for foraging, even when the breeding site retained water. (Fellers and Kleeman 2007). Research findings of Fellers and Kleeman (2007) and Bulger et al. (2003) indicate that terrestrial habitats of California red-legged frog migration corridors do not have to be high quality or “pristine” riparian or upland habitats (e.g., overland nocturnal foraging habitat of California red-legged frogs includes “degraded” closely grazed fields, plowed agricultural land, etc.).
The zoning proposals of the GPU fail to account for the California red-legged frog ESHA (Coastal Act) of the wetland swale and adjacent lowland grassland of Pedro Point Field. General, programmatic mitigation measures are inadequate, because they do not consider existing conditions of the species habitat and movements in the vicinity of San Pedro Creek and ecologically and hydrologically connected wetlands and adjacent lowlands.
3.3. Vegetation. The description of existing conditions for vegetation in the DEIR is inaccurate and misleading with regard to the distribution of northern coastal scrub, grasslands, and wetlands.
Figure 3.7-1 vegetation classification map represents the Pedro Point Field location color-code mapped as “northern coastal scrub”. In fact, none of the dominant or associated plant species enumerated as northern coastal scrub species indicators in the DEIR occur in the Pedro Point field, which is dominated by herbaceous (not scrub) lowland non-native grassland species, and a minority of seasonal wetland plants occurring in poorly drained flats. The vegetation map representing the distinct polygon over Pedro Point field is incorrect, completely misrepresents existing conditions for vegetation.
The vegetation map of Figure 3.7-1 also omits the distinct perennial wetland swale (drainage trough containing native and nonnative marsh vegetation) at the east end of the field, which is significant as ESHA (environmentally sensitive habitat area) in itself, independent from its ESHA status as likely terrestrial foraging and migration habitat for federally listed California red-legged frogs.
The DEIR description of “wetlands” in Pacifica (3.7-10) does not accurately reflect any of the dominant wetland vegetation types that exist at the mouth of San Pedro Creek freshwater marshes and riparian areas, or the Pedro Point Field, though the depressional freshwater wetlands at the north end of Pacifica State Beach are described. The extensive perennial Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
freshwater and estuarine-influenced restored marsh at the mouth of San Pedro Creek, which is known to support a large population of federally listed California red-legged frogs and many wetland wildlife species (including garter snakes, subspecies undetermined; Great blue herons, Great Egrets, breeding red-winged blackbirds, dabbling ducks, etc.) is not represented in the DEIR as a wetland, let alone an important one. The description of wetland existing conditions here is significantly erroneous and misleading.
The DEIR also fails to represent the wetland riparian corridor (willow scrub to sedge marsh and smartweed marsh) along the drainage swale connecting the culvert at San Pedro Creek to the east end of the Pedro Point Field along the eucalyptus grove, an area where the DEIR does propose a change in land use and zoning. Inexplicably, as the DEIR arbitrarily omits the important freshwater wetland complex of San Pedro Creek mouth and connected, adjacent lowlands, it emphasizes freshwater wetlands at the north end of Pacifica State Beach, where there is no proposed zoning change to analyze. This arbitrary inversion of DEIR focus, coupled with significant omissions of existing important wetlands of the San Pedro creek mouth complex, is profoundly misleading, and makes meaningful public comment impossible.
The DEIR treats erroneously classifies all grassland vegetation in Pacifica as “annual grasslands”, and describes “annual grassland” composition only in terms of dominant non-native herbaceous species of hillslope (foothill) grasslands, regardless of ecologically significant components of native perennial or annual plant species, or lowland (valley, alluvial) topography, soils, hydrology and drainage. Pacifica grasslands in fact include coastal prairie with subdominant to dominant (seasonally variable) native perennial and annual herbaceous vegetation, such as that of Rockaway Head and Pedro Point headlands.
At Pedro Point Field, the dominant vegetation is lowland valley grassland with significant local patches of native and non-native seasonal wetland vegetation. Pedro Point Field is seasonally saturated and flooded (intermittently during droughts), and has supported persistent inconspicuous (small and identifiable only in moist spring conditions) remnant populations of native wetland species including Triglochin scilloides (Lilaea scilloides; flowering-quillwort), Juncus bufonius complex (variety undetermined; toad rush), and (rarely) Cicendia quadrangularis (Oregon timwort) despite dominance in most seasons by introduced ryegrass (Festuca perenne, syn. Lolium perenne) and Mediterranean non-native annual grasses. The omission of the lowland, alluvial seasonal wetland character of the poorly drained valley grassland flats in the field, combined with their map misrepresentation as coastal scrub, and the general identification of all grasslands in Pacifica as non-native annual hillslope grasslands, is inaccurate and misleading as a description of existing conditions with potential significant impacts at stake for proposed zoning changes.
Other figures in the DEIR exacerbate the ecological misrepresentation of existing conditions for vegetation and habitats at the Pedro Point Field. Figure 2.1-2: General Plan Land Use represents “paper” non-existent streets through the Pedro Point Field lowland grassland, misrepresenting “existing conditions” as more developed with road infrastructure than actual existing conditions, and an expression of the novel zoning designation, “Coastal Residential Mixed Use”. Figure 3.6- 3: Slope Failure and Coastal Erosion shows the field separated from the ocean directly behind a Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
shoreline marked “critical coastal erosion”, and “Severe Beach & Cliff Erosion” (potential tsunami, coastal flooding and erosion hazard). See 3.6-17, “ bluffs…projected to have eroded by 23-24 m by 2050” . Figure 3.6-1: Seismic Hazard Zones shows the whole field as “Liquefaction zone”, in contrast with adjacent residential slopes, reflecting the siting of the field on deep alluvium of historic marsh and swamp. Figure 3.5-1 Hydrology and flood zones, shows the entire field mapped as “tsunami flood evacuation zone”. The context for existing conditions and future potential land uses of the field and its existing habitats should be made clear, combined with the indirect effects of accelerated sea level rise on flooding and groundwater elevations within the time-horizon of the GPU, in context of proposed zoning changes.
Groundwater elevations rise with rising sea levels, and coastal flooding risks during extreme rainfall events must increase as the base level of drainage (at the culvert connection to San Pedro Creek, relative to storm wave runup elevation) increases. This is pointedly relevant to the assessment of cumulative impacts to seasonal and perennial wetland habitats of Pedro Point Field and zoning changes, but it is not analyzed or disclosed at all in the DEIR. As flooding and groundwater levels increase with sea level rise, ESHA wetland habitats are likely to expand naturally, or set up conflicts with new development requiring increased flood protection, surface drainage, and sub-drainage (groundwater pumping that dewaters wetlands) in ESHA.
The DEIR does not analyze this impact and policy conflict in terms of Coastal Act Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA); adjacent developments, which states:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
4. Programmatic mitigation is vague and ineffective for wetlands, ESHA and sea level rise.
Programmatic mitigation measures related to ESHA, wetlands, and special-status species are vague and redundant re-descriptions of existing state and Federal regulations or policies that provide no meaningful additional mitigation to potential significant impacts of proposed GPU actions, including location-specific zoning proposals for Pedro Point. For example, CO-1-4, “wetland preservation” establishes a meaningless and incomplete prohibition that establishes an exception that swallows the rule, allowing any wetland development that is permitted by the Corps of Engineers (Clean Water Act Section 404) and Coastal Commission (Coastal Act). The Corps has no history of permit denial in Pacifica or San Mateo County, and the Coastal Commission has (a) limited geographic jurisdiction in Pacifica seaward of the first ridge, and (b) a history of “emergency” authorizations for coastal erosion that bypasses policies, including ESHA.
The DEIR fails to explain any evidence or analysis demonstrating how this policy could possibly provide any substantive mitigation or protection to Pacifica wetlands in conflict with development. Similarly, impermissibly vague policy CO-I-7, “Maintain Functional Capacity of Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Wetlands, Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity” provides no substantive criteria to make it enforceable.
Similarly, policy SA-G-5,”Sea Level Rise and Best Available Science. Planning and development reviews shall use, as applicable, the best available science about projected sea level rise and other climate change-related environmental changes when addressing coastal erosion, bluff failure, flooding, and other coastal hazards” is a vague exhortation with no substantive procedures or criteria that apply to any location-specific proposed zoning changes, such as CRMU for Pedro Point Field. In fact, the DEIR does not even refer to sea level rise and related indirect hydrologic changes (flooding and groundwater elevations), or apply this vague policy, in considering zoning for Pedro Point Field.
LITERATURE CITED
Bulger, J.B., N. J. Scott Jr., And R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California Red-legged Frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85-95
Fellers, G. and P. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use: implications for conservation. Journal of Herpetology 41((2): 276-286, Sutter, M. 2018. Rangewide tidewater goby occupancy survey using Environmental DNA.
Master’s thesis, Humboldt State University.
Sutter, M. & A.P. Kinziger. 2019. Rangewide tidewater goby occupancy survey using environmental DNA. Conserv. Genet. (2019) 20:597-613 DOI 10.1007/s10592-019-01161-9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
ATTACHMENT
July 2014 comments on Pacifica General Plan Update Project, SCH No. No. #2012022046
Lee Diaz July 7, 2014
Associate Planner
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Pacifica General Plan Update Project – SCH No. No. #2012022046
Dear Mr. Diaz,
The comments below regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifica General Plan Update Project (DEIR) are submitted on behalf of the Pedro Point Community Association, but represent my independent, best professional judgment.
I have reviewed the DEIR sections relevant to assessment of biological resources, land use policies, and selected relevant portions covering hydrology and geology for CEQA compliance and for LCP amendment compliance with the Coastal Act. I have also conducted site visits of the Pedro Point field (also “undeveloped San Pedro Ave site” and described as “vacant” in the DEIR, General Plan and Local Coastal Plan documents) in all seasons since 2000.
My qualifications to provide expert comments are based on nearly 35 years of professional work in coastal wetland and terrestrial ecology, with over 20 years in San Francisco Estuary wetlands, including long-term direct knowledge of the estuarine wetlands, special-status species, and diked baylands in the project area. A statement of my qualifications is attached hereto as Attachment A.
My comments focus on the potentially adverse environmental impacts of proposed changes in the land use designation of the Pedro Point neighborhood.
Summary of Comments
1. Environmental Baseline: The DEIR provides contradictory information about the vegetation of the Pedro Point field, asserting that it supports “northern coastal scrub”, an upland vegetation Peter R. Baye Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
type absent in the grassy field, and that it supports wetlands. The field supports seasonal wetlands. The DEIR fails to disclose the importance of these wetlands in terms of the environmental setting of San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands in the Coastal Zone (the field is the last remaining historical floodplain of the lower San Pedro Creek Valley that has not been developed in the Coastal Zone) and the local distribution of ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas) supporting California red-legged frogs.
2. Biological Impacts to Wetlands and Special-status Species: The DEIR fails to analyze any biological impacts caused by conversion of the existing Pedro Point field to a land use designation of “Coastal Residential Mixed Use development”. The DEIR fails to programmatically assess impacts at a neighborhood-specific level as it did in the 1980 General Plan, and it fails to consider general impacts of residential development on extensive seasonal wetlands and ESHA in and around the field. The proposed land use change for the field is likely to cause significant impacts to wetlands, wildlife, and special-status species for which no feasible mitigation has been identified, and for which no feasible mitigation probably exists.
3. Land Use Impacts. The DEIR fails to analyze land use impacts caused by changing the land use of the field from a general “Commercial” use (1980 General Plan) to a more specific and different “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” designation. This change for the field’s designated land use causes significant impacts (conflicts with) to the City’s own land use policies and numerous Coastal Commission land use policies that cannot be mitigated, and are not mitigated by the vague, programmatic mitigation measures cited in the DEIR.
4. Conclusion. The DEIR fails to disclose important biological resources, and their distribution and relationship to other biological resources and communities in the environmental setting of lower San Pedro Creek. This precludes meaningful public comment and DEIR analysis of significant impacts to biological resources and land use policies that are likely to occur. The DEIR should be recirculated to correct the flawed environmental baseline and defective impact analysis, and should identify reasonable alternatives that either lessen significant impacts, or are otherwise environmentally preferable.
1. Environmental Baseline
The DEIR presents inconsistent and erroneous biological baseline description of the existing conditions of the Pedro Point field and its vicinity. The errors, omissions, and contradictory environmental baseline description results in erroneous conclusions that the project (General Plan) will have no significant biological impacts. Neighborhood-specific assessments of proposed General Plan land use changes are lacking for Pedro Point, its field, and for the DEIR in general.
Assessment of biological and land use impacts to the Pedro Point neighborhood requires reference to existing physical and biological environmental conditions (2014; approximately the time of the EIR’s notice of preparation), and the existing land use designations from the 1980 General Plan. The existing biological conditions of the Pedro Point field – the last undeveloped lowland open space within the historical floodplain of San Pedro Creek – is inaccurately and inconsistently represented in the DEIR’s figures and text. These errors result in underestimation of significant biological impacts, as discussed below.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 10
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
1.1 Mapped DEIR Wetlands, Vegetation and Habitats – physical and biological baseline The DEIR provides contradictory and confused (and confusing) information about the existing biological conditions of the Pedro Point field. Figure 3.7-1 (Vegetation; DEIR p. 3.7-3) maps most of the field in the color-code (pale olive green) corresponding with “Northern Coastal Scrub” (an upland vegetation type associated with coastal hillslopes and bluffs), and part of the field color-coded gray as “urban” land use but overlapping with the “wetlands” symbol. This is contradictory and erroneous environmental baseline information. There are in fact no stands of northern coastal scrub vegetation at all within or around the Pedro Point field. The shrubs on the railroad berm are ornamental non-native plantings. No part of the field is “urban” cover type, as misrepresented in the figure; no paved or developed areas with structures exist in the field. Figure
3.1-1 shows the “Existing land use” color-coded gray as “Vacant/Undeveloped”, which is also inconsistent with “urban” land use, but consistent with “wetlands”. The map also misrepresents mixed ornamental, non-native, and native coastal bluff scrub vegetation northwest of the field as “beach/intertidal” habitat. The two major color-coded map units for the Pedro Point field, “urban” and “northern coastal scrub” are incorrect.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 11
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Excerpted section of Figure 3.7-1 of the DEIR “Vegetation” map (above) showing Pedro Point field with paper streets between Dannman and San Pedro Ave. The setting within the Draft Local Coastal Plan (2014) as represented as “Undeveloped San Pedro Ave Site”, is shown in a portion of Figure 4.8 (left).
Only one map symbol (pattern) for the vacant/undeveloped Pedro Point field in Figure 3.7-1 is accurate: “wetlands” classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory at coarse scale, as shown also in DEIR figure 3.7-2. The Pedro Point field itself is dominated by non-native grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plants, including seasonal wetland and non-wetland vegetation. Both maps omit the distinct seasonal and perennial wetlands of the drainage swale at the east end of the field, which drain to San Pedro Creek through a series of culverts. The drainage swale wetlands, the wetland connectivity to San Pedro Creek mouth, and the extensive perennial wetlands (Freshwater Marsh) of San Pedro Creek are entirely missing from the vegetation map of Figure 3.7-1.
Other errors describing habitat and vegetation are evident in the DEIR’s descriptions of existing conditions in the coastal zone. For example, the DEIR confuses coastal strand (beaches and dunes) with coastal bluff scrub, and states that the plant sea-rocket (Cakile maritima) is a dominant species of “coastal bluff scrub”. Sea-rocket is a non-native species common on sand beaches and low foredunes (like those of Pacifica State Beach), but does not occur at all in coastal bluff scrub in Pacifica or elsewhere, let alone as a dominant species. The description of coastal bluff scrub combines species that simply do not occur together in natural or disturbed environments of Pacifica.
1.2. Wetland classification of the Pedro Point field and vicinity: existing conditions Based on my recent and past site visits, I know that the existing vegetation of the Pedro Point field consists of predominantly annual and perennial, herbaceous, non-native seasonal wetland and upland grassland vegetation. Seasonal wetland grassland occupies a mosaic of depressions, ditches, and swales. Mesic grassland (seasonally wet but lacking a prevalence of wetland indicator plants) occupies portions of the higher elevation zones of the site, primarily to the southwest corner. The wetland depressions are indicated by seasonally high density of toad rush (Juncus bufonius, FACW, facultative-wet indicator in arid west), co-occuring with European ryegrass (Festuca perenne; syn. Lolium perenne; FAC, facultative wetland indicator in arid west) and buck’s-horn plaintain (Plantago coronopus; FACW, facultative-wet indicator in arid west).
Some of the wettest depressions support populations of Lilaea scilloides (flowering quillwort).
Flowering quillwort is evident only in the wettest years when pools stay flooded for many weeks or months. Accurate wetland plant identification and measurement of the seasonal wetland patches at this site are possible only during winter to spring months. Desiccation, disturbance (trampling, mowing, discing) eliminates or degrades wetland vegetation and precludes accurate Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 12
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
identification in fall and summer. Similarly, accurate assessment of wetland hydrology is feasible only during the rainy season, during and within two weeks following major rainfall events.
The USFWS classification of Pedro Point Field wetlands shows wetlands distributed over approximately all of the site, as shown in DEIR Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2. Past and current National Wetland Inventory (“NWI”) maps consistently apply wetland classifications to approximately all of the field. Two current classifications of the field’s wetlands include the codes “PEMah” and “PUSCh”, both “palustrine” (freshwater emergent, non-tidal) seasonal, and consistent with the seasonally flooded hydrology associated with surrounding berms. The “U” (unconsolidated shore) probably is associated with intermittent unvegetated (disced, vegetation disturbed) conditions. The NWI wetland mapping of the field broad-brush treatment of prevailing past wetland distribution, but the precision of the NWI wetland type boundaries is not precise enough for the DEIR to represent as “existing conditions” in 2014 CEQA assessment. In my professional opinion, “wetlands” meeting the jurisdictional criteria for Coastal Commission (“Commission”) policies, and classification as “wetland” under the Cowardin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS) system, are in fact present and widely distributed over the Pedro Point field today, despite past unauthorized ditching and drainage activities (see wetland history, below).
Despite DEIR’s inclusion of NWI mapped wetlands in some figures, the DEIR fails to apply the NWI wetland mapping and classification (as well any current field reconnaissance observations to update or verify them) to any meaningful biological assessment of potential wetland impacts of land use designation changes to the field, and assessment of alternatives. The DEIR fails to assess the extent and distribution of the field’s seasonal wetlands (meeting Cowardin/California Coastal Commission wetland criteria) in relation to land use changes proposed. The DEIR does not consider the accuracy or distribution of the (old) NWI wetland maps based on existing field conditions. Specifically, the DEIR does not analyze whether the field’s wetlands are localized or extensively distributed in the field, so it cannot analyze whether it is even feasible to designate a coastal residential mixed-use development without committing the City’s General Plan to significant wetland impacts, in conflict with its own land use policies and Coastal Act policies.
Further, because of the DEIR’s omissions about wetland impacts, comparison of alternatives will lack relevant information about feasible land use alternatives that may avoid or minimize wetland impacts, and which may be environmentally preferable. Examples of environmentally preferable alternatives consistent with City and Coastal Act policies include existing “Commercial” land use (with and without “Commercial-Recreation” zoning) compatible with low-intensity visitorserving commercial recreation/tourism-promoting uses; or “Conservation” - all of which are consistent with City policies for tourism destination, avoidance of natural hazards, wetland conservation, and consistency with recreational, scenic values that Coastal Act policies give priority over residential development.
1.3. Wetland jurisdiction and CEQA
The DEIR cites multiple state and federal wetland jurisdictions. With respect to assessment of biological impacts to wetlands, USFWS (NWI, Cowardin wetland classification), California Coastal Act, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife wetland policy definitions are Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 13
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
applicable because these are fundamentally based on habitat, hydrogeomorphic features, and ecological functions. In contrast the narrowest federal definition (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency; USACE/EPA) under the Clean Water Act is specifically limited to legal wetland definition for jurisdiction over authorization of discharges of earthen fill regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE/EPA wetland definition contains federal exemptions and policy disclaimers that are not relevant to biological impact assessment under CEQA, and it is a narrower and more exclusive definition that is likely to underestimate the extent of habitat-based or hydrogeomorphic definitions appropriate for impact assessment.
The California Coastal Act Section 30231 defines a wetland as:
…lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.
Similarly, the Cowardin (USFWS, NWI) wetland classification uses a general broad definition of wetlands:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
California Coastal Act jurisdictional wetlands criteria in the California Code of Regulations at 14 14 CCR Section 13577 establish a “one-parameter definition” that only requires evidence of a single wetland parameter to establish wetland conditions, in contrast with federal wetlands criteria under the Clean Water Act:
Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts…
The Commission’s one-parameter definition is similar to the USFWS wetlands criteria, which state that wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:
(1) at least periodically the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.
In contrast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency use a three parameter definition for delineating wetlands under Clean Water Act jurisdiction, which is relevant only in context of USACE permit authorization for discharges of fill in jurisdictional waters of the United States. The USACE definition is narrower than those of the Coastal Commission (relevant to LCP) and USFWS (relevant to wetland impact assessment under CEQA, not limited to fill discharges and subject to federal exemptions irrelevant to CEQA).
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 14
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
The City’s wetland policies (Land Use; DEIR p. 3.1-21) cite both USACE/EPA and Coastal Commission wetland definitions. CO-I-5, CO-I-6 cites both, and CO-I-8 cites State (CDFW/CCC) wetlands only. The narrower USACE/EPA definition is relevant only to those land use policy elements that specifically cite it in context of wetland fill permits. The USACE/EPA jurisdictional wetlands are not the proper standard for determining consistency of GPU consistency with Coastal Act wetlands policies, or wetland impacts under CEQA. This should be corrected in the EIR, or else the EIR will not provide accurate conclusions about Pedro Point field land use impacts regarding wetlands in context of CEQA or Coastal Act policies.
1.4. Special-status species and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA): California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) environmental baseline California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii; CRLF) occur in the freshwater marsh drainage swale bordering the Pedro Point Field along its eastern edge. I reported their presence to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered Species Program in 2005.
If the DEIR preparers had consulted properly with state and federal wildlife agencies, or local residents, about the local distribution of special-status or other wildlife species, this information would have been available to include in the DEIR. The DEIR, however, failed to disclose the local sub-population of CRLF in the drainage swale bordering the field, and its relationship with the population of the lower San Pedro Creek wetland complex.
I have observed adult red-legged frogs are most often observable basking along muddy or prostrate grass banks near the culverts draining San Pedro Avenue at the southeast corner of the field. The perennial moisture in this swale provides year-round hydration habitat for CRLF, as well as foraging and potential breeding habitat. CRLF breeding is indicated by intermittent local population increases in red-legged frogs here, most notably in 2010. Foraging activities of CRLF likely extend to adjacent non-wetland flats (rich in invertebrate prey) in the field during moist, foggy nighttime and early morning conditions. I am not aware of protocol nighttime surveys for California red-legged frog conducted either in the freshwater marsh swale adjacent to the field, or in the field itself. The vicinity of the freshwater marsh swale and field are a complex of foraging, basking, dispersal, and breeding wetland and upland habitat for California red-legged frogs. It thus also meets criteria for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) under California Coastal Commission regulations. The DEIR fails to include this information about CRLF at and in proximity to the field.
In addition, the DEIR fails to analyze the potential adverse, significant impacts to CRLF from the proposed land use changes. Land use designations that would foreseeably increase the intensity of land use, such as the proposed redesignation to allow residential development or other substantial increases in the built environment, may have significant direct and indirect impacts on CRLF. The proposed residential mixed-use development of the field would likely (a) substantially reduce available nocturnal foraging habitat for CRLF (food and prey base impacts to growth and survival; (b) increase contaminant loads in the drainage swale due to runoff from driveways, roads, and backyard sources of pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, and detergents (reproductive impacts); (c) increase peak flow velocities in the swale during major storm runoff events (juvenile mortality impacts).
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 15
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Not only has the DEIR not assessed such impacts, it has not identified feasible programmatic mitigation measures. Feasible mitigation for ESHA/California red-legged frog habitat and frog populations must include measures to (a) avoid and minimize “take” of individual frogs, (b) avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF habitat; and (c) provide adequate buffer zones to minimize adverse effects of incompatible adjacent land uses. The spatial structure of CRLF mitigation aligned with the freshwater marsh swale bordering the field may substantially constrain the feasibility of some incompatible land use designations, especially any that increase runoff, contaminants or pesticides, predator pressure on CRLF, or reduce the extent or quality of potential productive nighttime foraging habitat. The Bolsa Chica court decision [Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court 71 Cal. Ap.4th 493, 507] confirmed that the Coastal Act requires that ESHA be avoided and buffered from development impacts and that providing compensatory mitigation alone is insufficient as ESHA mitigation.
Intermittent breeding habitat of California red-legged frogs in freshwater marsh swale bordering the southeast corner of the field, near roadside culverts. An adult CRLF is shown at the concrete base of foundation culvert on August 20, 2006, after the field ditch connections were breached to the swale north of this pool. CRLF frequently bask in the western muddy or grassy banks of this pool in wet (non-drought) years.
1.5. Wetland context and cumulative impacts: environmental setting of Pedro Point The DEIR also omisrepresents the existing environmental setting and context of the wetlands of the Pedro Point field. The field’s wetlands are represented as completely isolated from any other significant wetlands or potential wetland-dependent endangered species habitats. See Figures 3.1- 1, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3, all of which fail to show the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands and their riparian wetland habitat, vegetation and hydrological connections with Pedro Point field and its wetlands. The San Pedro Creek stream mouth wetlands, however, are shown as red-legged frog habitat (marsh, creek, and riparian vegetation) in Figure 3.7-1, but without their wetland connections to the Pedro Point field and drainage swale wetlands. The omission of the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands in the Coastal Zone is either arbitrarily selective or at least inconsistent in Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 16
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
the DEIR: the riparian corridor and wetlands upstream of Highway 1, outside the coastal zone, are represented in Figure 3.7-1 and 3.7-4, but not in Figure 3.7-2.
This error of selective omission of wetlands in the project vicinity appears to be due to the DEIR’s failure to critically interpret and update National Wetlands Inventory map with even cursory examination of readily available current aerial or satellite imagery of San Pedro Creek mouth (e.g., Google Earth), or field reconnaissance surveys of the conspicuous restored freshwater marsh there. Figure 3.7-2, “National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands”, completely fails to represent the perennial freshwater emergent marsh and freshwater streams of San Pedro Creek mouth as they existed at the time of the DEIR’s notice of preparation, and as they have existed for about a decade. The DEIR cannot uncritically transfer NWI map data without checking for errors of omission due to outdated data layers. The NWI wetland classification (Cowardin USFWS classification system) provides sufficient clear wetland criteria to identify the obvious wetlands (cattail and tule marsh vegetation 6 to over 10 feet tall with standing water) at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. This marsh is clearly known to the City of Pacifica, which was the local partner in the project that restored it.
The adjacent San Pedro Creek mouth freshwater marsh is very significant as an environmental setting of the seasonal wetlands of the Pedro Point field. Ecological connectivity (wildlife corridors for wetland-dependent wildlife) exists between the creek mouth marsh and the field, provided by the drainage swale wetlands (not currently channelized; infilled with sediment and wetland vegetation) consisting of willow swamp (riparian scrub) and freshwater marsh dominated by broadleaf wetland forbs and grasses.
The environmental setting and potential Project and cumulative impacts to wetlands at the Pedro Point field are related to their hydrogeomorphic setting and historical origins and development.
The pre-agricultural “natural” condition of the field was freshwater nontidal marsh within the floodplain of San Pedro Creek (San Pedro Valley lowlands). The modern field was part of complex of freshwater marsh and swamp (alder-willow) surrounding Lake Mathilda (the freshwater lagoon outlet of San Pedro Creek prior to channelization), behind the barrier beach (San Pedro Beach). The rich organic fine-grained alluvial soils were converted to agricultural cropland (artichoke fields) by draining and ditching in the late 19th century. The field apparently persisted with either low-intensity agricultural use (grazing, haying) into the 1950s or early 1960s when Linda Mar was extensively developed. Some fill was placed on at least portions of the field in recent decades, but differential subsidence in the flat to very gently sloping (<2%) field maintained depressional microtopography (shallow swales, pools) to the present day.
I have observed the Pedro Point field since the year 2000 in all seasons. Wet (saturated to seasonally flooded) depressions in the field persisted for weeks to months, supporting typical seasonal wetlands grasslands dominated by ryegrss, toad rush, buck’s-horn plaintain in winterspring months. In addition, a regionally rare vernal pool/pond plant, the flowering quillwort (Lilaea scilloides) occurred in local abundance in several pools. In January, 2006, the current landowner and assistants manually excavated diagonal ditches and side-cast fill (ditch spoils) across the field, apparently with the intent of draining the field. In August 2006, mechanical equipment breached wide gaps in the berm between the field and the adjacent drainage swale Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 17
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
marsh. These drainage activities were apparently completed without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit or authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Despite the 2006 drainage ditching and subsequent maintenance and repeated discing of the field, depressional wetlands have persisted and re-emerged (due in part to differential settlement and choking of ditches) in the field. The ditching appears to have reduced the duration and extent of wetland hydrology, but significant wetland areas remain widely distributed across most of the field, including the original seasonal wetland plant community.
Excerpt of U.S. Coast Survey map of San Francisco Peninsula, 1869, based on 1850s topography: San Pedro Creek Valley and beach, now Linda Mar. Approximate location of San Pedro Field (Calson/former Archdiocese property) in red shows the relationship of the modern field wetlands to the historical valley floodplain wetland complex. Parallel horizontal hatched lines indicate freshwater marsh. Stippled shoreline area indicates sandy beach, dune, washover. Fine horizontal hatching is open freshwater (Lake Mathilda; historical Pedro Creek Lagoon, drained for agriculture 19th century). Irregular circles/dots within marsh = wooded freshwater swamp (alder, willow). No scale.
Extensive seasonal
flooding of the Pedro
Point Field during the
transition between the
historical agricultural
era (derelict or lowintensity agricultural
use) and suburban
development of Linda
Mar in San Pedro
Valley lowlands
(background), likely
1950s-early 1960s.
View to E/SE. The
eucalyptus and
Approximate
location modern
San Pedro Field flats
“Lake Mathilda”
(San Pedro Creek Lagoon)
SAN PEDRO
VALLEY
FRESHWATER
MARSH
FRESHWATER MARSH
(horizontal hatching)
FRESHWATER SWAMP
San Pedro Beach
(beach & low
dune
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 18
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Monterey cypress trees at the fenceline correspond the mature trees present today along the drainage swale at the east end of the field. The extensive seasonal pond likely represents flooding patterns prior to partial filling of the wetlands.
Flooding patterns delineate undrained depressions of shallow open water in a matrix of saturated soils in San Pedro Field following heavy rainfall. December 26, 2005. View to N.
Shorebirds (likely sanderlings) forage in the seasonally saturated and flooded field during high tide and storm wave conditions that restrict foraging habitat availability on the adjacent San Pedro (Pacifica State) Beach. December 27, 2005, prior to unauthorized ditching of the field. Red-necked phalaropes also forage in the saturated to flooded field during winter storms.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 19
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
January 19, 2006. Manual excavation of drainage ditches in flooded field at the east end of the field. Grass grows above water surface. Water in bare spots can be seen as reflected sunlight on the field; emergent unvegetated mud is dark brown.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 20
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
During discing of the field in summer, the berm along the east end of the field was mechanically breached at multiple locations to connect new drainage ditches (excavated in seasonal wetlands of the field) to the large drainage swale occupied by California red-legged frogs, draining to San Pedro Creek through culverts at the northwest end. August 20, 2006.
Despite new unauthorized ditching and drainage connections of the field, ditches merely reduce the extent and duration of soil saturation and flooding; they do not eliminate wetland conditions in the winter following ditching. December 27, 2006
Today, wildlife in the seasonal wetlands of the Pedro Point field includes shorebirds, meadowlarks, black-tail deer, tree frogs, small mammals, and raptors, all of which move between the field wetlands, the adjacent drainage swale wetlands, uplands, and the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Sanderlings and red-necked phalaropes occur intermittently in the flooded to saturated fields, particularly during high tides and storm wave conditions that flood the beach.. In summer, meadowlarks inhabit the field some years, particularly when grass and forb vegetation cover is thick. Small mammals, including mice, pocket gophers, and voles, occur frequently in the field (indicated by burrows, runs) and provide a prey base for raptors, including great horned owls (roosting in eucalyptus trees near the field), and red-tail hawks. Deer browse in the field at night, and at times in the morning as well. The marsh swale bordering the east end of the field has supported a breeding population of tree frogs (Pseudacris sierra) and a population of federally listed threatened California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) most years at least since 2000 (see special-status species, below). The DEIR fails to disclose intermittent red-legged frog populations in the vicinity (and sometimes directly bordering) the field, and the existence of probably nocturnal foraging habitat (for this species spring-fall non-breeding adults) within in the field itself. The DEIR failed to identify these significant wildlife movement and habitat connections between the field and habitats in its wetland setting. The DEIR fails to analyze potentially significant impacts to red-legged frogs using the field that would be affected by proposed conversion to coastal residential mixed use development.
The DEIR’s failure to correctly characterize the wetland environmental setting (the wetland complex comprising the San Pedro Creek mouth wetlands, the drainage swale wetlands, and the historical and existing condition of the Pedro Point field wetlands) prevents the DEIR from accurately analyzing potentially significant cumulative impacts caused by wetland habitat loss, degradation or fragmentation in the lower San Pedro Creek corridor, and the Pedro Point neighborhood.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 21
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Given the outstanding biological significance of the field as the only open, level (flatland) space left in the Pedro Point neighborhood, and despite years of being the focus of substantial public concern and comment in scoping and other public meetings, the DEIR’s failure to provide even minimally accurate, consistent baseline environmental description of the field is a very serious defect in the DEIR. It precludes accurate assessment of potentially significant impacts that are not mitigated at the policy or site-specific level.
1.6. Biological Resource Impact Assessment and Mitigation in the DEIR Despite identifying wetlands occurring potentially throughout the field, the DEIR fails to assess potential adverse, significant impacts to Coastal Act wetlands from the proposed land use designation changes at the Pedro Point Field. The DEIR provides no explanation why converting existing wetlands of the Pedro Point field to residential mixed use development would have no significant biological or land use policy impacts. The DEIR omits any specific reference at all to the Pedro Point field wetlands in discussion of biological impacts.
Further, the DEIR’s cumulative impact analysis must consider that the extent of Coastal Act wetlands in the field was modified by ditching and drainage activities conducted by the landowner and assistants on January 19, 2006, during conditions of saturation and widespread flooding of the field. As far as I am aware, ditching and draining activities of these wetlands occurred without issuance of a Coastal Development Permit or analysis of environmental impacts. The apparently unauthorized drainage of the field probably results in underestimation of the actual extent of proper Coastal Commission jurisdictional wetlands in the field. See wetland history, below. The errors in the DEIR’s environmental baseline, described above, contribute to basic errors in assessment of significant biological impacts and mitigation to wetlands and special-status species.
The DEIR identifies only two potential general city-wide biological impacts, without areaspecific reference to Pedro Point neighborhood and the specific land use changes proposed in the revised General Plan. Both of these impacts are incorrectly assessed with respect to Pedro Point biological resources, and their proposed programmatic (policy-level) mitigation is infeasible applied to Pedro Point field.
Figure 3.1-2 of the DEIR (p. 3.1-9; “Existing General Plan Land Use”) shows the majority of the Pedro Point field mapped in red (“Commercial”), and apparently one small lot in the northwest corner of the field mapped in light yellow-orange (“low density residential”). The biological impacts of this proposed land use change must be assessed at a programmatic level, commensurate with the level of detail of land use designation change in the programmatic EIR at neighborhood-scale. The DEIR, however, fails to assess biological impacts at this geographic scale even at a programmatic level. It merely assesses biological impacts at a sweeping, vague, city-wide, policy level, omitting neighborhood-level biological impacts of specific land use changes proposed (DEIR p. 3.7-48 Impact 3.7-1; p. 3.7-57, Impact 3.7-3). The DEIR also provides only vague, policy-level “mitigation” (pseudo-mitigation; purely speculative policy without reference to physical or biological conditions) for land use change impacts in the aggregate, city-wide:
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 22
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Impact 3.7-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant)
Impact 3.7-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Less than Significant) The DEIR provides no substantial evidence and no arguments for either impact findings or their level of significance. It is inconsistent with proposed land use changes (coastal residiential mixeduse development) for the field, and the presence of extensive seasonal wetlands and adjacent special-status species populations.
Although the DEIR does not need to assess impacts of land use change at a project-specific level (i.e., it cannot speculate about the design of specific project proposals or their impacts in sitespecific detail), it must address biological impacts that are reasonably foreseeable for the type of land uses proposed in the environmental setting under existing conditions. There is only one major land use change proposed in Pedro Point, and the DEIR provides no biological impact or mitigation discussion about it at all – not even the cursory programmatic wetland discussion presented in the Draft Land Use plan itself (LUI-30, p. 4-36, Pacifica Draft Land Use Plan, March 2014). The boilerplate, standard wetland permit discussion in the DEIR at p. 3.7-42 has no substantial bearing on impact or mitigation analysis for wetlands at Pedro Point.
Potentially significant biological impacts of proposed residential land use (development) at the Pedro Point Field and adjacent habitats are enumerated below. These are based on a more adequate characterization of the Pedro Point field wetlands, their relationship to San Pedro Creek wetlands, and their wildlife and hydrological attributes described above. None of these potentially significant biological impacts were analyzed in the DEIR.
Coastal Zone Wetland impacts
o Direct filling (loss) of the last coastal zone seasonal wetlands in Pedro Point watershed due to residential development. Lack of available off-site compensatory mitigation area within the coastal zone of the San Pedro Creek watershed (no feasible compensatory mitigation).
o Degradation of remaining coastal zone wetlands (wetland swale east of field) the San Pedro Creek watershed due to hydrological changes; increased impermeable surfaced area, decreased groundwater infiltration, increased storm runoff from drained residential lots within basin (historic floodplain). o Degradation of remaining wetlands (wetland swale east of field) due to increased contaminant loading from adjacent residential development: pesticides (residential pesticide use and pesticide loading from runoff and drainage), increased petroleum hydrocarbon contaminant loads from street and driveway Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 23
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
runoff; increased surfactant runoff to the drainage swale from residential car washing.
Wildlife and Special-status species impacts
o Loss of storm high tide refuge habitat for shorebirds o Loss of meadowlark foraging habitat
o Loss of nocturnal deer browsing habitat
o Loss of raptor foraging habitat (Great Horned Owl, red-tail hawk, kestrel) o Loss of terrestrial foraging habitat for California red-legged frogs o Loss of flood refuge habitat for California red-legged frogs during peak flood events of San Pedro Creek.
2.0 Land Use Impacts – Coastal Zone
The DEIR proposes to change the land use designation of the Pedro Point field from “Commercial” (Pacifica General Plan, pp. 86 and 90; DEIR Figure 3.1-2) to “Coastal Residential Mixed Use“ (CRMU; DEIR Figure 2.2-1). The DEIR inaccurately states that the new proposed CRMU designation corresponds with an existing “Mixed Use” land use category (Table 3.1-3), but no such independent or category or subcategory of “mixed use” exists in the 1980 General Plan; “mixed use” is simply described as a contingent allowable use of “commercial” land use in the original General Plan (1980 General Plan p. 32-33). The project description is inconsistent, incorrect, and confusing in terms of existing and proposed land uses.
The 2014 Draft General Plan Land Use element states the following with regard to the CRMU designation on p. 4-24: “The Plan retains flexibility for any future development on the vacant site west of the shopping center, which could have residential and small-scale commercial and visitororiented uses. Future development should include a small park and access to the berm and the beach beyond”. Table 4.1 of the Draft General Plan states that residential density with CRMU designation may range between 10-15 gross units per acre.
The DEIR, in contrast with the original 1980 General Plan, fails to assess even at a programmatic level the area-specific effects of proposed land use designations for the Pedro Point neighborhood, and specifically for the vacant Pedro Point field, in terms of land use impacts (cf. 1980 General Plan, pp. 84-89). The DEIR gives no reason why the level of specificity for impact assessment should be broader and more programmatic than the level of specificity for individual parcel land use designations like the Pedro Point field, or why the level of neighborhood-specific assessment should be significantly less than that of the 1980 General Plan’s treatment of Pedro Point, especially in the Coastal Zone.
The existing land use designation of the field, “commercial” is compatible with low-intensity, visitor-serving commercial recreational land uses that support coastal-dependent (beach and coastal scenic) recreation and associated economic uses, which matches the existing zoning (commercial-recreation) of the field. Low-intensity commercial land uses that do not involve Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 24
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
ditching, draining, filling, paving, or construction in the field (open-space and recreational uses, special events, coastal agriculture) are potentially compatible with conservation of wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and special-status species, and relevant Coastal Act policies. Proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use land uses, however, are likely to have significant impacts on Coastal Act land use policies (cited in Draft Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, March 2014, Appendix A) and Pacifica General Plan policies involving these elements, as discussed below.
The extensive distribution of Coastal Act jurisdictional wetlands in the Pedro Point field, and the presence of California red-legged frog habitat and population in the adjacent freshwater marsh swale, both indicate that land use designations for the field must be compatible with ESHA policies of the Coastal Commission. According to the Coastal Commission’s LCP Update Guide:
Sensitive Habitats and Natural Resources (April 3, 2007 update), the DEIR and LCP should clearly state that only “resource dependent” development, such as restoration or nature study, is allowed in ESHA, consistent with Coastal Act §30240. No ESHA assessment for the proposed changes in land use designation of the Pedro Point field has been provided in the DEIR, which is likely related to the DEIR’s failure to accurately identify wetlands and special-status species at the site. The DEIR must be revised to include this analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts even at a programmatic level.
The 1980 Pacifica General Plan provided a programmatic analysis of consistency between proposed (commercial) land use designation of the Pedro Point Field and specific Coastal Act policies (1980 General Plan p. 86), including assessment of unimproved coastal access through foot trails (p. 88). The DEIR for the General Plan update has provided no such analysis for proposed changed land use designation of the field or coastal access impacts. It merely included the Coastal Act policies as an appendix, without analysis of proposed land use designation change impacts. The changed land use designation has potential significant land use policy conflicts (impacts) with Coastal Act land use policies, each of which affects ESHA (wetlands and special-status wetland-dependent wildlife). Some examples are provided below.
The DEIR should fully assess at a programmatic level all such potential significant land use impacts, and compare the compatibility (conflict) of existing, proposed and alternative land use designations for the field in terms of Coastal Act policies.
Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where:
(1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources,
(2) adequate access exists nearby, or,
(3) agriculture would be adversely affected.
Pedro Point field has three well-established and persistent foot trails that lead from San Pedro Avenue (the nearest public roadway to the shoreline) to a private beach with long-established open public access. The foot trails are visible in aerial photographs dating back to at least 1993 (Google Earth images) and re-emerge after being temporarily erased by discing, ditching, or Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 25
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
mowing. The foot trails are formed by trampling patterns established between physical points of access from the roadway to a stairway from the beach to the historic railroad berm, and to a public path to the beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Foot trails are frequently used by beach visitors and surfers seeking minimal travel distances to the beach. The foot trails evidently established long before the current ownership of the property. The foot trails are the most efficient short cuts from San Pedro Avenue to the public shore; alternative routes along public roads would nearly double foot trail distance from the public roads to the shore from established access points.
Pedro Point field in relation to public and private ocean shores, and freshwater marsh and stream habitat of San Pedro Creek mouth. 2013 Google Earth image.
Pedro
Pt Field
Private beach
with public
shore access
Pacifica
State
Beach
Freshwater
marsh
San Pedro
Creek mouth
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 26
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Foot trail network (2013) of Pedro Point Field, showing connections to levee trail access to private shore with long-established public access. Freshwater wetland drainage swale connecting to San Pedro Creek mouth is shown in dashed blue line. 2013 Google Earth image.
Pedro
Pt Field
San Pedro
Ave
Foot trail (trampled) Foot
trail
(tram
pled)
Foot
trail
(tram
pled)
PRIVATE BEACH
PUBLIC ACCESS
HISTORIC RAILROAD
BERM
Foot
trail
(tram
pled)
PEDRO POINT
FIELD
stairs
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 27
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Detail of Pedro Point field foot trail connection to the public access walkway to privately owned beach (with public access) across the historic railroad berm. 2013 Google Earth image.
Proposed coastal residential mixed-use development may potentially eliminate or significantly impair existing long-established public access from San Pedro Avenue to the public shore. This could be mitigated by requirements to provide public access easements along existing trails or equivalent efficient alignments (similar travel distance, slopes, road access points), but the DEIR proposed no mitigation or policy that would ensure such mitigation. The impact and mitigation for this Coastal Act policy were not assessed in the DEIR. There are no military needs, fragile coastal resources, or existing agriculture to provide exemptions for this policy.
Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and Development Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.
The Pedro Point field is separated from the ocean only by the railroad berm, and in its original condition (backbarrier floodplain marsh) it was “oceanfront”, with line of sight to the ocean over the low barrier beach. According to Pedro Point long-term residents, the field has been used for recreation for years prior to and during the current land ownership. Recent recreational uses include children’s games, domestic animal feeding and observation (former llama and emu enclosure along the toe of the railroad berm), ball sports, playground activities extending from the adjacent Pedro Point firehouse playground, and dog walking. The field is suitable for these established recreational uses, and is suitable for other recreational uses as well.
Proposed Coastal Mixed Use Residential land use changes could eliminate, reduce, or substantially interfere with long-established recreational uses of the oceanfront land. This impact is not assessed in the DEIR. The feasibility of mitigation for this impact is not assessed, and no mitigation is proposed. Recreational uses that depend on extensive area or open scenic views may not be feasible to mitigate with small parks enclosed by development.
Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
The proposed change in land use from an open field (compatible with public access, coastal views, and recreation) to a mixed-use private residential development would conflict with this coastal act policy. This would be a significant impact that, by definition, could not be mitigated.
General industrial or commercial development of the field would also conflict with this policy.
Commercial development by agriculture including public access and visitor-serving commerce Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 28
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
(such as a coastal berry farm, pumpkin farm with visitor-serving amenities), in contrast, would not conflict with this policy. No mitigation is feasible for this conflict, by definition of “priority” of land uses cited in the policy.
Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA); adjacent developments (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
The field contains extensive seasonal wetlands (winter-saturated and temporarily flooded depressional wetlands and drainage swales, ditches). The perennial wetlands of the drainage swale at the east end of the field supports California red-legged frog habitat and is typically occupied by a population (see comments in this letter, above). The seasonal wetlands and the zone bordering the frog habitat of the swale meet the definition of ESHA. Residential and mixed use commercial development would likely eliminate, significantly reduce, or degrade existing wetlands and ESHA on the site. Since the field is the last undeveloped lowland floodplain of San Pedro Creek within the Coastal Zone that is available for wetland restoration and enhancement, it is infeasible to mitigate impacts to these wetlands off-site; compensatory mitigation is not available for the red-legged frog populations in lower San Pedro Creek in the coastal zone. The DEIR failed to assess impacts to this Coastal Act policy or propose any feasible mitigation for it.
The only feasible mitigation for this policy impact would be avoidance of impacts by not applying the residential mixed use land use designation.
Section 30242. Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (l) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. (emphasis added)
The Pedro Point field was historically prime agricultural land, but was abandoned. Nonetheless, renewal of prime agricultural use of the field is potentially feasible (physically and economically) and could be integrated with visitor-serving recreational and economic development aligned with the new coastal trail to Devil’s Slide. The original prime agricultural soils are present beneath shallow fill. The site is suitable for coastal commercial visitor-oriented berry farm or produce farm and related recreational or visitor-serving uses (viz. Half Moon Bay to Davenport).
Renewed agricultural use combined with tourism, some recreational uses, or eco-tourism may be compatible with conservation of seasonal wetlands and special-status wildlife if properly designed. The DEIR failed to consider feasible alternatives compatible with this section.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 29
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Section 30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.
The Pedro Point field is former prime agricultural land (historic artichoke farm) on rich alluvial soils (drained marshland). The soils have been degraded by placement of fill, but may be remediated by either removal of fill or addition of soil amendments to restore agricultural productivity similar to farms on the marine terraces and valleys along the San Mateo Coast south of Pacifica. There are no other potential highly productive historic farmland soils left in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica. Residential development of the field would conflict with this policy that requires the protection of long-term soil productivity. This impact was not assessed or mitigated in the DEIR.
Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The Pedro Point field is the last undeveloped lowland (floodplain) in the Coastal Zone of San Pedro Creek’s watershed that retains the original overall floodplain topography and visual character of the historic farms that dominated the valley. All other valley lowlands have been developed in the Coastal Zone of Pacifica, including the Salada Valley (the historical Salada Valley farmland has been developed, drained and filled, with only the deepest lagoon bed remaining as a wetland). The visual character of the adjacent historic railroad berm is dependent on the contrast between the steep relief of the berm and the adjacent lowland flats of the field.
Residential development (with or without “pocket parks”) would not protect the scenic and visual qualities of the field and adjacent historic berm. Residential development of the field would fully fill the lowland open space visual character of Pedro Point. This would conflict with the policy.
Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. […]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 30
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
Most of the Pedro Point field lies approximately 15-17 feet in elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL), only about 3-5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek.
In addition, the alluvial soils (historical wetland) of the field have the same relative liquefaction (earthquake shaking) potential as diked bay muds and marshes in San Francisco Bay, like those that underlie filled San Francisco peninsula baylands. (Witter, Robert C., Keith L. Knudsen, Janet M. Sowers, Carl M. Wentworth, Richard D. Koehler, and Carolyn E. Randolph. 2006. Maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1; shown in Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014, Figure 5.1). This condition contrasts with relatively low risk of liquefaction affecting residential and commercial development in adjacent lands built over bedrock. Structural (residential or commercial) development of the field may cause significant conflicts (impacts) with this section. In contrast, this section would be potentially compatible with recreational or other low-intensity commercial development or agricultural redevelopment of the field. The DEIR failed to analyze alternative land use designations compatible with this section.
Similarly, placing additional residential development in the last undeveloped floodplain area within the coastal zone of San Pedro Valley – currently able to function as a flood detention and storage basin when San Pedro Creek is at extreme high flood stage during extreme high tides – would conflict with this land use policy (Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014 p. 5-19). The intensity, frequency, and significance of this land use policy conflict would likely increase as sea level rises, and as intense storm frequency increases with climate change. In addition, the field lies within a Tsunami evacuation area of the Coastal Zone (Draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use Plan 2014, Figure 5.3). Flooding, liquefaction, sea level rise impacts, increasing over time as indicated by the draft Pacifica Coastal Land Use plan (2014) demonstrate the conflict between this Coastal Act policy and the proposed land use change for Pedro Point field.
Section 30255 Priority of coastal-dependent developments Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate, coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.
Residential development itself is not fundamentally “coastal dependent”, even if the land use designation nomenclature is “Coastal Residential Mixed Use”. “Coastal” as a modifier does not denote any essential distinction in the nature of residential development, but merely describes its location in the coastal zone. Other types of commercial development based on recreational access to the shoreline or the distinctive coastal climate (e.g., surfer recreational events, coastal agritourism like berry farm stands with berry farming) would have priority over residential development at this location. Residential development would conflict with this policy. In addition, development within wetlands as defined in the Coastal Act (whether or not they meet federal wetland criteria for fill authorization under the Clean Water Act) would conflict with this policy.
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 31
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
City of Pacifica Land Use Policy Impacts
The DEIR’s proposed change in land use for the Pedro Point field also conflicts (and thus causes a significant land use policy impact) with the City’s own policy on Wetlands Conservation:
p. 3.1-22 CO-I-8 Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands. Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game must be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, or nature study, according to the California Coastal Act.
The “functional capacity” of the existing wetlands at the Pedro Point field and adjacent to them are dependent on their geographic setting and landscape position – their relationship to San Pedro Creek (off-channel flood velocity refuge; population buffer for California red-legged frogs; infiltration and groundwater recharge potential; flood detention and flood peak attenuation) and other hydrogeomorphic and ecological functions (red-legged frog nocturnal foraging habitat potential; shorebird storm refuge and roost sites). There are no other undeveloped historic floodplain locations within the lower San Pedro Creek valley, let alone the Coastal Zone, where loss or degradation of these functions could be compensated by wetland restoration Residential development of the field would likely have a significant impact on existing wetlands of the site and its vicinity, and without any feasible mitigation identified.
This City policy is also vague and unenforceable as mitigation for wetland impacts because: (a) it does not cite or define the scope or meaning of the jargon of wetland “functional capacity”; (b) it does not identify any geographic setting within Pacifica for ‘functional capacity” (on-site or offsite/within-watershed) and (c) it fails to cite or provide any meaningful criteria for what constitutes maintenance or enhancement of “functional capacity”. Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife does not delineate or identify coastal wetlands as a service to local governments. The Department and the Coastal Commission use approximately the same wetland indicator criteria for determination of wetlands, but the agencies themselves generally do not conduct wetland delineations. The policy is also misleading as proposed policy-level mitigation in the DEIR because potential wetland fill in context of proposed land use designation changes in the DEIR do not involve restoration, nature study, or public facilities. The DEIR identifies wetlands at the Pedro Point field exactly where it proposes private mixed use residential and commercial development as the new land use designation. This “alteration” does not meet the criteria cited in the policy, and does not involve “enhancement” of functional capacity if the wetlands must be filled or drained for residential or commercial development. The land use designation proposed basically conflicts with this policy, and appears to be an unmitigated significant impact, since no feasible mitigation is identified. Furthermore, the DEIR alleges that no mitigation is even required because it wrongly asserts that there is no impact.
3.0 Conclusions
The DEIR fails to provide adequate analysis of potential impacts and feasible mitigation measures for the proposed land use changes at the Pedro Point field, compared with (a) existing Peter R. Baye Ph.D. 32
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
conditions; (b) existing land use designations under the General Plan/LCP, and (c) alternatives that are environmentally superior and compatible with Coastal Act policies. Because the DEIR is fundamentally inadequate, after such revisions, the DEIR should be recirculated for further public review.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Peter Baye
Cc: Pedro Point Community Association
Law Offices of Brian Gaffney APC
Richard Grassetti
California Coastal Commission
From: Peter Loeb [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 7:06 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments on the Pacifica General Plan and DEIR [CAUTION: External Email]
To: [email protected]
From: Peter Loeb
Date: March 7, 2022
Re: Comments on the Pacifica General Plan and DEIR
1. There are 2 Pacifica General Plan DEIRs – Pacifica General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) released on Jan. 7, 2022, State Clearing House number 2020089010 and another DEIR released on Feb. 14, 2022 with a new State Clearing House number, 2012022046, but with the same publication date of Jan. 7. There are differences between the two documents. Which DEIR should we be commenting on? If we should be commenting on the DEIR released on Feb. 14, then the comment period should be restarted from that date. If we are commenting on the first DEIR, then my comment is that document is unusable as published and should be revised and recirculated.
2. Maps and data are either missing or out of date for fire hazards, landslides, flooding, earthquakes, sea level rise, and erosion. More recent data and maps need to be included in revised General Plan and DEIR documents.
3. Policies referenced in both the General Plan and DEIR are inconsistent or have different wording. There are many instances where the text in the DEIR does not match that of the samenumbered policy in the General Plan. These inconsistencies need to be corrected.
4. Data missing from the General Plan includes how much acreage is in each land use designation. The DEIR does not analyze the environmental impacts of total buildout. The General Plan and DEIR do not address full buildout, the RHNA housing numbers, and the effects of SB9 & SB10 and other state legislation that will affect development and full buildout numbers.
5. The Local Coastal Update Plan has not been certified by the California Coastal Commission.
The CCC will need to approve that part of the General Plan that is in CCC jurisdiction, including the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
6. Traffic data used in the DEIR analysis is from 2010, before the Devil’s Slide tunnel was built.
More recent traffic data is available. The General Plan and DEIR should use more recent data in analyzing traffic impacts of full buildout.
7. Add an overlay district for no new subdivisions in high hazard or high value habitat or climate resilience areas
8. Add an overlay district that encourages density for infill development, as for example in strip malls.
9. Finally, the names of three of the five Pacifica City Council members are spelled incorrectly and need to be corrected.
Conclusion: The General Plan and DEIR both need to be extensively revised to address changes in material facts and other issues raised in the public comments, then the General Plan and DEIR should be recirculated.
Peter Loeb
Pacifica, CA 94044
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
From: Mr. Paul Totah [ ]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 3:48 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments regarding the DEIR and General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
As a member of Tree City USA, I love the efforts Pacifica has made to protect and grow our urban forest. Pacifica's urban forest includes all trees, both public and private, within the city limits. The DEIR (and General Plan) have some aspects that reflect this commitment and others that need adjusting. Below you will find some comments, questions and requests.
1. The Guiding Principle CO-G-10 in the DEIR (and General Plan) instructs the City to “Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation”. This is an excellent guiding principle and reflects the intent of a Tree City USA. There are a couple of cases on pages 85 and 560 where other guiding principles are mislabeled CO-G-10. Can these be relabeled?
2. Regarding Figure 3.7-1 Vegetation in the DEIR (Figure 7-2 in the General Plan) part of the information comes from the Department of Forestry in 2005. Some of this information is either outdated or in error. For example, the North side of Vallemar is labeled as Eucalyptus, but it is primarily Monterey Cypress and Pine, with only a few Eucalyptus trees. Current online resources such as i-Tree can more accurately assess tree canopy. Would it be possible to update this map with more accurate information?
3. As stated above Pacifica’s urban forest includes all trees within the city limits. Unfortunately Figure 3.7-1 labels neighborhoods as “urban” with no indication of trees and other vegetation. Can the “urban" areas be relabeled as “neighborhood" with the presence of trees identified? Most cities with Tree City USA status regard trees as infrastructure, providing services such as controlling storm water and reducing air pollution. As climate change warms California more trees will be needed to cool cities. In addition, research shows that neighborhoods with trees have higher property values and greater health benefits. Having an accurate representation of all trees in Figure 3.7-1 will help Pacifica manage this important resource.
4. There is no Implementing Principle to correspond with the Guiding Principal CO-I-10. Most Tree City USA cities have Canopy Goals for the urban forest that guide the actions of staff and citizens. Tree City Pacifica is requesting that Pacifica establish a Canopy Goal. Could a Guiding Principle be added that states “Adopt an aspirational Canopy Goal to promote the protection and growth of the urban forest”?
5. The Heritage Tree Implementing Principle CO-1-41states “Protect trees designated by the City Council as having special value, according to the terms on the Heritage Tree Ordinance”. In the General Plan Heritage Trees are under principle CO-I-39 which has different wording. Can both of these principles be reworded to better reflect the purpose of the Heritage Tree Ordinance?
6. The Sharp Park Specific Plan 5-1-4 promotes the addition of curb bulb outs to plant street trees along Palmetto as well as east west connections. Research show trees promote commerce; thus, this would be a good addition to this plan. Is this in the DEIR? Thank you for all your hard work on the DEIR and General and Sharp Park Plans. We appreciate you addressing these concerns regarding our urban forest.
Yours,
Paul Totah ( )
--
Paul Totah
Freelance Writer
c:
e:
w:
t:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
From: Adam Mayle [ ]
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:26 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments to General Plan Public Review Draft
Attachments: General Plan Comment Letter.pdf; General Plan Comment Letter.docx [CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
Please find attached, in both Microsoft Word and PDF, my comments to the General Plan Public Review Draft.
Thanks,
Adam Mayle
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Dear Madam or Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Pacifica General Plan Update Draft (“Plan Draft”).
I. Plan Draft Background
According to the Plan Draft, the General Plan’s primary objectives are three-fold: “create economic development,” “preserve open space,” and “support sustainable practices.”1 Under California law,
general plans, such as the Pacifica General Plan, must be: comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-range.2
II. 45-day comment period is inadequate.
On January 7, 2022, the City of Pacifica released public review drafts of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), General Plan Update, and Sharp Park Specific Plan. The deadline for public comments was set for February 21, 2022.
This 45-day comment period is inadequate and unreasonable for documents that cumulatively run over 1,000 pages. Moreover, the documents themselves were poorly assembled, difficult to understand, and hard to navigate. As noted in a recent column in the Pacifica Tribune:
“Some of the documents lack page numbers. The table of contents are not live links online, so you have to guess, say, where Page 283 is on the massive document you just downloaded onto your suddenly overburdened laptop. The documents are laden with government speak, charts, illustrations and maps. The “executive summary,” meant to briefly explain what lies beyond, comes in at a weighty 147 pages.”3
Forty-five days is a nearly impossible deadline for an engaged and civic-minded Pacifica resident to absorb, evaluate and react to this volume of information. Moreover, this 45-day period is stricter than the comment period that other governmental entities provide to industry and advocacy groups – whose full-time job is to evaluate and react to proposals that are much less extensive than the Plan Draft.
Those comment periods may be 60, 90, or 120 days or longer.4 An unfortunate perception from this rushed and troubled comment process is that the City of Pacifica is actively attempting to hinder Pacifica residents from engaging in the General Plan update. It’s not a good look.
The City of Pacifica should extend the comment period immediately to allow Pacifica residents a reasonable opportunity to review the Plan Draft, the EIR, and the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
III. Develop one city center – in Sharp Park
1 Draft Plan, at p. 1-2. 2 Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65300 et seq. 3 https://www.pacificatribune.com/opinion/make-pacifica-planning-documents-comprehensible-and-give-us-timeto-digest/article_71712854-7e2f-11ec-b892-d748361501f1.html. 4 https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2020/fil20034.html.
According to the Plan Draft, “a unique, Vital Center for Pacifica” would provide a community gathering place and strengthen the City’s identity. “Currently, Sharp Park is the city’s civic core and is home to many unique businesses, as well as the iconic Pacifica Pier.” “Palmetto Avenue, the ‘backbone’ of the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, has potential to expand its function as a town center retail district by transitioning to a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area.” I enthusiastically support an implementation program to develop a “city center” in Sharp Park and create a pedestrian district along Palmetto Avenue for the reasons articulated in the Plan Draft.
However, I encourage the City of Pacifica to not develop a second “center” elsewhere (e.g., in Rockaway Park or the Quarry).
There is an old adage in football: “If you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks.”5 The same holds for city centers, particularly when one doesn’t yet exist. The City of Pacifica should focus any attention on Sharp Park development and get it right. If two centers are promoted, they would risk competing with each other and preventing the critical mass of customers and foot traffic at either location that is necessary for success. As noted in the Plan Draft, Pacifica has an underdeveloped retail market and sub-optimal demand.6
Where would the demand come from for two centers?
Moreover, if Pacifica attempts to develop two city centers with more intensive, mixed-use retail, local business may face critical staffing shortages. As the Plan Draft noted, Pacifica’s unemployment rate is extremely low: as of 2019, on average 2.2 percent.7
An unemployment rate this low means a significant
lack of surplus workers, which likely has only gotten worse during the pandemic. For instance, businesses across the nation have reported critical staffing shortages and the inability to find employees.8
In theory, Pacifica businesses potentially could meet this demand by attracting workers from surrounding communities (which would raise new traffic and public transit issues). However, perhaps more likely, the new city centers would compete for employees within existing Pacifica businesses and cannibalize their workforce.
To avoid these complications, the City of Pacifica should focus on encouraging one city center in Sharp Park.
IV. Permitting a major hotel or resort development in the quarry is misguided.
The Plan Draft repeatedly suggests developing a resort or luxury hotel in the Rockaway Beach Quarry site. Given Pacifica’s proximity to San Francisco, the Plan Draft suggests that Pacifica may have a comparative advantage to other resort locations, “such as Half Moon Bay, Point Reyes, and even Napa.” The Plan Draft notes that “a resort hotel also could provide conference facilities that could attract business groups.”
5 For better or for worse, after Jimmy Garoppolo’s performance this season, Niners fans likely won’t be facing a quarterback controversy next season.
6 “Pacifica has relatively weak per-capita retail sales…” Plan Draft, at p. 2-5. 7 Plan Draft, at p. 2-2. 8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/05/economy-jobs-omicron-new-normal/ (“But the past year’s labor market shortages have shown companies just how difficult it can be to hire back workers quickly enough to keep up with the rapid recovery. Employers reported 10.9 million job openings at the end of last year, well above pre-pandemic averages, with the biggest need for workers in restaurants, bars and hotels.”).
The Plan Draft’s arguments in favor of a hotel – let alone a “luxury hotel” or “resort” – are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and are not realistic.
There likely would be limited demand for luxury or conference services that the Plan Draft proposes. As the Plan Draft concedes, Pacifica’s existing hotels underperform relative to the county average in terms of occupancy rates.9
The former Holiday Inn (now, Fairfield Inn and Suites) has already undergone a major expansion and it’s unclear how that will impact occupancy rates in the city. Where will the customers for a luxury hotel or resort come from?
It is widely reported that tourism to the San Francisco area has declined in recent years, which has directly impacted occupancy rates. In September 2021, San Francisco hotel occupancy rate was approximately 40 percent.10 With respect to conference-based tourism, San Francisco is losing ground to other destinations, including Las Vegas. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Las Vegas’ tourism recovery has outpaced San Francisco’s sluggish comeback, and some Bay Area events have moved to Sin City.” 11
The proposition that a luxury hotel would succeed is also dubious. Pacifica is a lovely city with gorgeous sunsets and pleasant trails, but by the Plan Draft’s own admissions it lacks the type of amenities – such as fine dining or sophisticated retail – that would be expected by a luxury consumer segment. In addition, while Pacifica has picturesque beaches, it is candidly not the type of locale that would attract those seeking a “beach vacation.” The weather is variable, the water is cold, and the waves can be hazardous.
For someone arranging a vacation in the Bay area, it’s far more likely that they’d stay in San Francisco and make a day trip to Pacifica than the reverse. For a consumer seeking accommodations outside of San Francisco, would Pacifica really have a “comparative advantage” over Napa, which is a world-class wine and dining destination? By the Plan Draft’s own admission, its retail is “older and underutilized.” I love my home. But the City of Pacifica must be realistic about the prospects for a resort or luxury hotel and guard itself against motivated reasoning. By embarking such a project, the City of Pacifica would create a heavy commercial footprint in an environmentally sensitive area. At best, it would siphon customers from existing hotels. At worst, it would be an albatross around the Pacifica’s neck.
On a final note, it’s ironic and paradoxical that the Plan Draft would propose to “foster a distinctive sense of place” by recruiting a major resort hotel.12 On its own terms, this plan is nonsensical. The world has enough Wyndhams. As discussed further below, Pacifica has a more genuine and interesting “brand” to offer.
A new luxury hotel or resort in Pacifica is unrealistic given Pacifica’s existing retail offering and amenities. Such a project would almost certainly become a “white elephant” whose costs would be grossly out of proportion to its benefits.
9 Plan Draft, at p. 2-8. 10 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/As-S-F-lags-Las-Vegas-tourism-roars-back-with-16576370.php. 11 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/As-S-F-lags-Las-Vegas-tourism-roars-back-with-16576370.php. 12 Plan Draft, at p. 2-8.
V. Promoting tourism to Pacifica would be beneficial, but the General Plan’s primary goal should be to improve retail and amenities for Pacifica residents.
According to the Plan Draft, “Pacifica has the potential to be ‘place-making’ and build tourism-based shopping environment over time.” The Plan Draft calls for developing a Pacifica “brand” to “shape its image as a desirable destination.”
This is an understandable goal, but Pacifica can’t become a beacon for tourism solely through marketing efforts. While endowed with natural beauty, Pacifica’s commercial foundation is lacking, which inhibits both tourism and, more importantly, consumption by Pacifica residents. As the Plan Draft concedes, “[m]any of the retail properties are older and underutilized (though some have undergone renovations) . . .The lack of diverse retail opportunities limits the City’s regional retail draw.” When descending into Pacifica on Highway 1, one of the first sights that greet visitors is Manor Plaza, the sign for which is literally held together with ropes. While Eureka Square has been improved, Linda Mar Shopping Center is very dated. Owing the City of Pacifica’s new RV ordinances, derelict vehicles have settled by the golf course, at major intersections near Manor, and monopolize the views along Esplanade Avenue.
To try to boost tourism before addressing these and other lifestyle issues is to put the cart before the horse. If the General Plan guides development to make Pacifica desirable for Pacificans, boosting internal retail demand and local spending, tourism will follow.
On a final note, I push back on the notion that Pacifica lacks a “brand.” Pacifica is a well-regarded surfing destination and home to some of the best mountain biking trails on the west coast. The City of Pacifica could work with local groups, develop and preserve infrastructure (including preserving local trails) and sponsor contests. Comparable strategies have put other cities, such as Bend, Oregon, on the map.
Further, the City of Pacifica should look at a business segment that is thriving today: breweries. Pacifica Brewery and the recent addition of Humble Sea have no lack of customers. Other cities, such as Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, in conjunction with Dogfish Head Brewery, have gained notoriety with highquality beer. For instance, if Monterey has a “cannery row,” why couldn’t Pacifica recruit and foster high-quality breweries and establish a “brewery row?”
Pacifica should play to its strengths and nourish and encourage truly distinctive business sectors rather than trying to develop a generic beach tourism premised on a hypothetical population of luxury consumers.
VI. A better use for the Quarry
As discussed above, the luxury hotel or resort development in the Rockaway Beach Quarry is based on unreasonable assumptions.
However, the quarry is a site with potential, and the City of Pacifica should make better use of it.
Whatever is developed there, the City of Pacifica should try to ensure that there is a light development footprint that is appropriate for the environmentally-sensitive coastal location and does not require a significant development of municipal infrastructure.
For example, the city could develop a multi-purpose, “fair”-like setting for civic events. This could be used as a location for an expanded farmer’s market, food trucks or train cars (such as the extremely successful Gorilla BBQ), sporting competitions (for example, archery or bike racing), or potentially even a music venue. If it was desired, the Quarry could serve as a unique, natural amphitheater along the lines of Stern Grove. Given the exodus of music venues and events from San Francisco proper, Pacifica would be in a position to capture some of this business. A venue destination called “The Quarry” would market itself.
Utilizing the Rockaway Quarry community and cultural events would be an environmentallyresponsible strategy and more reliably generate tourism than a generic luxury hotel or resort.
VII. Let’s improve the trail system – but not overdevelop it.
The Plan Draft would identify “priorities for open space preservation and strategies to protect open space while allowing limited development, to be clustered and designed to fit into its natural setting. It also proposes an enhanced trail system connecting the coastline and ridges throughout Pacifica.” This is an excellent goal, but I would caution the City of Pacifica from over-developing Pacifica’s trail systems. For example, developing “hiker’s huts” and “cabins” are completely unnecessary, as none of Pacifica’s trails are particularly lengthy. Even the hike from San Pedro Valley Park, over Montara Mountain and down to Gray Whale Beach, can be accomplished in a few hours at a moderate pace.
Moreover, such physical infrastructure along trails would detract from the natural beauty that drives demand.
In addition, I’d discourage the development of concession stands along trails. Concession stands would increase the amount of trash that builds up along trails. A stark example of this problem is the trashcans near Mori Point, which routinely overflow on weekends.
With regard to additional signage and wayfinding, it’s nice in theory, but in practice it probably has extremely limited value. Pacifica’s trails are not extensive and it’s hard to get lost, particularly in an age of GPS and apps like AllTrails. With respect to interpretive signage, I’ll offer a personal anecdote as to their value. I walk from Fairway Park to the beach nearly every day. Over the last two years, I can probably count on one hand the number of times that I’ve seen anyone stop to read the signage about Mori Point or the endangered California garter snake. The City of Pacifica could probably find better uses for money than on such interpretive signage.
Sincerely,
Adam Mayle
Fairway Park
From: Adam Mayle [ ]
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:26 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments to General Plan Public Review Draft
Attachments: General Plan Comment Letter.pdf; General Plan Comment Letter.docx [CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
Please find attached, in both Microsoft Word and PDF, my comments to the General Plan Public Review Draft.
Thanks,
Adam Mayle
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Dear Madam or Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Pacifica General Plan Update Draft (“Plan Draft”).
I. Plan Draft Background
According to the Plan Draft, the General Plan’s primary objectives are three-fold: “create economic development,” “preserve open space,” and “support sustainable practices.”1 Under California law,
general plans, such as the Pacifica General Plan, must be: comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-range.2
II. 45-day comment period is inadequate.
On January 7, 2022, the City of Pacifica released public review drafts of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), General Plan Update, and Sharp Park Specific Plan. The deadline for public comments was set for February 21, 2022.
This 45-day comment period is inadequate and unreasonable for documents that cumulatively run over 1,000 pages. Moreover, the documents themselves were poorly assembled, difficult to understand, and hard to navigate. As noted in a recent column in the Pacifica Tribune:
“Some of the documents lack page numbers. The table of contents are not live links online, so you have to guess, say, where Page 283 is on the massive document you just downloaded onto your suddenly overburdened laptop. The documents are laden with government speak, charts, illustrations and maps. The “executive summary,” meant to briefly explain what lies beyond, comes in at a weighty 147 pages.”3
Forty-five days is a nearly impossible deadline for an engaged and civic-minded Pacifica resident to absorb, evaluate and react to this volume of information. Moreover, this 45-day period is stricter than the comment period that other governmental entities provide to industry and advocacy groups – whose full-time job is to evaluate and react to proposals that are much less extensive than the Plan Draft.
Those comment periods may be 60, 90, or 120 days or longer.4 An unfortunate perception from this rushed and troubled comment process is that the City of Pacifica is actively attempting to hinder Pacifica residents from engaging in the General Plan update. It’s not a good look.
The City of Pacifica should extend the comment period immediately to allow Pacifica residents a reasonable opportunity to review the Plan Draft, the EIR, and the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
III. Develop one city center – in Sharp Park
1 Draft Plan, at p. 1-2. 2 Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65300 et seq. 3 https://www.pacificatribune.com/opinion/make-pacifica-planning-documents-comprehensible-and-give-us-timeto-digest/article_71712854-7e2f-11ec-b892-d748361501f1.html. 4 https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2020/fil20034.html.
According to the Plan Draft, “a unique, Vital Center for Pacifica” would provide a community gathering place and strengthen the City’s identity. “Currently, Sharp Park is the city’s civic core and is home to many unique businesses, as well as the iconic Pacifica Pier.” “Palmetto Avenue, the ‘backbone’ of the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area, has potential to expand its function as a town center retail district by transitioning to a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area.” I enthusiastically support an implementation program to develop a “city center” in Sharp Park and create a pedestrian district along Palmetto Avenue for the reasons articulated in the Plan Draft.
However, I encourage the City of Pacifica to not develop a second “center” elsewhere (e.g., in Rockaway Park or the Quarry).
There is an old adage in football: “If you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks.”5 The same holds for city centers, particularly when one doesn’t yet exist. The City of Pacifica should focus any attention on Sharp Park development and get it right. If two centers are promoted, they would risk competing with each other and preventing the critical mass of customers and foot traffic at either location that is necessary for success. As noted in the Plan Draft, Pacifica has an underdeveloped retail market and sub-optimal demand.6
Where would the demand come from for two centers?
Moreover, if Pacifica attempts to develop two city centers with more intensive, mixed-use retail, local business may face critical staffing shortages. As the Plan Draft noted, Pacifica’s unemployment rate is extremely low: as of 2019, on average 2.2 percent.7
An unemployment rate this low means a significant
lack of surplus workers, which likely has only gotten worse during the pandemic. For instance, businesses across the nation have reported critical staffing shortages and the inability to find employees.8
In theory, Pacifica businesses potentially could meet this demand by attracting workers from surrounding communities (which would raise new traffic and public transit issues). However, perhaps more likely, the new city centers would compete for employees within existing Pacifica businesses and cannibalize their workforce.
To avoid these complications, the City of Pacifica should focus on encouraging one city center in Sharp Park.
IV. Permitting a major hotel or resort development in the quarry is misguided.
The Plan Draft repeatedly suggests developing a resort or luxury hotel in the Rockaway Beach Quarry site. Given Pacifica’s proximity to San Francisco, the Plan Draft suggests that Pacifica may have a comparative advantage to other resort locations, “such as Half Moon Bay, Point Reyes, and even Napa.” The Plan Draft notes that “a resort hotel also could provide conference facilities that could attract business groups.”
5 For better or for worse, after Jimmy Garoppolo’s performance this season, Niners fans likely won’t be facing a quarterback controversy next season.
6 “Pacifica has relatively weak per-capita retail sales…” Plan Draft, at p. 2-5. 7 Plan Draft, at p. 2-2. 8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/05/economy-jobs-omicron-new-normal/ (“But the past year’s labor market shortages have shown companies just how difficult it can be to hire back workers quickly enough to keep up with the rapid recovery. Employers reported 10.9 million job openings at the end of last year, well above pre-pandemic averages, with the biggest need for workers in restaurants, bars and hotels.”).
The Plan Draft’s arguments in favor of a hotel – let alone a “luxury hotel” or “resort” – are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and are not realistic.
There likely would be limited demand for luxury or conference services that the Plan Draft proposes. As the Plan Draft concedes, Pacifica’s existing hotels underperform relative to the county average in terms of occupancy rates.9
The former Holiday Inn (now, Fairfield Inn and Suites) has already undergone a major expansion and it’s unclear how that will impact occupancy rates in the city. Where will the customers for a luxury hotel or resort come from?
It is widely reported that tourism to the San Francisco area has declined in recent years, which has directly impacted occupancy rates. In September 2021, San Francisco hotel occupancy rate was approximately 40 percent.10 With respect to conference-based tourism, San Francisco is losing ground to other destinations, including Las Vegas. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Las Vegas’ tourism recovery has outpaced San Francisco’s sluggish comeback, and some Bay Area events have moved to Sin City.” 11
The proposition that a luxury hotel would succeed is also dubious. Pacifica is a lovely city with gorgeous sunsets and pleasant trails, but by the Plan Draft’s own admissions it lacks the type of amenities – such as fine dining or sophisticated retail – that would be expected by a luxury consumer segment. In addition, while Pacifica has picturesque beaches, it is candidly not the type of locale that would attract those seeking a “beach vacation.” The weather is variable, the water is cold, and the waves can be hazardous.
For someone arranging a vacation in the Bay area, it’s far more likely that they’d stay in San Francisco and make a day trip to Pacifica than the reverse. For a consumer seeking accommodations outside of San Francisco, would Pacifica really have a “comparative advantage” over Napa, which is a world-class wine and dining destination? By the Plan Draft’s own admission, its retail is “older and underutilized.” I love my home. But the City of Pacifica must be realistic about the prospects for a resort or luxury hotel and guard itself against motivated reasoning. By embarking such a project, the City of Pacifica would create a heavy commercial footprint in an environmentally sensitive area. At best, it would siphon customers from existing hotels. At worst, it would be an albatross around the Pacifica’s neck.
On a final note, it’s ironic and paradoxical that the Plan Draft would propose to “foster a distinctive sense of place” by recruiting a major resort hotel.12 On its own terms, this plan is nonsensical. The world has enough Wyndhams. As discussed further below, Pacifica has a more genuine and interesting “brand” to offer.
A new luxury hotel or resort in Pacifica is unrealistic given Pacifica’s existing retail offering and amenities. Such a project would almost certainly become a “white elephant” whose costs would be grossly out of proportion to its benefits.
9 Plan Draft, at p. 2-8. 10 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/As-S-F-lags-Las-Vegas-tourism-roars-back-with-16576370.php. 11 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/As-S-F-lags-Las-Vegas-tourism-roars-back-with-16576370.php. 12 Plan Draft, at p. 2-8.
V. Promoting tourism to Pacifica would be beneficial, but the General Plan’s primary goal should be to improve retail and amenities for Pacifica residents.
According to the Plan Draft, “Pacifica has the potential to be ‘place-making’ and build tourism-based shopping environment over time.” The Plan Draft calls for developing a Pacifica “brand” to “shape its image as a desirable destination.”
This is an understandable goal, but Pacifica can’t become a beacon for tourism solely through marketing efforts. While endowed with natural beauty, Pacifica’s commercial foundation is lacking, which inhibits both tourism and, more importantly, consumption by Pacifica residents. As the Plan Draft concedes, “[m]any of the retail properties are older and underutilized (though some have undergone renovations) . . .The lack of diverse retail opportunities limits the City’s regional retail draw.” When descending into Pacifica on Highway 1, one of the first sights that greet visitors is Manor Plaza, the sign for which is literally held together with ropes. While Eureka Square has been improved, Linda Mar Shopping Center is very dated. Owing the City of Pacifica’s new RV ordinances, derelict vehicles have settled by the golf course, at major intersections near Manor, and monopolize the views along Esplanade Avenue.
To try to boost tourism before addressing these and other lifestyle issues is to put the cart before the horse. If the General Plan guides development to make Pacifica desirable for Pacificans, boosting internal retail demand and local spending, tourism will follow.
On a final note, I push back on the notion that Pacifica lacks a “brand.” Pacifica is a well-regarded surfing destination and home to some of the best mountain biking trails on the west coast. The City of Pacifica could work with local groups, develop and preserve infrastructure (including preserving local trails) and sponsor contests. Comparable strategies have put other cities, such as Bend, Oregon, on the map.
Further, the City of Pacifica should look at a business segment that is thriving today: breweries. Pacifica Brewery and the recent addition of Humble Sea have no lack of customers. Other cities, such as Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, in conjunction with Dogfish Head Brewery, have gained notoriety with highquality beer. For instance, if Monterey has a “cannery row,” why couldn’t Pacifica recruit and foster high-quality breweries and establish a “brewery row?”
Pacifica should play to its strengths and nourish and encourage truly distinctive business sectors rather than trying to develop a generic beach tourism premised on a hypothetical population of luxury consumers.
VI. A better use for the Quarry
As discussed above, the luxury hotel or resort development in the Rockaway Beach Quarry is based on unreasonable assumptions.
However, the quarry is a site with potential, and the City of Pacifica should make better use of it.
Whatever is developed there, the City of Pacifica should try to ensure that there is a light development footprint that is appropriate for the environmentally-sensitive coastal location and does not require a significant development of municipal infrastructure.
For example, the city could develop a multi-purpose, “fair”-like setting for civic events. This could be used as a location for an expanded farmer’s market, food trucks or train cars (such as the extremely successful Gorilla BBQ), sporting competitions (for example, archery or bike racing), or potentially even a music venue. If it was desired, the Quarry could serve as a unique, natural amphitheater along the lines of Stern Grove. Given the exodus of music venues and events from San Francisco proper, Pacifica would be in a position to capture some of this business. A venue destination called “The Quarry” would market itself.
Utilizing the Rockaway Quarry community and cultural events would be an environmentallyresponsible strategy and more reliably generate tourism than a generic luxury hotel or resort.
VII. Let’s improve the trail system – but not overdevelop it.
The Plan Draft would identify “priorities for open space preservation and strategies to protect open space while allowing limited development, to be clustered and designed to fit into its natural setting. It also proposes an enhanced trail system connecting the coastline and ridges throughout Pacifica.” This is an excellent goal, but I would caution the City of Pacifica from over-developing Pacifica’s trail systems. For example, developing “hiker’s huts” and “cabins” are completely unnecessary, as none of Pacifica’s trails are particularly lengthy. Even the hike from San Pedro Valley Park, over Montara Mountain and down to Gray Whale Beach, can be accomplished in a few hours at a moderate pace.
Moreover, such physical infrastructure along trails would detract from the natural beauty that drives demand.
In addition, I’d discourage the development of concession stands along trails. Concession stands would increase the amount of trash that builds up along trails. A stark example of this problem is the trashcans near Mori Point, which routinely overflow on weekends.
With regard to additional signage and wayfinding, it’s nice in theory, but in practice it probably has extremely limited value. Pacifica’s trails are not extensive and it’s hard to get lost, particularly in an age of GPS and apps like AllTrails. With respect to interpretive signage, I’ll offer a personal anecdote as to their value. I walk from Fairway Park to the beach nearly every day. Over the last two years, I can probably count on one hand the number of times that I’ve seen anyone stop to read the signage about Mori Point or the endangered California garter snake. The City of Pacifica could probably find better uses for money than on such interpretive signage.
Sincerely,
Adam Mayle
Fairway Park
From: SHEILA GAMBLE-DORN [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 1:27 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments to General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
March 7, 2022
To: Christian Murdock From: Sheila Gamble-Dorn
City of Pacifica
Re: Pacifica General Plan
Thank you for extending the opportunity to comment on the Pacifica General Plan.
I am a resident at , known as the railroad berm on Pedro Point. Since the pandemic and especially with the initial stay-at-home orders, our beach area and road has become widely known as a destination place for many people.
The railroad berm road is a one-way, dead-end road and cars must back-off the road to get out. We have plenty of signs and have orange cones to notify people of the private road for their safety and ours. So I was happy to see that the berm #25 on the map of the plan is designated as a “private road with no public access to the beach”.
I was also pleased with the section of the plan that deals with upkeep for areas the public uses on a private road since sections of the road are always subject to maintenance. “ Until such a private entity agrees to be responsible for liability and maintenance of such access ways, they are not required to be open for public use.”Designating the berm as a “public viewpoint” does mean concern for the public’s safety on a road built about 100 years ago.
It would be better not to designate the railroad berm as a “public viewpoint” since so many people come here on their own and this would only increase erosion of the railroad berm road. It is also the driveway for the residents living there and can be unsafe if people don’t understand that the residents’ cars will be using that road.
I would also like clarification of fig. 6.3 on the coastal access map which says, “improve new segment of Coastal Trail along former railroad berm.” The berm wouldn’t connect to the Coastal Trail. It leads away from the Coastal Trail. Connecting the the Coastal Trail by Ace Hardware should happen east of the shopping center at Pedro Point.
My other concern is giving a Mixed Use and MDR Medium Density Residential designation to building in the field at Pedro Point—70 residences. There is only one way out of Pedro Point for everyone living here. Adding such a high density of people trying to exit the field is disturbing and not safe especially if there is an emergency, such as a tidal wave.
I know this plan has to take in so many different and unusual places of Pacifica and I appreciate the work that has gone into trying to address it all.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
From: Samuel Casillas [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]; Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
CC: KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal [ ]
Subject: Comments to Pacifica GPU SPSP and DEIR
Attachments: GPU Casillas comments 3 8 22.docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Christian,
Please include my attached comments for the review of the GPU.
Thanks and I hope you are holding up okay with all this work! Regards,
Sam
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Mr. Christian Murdock
Deputy Planning Director
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
[email protected]
CC: California Coastal Commission
Date: March 7, 2022
Subject: Update of the Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) and background information on previous submissions for the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site
Dear Mr. Murdock:
It is with great concern that I write to protest the continued willful ignorance and outright disregard of science and all common sense that the city continues to push for the land use designation for the five acres of land known as the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site (Site) from commercial recreation to a new designation for residential under the designation of “coastal residential mixed use”(CRMU) in the General Plan Update (GPU). The city has failed to update the GPU of many years of feedback from the start of the GPU process as far back as 2014. The City has also failed to include recently updated ESHA and hazard zone data provided by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and has refused to conduct a valid DEIR knowing that if they did they would have no choice other than to designate this site as Open Space under the Conservation (C) land use designation.
Every scientific study, government planning document and flooding model shows that this Site has had and will continue to have severe flooding due to its low-lying location. The city is also ignoring sea level rise and storm surge data which is due to the climate crisis. It is not a matter of IF but WHEN a major flooding disaster will occur on that property if it is developed and yet the city continues to ignore science and oppose its own citizens in Pedro Point in order to add residential development in a highly vulnerable location. If the City choses to ignore all the science and current evidence, endangered species, property and lives will be at risk and any harm to people based on this ill-conceived decision will have major consequences on those city officials who chose the path of disaster that could have been avoided.
In my original review and comments of the 2014 draft GPU I pointed out the following facts:
1. The Site is in a Federally designated Wetland. At that time the city chose to ignore this fact. The city also chose to ignore the illegal ditching and discing of the field in order to drain it as also documented
2. The 2014 GPU chose a 5.7 ft flooding scenario at which level the whole field on-line model shows it is completely flooded, yet I was never given an answer as to why the diagram of the flooding was manipulated to show the field as not affected by annual flooding and SLR. (The level of predicted SLR is now much higher)
3. I also presented documentation that there were endangered species (California Red-Legged frogs) living and breeding in the adjacent waterway that is in the field and is connected to San Pedro Creek
4. Furthermore I pointed out the field had never changed from its land use designation of Commercial Recreational to which the planning department erroneously answered that it was changed in 1982 by a vote of the city council to commercial or mixed-use commercial that the Coastal Commission does not recognize.
Furthermore, As a member on the city appointed Sea Level Rise Adaption Committee, my review of the proposed Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan found multiple areas in need of corrections concerning the property in question including:
1. On page 73 of the “Wetlands” section of the plan it states that: “There are two primary areas of wetland habitat in Pacifica: wetlands in Laguna Salada and wetlands at the mouth of San Pedro Creek” when in fact the whole of the site is a documented designated federal wetland in the USFWS wetland National Wetlands Inventory. This error is also in the Appendix B as an “unconfirmed wetland” that also needs correction.
2. The same section on wetlands states that “No data on CRLF are available for the local lagoon <in San Pedro Creek>”.
The culvert that leads to San Pedro Creek running along this property has been documented as a known California Red Legged Frog habitat (see Exhibit B) and is now confirmed by California Fish & Wildlife.
3. Most importantly the Pacifica Institutes hazard map and program models the site to be fully under water with 4.6 ft. of SLR. Pacifica is using a 5.7 ft scenario, yet it only shows a portion of the field under flooding in its SLR scenario.
This also needs to be corrected. Note that FEMA also utilizes utilizes the Pacific Institute as source for their SLR flood mapping
4. For the “Transfer of Development Credits(TDRs) section for Pedro Point this property should fall under the Guidance of the Recommendation of the State of California’s “Natural Resources Agency(NRA) Safeguarding California and SB379: Reducing Climate Risk Adaptation Strategy. This document states on page 12 paragraph 4: One opportunity to achieve broad environmental benefits is through the use of natural infrastructure solutions to mitigate climate risk. Restoration and conservation of natural systems such as forests, grasslands and shrublands, agricultural lands, and wetlands can provide more resilient natural systems that also offer protection from climate impacts. For example, wetlands can provide protection from flooding, while also providing valuable habitat and other hydrological benefits. Prioritizing these solutions can maximize the benefits of investments to reduce climate risks by providing a broad portfolio of benefits across several sectors. (Please note that the Pacifica adaption plan erroneously rebutted a comment on this mitigation strategy from Alison West that this strategy can only be implemented on publically owned land. The NRA document does not state anything on ownership and the cities own TDR strategy states that it should work with private land owners in other areas of Pacifica; the same TDRs should apply here.
5. This NRA document also states on page 179 paragraph 1: In order to minimize the adverse effects of sea-level rise and storms, it is important to carefully consider decisions regarding areas vulnerable to flooding, inundation and erosion. The state should not build or plan to build, lease, fund, or permit any significant new structures or infrastructure that will require new protection from sea-level rise, storm surges or coastal erosion during the expected life of the structure, beyond routine maintenance of existing levees or other protective measures, unless there is a compelling need. Again the best use of this property is for flood mitigation and not development. By law under SB379 the city must identify appropriate sites where this guidance can be applied.
These concerns in the SLR adaption plan were never addressed and never taken into consideration for the proposed and continued City support of residential development on this site that is a known hazard zone.
And now the research is showing there is even more evidence that this field is and will be a dangerous hazard zone for storm surge, flooding and other hydrology issues. The recently published scientific from Bernard, et al, specifically shows Pedro Point as a highly vulnerable area for storm surge. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40742-z) In consideration of all these issues above how is it that the city has chosen to consider housing in an area that historically and in the future is a flooding catastrophe? And even more egregious the City has received over 30+ written comments with the vast majority stating building residential will endanger lives, yet the City chose to parse those comments to draw your own conclusions that the citizens were only concerned about high density so this medium density plan must be okay. Please let me be clear: there is no justification for ANY permanent structures to be built on this site. The owner bought it as CR with nothing built on the property, as a designated federal wetland and was a golf driving range which is compatible with a Conservation land use designation.
The City is also aware that the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) held a meeting for the whole neighborhood, at the request of the city council, with the current owner of the field (who was part of and the PPCA board) and to discuss the best use of the field and the conclusion of the open meeting was that it should either remain CR or Conservation.
Under the current draft of the 2022 GPU the document states implementation policies to Expanded low-intensity outdoor Commercial Recreation on sites near Pacifica State Beach (ES-I-34), Preserve the Experience of the Natural Environment that do not disrupt view corridors (ES-I-35), be a center for recreation and community (CD-I-1), Improve pedestrian routes along corridors (CD-I-24), Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species (LU-G-7) and to not increase the density or intensity of land use designations beyond those indicated in the LCLUP for sites located within Coastal Vulnerability Zones (LU-G-8), yet these policies are exactly what the City chose to ignore by recommending CRMU at this site.
Further, the city is fully aware of the of the CDP application 2-19-0026 denial which is adjacent to the site. The Coastal Commission denied the project due to the multiple hazards including flooding, shallow water table, identified multiple species wetlands and an ESHA designation for the CRLF which needs a minimum of 300 ft foraging corridor. Again, the City has chosen to ignore this data. The city does recognize the existence of the CRLF in the DEIR “Special Status Species” figure 3.7-4 but omits this in the GPU and omits the USFWS guidance of a minimum of 300 feet of foraging corridor for the endangered species. Additionally, because the species is not able to forage in any other direction because of the existing developing to the south and east the whole west of the Site is needed for foraging habitat.
The GPU also states that Development of the site will require detailed evaluation of coastal hazards/vulnerabilities and biological resources to ensure that any sensitive habitat and wetlands that may exist on the site are protected; this is a violation of CEQA which requires an EIR/evaluation before changing the land use designation. Further, the City now has documentation based on the CDP application 2-19-0026 denial which would actually substantially reduce density at this site. Why would the city chose to increase density at this site when it is a known ESHA and hazard zone as determined by the CCC, CFWD and USFWS?
The Conservation (C) designation states that it applies to privately-owned open areas where the land is physically unsuitable for development due to geotechnical hazards, excessive steepness, wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) or other environmental constraints or lies within stream channels; this site should result instead as a density transfer to another area of Pacifica if needed. The ideal transfer would be to add housing as a policy overlay to strip malls throughout Pacifica where very little environmental damage will occur due to hazards or ESHA.
LU-I-2 specially prohibits development on properties that include any areas that are within or adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and are to be set aside for conservation. Why is this site not considered under this implementation policy?
LU-I-15 allows the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones and other hazardous areas (sending sites). Why was this site not identified? Also LU-I-19 replacing a single citywide height limit of 35 feet would be a violation of Coastal Act provision 30251 and would NOT Protect Natural and Scenic Resources
Due to the above polices LU-I-29 designating the site to CRMU would be in conflict making this designation void Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.
The GPU further goes to acknowledge the requirements of Coastal Commission regulation13557 (Title 14, California Code of Regulations) for a wetland survey to delineate potential wetlands on the site is needed but then goes on to say it would require the developer to do the survey which is a violation of CEQA; the city must conduct the survey prior to the new land use designation. Further in the denial of CDP application 2-19-0026 a wetland and ESHA were established so why is the city purposely ignoring this information? OC-G-5 purports to preserve Open Space Preservation in areas to protect natural resources, visual amenities, where the top priority areas for conservation are areas that support critical wildlife habitat and endangered species. Again, the City is aware that ESHA has been established in the site with the denial of CDP 2-19-0026 so why is the city not evaluating the Site under this policy when it is known that the CRLF will need a minimum of 300 feet of foraging into the site? Additionally, the city states that in a 1992 study, groundwater wells in the City were monitored to determine the location of seasonally shallow groundwater, yet a historic well was in place on Danmann Ave above the field for many decades and year-round spring activity has been documented in the southwest corner of the site. Why hasn’t the city evaluated this site considering city workers have been at this area directly observing ground water percolation on multiple occasions?
According to the City’s own proposed implementation policy CO-I-4 the City would prohibit new development in existing wetlands in an area where potential wetlands have been identified. So why would the City increase the density in a area that they are fully aware of an area where a wetlands exist? Additionally, Figure 7-2: Vegetation: Vegetation and Wetlands Inventory needs to be updated due to the denial of CDP 2-19-0026 identifying the adjacent watercourse as wetlands.
It is also interesting that the city is now proposing CO-I-7 to Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands to ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity, yet the city has been complicit in allowing the owner of the city to violate the Coastal Act in the drainage of the site and the city’s excavation of a known ESHA in the adjacent watercourse.
Figure 7-3: Sensitive and Critical Habitat Area: this map needs to be updated as ESHA as confirmed in the denial of CDP application 2-19-0026. Additionally, a wildlife movement corridor for Mountain Lions (a protected species in California) needs to be acknowledged due the city awareness of their movement along the San Pedro Headlands and into the Pedro Point neighborhood for foraging and water access through the safety the site provides under the proposed CO-G-11 to protect ESHAs, high habitat value areas, and wildlife movement corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values.
CO-I-28: Management of ESHA needs to apply to the site as it state “If the area qualifies as an ESHA under the California Coastal Act, the following regulations apply:
• No new development shall be allowed within primary habitat areas with the exception of resource-dependent uses that can be demonstrated to have no significant adverse impact needing a 100 foot buffer, but the USFWS determined that the CRLF requires a minimum 300 foot buffer as established in the denial of CDP application 2-9-0026 Figure 8-1: Seismic Hazard Zones: The site lies within the Liquefaction Zone(figure 8-2) which needs to be updated to show high risk due to site being a wetland and adhering to proposed policy SA-1-2 SA-I-9 Maintain Restrictions on Hazardous Areas. Continue enforcing the restriction of development in hazardous areas where access is impractical and areas prone to…tsunami inundation, or flooding. The site is both a hazard from Tsunamis and flooding so why would the city’s own implementing policies violate SA-I-2 and SA-I-9? Figure 8-4: This “Flood Zones” figure shows all of Field in tsunami zone but then ignores the required H++ scenario for SLR and flooding which is required under SB379 which would have the whole of the Site flooded in a 100 yr scenario.
Additionally, Sea Level Rise maps have been manipulated where source document of FEMA flooding relies on the Pacific Institute models which shows whole field as flooding hazard at this time ( Pacific Institute, The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. A paper from the California Climate Change Center. Available online at: http://www. pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/2009)
SA-I-33 Adaptation Funding. The City should make its citizens aware that under this policy the City would allow development in hazard zones only to later “pursue…new funding mechanisms, such as the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHADs) as supported by SA-I-14 … to finance adaptation strategies for public infrastructure. This policy would allow for the formation of an assessment district (i.e., tax) on its citizens to pay for a zoning change in an area that is known to have multiple hazard encumbrances SA-I-68 Shoreline Protection Structure Upgrades. Allow maintenance of existing or new shoreline protection structures to reduce hazards and resource impacts if consistent with Policies SA-I-82 and SA-I- 83. Mitigate impacts consistent with the City’s Shoreline Mitigation Program (SA-I- 32) or SA-I-85 as necessary. Note that the building new shoreline protection structures for new development is illegal under the Coastal Act.
In accordance with SA-I-77 any development in this property which is a known wetland and ESHA would not constitute a taking since it is a floodplain with a protected species SA-I-78 Habitat Sea Level Rise Migration Buffers. Under this guidance the Site should be identified as a mitigation buffer and re-zoned as conservation, but corrected to 300 foot buffer due to the confirmation of endangered species foraging range needed for the CRLF and ESHA.
The City is also required to comply with SB379 as stated in Chapter 1.2, General Plan Requirements: “Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Legislation (SB 379)…requires the safety elements of general plans to be reviewed and updated to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies.” SB379 further requires the identification of hazard zones that can serve as mitigation areas for said hazards, yet the GPU fails to identify any properties in Pacifica for such mitigation and it is insufficient to only set “Coastal Resiliency Policies” when areas like the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site would qualify to be designated as hazard mitigation sites due to its many hazard vulnerabilities and ESHA designation. Why was this site not designated as a mitigation site under SB379? Under separate cover Richard Grassetti, Principal of Grassetti Environmental Consulting has provided a multitude of areas with the DEIR violates CEQA and is therefore fatally flawed. Mr. Grassetti also recognizes the reasonable argument that this Site should be designated Conservation.
Field
Also under separate cover, The Law Offices Of Brian Gaffney have also concluded that the DEIR is fatally flawed due to the lack of substantive or deferring environmental impact evaluation of this new land use designation on the Site without adequate explanation as to how an actual increase in density will have a less than significant impact on draining, flooding, increases in stormwater runoff, ESHA, wetlands and other wildlife habitat. How was this conclusion made? Deferring the review to the future developer is also in conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) defines the “project” as the whole of the action that has potential for resulting in either direct physical changes in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Considering this is a wholly undeveloped site with confirmed flooding, ESHA, tsunami zone, year-round surface spring activity and SLR risk how was the city able to reasonably conclude it could change the land use to residential, increased density and defer a legally required EIR of the Site?
In summary the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site (Site) has a multitude of encumbrances including environmental designations and hazards the City has chosen to willfully ignore and places the adoption of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in jeopardy. At this time because of the City’s consistent inability to integrate undeniable scientific data as far back as 2005 if would be prudent to have the CCC assume responsibility of the LCP process in order to reconcile the required GPU alignment so that we do not continue to rely on a GP that is over 43(!!!) years old and a City that negligent and unwilling to listen to its citizens or sound data.
Sincerely,
Samuel Casillas
Board member, PPCA
Past Vice-Chair, Pacifica Economic Development Committee Past Member, Pacifica Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Committee Past Co-Chair GGNRA Board Liaison Committee
Past Member, Pacifica GPU Community Outreach Committee
Exhibits:
Additional photos at:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMIl6HfINc3bbLhjZkdhKzYOKhnuEriUm7sT1otFo3gUonOrduDpjEGqhDuRSpI1Q? pli=1&key=bC1jWHdTcEpRRmctMVR3ZUZUMWxha3VhN2hMa1Z3
From: jean turk [ ]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:24 AM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments to the Genral Plan Sharp Park
Attachments: Jeans Comments to General Plan.odt
[CAUTION: External Email]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Comments to the General Plan from Jean M. Turk, .
The General Plan (GP) section on Sharp Park begins with reference to “fast talking” promoters trying to establish a rail-line through Pacifica, which was quickly dismantled with the onset of the automobile.
Lets not fall prey to these same forces in establishing the General Plan. The sincerity of developers in Pacifica must be questioned. They see only a nice piece of real estate on the ocean, near San Francisco and an airport. On paper, this looks like a pretty good place to developers and promoters. But, what is not on paper is the people who live here, or want to live here and the quality of life they want to maintain. This General Plan does not speak to a quality of life.
The GP states that Palmetto Avenue, was recently updated with bike lanes, landscaping, and lighting, but the landscaping has become weed beds, the light poles are broken and promotional banners are left to flap in the wind. Perhaps a good idea at one time, but with no plan on how to maintain it.
Pacifica has a poor track record utilizing and maintaining what it has. For example, the GP envisions an area for “new programming, experiences, and temporary activities like festivals, farmers’ markets, music, and other events.” The maintenance yard at the old sewage treatment plant has been under utilized for over twenty years. It remains a perfect space for a farmers market, outdoor theater or music events. If developers of the GP believe these activities would bring new revenue, lets do it now. If in the future this proves true, we can develop more permanent facilities for the City. With the uncertainty of the impact of sea level rise to our coastline, development of a hotel or entertainment center is not financially feasible and unrealistic.
The GP calls for “anchoring” Palmetto Avenue as Sharp Park’s historic Main Street with new four- to five story buildings that will “activate” the Palmetto corridor at multiple levels. Does anyone even know what that means? I don’t know any small town Main Street that relies on four to five story buildings to “activate” their downtown. Think San Anselmo, Carmel or Half Moon Bay. Besides developers have built such buildings on Palmetto, and they are not attractive, they are not inviting and have not enhanced the commercial or pedestrian activity on the street. he same can be said about the newly built large blue building dominating the corner of Francisco and Carmel Avenues.
Regarding new housing and live work space. The live work space just south of Recology on Palmetto Avenue, lasted a couple of years and to this day there is no original owner who lives and works in that building. It was just a way for a developer to build. Regarding higher density apartment buildings.
The large unit apartment building at the corner of Palmetto and Paloma should not be a model for the future. The large number of units on site result in major maintenance problems and a lack of a sense of community. More buildings but with a smaller number of units speaks to a better quality of life. Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, meaning -using every square foot to generate dollars, does not speak to quality of life. FAR should not be the model for the future. There was a reason why the 1907 subdivision plan called for small affordable lots. Only in a developers eyes do the small lots present “challenges for redevelopment at higher densities/intensities.” Pacifica still has plenty of space to grow out, not up.
Height is not the answer and neither is buying into a developer’s one size/solution fits all. We all agree Pacifica is unique and we need a unique and creative plan for the future.
While acknowledging the need for a city like Pacifica to “enhance its economic base, and strengthen its tourist industry,” an equal need is for the City to seek ways to enhance the quality of life and economic opportunities for those who live here. This GP does not address this, but speaks to the “quality” of streets, sidewalks, materials, air and the environment. Only three times does the GP mention directly the quality of life for those who live here or may want to live here. While the GP reflects how a developer dreams of the future, it does not reflect the reality of our City and its residents.
If outdoor concerts, musical events and farmers markets will attract people to Sharp Park, do it now.
Take some money and the enhancements that would be offered to developers and put it into reconfiguring the maintenance yard at the old sewage treatment plant. Add a bar and small kitchen to the Council building and you would have a nice City owned facility that locals would support.
Instead of having a developer create plans for a large apartment complex, why not take 40 units spread out over four separate buildings. Hire four separate builders and generate competition by offering a bonus to the builder who creates the most affordable or best liked design.
Develop economic growth in the way of Call Centers, small lab testing facilities, or other small industry and businesses that would offer jobs that reflect the abilities and educational levels of those who already live here, and attract new comers as well.
I guess what I am saying is that Pacifica City planners need to think out of the box. Pacifica is small enough that a thirty or forty year general plan is not the best way to invest our current time and financial resources. Let’s look at what we have now and get creative with that. If these simple ideas serve to generate more economic opportunities, then move on from there. Let’s not commit Pacifica to a long term plan that does not reflect the uniqueness of who we are.
From: Jonathan Cordero [ ]
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: Comments--Draft EIR
[CAUTION: External Email]
Good morning Cristian,
Thank you for reviewing comments for the Draft EIR for the City of Pacifica General Plan.
I have two corrections to offer and one suggestion all for paragraph 2 on page 7-40.
First, the language of discovery privileges a Eurocentric perspective and reinforces colonialism.
Others have been suing language like, “the European discovery of the San Francisco Bay” instead of just discovery to qualify the meaning.
Second, the notion that the village of Pruristac was wiped out reinforces the extinction hypothesis, when it is possible that a person did survive from that specific village.
I have one suggestion. The report uses “persons speaking the Costaonoan/Ohlone language” to make a linguistic and therefore ethic differentiation. To be more specific, the passage should say something like “persons who spoke the Ramaytush dialect of the San Francisco Bay Costanoan/Ohlone Language.”
We do appreciate the sentence on 7-41 that states, “There is considered to be a high likelihood that unrecorded Native American cultural resources are present.” Please aunderstand that we have a broad view of tribal cultural resources as including, for example, cultural areas, cultural materials, and natural resources. Although we are not on the NAHC list (we are applying, by the way), we would like to consult on cultural resources uncovered in any projects that affect said resources.
Last, please note that the village at Timigtac is our ancestral village of origin within the territorial boundaries of the Aramai, an independent tribe of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cordero
Executive Director, Association of Ramaytush Ohlone
Gregg Castro
Culture Director, Association of Ramaytush Ohlone
Association of Ramaytush Ohlone, Fort Mason Center
San Francisco, CA 94123
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
From: Terry Watt [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:31 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
CC: _City Council Group [[email protected]]; _City Council Group [[email protected]]; [email protected]; 'Summer Lee' [ ]
Subject: CPUP Comments on Proposed Project (GP and SPSP) and DEIR Attached Attachments: CPUP Comment Letter 3 8 22.pdf; Exhibits to CPUP Comment Letter 3 8 22.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
RE: CPUP Comments on Proposed Project (GP and SPSP) and DEIR Attached Please see attached CPUP Comments on the Proposed Project (GP and SPSP) and DEIR attached to this email. Comments consist of two documents: CPUP Comment Letter and Exhibits to CPUP Comment Letter both dated today, March 8, 2022.
I would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of both comment documents prior to today’s deadline. Hard copies have also been mailed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important planning process.
Thank you,
Terry Watt, AICP
Terrell Watt Planning Consultants
Text and cell:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1 Terrell Watt Planning Consultants
San Francisco, CA 94123
March 8, 2022
Attn: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica, Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Pacific General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan (together the Proposed Project) and Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Mr. Murdock,
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan and Pacifica resident Summer Lee (collectively, “CPUP”)in regard to the City of Pacifica’s proposed General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan (Proposed Project), and programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Formed by a group of Pacificans in 2020, CPUP is a coalition of residents who care about safe, responsible planning. CPUP has championed the need for an updated General Plan and aims to work with the City to enact a General Plan based on current science and environmental standards, consistent with applicable regulations and plans, and which provides clear and consistent guidelines for development decisions benefitting all Pacificans. These comments are submitted in the spirit of working together toward a General Plan that reflects and addresses the challenges of a changing climate and the urgency to provide affordable housing while protecting natural lands for the multiple benefits they provide to buffer the City, sequester carbon, foster biodiversity, provide recreation and other benefits.
Comments were prepared by me, Terry Watt, a professional planner with expertise in general plans, specific plans, local coastal plans and environmental documents. 1 Jared M. Ikeda, also a professional
planner with direct experience in the preparation of General Plans, assisted me in preparing these comments.2 These comments consist of this letter and a separate set of Exhibits referenced throughout this letter.
To prepare these comments, we reviewed all of the documents on the City’s General Plan website including but not limited to the General Plan Update, Sharp Park Specific Plan and both Draft EIR’s3, 1 See Watt resume, Attachment 1 hereto.
2 See Ikeda resume, Attachment 2 hereto.
3 The references to the DEIR in this letter are from one of two DEIR’s filed with the State Clearinghouse, State Clearinghouse #2020089010. Both DEIR’s are still available online. These two DEIR’s are not the same with different numbering and text as noted in Peter Loeb’s letter. 2 appendices and supporting reports. We also reviewed expert comments from community members who have independently submitted comments on a wide range of topics covered in this letter.
For the reasons described in detail below, the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan (Proposed Project) fail to meet basic requirements to provide a clear blueprint for future development in Pacifica and a basis for determining whether specific development proposals and other projects are consistent with the Proposed Project (the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan). The DEIR is also inadequate under CEQA, and thus prevents informed public participation and decision making.
Because of the extensive defects described herein, the Proposed Project and DEIR deprive the public and decision makers of meaningful public review and comment. Once these documents are revised, they must be recirculated for review and comment. We also urge the City and decision-makers to pause the completion of the Proposed Project to incorporate the Housing Element update due shortly and, revise the DEIR to cover a comprehensive planning package that includes the Housing Element update.
Pausing the completion of this General Plan so that it can include the Housing Element update would provide the community a chance to work constructively with the City to strengthen Plan policies (mitigation) and fix the defects in the Proposed Project and DEIR. This approach will save the City time and resources and help to clarify the Proposed Project’s project description with regard to allowable and required (Regional Housing Needs Assessment, RHNA) development.
Sincerely,
Terry Watt
Terry Watt, AICP
3 Comments
A. Introductory Comments
Our comments address the proposed Pacifica General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan (collectively the Proposed Project), as well as the related draft environmental impact report (DEIR). In addition, because the Proposed Project must be consistent with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) update for the coastal zone, these comments include examples of inconsistencies that must be rectified for the Proposed Project to meet legal requirements for consistency between the Proposed Project and LCP.
Rather than recite every flaw in the document, these comments provide examples of the major flaws in the Proposed Project and DEIR. We hereby incorporate by reference the additional detailed comments submitted by local experts that describe other flaws including but not limited to the significant differences in the two DEIR’s filed with the state4, DEIR text and Proposed Project discrepancies, omitted and outdated setting information, omitted impact analyses, and discrepancies in the project description, among others. These flaws collectively make review and comment nearly impossible and alone require revision and recirculation of the Proposed Project documents and DEIR.
In addition to calling out examples of major flaws in the Proposed Project and DEIR, constructive recommendations are made in these comments that would actually achieve the City’s overarching objective to adopt a comprehensive and legally adequate General Plan and SPSP that actually “…is consistent with MTC’s and ABAG’s transit-oriented development goals in which urban development is directed toward existing urban infill sites near transit corridors in order to avoid the loss of open space…[and achieves] this goal through tools and policies that give high priority to density, connectivity, jobs-housing balance, and preserving open space and ecological areas.” DEIR at E-10. Pausing this planning process to incorporate the Housing Element update has the advantage of providing time for the City working with the community and experts to craft a legally adequate and consistent General Plan, SPSP and DEIR.
Proposed Project fails to accomplish the basic requirements of a general plan: The fundamental job of a General Plan is to provide a blueprint for future development and a clear set of rules in the form of land use designations, goals, policies and implementation measures providing the basis for the City to determine whether specific development proposals are consistent with the General Plan (and in this case Specific Plan and Local Coastal Plan).5 Consistency with the applicable general plan (and other applicable plans and regulations) is a requirement for development or infrastructure project approval.
Where consistency cannot be determined due to the lack of adequate and/or consistent general plan policies – including land use designations – the general plan is inadequate. All of the plans (General Plan, SPSP and LCP) must provide consistent rules and cannot be vertically or horizontally inconsistent.
The Proposed Project fails to provide a clear and consistent set of rules for future development and in many cases defers those essential “rules” to a future uncertain date. The DEIR states this most clearly:
“The City’s Planning Department has primary responsibility for administering the laws, regulations and requirements that pertain to the physical development of the city. For example, the City’s 4 These comments cite to the earlier of the DEIR’s filed with the State Clearinghouse. Therefore, page citations may differ from the second DEIR filed – another reason for recirculation of the DEIR. 5 DEIR page 2-8 describes the purposes of the Proposed Project. Consistency with the applicable general plan is a requirement for project approval. Where consistency cannot be determined due to the lack of adequate and/or consistent general plan policies – including land use designations – the general plan is inadequate. 4 Zoning Ordinance will be amended to conform to the adopted Plan. The Zoning Ordinance will translate the Plan’s policies into specific use regulations, development standards, and performance criteria that will govern development on individual properties, and the Zoning Map will provide more detail than the General Plan diagrams.” DEIR page 3.1-26; see also DEIR page 2- 8 purposes, bullets.
It is the job of the General Plan to govern development on individual properties and to do so clearly and consistently through correlated plans, land use designations and policies. The General Plan must “serve as a yardstick so that one can take an individual parcel and check it against the general plan and know what uses would be permissible/allowed. In this case, the Proposed Project does not provide a yardstick. Instead the Proposed Project and DEIR improperly defer the construction of essential rules (yardstick) for development to the future zoning ordinance, standards, and other future planning exercises. In so deferring the Proposed Project lacks the guidance for future development required by law.
By deferring the rules that will govern development on individual properties to a later unknown date, the Proposed Project (General Plan) abdicates its legal responsibility to set forth clear guidance for future development. Sufficient detail must be included in the Proposed Project (General and Specific Plans) to determine a proposed development’s consistency with the General Plan. Instead of deferring to future ordinance updates, standards and mapping, the General Plan Update must do this work, must provide a yardstick. As currently drafted it is not clear what is allowed in terms of development citywide or in many cases on a given parcel due to inconsistent, ambiguous and deferred guidance.
Examples of deferred detail include but are not limited to the following:
• Development of consistent zoning (LU-I-15), development standards and performance criteria; • SA-I-80 Subdivisions Limitations – deferred to Zoning update6; • LU-I-14 Hillside Preservation – updated district also deferred to later date; • LU-I-15 Transfer of Development Rights -- noting the General Plan states the TDR needs to be amended to “identify areas where densities and heights may be increased;”7 and • deferred Climate Action Plan update.
Ripple effect of a Proposed Project deficiencies into the DEIR: In some cases these same policies are relied on to justify conclusions that significant impacts of the Proposed Project will be less than significant. Policies that defer the actual limit on development (e.g., SA-I-80), provide measurable performance criteria, require land use designations (LU-I-15) to be completed through zoning or standards at unknown future date cannot be relied on, as they are throughout the DEIR, to justify a conclusion that a significant impacts will be rendered less than significant with mitigation (implementation of a specified policy or policies).
6 In responding to comments or revisions to the DEIR, please also explain how SA-I-80 limitations on new subdivisions relates to LU-I-15 requiring the update of the zoning ordinance to address state requirements for housing. How will these policies be reconciled?
7 The General Plan update is the time to identify both sender and receiver (sites that could voluntarily receive additional density or intensity by purchasing sender site development allocations). It is too late to develop a TDR program once potential receiver sites have already been up-planned (been given higher densities and intensities) allocating all potential market demand for purchase of development “rights” from sender sites. 5 A summary of major flaws in the Proposed Project and DEIR is outlined below and sections of this letter provide additional details.
Summary of Major Flaws
• General Plan and SPSP: The Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP) fails to meet basic legal requirements8including to provide a clear blueprint for future development that is comprehensive and internally consistent and provides a basis for a determination of a proposed development project’s consistency with the applicable plans (general plan, SPSP and in some cases LCP). The General Plan must serve as a yardstick so that one can take an individual parcel and check it against the general plan and know what uses would be permissible/allowed. The Proposed Project fails to meet this fundamental test. The opposite of a yardstick, the Proposed Project leaves uncertain how much development, and where, the Proposed Project actually allows. Instead of describing allowable development, the Proposed Project (General Plan, SPSP) and DEIR describe growth “projected” by 2040. Instead, the Proposed Project “description” must account for growth “allowed” by the combination of land use designations and policies.
Projected development constitutes only a portion of the development allowed by the Proposed Project. Thus, the whole of the action (the whole Project) is never disclosed or analyzed.
Moreover, this flawed approach leaves the Proposed Project without a yardstick to determine a specific development proposal’s consistency with the General Plan and SPSP as required by law.
Land use designations in numerous cases conflict with policies (e.g., Pedro Point site) and there are both vertical and horizontal internal inconsistences in and between the General Plan, the SPSP and the LCP updates leaving the Proposed Project without the required yardstick. • Lack of Correlation: The circulation element of the General Plan is not correlated with the land use element or the other elements of the Proposed Project as required by law. This is a fundamental flaw and one that stems from the use of projected growth instead of allowable development. In order for the circulation (infrastructure element) to provide a plan for adequate infrastructure to serve planned growth, it must be based on actual full buildout allowed by the Proposed Project (GP and SPSP) and not a projection. • DEIR: The deficiencies in the Proposed Project ripple through the DEIR. For example, the DEIR lacks an adequate project description, relying instead on the Proposed Project’s projected growth instead of allowable development. Moreover the DEIR fails to base its evaluation of the Proposed Project on best available and adequate setting information rendering impact evaluation inadequate and incomplete. Impact evaluations are largely without quantitative analysis with most consisting of only qualitative commentary lacking facts and evidence.
Incredibly, all but one impact (VMT) is determined to be less than significant after application of inconsistent, ambiguous, unenforceable and unmeasurable Proposed Project policies (mitigation).
• Housing requirements and allocations: The Proposed Project and DEIR assume only 990 units of housing by 2040, a projection that does not include state requirements to accommodate the RHNA allocation of 1,892 units by 2031. As Governor Newsom said in releasing his new Housing 8 And also fails to meet the stated objectives of the Proposed Project. DEIR page 2-8: Provide a basis for determining whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with the City’s long-range vision. In other words, can a proposed development project be determined legally consistent with the General Plan which is a pre-requisite for project approval.
6 Plan in March 2022: “California’s 2.5 million unit target is no longer a paper exercise. It’s an expectation for the zoning, permitting and construction of real, new housing units.” Surprisingly the DEIR fails to include pertinent setting information including but not limited to:
a) the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 1,892 for the cycle ending in 2031, b) new state laws allowing additional development on single family lots (e.g., SB 9), and c) the more than 1,700 accrued residential development allocations (RDAs), among other information available at the time the DEIR was being prepared. Housing requirements and allocations are relevant to the question of what constitutes the “whole” Proposed Project for purposes of impact evaluation and adequate alternatives. • 2 Different DEIR’s/Two State Clearinghouse Documents: Two different DEIR’s were filed with the State Clearinghouse and these documents differ in material ways. Which is the right DEIR? Both are still available on-line and it is not clear which is the right DEIR. Due to the length and complexity of the Project and DEIR, our review began early, when the “first” DEIR was made available.
• Inconsistences between the Proposed Project’s text (e.g., goals and policies) and the DEIR’s mitigation measures (in the form of goals and policies from the Proposed Project): In addition to the question of which is the correct DEIR, there are significant inconsistencies between the policies cited in the DEIR that purportedly mitigate impacts and the policies contained in the General Plan and SPSP. Because “policies” are the basis for mitigating significant impacts, it is essential that the DEIR and Proposed Project are consistent as to policy numbering and text.
Again, this defect rises to the need for revision and recirculation of both the Proposed Project and DEIR.
The Opportunity
Pacifica is required to identify sites for, and plan and zone for 1,892 units by January 2023 to be built during the RHNA cycle ending in 2031, or nearly double the total amount of new housing “projected” by 2040 in the Proposed Project and analyzed in the DEIR (only 990 units). Specifically, Pacifica is required to adopt a Housing Element update by January 2023 with sufficient sites identified and zoned to meet the RHNA allocation. Pacifica is also mandated to allow residential lot splits and duplexes in single family areas, another requirement omitted from the Proposed Project and DEIR. The fact that the NOP was issued prior to these significant events does not excuse the DEIR from including this information in its evaluation of impacts and identification and analysis of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives. 9 Instead of addressing these and other omissions in responses to comments, the City should consider using the DEIR as the foundation for a refreshed Project that includes the Housing Element update. This would save time and resources and provide a much needed opportunity for additional public input to craft policies with measurable efficacy to achieve Project goals of sustainable development near transit, protection of open space and avoidance of hazards. To the extent there are areas of the City where development poses public health and safety concerns, the Council could enact a temporary Moratorium during this planning process as they did for the completion of the Hillside Preservation Overlay, Marijuana and other planning matters in the past.
9 It is a conundrum as to why the Alternatives do not include a RHNA compliant alternative, particularly since it is clear that more housing is allowed by the General Plan than is acknowledged in the Project Description and evaluated in the DEIR.
7 The promise of this General Plan update was a welcome one. However, a review of the Proposed Project fails to reveal the tools and policies (the yardstick) required and needed to determine future project consistency and to achieve the desired outcomes of urban infill near transit corridors and jobs centers, protection of open space and ecological values and avoidance of hazards. The lack of consistent and clear land use designations and policies render the Proposed Project incomplete, inadequate and internally inconsistent for reasons set forth in more detail below.
B. The Proposed General Plan is Inadequate and Internally Inconsistent As the City’s local “constitution” and blue-print for future development, Pacifica’s General Plan should meet the highest standards for completeness, consistency, and accuracy of information, including mapping of resource values and hazards. Legal requirements triggered by this comprehensive update have not been met including but not limited to the following:
• The Proposed Project (GP and SPSP) does not serve as a yardstick: One cannot determine permissible development on parcels throughout Pacifica where the land use designation and policies do not agree. The Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP) must allow property owners, decision-makers, planning staff and the public to reach the same conclusion as to the permissible uses and intensity or density allowed on any given parcel. What is allowed on parcels with biological resources that are proposed for protection? (e.g., wetlands, ESHA’s).
What is permissible on parcels with steep slopes, flood and liquefaction potential? What is allowed on parcels in flood prone areas where policies and land use designations are in conflict or leave uncertain what development is permissible? The Proposed Project also fails to clarify what effect state laws allowing lot splits and fourplexes mean for single family parcels, many of which are located on constrained sites (e.g., steep slopes, biological importance, flood prone and within sea level rise areas, among others). This is a major defect in the Proposed Project and one that must be addressed in the Proposed Project so that the public, decision-makers, planning staff and property owners all understand the development permitted on every parcel and the total allowable development in the City.
• Circulation Element Correlation: The circulation element10 must be correlated with the land use and other elements of the Proposed Project, including housing, conservation, safety and open space. Correlation is not possible until the Proposed Project describes the full extent of allowable development and where that development will occur. • Areas subject to flooding including from sea level rise: Maps and data are incomplete to allow identification of rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management as well as flood hazards, including but not limited to flood hazard zones, flood insurance maps, historical data on flooding, sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding, existing, and planned development in flood hazard zones, and establishing goals for protection of the community from risks of flooding including whether new development should be located in a flood hazard zones. The Proposed Project defers this information to a later uncertain date when ordinances, development standards and performance criteria are updated. 10 Often referred to as the infrastructure element because this element must identify the location and extent of existing and proposed transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. 8 • Consistent maps and text: The Proposed Project lacks current maps and fails with respect to hazards and biological resources to provide guidance that is consistent between maps and text (policies and land use designations). Examples include lack of consistency and clarity as to whether development is allowed on slopes over 35%, in areas of flooding, and areas of wetlands and ESHA’s.
• A fiscally responsible and complete Project: Neither General Plan nor SPSP contain a program of implementation measures including public works projects and financing necessary to carry out the policies and ensure a development pattern that together with planned and funded infrastructure mitigates otherwise significant impacts to traffic, biological resources, public health and safety among others. Deferring the identification of financing and funding sources to implement critical infrastructure to the Capital Improvement Plan or other future investigation obviates the point of approving a General Plan and SPSP that is feasible. The Proposed Project recommended for adoption must be feasible and one element of feasibility is that it can actually be financed.
• Informational, readable and available to the public: In its current form, the Proposed Project does not meet this requirement for a logical, understandable and complete package.
Instead of including best available mapping and data, the Proposed Project includes out of date and incomplete data and mapping, improperly deferring to the future updates of the zoning ordinance, subdivisions regulations, and Capital Improvement Plan for that detail. As a result the Proposed Project fails to include adequate information as required by law and in so failing, lacks the basic information needed to craft binding, consistent and measurable policy so that the Proposed Project functions as a yardstick. Examples include but are not limited to land use designations that would result in development in wetlands and environmentally sensitive ecological areas (Pedro Point), and in high fire danger and other hazard areas without adequate evacuation routes (Vallemar, Pedro Point and Fassler/Rockaway).
11 More detail about these flaws follows.
1. The Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP) is Fatally Flawed The Proposed Project fails to provide basic information required concerning allowable development (full buildout; the whole project) and is internally inconsistent, both among the elements and among the plans (General Plan, SPSP and LCP). The consistency requirement applies to maps and drawings as well as text. Here the internal inconsistencies implicate the adequacy of the DEIR since without consistent policies, it is not possible to determine what is permissible development on a parcel specific basis; a fundamental building block for an adequate Project Description. Without an adequate and complete description of the whole project, it is not possible for the environmental impact report to disclose, analyze and determine impacts or to identify and evaluate the efficacy of mitigation measures (policies) and alternatives. Examples of major flaws in the Proposed Project include but are not limited to the following:
a. Development Allowed by the Proposed Project (full buildout) is not Disclosed or Analyzed12 11 SA-I-104 Areas that Lack Emergency Access.
12 Nor can we find anywhere the acres assigned to each land use designation which would allow for a calculation of “true” full buildout to be made.
9 The Proposed Project fails to provide the most basic guidance as to what constitutes allowable development or actual buildout. This in turn undermines the Proposed Project’s performance as a yardstick to determine what is allowed on a parcel specific basis. There are various explanations provided in the General Plan and DEIR as to what amount and type of development is projected. Not a single one of these explanations include full buildout; that is allowable development should each parcel fully develop as permitted by the applicable proposed land use designation and policies. Development projected by 2040 is 990 units and approximately 630,000 square feet of non-residential uses.
Development allowed by the Proposed Project is clearly much greater. Will development proposals that go beyond the 990 units or 630,000 square feet be denied? Is there a priority for which parcels get to develop first?
The projection of 990 units does not fully reflect:
• More than 1,700 accrued residential development allocations. See Sharp Park conditions report section 2 Land Use and Development page 2-21.
• Actual development capacity when land use designations are applied to acres in each designation less existing development. Clearly, development capacity allowed by this Proposed Project is greater than 990 units and 630,000 square feet of non-residential as shown in Table 1-3, Summary of Development Capacity and Projected Demand from Existing Conditions Report and Table 4-7.13 Residential development capacity or allowed development – as contrasted with projected development – is far greater at 1,511 units and over 2 million square feet of nonresidential uses. See Exhibits 1 and 2 which provide figures for planned capacity (allowable development) based on the current general plan. Proposed Project densities and intensities are even greater than the current general plan making it likely that allowable development is even greater than shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. Updated information for planned capacity/allowable development must be provided for the Proposed Project including acres by Proposed Project land use designations.
• RHNA allocation of 1,892 units which must be planned, zoned and sites identified for by January 2023 and achieved by 2031. What is the site inventory planned and zoned to build these units and if already planned and zoned, why are these units not included in “buildout?” • Ministerial or by right development under California law including but not limited to SB 330 (Skinner) and SB 9.
• Second Units, Accessory dwelling units and density bonuses encouraged and allowed by the Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP policy) and by state law.
Significant questions must be addressed in the responses to these comments including but not limited to the following:
• What is the total amount of development allowed by the Proposed Project (the whole project) that could result in impacts? The whole project must also include essential infrastructure (transportation-related, services and utilities).
• Where will projected growth (990 units and 630,000 s.f.) actually occur (by parcel)? Since projected growth reflects only part of the development allowed, which parcels with 13 This information shows planned capacity/allowable development well beyond that projected in the Proposed Project. It is still a relevant indicator even though it is based on the current general plan. 10 development capacity beyond projected growth will not be allowed to develop until after 2040? Which site specific projects are included in the projected growth of 990 units and approximately 630,000 square feet14 of non-residential development? How was the location of projected growth factored into traffic/VMT/LOS, and other impact analyses? Pacifica is not a large city.
Development allowed by the Proposed Project can be depicted by total acres by designation (a new Table) and by mapping (by Traffic Zones and neighborhoods and by parcels). This is an accessible data base the City should have to process applications and track existing development. It is also essential information for adequate analysis of traffic, GHG, AQ and other impact analyses. In responding to comments or a revised document, this information must be provided.
• Why were RDAs, RHNA allocation, second units, ADUs, density bonus units and other units allowed by law not counted or transparently reflected in the Project Description? In responding to comments transparency of whether and how these units are accounted for must be provided. • Will development be “capped” if it exceeds “projected buildout?” Is there a trackable and enforceable limit on development both residential and non-residential that would constrain development to the projection of 990 units and 630,000 square feet? Would the growth management ordinance, expiring this year, if extended, cap growth?15 Even if so, the DEIR must evaluate the whole Project and any such limit or cap would appropriately be discussed as an alternative.
• How were the projections for buildout by 2040 derived? If based on projected demand – what is the basis for projected demand? If based on past growth trends, please describe those trends in detail and why those trends are a predictor of future growth. Specifically, since the onset of the pandemic, there has been a clear trend of people exiting major cities for communities like Pacifica. What are the trends that have emerged since 2020 and how might those influence growth pressure in Pacifica?
• Why is there no table such as for the current General Plan with acres by land use, existing development and allowable development or “capacity?” See Exhibits 1 and 2 for examples of such tables.
• What happens when the 990 units have been approved and aren’t more than 990 already in the pipeline by virtue of the 1,700 RDA’s? Meeting RHNA – 1,892 units by 2031 – would take the City well beyond the 990 units projected and purportedly analyzed in the DEIR.
The proposed General Plan’s omission of allowable buildout is a fundamental and foundational flaw with the collateral result of an inadequate Project Description in the DEIR.
A sample of the many and inconsistent explanations for using projected “buildout” rather than actual allowed buildout in the Proposed Project and DEIR individually and collectively fail to explain how projected “buildout” by 2040 was derived:
14 Inconsistent projections are also given for projected non-residential square feet ranging from 645,000 SF to 630,000 s.f.. Please state the correct amount of non-residential growth projected and allowed in the responses to comments or revised Project and DEIR.
15 Caps on growth and growth management systems have come under increased scrutiny by the State of California as the housing crisis has grown. The City’s current growth management ordinance may no longer be “legal.” What are the implications for development if the ordinance is extended? What are the implications if it is not extended? 11 DEIR Executive Summary, page E-5: “ESTIMATED BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN” “Full development under the General Plan is referred to as “buildout.” Although the General Plan envisions policies and land use intentions in the Plan to be realized by 2040, the year is not intended to be certain; nor does the designation of a site for a certain use necessarily mean the site will be built or redeveloped with that use in the next 20 years.” DEIR Page 2-20: “2.4 Buildout under the Proposed Project General Plan
Development resulting from application of land use designations and assumed densities under the General Plan is referred to as “buildout.” Buildout is calculated based on assumptions about new residential and non-residential development that could be built under the Plan’s land use designations and their respective densities and intensities, adjusted to match expected demand, discussed above.” Emphasis added. [Note: The two definitions within this definition are inconsistent].
DEIR at 2-21: “RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION
Implementation of the Proposed Project is projected to result in an additional 990 units…” DEIR at 2-22: “NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT Assuming typical averages of non-residential floor area per employee, the estimated 1,400 new jobs gained between 2020 and 2040 would require the development of approximately 630,000 square feet of additional non-residential building area.
As shown in Table 2.4.1, the General Plan is projected to result in an additional 645,400 square feet of non-residential floor area. At buildout, the Planning Area will accommodate approximately 7,310 jobs.
The mix of new jobs by land use type during the planning period is shown in Table 2.4-3. The total number of new jobs was obtained by determining the number of jobs by land use classification and subtracting the number of jobs from existing development.
DEIR at 9-2 Glossary:
Buildout. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum probable level of development envisioned by the General Plan under specified assumptions about densities and intensities. Buildout does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.
Land Use Element page 25, Buildout
“Potential new development through the horizon year and the corresponding growth in population and employment is referred to as “buildout.” Buildout is based on existing development and an estimated amount of potential new development in the Planning Area.
Buildout estimates should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of 12 development that will occur through 2040 is based on many factors outside of the City’s control, including changes in regional real estate and labor markets and other long-term economic and demographic trends. Therefore, buildout estimates represent potentialities rather than definitive figures. To estimate buildout, assumptions were made about the density of development in each proposed land use designation, as well as the percentage of parcels that would actually develop depending on location and land use designation. The designation of a site for a particular land use in the General Plan does not guarantee that the site will be developed or redeveloped with that use or assumed density during the planning period, as future development will rely primarily on each property owner’s initiative.” Land Use Element page 25, Buildout
“As Table 4-2 shows, buildout would result in an estimated 990 new housing units. Of these units, 12 percent would be single-family residential, and 88 percent would be multi-family residential including those in mixed-use developments.”
None of the various explanations of Proposed Project projected “buildout “actually represent what the proposed General Plan and SPSP allow based on land use designations and acres in each designation less existing development. Instead at best we get a guess at what might be built by 2040; a “projection.” There is no credible explanation as to how or why only 990 housing units and approximately 630,000 square feet of non-residential uses would be the maximum development built by 2040 with implementation of this proposed General Plan and SPSP. Moreover, there is no explanation of where these units and non-residential square footage would be built; essential information for many of the DEIR’s impact evaluations. Allowable development or “true” buildout is foundational to an accurate analysis of traffic-related impacts including Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), emergency access and evacuation routes, as well as other impacts. Allowable development or full buildout is also foundational to a correlated circulation element and internally consistent general plan. Without information about full buildout, the DEIR does not have the foundational information and data to evaluate, analyze and disclose project-related and cumulative impacts. Without adequate analysis and disclosure of impacts, the DEIR’s identification and evaluation of mitigation measures and alternatives is also flawed.
What is Required: The Proposed Project and DEIR must include a detailed description of actual allowed buildout. The resulting General Plan must provide a yardstick so that the permissible development of each parcel is known and understood by property owners, decision makers, city staff and the public.
Actual buildout/allowed development is what determines the full potential for environmental impacts.
A reasonable definition of buildout is the state of maximum development as permitted by a plan or regulation or as the glossary states: That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan. By replacing actual buildout allowed by the Proposed Project with a 2040 “projection” the General Plan and SPSP fail to describe what is actually allowed. Therefore the proposed General Plan and SPSP fail to provide a legally adequate blueprint or yardstick for development and an accurate description of the Project for purposes of environmental analysis. In describing buildout all assumptions must be clearly explained. Pacifica is not a large city making it well within the realm of feasibility to depict on accessible and clear maps allowed development. This omission alone is reason for revision and recirculation of the Proposed Project and DEIR.
13 Existing Development is also improperly based on projections rather than actual existing development on the ground. Making accurate calculations of buildout even more fraught, the Proposed Project and DEIR base existing development – units and non-residential square feet – on estimates. This approach renders existing development figures highly suspect. The City of Pacifica must use real on the ground development and permit records to document existing development. For jobs, the DEIR and Proposed Project rely on C/CAG2040 Travel Demand Model estimates for 2020 jobs by sector. See DEIR page 2-21 footnote 1 to Table 2.4-1. Housing units are from the 2020 Dept of Finance Population and Housing Estimates. See DEIR page 2-21 footnote 1 to Table 2.4-1.
Use of projections and estimates both for existing development (units/jobs) and for allowable development renders the Proposed Project an inadequate blueprint for development, makes development project consistency determinations impossible and renders the DEIR inadequate as well. b. Examples of a Flawed Project Description
The most basic question when approving a project is whether the parcel can be developed at all, and is so, with what uses, coverage, intensities and densities. It is the most basic job of a general plan to provide that clear guidance. In order to accurately describe the project – development allowed by the proposed General Plan and SPSP – and where that development will occur, the land use designations and policies must be unambiguous and consistent with one another. This is the work of a General Plan and Specific Plan and cannot be deferred to the zoning ordinance, development standards or other future rule making.
For example, Pedro Point field is an undeveloped site within the Coastal Zone. It is frequently flooded and in a Tsunami evacuation zone. It is also home to special status, possibly endangered species and wetlands and ESHA. What development proposal would be consistent with the Proposed Project? What is permissible in terms of development coverage of the parcels, land uses and maximum intensities and densities? The land use designation proposed is for Coastal Residential Mixed Use allowing 15 units per gross acre (not counting density bonus) and up to 0.5 FAR. Policies prohibiting development of wetlands, protecting species and habitats, among others appear to limit development well below what the land use designation would allow. However, with state housing law increasingly constraining local control it is imperative that the Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP) provide a clear and concise “rules” for future development, in other words a yardstick. Otherwise the ambiguities and inconsistencies between designations and policies make it impossible understand what is permissible and to make General Plan consistency determinations. See Exhibit 8 for more details.
2. The Proposed Project Fails to Include Information Required by Law State laws and the Office of Planning and Research provide checklists for the required contents of a legally adequate general plan, including contents for each element and contents triggered by plan updates. Specific Plan law specifies the required contents of specific plans. This letter touches on some of the omissions above under Summary of Major Flaws with more examples summarized below. • Circulation Element: A complete and correlated circulation element identifying proposed transportation routes and public utilities and facilities including sewage transport and treatment, transmission lines and upgrades, broadband, drainage facilities meeting stated performance standards and the needs of all types of users. In this case, the circulation element 14 cannot be complete because it is based on only a portion of the growth planned and allowed by the Proposed Project.
• Land Use Element Correlated w All Elements: Consistent land use designations and policies that allow the public, city staff and decision makers, property owners and developers, permitting agencies and others to understand what is permissible in terms of land use, parcel coverage, density and intensity on every legal parcel in Pacifica. • General Plan and SPSP: Information about the total development allowed (actual buildout). • Land Use, Safety, Conservation and Open Space Elements: Up to date, best available maps clearly showing the location of hazards (flooding, sea level rise, steep slopes, etc.) and biological resources targeted for protection at a parcel level. Maps and data required by law are either omitted entirely from the General Plan or in other cases are out of date or inadequate to allow identification of rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management as well as flood hazards (including but not limited to flood hazard zones, flood insurance maps, historical data on flooding, sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding, existing, and planned development in flood hazard zones, and establishing goals for protection of the community from risks of flooding including whether new development should be located in a flood hazard zones).
• Conservation and Open Space (also correlated with land use): Identification (maps) of vacant lands that cannot be developed due to environmental constraints (hazards, biological values, other). Strategies for protecting important open space and conservation lands including financing proposals.
• Financing and funding sources to implement the General Plan and SPSP. • Climate adaption and resiliency strategies as required to be integrated into general plans by SB 379.16
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of the required contents of general and specific plans.
See Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines 2017 and supplementary planning advisories: General Plan Information - Office of Planning and Research (ca.gov) C. The DEIR is Inadequate
As explained below, the Proposed Project’s flaws described above have a ripple effect on the adequacy of the DEIR and its ability to disclose, analyze and characterize impacts as well as the adequacy of mitigation measures (policies) and alternatives.
1. The DEIR’s Project Description is Inadequate
An accurate, stable and complete project description is foundational to an adequate environmental impact report. Where the project description is truncated or incomplete in any way there is insufficient basis for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. In this case, the DEIR’s description of the Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP) is fatally flawed. Therefore the DEIR fails to provide the information required to support disclosure, analysis and mitigation of the potentially significant impacts of the development allowed by the Proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) defines the 16 If the City contends that these strategies are integrated in the Proposed Project, please list the strategies assumed to comply with this law in the response to comments or revised DEIR. 15 “project” as the whole of the action that has potential for resulting in either direct physical changes in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Case law notes that lead agencies should define its projects broadly to ensure a complete analysis of impacts and must include consideration of future expansion or other actions that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed project. Sufficient detail about the project must be knowable and included for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. a. The DEIR Fails to Analyze Impacts from Development Allowed by the Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP)
As described above, the amount of development allowed by the Proposed Project and the location(s) of that development are not fully disclosed. Instead “buildout” under the Proposed Project is a projection and does not reflect development actually allowed. As a result of a flawed description of the Proposed Project, the DEIR grossly underestimates permissible development and the associated impacts of that development. As described above, allowable development is likely double or more that projected by 2040. Impacts, such as traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, would be magnitudes greater than disclosed in the DEIR if that is the case. Moreover, additional infrastructure and services would likely be required to serve “full buildout.” Because the Proposed Project fails to account for full buildout, it also fails to account for infrastructure and services needed to support full buildout and the associated impacts.
The DEIR bases its analysis of impacts on “projected growth” until the horizon year of 2040 rather than on allowed growth. For CEQA purposes, a guesstimate of projected “buildout” is not representative of the whole project. Allowable development represented by the land use designation is likely the best source of true “buildout.” The City’s decision to use a projection for growth by 2040 rather than development that is allowed under the Proposed Project results in an underestimation of both residential and non-residential development that could occur in the City.17 While it may be appropriate to also analyze the likely projected growth by a horizon year, the environmental review must be of the whole project that could result in impacting the environment.
Without a cap on total development to limit it to projected growth, actual growth could be greater and in different locations than analyzed in the DEIR leading to even greater impacts on traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, public services and more. A revised DEIR must include an analysis of true buildout; that which can be built under the Proposed Project. A revised DEIR can also analyze projected growth, but it cannot exclude analysis of the whole project. b. The DEIR fails to Analyze Development Allowed By Right by State Law The DEIR must base its analysis of impacts on the whole of the action that has potential for resulting in either direct physical changes in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Case law notes that lead agencies should define its projects broadly to ensure a complete analysis of impacts and must include consideration of future expansion or other actions that are identifiable as reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed project. In addition to artificially constraining “build out” to projected growth by 2040 only, the project description fails to include additional development that could occur with approval of the Proposed Project. Specifically, the project description fails to include foreseeable additional housing allowed by State and local density 17 Also leads to the DEIR’s underestimation of Proposed Project-related significant and adverse impacts. 16 bonuses, accessory or second dwelling units and lot splits/additional units associated with Senate Bill 9.
Many of the units allowed under these policies and statutes are by-right. For example, under newly affirmed state density bonus law, once a developer commits to making a specified portion of a project affordable to lower-income households, increased building density, exemptions from zoning rules, height limits and other local restrictions are available ministerially (by-right). As with additional accessory dwelling units and lot splits, the additional housing potential associated with these and other state laws can be estimated and must be included in the project description. Having failed to include this development potential in the project description renders the DEIR inadequate and results in the DEIR grossly underestimating impacts.
Many of the units allowed by newly minted state law, such as lot splits and fourplexes, will most likely be built outside of transit and jobs rich infill areas but rather in single family neighborhoods and at the City’s edge. In fact at least one application has already been filed under SB 9 for a lot split. In addition to analyzing these additional units as part of a revised Project Description (or alternative), the DEIR must analyze impacts based on where these units are likely to occur. Such impacts could be higher VMT and GHG where units are not served by transit or new jobs and services. Greater impacts from hazards due to growth in areas underserved by evacuation routes should also be analyzed.
2. The DEIR’s Environmental Setting is Inadequate
An EIR must present an adequate and complete description of the environmental setting in the vicinity of the project as it existed before commencement of the project. Specifically, the DEIR must describe the physical conditions which exist within the area affected by the project based on the most recent information available. An adequate, accurate and complete description of these pre-existing conditions establishes the baseline for analyzing whether the project’s impacts are or are not significant. In combination with the project description, this environmental setting information provides the foundation for an EIR’s evaluation and analysis of environmental impacts. In this case the combination of flawed project description and setting cripple the DEIR’s ability to adequately evaluate and analyze project-related and cumulative impacts, and to identify and evaluation mitigation measures and alternatives. Thus, the very basic functions of an EIR cannot be performed.
The DEIR’s description of environmental setting alone and in combination with the flawed project description is insufficient to allow analysis of many impacts, including but not limited to traffic and VMT, air quality and GHG, emergency access and evacuation routes, and impacts to important biological resources. More was possible to describe existing conditions; the City and its consultants simply chose not to do so. Examples of omitted, out of date and otherwise flawed setting information include but are not limited to the following.
o Population, demographic and jobs information. The DEIR fails to provide information needed to inform whether the Proposed Project improves or makes worse the jobs housing ratio and even more importantly jobs housing “fit.” Jobs housing fit refers to whether the jobs provide wages sufficient for employees to reside in or near Pacifica and in turn is an important metric for determining commutes, VMT and related impacts such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. What is the current jobs-housing fit? Are jobs generated by the Proposed Project at wage scale employees can afford to live in Pacifica? Many jobs such as those in hospitality and services cannot be performed remotely. Are 17 growth pressures increasing due to those seeking more suburban lifestyles during Covid?
o Traffic and VMT: Much of the setting data for the analysis of traffic and VMT is out of date or for different periods. For example, 2010 data is used for some analysis, which is prior to the completion of the Devil’s Slide Highway 1 tunnel. More recent and reliable data is available from Caltrans and other sources. o Fire Hazard in the City and its planning area. The fire map, DEIR figure 3.14-1, does not include Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, but such zones exist and are mapped in readily available public sources, including the 2014 Draft General Plan Figure 8-5 and included here as Exhibit 6. In addition, the State’s Office of Planning and Research and California Public Utilities Commission provide free, easily downloadable maps of fire hazard areas that should be part of the DEIR’s analysis of fire. See Exhibits 3-6. Fire hazard is no longer merely a function of areas located in High and Very High Wildfire Severity Zones. Other sources should be included that inform the City’s vulnerability to fire. See also comment letter submitted by Christine Boles on 3/6/22.
o More recent wetlands and habitat’s surveys for areas planned for development in the proposed GP and SPSP. For example, more recent surveys and studies were done for the Quarry as part of the 2020 rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan. Link:
https://www.cityofpacific.org/depts/planning/proposed_pacifica_quarry_reclamati on _pr_oject.asp.
o Current information about biological resources including presence of the Tidewater Goby, omitted from the inventory in the DEIR, ESHA’s, and wetlands mapping readily available from the National Wetlands Inventory. Omission of this information results in underestimating Project-related impacts. o Landslide susceptibility mapping available from the Department of Conservation.
Exhibit 7.
o Up to date and parcel specific vulnerability mapping and information including long-term potential for erosion of shorelines and bluffs. This information is critical to formulating land use designations and policies for “planned retreat” as warranted by past and projected bluff and shoreline retreat. o Other examples are provided in comment letters submitted as listed in Footnote 4.
The DEIR omits this readily available and in many cases free or low cost information that forms the foundation for the evaluation of project-related and cumulative impacts. The DEIR must include this information; it can’t be referenced in other documents. Based on a revised setting, revised impact analysis must be completed.
3. The DEIR’s Analysis of Impacts is Flawed
An EIR must evaluate all significant effects of a proposed project, in this case both the proposed GP and SPSP. The severity and probability of the occurrence of these impacts must also be disclosed and documented. Bare conclusions without evidence, explanation and analysis is not sufficient. Reasons for why an impact is deemed significant or insignificant must be clearly explained. The DEIR also must separately evaluate subcomponents of the Proposed Project and assess the impacts of potential future projects allowed by these Plans. In order to adequately evaluate the impacts of the project (GP and 18 SPSP), the DEIR must reflect the most recent information available for each impact topic. For example, there are readily available and free downloadable maps depicting the wildland urban interface (source:
State Office of Planning and Research Fire Hazard Planning Technical Advisory, 2020 Update: OPR Fire Hazard Planning Technical Advisory: Fire-Threat Maps and Fire-Safety Rulemaking (ca.gov). See also fire threat maps from CalFire, Fire Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) and CPUC Fire Threat maps:
Exhibits 3-6. This readily available and free information is foundational to an EIR’s evaluation of projectrelated and cumulative impacts.
As described above, the DEIR’s ability to analyze project-specific, direct and indirect and cumulative impacts is gravely hampered by the lack of an adequate project description including but not limited to the full potential allowable development or buildout and the location of where that development is allowed to occur. The DEIR’s ability to analyze project-specific, direct and indirect and cumulative impacts is further hampered by the lack of adequate environmental setting information. Of the numerous impacts covered in the DEIR, strikingly only one impact—3.2-2 Vehicles Miles Traveled – is found significant and unavoidable. All other impacts are found less than significant; most based on the implementation of mitigation consisting of weak and in many cases, deferred mitigation, in the form of proposed General Plan and SPSP (Proposed Project) policies. Where the DEIR attempts to analyze impacts, the analysis is not based on accurate project and setting information and the conclusions concerning significance of impacts lacks analytical rigor and facts. Impact evaluation is mostly “conversational” and qualitative with little to no quantitative analysis. Thus, the DEIR’s conclusion that all but one impact is less than significant is unsupported by facts and evidence. For example, mitigation measures (policies) are attributed with reducing significant impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, but nowhere are there metrics (use numbers, percentages or calculations) documenting the efficacy of these measures. And many of the most promising measures, such as Subdivision Limits, Transfer of Development Rights, Funding for Open Space presentation, are improperly deferred until zoning updates are completed or later.
Some of the examples of inadequate impact analyses are explained below. a. The Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP) will have Significant Adverse Traffic Impacts that are not Disclosed or Properly Analyzed in the DEIR The Proposed Project will have significant adverse traffic impacts that are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR. Potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project include conflicts with circulation system programs and policies, significantly increased traffic and VMT, and lack of emergency access.
With the exception of the DEIR’s identification of VMT impacts as significant and unavoidable, all other traffic impacts are found to be less than significant through implementation of proposed policies (mitigation). The DEIR’s analysis and conclusions are flawed for all traffic impacts, but we focus our two main examples on VMT and emergency access.
VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled is the most important metric for measuring the multi-dimensional quality of growth in a community and can be a key strategy for achieving desired growth patterns (e.g., infill near transit, jobs and services, reduced sprawl into hazard and biodiverse areas). Specifically, where communities are using VMT metrics and exchanges to direct where development occurs, VMT provides an enforceable approach to reduce high VMT development (low densities and development at or beyond the community edge away from jobs, transit and services) and in transit and jobs rich infill locations. Not only does the Proposed Project miss an opportunity for leading edge policy to achieve 19 stated outcomes (such as San Jose’s VMT policy and fee program), BUT the DEIR ALSO fails to adequately analyze and disclose the Proposed Project’s full VMT impacts. Data relied on for the analysis is incomplete and out of date. Nowhere does the DEIR disclose the full VMT that would be generated by the Proposed Project. Even though the DEIR finds VMT impacts significant and unavoidable it must still impose all feasible mitigation measures.
VMT is Grossly Underestimated: The DEIR concludes that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, sub. (b); or VMT. However, in so finding, the DEIR grossly underestimates VMT since calculations were based on the Preferred scenario or Proposed Project and not on the whole Project (i.e., buildout allowed under the Proposed Project). See DEIR at 3-28 and explanation of buildout above. Our estimate is that buildout allowed under the Proposed Project would at a minimum be an additional 500 housing units beyond the projected 990 units, and more likely double that given second units/ADUs, 1,700 RDAs, implementation of SB 918 and density bonuses. See Exhibits 1 and 2 which show planned capacity based on the current general plan far in excess of 990 units and 630,000 s.f. of non-residential uses. The DEIR’s analysis only considered the “projection” for an additional 990 units and 630,000 s.f. of non-residential uses by 2040.
The analysis is also flawed. There is no explanation as to how the proposed policies (mitigation) would decrease VMT per capita by 8.6 percent. DEIR page 3-40. Nor does the DEIR measure or explain how mitigation measures, specifically TDM measures and requirement that new developments prepare transportation impact assessments, reduce VMT impacts. Through non-quantitative commentary, the DEIR concludes that such policies as those “encouraging” infill will further reduce VMT, but no quantitative documentation is provided (metrics or calculations) to support that conclusion. Also, because there will be fewer jobs per capita with allowable development (true buildout), and development likely more spread out (ADUs/lot splits in single-family neighborhoods) VMT per capita of
15.77 miles per resident is likely low and overall VMT will likely be much greater with implementation of the Proposed Project -- which in turn factors into greater air quality and GHG emissions impacts.
Even though VMT is found to be significant and unavoidable, all feasible mitigation measures must be identified. Where mitigation is relied on to suggest impacts, or in this case per capital VMT, will be reduced the DEIR must include quantified analysis (transparent mathematical calculations).
In addition to the questions above, please address these questions in the responses to comments (or revised documents):
• Which specific mitigation measures (policies or land use designations) contribute to a reduction in VMT per capita under the Proposed Project? And by how much? • How will policies critical to achieving reduced VMT, as well as air quality and GHG emissions, including but not limited to LU-G-2 Concentrated Development and LU-G-3 Future Residential Development limits actually be achieved and enforced given RHNA requirements, SB 2 and other factors?
• Which specific mitigation measures contribute to a reduction in total VMT and by how much? • How much VMT will be generated by the Proposed Project (whole project rather than projected growth)?
18 At least one application has already been submitted to the City for a lot split (2 units on a single family lot), doubling or more, with second units/ADUs allowed the density on a single family lot. 20 • How does implementation of new state laws allowing lot splits and fourplexes factor into per capita VMT?
• How much VMT will be generated by the accommodation of the RHNA allocation? Also, how will RHNA allocations change LOS throughout the City?
• Were units allocated by the City’s growth management ordinance (1,700) included in the VMT calculations? Also in the LOS analysis?
Emergency Access and Evacuation: The Proposed Project will have significant adverse impacts to emergency vehicle access that are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR asserts without foundation that although implementation of the Proposed Project and increases in regional travel passing through Pacifica would increase the amount of vehicular traffic in and around the City -- and may therefore increase the number of potential emergency vehicle conflicts -- implementation of Project policies will improve connections between communities, provide additional routes and result in a less-than-significant impact. DEIR at 3-45. The discussion notes that emergency access is typically assessed at a project level. Contrary to that assertion, it is at the General Plan Update time that infrastructure must be planned to accommodate planned land uses (requirement that the circulation/infrastructure element be correlated with the land use plan). This could be accomplished through appropriate land use designations and overlays and planned improvements to the circulation system reflected in a legally adequate circulation element. Deferring the obligation to plan for adequate infrastructure including safe emergency access and evacuation routes to the project level neither addresses the problem as the General Plan must nor mitigates the significant impacts of the Proposed Project.
A key policy (mitigation measure) underscores why it is at the General Plan level that a city-wide plan needs to be in place for adequate emergency and evacuation access:
SA-I-104 Areas that Lack Emergency Access. Develop a plan to widen critical rights-of-way that do not provide adequate clearance for emergency vehicles. For areas that are not feasibly accessible to emergency vehicles, develop a contingency plan for reaching and evacuating people in need of treatment. This initiative should include a plan to open access to or otherwise serve the Pedro Point, Fassler/Rockaway, and Vallemar neighborhoods.
The project description must include a general description of the project’s technical, economic and environmental characteristics, considering principal engineering proposals and supporting facilities. A legally adequate and correlated circulation element must include planned infrastructure sufficient to serve planned (allowed) development. To the extent that key policies require additional infrastructure be built such as road widening, new routes, those improvements must also be included in a revised circulation element and Project Description. The impacts associated with those improvements must be analyzed.
A revised DEIR must either include additional mitigation measures to reduce clearly significant impacts associated with the lack of emergency access and evacuation routes, or find this impact Significant and Unavoidable.
Improper Baseline: In addition to these examples of inadequate disclosure and analysis resulting in understating the significance of traffic-related impacts, the traffic analysis uses an improper baseline or baselines. CEQA requires the lead agency to use a baseline that represents real conditions on the 21 ground at the time of CEQA review. The DEIR relies on traffic data that in some cases goes back to 2010, 2011 and in the case of potential VMT thresholds of significance, 2015 (DEIR page 3-28, 3-40). More current information exists and should be the basis for revised impact analysis.
Inadequate Cumulative Analysis: The traffic analysis fails to include many reasonably foreseeable future projects including but not limited to accommodation of the RHNA allocation of 1,892 units and foreseeable housing required by state law (e.g., SB 9). These projects will have adverse cumulative traffic and other impacts together with the Project, which are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR.
Feasible Mitigation: While the DEIR acknowledges that the Project has significant impacts to VMT, it does not impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce such impacts as is required by CEQA. The DEIR’s measures are weak, unenforceable, unmeasurable and incomplete. Examples of the types of measures that should be included in a revised DEIR include but are not limited to the following:
• A VMT-based fee and VMT exchange program promoting infill near transit, jobs and services and provide funding to purchase properties whose development would result in high VMT. See e.g., City of San Jose VMT policy and program: Mobility: Vehicle Miles Traveled | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov)
• Land use overlay designation prohibiting new subdivisions, limiting development to one unit per legal lot of record, and requiring development to be transferred where possible (VMT exchange program/updated TRD program) where evacuation routes are inadequate and hazardous conditions high (e.g., flood, landslide, fire, sea level rise, tsunami, etc.). b. The Project is Likely to have Significant Adverse Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts that are not Disclosed or Analyzed
The DEIR concludes that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact for all four air quality significance criteria. DEIR section 3.3 Air Quality. This conclusion is incorrect for several reasons.
First, as noted herein, the air quality analysis conducted within the DEIR is based on outdated baseline data that do not accurately reflect current population, traffic and other relevant metrics within the Project area. Second the DEIR fails to account for allowable development under the Proposed Project (i.e., the whole of the project or full buildout), relying instead on a projection for development by 2040.
Projected development reflects only a portion of development allowed by the Proposed Project.
Allowable development is significantly more units and non-residential square feet than the 2040 project of 990 units and 630,000 s.f. of non-residential use as described above. Third, the DEIR fails to account for development projects already proposed under SB 9 and foreseeable development pursuant to the RHNA allocation and RDAs, which development could be considerable in number over the life of the Project. Due to these and other reasons, the DEIR’s air quality analysis and resultant significance determinations underestimates and misrepresent the significance of air quality impacts.
In order for the DEIR to analyze whether or not the Proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan the analysis must consider the existing population and VMT and population and VMT under the proposed Project. DEIR page 3.3-20. As discussed above in the traffic section, the DEIR fails to follow this methodology and as a result does not disclose the vehicle miles traveled generated by implementation of the Proposed Project. The DEIR has a figure for Pacifica’s 2015 VMT in Table 3.2-6, as well as for No Project (current general plan) and Proposed Project 22 (portion of development allowed by the proposed General Plan or 990 units by 2040). Nowhere in the DEIR is the VMT resulting from implementation of the Project disclosed (i.e., buildout allowed under the Proposed GP and SPSP). Therefore, there is no evidence supporting the DEIR’s conclusion that impacts with respect to the applicable air quality plan is less than significant.
In determining that all air quality impacts would be less than significant, the DEIR relies heavily on a few policies (mitigation measures) including (see DEIR 3.3-21-22):
• Policy CO-I-54 requiring the City to update its Climate Action Plan. • Goals and policies focusing on promoting mixed-use and transit-oriented development, sustainable and environmentally-sensitive design and multimodal mobility. • Policies promoting preservation of open space including coastal areas, ridgelines, parks, and tree canopy.
Based on many of the same polices (mitigation measures) the DEIR finds impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions less than significant. The evaluation of GHG suffers from the same problems as for air quality, notably the lack of a complete Project Description. Similar policies (mitigation measures) are relied on to reduce GHG impacts. The efficacy of these policies to reduce air quality and GHG emissions is unclear as there is no quantitative analysis of the efficacy of these policies to reduce air emissions.
Moreover, the efficacy of these well-intentioned high level policies is significantly undermined by the fact that the Proposed Project allows more development than analyzed, and includes land use designations that encourage or ministerially permit low density development in areas that are not transportation efficient or jobs and services rich. The first SB 9 application is for a lot in a low density residential area adjacent to San Pedro Mountain which would by definition be a high VMT area. At the very least, the “whole” project must be analyzed and impacts disclosed and feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing significant impacts recommended. c. The DEIR Fails to Disclose and Analyze Land Use, Population and Housing Impacts The DEIR erroneously concludes that impacts of the Proposed Project on land use, population and housing would be less than significant. This conclusion is based on much lower growth and development than is actually allowed by the Proposed Project and by state law.
For example, the DEIR’s analysis of growth, population, employing and housing impacts is inadequate.
The DEIR concludes: “The Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly,” finding this a less than significant impact. DEIR at 3.1-29 The DEIR bases this conclusion on projected development by 2040 rather than on actual development allowed by the Project (the whole of the project or full buildout). The Proposed Project only anticipates 990 units by 2040, thereby understating allowable development by 50 percent or more. DEIR at 3.1-29.
Not included in the growth assumptions are the required units under the RHNA allocation (1,892 units not 990), 1,700 RDA’s, ministerially permitted fourplexes, lot splits, ADU’s and density bonus units or the actual development allowed by land use designations in the Proposed GP and SPSP.
The additional 500+ units above the projected 990 units will certainly increase the jobs-housing imbalance as well as jobs-housing fit, thereby increasing not only VMT but likely also VMT per capita.
Increases in VMT and in VMT per capita bring into question compliance with the Air Quality Plan.
Increased traffic and VMT, particularly where resulting from spread out, lower density development 23 such as lot splits, ADUs and fourplexes could trigger significant localized and regional air quality and GHG emissions above those analyzed in the DEIR. Also, additional units and residents will certainly increase the need for a full range of services including but not necessarily limited to schools, day care, police and fire, and more.
According to the DEIR discussion "...policies in the Proposed Project encourage infill development that would avoid unplanned development that could be induced through infrastructure expansions into new growth areas,” concluding therefore the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, and the Proposed Project’s impacts would be less than significant. DEIR at 3.1-30. Nowhere does the DEIR provide metrics or calculations that show how much these policies (mitigation measures) will actually result in these land use patterns or how these policies would reduce significant air quality impacts. As described above, a substantial amount of the development allowed by the Project beyond the 990 units projected, could occur in currently singlefamily areas of the City19, stretching road capacity, parking, evacuation routes, and services. This is precisely the kind of induced growth impact a DEIR must disclose, analyze and mitigate.
By ignoring the full growth and development allowed by the Proposed Project (GP and SPSP) the DEIR fails to disclose and analyze likely significant growth, population, employment (jobs housing ratios and jobs housing fit20) and the full array of housing-related impacts. The direct and indirect impacts of the full growth potential of the Proposed Project must be disclosed and analyzed in a revised DEIR.
Moreover, the DEIR’s conclusion that implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is less than significant is in error. DEIR at 3.1-26, Impact 3.1-2. One example of conflict is the Proposed Project’s designation of Pedro Point Avenue Site, an approximately 4-acre undeveloped site within the Coastal Zone, for Coastal Residential Mixed Use, allowing 20+ units and 17,000+ square feet of non-residential uses on this site not including potential density bonus and other residential uses that are now by right under state law. This site has been classified by US Fish and Wildlife as a wetland within the National Wetlands Inventory. In addition, as noted in a letter submitted to the City by Dr. Peter Baye, the site is valuable habitat for special status species. In addition, development of this site at the density and intensity proposed would further impact an inadequate evacuation route; an impact not disclosed, analyzed or mitigated in the DEIR. The Proposed Project (General Plan) does including policies requiring more detailed evaluation once a project is proposed (e.g., SA-I-11 Grading and Drainage Plans, CO-I-4 Wetlands Preservation). The most important measure is the General Plan’s land use designation which in this case is inconsistent with Coastal Act Policy and internally inconsistent with numerous goals and policies in the General Plan. This is a clear case of conflict and the Proposed Project land use designation should be changed to be consistent with site characteristics and constraints and the Coastal Act. In this case the lowest possible density is appropriate, 2 units subject to merging the three parcels; or maximum of 1 unit per legal parcel in combination with a “Climate Resilience Overlay” requiring analysis of potential purchase or transfer of 19 Due to ministerial development allowed by SB 9 and ADUs/secondary dwellings and also units that must be accommodated to meet RHNA.
20 Jobs housing fit – which must also be analyzed in the DEIR and is not – measures the imbalance between a city’s total number of low- wage workers and the quantity of homes affordable to them. Where jobs housing fit is off, longer commutes, higher VMT, increased air pollution and GHG are the result. A revised DEIR must include analysis of jobs housing fit.
24 development as a condition of any development proposal. See mitigation measures section of this letter.
Another example of the Proposed Project (General Plan’s) conflict with Coastal Act Policy and the draft Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is the General Plan’s policy allowing under some circumstances the use of seawalls or shoreline alterations for protection of new development. General Plan page 8-9. Whereas the draft LCP provides that any new development in the Coastal Zone shall not in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
These provisions provide conflicting advice for new development and should be made consistent. How would restrictions on use of protective devices under the Coastal Act change proposed and permissible development of Sharp Park? Other low lying areas of the City? Policies in the Proposed Project (GP, SPSP and LCP) that are in conflict are too numerous to list but also include cases of land use designations allowing development of ESHA’s, wetlands and high hazard areas where there are other choices for more restrictive land use designations that would avoid those conflicts (e.g., as described above in the section on VMT). A revised DEIR must include a comprehensive list of applicable federal, state, regional and local policies, standards and regulations and state how the Proposed Project is consistent with each. This typically done in table form listing all potential inconsistencies so that they could be rectified prior to Project approval. We request this information either in text or table form be included in a revised DEIR. d. The DEIR Fails to Disclose and Analyze Significant Wildfire Hazards and Impacts The DEIR erroneously concludes that implementation of the Proposed Project (General Plan) would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, finding this impact less than significant. DEIR at 3.11-23. According to the DEIR:
“…wildland fire hazard is minimal in most of Pacifica within city limits because it is mostly urbanized.” DEIR at 3.11-23.
This statement is unsupported by facts and evidence and is clearly incorrect. In the last decade numerous “urbanized” areas have been significantly impacted and some wiped out by wildland fire, including major urbanized areas of Redding, Santa Rosa and the entire town of Paradise. No longer is wildland fire just a threat to community perimeters. The DEIR itself contradicts the conclusion that the threat to developed areas in Pacifica from fire hazard is less than significant:
“In California, most wildfire damage occurs inn wildland urban interface [WUI] areas, where homes and woodland vegetation are directly adjacent.
Neither the Proposed Project nor the DEIR contain a map of the WUI areas within Pacifica even though a map of California’s WUI is available from CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and a downloadable version can also be found on the Office of Planning and Research’s website. Nor does the Project or the DEIR contain other readily available maps of high fire threat. Exhibits 3-6.
By inappropriately constraining the impact evaluation for fire hazard risk to defined fire zones (only Very High Fire Severity Zones) the DEIR fails to consider the rapidly changing climate and fact that all of Pacifica is under threat due to a new era of catastrophic fire behavior. In a recent (June 7, 2021) Coastal 25 Conservancy grant award to the City for wildlife urban interface fuel reduction (Chipper Program), the staff recommendation states in pertinent part:
“The City of Pacifica is bordered by Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone at its southern boundary, where vast swaths of open space extend down the San Francisco and San Mateo Coastside (Exhibit 1). Each year hot weather and high winds pose a fire hazard throughout the City of Pacifica.” Page 3, Link to Coastal Conservancy Staff Report, source of quote: PROJECT NAME (ca.gov) The DEIR’s analysis of fire impact should be completely revised taking into account the information readily available in the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advise series including Fire Hazard Planning Advisory: General Plan Guidelines and Technical Advisories - Office of Planning and Research Wildfire risk takes into account a number of factors that render all of Pacifica at risk for damage due to a spreading wildfire including high fuel hazard at the community edge, probability of a fire, proximity or presence of WUI, slopes, topography and other factors. In addition to measures trained on urban areas that could be impacted by wildfire, the Guidelines recommend protection of open space and conservation of natural and working lands for multiple benefits including carbon sequestration but also wildfire mitigation and risk reduction.
A completely revised DEIR must analyze fire risk based on the conditions present in a new era and a changing climate, designate fire a Significant and Unavoidable impact21 of the Proposed Project. The revisions should also reclassify the potential for exposure of people or structures to significant, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes to significant and unavoidable unless stronger policies (mitigation measures) are adopted. This sections conclusion concerning the disposition of Impact 3-14.4 is based on the erroneous conclusion that wildfire risk is less than significant. DEIR page 18: “…because the Proposed Project maintains restrictions on development in hazardous areas near VHFHSZ, the potential exposure of people and structures to post-fire landslides and flooding would not increase significantly…”. Montecito California is an example of where a wildland fire swept through the area later resulting in catastrophic landslides throughout the community. These DEIR sections must be updated to reflect this era of changing risk and recommendations for stronger and enforceable mitigation measures in the form of policies and land uses. Examples of meaningful mitigation measures:
• General Plan level land use overlay designation prohibiting new subdivisions, limiting development to one unit per legal lot of record, and requiring development to be transferred where possible (VMT exchange program/updated TRD program) for areas with inadequate evacuation routes and hazardous conditions high (e.g., flood, landslide, fire, sea level rise, tsunami, etc.). As another example of mitigation, the City of Berkeley recently prohibited ADUs in high fire areas of the Berkeley Hills.
• Designation of a proposed Greenbelt (Multiple benefit resilience buffer) with funding identified through either a VMT exchange program or Purchase/Transfer of Development rights program to generate funding to purchase undeveloped properties from willing sellers within the Greenbelt area at the edge of the community.
21 Fuel management, fire buffers, home hardening, vegetation management on properties can all help mitigate a wildfire’s impacts. None of these measures can be proven to fully prevent a wildfire from damaging property. 26 • LA County style policies to prohibit new subdivisions where fire hazard (and other hazards) is significant. Safety Element Update | Climate Action (lacounty.gov) The proposed policy SA-I-80 could be the basis for a stronger policy not only prohibiting new subdivisions in shoreline areas but also areas that are at risk of fire, flooding, slope failure. • Additional home and structure hardening and fuel reduction requirements for new development based on OPR and other guidelines.
e. The DEIR Fails to Disclose and Analyze Significant Impacts to Biological Resources The DEIR without analysis or evidence finds all impacts to biological resources less than significant.
Proposed policies relied on to reduce potentially significant impacts – such as LU-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection and CO-G-7 Wildlife and Critical Habitat – are well meaning but undercut by inconsistent land use designations that would allow development in these very areas (e.g., Pedro Point field designation for Coastal Residential Mixed Use up to 0.5 FAR and 15 units per acre not counting density bonus, ADUs and second units or lot splits).22 Policy CO-I-43 is also well meaning – Explore opportunities for public acquisition of land or easements. However, unless changed, land use designations allowing development of these high value areas --and the related impacts associated with that development including grading, runoff, human activity, lighting and noise among others -- warrants identification of biological impacts (Impacts 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4 and 3.7-5) as significant and unavoidable.
Policies and land use designations must be consistent in protecting these important resources and should not defer “mitigation” as exemplified by LU-I-12 requiring the hillside preservation map to be updated sometime in the future to show all hillside properties. In the interim, numerous parcels are not covered by this protective policy.
4. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Mitigation Measures and to Identify Feasible Mitigation Measures in the form of Policies and Land Uses Feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental effects must be set forth in an EIR for consideration by the lead agency’s decision makers and the public before certification of the EIR and approval of the Proposed Project (General Plan and SPSP). Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the Project and accomplished in more than one way. The DEIR must explain how measures relied on to support a conclusion that an impact would be reduced from significant to less than significant accomplish that reduction. Ideally the efficacy of a policy (mitigation measure) to reduce a significant impact to less than significant should be quantified.
As described in the sections of this letter above, there are numerous feasible mitigation measures that should be included in either a revised Project or the DEIR capable of reducing the Proposed Projects potentially significant impacts to traffic, emergency access and evacuation, hazards, coastal and biological resources, water quality, and more. Pausing the completion of this General Plan so that it can include the Housing Element update would provide the community a chance to work constructively with the City to strengthen Plan policies (mitigation) and fix the defects in the Proposed Project and DEIR. 22 This is also an example of a General Plan internal inconsistency which a revised General Plan must rectify. 27 Summary of Feasible Measures (Policies) for Consideration:
• Make the Land Use Designation changes for an implementable TDR Program and designate sender and receiver sites as part of the Proposed Project rather than after density and intensity has already been determined. LU-I-15 Transfer of Development Rights. The General Plan states the TDR needs to be amended to “identify areas where densities and heights may be increased” The General Plan Update is the time to make these land use designation changes.
The TDR Program provides a mechanism to relocate potential development from areas where environmental or land use impacts could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development. This is a priority for the Proposed Project/GP Update not later. If the Proposed Project “gives away” increased development now, it will leave no room to tie those rights to additional and valuable market rate housing and non-residential uses. This is also a feasible, measurable and meaningful mitigation when overlaid on areas that should not be developed due to hazards and resource values. Related to TDR:
o General Plan level land use overlay designation prohibiting new subdivisions, limiting development to one unit per legal lot of record, and requiring development to be transferred where possible (VMT exchange program/updated TRD program) for areas with inadequate evacuation routes and hazardous conditions high (e.g., flood, landslide, fire, sea level rise, tsunami, etc.).
o Designation of a proposed Greenbelt (Multiple benefit resilience buffer) with funding identified through either a VMT exchange program or Purchase/Transfer of Development rights program to generate funding to purchase undeveloped properties from willing sellers within the Greenbelt area at the edge of the community. • LA County style policies to prohibit new subdivisions where fire hazard (and other hazards) is significant. Safety Element Update | Climate Action (lacounty.gov) The proposed policy SA-I-80 could be the basis for a stronger policy not only prohibiting new subdivisions in shoreline areas but also areas that are at risk of fire, flooding, slope failure. • Additional home and structure hardening and fuel reduction requirements for new development based on OPR and other guidelines.
5. The DEIR Fails to Identify Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The DEIR concludes that all but one impact, VMT, would be less than significant basing the conclusion on non-quantitative commentary concerning the efficacy of vague, unenforceable, unmeasurable and in many cases deferred policies. In addition to the examples above, at a minimum the following additional impacts should be redesignated significant and unavoidable unless: a) new analysis is provided that includes quantification and evidence that impacts will in fact be less than significant or b) new mitigation measures in the form of enforceable and measurable policies are included.
3.4-1 GHG Emissions – no quantification is provided as to how policies listed would reduce potentially significant GHG emissions to less than significant. For example, how much will TDM reduce GHG? What 28 reductions would be achieved through the updated CAP. Please list the policies relied on to reduce GHG emissions and quantify the reduction each achieves.
3.5-3 Substantial alteration of drainable patterns etc. -- Please list the policies relied on to reduce significant impacts and quantify the reduction each achieves.
3.6-1 and 3.6-3 Exposure to substantial adverse risks – In addition to listing the policies relied on to reduce these risks and the reduction each achieves, please provide a map showing where policies would prohibit development based on risk factors (e.g., SA I-2, SA I-9).
3.7-1 through 3.7-5 Biological resource impacts (also addressed above) -- In addition to listing the policies relied on to reduce impacts to these resources and the reduction each achieves, please provide a map showing where policies would prohibit development (e.g., LU-G-7, C0-G-7, 8 and 9).
3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 Adverse visual and scenic resource impacts and impacts to light and glare -- Please list the policies relied on to reduce visual impacts and quantify the reduction each achieves.
All public service and utilities impacts should also be found significant and unavoidable unless new analysis is provided that services and utilities can meet the demands of the full development allowed by the Proposed Project.
6. The DEIR Fails to Adequate Disclose and Analyze Cumulative Impacts The DEIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is incomplete and inadequate. Conclusions concerning the disposition of cumulative impacts are unsupported by facts and evidence. The only cumulative impact found potentially cumulatively significant is cultural resources, which brings into question why the DEIR did not find significant and unavoidable Proposed Project-related impacts to cultural resources (Impacts
3.8-1, 2, 3 and 4. In the responses to comments, please explain this inconsistency or change the disposition of those impact to Significant and Unavoidable. Also a conundrum is how the DEIR finds Proposed Project-related VMT impacts significant and unavoidable, but cumulative transportation impacts less than cumulatively considerable.
A revised DEIR must also include foreseeable projects including the increased growth locally and regionally from the RHNA allocations. This growth is not optional, but required by law to be planned and zoned for and likely to be required to be built. The sections reliance on a “summary of projections” method for considering the significance of cumulative impacts is simply insufficient and underestimates cumulatively considerable impacts. If a plan based analysis is part of the methodology, the revised section must include a detailed description of the growth assumed.
Conclusion
For all of the above stated reasons, a revised Project (General Plan and SPSP) must be prepared that meet legal requirements for such plans. Based on revisions to the Project documents, and the comments herein, the DEIR must also be revised. Both Proposed Project and DEIR must be recirculated. 29 Attachments 1 and 2
Terrell Watt Planning Consultants
1937 Filbert Street, Suite A
San Francisco, CA 94123
[email protected]
415-377-6280
Terrell (Terry) Watt is an expert land use planner focused on projects that deliver climateresilient solutions in the areas of natural and working lands conservation, housing and urban development, water and energy. She works closely with clients to bring workable, transformative approaches to pressing challenges, most recently facilitating the formation of partnerships in the wake of the October 2017 California Wine Country firestorms to accelerate production of a range of housing choices. Terry is a skilled facilitator and uses approaches including invitation-only convenings and curated conversations to drive vision, buy-in and actionable project plans. She is regularly called on to be a speaker on topics ranging from the Future of Climate Action Plans (32nd Annual Land Use Law & Planning Conference, UCLA) to Housing (California Lawyer Association 38th Annual Real Property Spring Conference, Newport Beach). At the 2018 Global Climate Summit in San Francisco, she organized and moderated the panel of California Natural Resources Secretary Laird and California Department of Food and Agricultural Secretary Ross on the role of land use – including natural and working lands - to achieve climate goals. In March 2018, Terry was a panelist with FivePoint CEO Emile Haddad at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Wildlife Corridor through the Great Park development.
She was instrumental in forming the nonprofit Council of Infill Builders and remains an advisor to that organization. Professional memberships include Lambda Alpha International, the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certified Planners. She is a board member of the Planning and Conservation League and Tejon Conservancy, and former board member of the Tahoe Fund, Vibrant Planet and Santa Lucia Conservancy. Terry holds a bachelor’s degree in Urban Studies from Stanford University and a master’s degree in City and Regional Planning from USC.
As a result of her collaborative work over 30-years with a wide range of clients, stakeholders, and agencies, Terry has developed close ties to the environmental, environmental justice, conservation and other NGO communities throughout California. She is widely viewed as an honest broker, able to bring disparate parties together. Terry’s frequent role as friendly advisor to the Brown and now Newsom Administration has also resulted in close relationships with Senior Staff and Advisors including many that have served in both Administrations. Her credibility with NGOs and regulators alike has enabled her to play critical roles in the development of some of the most significant planning processes and development projects in California.
30 Originally from Orange County, Terry now resides in the Bay Area. She is regularly in Sacramento and works statewide to serve her clients.
Representative Clients and Projects
Marin County General Plan and EIR
Terry served as project manager to complete the current Marin County General Plan and EIR.
Marin County’s general plan was among the first to include goals and policies to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
Coyote Valley Project
Over the past decade, Terry has been project manager for the Coyote Valley project with an initial objective to explore the potential for conserving the area rather than developing it for campus industrial uses. Working closely with a broad based coalition, consensus emerged that achieving climate goals and community resiliency through avoided and sequestered carbon and natural infrastructure for flood control and water quality was a more sensible future for the Valley than urban development that would put people and property in harm’s way due to flooding and fire. Google’s decision to locate its headquarters in downtown San Jose in combination with flooding in downtown neighborhoods, underscored the changing policy priorities. In 2019, the City of San Jose passed Measure T, a Safety Bond, providing $50 million toward acquisition of 937 acres in the North Coyote Valley from willing sellers. To date, over 1500 acres have been acquired from willing sellers by the City, Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. In 2021, the City Council amended the land use designations in the General Plan from urban to agriculture and open space. Terry also leads a team creating the first of its kind conservation credits program that would capture value from the avoided and improved environmental values (carbon, Vehicle Miles Traveled, criteria pollutants, etc.).
References: Andrea Mackenzie, GM, SVOSA
SPHERE Institute
As a strategic advisor to the SPHERE Institute, Terry helped organize a proposal that would develop a privately funded public park, habitat and sea level rise demonstration to a State Lands Commission’s lease-holding on the San Francisco Bay. Working with a coalition she helped form, Terry led efforts to garner a broad array of support for the public park from elected officials, labor, environmental justice, conservation, community and environmental organizations. In 2019 the State Lands Commission unanimously approved the selection of the SPHERE Institute for the lease. She continues to advise the SPHERE Institute as they, and State Lands, seek project entitlements from the City of Burlingame, Bay Conservation & Development Commission and resource agencies.
Reference: Greg Boro, Sphere Institute
Beach Oil Minerals Mitigation Bank and Oil Consolidation Project 31 Terry serves as advisor to this unique project in the Los Cerritos Wetlands (spanning Long Beach and Seal Beach) that will deliver lower carbon oil operations in a consolidated 10-acre area and restore approximately 150 acres of wetlands as a certified wetland mitigation bank. She worked closely with the BOM Team, including Susan McCabe, to successfully secure Coastal Commission approval in 2018 for the Oil Consolidation project. She is currently assisting with the certification of the wetlands bank (bank enabling instrument) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and multiple other agencies.
References: Pete Zak, Owner, BOM
Con Edison Development – Southern California Edison (SCE) Request for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Wistaria Solar, LLC, by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
In May 2017, following contentious litigation over the Panoche Valley Solar Project in San Benito County, parties including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, Sierra Club, and the developer, Con Edison Development (CED), entered into a settlement agreement securing more than 25,000 acres of valuable conservation lands in San Benito and relocating a portion of the generation contracted to SCE to the Wistaria Project on least conflict lands in Imperial County. Heralded as a model agreement by the environmental NGOs, the CPUC refused to consider the Wistaria PPA, even though the agreement had been signed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Terry joined the CED team to successfully secure the approval of the Wistaria PPA by the CPUC in 2019. Her close ties to the environmental community, the CPUC, and the Newsom Administration’s energy and environmental policy leaders in Sacramento were instrumental in communicating the importance of approving this final (and necessary) piece of this historic, innovative and precedent-setting agreement.
References: Jim Dixon, Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer for Con Edison Development; Dawn Anaiscourt, Director CPUC Regulatory Affairs for SCE California Attorney General’s Office
As a consultant to the Global Warming Task Force in the AG’s office during Jerry Brown’s tenure as AG, Terry assisted with research on emerging approaches to reduce the impacts of global warming. In her role, she oversaw a series of expert convenings funded by the Bank of America Foundation in collaboration with the AG’s Office to identify actionable strategies and emerging technological solutions. While there, she facilitated settlement dialogues resulting in Agreements with parties in litigation with the City of Stockton and Pleasanton. She also helped curate the list on the AG’s website of best practices and policies to address global warming impacts. Terry has provided periodic consulting services to the California Attorney General’s Office on special projects typically involving environmental justice issues.
References: Ken Alex, formerly Environment Section of the AG San Joaquin Valley Least Conflict Solar
With support from the California Energy Commission, Energy Foundation and industry leaders in renewable energy business and development, and hosting by the Governor’s Office, Terry organized and led a multi-stakeholder effort to identify least conflict lands for utility scale solar development in the San Joaquin Valley. Stakeholders represented local government, industry, 32 farming, ranching, environmental, conservation, tribal and transmission interests. Each stakeholder group addressed the least conflict question from their perspective and generated map-based results using a platform, the San Joaquin Data Basin Gateway, which allowed each group’s results to be revealed and compared in real time. Around 500,000 acres of land was identified as “least conflict” with more than 2 million acres of potential land with additional research. Convenings were held in the Governor’s Office with over 250 stakeholders participating and experts informing those groups from 12 state agencies. The process took only 6 months at a cost of $100,000.00 and results can be reviewed on the San Joaquin Data Basin Gateway: A Path Forward: https://sjvp.databasin.org/pages/least-conflict Pro Bono Adviser Roles
Center for Law Energy & Environment (Berkeley Law School) Terry provides strategic advice and periodic facilitation for CLEE convenings focused on innovative climate and energy, housing and transportation solutions. Over the past ten years, she has participated in and/or facilitated a number of CLEE’s convenings on topics including housing, agriculture, energy and transportation. CLEE Research Areas and Report Link:
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/
Project Climate
Terry provides strategic advice as Ken Alex launches Project Climate, a project of CLEE focused on turning cutting edge climate change solutions more rapidly and effectively into policy and action. Promising climate solutions include regenerative agriculture. Other Project Climate initiatives may include forest and fire resiliency actions, green concrete and green building materials, multiple energy storage initiatives, and direct capture of CO2. Project Climate may seek forward thinking partners for pilot projects of these climate solutions. Project Climate:
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/climate/projectclimate/ Jared M. Ikeda, Planner, Landscape Architect
Jared Ikeda is a retired land use planner and landscape architect with over forty years of professional experience in preparation of land use planning studies, community planning, environmental studies, landscape development plans, and recreation planning. He has directed and been involved in a wide
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND BOARDS
• Lambda Alpha International - Golden Gate Chapter
• American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
• American Planning Association (APA)
• Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
• Tahoe Fund Founding Board Member
• Founder Council of Infill Builders
• Board Member Planning and Conservation League,
Tejon Ranch Conservancy, Vibrant Planet (former) and
Santa Lucia Conservancy (former)
AWARDS
• State and National APA Awards for Marin County General Plan • Carla Bard Award for Individual Achievement
• Environment Now Award for Measure M, Transportation Sales Tax Measure
• CA State Association of Counties Distinguished Service Award 33 range of studies and projects for both public and private sector clients. His work experience includes investigative environmental studies, preparation of land use plans, and design of urban development projects. He has been responsible for project management, supervision, and coordination of multidisciplinary teams, as well as serving as a specialist within multi-disciplinary teams, Mr. Ikeda has been a consultant planner for a variety of firms including Terrell Watt Planning Consultants, Tejon Ranch Conservancy, 2M Associates, Shute Mihaly Weinberger, CA Attorney General’s office, among others.
Prior to his retirement in 2005, he has served as a Senior Administrative Analyst for the Environmental Resource Policy Division within the County Administration Office of Monterey County. His work there involved the preparation of the Environmental Resource Management Element of the Monterey County General Plan Update. After retirement, he served as a consultant for the preparation of the Marin County General Plan reviewing consistency with local city plans. Earlier in his career at EDAW (now part of AECOM), he prepared the environmental impact report for the Chino Hills Specific Plan for the County of San Bernardino, prepared the East Tustin Specific Plan for the Irvine Company, prepared the Hillside Area Plan for the City of La Verne, CA, and prepared the EIR/EIS for the Las Virgenes, Triunfo, Malibu Area Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the US EPA, among many other projects and studies. A special interest and skill has been preparation of digital computer mapping and modelling to simulate and prepare land planning and design studies.
Experience
Board of Directors – Southern Sierra Conservancy 2015- present Board of Directors – Landwatch Monterey County 2010-2016 Monterey County Redevelopment Agency, 2004-2005, as Senior Planner and supervisor for urban development projects within county redevelopment areas.
Senior Admin Analyst: County of Monterey, Environmental Resource Policy, 1999-2004 – General Plan Update
Lecturer: Cal Poly Pomona, Dept of Landscape Architecture 1997-1999 – taught senior and graduate design classes.
Vice-President/Officer-in-Charge EDAW Inc., Irvine Office: 1980 to 1987 – supervision of all personnel and projects.
EDAW, Inc. 1969 to 1989 – landscape architect and environmental specialist.
Education
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Design, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 1968.
Honors
Best Comprehensive Plan, Orange Co. Section, American Planning Association, San Juan Capistrano Master Open Space Plan, 1992
Distinguished Alumnus Award, 1983, School of Environmental Design, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
34 Merit Award, American Society of Landscape Architects, Santa Ana River Open Space Study, 1973
Lectures & Publications
Mr. Ikeda has served as a guest lecturer at UCLA, UC Irvine, and Cal Poly Pomona. Mr. Ikeda has also served as Chairman of a panel on Computers and Landscape Architecture for the Southern California Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architecture.
Contributor to “Design with Digital Tools” McGraw Hill, 2000 1 Exhibit of maps, tables and additional comments:
The following tables, exhibits, and comments have been used for reference in the body of this letter.
They include:
1. Table 1-3 Summary of Development Capacity and Projected Demand from Existing Conditions Report – Pacifica General Plan LU Alts and Key Policy Issues – May 2011 2 2. Table 4-7 & 8 Residential Development Capacity of Vacant and Underutilized Sites from Existing Conditions Report and Key Issues – July 2010
3 4
3. Fire Hazard Threat Map – source:- CalFire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, GIS file 5 4. Oblique view of Pacifica and Cal Fire FRAP – Fire Hazard Threat map from GIS files 6 5. CPUC High Fire Threat Districts
6.. Comparison of Fire Threat Maps from DEIR and 2014 Draft GP showing Fire Hazard Threat 7 7. Landslide Susceptibility Map – source: Dept of California Conservation, California Geologic Survey, GIS file
8 8 Review Comments on General Plan designations for Pedro Point Field and Vista Mar New development within Pacifica is challenging due to existing physical hazards and environmental considerations. These limitations can affect buildout numbers since certain undeveloped areas may not be suitable for development. The policy inconsistencies and deferred actions within the General Plan create situations where it is questionable how and where new development can occur and whether the DEIR can truly state that potential impacts are less than significant.
There are a couple of highly controversial locations where these inconsistencies and deferred actions are examples. They are the Vista Mar development project off Monterey Road and the undeveloped open parcel at Pedro Point off San Pedro Avenue. The Vista Mar project is located on an undeveloped hillside parcel designated in the proposed General Plan as “Open Space/Agriculture/Residential” land use. The Pedro Point parcel is designated in the General Plan for “Coastal Residential Mixed Use.” Pedro Point Field
The Pedro Point field is an undeveloped area within the Coastal Zone and affected by inconsistencies with General Plan policies and Local Coastal Program policies. The site has been frequently flooded by storm runoff and rise of San Pedro Creek during storms. It is also designated within a tsunami evacuation area (See DEIR Figure 3.5-1 Tsunami Evacuation Area). The site has been classified by US Fish and Wildlife as a wetland within their National Wetland Inventory. Further, as noted in a letter by Dr. Peter Baye, the site is valuable habitat for special status species. Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), a federally listed endangered species, is likely present within wetlands of San Pedro Creek. This has been noted through environmental DNA sampling reported in an article by Michael Sutter & Andrew P. Kinziger published June 2019 in “Conservation Genetics.” Tidewater Goby normally live in brackish lagoon backwaters, often near stream mouths, but they also move upstream into creek pools and connected ponds at different times. It has also been reported that Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) which is a CDFW Species of Special Concern is present in San Pedro Creek.
On pg 7-4 , the General Plan does recognize the existence of California Red-legged frog within wetlands of San Pedro Creek. The General Plan also states on pg 4-25 “… Development of the site will require detailed evaluation of coastal hazards/vulnerabilities and biological resources to ensure that any sensitive habitat and wetlands that may exist on the site are protected…” The General Plan land use designation for the site is “Coastal Residential Mixed Use.” This designation allows up to 15 units per gross acres and non-residential development may have a floor to area ratio of up to .5 FAR. The total FAR including residential and non-residential cannot exceed 1.0. This area is just over 4 acres in size and it is conceivable that 20 units and 17,000 sq. ft of non-residential use could be accommodated by this land use designation. Also, within the “Coastal Residential Mixed Use” category, the GP says “…Coastal access and public open space must be provided, and environmental resources must be evaluated and protected. Sites may be developed up to an overall density of up to 15 units per gross acre, with clustering and sensitive site planning….” Within the General Plan Land Use policies, there is a specific policy for this site. It states: “Policies for Specific Sites – LU-I-29 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.: Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning district to allow small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses as a stand-alone project without any residential development, or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses with residential development at a density range of three to five units per gross acre. Housing may be clustered, and uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial uses, provided the overall site contains both commercial and residential uses. Development must include public coastal access and must provide public open space. A wetland survey conducted according to the 9 requirements of Coastal Commission regulation 13577 (Title 14, California Code of Regulations) is required to delineate potential wetlands on the site as part of the development application and environmental review process. An assessment of potential geotechnical hazards must also be part of the development application and environmental review process, including assessment of the Ocean Shore railroad berm under hazard and vulnerability scenarios consistent with policies in Chapters 7 and 8.” The draft Local Coastal Plan (pg 5-12) stipulates that any new development in the Coastal Zone shall assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
However, the proposed General Plan states on pg 8-9 that “New development that would require the use of seawalls or other shoreline alterations for protection either now or in the future shall not be permitted unless this would make the property undevelopable.
The General Plan is inconsistent with the City’s draft Local Coastal Plan. These documents were supposedly prepared in conjunction with each other. The General Plan is proposing to adopt structural development policies rather than the LCP policy of maintaining natural processes of stability and structural integrity.
General Plan Guiding Policy LU-G-8 Changes in Density or Intensity of Land Use in Coastal Vulnerability Zones does state: “Do not increase the density or intensity of land use designations beyond those indicated in the LCLUP for sites located within Coastal Vulnerability Zones.” The GP Safety Element Implementation Policy SA-I-11 Grading and Drainage Plans states:
“Continue to require a grading and drainage plan for proposed development requiring a coastal development permit and a grading permit. The Plan should demonstrate how the project will maintain natural surface drainage and existing vegetation to the greatest extent feasible, by minimizing alteration of natural topography and removal of existing trees and vegetation; stabilizing cut-and-fill surfaces with native vegetation; restricting the movement of heavy equipment and machinery; and other means.
Driveways and utilities may be allowed in the case that there is no less environmentally damaging alternative for providing access to the building site.” Again, the General Plan stresses structural development policies in deference to existing vegetation and natural features of a wetland.
General Plan Implementing Policy CO-I-4 Wetlands Preservation states: “Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act.
Continue to require formal delineations wetlands subject to State or federal regulations prior to any proposed development project in an area where potential wetlands have been identified. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no net-loss goal regarding wetlands.”
And in its General Plan Implementing Policy LU-I-30 Pedro Point Upper Slopes, it states: “Maintain zoning for the upper slopes of Pedro Point to ensure that any new development is at a density appropriate to the steep slopes. If any portion of the property is designated as official habitat for California red- 10 legged frog, a biological resources survey must be conducted and development will be required to avoid habitat areas.”
The DEIR cites Conservation Element implementing policy CO-I-37 Protection of the California RedLegged Frog During Construction and San Francisco Garter Snake during Construction states:
“To minimize disturbance, require all grading activity within 100 feet of aquatic habitat shall be conducted during the dry season (May 1 and October 15) to protect California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. A qualified biologist shall conduct presence/absence surveys for California redlegged frog and San Francisco garter snake prior to construction in or adjacent to riparian areas, grasslands near ponds/wetlands, or other sensitive habitat. Any individuals identified shall be treated in consultation with USFWS. Construction shall follow accepted procedures for exclusion and avoidance of California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and their habitat. Additionally, the biologist shall supervise the installation of exclusion fencing along the boundaries of the work area, shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction workers, and shall be present during initial vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities.”
As reported by Sutter & Kinzinger, Tidewater Goby has been reported to exist in the wetlands of San Pedro Creek. Tidewater Goby has experienced a reduction in their number within estuarine sites it inhabits due to coastal developments, droughts, and exotic species introductions. Development of San Pedro Field would add potential contaminant loads from impervious surface runoff directly to the creek mouth, where the field ultimately drains. Whereas, an open field reduces flood peaks by detaining floodwater and improves water quality by containing runoff sediments.
But, the DEIR states that implementation of the General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It goes on further to state (pg E-71) -5 “Implementation of Proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.”
It is unclear with these policies whether the Pedro Point Field can be developed and protect its wetland and sensitive species downstream. The inconsistencies and policies that allow development with deferred studies make it unclear what level of development may occur at the Pedro Point Field. Is it a “Mixed Use Residential” development or Wetland Preservation? It is not clear what takes precedence here. Is it to protect wetlands and endangered species or to give preference to allow development? The conflicting policies and inconsistencies between different plans and policies of the Local Coastal Plan and the General Plan make it difficult to determine buildout, and resulting environmental impacts both at this site and overall within the city.
Vista Mar
The Vista Mar project is located on steep slopes largely greater than 35% with a substantial number of existing trees and shrubbery and potential biological resources including possible habitat for Mission Blue Butterfly. The site has been reported to have several existing landslides but is shown in Fig 8-3 of the General Plan as within “Few Landslides” area. The site drains in a southwesterly direction toward a channel that connects to the Big Inch Creek waterway. This channel has seen significant recent downstream channel downcutting and bank erosion.
11 On this 1.2 acre parcel with all these hazards and constraints, the General Plan designation of “Open Space/Agriculture/Residential” would allow residential development at a density of 0.2 units/acre. Any residential development on such a parcel would require massive earth moving, vegetation removal, structural walls and additional development of impervious surfaces for road and driveway that would increase downstream runoff.
The overall land Use designation of “Open Space/Agriculture/Residential” within the city has been calculated in the DEIR for 40 additional units (Table 2.4.2, pg2-22). Also, within this land use designation, density calculations for Farm Worker housing in agriculture zones are not required.
There is a significant a loop hole within the GP Safety Element: SA I-2 Development in Hazardous Areas implementation policy. It states: “Prohibit development in areas of mostly landslides or high or very high liquefaction risk as shown in Figure 8-2, or on slopes steeper than 35 percent, unless detailed site investigations ensure that risks can be reduced to acceptable levels and the structure will be protected for its design life.” This loophole enables major structural construction to be permitted to allow development. Such structural development and associated grading would be inconsistent with policies that require protection of important natural landscapes and their resources. Safety Element policy SA-I-8 also requires geotechnical site investigation for slopes greater than 15% to identify net developable areas.
Again, this opens up steep hillside areas for further development.
The site is also within a “Hillside Preservation District.” However, the GP Land Use Implementation Policy LU-I-14 says that the Hillside Preservation District and Zoning Map be updated to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations. .It’s unclear whether an update to the Hillside Preservation District would change the development potential for such an area. Further, the GP Safety Element Implementation Policy SA-I-4 seeks to provide provision to form “Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts “(GHAD). These are not in place, and formation and funding are unknown.
Similarly, GP Conservation Element Policy, CO-I-3 seeks to “Establish funding mechanism to require property owners with land adjacent to creeks to pay proportionate share of creek improvement maintenance.”
Downstream erosion and downcutting is a key concern for residents within this area. It is unclear how and when a “funding mechanism” is to be established. New developments in the hillsides above should be restricted to ensure runoff is completely captured on site or downstream capacity improvements are part of the developments.
12 The possible extent and location of new development within these areas by the deferred actions of these policies make it questionable whether the DEIR can authoritatively state that the implementation of the General Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts.
Summary:
The General Plan policy inconsistencies, loopholes and deferred actions enable future development to occur by structural means or undefined compensatory actions in areas with hazardous conditions or environmental sensitivity. These deficiencies could enable development to occur in locations that could be questionable in an environmental review. The DEIR does not account for potential development within these areas or calculate the actual size, quantity or locations to fully determine environmental impacts. Without these considerations, the EIR is flawed and needs to be revised and recirculated.
9. Review Comment regarding Fire and Hazard Issues in the DEIR:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan enables new development in locations that have been considered to have hazardous conditions such as landslides, coastal erosion, or fire hazards. The DEIR states that the policies of the General Plan regarding fire and other hazardous conditions within Pacifica will be less than significant. However, many polices have deferred actions or are inconsistent with other policy documents such as the LCP or the Multi Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan of San Mateo County. If these deferred actions and inconsistencies are not resolved prior to adoption of the General Plan, these impacts cannot be considered less than significant.
The General Plan states (pgs 8-37 and 38) “A 2008 study determined that the Vallemar, West and East Fairway Park, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway neighborhoods in central Pacifica are beyond fourminute travel distance from northern San Mateo County fire stations, corresponding with the standard response time for first-due fire apparatus. The full assignment response time standard cannot be met in Pacifica from Vallemar south.”
General Plan Policy SA-I-107 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Continue to maintain and update a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an implementation action for the Safety Element.
The following Table is extracted from the Local Hazard Mitigation Action Plan (pg 14-15) 13 DEIR states (pg E-100) Impact 3.11-7 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impact is “Less than Significant” due to the following policies:
GP Safety Element - SA-G-8 Fire Prevention. Protect Pacifica residents and businesses from potential wildland fire hazards.
GP Safety Element - SA-I-94 Development Review. Continue to review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and access by emergency responders.
GP Safety Element - SA-I-98 Vegetation Management. Promote and support the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program to reduce urban/wildland interface fire hazards.
DEIR states (pg E-101-102) Impacts 3.12-1 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Impact is “Less that Significant” due to the following policies:
14 GP Safety Element - SA-I-91 Response Time. Support efforts by North County Fire Authority to meet its response time standards throughout the City. This effort may include construction of a third fire station in the central part of Pacifica, near the police station or the Quarry site. The City could provide land or shared facilities.
GP Safety Element - SA-I-100 Rockaway Quarry service. Ensure that any new development at the Rockaway Quarry site is adequately served by public infrastructure, including fire and police services.
GP Safety Element - SA-I-103 Emergency Access on New Roadways. Ensure that new roadways are developed in accordance with standards the Municipal Code. In all new development, require adequate access to be provided for emergency vehicles, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.
GP Safety Element - SA-I-104 Areas that Lack Emergency Access. Develop a plan to widen critical rights-of-way that do not provide adequate clearance for emergency vehicles. For areas that are not feasibly accessible to emergency vehicles, develop a contingency plan for reaching and evacuating people in need of treatment. This initiative should include a plan to open access to or otherwise serve the Pedro Point, Fassler/Rockaway, and the Vallemar neighborhoods.
GP Land Use Element - LU-I-13 Public Service Priorities. Ensure that existing and planned public works facilities accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted over the planning period.
In the event that existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.
GP Land Use Element - LU-I-14 Hillside Preservation. Update the Hillside Preservation District and the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations.
The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4 of the proposed General Plan) should be used as a guide.
Summary:
All the issues and policies above illustrate that the General Plan and EIR are inconsistent and/or defer actions that would mitigate the potential impacts. The General Plan itself states that fire response times are not up to standards. These cannot be stated as less than significant. It would be appropriate that hazardous areas have an overlay that would preclude development until these deferred actions and inconsistencies are resolved and in place.
From: Cindy Abbott [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Public Comment [[email protected]]
Subject: DEIR - GP - SPSP Comments
Attachments: C Abbott Public Comment on DEIR, GP, SPSP.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Please find comments attached. Thank you.
Cindy Abbott
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1 | P a g e
March 8, 2022
Christian Murdock, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Via: [email protected]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the City of Pacifica’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) related to the General Plan (GP) Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP), including the small extension of time.
If a General Plan is to indeed serve as a comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the county or city, providing a "blueprint" for development, it should provide a clear and true guide that will remedy the ongoing practice in the City of Pacifica of constant requests for variances and waivers that serve only to undermine the Plan itself. While there are some good talking points in the current documents, the draft GP, draft SPSP, and DEIR for these projects, overall lacks a significant amount of specificity and back up documentation that implementation of will likely create an even larger quagmire in interpreting what is allowable.
Additionally, though a municipality can adopt a General Plan without an approved/updated Local Coastal Plan, I must put right up front a question as to why this is being done in our coastal community. Please address why the City of Pacifica hasn’t completed work with the California Coastal Commission to move forward a responsible coastal program that addresses the climate crisis that has already significantly impacted infrastructure and where the impact of coastal erosion and future sea level rise must be accounted for. The result of the process being followed is a waste of time and resources as the draft plans (GP, SPSP, DEIR) must be consistent with an aged LCP that doesn’t reflect current circumstances.
Please provide a comprehensive chart that details by property current and proposed land use designation changes. (The current color-coded maps are inadequate.) This is 2 | P a g e
necessary for a thorough review of the impact of development proposals and consistency with the policies in the draft General Plan.
Please provide how the City is preparing for emergency response in light of the naturally occurring and accelerating coastal erosion that Pacifica had endured since the 1980’s and does more than continue the destructive practice of armoring that impacts our precious coastal resources; flooding that has continued to plague coastal and creek areas; the growing impact of fire hazards particularly at Wildland Urban Interface areas and risks in canyons that other communities have experienced. While it had been hoped that the Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan would have provided this roadmap, it doesn’t. And, maps and documentation in the DEIR are outdated and lacking full information and disclosure. Please consider the creation and implementation of a Hazard Overlay District with clear details as to what development will be allowable in those areas.
My area of focus for many years has been on the development of the Sharp Park Specific Plan area. The West Sharp Park area is a highly constrained network of small one-way streets, is designated as a historic area by the City of Pacifica, is increasingly vulnerable due to the climate crisis with increased storm activity and future sea level rise, and has been noted for decades (including in the 1980 general plan) to have a lack of parking capacity. The area under study for the Sharp Park Specific Plan represents less than 3% of the buildable land in the City of Pacifica. To place most of the City’s aspiration for economic and housing growth – that does not reflect a required focus on coastal access and coastal serving development, preservation of community character, and has the potential for placing low income individuals in harms way -- in this limited area is a significant concern. I’m shocked by the remarks in the DEIR that the implementation of the SPSP will have “less than significant impact”.
Please address:
1. The current DEIR does not adequately address the potential impacts of proposed height increases in West Sharp Park with regard to visual character of the 3 | P a g e
surrounding area and/or public views to and from the ocean. Images provided have largely focused on Palmetto Avenue alone, without regard or illumination of the impact to the residential neighborhood. Please thoroughly document the CEQA analysis undertaken (as also requested by the California Coastal Commission in correspondence dated July 16, 2020 and September 9, 2020) to justify the “less than significant impact” statement.
2. Please provide the analysis and detail specifics regarding policies that support the statement (3.9-25) that there is less than significant impact in Sharp Park, when the policies propose significant changes in land use and design and that the proposed project will “ensure the harmony with the scale and character of the existing neighborhoods.”
3. Please describe how West Sharp Park will be the city’s “cultural core”. (CD-I-1) when cultural amenities are provided throughout the city and other than the proposed new library, no other policies are focused on “culture” (a pocket park at the re-visioned Civic Center and already existing scenic views and promenade don’t constitute this becoming the “cultural center”).
4. How can Sharp Park’s historic character be “signaled by higher-intensity buildings along the Highway 1 corridor, including Eureka Square”? (3.9-27)
5. Please provide the analysis and visualizations that support 5-1-6 View Corridor Preservation; 5-I-67 Coastal View Preservation; and DS-1 East-West Corridor Stepbacks as policies that will minimize the impact of the Proposed Project in West Sharp Park.
6. Please describe how new development in the coastal zone along Palmetto Avenue will be habitable for 100 years when the proposed (unapproved and unfunded) sea wall has only a 50-year life.
7. How were environmental risks related to coastal erosion and sea level rise evaluated and incorporated into the DEIR when current detailed maps regarding these long-standing, ongoing and currently unstoppable hazards are not included in the planning documents?
4 | P a g e
8. What policies address resiliency of existing and new development in the West Sharp Park area such as a plausible future need to elevate structures and move away from the shoreline?
Many more questions and comments could be provided. However, it seems a sadly worthless exercise at this point as there is so much lacking in the current draft documents that reflects a quickly expedited process without adequate public input that has resulted in errors and omissions, without providing a clear path forward for the City of Pacifica.
I look forward to the responses and likelihood of a revised DEIR, Draft General Plan and Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan being circulated for further community input.
Thank you,
Cindy Abbott
Pacifica, CA 94044
From: Mr. Paul Totah [ ]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 3:49 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]
Subject: DEIR and General Plan Comments
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
As a member of Tree City USA, I applaud the efforts Pacifica has made to protect and grow our urban forest. Pacifica's urban forest includes all trees, both public and private, within the city limits. The DEIR (and General Plan) have some aspects that reflect this commitment and others that need adjusting. Below you will find some comments, questions and requests.
1. The Guiding Principle CO-G-10 in the DEIR (and General Plan) instructs the City to “Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation”. This is an excellent guiding principle and reflects the intent of a Tree City USA. There are a couple of cases on pages 85 and 560 where other guiding principles are mislabeled CO-G-10. Can these be relabeled?
2. Regarding Figure 3.7-1 Vegetation in the DEIR (Figure 7-2 in the General Plan) part of the information comes from the Department of Forestry in 2005. Some of this information is either outdated or in error. For example, the North side of Vallemar is labeled as Eucalyptus, but it is primarily Monterey Cypress and Pine, with only a few Eucalyptus trees. Current online resources such as i-Tree can more accurately assess tree canopy. Would it be possible to update this map with more accurate information?
3. As stated above Pacifica’s urban forest includes all trees within the city limits. Unfortunately Figure 3.7-1 labels neighborhoods as “urban” with no indication of trees and other vegetation. Can the “urban" areas be relabeled as “neighborhood" with the presence of trees identified? Most cities with Tree City USA status regard trees as infrastructure, providing services such as controlling storm water and reducing air pollution. As climate change warms California more trees will be needed to cool cities. In addition, research shows that neighborhoods with trees have higher property values and greater health benefits. Having an accurate representation of all trees in Figure 3.7-1 will help Pacifica manage this important resource.
4. There is no Implementing Principle to correspond with the Guiding Principal CO-I-10. Most Tree City USA cities have Canopy Goals for the urban forest that guide the actions of staff and citizens. Tree City Pacifica is requesting that Pacifica establish a Canopy Goal. Could a Guiding Principle be added that states “Adopt an aspirational Canopy Goal to promote the protection and growth of the urban forest”?
5. The Heritage Tree Implementing Principle CO-1-41states “Protect trees designated by the City Council as having special value, according to the terms on the Heritage Tree Ordinance”. In the General Plan Heritage Trees are under principle CO-I-39 which has different wording. Can both of these principles be reworded to better reflect the purpose of the Heritage Tree Ordinance?
6. The Sharp Park Specific Plan 5-1-4 promotes the addition of curb bulb outs to plant street trees along Palmetto as well as east west connections. Research shows that trees promote commerce; thus, this would be a good addition to this plan. Is this in the DEIR? Thank you for all your hard work on the DEIR and General and Sharp Park Plans. We appreciate you addressing these concerns regarding our urban forest.
Yours,
Paul Totah (124 Nataqua Ave. in Vallemar)
--
Paul Totah
Freelance Writer
c: 1
e:
w:
t:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
From: Christine Boles [
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Murdock, Christian [[email protected]]; Wehrmeister, Tina [[email protected]]; Woodhouse, Kevin [[email protected]]; Public Comment [[email protected]]; _City Council Group [[email protected]]; Bier, Mary [[email protected]]
Subject: DEIR and GP Public Comment Letter #2 regarding Geological/Landslide issues Attachments: Christine Boles Comment Letter #2 .pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Honorable Mayor Bier, Council and Staff,
Please find my comment letter attached regarding landslides and coastal erosion. I was forwarded the official comment letter the Department of Conservation/USGS sent in that confirms my analysis that debris flow landslide maps are incomplete. I am so disappointed at how poorly our highest hazard risks have been analyzed and addressed in these documents even after the dire warnings and deaths of 1982 and 1983 and the recent loss of major buildings to coastal erosion on Esplanade. I spoke at length with a retired Planning Director from Southern California who has managed two General Plan updates for a much larger city of 300,000 people. He is aghast that these documents in this state using such old and inconsistent data were publicly released. There is no question that the documents will need to be fixed and recirculated.
This is a huge burden placed on the public to basically do the city's update work so that we can protect our own safety. If the city had involved us earlier as I've been asking since the fall of 2020 when I signed up on the Plan Pacifica website, a lot of this could have been avoided, and a lot of money and time saved. Why does the City continue to treat public input as a hindrance instead of seeing what amazing resources we have here in our people? Wait until you see the Biological comments come in from several Pacificans with PhDs in biology! I just met and recruited one more from Manor last week.
I will not have time to review the entire DEIR in the next two weeks so again it is the Council's choice as to whether the process will be extended to allow more thorough public and agency review so that needed corrections can be identified now.
I am moving on to fire hazards next. The DEIR talks a lot about Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, but again, these have not even been mapped in the DEIR or General Plan. Neither Planning Staff nor the City Manager answered my question posed in emails on January 13th and 15th as to whether North County Fire reviewed these draft documents for factual accuracy before their release.
The DEIR states their input was obtained in 2009...
Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1 DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Christian Murdock, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Pacifica Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: City of Pacifica General Plan and DEIR Comments, letter #2 DEIR Chapter 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismic Risk
General Plan Chapter 8.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Dear Mr. Murdock,
Please accept the following comments regarding the safety related chapters noted above of the Draft General Plan and DEIR. I am a licensed architect with over 35 years of professional experience in design and construction, primarily in the local Bay Area. I have attached my current resume to validate my credentials1.
1. Page 3.6 second paragraph refers to a 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. I believe this is in reference to ESA’s DRAFT Assessment. Please confirm and provide the reference to that document in the footnotes. The document and link should also be added to the DEIR bibliography.
2. In the discussion of the various active faults, information about probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake is included in most listings. It is missing in the description of the San Andreas fault on page
3.6-3, which is the only fault that bisects Pacifica. This USGS document indicates the risk on this fault is 22%. Please update the DEIR accordingly. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
3. Page 3.6-5 References 2008 Quaternary fault and fold databases. This source is out of date. Current data from the USGS appears to be from 2014. Please confirm and update source and link accordingly. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults
4. Page 3.6-7 The 2013 source for the Severity of an Earthquake is no longer current. Please confirm best available data and update source material and link.
5. Page 3.6-8 discusses seismic hazard zones and liquefaction and refers to new 2021 Department of Conservation mapping of these risks. The links to this online information are missing, please add them to the footnotes and bibliography. They can be found at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
6. Under Seismic Hazard Zones on page 3.6-8 the DEIR says “The City is required to use the official California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes.”
Figure 3.6-1: Seismic Hazard Zones appears to be taken from the website link I provided above. It is important to understand that not all information is clearly shown at the scale shown in this figure in the DEIR and General Plan. For example, the figure has blue and green coding for landslide OR liquefaction zones. If you actually zoom in (which you can do online down to parcel level) you will see another color, orange, for areas that are subject to BOTH liquefaction and landslide risk. See screenshot below of Pacifica’s southern border area for example. The link should be added to the figure along with notation that the website should be used to understand both regional area and property level risks.
The Department of Conservation legend indicates other colors too that should be reflected, including gray for areas that have not been mapped.
2 I would expect to see specific policies and mitigation measures to address the necessary use of these maps in the General Plan. Please clarify if and where these policies are written, and if they are not written, please add them accordingly. If the City does not feel they are justified, please provide a detailed reasoning for the omission.
7. There are discrepancies between maps 3-6.1 and 3-6.2 in terms of liquefaction areas. Clarify how you would use one map versus the other. Consider eliminating liquefaction on one map to avoid conflicting data.
8. Figure 3.6-3 uses USGS Open File Report 97-745, as source material which dates from 1997. Going to the website link in footnote 15 clearly shows that data has been updated since that date. Please confirm and update best available data sources in this document, the general plan, and in the bibliography, and update map accordingly. I also refer you to my daughter, Elisabeth Boles’ letter2 to you dated November 23, 2020 regarding the inaccuracies in this figure 3.6-3 map from the 2014 draft General Plan. Those inaccuracies continue to be reflected in the current map in the DEIR and draft General Plan. I have attached the letter for reference and copied her annotated map below. 3 9. I see that this figure 3.6-3 has been updated in the current DEIR, and yet it still references outdated data from the Pacific Institute 2009 (what is the actual document reference?) and FEMA revised DFIRM 2011(I cannot find reference to this document on the current FEMA website), and USGS 1998. Please confirm and update the sources and map accordingly. Please clarify what policies and mitigation measures need to be revised based on new current data.
4 10. This figure 3.6-3 now shows a red line for critical coastal erosion, but right next to the red line, is colored white “not landslide prone”. This is misleading in that coastal erosion can take out tens of feet of bluff in one rainy winter alone, as was demonstrated as recently as 2016. The 2018 ESA Sea Level Rise Vulnerability maps should be refenced and used to map likelihood of bluff erosion in the next 100 years. For example, Esplanade Avenue, where Pacifica has already lost a row of single family homes and several apartment buildings to coastal erosion as late as 2016, is shown in the current map as mostly white, “not landslide prone”.
The ESA map tells a very different story, with projected bluff erosion bounded by a very different red line expanding inland far past Esplanade Avenue, even threatening Highway 1 in the next 100 years.
Policy 1 on page 3.6-22 (should this not have a proper policy identification number to reference to the General Plan?) specifically requires development to be designed to withstand a 100-year hazard event, this is critical information missing in the DEIR and Safety Element in regard to slope failure projections for coastal erosion which is necessary to be able to avoid and mitigate these hazardous areas. 5 11. Page 3.6-17 discusses the effects of sea level rise on erosion, but quotes a Pacific Institute study from 2009. Again, this is old data. The text copied below notes dune erosion of 115-116 meters by 2025.
Certainly this is an error, or we would lose all of Pacifica State Beach in Linda Mar in 3 years’ time! Please confirm source of current best available data and actual projected coastal bluff and dune erosion rates and update DEIR and General Plan accordingly along with policy recommendations and mitigation measures. This is particularly critical for the proposed Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP). I cannot in good faith review the SPSP or other proposed planning and land use changes in the Coastal Zone without this updated information. Please update data, maps and policies as necessary clearly identify changes in response.
12. In fact, coastal erosion threatens much of Pacifica from this north border all the way to our southern border at Pedro Point and Shelter Cove. Coastal erosion is already an issue limiting development with projects recently approved in Pacifica by the Planning Commission and City Council, and subsequently overturned or modified by the Coastal Commission, such at 1567 Beach Boulevard in Sharp Park and 1300 Danmann in Pedro Point. The current project being reviewed by the planning department for 4000 Palmetto, “the Bowl” has recently issued a plan showing access after Palmetto, the main north south artery connecting the city blocked because of projected erosion. 6 The current DEIR and draft General Plan however, fail to analyze these risks and provide any policy guidelines towards maintaining access to critical roads and infrastructure that connect the city. See for example this section of the DEIR from Chapter 3.2.
Another helpful map to reference would be the USGS Central California CoSMoS v3.1 projections of coastal cliff retreat due to 21st century sea-level rise which shows bluff projections under various sea level rise scenarios. https://data.doi.gov/dataset/central-california-cosmos-v3-1-projections-of-coastal-cliff-retreat-due-to-21stcentury-sea-lev?fbclid=IwAR3KFjO3KtPSCGv3mz3xyX43uXtL26bZZpk6znHXJA5hrXD7s7-myKktQi4 This kind of information would actually allow us time to consider larger adaptation scenarios, including relocation of major arterial roads and utility infrastructure. This is the kind of vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning I understand is required under SB379. Please clarify why the DEIR and General Plan neglect to include any of this information, analysis and resilience planning. According to the San Francisco Chronicle January 29, 2016 article, entitled Perilous Cliffhangers of Pacifica Tell a Cautionary Tale, “Erosion has increased by roughly 50 percent along the coast of Pacifica since the 1970s, mainly as a result of several El Niño winters that pounded the sandy shore, according to geologists. Scientists believe such storms will be more frequent in the future.”
7 I am aware that the City of Pacifica is embarking on major civil engineering studies and projects to shore the coast to buy us some time, but as these projects are not fully designed nor funded, nor have environmental impacts reports even been started, we must simultaneously plan for adaptation. It is also important to note that Pacifica’s sea wall consultant, GHD, said that the design life of the proposed sea wall for Sharp Park is 50 years. It will not solve our problems of sea level rise and coastal erosion, only “buy us time”, the lead engineer Gillian said. Time for what? Please clarify the city’s long-term plan for coastal resilience and adaptation for the entire coastline.
13. Page 3.6.17 under Shoreline Protections Programs discusses the work in 2002 for the removal of homes and rebuilding of dunes at Pacifica State Beach. It neglects to discuss the later work to purchase properties and create a long ago completed shoreline park on Esplanade, or proposed park projects where the apartments were torn down in 2016 around 310 Esplanade. Please update DEIR with all current and relevant information to properly understand our past, current and future hazards. There are several buildings on the cliff edge now that have been red-tagged and deemed uninhabitable, such as 1112 Palmetto. Please clarify the city’s approach to these and other similar properties so that their removal can be properly addressed before further environmental damage is done from buildings and potentially hazardous materials and debris falling into the ocean. Policies and mitigation measures seem to be missing in both the DEIR and draft General Plan for areas that may be subject to necessary removal of structures and infrastructure due to sea level rise and coastal erosion. Please clarify and add additional policies as needed, and revise land use and other sections of the General Plan as required with this data. Provide detailed documentation of revisions and additions and recirculate documents as required.
14. Page 3.6-19 references the California Geological Society (CGS). Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards.1997. There is at least one more current document from 2008. Please update source and related material and recommendations accordingly and clarify detail any required changes.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-Publications/SP_117a.pdf
15. Page 3.6-20 References Pacifica’s Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which was adopted by the City Council on November 21, 2021, despite multiple errors and omissions in the documents as outlined by members of the public including Dr. James Kremer and myself. Both City Manager Woodhouse and then Mayor, and now Council Member, Sue Beckmeyer stated that accuracy 8 was not important in these LMHP documents, that our hazards would be properly analyzed and mitigated through the upcoming General Plan and Safety Element update. We just needed to file our LMHP with San Mateo County to be eligible for FEMA funding. Now, infuriatingly, the DEIR and General Plan Safety Element quote the LHMP as source material in multiple areas, including landslides and fire risk. Please see my attached 2020 correspondence with the City of Pacifica regarding the errors and omissions in the LMHP3. Page 3.6-21 states “All goals and policies in the adopted MJ-LHMP are applicable to the Proposed Project, including those that concern geologic hazards.” Either the reference to the current LHMP must be removed from the DEIR and GP, or the LMHP must be properly updated to be able to use it as source of accurate information regarding hazards and appropriate mitigation measures. Please confirm which option the city chooses and update all documents, including policies and mitigation measures accordingly.
16. Page 3.6-21 City of Pacifica General Plan – Seismic Safety and Safety Element. This section discusses the last update to the Safety Element in 1983 following the horrific El Nino winters that caused 475 landslides, massive flooding, permanent loss of roads in Pedro Point, massive evacuations of hundreds of Pacificans, property damage and loss in the millions of dollars, and the deaths of three children asleep in their beds when an unexpected debris flow landslide engulfed their home. In fact, Pacifica is the USGS’ poster child for the horrors of debris flow landslides with the image of homes on Oddstad Road that were lost.
9 Pacifica commissioned an in-depth study of those landslides by Howard Donley and Associates, known as the HDAI report, which is quoted extensively in the 1983 Safety Element. All 475 landslides were mapped, and this large scale “blue print” map can be found in the city records in a folder with other technical documents that informed the current 1980 General Plan. See snapshot below of areas around Oceana High School as an example. Roman numerals indicate the types of landslides that occurred.
There is no map of historic debris flow landslides in the DEIR, please explain why this is missing and/or add as necessary
10 There is a new map in the General Plan, labeled 8-3b Landslide Inventory, which supposedly maps historic debris flow landslides, but it is missing all information in the northern section of town, such as the Moana Way slide, one of the 9 major slides identified in the HDAI report. It also omits other slides, such as the one that blocked Highway One near the police station a few years ago. Please update this map to include all known available data and revise planning policies and land use diagrams accordingly.
Both of these maps also neglect to include landslides and debris flow landslides I documented as part of my research for the Vista Mar project on Monterey Road. I shared this detailed information with the City Manager Woodhouse and the Pacifica City Council prior to our project appeal hearing in my letter dated November 22, 20204, which I have attached here again for reference. All the supporting documents including geotechnical reports documenting these past landslides can be found here. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qCJWAiGWIKkadVPAQ8v-d9OOGcnFisDB?usp=sharing
17. The HDAI report also went on to provide policy and mitigation measure recommendations for areas susceptible to debris flow landslides. The current DEIR does not reference the HDAI report and ignores most of its recommendations. The recommendations are not only site specific, but they also refer to dangers up and downslope (for example, in the USGS pamphlet photo of the Oddstad slide, the slide did not originate on the subject property).
11