1 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 12:49 PM
To: Wehrmeister, Tina; Murdock, Christian
Cc: Nibbelin, John; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David
Subject: Planning Meeting:
[CAUTION: External Email]
TO: Dir. Wehrmeister, Asst. Dir Murdock, Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Kremer
SUBJ: Item 1. Project at 570 & part of 540
This is a perfect place for a mixed use project.
My comment is probably off target, but, Why can’t the developers be guided to propose a project that actually helps the goals of the city with respect to badly needed housing? Why must we always bow down to projects that seek excessive profit rather than appropriate plans for the site and City? I know this is naive, but wouldn't all but the developers agree that some plan with at least 50% of residential units made up of 25% Affordable + 25%BMR would make more sense and be appropriate for this city? The role of mixed-use to take advantage of infill has so many benefits, but the real legal mandates are always shortchanged in proposals reaching the city. THREE BMRs? ⣬⣭⣮⣯ Can’t we do more than the minimum with the most appropriate land? Incentives? Fees?
Thanks for your hard work and late nights!
-- Jim
James Kremer
Pacifica, CA
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 Murdock, Christian
From: Gail Benton Shoemaker
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comments on Items 10 and 11 on City Council Agenda 5/9/22 [CAUTION: External Email]
Hello City Council and Staff,
Below are comments (in bold) on Items 10 and 11 for tonight’s City Council Meeting.
Item 10- Introduction of an Ordinance to approve Text Amendment TA-121-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Ordinance to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences) on April 18, 2022.
Please approve the extension of the Growth Control Ordinance to protect the Hillside Preservation District and Agricultural zoning.
Item 11-
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominimum subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status:
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).
Regarding Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, the Planning Commission approved a three to one replacement ratio as mitigation for Heritage Trees on the private property, but they were not informed about trees on City property that that will become part of the development once the City property is sold. Please ensure that there is the same replacement ratio for any City trees being removed and that there are protection plans for City trees retained in or near the development.
Thanks, Gail Benton Shoemaker
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 10:43 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Public Comment Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin
Subject: Public comment, Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal Attachments: Boles letter re. Crespi project 5.8.22.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council and Mr. Murdock,
Please see attached letter noting my technical concerns about this project, thank you.
I also believe the appeal process is fatally flawed with no communication with the appellant Margaret Goodale about project changes or hearing delays beyond the 60 days.
When I questioned the earlier appeal hearing delay City Manager Woodhouse responded "The City is scheduling a hearing within 60 days as required by the PMC. As you may recall from your appeal of the Lot 3 Harmony at One project, an applicant and appellant may mutually agree along with the City to hear an appeal after the 60 day period." In this case the staff report recommends changing the date beyond the 60 day period and yet Margaret Goodale was not consulted. There was no mutual agreement. This is highly unusual and possibly illegal. I look forward to hearing from the City Attorney tomorrow night.
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. ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
DATE: May 8, 2022
TO: Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro-Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Council Member Beckmeyer
Council Member O’Neill
Council Member Vaterlaus
Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director
RE: Agenda Item 11 – 570 Crespi Project Questions
Dear Mayor Bier and Council Members and Mr. Murdock,
I spent a few hours reviewing the project at have a few concerns about discrepancies and omissions I have found in the project plans and technical reports. As the sale of city owned property is essential to the project as designed, I would think it would be in the city’s best interests to fix these errors before the approval of the project so as not to show favoritism to this developer. As the project is currently being revised by the applicant, I would suggest sending it back to planning and having these issues corrected along with the other changes to the wetland and site drainage.
1) The arborist report has only reviewed the three trees on the property this developer owns, trees labeled 1, 2 and 3 below. They are missing the large heritage trees on the lot they intend to purchase, and several on the city community center parcel that will all be affected by the construction of the buildings and proposed new driveway. See Google Earth view below with project footprint overlaid.
I believe all the trees with question marks will need to be removed for the proposed construction.
None of this is addressed in the staff report and none of this was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing.
2) I understand the Planning Department informed Gail Shoemaker of Tree City Pacifica that the 60 inch cypress nearest Crespi would remain, but the applicant’s drawings are internally inconsistent. I
♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
3) The survey is missing topographic information for the city property, including the parcel to be sold.
Notice how grade lines 9 and 10 stop at a 90 degree angle to city property. It appears that only the front (north end) of the lots were surveyed for the driveway work. The existing grades are important to understand in terms of the drainage and amount of fill, and also in terms of impacts to the wetland.
4) The architectural elevations and sections do not clearly show the existing or proposed grades at the rear of the building – the building appears to be floating in space. The civil drawings show the buildings sitting on 5.5’ of fill at the rear, which will need to be retained with concrete walls.
♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
6) The architectural plans are missing a lot of room names, using question marks instead. This is highly unusual for documents going into the public records and should be fixed. 7) I know from experience on our own home that Pacifica does not allow doors to swing into the minimum required space for parking stalls. I would suggest adding dimensions so that it is clear that code compliant parking is provided.
♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
I also have a few questions.
a) The Planning Commission deliberated at length about the impacts the project’s lack of adequate parking might have on community center parking with the shared driveway. If ADU’s are subsequently allowed to be built in the lower floor garages the impacts could be disastrous. Please confirm how this would be addressed.
b) The Planning Commission that reviewed this project in an earlier study session initially was very protective of a minimum amount of commercial space versus residential, and also protective of not wanting to create a zoning change variance that would also impact other C-2 zoned properties. These are strategic financial and tax revenue decisions with long term implications for the city. Has the analysis of comparative revenue and outlay of city services between commercial and residential been done to assess the reasoning in allowing these variances? 8) I’d also like to request an explanation of the process by which the city decides to sell our precious community assets. I was told by a former Council Member that she thought the sale of city property needed to first be offered to a non-profit. Is that true, and if so, has that been done? Has the decision to sell this particular land been finalized? Have Pacificans been given opportunities to comment on this sale or suggest other possible uses such as building much needed affordable housing? Thank you!
Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
Principal
CC. Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan <c >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 2:44 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; _City Council Group; Public Comment Subject: Public comment, Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal [CAUTION: External Email]
Re:
I am writing today in support of Margaret Goodale’s appeal of the proposed development of 19 new homes on 570 Crespi.
I am also a parent of two children at Cabrillo School, a second-grader and a Kindergartener. The proposed development is kitty-corner to Cabrillo School across Crespi Drive, which already faces severe traffic constraints. Any development approved by the City should include:
1. A detailed traffic study conducted by an independent consultant which builds upon existing studies and includes direct outreach to the entire school community. If this large development is allowed to move forward, traffic calming measures must be paid for by the developer. At a minimum, during the duration of construction, a traffic calming and safety mitigation plan must be utilized. In addition, Cabrillo parents should be granted temporary, 20- minute parking access or passes to alleviate the known parking shortage around Cabrillo School.
2. The sale of public land to private development interests without a substantial allocation for affordable housing units or a substantial space for child-friendly spaces be reconsidered, especially in light of the Child Care Crisis also affecting families in Southern Pacifica.
Traffic Calming
I chose to attend Cabrillo School because it is the school closest to my home, and envisioned biking to school most mornings. Unfortunately, I, like many other parents, have found that accessing Cabrillo school from the west is simply not safe.
In June 2012, Alta Planning + Design, with funds from the San Mateo County Office of Education, found that 77% of families drive their children to school by car, with only 7% walking, and 2% biking. The most frequently-cited reasons were 1) Unsafe Intersections, 2) Speeding Traffic Long Route, and 3) Too much traffic along the route.
The report can be accessed from the Pacifica School District Website as well as here:
https://sites.google.com/a/pacificasd.org/saferoutespacifica/home/cabrillo The report made several recommendations to improve the safety for families to reach their school. Unfortunately, many of these recommendations have not been implemented. Specifically the report included a recommendation to “Take steps to establish the existing Community Center parking lot as a park-and-walk” at page 9-1. This could be accomplished at almost no cost, and reduce the dangerous conditions at Cabrillo School, particularly during pickup and drop-off. In addition, given the foreseeable construction-related delay which will be ongoing at this site, a paid crossing guard, paid by the developer, must be included during the very peak traffic times while construction is ongoing. Peak traffic times are 8 am to 8:30 every morning, and between 1pm and 1:30 Wednesday afternoons, when the entire school community enjoys its early-out days and children are playing in front of the school.
More recently, school administrators have also highlighted the insufficient parking around Cabrillo (see below). Adding this large development at an impacted intersection will only compound an already unsafe access problem.
Public Lands Sold for Private Profit
Currently, Pacifica has no public staffed spaces where minors can engage safely, supervised. The Pacifica Community Center, which in most cities includes families, is effectively open only to seniors in Pacifica, aside from what was once a
1 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Coffey, Sarah
Subject: Fw: Monday May 9 appeal date change questions
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please enter the following into the public record.
Margaret Goodale, Appellant
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Stan Zeavin < >
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Mary Bier <[email protected]>; Tygarjas Bigstyck <[email protected]>; Mike O'Neill <[email protected]>; Sue Beckmeyer <[email protected]>; Sue Vaterlaus <[email protected]>; Sarah Coffey <[email protected]>; Kevin Woodhouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022, 10:37:23 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Monday May 9 appeal date change questions
Christian,
The Staff report recommends commencing the hearing, taking public comments, then continuing the hearing. To what purpose is continuing the hearing? If, at the hearing, the city attorney or city manager or council say no to raising new issues about the new information, then the hearing should not be continued and the appeal should be heard on the existing record without the new information.
Before the Monday, May 9, hearing please clarify the hearing process and answer my questions. • Will ALL comments, including those of the applicant and appellant, be limited to two-three minutes?
• Is there any possibility that at the direction of the City Manager, Attorney or Council the opportunity to speak the Appeal may be removed after this May 9 hearing?
As I understand your reply, the full, actual Appeal hearing will occur in the future. Is that correct? • The statement "you, the applicant, and the public will be able to provide additional public comments" suggests that all comment could be limited to the usual 2-3 minutes in the future.
Please clarify.
Your message said, "The City is still awaiting more information," but because I have only just received the applicants' proposed revision from you, and because, since I am starting now and not back in April when the information was available to the City and could have been communicated to me, unfortunately, I have plans that cannot be changed and cannot commit to the June 13 date.
I can agree to a continuance if:
1. A mutually agreeable hearing date can be found that allows adequate time to review all revisions and reports
2 2. There is an agreement that I will be allowed to amend the Appeal to add any additional grounds that may arise from the plan revisions
3.The City agrees to notify me immediately upon receipt of new materials and provide me copies of them.
Thank you,
Margaret Goodale
On Friday, May 6, 2022, 01:37:20 PM PDT, Murdock, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Margaret,
I am glad you asked clarifying questions about the appeal process so you can be best prepared on Monday. As indicated in the staff report, the City is still awaiting more information which it needs to thoroughly analyze the appeal and thus the recommended action is to continue the hearing. Given that recommendation, the Council will open the public hearing to allow you, the applicant, and the public to appear and ideally provide comments on the continuance recommendation. We encourage comments to be focused on the continuance and not the project itself although comments on any project aspect can be made. Should the Council follow staff’s recommendation, the appeal hearing will be continued to June 13, 2022, at which time the appeal will be heard, the public hearing will be reopened and you, the applicant, and the public will be able to provide additional public comments.
I’m happy to provide you information related to the applicant’s proposed revision. You can access those files at this link:
https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/fl/X6FaYvFo2s.
Regards,
Christian
4 From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:26 PM
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>; Coffey, Sarah <[email protected]> Cc: Bier, Mary <[email protected]>; Bigstyck, Tygarjas <[email protected]>; Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]>; Beckmeyer, Sue <[email protected]>; O'Neill, Mike <[email protected]> Subject: Monday May 9 appeal date change questions
[CAUTION: External Email]
Christian and Sarah,
Given the wording in the Proposed Action and MC Sec. 9-4.3603, please respond to and clarify the following questions immediately.
9. PROPOSED ACTION: Open the public hearing, take any public comment, and move to continue the public hearing to a date specific of June 13, 2022.
Sec. 9-4.3603. - Council action.
The Council shall render its decision within sixty (60) days after the filing of the appeal provided for in Section 9-4.3602 of this article.
From the staff report: “Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) section 9-4.3208, after considering an appeal, the Council may approve, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.” A continuance of the hearing is not one of the options offered by the Code. There is a legal question whether the CC can continue it without everyone’s concurrence. Is my consent in fact required?
The Staff report recommends commencing the hearing, taking public comments, then continuing the hearing. How can I be expected to present my appeal when I don’t know what the revised project is? Please clarify these questions before the hearing:
5 1. Why haven’t I been provided with copies of the revisions? And why was I only notified of it now when they were filed almost a month ago (on April 11, per staff report). A decision to agree or not to agree to continuance is impossible without more information.
2. When the hearing is opened, am I expected to present my full appeal then, or can I make comments about the process without using my appeal time? It would be grossly unfair for me to have to use any of my 10 minutes when I haven’t even seen the new project.
3. The only fair thing to do under the circumstances is to send the project back to the PC.
That would open up a new appeal opportunity after the PC reviews it again. In that case my appeal fee should be returned or applied to the new appeal. If a second appeal is forced, the fee should be waived.
4. These process issues must be clarified before the hearing begins, so that I don’t have to use precious appeal time on it.
Please, the City Clerk and City Attorney must figure this out ahead of time and notify me to prevent further wasted time.
Thank you for your immediate response,
Margaret Goodale
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:01 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Coffey, Sarah
Subject: comment on agenda item 11, May 9, 2022 from Margaret Goodale Attachments: mg-570 Crespi comments.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please enter the long comment attached into the public record for the May 9 council meeting unless you have already done so.
Margaret Goodale
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 5/6/2022 Comments on Lake Mathilde wetland, 570 Crespi
Honorable Mayor, Council, and staff,
First I am not opposed to a project at the 570 Crespi site.
I simply request that the buildings now proposed be set back from the wetland. Please remove two units from Building C and create a protective buffer.
In this 2013 photo you see a healthy wetland before the ground water was drawn down for construction of the EQ basin. In many years water reached the blue line shown. The red line approximates the southern edge of new construction.
Grubbing out the willows in 2015 revealed the extent of open water that year but released all the carbon that had been sequestered there for many years.
This past March, responding to Pacifica’s new GP/DEIR, California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended the following:
“ CDFW strongly recommends the City of Pacifica adopt riparian buffer zones into its zoning to prohibit development adjacent to streams, creeks, rivers (including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral), wetlands, ponds, and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Additionally, these buffer areas will help to protect water quality and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species.”
The wetlands shown here were delineated by Wood Biological, Monk and Associates, and Geoforensics, three consultants hired by the developers, to study vegetation and soils.
Everything below the red line falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Clean Water Act Permits 404 and 401 must be obtained.
The staff report for the planning commission said, “The entire wetland is estimated as 0.9 acres. “The proposed project is anticipated to disturb and, possibly, fill, up to 0.77-acre of wetlands.“
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44508.73&BlobID=19258 Nearly half the entire project area is wetland, but the same report said, “No distinctive features are present on-site.” BUT wetlands are distinctive! And just 12% of the wetland may be left undisturbed for this new project.
This new project is more than double the size of the previous project and commissioners were told: “The maximum development potential of the subject site would include up to 36 residential dwelling units based on its 72,984 sf site area” (which includes the adjacent city parcel of public land).
Only nine units were proposed behind a commercial building fronting Crespi when this project was originally discussed. In 2016 a study session requesting feedback and public comment was held for commissioners.
Today nineteen units are planned. Three below market units will be built above the commercial building.
From the sidewalk to the immediate edge of the identified wetland fill will be added in order to fit the sixteen condos behind the commercial building. Because the land slopes down into the wetland, to change the grade to be more level with the sidewalk, developers will need about 6’ of fill at the south (left) end of the buildings. Construction activity will occur past the end of the buildings. Plans say, “A temporary sediment and debris barrier will be installed on the southern limit of the construction.”
But where will it go? The southern limit of the construction site is at the seasonal wetland.
A construction berm is promised to keep construction off the wetland, but it will necessarily be inside the wetland. Construction will inevitably encroach on the wetland. And the ditching to install the emergency overflow drain at the southwest border 10’ elevation will add disturbance far beyond the construction barrier.
During the major rainfall events predicted for the future, the full storage capacity of the wetland marked in aqua could be utilized if buildings were set back to create a buffer.
Commissioners were told that “all the potentially significant impacts of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance…” and therefore the project is exempt from CEQA. But according to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, even temporary fill of wetlands requires a permit.
To quote the Water Board: “These projects involve the removal or placement of soil, sediment, and other materials in or near water bodies and require Corps permits under Clean Water Act Section 404.” And a 401 Water Quality Certification Further, to obtain a permit, an applicant must show clearly that the project is the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”
For a City to find a least damaging alternative that is practicable requires public engagement.
The entire process for this current very complex plan was worked out with staff behind closed doors over more than five years.
Neither the public nor any of the current planning commissioners ever had the benefit of a study session to consider the big changes. The staff report tells us, “As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.”
But wetlands are complex living ecosystems. You really can’t mitigate the disturbance of all but 12% of this tiny wetland. Its disturbance is a significant impact, and, importantly, NO restoration or maintenance is offered.
We need a more transparent process.
Approving this new project involves the SALE of PUBLIC LAND and has been accomplished with minimal public discussion. None of the public’s concerns about the school community, trees on the site, the neighborhood, potential flooding, or adequate affordable housing have been explored. We need to look realistically at what could be the best and highest use of this public land.
Our Pacifica General Plan echoes the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook and the City’s Municipal Regional Permit and says that “ no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where such materials may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water”
How is that possible with the construction at the immediate edge of the wetland? Pacifica’s GP also nods to CDFW Code Section 1600-1616. saying:
“Typically, no new grading or development at any site is allowed within 20 feet of the edge of riparian vegetation.”
A usual standard for protection of wetlands is a minimum of “fifty feet separation from the edge of the finished construction to the wetland.”
Our GP policy CO-I-4 titled Wetlands Preservation states specifically, “If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.”
HERE at Crespi the impacts are entirely avoidable.
GP 3.7-53
The Pacifica Strategic Plan Goal Number 1 is to “preserve and enhance Pacifica’s natural resources and open space to ensure an ecologically vibrant community.” So, please, let’s look for and consider the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”
The less damaging alternative would be to simply remove or relocate two units from the east building. Allow the wetland room to expand and contract as wetland waters naturally do depending on the weather.
Transparency is certainly a goal we all value. Let’s insist that our City proceed that way.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Margaret Goodale
1 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 9:10 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Coffey, Sarah
Subject: comment from Margaret Goodale on Agenda item 11, May 9 City Council [CAUTION: External Email]
The following information needs to be considered by the City’s CEQA consultant and staff in determining CEQA compliance.
1. Jurisdictional delineation, and wetland habitat impact assessment, are totally different, noninterchangeable methods for different purposes.
2. Wetland (CWA 404) jurisdictional determination (JD) process: Consultants can only prepare proposed, preliminary jurisdictional delineations. Only through the 404 permit process can the can the ACE determine the boundaries. Jurisdiction does not equal significance.
City staff would not have expertise on wetlands impacts or jurisdiction, so they really aren't in a position to arbiter.
3. Wetland impact assessment. The issue should be simple from a CEQA perspective. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is a jurisdictional wetland area or not, or where the JD boundary is in any given year. It has to do with ecological impacts to wetland habitat or ecosystem functions. Impacts don't follow jurisdictional boundaries. Jurisdictional wetland boundaries only determine where federal permits are needed or not for placing fill. Purely legal. They don't have any relationship to impact assessment or habitat quality assessment,
So the City's compliance with CEQA on wetland impacts should set aside the pointless, official-sounding JD focus, and concentrate on a meaningful analysis of a wetland impact assessment - what the impacts and mitigation are. That includes how the wetlands interact with the adjacent non-wetland habitat and the gradients between them. That assessment doesn't depend on where the legal boundaries between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands are in any given year (they shift!).
Thank you for seriously considering this new information.
Margaret Goodale
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 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 10:07 AM
To: _City Council Group; Public Comment
Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian; Nibbelin, John; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David
Subject: My Comments on CC 570 Crespi Project 5/9/22 mtg [CAUTION: External Email]
TO: City Council
City Manager
Planning Commissioners
[email protected]
From: Jim Kremer
Date: May 5, 2022
RE: My Comments on 570 Crespi Project 5/9/22 mtg
Dear City:
I will be out of town and will miss the meeting. I just saw in the agenda that the item will be continued until June, but you will take public comment 5/9 as planned. So I’m sending this, and may send a revised one later – I’m continuing my consideration too ͧͨͩͪ. This is my comment on what I knew up to today –
I wish to start by affirming that this parcel is an ideal place for a development much like the one being proposed. It is city owned, centrally located in a mixed use part of town. It would seem an ideal place for a residential and commercial mix.
However, I have three serious concerns:
• The project encroaches on a real wetland, perhaps a struggling one, but that is exactly what protections are for. I see no evidence that the City or the Developers are taking the environmental importance and regulatory requirements seriously. I see pushing the limits and avoiding sensible or required regulatory steps. As an professor specializing in ecosystems ecology, this is my big concern. (OK, yes I am a marine ecologist, but still … ∜∝∞∟∠∡∢ সহ)
• Deed restrictions on affordable units is great & important. But so few affordable and none at lower income levels? How can this be justified with public City owned land? I believe the City could negotiate and even provide incentives to reach a more appropriate mutually acceptable plan, or at least we must try!
I know that Ms. Goodale’s Appeal is pending, and I hope the Council seriously reconsiders.
I urge the Council after due deliberations, to send the Project back to the Planning Commission for further review, including better wetlands oversight, and pressure to add more housing of the kind that Pacifica is under legal obligation to approve.
Now, I would like to itemize some of the concerns that seem most compelling:
•Numerous factual, substantive and compelling concerns argue against this project in this form; I have seen Margaret Goodale’s talking points, and I cannot emphasize enough their relevance and implications. • The wetland is not inconsequential. It is historically well documented and has been reduced by encroachment and lack of care, and deserves to be restored. It can be a gem in our city.
• The entire wetland currently is just under an acre (0.9 ac) and it is a significant part of the project parcel area. In this proposal is it possible that more than 85% of the wetland may be disturbed or filled? That should not be allowed. • If an ACOE Wetland permit is required, isn’t it illegal to circumvent it? • Asserting that this project does not require CEQA compliance is hard to imagine. Better documentation if this is the case would help public acceptance.
• While everyone fears an EIR, doing one responsibly would provide guidelines that the developers could work within and know that they were doing it right. It IS ESHA habitat and that should be confronted directly. If the city is accepting developer assertions and looking the other way, that is unacceptable.
• This revised project neither is the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” as required for the ACOE permit, nor a proper use of Pacifica’s precious publically owned land. • A number of proposed governance policies in the draft General Plan seem to expressly prohibit the impact on the wetland. • Did the developer offer the wetland back to the city, where it could be a conservation easement? This is a good idea. 2 • Responsible care of the wetland could involve formal agreements for restoration on sensitive environmental maintenance.
Please ensure that changes are made to the plan to enforce real protections of this small, struggling wetland. Paraphrasing The Lorax: Who speaks for the marsh? You must.
(I really am on your side on this one, we just need to get it right! I am pleased the continuance gives time to reconsider and improve the environmental sensibility. The developers will still make a tidy profit! It is spectacular location, location, location.) 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 Murdock, Christian
From: Summer Lee < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 11 refer back to planning and refund appeal fees [CAUTION: External Email]
The Crespi project, because there are project revisions, should be sent back to the planning commission and appeal fees refunded.
The appellant has not been given the opportunity to agree to missing the 60-day requirement of a City Council decision on the appeal, which would be tonight.
Additionally, the new information could change the basis of the appeal and the appellant should be allowed to amend her appeal.
According to the staff report (quoted below), the city is waiting on new information about a revision of a proposed project. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission, then appealed.
Procedurally, the new information and project revision should void the previous approval and require a new hearing and either approval or denial of the revised project. If approved, then the appellant can file a new appeal.
From the staff report:
"Due to the Applicant’s submittal of new information following preparation of the IS/MND and Planning Commission review and approval of the Project, staff engaged the City’s CEQA consultant to prepare a peer review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation. Staff’s review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation and Applicant’s responses thereto are ongoing and will require additional time to complete.”
"As noted above, review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation is ongoing. Until the review is finished, staff cannot provide an assessment and recommendation on the Project revision for City Council consideration as part of the Appeal.”
Many thanks for your consideration,
Summer Lee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Peter Loeb < >
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:36 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 11: refer back to Planning Commission or let appellant amend appeal [CAUTION: External Email]
According to the staff report (quoted below), the city is waiting on new information about a revision of a proposed project. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission, then appealed. Procedurally, the new information and project revision should void the previous approval and require a new hearing and either approval or denial of the revised project. If approved, then the appellant can file a new appeal.
If the City Council does not return the project to the Planning Commission for a new hearing, then at the very least the appellant should be allowed to amend her complaint to address the revised project.
From the staff report:
"Due to the Applicant’s submittal of new information following preparation of the IS/MND and Planning Commission review and approval of the Project, staff engaged the City’s CEQA consultant to prepare a peer review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation. Staff’s review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation and Applicant’s responses thereto are ongoing and will require additional time to complete.”
"As noted above, review of the Updated Wetlands Delineation is ongoing. Until the review is finished, staff cannot provide an assessment and recommendation on the Project revision for City Council consideration as part of the Appeal.”
Peter Loeb
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.