Coaches Field Initial Study Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti Conducted a peer review of a proposed lighted ballfield project in the City of Piedmont. Mr. Grassetti’s review resulted in the Initial Study being withdrawn and an EIR being prepared. Client: Private Party.
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport Development Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review and assisted in the preparation of comments and ultimately successful litigation regarding the proposed expansion of Metropolitan Oakland International Airport. Major issues included noise, cumulative impacts, and alternatives selection/analyses. Client: Law Office of John Shordike.
San Francisco International Airport Environmental Liaison Office Consulting. Mr.
Grassetti conducted various internal peer review tasks associated with environmental studies being prepared for SFIA’s proposed runway expansion. Client: LSA Associates, Inc.
El Cerrito Lumber Yard CEQA Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted an internal peer review for an Initial Study on a controversial parcel in the City of El Cerrito. Client: City of El Cerrito.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3688 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7449 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 28
June 3, 2022
Sausalito Marina CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and critique of an EIR for a proposed new marina in Sausalito. Client: Confidential Sausalito Police and Fire Station CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti prepared a peer review and critique of an EIR for a proposed new public safety building in Sausalito. Client:
Confidential
Napa Verison Tower CEQA Critique. Mr. Grassetti conducted a peer review and critique for a cellular telephone tower in the City of Napa. Client: Confidential.
Morongo Mining Projects Environmental Reviews. Mr. Grassetti provided CEQA, NEPA, and technical consulting to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding two aggregate mines adjacent to their reservation in Riverside County, CA. Client: Law Office of Alexander & Karshmer.
Napa Skateboard Park Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted a peer review and critique for a neighborhood association on a proposed skateboard park in the City of Napa. Client:
Confidential.
Headwaters Forest Project EIR/EIS Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted an expert review of the CEQA and NEPA adequacy and technical validity of EIR/EIS on the Headwaters Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, Sustained Yield Plan, and land purchase. Clients:
Environmental Law Foundation; Environmental Protection and Information Center, and Sierra Club.
Global Photon Fiber-Optic Cable EIR Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti assisted in a third-party peer review of an EIR on a proposed offshore fiber-optics cable. Client: Tetra Tech, Inc., and California State Lands Commission.
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan CEQA Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti assisted a consortium of Coachella Valley Indian Tribes in reviewing CEQA documents on the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan. Client: Consortium of Coachella Valley Tribes.
Salton Sea Enhanced Evaporation System Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti reviewed the draft IS/EA for a spray project to evaporate excess return flow water from the Salton Sea. Client: Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
Santa Rosa Home Depot CEQA Peer Review: Mr. Grassetti conducted a peer review and provided expert testimony regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report and associated technical studies for a proposed Home Depot shopping center in Santa Rosa. Client: Redwood Empire Merchants Association.
Mitsubishi Mine CEQA Litigation Review. Mr. Grassetti conducted a review of legal briefs regarding the adequacy of CEQA analyses for a proposed mine expansion in San Bernardino County. Client: Law Offices of Thomas Mauriello.
Alamo Gate Permitting Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review and prepared expert testimony and correspondence regarding the adequacy of CEQA and land use
1.k
Packet Pg. 3689 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7450 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 29
June 3, 2022
permitting and studies for a proposed gate on Las Trampas Road, which would preclude vehicular access to a regional park staging area. Client: Las Trampas Trails Advocates.
Cambria Condominiums Environmental and Planning Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared expert reviews of the potential environmental effects and Local Coastal Plan compliance of a proposed condominium development in Cambria, San Luis Obispo County. Client:
Law Office of Vern Kalshan.
Mariposa County Planning Policy Reviews. Mr. Grassetti conducted a review of proposed alterations to the Mariposa County General Plan for CEQA compliance. Client:
Dr. Barton Brown.
Gregory Canyon Landfill Environmental Processing Review. Mr. Grassetti was retained to review the environmental permitting and CEQA analyses for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill in northern San Diego County. Procedural issues include landfill siting requirements and CEQA process compliance. Technical issues include cultural resources, hydrology, endangered species, traffic, and health and safety. Client: Law Offices of Alexander & Karshmer and Pala Band of Mission Indians.
Otay Ranch Development CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared an expert review of the Environmental Impact Report for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch project in San Diego County in connection with ongoing litigation. Major issues were CEQA compliance, compliance with the California planning process, biological impacts, cumulative impacts, and alternatives. Client: Law Offices of Charles Stevens Crandall.
Punta Estrella Chip Mill Environmental Report Compliance Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a review of a proponent’s environmental report for a proposed wood chip mill in Costa Rica to determine compliance of documentation with U.S. environmental standards and policies. Major compliance issues included US Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act standards, NEPA standards, and adequacy of overall impacts analysis. Client:
Scientific Certification Systems.
Carroll Canyon Burn Facility CEQA Compliance Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a CEQA process review for a proposed Negative Declaration on a planned contaminated-earth burning facility in the City of San Diego. Client: Law Offices of William Mackersie.
Monterey Bay Marine Lab CEQA Compliance Review: Mr. Grassetti assisted attorneys in review of a CEQA Negative Declaration, NEPA Environmental Assessment, and associated documents for the relocation of the Monterey Bay Marine Laboratory. Issues included the effectiveness of mitigation to cultural and biological resources, the appropriateness of the Negative Declaration versus an EIR, and other CEQA issues. Client: Law Offices of Alexander & Karshmer.
Monterey Ground Water Ordinances CEQA Compliance Review. Mr. Grassetti provided expert CEQA consulting services to attorneys regarding the appropriateness of Monterey County's CEQA processing of proposed ground water ordinances. Client: Salinas Valley Water Coalition.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3690 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7451 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 30
June 3, 2022
Jamestown Whistlestop CEQA Adequacy Review. Mr. Grassetti performed an expert review and assisted in successful litigation regarding an Initial Study for a proposed mini mall in Jamestown, Tuolumne County. Client: Law Offices of Thomas Mauriello.
Sunrise Hills Environmental Impact Report Peer Review. Mr. Grassetti performed a critical review of the applicability of the EIR for a proposed 200-unit residential development in Sonora, Tuolumne County. Major issues include grading, erosion, water quality, biological impacts, and visual quality. Client: Sylva Corporation.
Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report Review. Mr.
Grassetti performed a review of an EIR for a major new shopping center in Sonora, Tuolumne County. Major issues included geologic and hydrologic impacts. Findings were presented to the Sonora City Council, and pre-litigation assistance was provided. Client:
Citizens for Well Planned Development.
Blue Oaks Residential Development CEQA Studies Review and Critique. Mr. Grassetti performed several tasks related to a proposed residential development in western Tuolumne County. Tasks included review of County CEQA procedure, review of Initial Study, review of Draft EIR, and coordination with attorneys. Client: Western Tuolumne County Citizens Action Group.
Yosemite Junction Project CEQA Review. Mr. Grassetti prepared a review and critique of a proposed Negative Declaration for a 40-unit outlet mall in Tuolumne County, California.
The Negative Declaration was subsequently denied and the project application rescinded.
Client: Sylva Corporation.
Sonora Mining Corporation CEQA Review/Expert Witness Services. Mr. Grassetti conducted a review and critique of CEQA compliance for the proposed expansion of Sonora Mining Corporation's Jamestown Gold Mine in Tuolumne County, California.
Client: Law Office of Alexander Henson.
Save Our Forests and Rangelands Expert Review and Witness Services. Mr. Grassetti provided expert review, consulting services, and expert witness testimony on CEQA issues for a successful legal challenge to an EIR and Area Plan for 200,000 acres in the Central Mountain Sub-region of San Diego County. Client: Law Offices of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Specthrie, & Lerach.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3691 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7452 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 31
June 3, 2022
Attachment 2: City of Pacifica Zoning Map, p. 31
1.k
Packet Pg. 3692 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7453 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 32
June 3, 2022
Attachment 2: Pacific Institute Sea Level Rise Map
1.k
Packet Pg. 3693 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7454 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 33
June 3, 2022
Attachment 4: State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance Document
1.k
Packet Pg. 3694 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7455 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Mr. Christian Murdoch Page 34
June 3, 2022
Attachment 5: Site Access Photographs
1.k
Packet Pg. 3695 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7456 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 9 Murdock, Christian
From: Paul Totah < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:05 PM
To: Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Cc: Murdock, Christian
Subject: Comments on General Plan Chapter 7 - Conservation [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Commissioners,
We are writing to you to support specific aspects of the staff report on the General Plan: Chapter 7- Conservation.
Tree City Pacifica supports the guiding policy (CO-G-10) "Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.” In our comments to this plan, we requested that the City add an Implementing Policy to “adopt an aspirational Canopy Goal to promote the protection and expansion of the urban forest.” Thus, we were pleased to see the staff recommendation to add this statement to Implementing Policy CO-I-39: “Consider a canopy goal for heritage and non-heritage trees as part of the Heritage Tree ordinance update or other updates to the City’s tree regulations." Pacifica is a Tree City USA. Most cities awarded this designation have adopted canopy goals to protect and expand the urban forest. You can find statistics for nearly 30 U.S. cities at this website showing a variety of canopy goals with only a handful below 30 percent and some as high as 50 and 60 percent. Our hope is that the City of Pacifica commits to an aspirational goal of 30 percent as we move to make Pacifica greener and more sustainable and prepare for an uncertain future given the realities of climate change.
Thank you for all you have done for Pacifica and all you will be doing in the months to come.
Yours,
Paul Totah
Communications Director, Tree City Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3696 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7457 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 10 Murdock, Christian
From: Emma Brady
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: General Plan Update Public Hearing Comments
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use. [Please include your own your own comments/feelings about why the Field matters to you.]
I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.
Sincerely,
Emma Brady
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.k
Packet Pg. 3697 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7458 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 11 Murdock, Christian
From: Kathy < >
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: PEDRO POINT FIELD
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.
I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis.
Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.
Sincerely,
Kathy Castor
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.k
Packet Pg. 3698 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7459 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3699 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7460 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 FIRE HAZARDS p. 1
TO: [email protected]
COPY: Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager, Director Murdock CALFIRE, CCC
FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.
SUBJ: Comments for the PC meeting on the FEIR
DATE: June 4, 2022
Please note that the version of the FEIR included as “Ch. 1-3” in the PC Agenda packet for the original PC meeting 6/1/22 is different from the redline version available online. Headings, subheadings, content are ≠, and the major additions in Ch.2 are not shown.
I have tried to use the Agenda packet pages, because the redline has extraneous lines of text for changes. (See screen images that show the docs are different, below.) I was one of many who had critical comments on the Wildfire risk. I was eager to see the responses.
Despite the focused attention via Master Response 5, I remain confused and unconvinced of the arguments offered in defense of this section remaining essentially untouched from the DEIR. Fire is an important aspect of public and environmental safety, and important to be accurate, understandable and consistent. It still falls short.
It is my strong judgment that the terse conclusion in Master Response 5 of insignificant fire hazard throughout Pacifica is unjustified and poorly defended.
First, look at the text of the FEIR as presented in the Planning Commission’s Agenda packet – A. Contradictory text
p2.11-5 FIRE HAZARDS: “Pacifica has a substantial risk of wildland fires, with many areas of high and very high threat within the Planning area.”
&
p3.11-6 Wildland Fires: “As an urbanized community, wildfire hazard in minimal in most of Pacifica within city limits.”
Despite attempts to explain away this apparent contradiction (see below), this is still the text of the FEIR. The creation of MS5 made clear that reviewers objected, yet no attempt was made to improve this, or if a misconception, to correct it.
B. Maps are inconsistent
Map Fig 3.11-2 Fire Hazards… is still included even though map Fig 3.14-1 Fire Threat shows zones of very high and high wildfire hazard within the city. The first (Fig 3.11-2) was included in the SMC Multi-hazard Risk Assessment for Pacifica, and elicited wide public objection when that draft was circulated. The defense then by the city then was: 1) this map is from the view of SMC and they don’t have jurisdiction within city limits, and 2) the details of the map don't matter since the main used of the document is for justification in grant submissions. Note that there has never been a suggestion from the city that the map was accurate depiction of Fire Hazards throughout the city.
…
1.k
Packet Pg. 3700 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7461 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 FIRE HAZARDS p. 2
Until now.
C. Master Response 5: Wildfire (full agenda pp762, doc p11ff; this section is omitted from the redline)
In explanation of the maps, MS5 emphasizes that Fig. 3.11-2 separates risk by jurisdiction.
Indeed, the map identifies LRA, SRA & FRA as explained above. Everyone notes that only map zone SRA (State/County) has any meaningful content about fire risk–NO INFORMATION is provided within the city, the legend does not even identify the beige color. The subheading highlighted in green explicitly states the intended content, which does not include local areas even thought they are identified. Also, the City’s response to my comment C30-17 (pp928) mentions the lack of “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones” within the city. How does the lack of Very High Fire Severity Zones obviate the need for a good map?
So, why would the FEIR include this readily available but probably inappropriate and certainly confusing map to depict fire risk within the city?
MS5 minimizes risk within the city (middle of last ¶ pp762, doc p12):
“development under the Proposed Plan is expected to occur predominantly in already-urbanized neighborhoods where risk is lower… While it is possible that development could occur … in areas that may face higher fire threat…, there are numerous State regulations … reducing vulnerability to damage or loss from wildfire”.
Implying there is no hazard because likely development may not be close to hazardous areas is misguided. The reason for the regs and codes are explicitly because of the higher risk! To minimize real risk by assuming that landowners follow the regs is contrived. It seems obvious that accurate presentation of the true risk is important step in policy planning, not to mention prudent public education. (Actions speak loud: the city is presently working with developers on city projects clearly faced with wildfire risk, such as Higgins way and Talbot. Protestations in this Master Response notwithstanding. Q. E. D.)
Finally, the last sentence of this Master Response asserts: “accordingly the DEIR finds that impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant”.
This is almost certainly unjustified and perhaps dangerous. It is unacceptable in any official City document, especially in an EIR.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3701 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7462 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 FIRE HAZARDS p. 3
Please note that the version of the FEIR included in the PC Agenda packet for the original PC meeting 6/1/22 is different from the redline version available online. Headings, subheadings, content ≠.
REDLINE version vs. Agenda packet version
1.k
Packet Pg. 3702 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7463 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 13 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 5:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Wright, Greg; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian; CA Coastal Commission staff
Subject: PC Meeting: City responses to comments not responsive Attachments: 22-06-04 JKremer on EIR Comment responses.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Please find my comments to the Planning Commissioners on previous City Responses for the upcoming meeting. -- Jim
James Kremer, Ph.D. (coastal environmental science)
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.k
Packet Pg. 3703 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7464 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 Non-responsive Responses by the City p. 1 TO: [email protected]
COPY: Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager, Director Murdock FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.
SUBJ: Comments for the PC meeting on City Responses to MY Comments DATE: June 3, 2022
Where to begin…
Attachment F in the Full Agenda Packet for the initial June 1st PC meeting is an impressive effort.
In sheer magnitude and completeness, the compilation of public and agency responses to the DEIR is overwhelming. I found the tabular section with each commenter, each comment verbatim, and the City’s “response” to be a very helpful approach. Of course that very volume of content effectively precludes complete analysis, especially in the time allotted, even with the “extension” of a few days.
Forgive me if I seem snarky. Setting aside the time constraint, I disparage some of the “responses” placing the word in quotes, because they really do not serve well. It would be interminable, as well as ludicrous to attempt a point-by-point rebuttal of those “responses” that are inadequate, and only a few examples will suffice. It is especially worrisome since the very nonresponsiveness, itself, makes it clear that another iteration is unlikely to result in more meaningful results.
Consider these responses to my comments posted by the (very hard working) City staff that I say are perfunctory and diversionary rather than responsive –
1. C30-4 (p 1.f-153; pp920) I questioned the removal of text historically included in the definition of specific zoning categories, which altered clear intent to codify environmental and safety considerations, with bland focus on esthetics and scenic views. (!) The City’s lengthy response is indeed totally non-responsive, offering presumably factual assertions about what is in the EIR and where, but never addressing the deletion & replacement that was questioned. Instead, the reply takes the opportunity to state repeatedly that the policies in the EIR “would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.” Huh?
2. C30-9 (p 1.f-157; pp924) I questioned the practical functionality of the docs released for public review, and in light of 2nd release, noted changes in the new documents. The City’s response asserted “While a duplicated wildfire chapter was removed to reflect a usable TOC, there are no other differences between the document.” First, I believe there were changes; my note identified corrections in addition to the dup section. Second, the removal of a duplicated section is NOT to make a more usable TOC. This is dissembling – Minor, but unfortunately this is a common complaint, replies are tangential and convenient, but not focused on the intent of the comment.
3. C30-10 (p 1.f-157; pp924) I point out vague wording throughout many EIR Policy statements “suggested to reduce impacts” that are not enforceable, and for which the suggested reduction of impacts was unclear or hard to evaluate. The City’s brief response singled out one of my examples with another dissembling note about the designation of Critical Habitat, that completely misses my larger point.
4. C30-12 (p 1.f-158; pp925) I note that seven hierarchical levels of structure/outline are impossible to distinguish, such that a reader cannot know where they are in the progression of content. The City’s response “Clarifications will be noted in a redlined version of the DEIR” is inaccurate, as the same layout seems to be used in the “FEIR”. Yes, this is structural not content-factual, but it remains a clear functional shortcoming, which appeared to be accepted as valid and
1.k
Packet Pg. 3704 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7465 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 Non-responsive Responses by the City p. 2 straightforward to fix. It would make the new document appearance very different, but easily understood in the redline edition.
Similarly, and more serious, in a number of different sections, I commented: “names of headings are repetitive and thus unclear. … Sec. 3.7 BIOL starting below “SUMMARY OF IMPACTS”.
Each individual “Impact” has only that word as a heading, so they all look identical … (& the same applies throughout all elements)”. This must create unacceptable confusion, again it could easily be fixed.
5. C30-16 (p 1.f-160; pp927) I object that frequent assertions of reduced impacts for policies are not justified and the connections to impacts are poorly specified. City’s response: “The comment is noted. A DEIR with interactive table of contents was made available on the Plan Pacifica website on February 14, 2022.” “Noted” perhaps, but not changed anywhere – I looked at ALL the redlines and I don’t think this was ever done. As for the TOC, it is irrelevant. Not responsive!
6. C30-19 (p 1.f-162; pp929) I note that a suggestion from the FWS that Wildlife Friendly Fences be mentioned, but the City declares, “Wildlife friendly fencing is addressed as policy CO-I- 31,” which is untrue -- See CO-I-31 appearing on p. E-72 of redlined FEIR, movement corridors but not fencing. Yes, this is minor, even picky, but we are seeking accuracy here, are we not?
7. C30-21 (p 1.f-162; pp929) Map errors & inconsistencies for CRLF in various places. City agrees and says map clarifications will be made in redlined version, which does not appear to be the case.
These are the shortcomings just for my comments. You may note from the sequence numbers that MOST of my comments were not responded to ways that addressed the intent. It is obvious that more consistently cogent replies would be helpful to the review process to improve the FEIR.
If my experience is typical (please listen for others’ concerns of inadequate responses), the City’s position seems clear: for the FEIR, no substantive suggestion for improvement will be acted upon.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3705 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7466 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 14 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 5:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Wright, Greg; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian Subject: PC Meeting: Some changes to the FEIR are Major Attachments: 22-06-04 JKremer Comments on EIR (&GP) revs 5-26-22.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Please find my comments to the Planning Commissioners on FEIR changes for the upcoming meeting. -- 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.k
Packet Pg. 3706 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7467 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 Some Changes to FEIR are Major p. 1 TO: [email protected]
COPY: Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager, Director Murdock FROM: James Kremer, Ph.D.
SUBJ: Comments for the PC meeting on changes to the FEIR (& GP) DATE: June 4, 2022
FEIR.
I remain concerned that at least SOME of the changes made to the DEIR are substantive, and meet the standard of significance requiring by state law that the document, at least parts of it, be re-circulated before it can be certified.
The City is aware of these regulations, as their response to one public comment I submitted was almost only a verbatim copy of the legal text. (Glad we agree on that; now we must address whether any of the changes meet the standards.)
I reviewed every change highlighted in the FEIR redline version released online. (FYI: I found one change that was not redlined, and a few typos:
Ch. 2 Master responses (new), not shown as additions; & other differences from Ch 1-3 in PC Agenda Pkt.
3.4-18 Added sentences not redlined, prior to & citing a new Table 3.4-1;
3.6-17 Last sentence of 1st¶ is grammatically bad
3.6-23 Significance Criterion 3 revise so it doesn’t parse grammatically.
3.9-21 Wording of new LU-I-23 punctuation error, missing period after “designation. New…” ) First, compliments! I was impressed with the completeness of staff’s tallying and organized responding to the voluminous comments. It was logical and tractable. I appreciated the new attention to more complete citation of references, which I had asked about.
However, a number of changes have been made are substantive, consequential changes affecting specific instances of policy and implementation. These are not minor, they are not “typographical errors and minor clarifications that do not amount to substantial revisions” (pp 13). Understand that my point is not whether these are appropriate changes, rather that they ARE and deserve more complete review, as required by the state.
There is an element of subjectivity, and I know you would like to argue that these are not “significant new information”, but I show below that with each, the “EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project”. Each cited redline change is noted with relevant policy implications – “FEIR” page (redline version)
3.2-31 Roadway abandonment deleted; changes policies and exceptions
3.3-26 Trip Reduction Prgms reworded; omitting substantive policy deletions
3.4-6 GHG & Climate: major change in projected SLR rates are cited; implicates more severe impacts, thus triggering different criteria for evaluation by expert reviewers
3.4-7 predicted climate ∆T increased from 4°F to “5.6-8.8°F”(!) & ∆ timing; major affects on efficacy of proposed policies
3.4-10 Different CA legal requirements; changing regulatory context and required planning goals
3.4-18 new Table 3.4-1 & Table 3.4-2 reports new Emissions Targets under SF32; substantive impacts & implications, and shifts from local CAP to state law.
3.5-27 (summary of policies) adds 3 new Safety Element Implementation policies; (I can’t be sure these are new; my search couldn’t find them elsewhere) Unless they were just moved here, these
1.k
Packet Pg. 3707 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7468 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 Some Changes to FEIR are Major p. 2 have enforcement impacts and are substantive changes (e.g. SA-I-# on Grading & Drainage; NPDES Enforcement; No Adverse Impact Approach)
3.9-19 LU-I-19 Basis for Height Limits changed from defined by “zone” to “neighborhood”; the implications of this change are substantive, i.e. no longer applied based on the zoning category
3.11-5 ff. Fire Hazards; despite widespread objections to the SMCMHRA and the DEIR and DGP, no changes were made to clarify OR reduce inconsistency
• Redlines in Water section in Utilities are in blue! Cute. ----------- end of FEIR significant changes
General Plan.
I also reviewed the redline changes in the GP. I know re-review is not required by law, but prudence and transparency might recommend a similar guidelines, to maintain public and agency contact and maximize constructive input for these important City documents. The GP is arguably more important to Pacifica than EIR or Specific Plans, and would sensibly warrant the most complete study, review and improvement of all these docs. I have no doubt that the process would benefit by another iteration. All stakeholders would be more relaxed and congenial, their attempts to help would be met very differently by elected officials and city staff. I am pretty sure the culprit here is the determination by some in the city government to push ahead on a rigid published timetable, lest they appear to have fallen short in some way rather than having had the highest interests for the best possible plans.
A few examples with page numbers from the redlines in Attch D for DGP will suffice to make the point that the document would benefit from agency and public re-review. I do not claim completeness – the brief window for review precludes this – only that this release includes many real changes that would otherwise benefit from another iteration. •p3-10: CD-I-18. Old: Vague and superficial. New: Specifies explicit priorities for future development. •p3-10/11: CD-I-19. Old: addresses possible new hotel vague goals; this is essentially removed. New:
Replaces old with useful change to former CD-I-20; clearly proposing different policies. •p4-5: Residential> ¶Open Space/Ag/Resid: A sentence is omitted that specifies an explicit development specification that has apparently now been deleted. •p4-8: ¶ Visitor-Serving Commercial: adds an explicit stipulation of a condition for development that will be considered/allowed.
•p4-15: 3rd ¶ “The ‘Bowl’ site…”: one basis for proposed development guidance replaced with another totally different one. (TDR replaces cluster housing & hazard avoidance) •p4-31: LU-I-30: Old: specific protection for CRLF habitat. New: guidance for density on steep slopes. (Both may have been moved? but if not, this is substantive.) •p5-11: Traffic Conditions, bottom 3 ¶s: factual corrections change the severity the existing conditions at intersections.
•p7-21: 1st ¶ Special-Status… Additional information added that correct erroneous (incomplete) statement about ESHA. Good improvement, but should be reviewed again by FWS & perhaps other agencies. (Are these changes a result of comments? J) •p7-39 ff: ¶ GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS & Tab 7-3. Yea! but… What to make of this? A serious complaint I made (& others I assume) was the old and inadequate use of available climate information. Here are attempts to remedy this blatant error. Is this not a substantive change? Should not public and agency review be allowed to further check these adjusted assertions and cited sources? Is this not what review is for?
1.k
Packet Pg. 3708 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7469 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Kremer June 4, 2022 Some Changes to FEIR are Major p. 3 •p7-47 ff: 7-6 Cultural Resources, new Fig7-6 & Tab 7-5: Similarly, culturally insensitive statements and factual inaccuracies have been corrected throughout this section. Good! This is another example of EXACTLY why this must be re-circulated so it may be checked for accuracy and completeness by those who know. This is substantive change. •p8-3: Text and new Figs 8-1 & 8-2. These are not redlined so it is not clear if these are new figures that were omitted? if so: 1) that is not correcting a typographical error, 2) substantive content must be receive adequate opportunity for professional and public review. •p8-4: Landslide maps Fig 8-1 & 8-3a: Were any of these, or other substantive documentary evidence modified? If so, they should be put out again for review, for authorities OTHER than our Planning Commissioners and Councilpersons.
>> This raises the question if ALL changes are highlighted in the redline versions. Perhaps this is not a legal requirement, but it is clear with almost 4500 pages to review in a short week, it is unacceptable to proffer a redline version that omits major changes, like new or modified figures, about hazards and safety especially.
•p8-33: WILDLAND FIRES: Fig 8-7: Is this map modified? The first public version had odd unexplained features, that seemed to be clear serious errors. If those have been corrected, as I hope, they warrant review and consideration by fire officials and safety minded public. •p8-36: SA-I-98: Veg Mngmt: a substantial phrase about the nature of implementation policy was added. Good, but substantive; not a typo.
•p8-36 ff: 8.6 Public Safety & Emergc’y Mngmt: The next 2 pages have major deletions and addition that are factual statements about operations and policy. They deserve a chance to be reviewed by professionals and knowledgeable public.
•p8-38: Insert Fig 8-8. Another new figure with really important information! Neighborhoods with fewer that 2 evacuation routes. Should this not be carefully reviewed without time pressure by all citizens who know their areas and have a critical interest? >>> (new or modified figures are not flagged as changes by redline, and are easily missed.) •p9-5: Noise: FEDERAL REGULATIONS: A new reg is added that apparently includes for the first time relevant federal standards that were omitted. Seem important. ----------- end of GP significant changes
1.k
Packet Pg. 3709 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7470 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 15 Murdock, Christian
From: Nancy Beeman
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Subject: PEDRO POINT FIELD
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you NOT to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.
As a resident of Pacifica for the last 8 1/2 years, I have found that the five-acre Pedro Point Field is dearly beloved by not only the residents of Pedro Point, but also the people who visit our area from far and wide. This field serves as a visual, physical, and mental respite from man-made structures. It is absolutely imperative that we maintain some sense of open space for the sake of our sanity, and I say "our" meaning every living soul, whether human or animal.
I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies.
Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.
Sincerely,
Nancy Capone Beeman
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3710 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7471 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 16 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:25 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment
Cc: Bier, Mary; Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal; Ringuette, Oceane@Coastal; KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal; Leal, David; Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Wright, Greg
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 Attachments: Christine Boles Comment Letter #A 6.6.22 PC Hearing.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock, Mayor Bier, Planning Commissioners and Coastal Commission Staff, Please find attached my comment letter A for tomorrow's planning commission meeting regarding continued deficiencies, errors and omissions in the FEIR and General Plan documents related to the coastal zone and coastal hazards.
I wanted to get this out as soon as possible so commissioners had a chance to read it prior to the meeting. I am working on other letters related to landslides and fire that I hope to get to you later today.
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.k
Packet Pg. 3711 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7472 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve ♦ Pacifica, CA 94044 ♦ ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
DATE: June 5, 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, Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) and EIR Comments, letter A Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners:
I want to first raise my objections to this flawed process that limits public and agency engagement on critical environmental and life safety issues that will define Pacifica for the next 20-40 years. Given the ridiculously short time frame allowed (12 calendar days which include a major holiday) to review this new set of documents, totaling 4,795 pages including the FEIR, I have not had time to read, much less research and respond to many items of concern.
I will focus my comments on a few items I noticed that feel are substantial deficiencies in the documents and underlying data that will require edits and recirculation. This letter will focus on issues in the Coastal Zone. 1) There are many references through the FEIR, General Plan and SPSP documents to the 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment prepared by ESA. Thank you for the clarification based on my comment C49-1 that this document is only a draft and has not been finalized nor officially adopted or certified by the City of Pacifica. Please clarify how this document can legally be used to fully evaluate environmental and safety issues and write policy, much less certify the FEIR. 2) The FEIR has been modified to include new references to this ESA study without labeling it as draft.
See highlighted section in green.
3) The response to my comment C49-11 regarding the accuracy of the dune shoreline erosion numbers of 115-116 meters by 2025 was not answered and the information remains grossly in error. See screenshot from above from redlined DEIR. If our dunes are eroding 115 meters (over 377 feet) by 2025, we are in deep trouble losing our major arterial road, SR1, and these documents are seriously deficient.
Note that there is also confusing duplicated text in the newly added redlined text.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3712 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7473 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3713 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7474 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3714 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7475 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3715 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7476 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to 17 Murdock, Christian
From: Nancy Tierney < >
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Pacifica Planning Commission GP, EIR, SPSP public hearing [CAUTION: External Email]
Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, Planning Staff:
Regarding the June 6 public hearing to review the General Plan update, Final EIR, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and to consider a resolution to adopt these plans, I look forward to the presentation and appreciate the responses in the FAQs provided by the City. In the meantime I have a number of comments.
Having reviewed the draft documents released early this year, I am somewhat familiar with their contents. I and many other Pacifica residents urged the City to engage the public in reviewing the documents. Apparently that was viewed as unnecessary as the next step was a Planning Commission hearing on June 1 to adopt the plans, later postponed to June
6. I still am puzzled by the seeming reluctance to engage the public in reviewing these lengthy and complex documents.
Recall from the General Plan draft that a visioning session was held in 2009, a draft GP released in 2014 and then presented in 2019. I'm not sure that qualifies as timely public engagement. That said, I am encouraged by the FAQ response that public comment will occur in "any subsequent public hearing on adoption of the General Plan and SPSP." Through my involvement in a number of non-profit organizations, I am aware of similar efforts in other cities on the Peninsula and in the East Bay. Many are updating General Plans, EIRs and various specific plans. The City of San Mateo is in the midst of a 3 year period to update its General Plan, Housing Element and specific plans, including a number of public review sessions. Foster City, Millbrae, Redwood City have pursued similar processes. The City of South San Francisco Planning Commission held a public hearing last week on half a dozen resolutions involving General Plan amendments, specific plans, EIR, and zoning amendments. These resolutions were considered separately, an idea worth considering for the various Pacifica documents.
While I recognize the Commissioners' dedication to their roles, I ask how much of these reports (4000+ pages) you were able to absorb. And, how do you evaluate their contents? What metrics apply and how do specific recommendations support the City's goals?
I question the order of plans approval. As you know, the 6th Cycle Housing Element plan is due in January 2023, addressed in FAQ #7. The current plan doesn't account for the total number of 1892 housing units in Pacifica required by the State, but rather half of the target. As noted, land use tools including higher densities are warranted to achieve the target. Contending that the GP and SPSP must be adopted before tackling the Housing Element, rather than concurrently, is counter productive and inconsistent with the practices of other Bay area cities. Further, a piecemeal approach to housing should be avoided at all costs, rather identifying appropriate sites and approaches in the context of other GP elements like land use and conservation.
The GP and SPSP plans contain many laudable policies, including reference to past successes such as the recommendations of a 1984 open space task force. In the end Pacifica needs to find that balance between conservation of our natural assets defined by the coast and hillsides and ensuring that our city is affordable and provides the necessary services. This is a big challenge that we in the community support.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3716 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7477 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 18 thank you.
Nancy Tierney
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.k
Packet Pg. 3717 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7478 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3718 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7479 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 1 DATE: June 5, 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 FEIR Comments, letter #B FEIR Chapter 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismic Risk
General Plan Chapter 8.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I have read the city’s responses to my comment letter #2 want to thank you for some of the corrections made in response to my comments to include current data and links. While I have not had time to finish the review of the responses, I did however notice some responses that I strongly disagree with. I also have new information from a conversation I had this week with the Department of Conservation about the inadequacies of the current landslide maps that I will share. I believe these to be significant deficiencies in the EIR and General Plan Safety Element that need to be promptly addressed and modified before the EIR can be certified.
After the 475 debris flow landslides that occurred in the winter of 1982 that led to the death of three children on Oddstad Boulevard in Park Pacifica we must do better to make sure our General Plan documents address this risk and mitigate these hazards. I know of two debris flow landslides that occurred early this winter during heavy rains, one in Linda Mar and one in Park Pacifica. We were fortunate that the rain subsided, and the hills dried out this time, but this reminds us that the risk of these types of landslides is still very much present. El Nino years bringing intense rainfall and saturated hillsides will come again, and we should be prepared and carefully review proposed new projects in these hazard zones to avoid potential costly destruction and loss of life.
Please accept the following comments regarding the safety and geology related chapters noted above of the revised General Plan and FEIR.
1. A Debris Flow landslide map, Figure 3.6-3b has been added to the redlined DEIR, but it is not redlined or noted as new information. It seems that state agencies, like the Department of Conservation have not been given the opportunity to officially review and comment on this DEIR change, so this may trigger recirculation under CEQA.
2. I pointed out in a previous comment, C49-16, that this map in Figure 3.6-3b which was in the General Plan is inaccurate as it does not show any debris flow landslides on the north part of town, even missing two of the 9 major slides studied in the Howard Donley and Associations report of 1982. There was no written response to this specific comment about the inaccuracy and the map has not been updated.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3719 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7480 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2 I had an email exchange on 6/2/22 with Dr. Erik Frost of the Department of Conservation who provided official comments on the DEIR and this is his response. I have attached our full conversation for reference.1
“ The specific features you’re showing from the CGS Landslide Inventory website (image on the left) are all taken from a 1986 USGS report (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr86363). Each red arrow is an interactive feature, and if you click on any given red arrow a pop-up will appear with additional information, including a link to this USGS report. The USGS area of investigation did not extent into the northern part of Pacifica, so no debris flows are shown in that area.”
As you can see, without data for the north part of town, this map is incomplete and is therefore misleading and must be amended or removed.
3. Dr. Frost urged you to use a different map for debris flow landslides in his comment #A3-4, copied below for reference. “Debris Flows Shallow, rainfall-triggered landslides, described in the DEIR as debris flows, are a known hazard within the City of Pacifica. The DEIR mentions debris flow hazards but does not provide much information on where this hazard exists nor where it has occurred in the past. CGS recommends that the Final EIR and Safety Element include debris flow hazard maps and information prepared by the USGS (USGS OFR 97-745 E; USGS Professional Paper 1434 including Plate 8). In particular, the City should consider using these references to help identify existing developments subject to debris flow hazards and determine what new development areas should have geotechnical site investigations prepared prior to project approval.”
The USGS map Dr. Frost refers to is the same one I referred to in my comment letter #2, C49-16. This map not only shows historic debris flow landslides in all of Pacifica, it also shows areas of higher probability of debris flow sides occurring due to topography highlighted in red. This is a much more accurate and useful map for planning purposes for evaluating when soils investigation reports are required to address these types of landslides. This map is actually a more current data source (1997 versus 1986) and CEQA requires the use of best available data, therefore Figure 3.6-3b cannot be used.
Here is a link to this document: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-745/sm-df.pdf. I have contacted the USGS to see if we can get this data in an importable format and will forward it to Mr. Murdock when I receive it. A screenshot is included below for reference.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3720 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7481 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 3 4) While the EIR and General Plan Safety Element require geotechnical investigations for steep sites at the planning review level, a typical geotechnical soils report and analysis focuses on deep seated landslides and not debris flow landslides. Debris flows can start uphill from a particular parcel and can affect parcels below, so a much larger area must be analyzed. It is important for the planning department to be able to ascertain when debris flow analysis is required as that will require more information to evaluate whether a proposed project could create hazards beyond its site boundaries.
As an example of the importance of this information, I wanted to share with you a recent project approved by the Planning Commission this year for a new home at the end of Talbot Avenue. There was no discussion of debris flow landslides in the geotechnical report or in the planning staff report.
During the City Council review of the project a neighbor commented on a previous major debris flow landslide nearby on Moana in 1982. I spoke with other neighbors and was informed of two other debris flow landslides on this same hill in 1998 that forced the red tagging of two homes below on Canyon Drive.2 It is imperative that we understand and evaluate the risks of debris flow landslides before granting entitlements. Accurate and complete maps are a critical tool in identifying areas subject to this deadly hazard.
5) Besides the importance of accurate maps, it is critical to include evaluation and mitigation measures for sites with debris flow risks. While the 1983 General Plan Safety Element was completely rewritten to address this major hazard with specific policies after the horrific winter of 1982, the current draft General Plan does not even mention debris flow slides in the text or implementation policies, and so this important historic data and analysis done in the 1983 Howard Donley and Associates report that reviewed and mapped all 475 landslides, and analyzed 9 of them in detail, will be lost. I recommend this report be added as a reference to the final GP and EIR and the policy recommendations reviewed and added.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3721 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7482 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 4 6) Dr. Erik Frost also kindly shared the link to the Department of Conservation’s published recommendations for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards which includes a discussion of debris flows on page 51.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-Publications/SP 117a.pdf.
I have copied the critical text from page 51 here below.
Debris flows may initiate as slides, but almost immediately break up and turn into flows. They are typically triggered by periods of prolonged rainfall following a period of less intense precipitation. They can move very rapidly and travel relatively long distances, making them a significant threat to life and property. Individual debris flows are typically small in areal extent and their deposits are relatively thin. They form run-out deposits on the flatter ground below the failure. The extent of runout is based on volume and speed of the debris mass.
Loose material that has accumulated in swales on steep slopes provides the flow material. Flows can also occur on the outer slope of engineered fill faces where saturated surface soils lay above more highly compacted engineered fill.
Recommended Mitigation: Because this type of hazard usually develops in distinct chutes, the main mitigation is to either avoid the hazardous zone or deflect the flow material (Hollingsworth and Kovacs, 1981). The most common solution is to provide an adequate setback from the runout zone. Grading solutions include removing excess material from the upslope swales, reshape the gully profile to reduce the driving forces, lowering the slope gradient and restricting water inflow into the soil mass. Offsite flows can be mitigated using catchment basins, protective structures such as embankments, diversion or barrier walls and by requiring setback distances. The most effective measure to protect structures against earth flows and debris flows is to accurately define the potential failure area and require a setback from the runout path.
This information and specific implementation policies need to be added to the FEIR and to the General Plan Safety Element before they can be certified.
7) Dr. Frost’s comment A3-3 says “The City should also consider providing a map of specific landslides. CGS has compiled an inventory of landslides in the planning area (as shown in Seismic Hazard Zone Reports 128 and 133), and we recommend this inventory be shown in an appropriate figure. The GIS data for this landslide inventory will be transmitted separately.”
Is the new proposed figure 8-X in response to this comment? It is unclear from the staff report. What kinds of landslides are included in this map and over what time period? I note many past landslides missing from this map that were identified, including the debris flow landslides discussed earlier, and landslides documented in specific geotechnical reports the city has in hand, such as for the Vista Mar project at 500 Monterey Road.3 Please update this map accordingly. 8) The response to my comment 49-27 is incomplete as only a few properties have been added to the Hillside Preservation overlay map, see Figure 4.4 in the Land Use Element. FEIR page 3.6-26 says, “Policy LU-I-14 extends the Hillside Preservation District on the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations.” This extension of HPD has not been mapped. 9) The Hillside Preservation overlay map, Figure 4.4, omits certain sites previously identified as HPD in the current zoning maps, see example below. Note that this is one representative example and I have not had time to compare all the maps.
Please clarify if this is intentional as rezoning properties out of HPD requires a public vote per the recently renewed Muncipal Code Tile 9, Chapter 5 Growth Control Ordinance. If it is not intentional, Figure 4.4 must be revised prior to adoption.
I am also surprised that Ohlone Drive off of Roberts Road and Fassler has not been added to any of the General Plan and DEIR maps as that road has existed for many years now.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3722 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7483 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 5 1.k
Packet Pg. 3723 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7484 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3724 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7485 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 7 Thank you for your attention to these important matters of public safety. Please feel free to reach out to me if I can provide any further clarification.
Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
License #C024448
Principal
Cc: Honorable Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro-Tem Bigstyck
Planning Commissioners
[email protected]
Attachments: 1 6/2/22 Email conversation between Christine Boles and Dr Erik Frost of the Department of Conservation. 2 5/28/22 Letter from Christine Boles re. Talbot Avenue project, APN 016-270-190 3 6/21/91 Geotechnical Investigation by John Hom and Associates
1.k
Packet Pg. 3725 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7486 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3726 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7487 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3727 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7488 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
DATE: March 28, 2022
TO: Tina Wehrmeister, Planning Director/Assistant City Manager Christian Murdock, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Talbot Avenue project, APN 016-270-190
Dear Ms. Wehrmeister and Mr. Murdock,
As I was reading the staff report for the Talbot project this weekend I read the new letter from the downhill neighbor, Mr. Gerald King, on Canyon Drive who mentioned his concerns about drainage and landslides given the proximity of the Moana Landslide of 1982. That jarred my memory and I spent some time this weekend digging in my landslide records. I apologize that I did not read the geotechnical report or notice these issues when the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Fortunately, it is not too late.
You might remember that Pacifica suffered 475 landslides that winter 40 years ago that caused millions of dollars of damage and cost the lives of three children when their home was engulfed in a landslide as they slept. Of the 475 slides, the Moana slide was one of the 9 major slides that was studied in the Howard Donley (HDAI) report.
That slide is located on the same hill as the proposed project, on the north face, less than 600 feet away.
I have attached the relevant section of the HDAI report, including the location map and detailed plan and sections of the Moana slide. Talbot Avenue, built on the ridge of this hill, was extended and new homes built along the downslope sides after 1982.
I took a Google Earth image along Talbot that shows both the proposed property and the location of the Moana slide. See below. Except for the proposed driveway and upper section of the home, the slopes are identical at 1:1 or 100% slope.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3728 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7489 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
You might recall that I have informed the Planning Department and City Council on numerous occasions that our current General Plan Landslide Maps are inaccurate as the HDAI report called for new landslide maps to be drawn in 1983, but this work was never done. In my 2022 Draft General Plan/DEIR Comment Letter #2, dated 2/7/22, I also pointed out that the new landslide maps were inaccurate as they left out the historic debris flow landslides in the entire northern section of Pacifica, including the area of this project. See images below.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3729 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7490 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
Yesterday I met with a neighbor at 708 Canyon Drive. He informed me of two other landslides on this hill during the 1998 El Nino winter. See highlighted areas below in yellow. He said the larger slide was caused by the construction of the Talbot Road extension and the new homes on Talbot. The two houses at the bottom of Canyon Drive, 676 and 684, on either side of a gap, suffered extensive damage and were red tagged as uninhabitable for weeks while repair work was done.
I am concerned that the very real risks of debris flow landslides have not been evaluated by staff or the geotechnical engineer for this project. I have the following questions for the geotechnical consultant, Summit Engineering, and the city’s geotechnical peer review consultant. 1) The geotechnical report is dated September 19, 2018. This is out of date and would not be accepted in other Bay Area municipalities. Is there an update letter to the report that is missing from the agenda packet? The engineer’s recommendations on page 6 specifically says to “update the report because of observed changes or delays”.
2) On page 1, under geology, it says “Local land stability maps show the site to have medium to high susceptibility of seismic landslides”. There is no mention of debris flow landslides anywhere in the report. We learned in 1982 that debris flow landslides do not require a seismic event to trigger this type of slide. According to a Pacific Tribune article interviewing Howard Donley in 1990, he says, “the key is that any time you have a rainstorm that exceeds 1” in a day, with rain before and after, that kind of rainfall completely saturates the earth, fills all the cracks and creates a buoyant effect when surface and groundwater meet. It’s like sticking the soil in a bathtub, it lifts the soil up…Mudslides have a life of their own, it’s like you’ve got your gun cocked. The only problem is you don’t know when it will go off and what will trigger it.” Donley recommended detailed studies not only of each project site, but of the hillsides around it. In fact the 1983 Safety Element requires an analysis of on and off-site hazards. This analysis does not appear to have been done for this site.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3730 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7491 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
3) On page 1 of the geotechnical report the land stability maps referenced as data sources date from 1983. These only reference seismic events. Current geologic maps which, according to my source at USGS, do include debris flow risk can be found at the US Department of Conservation website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
As you can see in the screenshot below, this parcel is in an identified landslide zone, identical to the area of the Moana slide. Please confirm that state requirements for required investigations are met based on this landslide risk identification.
4) Page 3 of the report references 2016 California Building Code Seismic Parameters. Please update recommendations as necessary to comply with the current 2019 California Building Code. Changes may also be needed to the design drawings to reflect new code requirements. 5) The staff report acknowledges recommendations from the HDAI report that plantings of trees and larger shrubs can increase the risks of debris flow landslides and yet the analysis to determine specific appropriate planting is being deferred.
With no analysis, the geotechnical report contradicts these recommendations on page 7 and the project plans continue to show trees being added on slopes of 100%.
Here is a clip from a newspaper interview with Howard Donley explaining why trees are not a good idea on slopes susceptible to debris flow landslides.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3731 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7492 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
If I was one of the downhill neighbors, I would be worried as if this project is approved tonight, it leaves decisions that impact my property and my family’s safety to staff with no opportunity for public review and input. Besides an updated geotechnical report and analysis of debris flow landslide risks and recommendations, I would also want to see a construction erosion control plan, which is very difficult to manage on such a steep site with 100% slope. The soils report calls for no grading to be allowed from October to April. I would also suggest adding language for strict compliance with grading moratorium dates as a condition of approval.
One of the main reasons Pacifica adopted the Hillside Preservation Ordinance is to protect public safety. The second item under “intent” in the ordinance says, “Help protect people and property from all potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides”.
HPD only allows projects to be built on slopes up to 38%, and at that slope the size of the project is severely restricted. This site, with an average of 55% slope, increasing to 100% for the majority of the site, is a hazard, and the geotechnical investigations must be thorough, comprehensive and up to date with current codes if the city is to consider a variance. By considering variances to HPD without providing these detailed analyses, any approvals that contradict the language and intent of the General Plan and could be challenged.
I’d also like to point out again that the project plans continue to have incorrect fire hose lengths on the plan (166’ measured versus 150’ incorrectly noted) and the staff report is still missing official documentation from North County Fire stating that they have agreed to an exception to maximum length of 150’. I would have thought that the City Attorney would want to see such a document in the project file and/or conditions of approval to carefully protect the city from liability in case of a catastrophic fire. I have copied the relevant section of the current fire code below for reference.
Section 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities [2019 California Fire Code] … The fire apparatus access road shall … extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building facility.
Exceptions:
1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where any of the following conditions occur:
1.1 the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 ….
1.2 Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided.
I would suggest that this item be continued tonight so that these issues can be properly addressed before final approvals. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
Principal
Cc: City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
City Manager Woodhouse
1.k
Packet Pg. 3732 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7493 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3733 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7494 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3734 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7495 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3735 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7496 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3736 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7497 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3737 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7498 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3738 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7499 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3739 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7500 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3740 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7501 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 20 Murdock, Christian
From: Carie Unger
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 8:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Meeting 6/6/22 Agenda Item #2
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
I am reaching out today regarding the General Plan and DEIR.
My understanding is that this Monday, 06/06, the Planning Commission will make their recommendation on if the General Plan and DEIR should be adopted.
I am concerned by the pace of this, as the City has only released their responses to public comments submitted, regarding the General Plan and DEIR, a few days before this Planning Commission Meeting.
This leaves little to no time for the public to review the City's responses to areas of concern within these documents. The General Plan and DEIR are complex documents that will have a lasting impact on our community. The citizens of Pacifica deserve time to read and understand what the implications of this plan will be.
I urge the planning commission to delay their recommendation on the General Plan and DEIR, at this time. Further, I urge City Council to extend the timeline for General Plan and DEIR review and approval so that Pacifica Community members are able to meaningfully participate in this process.
Thank you,
Carie Unger
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.k
Packet Pg. 3741 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7502 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 21 Murdock, Christian
From: Catherine Wachtler
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 8:42 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Christian,
Thank you for your work on the EIR, the General Plan, and the Sharp Park Specific Plan for Pacifica. I'm writing with a few requests for the Planning Commission hearing tomorrow night.
I am concerned that both the Planning Commissioners and citizens of Pacifica have been given insufficient time to read, analyze and develop complete and helpful feedback on these lengthy documents. I would like to suggest a reading schedule of approximately 50 pages a day, 5 days a week, for 20 weeks. I really want everyone to be able to deeply understand the content they are being asked to discuss. We can certainly start discussing now, but let's push the recommendation to early December at the earliest.
When these topics are discussed at a public meeting, I believe each of them merits its own item on the agenda. They are certainly related and there should be discussion and comment about their interconnectedness, but that should be preceded by individual presentations about each document with opportunity for the public to comment on each.
Additionally, because the hearing on June 6 will be the first time staff makes a public presentation of each document, the public will need more time, beyond June 6, to reflect on and analyze the information.
Finally, in the limited reading I have completed of these documents, I notice that the fire hazard map data for many parts of Pacifica, including my neighborhood of Park Pacifica, is missing. Our updated General Plan should include this data.
Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions regarding both the timeline and parts of the process for Pacifica to update its General Plan and EIR and to develop the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
Catherine Wachtler
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3742 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7503 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 22 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:10 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian
Subject: FEIR comment for planning commission meeting 6/6/22 Attachments: 2018 all bands copy.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Commissioners,
To clarify my earlier comments please see the following.
Respectfully,
Margaret Goodale
concerning Packet pages 823 - 826 Attachment F Final EIR chapters 1-3
C1- 11 through C1-13
I requested that the north half of PSB be added as ESHA for the Western Snowy Plover. Staff responded “ Snowy plover is shown on DEIR p. 3.7-21 to have medium-to-high potential to occur in the planning area” and offers pages of policies that would “pertain to the western snowy plovers habitat once verified by a biologist.”
CO-I-27 Verification of ESHA should be satisfied by the following.
According to the Endangered Species Act plovers are a federally listed threatened species and a State of California “species of special concern.”
In 2007 USFWS compiled the Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the species.
In that federal plan Pacifica State Beach is identified as California 48, part of the Recovery Unit 4 encompassing Pt. Reyes through Monterey Bay.
Volunteers from the Pacifica Shorebird Alliance are trained by State Park and Point Blue biologists and shorebird ecologists to monitor the presence of plovers during the wintering season beginning as early as August and continuing to about mid-April. Conditions on the beach for the wintering plovers are reported to USFWS, CDFW and Pt. Blue scientists. Birds banded from as far as Vandenberg and the Oregon dunes as well as those banded along the SF Bay shore and at Pt Reyes
1.k
Packet Pg. 3743 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7504 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 23 have been recorded for multiple winters at PSB. Biologists tracking site fidelity, life span and resource availability use this weekly data to assess snowy plover recovery and how recovery may be affected by climate change and sea level rise.
In 2010 in response to urging from Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory (now Pt. Blue) ornithologists and in consultation with USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist Dan Cordova, City staff presented recommendations for plover protection to Council. The recommendations were approved and are included below. With the implementation of symbolic fencing to provide a safe refuge from human and pet pressures, Pt. Blue shorebird ecologist Carleton Eyster visited and found the site appropriate for ESHA designation. Volunteers continue to cooperate with professionals in federal and state agencies, provide data and meet yearly with them.
See also attached the 2018 band identification prepared for USFWS, for volunteers and for school children who did field studies at the beach after classroom introductions.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3744 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7505 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 24 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.k
Packet Pg. 3745 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7506 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Snowy Plovers at Pacifica State Beach 2017-2018
BG:GY
2015 Banded as a chick
Pajaro Spit
wintered Pacifica 2015-16,
2016-17, 2017-18
WB:WA
2014 banded as a chick
Reservation Road, just north
of Fort Ord
wintered Pacifica 2014-15,
2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18
OY:K
6/11/2017 banded as a
chick South Tenmile,
Coos City, Oregon
obo:K
banded as a chick 7/10/17
North Overlook
Douglas City, Oregon
1.k
Packet Pg. 3746 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7507 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 25 Murdock, Christian
From: Necesse
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:58 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; White, Gwen
Cc: Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Fire hazards Pacifica and Code enforcement Complaint [CAUTION: External Email]
Please allow this to serve as a public comment regarding the General Plan update and a Code Enforcement Complaint case to be reopened immediately.
I filed a code enforcement complaint with the City of Pacifica in November 2015 regarding a dangerous limb and a fire hazard behind my home. The response from the Code Enforcement officer Lawrence Ngai was that I was required by the City to provide an arborist report to PROVE that the trees were a hazard. The discovery made during the GPU demonstrates that the City of Pacifica identified this particular grove as HIGH THREAT zone in the map that was prepared for the City one year in advance of this complaint and failed to enforce this complaint.
Considering a fire already occurred in this exact grove during a 4th of July celebration, I would like to immediately address this major public safety issue with the City of Pacifica and reopen this case. The 4th of July is just around the corner and it is common knowledge that fireworks is a major concern with a history of fires resulting from their use.
Considering the retention schedule for the City is 10 years, please review your own records. I look forward to the City taking action on this public safety item affecting the entire area.
Erin Macias
Sent from Mail for Windows
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.k
Packet Pg. 3747 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7508 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 26 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:25 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; _City Council Group Attachments: 2022-06-05_Chan_LCP_Comments.pdf; DrGarske-Garcia.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I appreciate the many hours you devote as a volunteer to help us create a more sustainable, vibrant Pacifica which will live on for years to come I am writing to you to urge you to reject the proposed changes to the Land Use designation in the Pedro Point Field (aka the San Pedro Ave Site) from Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses to a novel Residential Mixed-Use Designation. I urge you to listen to your neighbors who have consistently advocated against this ill-advised and potentially dangerous and illegal Land Use Change. This change commits the City of Pacifica towards an avoidable battle, losing battle against its own Citizens, Science, the California Coastal Commission, and the rising tides of the Pacific Ocean.
Proposing to change the basic framework of our City’s long-term land use designation with the aim of “fixing” the affordable housing crisis with new development in a seasonal wetlands subject to frequent flooding and tsunami inundation is ill-advised, while leaving the City and its Citizens to clean up the inevitable disaster.
As secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), the PPCA has consistently provided valuable feedback, citizen input, and expert testimony indicating why this proposed change is poorly considered, and incompatible with state law. We worked tirelessly with the property owners to propose potential commercial recreational uses to create jobs and a sustainable tourism-driving economy, to no avail. Yet, the City continues to push for this change to greenlight residential development in a vulnerable parcel, inexplicably putting the city at substantial financial and legal risk to benefit only one person--the land owner--who purchased the swamp in 1997, well after the Coastal Act was passed and the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan were adopted, at the expense to all Pacifica Citizens and Visitors.
Attached, I add several more reasons why I ask you to listen to your fellow citizens and reject the City’s proposed Land Use Designation change at the San Pedro Avenue Site.
With gratitude,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
--
Cherie Chan
1.k
Packet Pg. 3748 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7509 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 27 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.k
Packet Pg. 3749 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7510 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 1
Dear Planning Commissioners
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I appreciate the many hours you devote as a volunteer to help us create a more sustainable, vibrant Pacifica which will live on for years to come I am writing to you to urge you to reject the proposed changes to the Land Use designation in the Pedro Point Field (aka the San Pedro Ave Site) from Visitor‐Serving Commercial Uses to a novel Residential Mixed‐Use Designation. I urge you to listen to your neighbors who have consistently advocated against this ill‐advised and potentially dangerous and illegal Land Use Change. This change commits the City of Pacifica towards an avoidable battle, losing battle against its own Citizens, Science, the California Coastal Commission, and the rising tides of the Pacific Ocean.
Proposing to change the basic framework of our City’s long‐term land use designation with the aim of “fixing” the affordable housing crisis with new development in a seasonal wetlands subject to frequent flooding and tsunami inundation is ill‐advised, while leaving the City and its Citizens to clean up the inevitable disaster.
As secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), the PPCA has consistently provided valuable feedback, citizen input, and expert testimony indicating why this proposed change is poorly considered, and incompatible with state law. We worked tirelessly with the property owners to propose potential commercial recreational uses to create jobs and a sustainable tourism‐driving economy, to no avail. Yet, the City continues to push for this change to green‐light residential development in a vulnerable parcel, inexplicably putting the city at substantial financial and legal risk to benefit only one person‐‐the land owner‐‐who purchased the swamp in 1997, well after the Coastal Act was passed and the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan were adopted, at the expense to all Pacifica Citizens and Visitors.
Below are the many reasons documented below, we ask you to listen to your fellow citizens and reject the City’s proposed Land Use Designation change at the San Pedro Avenue Site.
With gratitude,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
[email protected]
Contents
Understanding the Baseline Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 2 The Land is Currently Designated Commercial Recreation................................................................... 2 The City’s Proposed Residential Mixed‐Use Designation is Incompatible with ESHA .................................. 3 Pacifica’s Proposed CRMU Designation Fails to Meet the Basic Statutes of the Coastal Act ....................... 5
1.k
Packet Pg. 3750 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7511 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 2
§30006: Public Participation: The City has Failed in its Obligation to Satisfy Section 30006 of the Coastal Act: Public Participation by Excluding Facts and Participation Presented by the Pedro Point Community ............................................................................................................................................ 6 §30212 The Land Use Change Violates the Requirement for Public Access....................................... 17 §30222 Visitor‐Serving Recreational Uses Shall Take Priority ............................................................ 19 §30240 Environmentally Sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) .................................................................... 20 §30253 Minimization of adverse impacts ........................................................................................... 21 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................. 21 Understanding the Baseline Land Uses
The Land is Currently Designated Commercial Recreation
Under the current approved 1980 Local Coastal Plan, permissible land uses are described as the following:
“The designated land use for this area is commercial with emphasis on coastal related and/or visitor-serving uses. By combining all of the parcels in the area between Danmann and San Pedro Avenue, Highway 1 and the railroad berm and developing them as an integrated project along a realigned San Pedro Avenue, this small, oceanside commercial center could be rejuvenated and expanded to become an attractive visitor destination, as well as provide for neighborhood retail needs" … adding a cultural center for performing arts and an attractive motel could, if carefully designed, enhance the appearance of this area and provide visitor services near the shoreline. …
Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area. Adequate public access through the development to the shoreline and a general orientation to coastal related/visitor-serving uses within the project would be appropriate in ·this location. 1’ As described by the PPCA’s hired consultant, Richard Grasetti who has submitted his testimony and response to the proposed FEIR, the currently‐allowed land use caps development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2, which means that total development footage cannot exceed 20% of the site area. In contrast, the proposed Land Use Designation,2
as excerpted below, represents a radical change which
will increase density by 2.5 times, and will compromise an entire community’s quality of life, the public’s access to one of the Bay Area’s best family‐friendly beginner surfing beaches, and preclude the opportunity for sustainable visitor‐serving jobs while greenlighting development on an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat.
1 Available at: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2293 Pedro Point begins on page C‐54, electronically page 63. 2 On Electronic Packet Page 195: the actual page numbers of the PDF file are obscured, but I infer it to be page 1‐
29. 1.k
Packet Pg. 3751 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7512 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 3
The City’s Proposed Residential Mixed‐Use Designation is Incompatible with ESHA
The FEIR claims that 70 houses will be added through this land use change; the City fails to provide any analysis to show how this could be accomplished, and create the requisite Environmental Impact Report which addresses these proposed changes.
Rather, the City proposes a new The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) with an FAR of 5.0, two and a half times greater than the current density, to align with this flyer, which the current property owner has been distributing, without any input from the PPCA, although the PPCA has attempted, on several occasions, to present the property owner with commercially‐viable Recreational uses for the Field, such as Open‐Air dining, a Food Truck Festival, a Drive‐In Movie Event, and Food trucks.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3752 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7513 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 4
1.k
Packet Pg. 3753 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7514 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 5
Pacifica’s Proposed CRMU Designation Fails to Meet the Basic Statutes of the Coastal Act
The table below summarizes how the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation as applied in Pedro Point Field fails to meet the basic statutes of the Coastal Act. More detail is provided in the following pages.
Coastal Act Policy Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] §30006: Public Participation “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of
sound coastal conservation and development is
dependent upon public understanding and support; and
that the continuing planning and implementation of
programs for coastal conservation and development
should include the widest opportunity for public
participation.”
FAIL: The Pedro Point Community has consistently
opposed the introduction of mixed‐Use land use
designations in the Pedro Point Field; but it has not
been heard.
§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) [conflict] public safety, military security. protection of fragile coastal resources,
(2) [redundant shore access]
(3) [conflict] agriculture
CONSTRAINT OR FAIL: Mixed residential land use
will constrain the multiple 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
§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.
FAIL: Residential development precludes
recreational use and development or
conservation in a critical wetlands.
The Pedro Point Field is less than a one‐minute
walk away from Linda Mar Beach: “The most
well‐loved and well‐used beach in Pacifica!”3
Note that the community has welcomed and
encouraged allowable economic benefits from
his property such as rentals from food trucks,
rentals, or its pre‐existing use as a Golf Range.
FAIL:
Private residential development and general
commercial development are allowed to have
priority over and exclude visitor‐serving
commercial recreational development.
§30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA);
adjacent developments
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be
protected against any significant disruption of habitat FAIL: Residential development density range would
require fill and drainage of seasonal wetlands and
degrade ESHA wetlands.
See Testimony of the California Coastal
Commission
3 The most well-loved and well-used beach in Pacifica!” From the City of Pacifica’s Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/rec department/parksbeaches/beach and park info and rules/linda mar (pacifica state beach)/default.asp
1.k
Packet Pg. 3754 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7515 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 6
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.
§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. […]
FAIL. Most of 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. Residential
development requires flood protection and
drainage.
Wave runup to the field depends on the non‐
engineered privately owned berm which is not
maintained by Pacifica. Residential development
would likely require armored flood protection
structures as sea level rises.
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, and are located in a Tsunami
Evacuation Zone.
Environmental Justice
Equitable coastal access is encompassed in and
protected by the public access policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide
maximum access and recreational opportunities for all,
and to protect, encourage, and provide lower‐cost
visitor and recreational opportunities embody
fundamental principles of environmental justice.
CONFLICT:
“Pacifica is home to some of the San Francisco Bay
area’s best surfing beaches. Linda Mar State Beach
is one of the most popular beginner surfing spots in
the San Francisco area”4
This is also the premier
family‐friendly break within a short distance from
the San Francisco Bay Area.
§30006: Public Participation: The City has Failed in its Obligation to Satisfy Section 30006 of the Coastal Act: Public Participation by Excluding Facts and Participation Presented by the Pedro Point Community
Section 30006 of the Coastal Act also states that “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation.” The residents of Pedro Point have consistently acted in good faith to work with the City and the Owner to propose a Land Use Designation which considers the unique coastal nature and reflects our concerns over residential development on this lowest‐lying parcel in the neighborhood, both as a united neighborhood and by individual neighbors.
4 Website of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center: http://visitpacifica.com/index.php?page=16
1.k
Packet Pg. 3755 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7516 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 7
The City’s Own Consultant Noted Pedro Point’s Strong Preference for Natural, Sustainable Open Spaces and Recreation
The FEIR claims that the Proposed Project was developed in response to policy direction provided by the City Council and the Planning Commission as well as community concerns identified through an extensive public participation and outreach program, including newsletters, community workshops and public meetings in 2008‐2010, and additional outreach in 2019‐2021.
While the City claims to public input, in notes in its Public Agenda dated August 26, 2019, the City notes:
Staff and Dyett & Bhatia presented the 2014 draft General Plan and LCP, in their final form ready for adoption, to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 11, 2015. Public comments received at the meeting covered a number of topics, but two central themes included the widening of Highway 1 as part of the Calera Parkway project and the appropriate use of a large undeveloped site in the Pedro Point neighborhood commonly called “Calson Field” (minutes included as Attachment A). The Council’s feedback at that time was to conduct further community engagement to validate the recommendations contained in the draft documents.
Rather than reflect on this overwhelming cascade of public comments against the proposed rezoning, the City ignored all feedback and continued on its path of rezoning the parcels towards Residential uses.
The City’s own consultant noted the neighborhood’s strong preference for sustainable, Open Space, and natural recreation‐based land‐uses: the City’s proposed Land use Change to CRMU boldly rejects the community’s consultant‐gathered input.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3756 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7517 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 8
Below are letters from past Pedro Point Community Association presidents: Danny Estrella (2011) expresses the community’s strong support for a land use designation which retains uses of the field as‐ is. Bruce Ferry (2013) details the extensive steps the Community has taken to facilitate meaningful dialogue, and Joanne Gold who again expresses a retention of Commercial Recreation or Conservation Uses. These letters have been followed with hostility from decision‐makers who ignore the law and the plain facts on the ground.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3757 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7518 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 9
Letter from Danny Estrella, PPCA President, 2011
1.k
Packet Pg. 3758 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7519 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 10
1.k
Packet Pg. 3759 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7520 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 11
Letter of Bruce Ferry, 2013 PPCA President, Documenting extensive Community Feedback
1.k
Packet Pg. 3760 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7521 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 12
1.k
Packet Pg. 3761 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7522 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 13
Letter from Joanne Gold, 2014 PPCA President
1.k
Packet Pg. 3762 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7523 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3763 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7524 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 15
evidenced in this letter from our current Councilmember.
From: "Vaterlaus, Sue" <[email protected]>
Date: February 24, 2020 at 9:57:58 AM PST
To: Joanne Gold
Subject: RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - 2/24/20 City Council Agenda Item
Yes we are charged to represent all Pacificans, not just the residents of Pedro Point who continually use items that are not always accurate to describe the Calson Property. Have you ever heard the term taking?
The Calsons want more and you want nothing. These numbers were brought out at a study session with planning and council and it seems like a good compromise to me at this time although again i will wait to see what comes to light at the meeting . It will depend on new information.
The City Ignores Concerns Raised by its Own Staff detailing the limitations of this parcel in an Internal Memo.
Furthermore, an internal memo from the former coordinator of the General Plan Update to the City’s Planning Director, the City has known that the Pedro Point Fields is a wetlands which needs to be properly mapped, and should not be upzoned.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3764 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7525 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3765 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7526 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3766 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7527 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 18
In the present day, the importance of the Field in ensuring the public’s access to the Coast is even more pronounced, as shown in the hatched blue lines below. This critical coastal access point should not be ignored in the FEIR and proposed Land Use Designation change.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3767 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7528 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 19
§30222 Visitor‐Serving Recreational Uses Shall Take Priority Per the Coastal Act, Land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development.
The current property owners—in their own materials—indicate that the Field had been a golf range, as shown below.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3768 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7529 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 20
Figure: From Flyers Distributed by the Developer in September, 2019 It was suitable for recreational uses when the property owner purchased the entire Field from its own client, the Archdiocese of San Francisco, for a mere $550,000 in the late 1990s, 20 years before the Coastal Act was signed. It is not the responsibility of the local residents to help an outside investor maximize their profits to their own detriment and in violation of the law.
The PPCA has strongly encouraged such sustainable, permeable projects, and had reached out to the owners with potential community‐based options, to no avail. Indeed, the City’s action of rezoning this field to green‐light of 70+ housing units would deprive the greater San Francisco Bay Area of such a recreational opportunity, in violation of the Coastal Act. Nothing in the Coastal Act of the City of Pacifica’s laws requires that the City violate its own ordinances to help a real‐estate speculator maximize their profits at the expense of an entire neighborhood and region. §30240 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Per the Coastal Act, Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall remain protected. The addition of 70+ new homes would significantly degrade those areas and cannot be shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
The FEIR inexplicitly ignores a recent unanimous ruling by the California Coastal Commission which overturned the City of Pacifica’s ruling for a new, project at 505 San Pedro, Pacifica (APN 023‐72‐010) adjacent to the property in question. In the Coastal Commission’s report dated January 25, 2021 and written by , Ph.D. – Senior Ecologist, Dr.
Garske‐Garcia noted that the adjacent property, the Pedro Point Field, is a likely wetlands and confirmed ESHA.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3769 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7530 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 21
The addition of 70+ new homes on this property is in conflict with these findings. It is inexplicable that any valid environmental impact report could omit this information. §30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
The City is bound to ensure in its EIR that it identified and minimized risks to life and property in areas of high hazard. The DEIR fails to recognize that the Field is a floodplain temporarily protected by ephemeral coastal armament built for the short‐lived Ocean Shore Railroad. Changing the density on this parcel, as proposed in the draft GPU, could obligate future generations to maintain this temporary earthen barrier. Indeed, most of the field lies approximately 15‐17 feet in elevation above Mean Sea Level, only about 3‐ 5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Residential development will require flood protection and drainage in what has already been designated an ESHA and heavily armored flood protection structures as sea level rises. Furthermore, the removal of this wetlands habitat will severely endanger surrounding properties which are only a few feet higher in elevation.
Environmental Justice
Equitable coastal access is encompassed in and protected by the public access policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities for all, and to protect, encourage, and provide lower‐cost visitor and recreational opportunities embody fundamental principles of environmental justice.
Per the City’s own Marketing materials, “Pacifica is home to some of the San Francisco Bay area’s best surfing beaches. Linda Mar State Beach is one of the most popular beginner surfing spots in the San Francisco area”5 This
is also the premier family‐friendly break within a short distance from the San Francisco Bay Area. Removing Commercial Recreational Opportunities in this prime location adjacent to Pacifica State beach will destroy the character of not only a neighborhood, and a local economy, but Coastal Access for the approximately 7.75 million people of the nine‐county Bay Area. We join the chorus of other Pacificans and experts in exhorting you to update this fatally‐flawed Draft EIR, and start with an honest baseline which reflects existing uses and conditions.
Sincerely Yours,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
5 Website of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center: http://visitpacifica.com/index.php?page=16
1.k
Packet Pg. 3770 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7531 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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 (415) 904-5400
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:
x California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), latest query: January 10, 2021. x Coast Ridge Ecology. Biological Resources Assessment for APN 023-72-010. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; March 2015. x Coast Ridge Ecology. 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica Wetland Delineation. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; November 2019. x 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. x 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.
x 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.
x 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3771 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7532 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 2 x 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3772 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7533 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3773 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7534 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3774 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7535 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3775 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7536 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3776 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7537 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3777 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7538 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3778 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7539 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3779 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7540 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3780 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7541 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3781 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7542 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3782 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7543 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3783 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7544 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3784 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7545 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3785 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7546 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3786 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7547 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3787 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7548 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3788 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7549 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3789 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7550 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3790 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7551 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3791 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7552 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3792 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7553 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3793 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7554 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3794 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7555 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 28 Murdock, Christian
From: Curtis Kiest < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 7:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Abandon Quarry Hotel as part of new General Plan [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I understand the wishful thinking of those who would have a luxury hotel in the quarry as the anchor for new development. “Imagine the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay perched on the filled in Quarry, with tourists and jobs and a centerpiece for a new Pacifica“ they say. These aspirations have even migrated into our new general plan document.
But the sooner we let go of these pipe dreams and move on to more realistic planning goals, the better for Pacifica.
The Half Moon Bay Ritz Carlton was a one off and will not be reproduced in Pacifica or elsewhere. It was a unique coastal site at a unique time in our state’sCoastal Planning history.
Even with unlimited money poured into the quarry site, it is nothing like Miramontes Point in Half Moon Bay. The only way a luxury hotel could work would be to have beautiful coastal views and access to the beach. They would have to either build way up above the 200 foot high southwestern wall of the quarry, or to dig away that huge wall. Neither of these can or will ever be allowed by the California Coastal Commission. This is not about the current politics of the commission but about their actual charter. And yes, on top of that, the current and projected future politics would make it impossible for the Commission to ever consider a realistic proposal for such a hotel on this site.
Now, although difficult, I think we could all imagine some commercial development of shops and restaurants in the flat land areas of the abandoned quarry site. Prior proposals have been voted down, mostly because they had a large housing element. But, this option is at least still possible if not very likely.
But a luxury hotel in the quarry will never happen and we should remove any such ideas from our General Plan.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Curt Kiest
“Respect science, respect nature, respect each other”
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3795 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7556 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 29 Murdock, Christian
From: Tom Thompson
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:14 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Murdock, Christian
Subject: Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council
Attachments: Pacifica Planning Commission Public Comments on Robust Seawall Needed in SPSP 6-6-2022 PDF submitted before meeting.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners, City Council and city staff:
The Sharp Park Specific Plan is spot-on, with one major flaw we can fix.
It goes into detail about potential Sea Level Rise… yet is virtually silent about a commitment to seek a solution for Pacifica and Sharp Park… A RUBUST SEAWALL north of the pier. Pacifica completed an exhaustive Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Study… which concludes a robust seawall is the best comprehensive and simple solution to future effects of potential sea level rise in Sharp Park.
Without a commitment to pursue a robust seawall…. investment in Sharp Park … will never happen. Why would investors build a hotel, restaurant, offices or affordable housing without Pacifica’s commitment to pursue a robust seawall? Not a rhetorical question. Why?
The Sharp Park Specific Plan requires a strong policy commitment statement that Pacifica will pursue the design and funding to build a robust seawall. A plan to guard against the potential for sea level rise. Public infrastructure, family homes, retirement nest eggs, businesses, and affordable recreation are at stake. As well as future projects like a hotel and the tax revenues we desperately need!
Pacifica families invested their life savings, and built their nest eggs, never thinking they should fear their government might abandon them and effectively condemn their homes and businesses by not protecting public infrastructure and places to live… with a robust seawall. Billions
Hundreds of millions of dollars of public infrastructure alone are potentially at risk. Without the existing sewer pump station alone, 40% of ALL Pacificans will lose their sewer service. The golf course, pier and access to coastal trails provide affordable recreation that need the protection of a robust seawall. A robust seawall north of the pier are both huge environmental justice and economic justice issues.
Let’s fix the Sharp Park Specific Plan, with a clear policy statement added… Pacifica will work to make a robust seawall north of the pier happen.
I also submitted into the public record by email, a 2-page detail (attached to this email) of what is at stake, unless we make a commitment to pursue a robust seawall north of the pier… within the Sharp Park Specific Plan itself.
Thanks for listening,
1.k
Packet Pg. 3796 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7557 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 30 Tom Thompson
Sharp Park Property Owner and Taxpayer for 35+ years.
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.k
Packet Pg. 3797 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7558 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 31 Murdock, Christian
From: Wiley Clothier
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Plan Comment - Opposition to Highway 1 On-ramp at Milagra [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear council members,
As a resident of the 200 block of Milagra Drive and as one who has spoken about my opposition to the Milagra Drive onramp at two different council meetings, I am very concerned that the on-ramp project appears on pages 5-12 of the General Plan.
In the October 2021 meeting, council stated that the on-ramp could be split out from the overcrossing portion of the project due to community concerns. The General Plan needs to be changed to reflect the comments by council members.
I am very concerned about the unnecessary addition of this on-ramp for safety reasons, quality of life reasons, and economic reasons. I’d like to remind council that there is already a north-bound on-ramp .6 miles to the south of the intended new on-ramp and another north-bound on-ramp .4 miles to the north of the intended Milagra Drive on-ramp.
Obviously, there will be a tremendous increase in traffic on Milagra Drive and adjacent streets which will have a detrimental impact on me and on my residential neighborhood. Pedestrians and bikers, including children heading to Oceana High School and Ocean Shore School as well as people walking their dogs, and parents pushing their babies in strollers will ALL be put at risk as we know that the amount of vehicles on the road will increase as well as the pace with which the vehicles are driven; people heading for an on-ramp are often accelerating, looking ahead, and not as focused on crosswalks as they should be. The fire station is also located in the 100 block of Milagra and will have to cope with the increase in traffic when they get emergency calls.
Another concern I have is that this project could lead to an increase in crime in Edgemar as there would be an easy and quick way to commit robberies and get on the freeway. When I purchased my home, I actually thought about this point as I was concerned about living so close to a freeway - I consoled myself with the fact that crime would be less likely in a neighborhood without quick access to get out and to speed away. With this project, I will definitely feel more at risk of robbery. The Chevron station will particularly be at risk.
Lastly, my home is my main investment and asset. Your putting an on-ramp 500 feet from my home absolutely lowers my property value and my neighbor’s property values over the long-term. Some of you on council are realtors, so I know property value is something that is front of mind for you at all times. My closing question for you: If you lived near this project, would you actually vote for it, knowing it would negatively impact crime levels, traffic, and your property value?
Thank you for your time,
Wiley Clothier
Milagra Drive resident
1.k
Packet Pg. 3798 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7559 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 32 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.k
Packet Pg. 3799 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7560 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 33 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:23 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; _City Council Group; SanMateo Policy Manager
Subject: Agenda Item 2 in Tonight's Planning Commission Meeting: Comments of Cherie Chan in Consideration of EIR and CEQA Findings, GPU Update: Reject Zoning Change at San Pedro Avenue
Attachments: 2022-06-05_Chan_LCP_Comments.pdf; DrGarske-Garcia.pdf; 2014_07_Baye.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Good morning, Planning Commissioners!
Apologies for all the late-night reading you've had to review as submitted by your fellow-citizens. I hope you had a chance to process all of this during your weekend, and I am sorry that you have to sort through so many documents and angry letters from your fellow-citizens and neighbors.
As the Capital Improvement Program has been added to the Agenda after I started these comments, my email subject heading should be amended to clarify that the comments I submitted early this morning and resubmit now pertains to Item 2, as indicated in the new agenda. I am also adding an additional attachment for the record, the 2014 Testimony of Dr. Peter Baye,which documents the vital role this parcel has played since its ownership under the Catholic Archdiocese in the public's substantial, continual, open access to our City's defining feature, the Pacific Ocean.
I would also like to remind decision-makers and staff that California law protects public access to beaches and coastal lands. No local agency can sell, lease, or transfer real property located between the high water line of the Pacific Ocean and the nearest public street or highway (San Pedro Avenue) without reserving in the public the right of access over such property. Actions which change the intensity of the use of the land or water, as the City of Pacifica proposes to do in this proposed FEIR, are considered developments and also violate aspects of the Coastal Act.
Please do not ignore the majority of comments from your fellow-citizens over the past twelve years since the General Plan Update Process was launched in 2010, and reject the property owner's unsupported, illegal land use designation change at the five-acre parcel at San Pedro Avenue.
Your fellow-Pacifica resident and Citizen,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cherie Chan < >
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 1:24 AM
Subject:
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>, Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, _City Council Group <[email protected]>
1.k
Packet Pg. 3800 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7561 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 34 Dear Planning Commissioners
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I appreciate the many hours you devote as a volunteer to help us create a more sustainable, vibrant Pacifica which will live on for years to come I am writing to you to urge you to reject the proposed changes to the Land Use designation in the Pedro Point Field (aka the San Pedro Ave Site) from Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses to a novel Residential Mixed-Use Designation. I urge you to listen to your neighbors who have consistently advocated against this ill-advised and potentially dangerous and illegal Land Use Change. This change commits the City of Pacifica towards an avoidable battle, losing battle against its own Citizens, Science, the California Coastal Commission, and the rising tides of the Pacific Ocean.
Proposing to change the basic framework of our City’s long-term land use designation with the aim of “fixing” the affordable housing crisis with new development in a seasonal wetlands subject to frequent flooding and tsunami inundation is ill-advised, while leaving the City and its Citizens to clean up the inevitable disaster.
As secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), the PPCA has consistently provided valuable feedback, citizen input, and expert testimony indicating why this proposed change is poorly considered, and incompatible with state law. We worked tirelessly with the property owners to propose potential commercial recreational uses to create jobs and a sustainable tourism-driving economy, to no avail. Yet, the City continues to push for this change to greenlight residential development in a vulnerable parcel, inexplicably putting the city at substantial financial and legal risk to benefit only one person--the land owner--who purchased the swamp in 1997, well after the Coastal Act was passed and the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan were adopted, at the expense to all Pacifica Citizens and Visitors.
Attached, I add several more reasons why I ask you to listen to your fellow citizens and reject the City’s proposed Land Use Designation change at the San Pedro Avenue Site.
With gratitude,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
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.k
Packet Pg. 3801 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7562 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 1
Dear Planning Commissioners
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I appreciate the many hours you devote as a volunteer to help us create a more sustainable, vibrant Pacifica which will live on for years to come I am writing to you to urge you to reject the proposed changes to the Land Use designation in the Pedro Point Field (aka the San Pedro Ave Site) from Visitor‐Serving Commercial Uses to a novel Residential Mixed‐Use Designation. I urge you to listen to your neighbors who have consistently advocated against this ill‐advised and potentially dangerous and illegal Land Use Change. This change commits the City of Pacifica towards an avoidable battle, losing battle against its own Citizens, Science, the California Coastal Commission, and the rising tides of the Pacific Ocean.
Proposing to change the basic framework of our City’s long‐term land use designation with the aim of “fixing” the affordable housing crisis with new development in a seasonal wetlands subject to frequent flooding and tsunami inundation is ill‐advised, while leaving the City and its Citizens to clean up the inevitable disaster.
As secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA), the PPCA has consistently provided valuable feedback, citizen input, and expert testimony indicating why this proposed change is poorly considered, and incompatible with state law. We worked tirelessly with the property owners to propose potential commercial recreational uses to create jobs and a sustainable tourism‐driving economy, to no avail. Yet, the City continues to push for this change to green‐light residential development in a vulnerable parcel, inexplicably putting the city at substantial financial and legal risk to benefit only one person‐‐the land owner‐‐who purchased the swamp in 1997, well after the Coastal Act was passed and the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan were adopted, at the expense to all Pacifica Citizens and Visitors.
Below are the many reasons documented below, we ask you to listen to your fellow citizens and reject the City’s proposed Land Use Designation change at the San Pedro Avenue Site.
With gratitude,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
[email protected]
Contents
Understanding the Baseline Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 2 The Land is Currently Designated Commercial Recreation................................................................... 2 The City’s Proposed Residential Mixed‐Use Designation is Incompatible with ESHA .................................. 3 Pacifica’s Proposed CRMU Designation Fails to Meet the Basic Statutes of the Coastal Act ....................... 5
1.k
Packet Pg. 3802 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7563 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 2
§30006: Public Participation: The City has Failed in its Obligation to Satisfy Section 30006 of the Coastal Act: Public Participation by Excluding Facts and Participation Presented by the Pedro Point Community ............................................................................................................................................ 6 §30212 The Land Use Change Violates the Requirement for Public Access....................................... 17 §30222 Visitor‐Serving Recreational Uses Shall Take Priority ............................................................ 19 §30240 Environmentally Sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) .................................................................... 20 §30253 Minimization of adverse impacts ........................................................................................... 21 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................. 21 Understanding the Baseline Land Uses
The Land is Currently Designated Commercial Recreation
Under the current approved 1980 Local Coastal Plan, permissible land uses are described as the following:
“The designated land use for this area is commercial with emphasis on coastal related and/or visitor-serving uses. By combining all of the parcels in the area between Danmann and San Pedro Avenue, Highway 1 and the railroad berm and developing them as an integrated project along a realigned San Pedro Avenue, this small, oceanside commercial center could be rejuvenated and expanded to become an attractive visitor destination, as well as provide for neighborhood retail needs" … adding a cultural center for performing arts and an attractive motel could, if carefully designed, enhance the appearance of this area and provide visitor services near the shoreline. …
Small scale, rustic design and ample landscaping throughout the commercial development would complement the existing attractive design elements in the Pedro Point area. Adequate public access through the development to the shoreline and a general orientation to coastal related/visitor-serving uses within the project would be appropriate in ·this location. 1’ As described by the PPCA’s hired consultant, Richard Grasetti who has submitted his testimony and response to the proposed FEIR, the currently‐allowed land use caps development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2, which means that total development footage cannot exceed 20% of the site area. In contrast, the proposed Land Use Designation,2
as excerpted below, represents a radical change which
will increase density by 2.5 times, and will compromise an entire community’s quality of life, the public’s access to one of the Bay Area’s best family‐friendly beginner surfing beaches, and preclude the opportunity for sustainable visitor‐serving jobs while greenlighting development on an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat.
1 Available at: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2293 Pedro Point begins on page C‐54, electronically page 63. 2 On Electronic Packet Page 195: the actual page numbers of the PDF file are obscured, but I infer it to be page 1‐
29. 1.k
Packet Pg. 3803 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7564 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 3
The City’s Proposed Residential Mixed‐Use Designation is Incompatible with ESHA
The FEIR claims that 70 houses will be added through this land use change; the City fails to provide any analysis to show how this could be accomplished, and create the requisite Environmental Impact Report which addresses these proposed changes.
Rather, the City proposes a new The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) with an FAR of 5.0, two and a half times greater than the current density, to align with this flyer, which the current property owner has been distributing, without any input from the PPCA, although the PPCA has attempted, on several occasions, to present the property owner with commercially‐viable Recreational uses for the Field, such as Open‐Air dining, a Food Truck Festival, a Drive‐In Movie Event, and Food trucks.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3804 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7565 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 4
1.k
Packet Pg. 3805 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7566 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 5
Pacifica’s Proposed CRMU Designation Fails to Meet the Basic Statutes of the Coastal Act
The table below summarizes how the proposed Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation as applied in Pedro Point Field fails to meet the basic statutes of the Coastal Act. More detail is provided in the following pages.
Coastal Act Policy Coastal Residential Mixed Use [CRMU] §30006: Public Participation “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of
sound coastal conservation and development is
dependent upon public understanding and support; and
that the continuing planning and implementation of
programs for coastal conservation and development
should include the widest opportunity for public
participation.”
FAIL: The Pedro Point Community has consistently
opposed the introduction of mixed‐Use land use
designations in the Pedro Point Field; but it has not
been heard.
§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) [conflict] public safety, military security. protection of fragile coastal resources,
(2) [redundant shore access]
(3) [conflict] agriculture
CONSTRAINT OR FAIL: Mixed residential land use
will constrain the multiple 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
§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.
FAIL: Residential development precludes
recreational use and development or
conservation in a critical wetlands.
The Pedro Point Field is less than a one‐minute
walk away from Linda Mar Beach: “The most
well‐loved and well‐used beach in Pacifica!”3
Note that the community has welcomed and
encouraged allowable economic benefits from
his property such as rentals from food trucks,
rentals, or its pre‐existing use as a Golf Range.
FAIL:
Private residential development and general
commercial development are allowed to have
priority over and exclude visitor‐serving
commercial recreational development.
§30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA);
adjacent developments
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be
protected against any significant disruption of habitat FAIL: Residential development density range would
require fill and drainage of seasonal wetlands and
degrade ESHA wetlands.
See Testimony of the California Coastal
Commission
3 The most well-loved and well-used beach in Pacifica!” From the City of Pacifica’s Website:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/rec department/parksbeaches/beach and park info and rules/linda mar (pacifica state beach)/default.asp
1.k
Packet Pg. 3806 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7567 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 6
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.
§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. […]
FAIL. Most of 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. Residential
development requires flood protection and
drainage.
Wave runup to the field depends on the non‐
engineered privately owned berm which is not
maintained by Pacifica. Residential development
would likely require armored flood protection
structures as sea level rises.
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, and are located in a Tsunami
Evacuation Zone.
Environmental Justice
Equitable coastal access is encompassed in and
protected by the public access policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide
maximum access and recreational opportunities for all,
and to protect, encourage, and provide lower‐cost
visitor and recreational opportunities embody
fundamental principles of environmental justice.
CONFLICT:
“Pacifica is home to some of the San Francisco Bay
area’s best surfing beaches. Linda Mar State Beach
is one of the most popular beginner surfing spots in
the San Francisco area”4
This is also the premier
family‐friendly break within a short distance from
the San Francisco Bay Area.
§30006: Public Participation: The City has Failed in its Obligation to Satisfy Section 30006 of the Coastal Act: Public Participation by Excluding Facts and Participation Presented by the Pedro Point Community
Section 30006 of the Coastal Act also states that “the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation.” The residents of Pedro Point have consistently acted in good faith to work with the City and the Owner to propose a Land Use Designation which considers the unique coastal nature and reflects our concerns over residential development on this lowest‐lying parcel in the neighborhood, both as a united neighborhood and by individual neighbors.
4 Website of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center: http://visitpacifica.com/index.php?page=16
1.k
Packet Pg. 3807 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7568 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 7
The City’s Own Consultant Noted Pedro Point’s Strong Preference for Natural, Sustainable Open Spaces and Recreation
The FEIR claims that the Proposed Project was developed in response to policy direction provided by the City Council and the Planning Commission as well as community concerns identified through an extensive public participation and outreach program, including newsletters, community workshops and public meetings in 2008‐2010, and additional outreach in 2019‐2021.
While the City claims to public input, in notes in its Public Agenda dated August 26, 2019, the City notes:
Staff and Dyett & Bhatia presented the 2014 draft General Plan and LCP, in their final form ready for adoption, to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 11, 2015. Public comments received at the meeting covered a number of topics, but two central themes included the widening of Highway 1 as part of the Calera Parkway project and the appropriate use of a large undeveloped site in the Pedro Point neighborhood commonly called “Calson Field” (minutes included as Attachment A). The Council’s feedback at that time was to conduct further community engagement to validate the recommendations contained in the draft documents.
Rather than reflect on this overwhelming cascade of public comments against the proposed rezoning, the City ignored all feedback and continued on its path of rezoning the parcels towards Residential uses.
The City’s own consultant noted the neighborhood’s strong preference for sustainable, Open Space, and natural recreation‐based land‐uses: the City’s proposed Land use Change to CRMU boldly rejects the community’s consultant‐gathered input.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3808 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7569 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 8
Below are letters from past Pedro Point Community Association presidents: Danny Estrella (2011) expresses the community’s strong support for a land use designation which retains uses of the field as‐ is. Bruce Ferry (2013) details the extensive steps the Community has taken to facilitate meaningful dialogue, and Joanne Gold who again expresses a retention of Commercial Recreation or Conservation Uses. These letters have been followed with hostility from decision‐makers who ignore the law and the plain facts on the ground.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3809 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7570 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 9
Letter from Danny Estrella, PPCA President, 2011
1.k
Packet Pg. 3810 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7571 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 10
1.k
Packet Pg. 3811 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7572 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 11
Letter of Bruce Ferry, 2013 PPCA President, Documenting extensive Community Feedback
1.k
Packet Pg. 3812 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7573 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 12
1.k
Packet Pg. 3813 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7574 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 13
Letter from Joanne Gold, 2014 PPCA President
1.k
Packet Pg. 3814 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7575 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3815 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7576 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 15
evidenced in this letter from our current Councilmember.
From: "Vaterlaus, Sue" <[email protected]>
Date: February 24, 2020 at 9:57:58 AM PST
To: Joanne Gold
Subject: RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - 2/24/20 City Council Agenda Item
Yes we are charged to represent all Pacificans, not just the residents of Pedro Point who continually use items that are not always accurate to describe the Calson Property. Have you ever heard the term taking?
The Calsons want more and you want nothing. These numbers were brought out at a study session with planning and council and it seems like a good compromise to me at this time although again i will wait to see what comes to light at the meeting . It will depend on new information.
The City Ignores Concerns Raised by its Own Staff detailing the limitations of this parcel in an Internal Memo.
Furthermore, an internal memo from the former coordinator of the General Plan Update to the City’s Planning Director, the City has known that the Pedro Point Fields is a wetlands which needs to be properly mapped, and should not be upzoned.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3816 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7577 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3817 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7578 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3818 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7579 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 18
In the present day, the importance of the Field in ensuring the public’s access to the Coast is even more pronounced, as shown in the hatched blue lines below. This critical coastal access point should not be ignored in the FEIR and proposed Land Use Designation change.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3819 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7580 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 19
§30222 Visitor‐Serving Recreational Uses Shall Take Priority Per the Coastal Act, Land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development.
The current property owners—in their own materials—indicate that the Field had been a golf range, as shown below.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3820 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7581 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 20
Figure: From Flyers Distributed by the Developer in September, 2019 It was suitable for recreational uses when the property owner purchased the entire Field from its own client, the Archdiocese of San Francisco, for a mere $550,000 in the late 1990s, 20 years before the Coastal Act was signed. It is not the responsibility of the local residents to help an outside investor maximize their profits to their own detriment and in violation of the law.
The PPCA has strongly encouraged such sustainable, permeable projects, and had reached out to the owners with potential community‐based options, to no avail. Indeed, the City’s action of rezoning this field to green‐light of 70+ housing units would deprive the greater San Francisco Bay Area of such a recreational opportunity, in violation of the Coastal Act. Nothing in the Coastal Act of the City of Pacifica’s laws requires that the City violate its own ordinances to help a real‐estate speculator maximize their profits at the expense of an entire neighborhood and region. §30240 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Per the Coastal Act, Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall remain protected. The addition of 70+ new homes would significantly degrade those areas and cannot be shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
The FEIR inexplicitly ignores a recent unanimous ruling by the California Coastal Commission which overturned the City of Pacifica’s ruling for a new, project at 505 San Pedro, Pacifica (APN 023‐72‐010) adjacent to the property in question. In the Coastal Commission’s report dated January 25, 2021 and written by , Ph.D. – Senior Ecologist, Dr.
Garske‐Garcia noted that the adjacent property, the Pedro Point Field, is a likely wetlands and confirmed ESHA.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3821 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7582 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve pg. 21
The addition of 70+ new homes on this property is in conflict with these findings. It is inexplicable that any valid environmental impact report could omit this information. §30253 Minimization of adverse impacts
The City is bound to ensure in its EIR that it identified and minimized risks to life and property in areas of high hazard. The DEIR fails to recognize that the Field is a floodplain temporarily protected by ephemeral coastal armament built for the short‐lived Ocean Shore Railroad. Changing the density on this parcel, as proposed in the draft GPU, could obligate future generations to maintain this temporary earthen barrier. Indeed, most of the field lies approximately 15‐17 feet in elevation above Mean Sea Level, only about 3‐ 5 feet above the marsh and high tide beach at the mouth of San Pedro Creek. Residential development will require flood protection and drainage in what has already been designated an ESHA and heavily armored flood protection structures as sea level rises. Furthermore, the removal of this wetlands habitat will severely endanger surrounding properties which are only a few feet higher in elevation.
Environmental Justice
Equitable coastal access is encompassed in and protected by the public access policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities for all, and to protect, encourage, and provide lower‐cost visitor and recreational opportunities embody fundamental principles of environmental justice.
Per the City’s own Marketing materials, “Pacifica is home to some of the San Francisco Bay area’s best surfing beaches. Linda Mar State Beach is one of the most popular beginner surfing spots in the San Francisco area”5 This
is also the premier family‐friendly break within a short distance from the San Francisco Bay Area. Removing Commercial Recreational Opportunities in this prime location adjacent to Pacifica State beach will destroy the character of not only a neighborhood, and a local economy, but Coastal Access for the approximately 7.75 million people of the nine‐county Bay Area. We join the chorus of other Pacificans and experts in exhorting you to update this fatally‐flawed Draft EIR, and start with an honest baseline which reflects existing uses and conditions.
Sincerely Yours,
Cherie Chan
San Pedro Avenue
5 Website of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center: http://visitpacifica.com/index.php?page=16
1.k
Packet Pg. 3822 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7583 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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 (415) 904-5400
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:
x California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), latest query: January 10, 2021. x Coast Ridge Ecology. Biological Resources Assessment for APN 023-72-010. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; March 2015. x Coast Ridge Ecology. 505 San Pedro Avenue, Pacifica Wetland Delineation. Prepared for Shawn Rhodes/NorCal Surf Shop, Pacifica, California 94044; November 2019. x 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. x 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.
x 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.
x 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3823 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7584 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 20210125 MEMORANDUM: 505 San Pedro Avenue – L. Garske-Garcia | 2 x 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3824 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7585 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3825 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7586 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3826 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7587 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3827 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7588 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3828 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7589 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3829 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7590 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3830 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7591 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3831 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7592 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3832 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7593 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3833 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7594 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3834 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7595 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3835 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7596 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3836 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7597 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3837 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7598 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3838 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7599 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3839 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7600 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3840 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7601 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3841 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7602 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3842 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7603 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3843 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7604 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3844 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7605 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3845 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7606 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3846 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7607 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3847 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7608 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3848 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7609 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3849 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7610 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3850 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7611 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3851 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7612 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3852 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7613 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3853 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7614 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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,
1.k
Packet Pg. 3854 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7615 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3855 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7616 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3856 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7617 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3857 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7618 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3858 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7619 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3859 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7620 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3860 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7621 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3861 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7622 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3862 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7623 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3863 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7624 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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,
1.k
Packet Pg. 3864 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7625 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3865 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7626 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3866 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7627 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3867 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7628 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3868 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7629 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3869 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7630 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3870 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7631 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3871 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7632 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3872 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7633 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3873 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7634 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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
1.k
Packet Pg. 3874 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7635 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve Peter R. Baye, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist, Botanist
33660 Annapolis Road
Annapolis, California 95412
(415) 310-5109 [email protected]
Peter R. Baye Ph.D. [email protected]
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).
1.k
Packet Pg. 3875 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7636 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 35 Murdock, Christian
From: Stan Zeavin < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:36 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Leal, David; Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James
Subject: FEIR/GP/SPSP
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Commissioners,
To allow the removal of CO-I-46 essentially invites new development that REQUIRES shoreline alteration and defies Coastal Act guidelines and common sense. Given the certainty of sea level rise, planning for the protection of all of Pacifica rather than the profit of individuals would seem a priority.
With climate change in our future, our safety as a city must also include strong protections for hillsides and the urban-wildland interface.
Our future is in your hands.
Respectfully,
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.k
Packet Pg. 3876 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7637 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 36 Murdock, Christian
From: Deb Wong < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Sharp Park Specific Plan
Importance: High
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I live on San Jose Avenue; this is my retirement residence. I have read over the documents for the Sharp Park Specific Plan, and I do have concerns. I admit that a lot of this is over my head; some of what is "over my head" is five stories high. Five story buildings in Sharp Park is way too high. They would overpower other structures on those streets, casting a dark shadow. How about 3 stories, max.? The design of the buildings also does not complement the general character of our area. They look rather generic...to say that they lack the charm of Sharp Park would be an understatement. They look like structures on the peninsula, all alike. WHY would anyone want to visit our city, if it looks like all of the other cities in the SF Bay Area? BORING!!!
1.k
Packet Pg. 3877 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7638 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 37 How about designing the new buildings - if you must - to go along with our existing buildings?
1.k
Packet Pg. 3878 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7639 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 38 1.k
Packet Pg. 3879 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7640 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 39 I am not well-educated on the environmental impact of the plans, but I know that others who are knowledgeable about the impact of climate change do have concerns. All I know is that each year, the water from the waves that visit us run further up our streets. I'm sure that the planners have taken that into consideration, as they have cliff erosion (my sisterin-law's neighbors on Esplanade lost their homes when built on unstable ground). Same with mudslide and flood areas.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3880 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7641 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 40 One thing from the plans that I like is widening our sidewalks here on San Jose Ave. Would you be able to remove the power pole that sits in front of part of our driveway? We have difficulty backing out right now. My mother-in-law, who lives next door, has hit that thing numerous times. That's going to be a big job, since our water meters are there, too.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3881 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7642 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 41 1.k
Packet Pg. 3882 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7643 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 42 I think the thing about this plan is that it is way too complicated to just make snap decisions on what should be done. We need more time - perhaps some of these things can be done piecemeal, not all at once. Some of the ideas are good....others....not sure. Not something to jump into right away, of course. I grew up in Pacifica, moved here in 1954, and understand that change is part of life.....just don't want to build where problems will crop up for future generations, and plans that don't change the character of our beautiful town.
Sincerely,
Deborah L. Wong
1.k
Packet Pg. 3883 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7644 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 43 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.k
Packet Pg. 3884 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7645 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 44 Murdock, Christian
From: Denise Leonardi
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:40 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this letter in concern of the quick passing of the Pacifica General Plan. This plan is 4800 pages of complex and confusing documents, which will shape our city for years to come. Why is this being rush through when the community has not had any presentation or explanation on this proposed General Plan. Although, I have been inform tonight June 6, 2022 there will be a presentation. Is that really enough. Why wouldn’t the plan be broken up into sections and thoroughly explained to the public. It a lot to digest intricate information and when can further question be answered before the General Plan passed. Furthermore, from what I can understand about the fire map it shows no fire risk in the city limits. I’m am very worried about fire in the Manor area and other parts of the Pacifica neighborhoods, the proposed map needs to be thoughtfully looked at and updated. What about the sea rise, building, hillside preservation, mudslides……. My concerns are many but its hard to ask questions when you don’t even really understand the plan. My hope is community events will be set up to explain this complex plan in a thoughtful and meaningful way. Not 15 days but real time that will really explains to the general public what this plan will provide to the future of Pacifica. It has been over 40 year sense the General Plan has been updated in Pacifica please slow down and do it right.
Thank you
Denise Leonardi
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3885 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7646 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 45 Murdock, Christian
From: Debra Etienne
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:42 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Public Comment- Pacifica Planning Comm. Item 2 [CAUTION: External Email]
Good morning, Mr. Murdock and Commissioners:
First off, thank you for your and staff’s hard work on getting this huge undertaking completed.
However, I’m writing again to express my surprise and disappointment that our City leaders are not accurately identifying the fire hazards present in our town. I see that the GP’s Figure 8-7 Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services map still only shows a small portion of the City is listed as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This definitely can’t be true! More importantly, how can Pacifica get grants and other state funding for fire prevention if we haven’t even identified that fire hazards exist here?
I’m sure you’ve seen the 2014 Cal Fire maps that show many more areas of high fire danger here (shown below). How can you explain that a eight-year old CalFire map shows greater areas of fire hazard than the current map? That doesn’t make sense. Fire severity in California has increased over those years, not decreased. Local proof is that many Pacifica homeowners have had their fire insurance cancelled. Have we not learned anything by the recent Oakland and other state-wide fires?
North County Fire Authority is hosting a Wildfire Awareness event this weekend at the Community Center so we can learn wildfire preparedness strategies. Consequently, the fire authorities must believe we have a risk or they wouldn’t be in Pacifica trying to educate us.
As a 39-year resident of Pacifica, I ask you how in good conscience can you present the map on page 259 and believe it accurately reflects our fire danger and protects all of us who live here? If this one critical map is inaccurate, there may be other errors too. Please, I urge you to take more time to comb through the 1,000 plus pages of these documents that determine our town’s future and make sure they are accurate.
This fire map is certainly one aspect of the plan that is not correct and should be changed to reality. As representatives of all of us, I ask that you take your time in making sure Pacifica’s growth and future are planning accurately and responsibly.
Best Regards,
Debra Etienne
.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3886 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7647 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 46 1.k
Packet Pg. 3887 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7648 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 47 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.k
Packet Pg. 3888 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7649 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 48 Murdock, Christian
From: Jerry Briesach < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Subject: General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Sir;
This meeting, June 6, 2022 of the planning commission should be broken up into three meetings, one for each subject, The EIR, The General Plan, and The Sharp Park Plan.
We ,the people of Pacifica, do not have enough time to read and digest enough to comment on these important decisions. Please reconsider.
Thank You
Jerry Briesach
Pacifica, ca. 94044
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3889 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7650 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 49 Murdock, Christian
From: Julie Starobin < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:56 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]
I am writing to ask the Planning Commission to postpone any decision on the proposed General Plan. Firstly it is much too unwieldy for anyone to understand and respond in the short amount of time that has been allotted. There are actually three important documents and they should be considered separately: the EIR, the General Plan, and the Sharp Park Specific Plan. Each one should have more time allowed for explanation and consideration by the public. A staff presentation at tonight’s meeting does not give enough time, not for the Commission and not for the rest of us.
In addition there are two proposed projects that stood out for me when I tried to read the 4800 pages. One is the hotel on Beach Boulevard and the other is the Manor Overpass/new on-ramp on Milagra.
It is absurd and irresponsible to build on Beach Boulevard. Instead of planning the construction of new buildings, there should be energy put into planning how to take care of the ones already on the edge of being under water. I don’t need to repeat all the scientific information and reports about the inevitability of sea level rise; it is well known that if a city does not plan intelligently, there can only be ‘unmanaged retreat’ and the inhabitants will suffer.
Pacifica does not need a new hotel; the city needs to start enforcing its own tax laws concerning short term rentals in order to raise more money.
The project to rebuild the Manor Overpass does not and should not need to include a new on-ramp at Milagra. In numerous Town Hall and City Council meetings, people in the Pacific Manor neighborhood expressed their total opposition to the on-ramp. Several viable alternatives have been proposed, including a fairly simple reconfiguration of the current on-ramp just north of Paloma, but none have made their way into the General Plan. The City staff seems determined to do what they want without considering what the neighborhood wants. Shouldn’t that be the most important consideration? So, again, I’m asking that the Planning Commission postpone any decisions. It’s been 42 years since the last General Plan was implemented, we can wait a few months longer.
Julie Starobin, Pacific Manor
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.k
Packet Pg. 3890 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7651 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 50 Murdock, Christian
From: William.Leo Leon < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Pacifica Permit Tech; Public Comment; Coffey, Sarah; Murdock, Christian Subject: Regarding the Public Hearing June 6, 2022
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Chairperson and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to you as a Pacifica Resident and as a former Chair and Planning Commissioner. During my Eight plus years on the Planning Commission, I realized that there is a lot of hard work involved in the Position.
I want to share with you, in 2008, I was part of a special selection committee that was formed to identify the Consultant for the General Plan Update (GPU).
It is Fourteen Years later and now we need to ensure the GPU undergoes a thorough and complete review by the Planning Commission.
While on the Planning Commission I learned that Staff is a valuable resource and possess knowledge and expertise. I also appreciated the role of staff. It is to be a resource to and act on direction from the Planning Commission.
It is your role as a Planning Commissioner to recommend and advise the Council in the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the City's General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Law, and other specific and area development plans. It is your responsibility.
The Agenda pages for the upcoming Hearing on June 6, is 3,859 pages and there are more than 1,000 additional pages of materials for review. I tried to read everything, however, given the number of days needed to read, digest and understand all the materials, it was not possible for me to do so.
Given the volume of the Agenda, the written comments submitted from the Public and Agencies, the Public Testimony during the Public Hearing, I suggest you seriously consider and move to make a motion to continue the Hearing to a future date. You will have to decide at what point to do that. And I think it is best that you give yourself and the public additional time to thoroughly review and digest all the materials and information provided to you before you make a recommendation and close the meeting.
We have waited fourteen years to reach this point, you should ensure that the GPU Review, SPSP and Final EIR and the Public Hearing is conducted in an orderly and thorough manner. And that you make a well founded Recommendation. It is your responsibility.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like to have a discussion.
Respectfully, William "Leo" Leon
1.k
Packet Pg. 3891 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7652 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 51 , 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.k
Packet Pg. 3892 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7653 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 52 Murdock, Christian
From: Tim Beeman < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:34 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Murdock, Christian
Subject: PEDRO POINT FIELD
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.
We see every single day that the field is a beloved community treasure and feel strongly that is needs to be preserved in its current state as an open space and natural habitat. The sad fact that the City would even consider anything else goes to show how out of touch it is with the longstanding stance and wishes of the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) over the many years the PPCA has strongly opposed any change to its Land Use Designation. If the City changes the land use designation and permits development of the field, thus transforming our peaceful, lovely community into a massive, invasive construction project, you will be destroying a neighborhood and likely see a mass exodus.
I am fully supportive of comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies.
Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.
Sincerely,
Tim Beeman
1.k
Packet Pg. 3893 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7654 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 53 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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3894 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7655 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 54 Murdock, Christian
From: Cassie Leonardi < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]
Good Afternoon Mr Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am reaching out ahead of the scheduled 06/06 Planning Commission meeting to express my concern regarding the current state of the GP and EIR.
First and foremost, I find it problematic that the City of Pacifica has only provided the public with 12 days to go through a document that is close to 5,000 pages in length. I have a full time job, and 12 days is just simply not enough time to understand such a lengthy document.
Further, I have been disappointed by the fact that the city has done very little to convey this information to the public in layman's terms. A presentation or something of the like by the city would have been enormously helpful in helping the public to understand the repercussions that this plan will have on our community for generations to come.
Lastly, the current fire risk maps appear to be deeply flawed. With most neighborhoods in Pacifica along hillsides that back up to dry brush, I simply don't know how it is possible that only the very south end of Pacifica is currently designated as a high fire risk area.
This plan has not been updated for over 40 years, so I just don't understand why this has to be rushed through now. I urge the planning commission to delay their recommendation of the general plan and EIR at this time.
Thank you,
Cassie Leonardi
Resident of Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3895 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7656 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 55 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:44 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment
Cc: Bier, Mary; Berman, Lauren; Domurat, George; Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal; Ringuette, Oceane@Coastal; KoppmanNorton, Julia@Coastal; Leal, David; Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Wright, Greg
Subject: Public Comment C - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 Attachments: Christine Boles Comment Letter #C 6.6.22 PC Hearing.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock, Planning Commissioners, Mary Bier and Mayor Pro-Tem Bigstyck, Please find attached my comment letter C for tonight's planning commission meeting regarding continued deficiencies, errors and omissions in the FEIR and General Plan documents related to the fire hazards.
My letter is not exhaustive, I haven't even had time to read all the responses to my earlier comment letters, but I wanted to point out the major deficiencies that legally prohibit certification of these documents as they currently stand.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to the presentation and to our discussion this evening.
Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
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.k
Packet Pg. 3896 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7657 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 1 DATE:
TO:
June 6, 2022
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 FEIR Comments, letter C Fire hazards Dear Mr. Murdock and Plannign Commissioners,
I have noted the following errors in the DEIR responses.
1. The only fire map in the General Plan is figure 8.7 (image on the left below) which gives no information for fire risk for any areas within the city limits. The General Plan Safety Element should be updated with a current map before adoption. At a bare minimum, Figure 13.14-1 from the DEIR should be added to the General Plan (image on the right).
1.k
Packet Pg. 3897 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7658 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2 2. Response to C54-4 says that Cal Fire is updating its maps for LRA areas, which is true, and that “best available data” was used for a completely different map in the FEIR. This “best available data” that was used apparently does not include mapping of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, which is critical to our understanding of the very highest fire danger risks. While new data is not available yet from Cal Fire (it is suppposed to be released this month), older data is available, as you can see from the fire map that was included in the 2014 General Plan, copied below on the left. Please carefully compare the differences between these two maps. The Cal Fire website also specifically says that data is available to use in the meantime.
“Local Responsibility Area Maps
…CAL FIRE is posting Recommended maps for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. For each county, until Recommended Maps are posted, Draft Maps used to develop recommendations for cities and unincorporated LRA in the county remain available. For draft maps, all rankings (Very High, High, and Moderate) in Local Responsibility Areas are shown for reference. For recommendations, only Very High Zones are shown.
GIS data associated with maps of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area is also available. It is shown on a countywide basis.
The city must obtain this readily available data and incorporate it in the fire maps, otherwise, this is a fatal flaw in the FEIR and subject to CEQA challenge.
3. Not only does the DEIR fail to identify and map very high fire hazard severity zones, it is also in error in claiming that these zones do not occur within the city limits of Pacifica in LRA areas. From page 3.14-2 of the FEIR, “All of the VHFHSZs within the Planning Area are designated State Responsibility Areas (SRA), where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires, while the NCFA has primary responsibility for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) within the City limit.” How can this claim be made without any maps in the FEIR that show VHFHSZ. Again, see the map on the top left where the VHFHSZ hatching is shown, some in SRA, some in FRA, and some in LRA areas. Given the effects of climate change and prolonged drought, the updated map when available is very likely to show greater fire hazards and larger boundaries for VHFHSZ than the 2014 map. Again this is a fatal error in the FEIR that must be addressed, modified and recirculated for agency review prior to adoption and certification.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3898 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7659 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 3 4. The response to C54-4 says that fireworks are illegal in Pacifica. First that is not true, “safe and sane” fireworks are legal and have caused fires in the past. Secondly, the city’s current ability to enforce illegal fireworks is inadequate at best. With increased drought fireworks, both legal and illegal, are a huge safety and environmental threat and must be analyzed and mitigated.
I want to get this letter in today before the 12:00 deadline, so this is all I have time for. It you would allow us more time I would be very willing to continue investing my time to improve these documents.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters of public safety. Please feel free to reach out to me if I can provide any further clarification.
Sincerely,
Christine Boles, Architect
License #C024448
Principal
Cc: Honorable Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro-Tem Bigstyck
Planning Commissioners
[email protected]
1.k
Packet Pg. 3899 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7660 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 4 1.k
Packet Pg. 3900 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7661 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 56 Murdock, Christian
From: Mark Hubbell < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Pacifica Planning Commission GP, EIR, SPSP Public Hearing [CAUTION: External Email]
Good day, Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, Planning Staff.
Concerning the public hearing today June 6 public hearing to review the General Plan update, Final EIR, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and any resolutions to finalize these plans.
There are 4,795 pages. Just a cursory review, which is much less time than I would like to spend on understanding your proposal for our great city over the next 20 – 40 years, would be nearly 100 pages per hour, non-stop for the last week. That is absurd!
Being self-employed, I’ve been fortunate enough to take several days off work to review these documents, and formulate responses, but that is at a cost to me of $300 per day. How can you rationalize treating Pacifica citizens (35 years for myself) in this manner?
In order to properly cover all the documents listed, while allowing for public comments, how long do you think this meeting tonight will last: midnight; a few days; a couple weeks? Carrying any important conversation past 11:00 pm tonight, would be very unprofessional and a major disservice to working citizens of Pacifica.
Please do the right thing. Separate the documents into manageable sections to address these important issues over a series of public meetings.
Thank you,
Mark
--
Mark Hubbell –– phone: –- 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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3901 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7662 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 57 Murdock, Christian
From: Bob Boles < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg Subject: Response to comments for Draft General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
Regarding your response to my comment, listed as C9-2, you’ve noted the dry weather capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant as being adequate for the buildout, but the true limiting capacity of the plant is in wet weather due to infiltration of the sewer system by rainwater. The input, even with the equalization basin, approaches and even exceeds the 20 MGD wet weather capacity of the Plant now, threatening sewage spills into Calera Creek and the ocean. At a recent tour of the Wastewater Plant, I was told that the October 2021 storm was very close to discharging only partially treated sewage in Calera Creek. While repair and refurbishment of the collection system should ease this problem over the next decade, further growth and climate change will exacerbate it. Please provide studies of this issue as part of the EIR to understand environmental risk and actual capacity for buildout for both the 990 units in this FEIR and for the 1892 units to be identified later this year as part of the housing element update.
Regards,
Bob Boles, Architect
Principal
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
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.k
Packet Pg. 3902 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7663 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 58 Murdock, Christian
From: Sara Woodhull < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:02 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Public Comment; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Wright, Greg
Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]
Hello all,
I am new to Pacifica. I moved here in August 2021 with my husband. I have just recently become aware of the general plan and some aspects of it that I'm very concerned about.
First, I need more time to look at the general plan and digest it. It is a 4,800-page document, which I certainly cannot read in 12 days or fewer! Since I'm hoping that Pacifica will be my "forever home", I'm concerned about Pacifica's future, and I want to participate in a careful manner.
In fact, since there are three different documents, only one of which is the general plan (plus EIR and Sharp Park plan), I think we need detailed public outreach and presentations about all three documents. I personally need it, and I'm sure many of my neighbors do as well. I also need time to consider these documents after such presentations so I can think about the ramifications and questions I have.
I'm also concerned about the fact that the fire map in the general plan does not cover the risk within the city limits.
Since I live on Fassler, I know that there has already been fire in my "backyard" canyon in the past, and I want to see those risks included properly in the general plan.
Thank you,
Sara Woodhull
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.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3903 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7664 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 59 Murdock, Christian
From: Brian Gaffney < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Response to DEIR Comments and Proposed May 25, 2022 Final EIR for Pacifica General Plan Update
Attachments: PPCA GP FEIR comment 6.6.2022 LOOBG SENT.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock,
Attached please find additional comments by the Pedro Point Community Association regarding the City of Pacifica’s Response to Comments and Proposed May 25, 2022 Final EIR for the Pacifica General Plan Update.
To date, Pedro Point Community Association has only had time to review and respond to a portion of the City’s Response to Comments and proposed Final EIR - given the May 20th release of the Response to Comments and the volume of the material (3670 page document with an 1125-page Appendix H). --
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC
Pacifica, CA 94044
office
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, is intended only for the use of the entity named above, and may contain information privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not disseminate or copy.
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.k
Packet Pg. 3904 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7665 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3905 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7666 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2 Master Response 2: Programmatic EIR and Level Of Detail Of Analysis The issues raised by PPCA are not whether the City should utilize a Program EIR to review the proposed General Plan (GP) Update, or the advantages of a Program EIR.
These are strawman arguments that Master Response 2 pose. Instead, the issues raised by PPCA - which Master Response 2 avoids addressing - are that a Program EIR does not excuse the City from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the proposed GP Update, and that a Program EIR does not justify deferring analysis of GP Update impacts to a later tiered EIR or negative declaration. See CEQA Guideline 15152.
PPCA previously commented that designating an EIR as a program EIR does not by itself decrease the level of analysis required in the EIR. (Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511.) The sufficiency of the information contained in an EIR is reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. (CEQA Guideline 15151; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 733.) At minimum, an EIR “must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.” (Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at p. 405.)
The City’s Response to Comments does not respond to this prior PPCA comment, noting at Response to Comment C123-14 only that “this background information is noted.” Master Response 2 impermissibly tries to evade the EIR’s CEQA errors by hiding behind “a citywide assessment” that “does not assess project-specific impacts of potential future projects.” This Program EIR must analyze what is reasonably foreseeable from the proposed GP Update, and fails to do so. The fact that later project-specific CEQA analysis will be conducted does not relieve this EIR from fully complying now with CEQA.
Master Response 3: Buildout And Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) PPCA and others commented that the EIR was flawed as it does not analyze what is reasonably foreseeable - 1,892 housing units to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, additional building of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), additional development allowed by SB 9, and additional building by reasonably foreseeable lot splits.
The Response to Comments dismisses these reasonably foreseeable development as “maximums” and “theoretical” and thus does not correct the CEQA flaws raised by PPCA. In addition, PPCA does not refer to maximums or point to anything which is speculative or simply theoretical.
Remarkably, the Response to Comments attempts to justify the absence of the needed analysis as the reasonably likely housing PPCA points to “would exaggerate impacts” and “result in mitigation measures requiring the construction of road and utility infrastructure.” It goes without saying that CEQA does not excuse analysis for these
1.k
Packet Pg. 3906 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7667 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 3 reasons; they are exactly why detailed analysis is required before the decision makers approve a proposed project like the General Plan Update.
The Response to Comments further justifies the absence of needed analysis by claiming that the General Plan Update “is a technical update to the 2014 Draft General Plan Update prepared previously” and that the scope of the General Plan Update does “not include substantial land use changes outside of the Sharp Park Specific Plan area or include community engagement to inform such changes.” This is just false. The currently proposed GP Update will include redesignating numerous sites throughout the City including redesignating the San Pedro Avenue property.
Master Response 3 admits that the City knew of the RHNA numbers in May 2021 eight months prior to release of the draft EIR. The City does not explain why these reasonably foreseeable housing changes purportedly “were beyond the scope of the Proposed Project” and the draft EIR.
Master Response 3 also admits that the City knows “that additional land use changes, community engagement and environmental analysis will be needed.” Yet, through Master Response 3 the City reveals that it intends to adopt a legally inadequate EIR – that willfully ignores the RHNA, ADUs, SB9 development and lot splits – because this will somehow “provide a better basis” and “a useful programmatic starting point for consideration” of the known additional land use changes. This Response violates CEQA Guideline as it does not constitute good faith, reasoned analysis.
Nor does the City’s promise - that the analysis of the RHNA and ADU housing impacts will be conducted later in a Housing Element CEQA document’s cumulative impact assessment – comply with CEQA. This future analysis does not absolve this EIR from analyzing now what is reasonably foreseeable.
Master Response 4: Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Sites
The City’s Response notes that public comments raised the issue that the CRMU designation is not consistent with the Coastal Act. The Response notes Coastal Act sections 30221, 30222, 30240, 30240, 30251, 30253. The City provides no response regarding section 30222.
It is important to note that this Master Response 4 only points to a portion of the Coastal Act inconsistencies raised by PPCA members Cherie Chan and Bruce Ferry.
Likewise at Response to Comments C53-3 through the C53-13 the Final EIR fails to address the Coastal Act inconsistencies as required by CEQA.
There is no substantial evidence to support the City’s assertion that “All existing open space areas are preserved and scenic resources are protected under the Proposed Project” given what is proposed by the GP Update for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site.
The Response claims that existing statutes “coupled with the beneficial impacts of the Proposed Plan policies listed above, reduce impacts to less than significant” without explaining how or why impacts are reduced to insignificance.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3907 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7668 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 4 Master Response 6: ESHA
As in Master Response 4, Master Response 6 concludes that compliance with federal and state environmental laws will reduce impacts to insignificance – even though those same laws the City asserts can be ignored now as part of the GP Update approval.
Remarkably, rather the City contests the determination of the California Coastal Commission that the undeveloped San Pedro site is an ESHA. Such a position runs contrary to well-established CEQA norms for how a lead agency must consult with responsible agencies and how an EIR must consider compliance with the Coastal Act.
City Response to Comments of the California Coastal Commission The City fails to comply with CEQA Guideline 15088 in responding to comments of the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”). The City does not describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised by the Commission. The Response does not provide detailed reasons and reasoned analysis why the Commission’s specific comments and suggestions were not accepted.
The Commission commented (A6-1) that the 2022 General Plan Update, the 2022 Sharp Park Specific Plan and the associated EIR must be consistent with the [currently] certified LCP - and not the LUP update submitted to, but not certified by, the Commission. The City’s Response did not respond at all to this Commission comment regarding the need for consistency between the 2022 General Plan Update and the currently certified LCP.
The Commission further commented (A6-1) that once an updated LUP is certified by the Commission, the City’s GP/SPSP would have to be updated to then be consistent with the updated LCP. The City’s Response represented the City’s contrary view that “to the extent the General Plan Update proposes any policies beyond those which were sent to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification,” only then would a subsequent LCP amendment be necessary to “make the LCP consistent with the General Plan.” Thus, while the Commission urges a GP Update to be consistent with the current LCP, the City – without explanation – proposes the reverse: to subsequently amend the LCP to make it consistent with the GP.
The Commission further commented (A6-1) that it makes “the most sense to coordinate timing of the GP/SPSP for after the LUP is certified, given the outstanding nature of the LUP certification.” The City fails to provide any response to this comment.
The Commission commented (A6-2) that “policies proposed in the GP/SPSP that correspond to coastal resources cannot contradict the certified LCP and thus [the] Coastal Act” and that “concerns regarding [GP policy] inconsistencies with the Coastal Act that have been noted to City staff over the years.” The Commission specifies that specific GP policies “need to be made fully consistent with the currently certified LCP, and thus Coastal Act,” pointing to GP policies in Chapter 6 ‘Open Space and Community Facilities,’ Section 6.3 ‘Coastal Access’; Chapter 7 ‘Conservation,’ Sections 7.1-7.3 ‘Water, Biological, Land and Soil Resources’; and Chapter 8 ‘Safety,’ Sections 8.1-8.3 and 8.5-8.6 ‘Seismic and Geologic Hazards, Flooding and Drainage, Coastal Resilience, Fire Hazards, and Public Safety and Emergency Management’ (and any other relevant
1.k
Packet Pg. 3908 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7669 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 5 policies). The City fails to provide detailed reasons and reasoned analysis why the Commission’s specific comments and suggestions were not accepted, claiming that the Commission’s comment does not pertain to the merits of the DEIR.
In addition, the Commission’s March 1 2022 email attached over 90 pages of prior comments to the City. See Planning Commission June 1, 2022 Special Meeting Agenda & Staff Report, PDF 1522 – 1614. These Commission comments raise significant environmental issues regarding inter alia Project visual impacts of development on community character and on views, Project impacts on public access and recreation, geotechnical and coastal hazards impacts, the efficacy of proposed GP policies, and GP consistency with the Coastal Act. (A6-3) The City failed to respond to any of these issues, noting only that the “correspondence is received.” PDF 813. The City’s response certainly did not describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised in these 90 pages, and did not provide any reasons why specific Coastal Commission comments and suggestions were not accepted.
Recirculation of the EIR is Required.
The City is required to recirculate the EIR for further comments and consultation as it has added significant new information. Significant new information has been added to the EIR after the comment period on the draft EIR. This changes include inter alia 1) Elimination of CO-I-46 despite that the Final EIR repeatedly relies upon this mitigation to determine impacts related to the alteration of drainage patterns, flood flow, stormwater runoff, and exceeded capacity of stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant.
In the General Plan released for public review in January 2022, Policy CO-I-46 is “Shoreline Protection. Continue to prohibit new development requiring shoreline alterations.” This policy is cited also in the Draft EIR as a required mitigation for the following impacts:
Impact 3.5-3 (substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces);
Impact 3.6-2 (substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss impacts); Impact 3.7-2 (substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities);
Impact 3.7-3 (substantial adverse wetland impacts).
The draft EIR also states that CO-I-46 “would help to protect biological resources on a large scale.” DEIR p. 3.7-65. In addition, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife commented on September 8, 2020 about shoreline protection in regards to the proposed GP Update
Yet, without explanation, shoreline protection has been entirely gutted in the Final EIR and CO-I-46 is now reclassified as “Mineral Resources. If significant mineral
1.k
Packet Pg. 3909 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7670 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 6 resources are discovered with regional agencies to determine a course of action to protect the resources and, if applicable, extract them in an environmentally sensitive manner.” 2) The Coastal Commission determination, based on a biological study, that the whole of the San Pedro site constitutes ESHA
3) the acknowledgement – for the first time - that the proposed Project fails to meet the City’s SB32 emissions reduction target (FEIR redline p. 3.4-36); 4) the addition of an AB 32 2040 Mass Emission Reduction Target of 63,683 Metric tons CO2e/year in Table 3.4-3 and Table 3.4-4 and Table 3.4-5; 5) the addition of Table 3.4-1: Emissions Targets Pursuant to SB 32; 6) the addition of City of Pacifica SB32 Thresholds at Table 3.4-2; 7) the elimination of Table 3.4 CAP GHG Emission Projection and Reduction Targets; Each of the above changes, are not mere typographical corrections or clarifications as the City claims. The changes above deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon substantial adverse environmental effects and feasible ways to mitigate or avoid these impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15088.5 the City is required to recirculate the EIR for public comment and agency consultation.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3910 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7671 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 60 Murdock, Christian
From: Bob Boles
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:05 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg Subject: Public Comment - Pacifica Planning Commission Item 2, 2009-001 2020-007 [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
Regarding your response to my comment, listed as C9-2, you’ve noted the dry weather capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant as being adequate for the buildout, but the true limiting capacity of the plant is in wet weather due to infiltration of the sewer system by rainwater. The input, even with the equalization basin, approaches and even exceeds the 20 MGD wet weather capacity of the Plant now, threatening sewage spills into Calera Creek and the ocean.
At a recent tour of the Wastewater Plant, I was told that the October 2021 storm was very close to discharging only partially treated sewage in Calera Creek. While repair and refurbishment of the collection system should ease this problem over the next decade, further growth and climate change will exacerbate it. Please provide studies of this issue as part of the EIR to understand environmental risk and actual capacity for buildout for both the 990 units in this FEIR and for the 1892 units to be identified later this year as part of the housing element update.
Regards,
Bob Boles, Architect
Principal
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
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.k
Packet Pg. 3911 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7672 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 61 Murdock, Christian
From: John Kontrabecki < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:28 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; O'Connor, Bonny
Cc: MRP
Subject: Draft General Plan Objection
[CAUTION: External Email]
Christian and Bonny-
Re: 497-511 Monterey Road, Pacifica
APN # 009-381-010
We are writing to make the Planning Staff and Planning Commission aware that the Draft General Plan appears to change the existing land use designation for the above captioned property. See Draft General Plan Figure 4.5 on page 4-14 and Figure 4.6 on page 4-15. This change was made without contacting the current owner, without any established objective criteria for changing the existing land use designation, and without any analysis or study.
This is a one-acre property located on Monterey Road next to and across the street from existing residential developments. The Existing General Plan designates this site for low-density residential development which allows 8.7 units per acre. The owners have received approval under the existing General Plan to develop 8 townhomes on this site. This approval has been challenged in San Mateo Superior Court for violating CEQA and a decision from the court is pending.
If the Draft General Plan is approved, this site will be designated for very low-density residential development which allows 0.2 to 2 units per acre. Additionally, the site appears to be within a sub-area called Upper Monterey Road. See Figure 4-5 on page 4-14. This sub-area is described on page 4-37 as LU-I-31 as:
“Upper Monterey Road. Extend the Hillside Preservation District zoning to steep sites along upper Monterey Road and limit new development to a density that is consistent with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential designation.”
1.k
Packet Pg. 3912 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7673 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 62 The new sub-area designation is more restrictive than the Draft General Plan land use description of very lowdensity residential. It is also contrary to the approval that was previously granted by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council under the existing General Plan.
Please understand that we object to the proposed land use designation change for this lot as presented in the Draft General Plan and wish to have the existing low-density residential development land use designation as set forth in the existing General Plan remain.
Sincerely,
Monterey Road Pacifica LLC
By: John Kontrabecki, Esq.
John Kontrabecki
TKG International
M m m
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.k
Packet Pg. 3913 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7674 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 63 Murdock, Christian
From: Susan Miller
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 3:03 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; susan miller
Subject: General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
June 6, 2022
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am asking that the Planning commission and staff divide the General Plan documents in the bite size sections so that the public can review this long and important document with the attention that it requires.
I would also like to see a timeline for separate public meetings on these important documents.
I believe that the commissioners and the planning department wants to do a good job in reviewing the documents and hearing from the public. Let’s all take time to review and digest this General Plan. The City of Pacifica and her citizens deserve it.
Susan A Miller
Rockaway Beach
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.k
Packet Pg. 3914 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7675 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 64 Murdock, Christian
From: D Gold
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Additional Comments on General Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
I am writing to provide additional comments regarding the General Plan, and the process the City is following for public comment and review. The hearing planned for tonight was originally publicized for June 1, and that notice remained on the website until May 31. So people have had little notice that public comment would be received today.
In addition the notice states that each commenter would be provided up to six minutes to comment. This means that in a three hour meeting, less than 30 people would have the opportunity to comment. Most of us, who work and have other obligations, can not sit through endless meetings, whether on zoom or in person. Although this hearing gives the appearance of public engagement, it is not democracy or transparency.
The Planning Commission should provide separate meetings to explain specific sections of the plan to the community, and gather comments on those sections, rather than this lengthy plan as a whole. The process you have established will create a hodgepodge of comments, mostly provided by those paid to represent developers and others with economic interests that are not representative of our community.
I have already submitted comments regarding the Plan's inclusion of a highway 1 on-ramp at Milagra as part of the Manor overcrossing project, which I strongly oppose. This on-ramp, and the inclusion of the on-ramp with the separate Manor overcrossing project, which has been opposed by many in our neighborhood. It was so controversial that in approving funding to study the Manor overcrossing, the City Council specifically stated that the Milagra on-ramp need not be a part of that proposal.
I am writing now to provide more feedback on the General Plan and the process. I strongly believe that this process discourages public participation by providing insufficient time for public review of this extraordinarily long document which contains both broad goals and very specific projects, which get buried in the document.
In addition, I don't think the draft plan provides any specific project or plan to increase low-income housing in Pacifica.
Although it mentions certain legal provisions that may provide incentives to include low income units in housing developments, there is no provision for the City to seek funding to create low-income housing. The City's record on lowincome housing does not create any confidence that the city planners or city government intends to have an economically diverse community in Pacifica, and that should be a clear goal with set and achievable goals.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
D. Gold
Pacific Manor
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.k
Packet Pg. 3915 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7676 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 1 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Wright, Greg; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; Public Comment
Cc: _City Council Group; Woodhouse, Kevin; Murdock, Christian Subject: Reflections on upcoming continuation of Monday's meeting 6/6/22 [CAUTION: External Email]
Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for a long and important meeting last Monday. I appreciate that you all chose to adjourn, delaying staff presentations and discussion. Allowing yourselves time to review and consider made sense. Thank you! I offer some reactions to the comments, comments demanding real changes be made to the documents –
1. Are the faults minor or serious? We heard lots of evidence of shortcomings in the docs. Many are NOT trivial. If they are not corrected, there is real chance of time-consuming, expensive, potentially litigious consequences.
ALL of the documents have been critically challenged by Agency professionals and qualified concerned citizens. Varied comments pointed out inconsistencies between the three docs, outright errors, some arguably illegal or at least counterproductive.
>> Might delaying to correct deficiencies save time and money?
2. Why more public engagement now? The City contends that public review has been ongoing since 2014. Much new information came available long after earlier meetings for input (think hazards, climate, and CCC explicit guidance).
These new documents have not been available for long, and both releases with regrettably limited review. Now is a good time for actual dialog.
>> Don't new workshops on each document makes sense?
3. Trust but Verify? A city cannot function without some trust. Yet I predict the City’s riposts at the upcoming meeting will minimize every major issue raised by written and oral comments. To whom should you listen in this disagreement? I suggest: Trust but verify. How can you verify? One of my comment letters to you specifically analyzed City responses to my submitted comments, especially on the DEIR. Other commenters Monday also provided to you direct evidence that the “responses” were not-responsive. Not all, but many were. >> How many such dissembling examples are sufficient to justify the Planning Commission taking action to change the procedural path forward?
Thank you again for your hard work dealing with the contentious but critical effort.
Sincerely,
-- Jim Kremer
James Kremer, Ph. D. (coastal environmental science)
Sharp Park resident since 2008
Invited member of the 2018 City Working group on Sea Level Rise
1.k
Packet Pg. 3916 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7677 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3917 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7678 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 3 Murdock, Christian
From: Bigstyck, Tygarjas
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 10:38 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Woodhouse, Kevin
Subject: Fwd: New General Plan deleting old General Plan recommended signals at Hickey Blvd & Gateway Drive, Fairmont : It has been 7 years since Councilmember John Keener tried to get signalization and failed. Fairmont is now represented by Sue Vaterlaus, Dis...
Get Outlook for Android
From: David Whitney
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 10:34:37 PM
To: _City Council Group <[email protected]> Subject: New General Plan deleting old General Plan recommended signals at Hickey Blvd & Gateway Drive, Fairmont : It has been 7 years since Councilmember John Keener tried to get signalization and failed. Fairmont is now represented by Sue Vaterlaus, District 1.
[CAUTION: External Email]
-------- Original Message ----------
From: John Keener
To:
Cc: Delene
Date: 11/05/2015 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Hickey/Gateway intersection
Hi David and Darlene,
David, thanks again for directing me to the Pacifica General Plan, Existing Conditions and Key Issues, July 2010 (Chapter 6).
In Table 6-3: Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service (Pacifica General Plan, Existing Conditions and Key Issues, July 2010 p6-10), the Hickey/Gateway intersection in the AM had a 68 sec delay for the worst approach to the intersection, which would be southbound Gateway turning onto eastbound Hickey. In the PM, the delay was 82.8 sec in the opposite direction. Both delays translate into a Level of Service (LOS) of "F" (the worst grade). Level of Service is an outmoded parameter in the process of being replaced, but for now it's all we have. The city standard for intersections is a minimum of LOS "D". The data were gathered by WILTEC in Oct. 2008.
In Table 6-4: Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service (Pacifica General Plan, Existing Conditions and Key Issues, July 2010 p6-13), more than 1,000 cars per hours are noted for Hickey between Gateway and Skyline, 1129 cars/hr eastbound in the AM, and 1146 cars/hr westbound in the PM. This measure does not give the delays experienced at the Hickey/Gateway intersection.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3918 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7679 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 4 On p6-26 it says, " Improving East-West Access via Hickey Boulevard. Hickey Boulevard’s intersections with State Route 35 and Gateway Drive operate at LOS E and F, respectively, during peak hours. These two intersections should be examined in conjunction to promote a more efficient entrance into the City off of SR 35. This analysis shows a traffic signal is warranted at Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive."
In the draft General Plan (March 2104), on page 5-13 (in the Circulation element) it says, "At Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive, signalizing the intersection will result in LOS C for the AM peak hour and LOS D for the PM peak hour." An additional reference is on page 5-14, "The intersections of Hickey Boulevard and SR 35 (a CMP intersection) and Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive (non-CMP) would operate at LOS F at Plan buildout at both peak hours. Improvements proposed in the Plan would allow these intersections to operate at LOS E and C, respectively, at peak hours." (This information is repeated from an earlier email.)
So we have some data for the intersection, and it says what we already know, that traffic is terrible during commute hours, because of traffic coming south on Gateway and turning east on Hickey in the AM, and west on Hickey turning west on Gateway in the PM. The recommendation is for a signal at the intersection.
I will continue to advocate for improvements to Gateway/Hickey. It may be slow, due to the City Manager's assertion that the City Engineer would be overloaded by this.
Best, John
It is unreasonable for nothing being done so long and it should not be unaddressed with SI coming into picture Sue Vaterlaus. Grants should be available for improvements as all Pacifica benefits from Hickey, Pacifica entry point I would like this to be resolved.
David Whitney
Pacifica, Ca 94044
Sent from Mail for Windows
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.k
Packet Pg. 3919 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7680 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 5 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment
Subject: General Plan map errors
Attachments: Land Use and Coastal Access map errors_06072022.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Please see attached markups of Figures 4-3 Land Use Diagram and 6-3 Coastal Access.
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.k
Packet Pg. 3920 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7681 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3921 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7682 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
1.k
Packet Pg. 3922 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7683 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 6 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:33 AM
To: Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Godwin, James; Wright, Greg; Leal, David; Ferguson, Alex; Domurat, George; Murdock, Christian; O'Connor, Bonny Cc: _City Council Group; Public Comment
Subject: Oral comment and reflection on last night's process [CAUTION: External Email]
Thank you commissioners and staff for the informative meeting last night. I especially appreciated the presentation by Dyett and Bhatia that gave a good summary of the documents.
I am mostly disappointed that Commissioners Leal and Ferguson were forced to recuse themselves as they own property in Sharp Park. This is a perfect example of why the three documents should have been split into different agenda items. It's a huge loss to not have their voices in this process. Can this be rectified for Saturday's deliberations? Perhaps Commissioner Domorat can attend as well as his knowledge of coastal issues and the Coastal Commission processes is invaluable.
I also wanted to send you the text of my public comment as I raised some new issues that were not in my recent letters, see below.
Again, thank you for your service and please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Good evening commissioners and staff, my name is Christine Boles and I’m a licensed architect living and practicing in the Manor District.
A good General Plan is so important to our city and to your work as planning commissioners and I’m excited that this review process has finally begun. There’s good policy in these documents and they’re a great first draft, but there are a number of errors and inconsistencies that must be addressed and fixed before they can be approved and certified.
It’s a monumental task before you to try to review not just one, but three very technical documents all at once. The good news is, you are not limited to one meeting, you can take the time you need to do the job properly. If you remember, the HPD ordinance was reviewed over 7 planning commission hearings before being approved. And that ordinance is only 6-1/2 pages long! You’re looking to approve a 329 page General Plan, 149 page SPSP and an 1125 page EIR! We are depending on you to provide an independent and comprehensive review to ensure public safety and environmental laws are met and that takes time.
As an architect, I have focused my comments on issues of safety including the inadequacies of the landslide, fire and sea level rise mapping and analysis. These maps are all still deficient and do not properly address our hazards as required by CEQA. This is essential information to get right before we start work on the Housing Element and find room for almost 1900 new
1.k
Packet Pg. 3923 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7684 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 7 units, most of which need to be low income. By law these cannot be placed in hazardous areas, it is a legal issue of environmental justice.
Our risks are real, children have died in Pacifica due to debris flow landslides. Our 1983 GP Safety Element was completely rewritten to address these types of landslides after that terrible year that had 475 landslides and major flooding in one winter! Debris flow is not even mentioned in the new Safety Element, and there are no mitigation measures. I have sent you specific text as well as a link to a correct debris flow map to add that I obtained from the Dr.
Erik Frost of the Department of Conservation. It’s not hard and will not take much staff time to fix.
Dr. Frost also recommended in his comment # A3-3 that the General Plan add a map showing an inventory of known past landslides. The response just says comment noted, but I think the new proposed map Figure 8-X, on packet page 860 is in response to this comment.
There are known landslides that I learned about from previous public records requests from Public Works that are not included on this map, so this map will need a little more work too.
The staff report presents this map as a choice for you to include, but it is my understanding that California Government Code section 35602(g) that discusses requirements of General Plans actually requires this map to be in the Safety Element. It says, “the safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.” I also want to note that I have not come across evacuation routes and minimum road widths, nor peakload water supply requirements in the Safety Element so more work may be needed.
On to fire - residents in Linda Mar and the back of the Valley are losing their fire insurance. The General Plan fire map is still BLANK for all of Pacifica in the city limits. It seems insurance companies apparently have better maps than we do. We actually had better fire maps in the old 2014 draft general plan that show many areas of high fire risk in city limits. Some areas on the southern and eastern border are even noted as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the most hazardous definition in the entire state. This information is missing in the EIR as well.
We all know these are errors that must be fixed. Climate change and drought have increased our risks of wildfire and we must prepare and make sure we have adequate ways to evacuate.
Highway 1 heading south goes through a dangerous eucalyptus forest before reaching the tunnel. This evacuation route could easily be blocked in case of a wildfire, leaving residents from Vallemar south with only one way out of town. An honest and accurate understanding of our risks also gives us the data to apply for grant funding to help solve these problems.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3924 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7685 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 8 And the Sharp Park Specific Plan is proposing putting denser housing in hazardous areas fraught with sea level rise and coastal erosion. This plan is fatally flawed and will not be approved by the Coastal Commission. They have said so outright in their latest letters. Please read them carefully.
This begs the question of whether some of the alternative options provided in the EIR might be better choices for our growth. Personally I prefer Option C, conservation and redevelopment. We can increase height and density near each of our shopping areas, which also makes for more livable communities where residents can walk and not drive to get all the services they need. Better for people, better for building community, and better for reducing emissions, and fighting climate change. One example is that Plan Bay Area 2050 already identifies Fairmont as a key redevelopment area to increase density as it is near two major arterial routes, Highway 1 and Skyline. It has very low fire and landslide risk and is not near the ocean. I’m curious why increased density was not considered for this area in the General Plan.
There’s a lot of work still to do, but if you look at this incredible collection of residents and professionals who are here tonight, and those who have sent in written comments, there is a lot of help ready and willing to work with you to make sure we can have the best documents possible that are truly a vision of what our community wants for precious Pacifica, our little piece of paradise. Let us help you. I’m not asking for perfection, but for a legally compliant document that addresses our hazards and our environment.
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.k
Packet Pg. 3925 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7686 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 9 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 12:07 AM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; _City Council Group; SanMateo Policy Manager
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 2 in Tonight's Planning Commission Meeting: Comments of Cherie Chan in Consideration of EIR and CEQA Findings, GPU Update: Reject Zoning Change at San Pedro Avenue
[CAUTION: External Email]
Last comment for tonight I swear.
Regarding the "delays", the City has not been working on the GPU Update the entire time. Most critically, the Planning Commission was dealing with the unmanaged retreat of the apartments falling into the Ocean at Esplanade, and had to make this foreseeable emergency a priority.
Here is the link to the full agenda for the 2019-08-26 City Council - Public Agenda-1263.pdf – Special Planning Meeting https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1263&Inline=True Within this document, the report states:
The General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) update processes started approximately 10 years ago. The City and its consultant, Dyett & Bhatia, conducted a series of public engagement meetings and developed draft versions of the General Plan and LCP between 2009 and 2014, as well as a draft environmental impact report (EIR). The last drafts of these documents were released in 2014. Public comment was received and the final documents were prepared for adoption.
Staff and Dyett & Bhatia presented the 2014 draft General Plan and LCP, in their final form ready for adoption, to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 11, 2015. Public comments received at the meeting covered a number of topics, but two central themes included the widening of Highway 1 as part of the Calera Parkway project and the appropriate use of a large undeveloped site in the Pedro Point neighborhood commonly called “Calson Field” (minutes included as Attachment A). The Council’s feedback at that time was to conduct further community engagement to validate the recommendations contained in the draft documents.
Completion of the General Plan and/or LCP update process has been on the City Council’s list of priority projects and initiatives since Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-2017. During FY 2016-2017, staff conducted outreach at the City booth during Fog Fest 2016 (staff did the same during Fog Fest 2015). More robust community engagement during that time period was not possible due to the Council’s prioritization of other work plan items including development of a cannabis permitting program and rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances, and emergent items from the community including termination of tenancies at the Pacific Skies Estates mobile home park, multiple appeals and Council call-ups of Planning Commission items, and response to severe winter storm damage including the City’s demolition of apartments along Esplanade Avenue.
Therefore, the General Plan and LCP update process was delayed until FY 2017-18 when significant work and public engagement began on the sea level rise adaptation policies portion of the LCP.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:58 PM Cherie Chan < > wrote:
Hello again Planning Commissioners!
1.k
Packet Pg. 3926 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7687 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 10 To follow-up on my Oral comments, linked and posted below is the Chronicle article I was referencing earlier. My sincere hope is that we follow the law--and the science--so that we don't see articles like this about Pacifica. We all have dreams for what this town could be and how we can plan for a sustainable future, but these plans cannot conflict with reality.
Thank you for making the hard decisions to ensure that Pacifica rises to the challenge and meets these challenges with clarity.
Here is the Coastal Commission Report: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/3/F15b/F15b-3-2022- report.pdf
And the Footnote I cited:
39 The County, as the initial CDP decision-making body for CDP applications that include new water use in Cambria, needs to consider these perhaps inconvenient facts, and stop approving or even considering such projects unless and until measurable steps are taken that improve water supply issues in Cambria. The County should not be even accepting applications for development in Cambria that cannot show evidence of an adequate water supply. A will-serve letter does not provide such evidence, and the County under the LCP is required to make its own finding that an adequate water supply is available to serve a proposed development, and cannot abrogate that responsibility to the CCSD. The County is giving applicants a sense of ‘false hope’ when it does, and is doing a disservice to these applicants and the broader community. It is also leading to a significant number of appeals to, and subsequent CDP denials by, the Commission, each of which require an expenditure of scarce public resources to process.
SF Chronicle Article: https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/Cambria-deals-with-water-shortage17217624.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight ‘Game over’: The tiny Central Coast town of Cambria is about to run out of water Andrew Pridgen, SFGATE
June 6, 2022Updated: June 6, 2022 5:05 p.m.
Nestled along the Central Coast, Cambria is a picturesque town famous for its vintage clothing and antique shops, its one-of-a-kind olallieberry pies, its scarecrow festival in the fall and its Disneyesque Christmas market and light display in December. Located right off of Highway 1 and 73 miles south of Big Sur, it’s a popular stop for those driving on the Pacific Coast Highway.
Cambria has also been running out of water for nearly four decades and — like many spots along the Central Coast in San Luis Obispo County — it does not have a permanent solution in the offing. The unincorporated town of more than 5,000 people is dependent wholly on two creeks, the Santa Rosa and San Simeon, for its water supply. As climate change ramps up, those creeks are drying out more rapidly and more frequently.
Between May and October, the driest season, the creeks have run dangerously low as the state’s current drought takes its toll. In 2021, the town almost ran out of water, declaring a level four emergency (there are only five levels) and requesting that residents curb their water usage by 40%.
No ‘adequate and sustainable’ water supply
But conservation alone may not be enough, at least according to one expert. “I don’t think we can conserve our way out of major droughts in this region,” Richard Frank, an environmental practice professor at UC Davis and director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center, told the Public Policy Institute of California.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3927 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7688 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 11 “We have a big groundwater problem on the Central Coast — over-pumping has caused saltwater intrusion, which is contaminating our groundwater supply,” he noted. “Connecting to state and federal water projects is not a solution. They aren’t able to meet existing demand and can’t expand deliveries.” The lack of water also means that the town cannot grow. By 2000, Cambria’s Community Services District had reduced growth from 2.3% to 1%. Today, it is zero percent.
That has created a system of haves and have-nots in the town, “dividing the property owners of Cambria into three distinct categories: those who have access to water, those who will have it eventually, and those who will never have it,” a Cal Poly San Luis Obispo undergraduate study explained.
The water issues came to a head in mid-March when Cambria resident Al Hadian, who owns a pair of lots on Cambria Pines Road — an arterial thoroughfare from the beach toward the downtown — was denied permits to develop on his property.
Hadian took all the necessary steps through the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department, but his plans to build a single-family residence were ultimately rebuffed after the county sent the plans to the California Coastal Commission.
“It was sent to the Coastal Commission, and all of a sudden two of the commissioners wanted to appeal the project,” Hadian told New Times in the wake of the denial. “I thought that this would be a slam dunk because I have a water meter that is active, I am paying my bills, I’m a pre-moratorium customer.” The problem, commission planner Esme Wahl told New Times, is “Cambria has a longstanding water issue,” noting that development can only happen when there is an adequate and sustainable water supply. “We’re not able to make either of those findings, and as a result, we have to deny this new development in Cambria,” Wahl said.
The Sierra Club’s Santa Lucia chapter — which serves SLO County, including Cambria — noted in a recent newsletter that the Coastal Commission “sent two letters to the SLO County Planning Department concerning its permitting practices in the communities of Cambria and Los Osos … and the commission is clearly done with five years of repeating itself.”
Indeed, the Coastal Commission’s report notes the county “is giving applicants a sense of ‘false hope’ when it [processes development applications], and is doing a disservice to these applicants and the broader community.” The result is that other residents feel the water situation, while having to be constantly monitored, isn’t as dire as the commission paints it to be.
“I get their mission, but they are at odds with the people, and they’re going a little overboard,” says John Weigold, a retired Navy admiral who’s been at the helm of the Cambria Community Services District for the past three years, referring to the commission’s findings.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3928 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7689 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 12 Weigold and property owner Hadian believe that because the properties were installed with water meters by the district — before a 2001 building moratorium in the wake of an emergency water shortage declaration — the building permits should still be considered valid today. “Hadian has a very strong argument,” Weigold told SFGATE. “The Coastal Commission put that deal together in the 1990s. And this wasn’t a handshake deal. A lot of money including the construction of another water tank went into it. Those parcels have had meters in the ground. The Coastal Commission was part of all that discussion and agreement. For them to turn around and deny it is pretty stunning. “The district doesn’t agree with the Coastal Commission’s interpretation of the agreement — and we’ve reached out to them because we have a whole host of issues.”
But while the district may not agree with the Coastal Commission, the commission’s spokesperson says it is the community, the water district and the county that have control over Cambria’s fate. “Solving a community’s water issues is beyond the commission’s jurisdiction and is something Cambria needs to work on with the county,” California Coastal Commission spokesperson Noaki Schwartz emailed SFGATE. “This may mean a new source or upgrading wastewater treatment plant functions for water recycling/reuse/reinjection or may mean partnering with nearby operators.” Single development’s denial a small part of bigger picture The wrangling over a single project is only one small example of the struggles that residents, developers and water districts of coastal communities like Cambria deal with on a regular basis, Weigold points out. “This is indicative of what they do across the state,” Weigold says, noting that the Coastal Commission’s tangles with Huntington Beach and Monterey over plans for desalination plants are two more examples of resources that are “maybe not allocated where they should be.”
“Where does this all get adjudicated, I don’t know,” Weigold says. “Right now, it’s in court, and that’s expensive and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Right now, we are generating clean water, and we’re forced to dump it into the ground.”
Weigold is referring to the district’s wastewater treatment facility, spun up as a temporary solution in 2014 for $13 million to address water shortage needs after then-Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency. The facility reuses and desalinates brackish wastewater. It runs a combination of freshwater, estuary water and treated sewage wastewater through three stages of osmosis, eventually injecting the treated water back into the two water-supplying creeks, in turn creating a supply for the community. “The way our system works here in Cambria is we have a new water and water conservation policy and procedures that we follow, so a lot of the indicators point to always being at stage two anyway,” Weigold says of the state moving to severe drought stage measures in Southern California this week. “We manage it by conservation and our water reclamation facility. If we need to go to stage five or six level conservation, we think we have a good handle on management of our situation.”
1.k
Packet Pg. 3929 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7690 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 13 Weigold says the water treatment facility is currently going through a permitting process to enable its full-time operation if needed.
‘Once saltwater gets into the supply, it’s game over.’
As drought-stricken California starts to clamp down more and reserves hit all-time lows, the folly of kicking the problem to the next generation seems to have come home to roost not only in Cambria but in all of coastal SLO County, Weigold says.
But in his view, there is almost zero political cohesion for Cambria and other small beach towns on the Central Coast to band together and find a long-term and sustainable solution. “Every community is so different with their own little issues,” Weigold says, noting that he engages with other water districts at least once a month to talk about short- and long-term fixes and discuss the intricacies of the problem in each town as well as the area as a whole. “I just don’t think the communities have any wherewithal to get together. I think the community engagement part of my job is Ph.D. level. It’s really difficult to manage at times and work with so many varying views on what a community, or the area, should be when it grows up.” And it’s not just differences seen from village to village. Within town limits, the battle lines are drawn neighborhood by neighborhood, house by house, about what should be done with water and how much should be spent by taxpayers.
That infighting, ultimately, paints a “difficult picture,” Weigold says.
Even in idyllic Cambria, there’s “a division among residents on what the future looks like,” Weigold says. He noted that if the wastewater treatment facility is permitted for full-time use, available water could potentially lead to more development, or at least a shift in the current zero-growth outlook.
But that would require more adjustments and likely, more infighting. No one knows what’s in store for Cambria’s future, especially as climate change continues to dry out the state. “More water, more building means a change in Cambria’s culture,” he says. “A lot of people want to leave it the way it is. They feel the addition of water means change, which I don’t agree with. We all have different issues on the coast. I think everyone wants to do what’s right, what’s responsible. I don’t think anyone wants to harm the environment. But we also have to live. And once saltwater gets into the supply, it’s game over.” --
Cherie Chan
--
Cherie Chan
1.k
Packet Pg. 3930 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7691 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 14 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.k
Packet Pg. 3931 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7692 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 15 Murdock, Christian
From: Cherie Chan < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:58 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg; _City Council Group; SanMateo Policy Manager
Subject: Agenda Item 2 in Tonight's Planning Commission Meeting: Comments of Cherie Chan in Consideration of EIR and CEQA Findings, GPU Update: Reject Zoning Change at San Pedro Avenue
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello again Planning Commissioners!
To follow-up on my Oral comments, linked and posted below is the Chronicle article I was referencing earlier. My sincere hope is that we follow the law--and the science--so that we don't see articles like this about Pacifica. We all have dreams for what this town could be and how we can plan for a sustainable future, but these plans cannot conflict with reality.
Thank you for making the hard decisions to ensure that Pacifica rises to the challenge and meets these challenges with clarity.
Here is the Coastal Commission Report: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/3/F15b/F15b-3-2022-report.pdf And the Footnote I cited:
39 The County, as the initial CDP decision-making body for CDP applications that include new water use in Cambria, needs to consider these perhaps inconvenient facts, and stop approving or even considering such projects unless and until measurable steps are taken that improve water supply issues in Cambria. The County should not be even accepting applications for development in Cambria that cannot show evidence of an adequate water supply. A will-serve letter does not provide such evidence, and the County under the LCP is required to make its own finding that an adequate water supply is available to serve a proposed development, and cannot abrogate that responsibility to the CCSD. The County is giving applicants a sense of ‘false hope’ when it does, and is doing a disservice to these applicants and the broader community. It is also leading to a significant number of appeals to, and subsequent CDP denials by, the Commission, each of which require an expenditure of scarce public resources to process.
SF Chronicle Article: https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/Cambria-deals-with-water-shortage17217624.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight ‘Game over’: The tiny Central Coast town of Cambria is about to run out of water Andrew Pridgen, SFGATE
June 6, 2022Updated: June 6, 2022 5:05 p.m.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3932 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7693 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 16 Nestled along the Central Coast, Cambria is a picturesque town famous for its vintage clothing and antique shops, its one-of-a-kind olallieberry pies, its scarecrow festival in the fall and its Disneyesque Christmas market and light display in December. Located right off of Highway 1 and 73 miles south of Big Sur, it’s a popular stop for those driving on the Pacific Coast Highway.
Cambria has also been running out of water for nearly four decades and — like many spots along the Central Coast in San Luis Obispo County — it does not have a permanent solution in the offing. The unincorporated town of more than 5,000 people is dependent wholly on two creeks, the Santa Rosa and San Simeon, for its water supply.
As climate change ramps up, those creeks are drying out more rapidly and more frequently.
Between May and October, the driest season, the creeks have run dangerously low as the state’s current drought takes its toll. In 2021, the town almost ran out of water, declaring a level four emergency (there are only five levels) and requesting that residents curb their water usage by 40%.
No ‘adequate and sustainable’ water supply
But conservation alone may not be enough, at least according to one expert. “I don’t think we can conserve our way out of major droughts in this region,” Richard Frank, an environmental practice professor at UC Davis and director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center, told the Public Policy Institute of California. “We have a big groundwater problem on the Central Coast — over-pumping has caused saltwater intrusion, which is contaminating our groundwater supply,” he noted. “Connecting to state and federal water projects is not a solution. They aren’t able to meet existing demand and can’t expand deliveries.” The lack of water also means that the town cannot grow. By 2000, Cambria’s Community Services District had reduced growth from 2.3% to 1%. Today, it is zero percent.
That has created a system of haves and have-nots in the town, “dividing the property owners of Cambria into three distinct categories: those who have access to water, those who will have it eventually, and those who will never have it,” a Cal Poly San Luis Obispo undergraduate study explained.
The water issues came to a head in mid-March when Cambria resident Al Hadian, who owns a pair of lots on Cambria Pines Road — an arterial thoroughfare from the beach toward the downtown — was denied permits to develop on his property.
Hadian took all the necessary steps through the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department, but his plans to build a single-family residence were ultimately rebuffed after the county sent the plans to the California Coastal Commission.
“It was sent to the Coastal Commission, and all of a sudden two of the commissioners wanted to appeal the project,” Hadian told New Times in the wake of the denial. “I thought that this would be a slam dunk because I have a water meter that is active, I am paying my bills, I’m a pre-moratorium customer.” The problem, commission planner Esme Wahl told New Times, is “Cambria has a longstanding water issue,” noting that development can only happen when there is an adequate and sustainable water supply. “We’re not able to make either of those findings, and as a result, we have to deny this new development in Cambria,” Wahl said.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3933 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7694 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 17 The Sierra Club’s Santa Lucia chapter — which serves SLO County, including Cambria — noted in a recent newsletter that the Coastal Commission “sent two letters to the SLO County Planning Department concerning its permitting practices in the communities of Cambria and Los Osos … and the commission is clearly done with five years of repeating itself.”
Indeed, the Coastal Commission’s report notes the county “is giving applicants a sense of ‘false hope’ when it [processes development applications], and is doing a disservice to these applicants and the broader community.” The result is that other residents feel the water situation, while having to be constantly monitored, isn’t as dire as the commission paints it to be.
“I get their mission, but they are at odds with the people, and they’re going a little overboard,” says John Weigold, a retired Navy admiral who’s been at the helm of the Cambria Community Services District for the past three years, referring to the commission’s findings.
Weigold and property owner Hadian believe that because the properties were installed with water meters by the district — before a 2001 building moratorium in the wake of an emergency water shortage declaration — the building permits should still be considered valid today. “Hadian has a very strong argument,” Weigold told SFGATE. “The Coastal Commission put that deal together in the 1990s. And this wasn’t a handshake deal. A lot of money including the construction of another water tank went into it. Those parcels have had meters in the ground. The Coastal Commission was part of all that discussion and agreement. For them to turn around and deny it is pretty stunning. “The district doesn’t agree with the Coastal Commission’s interpretation of the agreement — and we’ve reached out to them because we have a whole host of issues.”
But while the district may not agree with the Coastal Commission, the commission’s spokesperson says it is the community, the water district and the county that have control over Cambria’s fate. “Solving a community’s water issues is beyond the commission’s jurisdiction and is something Cambria needs to work on with the county,” California Coastal Commission spokesperson Noaki Schwartz emailed SFGATE. “This may mean a new source or upgrading wastewater treatment plant functions for water recycling/reuse/reinjection or may mean partnering with nearby operators.”
Single development’s denial a small part of bigger picture The wrangling over a single project is only one small example of the struggles that residents, developers and water districts of coastal communities like Cambria deal with on a regular basis, Weigold points out. “This is indicative of what they do across the state,” Weigold says, noting that the Coastal Commission’s tangles with Huntington Beach and Monterey over plans for desalination plants are two more examples of resources that are “maybe not allocated where they should be.”
1.k
Packet Pg. 3934 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7695 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 18 “Where does this all get adjudicated, I don’t know,” Weigold says. “Right now, it’s in court, and that’s expensive and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Right now, we are generating clean water, and we’re forced to dump it into the ground.”
Weigold is referring to the district’s wastewater treatment facility, spun up as a temporary solution in 2014 for $13 million to address water shortage needs after then-Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency. The facility reuses and desalinates brackish wastewater. It runs a combination of freshwater, estuary water and treated sewage wastewater through three stages of osmosis, eventually injecting the treated water back into the two water-supplying creeks, in turn creating a supply for the community. “The way our system works here in Cambria is we have a new water and water conservation policy and procedures that we follow, so a lot of the indicators point to always being at stage two anyway,” Weigold says of the state moving to severe drought stage measures in Southern California this week. “We manage it by conservation and our water reclamation facility. If we need to go to stage five or six level conservation, we think we have a good handle on management of our situation.”
Weigold says the water treatment facility is currently going through a permitting process to enable its full-time operation if needed.
‘Once saltwater gets into the supply, it’s game over.’
As drought-stricken California starts to clamp down more and reserves hit all-time lows, the folly of kicking the problem to the next generation seems to have come home to roost not only in Cambria but in all of coastal SLO County, Weigold says.
But in his view, there is almost zero political cohesion for Cambria and other small beach towns on the Central Coast to band together and find a long-term and sustainable solution. “Every community is so different with their own little issues,” Weigold says, noting that he engages with other water districts at least once a month to talk about short- and long-term fixes and discuss the intricacies of the problem in each town as well as the area as a whole. “I just don’t think the communities have any wherewithal to get together. I think the community engagement part of my job is Ph.D. level. It’s really difficult to manage at times and work with so many varying views on what a community, or the area, should be when it grows up.” And it’s not just differences seen from village to village. Within town limits, the battle lines are drawn neighborhood by neighborhood, house by house, about what should be done with water and how much should be spent by taxpayers.
That infighting, ultimately, paints a “difficult picture,” Weigold says.
Even in idyllic Cambria, there’s “a division among residents on what the future looks like,” Weigold says. He noted that if the wastewater treatment facility is permitted for full-time use, available water could potentially lead to more development, or at least a shift in the current zero-growth outlook.
But that would require more adjustments and likely, more infighting. No one knows what’s in store for Cambria’s future, especially as climate change continues to dry out the state.
1.k
Packet Pg. 3935 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7696 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 19 “More water, more building means a change in Cambria’s culture,” he says. “A lot of people want to leave it the way it is. They feel the addition of water means change, which I don’t agree with. We all have different issues on the coast. I think everyone wants to do what’s right, what’s responsible. I don’t think anyone wants to harm the environment. But we also have to live. And once saltwater gets into the supply, it’s game over.” --
Cherie Chan
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.k
Packet Pg. 3936 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7697 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 20 Murdock, Christian
From: Erin Farrell
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Domurat, George; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Leal, David; Wright, Greg
Subject: Did you vote yet? Gen Plan / EIR Comment
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you not to adopt the current GPU and EIR that are being presented for your consideration at the upcoming June 6 public hearing, which proposes to change the Land Use Designation of the five-acre Pedro Point Field, a recognized wetlands and Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and a center of our community, from Commercial-Recreational Use to Commercial Residential Mixed Use.
In addition to the environmental ramifications for this wetland area and habitat, I have seen the adverse effect of sea rise in Pacifica and other cities. Building on this plot of land would be irresponsible for Pacifica to pursue on multiple levels--budget to continue down a path that will not be approved, damage to the environment, consequences of sea rise-- physical, insurance, etc Is Pacifica going to buy this property from owners later when we need to cede to the ocean? Who will gain? Developers, not Pacifica's government or residents.
I fully support comments previously submitted by PPCA President Allison West on March 7, 2022 and related letters submitted by the PPCA’s CEQA consultant Richard Grassetti, attorney Brian Gaffney, and consulting Coastal Ecologist, Dr. Peter Baye, and am disturbed that this testimony was rejected without adequate analysis. Their comments documented known DEIR deficiencies and reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the proposed GPU that are in violation of CEQA and Coastal Act policies. Please do not dismiss these expert opinions and instead take steps to address the noted deficiencies and violations before adopting these important guiding documents for our city.
Sincerely,
Erin Farrell
Belfast Ave
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.k
Packet Pg. 3937 Attachment: Attachment K - Combined Public Comments (Non-EIR) (5035 : Consideration of Adoption of General Plan Update)
2.C
Packet Pg. 7698 Attachment: Attachment C - City Council Agenda Packet - June 25, 2022 (5049 : Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve 21 Murdock, Christian
From: Tom Thompson < >
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 6:05 PM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc:
Subject: RE: Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council
Attachments: Pacifica Planning Commission Public Comments on Robust Seawall Needed in SPSP 6-6-2022 PDF submitted before meeting.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Here is my : Public Comment before 6-6-2022 Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 General Plan Update and New Sharp Park Specific Plan and recommendations to city council In both attachment and email format:
Date: June 6,
2022