Mr. Christian Murdock
Deputy Planning Director
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
[email protected]
CC: California Coastal Commission
Date: July 1, 2022
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve the General Plan Update and EIR Certification (City of Pacifica) on Monday, July 11, 2022.
Dear City Council:
In the previous Planning Commission meeting on 6/6/22 my concerns for the deficiencies and document contradictions were not considered and need to be addressed by the City Council prior to the potential appeal to the California Coastal Commission.
To reiterate:
Over the past decade the community of Pedro Point has attempted to act as a partner in the update to Pacifica’s General Plan, including neighborhood meetings with the input and participation of the city manager’s office. The community even requested the city work with us to develop a neighborhood specific plan which the city also dismissed.
I personally have tried to be a conduit for community input as a past member of both the Pacifica Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Committee and the Pacifica GPU Community Outreach Committee and I can once again state that the majority of our concerns about this plan have consistently been ignored. The DEIR even states in chapter 4.2 that “the alternatives were selected to, “the range of choices that have the broadest support from the community”, yet that city has disregarded over 99% of what the Pedro Point Community has repeatedly recommended for the property known as the Pedro Point Field in order to please only the investor property owner.
We have been forced to hire biologists, CEQA experts, environmental attorneys and submitted irrefutable evidence of special species and ESHA along with documented CEQA and Coastal Act violations and yet the city continues to work against its own citizens.
Under the current draft of the 2022 GPU states implementation policies to Expanded low-intensity outdoor Commercial Recreation on sites near Pacifica State Beach (ES-I-34), Preserve the Experience of the Natural Environment that do not disrupt view corridors (ES-I-35), be a center for recreation and community (CD-I-1), Improve pedestrian routes along corridors (CD-I-24), Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species (LU-G-7) and to not increase the density or intensity of land use designations beyond those indicated in the LCLUP for sites located within Coastal Vulnerability Zones (LU-G-8), not to mention the violations of SB379, yet these policies are exactly what the City chose to ignore by recommending residential at this site.
Further, with the city being fully aware of the denial of the CDP at 505 San Pedro due to the multiple hazards including flooding, shallow water table, identified multiple protected species, wetlands and an ESHA designation the city has still ignored this data. As far as the CRLF is concerned the CCC biology report states that the frog needs a minimum of a 300 ft foraging corridor. Again, the City has chosen to ignore this data. The city does recognize the existence of the CRLF in the DEIR “Special Status Species” figure 3.7-4 but omits the USFWS guidance of a minimum of 300 feet of foraging corridor for the special status species. Additionally, because the species is not able to forage in any other direction because of the existing developing to the south and east the whole west of the Site is needed for foraging habitat which can end up covering the whole field. In addition, the city has cherry picked a low SLR range that the CCC says is mandating at 6.9 feet which is based on the best available science.
If these egregious denials were not enough the California Coastal Commission has continually requested this same data to certify the LCLUP that they handed to you and that we have made available to you all, which included that denial of the CDP application 2-19-0026 at 505 San Pedro Ave where the Coastal Commission’s biologist and the Department of State Fish and Wildlife concluded the presence of ESHA and the California Red Leg Frog in the adjacent waterway AND also surmised that the Pedro Point Field was most likely wetlands, yet the city has chosen to ignore the coastal commission and F&W.
Specific to violations of CEQA the city master responses state erroneously that it can defer a site specific EIR until another project is proposed in this area and basically ignore any data presented by the agencies that will need to certify the City’s General Plan because there is a “conflict of experts”. CEQA does not allow this deferral for two reasons:
1. The city is required to make the determination now as to which data it will use to justify their recommendation
2. The city is proposing substantial changes from the current zoning of Commercial recreational to residential and also ignoring the on-site conditions of zero current structures; they can not hypothetically state a fast food joint can be built there now so the housing will be less impact NOTE: many of the responses to our questions are that the comments are “noted” or “comments received”; this response is inappropriate at best and also insulting.
The city also states that the FEIR also reviewed hydrology hazards throughout the city, yet there is no data specific to the water table rising due to SLR in the Pedro Point Field. Just by walking through the southwest corner of the field there is water percolating to the surface all year around as well as the before-mentioned analysis of the CCC that the field is most likely a wetland.
The general plan actually has a Conservation (C) designation that states that it also applies to privately-owned open areas where the land is physically unsuitable for development due to geotechnical hazards, excessive steepness, wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) or other environmental constraints or lies within stream channels; this site meets all these criteria so why is it not designated as Conservation? This site should result instead as a density transfer to another area of Pacifica if needed. The ideal transfer would be to add housing as a policy overlay to strip malls throughout Pacifica where very little environmental damage will occur due to hazards or ESHA.
The city is also stating that it can defer review of wildlife corridors because it doesn’t have the data. All that the city has to do is look on NextDoor or ask any agency like F&W who has given the city the data that mountain lions are all over Pacifica which is also an improper deferral of analysis under CEQA.
The city is also not addressing the issue of water resources and availability to residents in this era of the climate crisis so how can there be a determination of the increase of housing without appropriate water resources.
The city is also proposing to get rid of the height limitations throughout the city including the coastal zone and currently specific to the SPSP which is also in violation of the CEQA. Additionally, stating the designated number of units per acre is moot without taking state regulations like SB9, SB10 and affordable housing credits into consideration also makes this FEIR fatally flawed.
Under separate cover Richard Grassetti, Principal of Grassetti Environmental Consulting has provided a multitude of areas with the DEIR violates CEQA and is therefore fatally flawed. Mr. Grassetti also recognizes the reasonable argument that this Site should be designated Conservation.
Additionally, the city fails to document prior landslide activity throughout Pedro Point and fire hazard at Grand Ave and Olympian Way.
Also, the Rockaway Headlands GPU land use designation changes fails to consider erosion hazards and the FEIR ignores the potential for wildlife habitat including wildlife corridors potential. The Land Use Designation for this area should be Conservation.
In summary the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Field Site, Pedro Point in general and the Rockaway Headlands have a multitude of encumbrances including environmental designations and hazards the City has chosen to willfully ignore and places the adoption of the LCLUP by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in jeopardy. At this time because of the City’s consistent inability to integrate undeniable scientific data as far back as 2005 if would be prudent to have the CCC assume responsibility of the LCLUP process in order to reconcile the required GPU alignment so that we do not continue to rely on a GP that is over 43 years old and a City that is negligent and unwilling to listen to its citizens or sound data.
Sincerely,
Samuel Casillas
Board member, PPCA
Past Vice-Chair, Pacifica Economic Development Committee Past Member, Pacifica Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Committee Past Co-Chair GGNRA Board Liaison Committee
Past Member, Pacifica GPU Community Outreach Committee