BN 80062504v1
planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3) (emphasis added).) Toll Brothers has submitted to the City a realistic housing proposal for the development of over 100 dwelling units on the Property, including significant affordable housing, consistent with State Law. As the Developer has proposed a realistic and feasible residential project that implements the Draft Housing Element Update policies, we would encourage the City (again) to add the Sea Bowl Property to the housing sites inventory in the Draft Housing Element Update.
The City has failed to provide any rationale as to why the property should not be added to the Housing Element Update sites inventory.
The City maintains throughout the Draft Initial Study/MND that the:
“Housing Element Update would facilitate housing development in the City; however, it does not propose specific projects but rather puts forth goals and policies that regulate housing and various aspects of new housing development in Pacifica.” The Draft Initial Study/MND analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed sites identified on the Draft Housing Element sites inventory. As you know, Toll Brothers has submitted a viable, realistic proposal with a demonstrated development potential, and has requested that the City include Toll Brothers’ proposal in the Housing Element Update. Consistent with our prior requests, we ask that the City consider Toll Brothers’ Project in its Initial Study/MND consistent with the level of analysis it provided for the other sites identified in the Housing Element Update sites inventory.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments.
Regards,
BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
Attachment
cc: Nick Kosla
Alli Sweeney
5.i
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) 425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415 227 0900 Phone
415 227 0770 Fax
BN 77603765v4
415 227 3508 Direct August 9, 2023 aguerra@buchalte r com VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Brianne Harkousha
Senior Planner
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the City of Pacifica General Plan Amendments and Rezoning
Dear Brianne:
Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents Toll Bros., Inc. (“Toll Brothers”) in its efforts to redevelop the Sea Bowl property located at 4625 Coast Highway (identified as APN 022-150-440) (the “Sea Bowl Property”), in the City of Pacifica (the “City”). Toll Brothers appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the EIR to evaluate the City’s General Plan Amendment and rezoning to implement its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (SCH No. 2023070192).
Toll Brothers is proposing to develop a total of 115 dwelling units consisting of 78 townhomes with 23 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), as well as 14 duet style homes (the “Toll Brothers Project”) on the Sea Bowl Property, consistent with the attached updated “Conceptual Site Plan,” dated August 4, 2023.
We understand that the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (“Housing Element Update”) is currently under review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). We further understand that the Housing Element Update is required to demonstrate the City’s plans to accommodate 2,476 housing units, including 1,289 units affordable for lower income households, over the next eight years to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). To assist the City in its identification of potential housing developments to include in the Housing Element Update, on March 23, 2023, my client
5.i
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) Brianne Harkousha
August 9, 2023
BN 77603765v4
submitted a comment letter on the Housing Element with a conceptual site plan describing their plan to redevelop the site with market rate and below market rate housing and/or in-lieu fees for those affordable units. This letter and site plan were incorporated into the Housing Element update. (Housing Element Update, pp. 358-363.) Unfortunately, the Housing Element Update still does not reflect Toll Brothers Project or any reasonable development proposal for the Sea Bowl Property. Consequently, we are submitting the following comments on Toll Brothers’ behalf to request that the City correct the site inventory for the Sea Bowl Site, and address the following comments as part of the preparation of the environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Housing Element Update.
The City must update the Housing Element, and the EIR should evaluate, a decreased housing density alternative for the Sea Bowl Property.
State Planning and Zoning Law requires housing elements to provide an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development” that have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3) (emphasis added).) This inventory must include an “analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” (Id.) “Land suitable and available for residential development” is defined to include “[s]ites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site . . . .” (Id., § 65583.2(a)(4).) The inventory of sites must “specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site.” (Id., § 65583.2(c).)
The City includes the Sea Bowl Property in its inventory of sites that can accommodate additional housing. (Housing Element Update, p. 12, Table 4.) The Housing Element Update additionally notes that this site would require a rezoning to meet the City’s RHNA capacity. (Id.) The City further acknowledges that the site is “underutilized” and that “discussions with a housing developer have been initiated for redevelopment of the site” since the owner of the bowling alley announced it would permanently close in Spring 2023. (Housing Element Update, p. F-17.) However, we believe that the Housing Element Update’s proposal that the site be rezoned does not accommodate the Property’s realistic capacity for development, as required under State Planning and Zoning Law. The Housing Element Update suggests that the Property could be rezoned to accommodate a density of 60 dwelling units per acre, in order to supposedly permit a total of 219 units affordable for lower income households. The Housing Element Update however, does not explain whether or how developing 219 units is even feasible on the Sea Bowl Property.
The Housing Element Update acknowledges that the Property owner has already initiated “discussions with a housing developer” (i.e. Toll Brothers). Despite this “realistic and demonstrated potential” for development, as required by Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government
5.i
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) Brianne Harkousha
August 9, 2023
BN 77603765v4
Code, the City is proposing to designate the Sea Bowl Property to accommodate 60 dwelling units per acre, for a total of 219 lower income dwelling units. This is far denser than the proposed Toll Brothers Project, but the Housing Element Update does not provide any support for whether a 219-unit lower income housing project is feasible. Conversely, Toll Brothers has already proposed a 115-unit mixed-income Project (including ADUs). Given market conditions and Toll Brothers’ Project proposal, however, we believe that the Sea Bowl Property can only accommodate a housing development at a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre such as that reflected in Toll Brothers Project.
The proposed General Plan designation would preclude Toll Brothers’ Project because the proposed density for the Sea Bowl Property is twice the density required to develop Toll Brothers’ Project. Toll Brothers has proposed a plan to develop 115 residential units, comprised of housing affordable to both lower income and above moderate income households, whereas the type of project envisioned in the current draft of the Housing Element Update has not been shown to be feasible. Toll Brothers is proposing a realistic Project that will propel the City into meeting its 6th cycle RHNA requirements. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City designate the Sea Bowl Property with a land use designation that will accommodate a density of up to 30 units per acre with a mix of townhomes, ADUs, and duet-type units. The EIR should, therefore, evaluate this reduced density and housing type for the Sea Bowl Property as a reasonably foreseeable proposal.
The Toll Brothers Project is shovel-ready and presents a reasonably foreseeable opportunity to develop the Sea Bowl Property with housing at a desired mix of affordability levels.
The NOP explains that the Sea Bowl Property has an existing General Plan designation of Visitor Serving Commercial and a zoning designation of C-1. While the Housing Element Update does not propose an updated designation for the Property, it states that the Property is “eligible to take advantage of AB 2011 densities.” (Housing Element, pp. F-16—17.) Moreover, the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory explains that the Sea Bowl Property is to “assume 60 [dwelling units per acre] using AB 2011.” (Housing Element, Appendix F, p. F-29, Table F-9.) The Housing Element Update and the NOP do not identify the General Plan designation or zoning proposed for the Sea Bowl Property. Thus, given this limited information, we can only assume that the Sea Bowl Property will retain its commercial General Plan and zoning designations which, otherwise, do not permit residential development. For the reasons outlined below, we do not believe that AB 2011 can be used to develop the Sea Bowl Property with residential uses, but that an amended General Plan designation and rezoning are the only way the Sea Bowl Property can be feasibly developed to accommodate housing.
As you know, AB 2011 generally allows for the streamlined ministerial approval of either affordable or mixed-income housing in certain commercial zones. (See generally Gov. Code, §
5.i
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) Brianne Harkousha
August 9, 2023
BN 77603765v4
65912.100 et seq.) For the different types of projects, AB 2011 imposes several conditions in order to achieve eligibility. For example, for 100% affordable residential projects, an AB 2011- eligible site must have at least 75% of its perimeter adjoining “parcels that are developed with urban uses.” (Id., § 65912.111(c).) “[P]arcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.” (Id.) Here, the Property cannot qualify. The adjacent parcels across Roberts Road, Fassler Avenue, and Sea Bowl Drive, which comprise a majority of the surrounding parcels, are all vacant and undeveloped. Accordingly, an entirely affordable project would not qualify for AB 2011 on the Sea Bowl Property.
Even a mixed-income housing development would be infeasible under AB 2011 here. For such projects, AB 2011 also imposes the 75% perimeter urban use requirement. (Id., § 65912.121(e).) These projects must also meet specified affordability criteria. (Id., § 65912.122(b).) Finally, mixed-income projects are required to meet strict labor standards, including payment of a prevailing wage to all contractors. (Id., §§ 65912.130, -.131.) The 75% adjacent urban use requirement, imposed by AB 2011, alone disqualifies the Sea Bowl Property from approval of an AB 2011 project. Additionally, any labor standards that are imposed on a mixed-income project would dramatically increase project costs, thereby rendering an AB 2011 project infeasible. Thus, an assumption that any affordable project could proceed on the Property under AB 2011 is misplaced. Again, State Planning and Zoning Law requires a housing element to provide a housing inventory with a “realistic and demonstrated” potential for development. (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3).) Assuming that the Sea Bowl Property could be developed under AB 2011 is simply unrealistic. Accordingly, the Housing Element cannot assume that the Sea Bowl Property can be developed with residential uses under both AB 2011 and the commercial General Plan designation and zoning.
To the contrary, Toll Brothers has presented a shovel-ready, financeable project that will provide the number of affordable ADUs as the City sees in an average year. Moreover, the Toll Brothers Project will result in the City achieving significant progress toward meeting its RHNA requirements. Any plans to develop the Property with residential uses will require appropriate General Plan and zoning designations that permit such uses at the up to 30 dwelling unit per acre density identified above.
Conclusion
While we appreciate the City’s inclusion of the Property in its Draft Housing Element Update Sites Inventory, the Housing Element Update’s assumptions for how the Property could be developed are not achievable. As explained above, Toll Brothers has proposed its own mixedincome project for the Property with 115 total units. This would require a reduction in the density that the Property can accommodate. Additionally, the Housing Element Update’s assumption that a housing development project could proceed on the Property under AB 2011 is
5.i
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption)
5.i
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption)
5.i
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) 425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415 227 0900 Phone
415 227 0770 Fax
BN 78961796v4
415 227 3508 Direct
aguerra@buchalte r com
File No : T5162-0044
October 13, 2023
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Christian Murdock
Planning Director
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr.
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: The Sea Bowl Project
Dear Christian:
As you know, Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents Toll Brothers with its proposal to develop a residential townhome project on property located at 4625 Coast Highway in the City of Pacifica (the “City”) (APN: 022-150-440) (the “Property”). Toll Brothers is proposing to demolish the existing Sea Bowl bowling alley on the Property and to develop it with 79 townhome style units, 24 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), and 14 duet-style units, along with 186 resident parking spaces and 22 guest parking spaces (the “Project”). The 24 ADUs will be deed-restricted as rentals for lower income households. As you know, Toll Brothers filed with the City an SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Project on September 11, 2023.
We were initially encouraged to see that staff previously included the Property in the Sites Inventory of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (the “Draft Housing Element”). As you know, the Sites Inventory originally identified the site as suitable for accommodating 219 lower-income units. (Draft Housing Element, p. 12.) Although the City was required to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) by January 31, 2023, we understand that the City did not submit its Draft Housing Element to HCD until May 10, 2023. In any case, we understand that HCD rejected the City’s Draft Housing Element on August 8 because the City’s Housing Element did not comply with State Housing Element Law (“HCD August 8 Letter”). HCD noted in an Appendix to its August 8 Letter that, among other things, the Draft Housing Element failed to adequately analyze the realistic development of projects; failed to justify the use of AB 2011 to develop dense housing projects on commercial property; and failed to analyze the likelihood that identified sites
5.i
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) Christian Murdock
October 13, 2023
BN 78961796v4
in nonresidential zones will be developed with housing. HCD’s findings echoed many of the challenges that we documented regarding the Housing Element in our earlier correspondence with the City.
We understand that on September 25, 2023, the City Council and Planning Commission met to consider and provide direction on the next iteration of the City’s Housing Element.
Unfortunately, the City Council and Planning Commission voted to remove the Property entirely from the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory. The City Council and Planning Commission’s determination conflicts with HCD’s recommendation to the City to “analyze projects including information on typical densities on all recent and pipeline projects. (August 8 HCD Letter, append., p. 2.)
We recognize that some people would rather not see residential development on the Property, but that is contrary to the City’s obligations to provide more housing as a matter of state law. Toll Brothers proposed a shovel-ready development project that will provide 117 housing units, 24 of which will be deed restricted as affordable for lower-income households. If approved, the Project would account for more than 6% of the City’s total Regional Needs Housing Allocation (“RHNA”) requirement.1
As we have explained in our prior correspondence, State Planning and Zoning Law requires housing elements to provide an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development” that have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need.” (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3) (emphasis added).) To that end, Toll Brothers has submitted to the City a realistic housing proposal for the development of over 100 dwelling units on the Property, and City officials have ignored that proposal for a short-sighted effort to force a property owner to maintain recreational uses on his property without any evidence that such a use is even feasible.
1 The City is required to accommodate 1,892 units pursuant to its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. (Draft Housing Element, p. 7.) The 117 units Toll Brothers has proposed in this Project amounts to approximately 6.2% of this total requirement.
5.i
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) Christian Murdock
October 13, 2023
BN 78961796v4
We respectfully request that the City add the Sea Bowl Property back into the Housing Element Sites Inventory. In doing so, the City should update the Sites Inventory such that it reflects a realistic density potential of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.
Thank you for your attention to these comments and please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Alicia Guerra
AG:vs
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Kevin Woodhouse
Nick Kosla
Alli Sweeney
5.i
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cassie Leonardi < >
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 11:06 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Housing Element Negative Declaration
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
My name is Cassie Leonardi, citizen of Pacifica. I am reaching out today to voice concern regarding city efforts to file a negative declaration for the housing element. The addition of 1800 units to Pacifica, deserves proper evaluation.
Personally, I am worried about the impact to traffic and fire safety, should an evacuation ever occur. As a resident of the back of the valley, fire danger is extremely high and the residents back here only have two roads to exit. Adding more units to this area and to other fire sensitive neighborhoods in Pacifica puts citizens at risk. An EIR is an essential part of development and not a step that should be bypassed.
Thank you,
Cassie
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.i
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption) 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cindy Abbott
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 1:24 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Public Comment: Housing Element Negative Declaration [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City of Pacifica City Council and staff:
I'm writing to express my concern with the ongoing disregard of CEQA regulations proposed by city staff by proposing a Negative Declaration.
The Housing Element proposes a significant increase in development in the City of Pacifica, an area that is surrounded by sensitive areas both from a human, wildlife and hazard perspective. Taking a detour from sound and thorough planning should be a concern for all.
The cumulative impact of the additional buildings should warrant a thorough review of impacts and potential mitigation efforts.
Not doing so disregards already existing transit concerns, and will increase Vehicle Miles Traveled and resulting air quality/climate change impacts.
Staff has indicated "no impact" to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. How can adding close to 2000 units to a community with literally no public transit have no impact?
As we continue to encroach on the urban edge of wildlife habitat and the coast, with the community already expressing concerns about wildlife who have been pushed into built areas, we should be open and willing to do more than is required to protect all species and our environment. Staff has again disappointingly indicated "no impact" to biological resources.
A thorough review of hazard zones including landslides, flooding, drainage, fire and erosion is the prudent course for future generations and city sustainability.
Instead the City has checked the box of "no impact" including potentially placing city residents and visitors at risk due to limited evacuation routes.
And again, another "no impact" to issues with water runoff without conducting any thorough review.
Please take a more proactive approach and require a full CEQA review. Current and future generations are counting on you.
Cindy Abbott
Pacifica, 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.
5.i
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments on IS/ND (5559 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adoption)