1 From: Adrianne Carr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 5:00 PM
To: Vaterlaus, Sue; Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Boles, Christine Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin; Public Comment
Subject: Comment on LCLUP - for next City Council meeting on this topic (assumed October 28) Attachments: NCCWD_to_City_RE_LCLUP_Oct_21_2024.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
Please see attached letter.
Very best regards,
Adrianne
Adrianne Carr, Ph.D.
General Manager
North Coast County Water District
80 Eureka Dr., Suite #219
Pacifica, CA 94044
Tel: (650) 355-3462
Fax: (650) 355-0735
On the web at www.nccwd.com
[email protected]
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.
Submitted Via Email to City of Pacifica
October 11, 2024
Comments from NCCWD to City on LCLUP sections and policies Section 2.5 Development Capacity and Adequacy of Public Services Modify Policy LD-I-28 (suggest to add red text)
Public Service Priorities. Ensure that existing and planned public works facilities accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted by the buildout allowances of this Land Use Plan or by the General Plan to serve the City’s non-coastal zone areas. Plan for the maintenance, operation, expansion and improvement to public works facilities considering threats from coastal hazards, and avoid locating new or expanded public service facilities in the Coastal Vulnerability Zone unless no feasible alternative exists. Support studies that evaluate the condition of critical infrastructure and critical facilities, especially public works infrastructure that has been identified as vulnerable to hazards, including water storage and transmission facilities and wastewater treatment and transmission facilities.. Studies shall include alternatives analyses for potential retrofit, improvements, relocation, or other considerations.
Modify Policy LD-I-29 Water Supply. Support North Coast County Water District in its efforts to develop sustainable, drought-proof local supplies. Support the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency in advocating for reliable and fairly priced water from the San Francisco regional water system.
ADD Policy to this section:
Critical Infrastructure Improvements: Allow system improvements to occur to address health and safety needs such as replacing aging infrastructure, ensuring sufficient water capacity for fire flow, and improving system capacity to prevent sewer overflows.
Section 5.2 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
• NH-I-15 Water Tank Rupture
o We have no tanks in the coastal zone. Please remove this policy from the LCLUP.
Section 5.3 Flooding
Modify Policy NH-I-30 Critical Facilities Location. Site critical public facilities including hospital and healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and fire stations, and emergency communications facilities outside of the tsunami evacuation zone, 100-year flood plains, and Submitted Via Email to City of Pacifica
October 11, 2024
other portions of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone over the anticipated life of the development, unless no feasible alternative location is available.
Section 5.4 Fire Hazards
Modify Policy NH-I-32 Adequate Peak Load Water Supply Fire Flow and Fire Flow Upgrades.
Work with the North Coast County Water District and the North County Fire Authority to maintain and establish priorities for upgrading fire flow capabilities in neighborhoods that may have inadequate fire flows. Work with NCCWD to maintain adequate water supply for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by the North County Fire Authority.
Section 6.5 Coastal Resilience Policies
Modify Policy CR-I-2
CR-I-2: Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones – should include a carve out for under part “e” related to a policy pointing to using protection devices to protect Critical Infrastructure. “e. To assure stability and structural integrity without reliance on shoreline protection devices, except as provided in CR-I-38, CR-I-39, and CR-I-40 and for critical facilities that are allowed to be protected on a temporary basis as described in CR-I-32A.” Modify Policy CR-I-9
“Hazard Prone Infrastructure. Hazard prone critical infrastructure will be preserved, protected, or relocated to maintain critical services and protect coastal resources, including if required by prior permit conditions and/or legal obligations pursuant to the California Coastal Act.” Modify Policy CR-I-20
Add to last line, similarly to CR-I-2:
“…. However, behind Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas development may consider CR-I-38, CR-I-39, and CR-I-41, and critical facilities may rely on CR-I-32A.
ADD Policy.
Existing Critical Facilities. Identify existing critical facilities that are vulnerable to shoreline hazards, and establish measures to protect continued function of critical infrastructure, or the basic facilities, service, networks, and systems needed for the functioning of a community, including: a. Developing strategies for tretiring, moving, or replacing infrastructure and public Submitted Via Email to City of Pacifica
October 11, 2024
facilities at risk of damage from shoreline hazards including sea level rise impacts that may occur over the economic life of the structure (at least 150 years for critical facilities); b.
Providing for functional continuity of the critical services provided by infrastructure at risk from shoreline hazards and extreme weather events; and c. Providing for the use of protective devices, if necessary to ensure the continuation of needed services, as a temporary option while longerterm strategies are identified and implemented.
Section 6.7 New Shoreline Development Standard Policies Modify Policy CR-I-32
New Shoreline Protection Structures. Shoreline protection structures, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, deep piers and caissons, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall only be permitted if consistent Section 30235 of the Coastal Act, and only when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or protect existing structures (including existing public roads, water infrastructure, and sewer lines if necessary) or public beaches in danger from coastal hazards, when there is no less environmentally damaging feasible alternative and when designed to avoid, and where unavoidable, minimize to the maximum extent feasible adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply and other coastal resources, where unavoidable coastal resource impacts are required to be commensurately mitigated.
ADD Policy – Hypothetical CR-I-32A (referred to earlier).
Protection for Critical Facilities. Notwithstanding the shoreline protective device limitations of Policy CR-I-32, shoreline protective devices may be permitted to protect critical public infrastructure and facilities that may require shoreline protective devices or other shoreline hazard adaptation measures in order to continue providing needed services to the community.
Such protection shall be permitted on a temporary basis only, with required check-ins and trigger points to determine when it is feasible to relocate such critical infrastructure inland and away from shoreline hazard risks in the future. As a CDP condition, a long-term adaptation plan that identifies relocation options shall be required.
1 From: Samuel Casillas <s >
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:18 AM
To: Public Comment; Boles, Christine; Vaterlaus, Sue; Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas
Cc: Honey, Julian@Coastal; Ringuette, Oceane@Coastal; Rexing, Stephanie@Coastal Subject: October 28, 2024 City Council Meeting: Continuation of Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications.
Attachments: LCLUP city council CEQA fatal flaws comments casillas 10 28 24.docx; LCLUP city council CEQA fatal flaws comments casillas 6 26 24.docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council Members,
Please see attached comments for the 10/28/24 meeting discussing the LCLUP. It should be noted that it was recently discovered that the Pedro Point Field & Wetland at 315 San Pedro Ave was formerly utilized by the city as a sewage disposal site with a retention basin. This is disturbing information that was never disclosed and never documented as remediated; my comments detail the scope of the omission.
Regards,
Sam Casillas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Pacifica City Council
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
CC: California Coastal Commission Staff
Date: October 28, 2024
Subject: October 28, 2024 City Council Meeting: Continuation of Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications.
Dear City Council:
The current draft of Pacifica’s Proposed LCLUP is fatally flawed and requires multiple changes due to the current draft’s CEQA and Coastal Act violations. These fatal flaws would require the full revision of Pacifica’s 2040 General Plan as it will not align with the LCLUP once the CEQA and Coastal Act (CA) violations are rectified. These issues have not been addressed after multiple comment letters from the Pedro Point Community Association and me. Most recently these comments were submitted at the 6/24/24, 8/12/24 and 9/17/24 meetings (please see attachments for 6/24/24 letter).
NOTE: In the draft LCLUP the site defined as “The Undeveloped San Pedro Site” is more accurately referred to in this comment letter as “The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site” at 315 San Pero Ave.
In addition to previous comments from the Pedro Point Community Association, multiple experts and concerned citizen comments it has been recently discovered that The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site previously served as a sewage retention basin/pond for the Linda Mar Valley and the Pedro Point neighborhood. Historical documented pictures from circa 1950s clearly show The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site with a constructed retention basin (see exhibit A). USGS maps from 1956, 1968 and 1980 clearly show the field labeled as “sewage disposal” (See Exhibit B, C and D). We are skeptical that the city never had this information and demand that the city search all historical documentation of how this information was omitted as a remediation plan would have been necessary and housing construction on sewage retention ponds is not allowed under CEQA and California municipal codes strictly prohibit building on former sewage retention basins. Based on this omission the City of Pacifica also needs to search documentation of other sewage retention ponds that were potentially omitted in the Rockaway Quarry and Linda Mar Valley so we can have full disclosure of sewage disposal sites that have been omitted. As part of the CEQA review, the city must test the site for contamination and include a remediation plan before changing any land use designation while prohibiting construction that can become a public nuisance.
Also, The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site at 315 San Pero Ave. has recently been put on the market and the realtor environmental risk disclosers state that the environmental risk for flooding is “SEVERE” (see exhibit E) If the realtors own disclosers state that the flooding risk in this property is severe why would the city consider a change in land use designation to residential? A home adjacent to the site at 312 Kent has also been recently put up for sale and its environmental risk assessment is even more disturbing; it states that the flood severity is a 7 out of 10 and that flood insurance will be necessary (see exhibit F). Again I ask if these realtor sites are disclosing severe flood hazard risk what has led to the city into thinking this is a great place for residential development? Of the many prior violations we have voiced and not addressed I would like to highlight the following:
1. CEQA Guidelines, Section15125(a)(3) explicitly prohibits use of future plans and permits as the baseline and the two preceding sections (a) (2) and (a) 1 clarify the correct baseline conditions should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. There are at least three violations of this guideline where re-zoning and updated Land Use Designations have not considered “baseline conditions”. These identified parcels in the CZ are the sites known as the Rockaway Quarry where Planned Development is being considered, Aramai Point where commercial is being considered and the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site where residential is being considered. The city ignored flooding and groundwater data on all three sites but especially the flooding data in the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site (see exhibit A and C in 6/26/24 Casillas comment letter). With the city is in violation of this CEQA guideline in these three sites then where else has the city violated CEQA section 15125?
2. Staff is conflating land use plan designations in the LCLUP to requirements for project permit-level environmental review. Inherently, projects are speculative and planning around a speculative project is circuitous and prejudicial. It assumes impacts caused by a project will be feasible to mitigate, which is the reverse of mitigation sequencing to first avoid, then minimize, and as a last resort compensate for unavoidable impacts; in other words the city is setting itself up for a taking. The LCP land use designation that is supposed to build in the avoidance of avoidable impacts like placing incompatible residential development in flood-prone hazard zones that are also vulnerable to the escalating risk and conflict forced by SLR and potentially contain ESHA with protected species highlight the violations to both CEQA and the Coastal Act. These violations are not just present in the Quarry, Aramai Point and The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site at 315 San Pero Ave, but also nullify any changes to the general plan outside of the Coastal Zone due to the inherit conflicts that must be rectified prior the 2040 general plan’s implementation.
3. Coastal Act (CA) Section 30240(a): ESHA must be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed. The city has not fully mapped all ESHA in the CZ and has data in one specific area known as the “undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site” from the Coastal Commission biologist (exhibit B in 6/26/24 Casillas comment letter) showing adjacent ESHA with a protected species (The California Red Leg Frog). By not acknowledging this ESHA what other ESHA sites has the city ignored? The city is also required to standardize ESHA buffer zones.
4. CA (Sections 30121, 30230, 30231 and 30233) and California Code of Regulations section 13577 require wetland sites to be identified, designated AND restored as wetlands based on the latest available data including ground water data (see exhibit C in Casillas 6/26/24 comment letter).
5. The city is also required under SB379 to utilize/restore identified appropriate sites to employ as nature-based solutions for climate resiliency, yet the city is again deferring the selection of SB379 sites without explanation. The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site and Quarry sites should be recorded as SB379 sites.
6. The attempt to bypass an LCLUP review through the Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs) and the project specific review of the Quarry are not legal under the Coastal Act. The LCLUP must address these two areas as part of the LCLUP process now and cannot be set aside for future review as an exemption and/or amendment.
7. The city Planning Director also previously stated that the city does not have to conduct a full CEQA compliance review and instead is stating it is the responsibility of the Coastal Commission; in essence admitting that no CEQA review has been conducted. This further invalidates the FEIR until a full review is conducted and invalidates the approval of the FEIR from the City.
In the agenda packet from 9/17/24 starting on page 670 we agree with the comments from the California Coastal Commission staff (CCCS) in that:
The LUP alignment standard needs to have consistency with the Coastal Act rather than the City’s General Plan especially considering the 2040 General Plan is not valid until the LUP has been approved and changes are made in the GP to align with the CCC approved LUP In Chapter 2: Land Use and Development; we agree that land that has not be annexed cannot have a designated land use prior to annexation as a proper use of land outside the boundaries of the city cannot be properly evaluated until it is within city limits and therefore would only be premature and hypothetical.
For Policy ER-I-8 on page 4-12, the City’s needs to include the term “suitable” or “suitability” with respect to the quality of sediment that can be placed on the shoreline and I would like to add that it would also require an EIR to determine if the sediment (sand) if proper for the ecosystem for each beach where it is proposed to be utilized. This policy also needs to be updated to stipulate how the city would be held accountable for sand nourishment in areas with proposed hard armoring which will devastate adjacent beaches.
The City’s attempt to replace the definitions of “easement” and “special status species” with entirely new definitions is alarming.
Easement: An Easement is not necessarily “a right given by the owner of land to another party”. An easement can be a rightful use by another party once that use has been established over 5 years without permission by the owner of that land (Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564, 570-72; Felgenhauer v. Soni (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 445, 449-50). The city neglects to fully address these coastal access easement points throughout the city of Pacifica but most notably in the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site.
I also agree with the CCCS that the new definition of “Special Status Species is particularly concerning as it would not include any listed or candidate animal species under California’s Endangered Species Act” which include multiple protected species including the California Red Leg Frog (CRLF), Western Pond Turtle and potentially others like the Tidewater Goby . This is bold attempt by City Staff to eliminate the protected species from any protection and allow unmitigated development in the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site where the CRLF is present. The CCCS staff goes further to state “Coastal Act Section 30240 protects areas in which plant or animal life are either rare or especially valuable, and this would certainly include species identified under the state Endangered Species Act, and not just the federal Endangered Species Act. Notably, there are numerous species listed under the state act but not the federal act, which demonstrates the need for the LCP to protect habitat of state-listed or state-candidate species. Further, the new definition of “special status species” creates an inconsistency with the description of this same term in Chapter 4 (see page 4-23).” Notably the City is trying to eliminate the inclusion of the CRLF as a protected species which is present in The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site and Quarry site and other potential sites yet to be determined due to the City’s negligent behavior to recognize the CRLF in sites known to have CRLF habitat like The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site which was previously identified by CCCS biologist L. Garske-Garcia (CDP application 2-19-0026 F13a exhibit 11). As noted by CCCS this is a violation of Coastal Act Section 30240.
Although I am in agreement with the CCCS Regarding Policies ER-I-1 and ER-I-24, creek and ESHA buffer zones need to be maximized for the requirements of ESHA and also for protected species habitat. A reduction below 50 feet is not adequate for the CRLF and in fact CCCS biologist L. Garske-Garcia (CDP application 2-19-0026 F13a exhibit 11) cites a need for a 300 foot buffer for CRLF habitat in accordance with USFWS recommendations. Additionally, a noted in my comment letter from 6/26/24 the city is actually setting itself up for a taking by changing the LUD in the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site to residential when it more closely matches “Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial” (LIVC) or “Conservation” (C) and considering the CEQA and Coastal Act violations noted above makes a change to residential negligent on the City’s part.
I am also alarmed as the CCCS is with their concern with Chapter 4 which is lacking a policy that addresses wetland buffer requirements and should be a minimum of 100 feet. Such a policy is necessary for compliance with the Coastal Act. Within Policies ER-I-1 and ER-I-24 The City also attempts to freeze out the CCC from conducting their own biology reviews and instead wants to only defer biology reviews by the City, USFWS, and CDFW. I am aware that these agencies often defer to the biology report from the developer which by definition is biased. Trying to eliminate the CCC from biology reviews would only benefit the developer at the expense of ESHA and protected species as it would eliminate biology reports similar to the above referenced biology report from L. Garske-Garcia for CDP application 2-19- 0026 which determined the adjacent waterway to the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site to contain both ESHA and CRLF habitat.
The CCCS recommended policy needs to include “the 100-foot buffer may also be expanded as needed to account for feeding, breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements”.
We request additional changes to comments from CCC addressing:
For Policy LD-I-20 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site (AKA, Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site) on page 2-31 in Chapter 2: although I agree with CCCS recommendations based on their concerns about the sensitivity of the site and to appropriately plan for this site to avoid and protect coastal resources. If the City is intending to allow any development it, at best, would only allow LIVC and considering the owner had prior knowledge to the hazard constraints prior to purchasing the property Conservation would be appropriate and not a taking, but LIVC development would be “reduced as necessary to account for coastal resource protections”. As noted previously, the City’s attempt of a zoning change to any type of residential would set the city up for a taking due to the erroneous zoning change in violation of the Coastal Act and CEQA.
Additionally:
The City continues to use 5.7 feet of sea level rise(SLR) by 2100 while the 2024 State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance stipulate the use of 6.6 feet of sea level rise by 2100. In the interest of utilizing “best available science” this change needs to be incorporated.
Figure 4-1: Hydrology mapping is not utilizing the latest USGS ground water data from the COSMoS data model which shows the Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site and the Quarry with shallow water tables Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use in the Coastal Zone: The Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site is currently zoned CR; “undeveloped vacant land” is not a valid zoning
Figure 3-2:Parks and Open Space System: Agree that the whole of Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site is a Park Opportunity Site due to present hazards, ESHA, previous wetland designation and the presence of protected species.
Figure 4-3: Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas: Ignores CCC biologist data in Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site for known CRLF habitat and ESHA that needs to be added based on best available science (CDP application 2-19-0026 F13a exhibit 11).
Figure 5-3: Flood Zones: Ignores flood data in Pedro Point Field & Wetland Site from USGS CoSMoS model which is best available science.
The definition for “erosion” needs to include wave and underground water impacts which is directly responsible for the bluff erosion in Pacifica
Also, in the previous LCLUP meeting City staff once again purposely mispresented the vast majority of the concerns from the PPCA and the multiple comment letters from residents of Pedro Point . Our concern has never been to “address the number of residential units” in the Pedro Point Field & Wetland; our concern has always been the suitability of residential zoning in an area with multiple hazards that make it unsuitable for residential development. Furthermore, City Staff has refused to answer community concerns as to how the decision was made to change the zoning from the 1980 LCLUP from Commercial Recreation (CR) to its closest zoning definition in the LUP update to Low Intensity Visitor Commercial (LIVC) or more appropriately, due to the present hazard and ESHA conditions, to designate it Conservation.
Please also see previous attached comment letters from me and the Pedro Point Community Association(PPCA) which include input from CEQA and environmental legal experts that find substantial violations with the Coastal Act and CEQA guidance which have not be addressed.
Regards,
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
Exhibit F: 312 Kent adjacent property to 315 San Pedro Ave realtor disclosures (Zillow Realtor listing on adjacent 312 Kent property; https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/312-Kent-Rd-Pacifica-CA94044/15504828 zpid/) Pacifica City Council
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
CC: California Coastal Commission Staff
Date: June 26, 2024
Subject: June 26, 2024 Special Council meeting: Consideration of a Resolution Certifying the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Dear City Council:
The current draft of Pacifica’s Proposed LCLUP is fatally flawed and requires multiple changes due to the current draft’s CEQA and Coastal Act violations. These fatal flaws would require the full revision of Pacifica’s 2040 General Plan as it will not align with the LCLUP once the CEQA and Coastal Act (CA) violations are rectified.
Staff is conflating land use plan designations in the LCLUP to requirements for project permit-level environmental review. Inherently, projects are speculative and planning around a speculative project is circuitous and prejudicial. It assumes impacts caused by a project will be feasible to mitigate, which is the reverse of mitigation sequencing to first avoid, then minimize, and as a last resort compensate for unavoidable impacts; in other words the city is setting itself up for a taking. The LCP land use designation that is supposed to build in the avoidance of avoidable impacts like placing incompatible residential development in flood-prone hazard zones that are also vulnerable to the escalating risk and conflict forced by SLR and potentially contain ESHA with protected species highlight the violations to both CEQA and the Coastal Act. These violations are not just present in the Quarry, Aramai Point and the Undeveloped San Pedro Ave Site, but also nullify any changes to the general plan outside of the Coastal Zone due to the inherit conflicts that must be rectified prior the 2040 general plan’s implementation.
It is negligence by our elected officials to take direction from outside lobbying groups like SMCAR and SMART Coast so that Pacifica can be used as a test case for CEQA and CA violations to see what they can get away with at the cost of the tax payers of this city.
Also, by not acknowledging that the continued efforts to rebuild the Sharp Park seawall at a cost of over $500 million in order to protect mostly STR properties while devastating Sharp Park Beach in violation of the CA will also bankrupt the city is willful negligence.
The previous planning director constantly stated that the LCLUP has utilized “best available science”, but this is false. The willful disregard of scientific data including the biology report from the CCC biologist for the adjacent ESHA and CRLF habitat (CDP application 2-19-0026) will lead to litigation where the city again will be found liable.
Pacifica’s proposed LCLUP is in violation of:
• Coastal Act (CA) Section 30240(a): ESHA must be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed. The city has not fully mapped all ESHA in the CZ and has data in one specific area known as the “undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site” from the Coastal Commission biologist (exhibit B) showing adjacent ESHA with a protected species (The California Red Leg Frog). By not acknowledging this ESHA what other ESHA sites has the city ignored? The city is also required to standardize ESHA buffer zones. • CA (Sections 30121, 30230, 30231 and 30233) and California Code of Regulations section 13577 require wetland sites to be identified, designated AND restored as wetlands based on the latest available data including ground water data (see exhibit C). • CEQA Guidelines, Section15125(a)(3) explicitly prohibits use of future plans and permits as the baseline and the two preceding sections (a) (2) and (a) 1 clarify the correct baseline conditions should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. There are at least three violations of this guideline where re-zoning and updated Land Use Designations have not considered “baseline conditions”. These identified parcels in the CZ are the sites known as the Rockaway Quarry where Planned Development is being considered, Aramai Point where commercial is being considered and the San Pedro site where residential is being considered. The city ignored flooding and groundwater data on all three sites but especially the flooding data in the San Pedro Ave site (see exhibit A and C). With the city is in violation of this CEQA guideline in these three sites then where else has the city violated CEQA section 15125?
• The city is also ignoring the state guideline recommendation for 6.6 feet of SLR through 2100 from the latest 2024 California Ocean Protection Council Policy Update (California Ocean Protection Council California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update. 2024. California Sea Level Rise Science Task Force, California Ocean Protection Council, California Ocean Science Trust.) • The city is also required under SB379 to utilize/restore identified appropriate sites to employ as nature-based solutions for climate resiliency, yet the city is again deferring the selection of SB379 sites without explanation. The San Pedro and Quarry sites should be recorded as SB379 sites.
The fact that the Pacifica City Staff and council has consistently ignored it owns citizens who present the best available science shows that they are not listening and we will be forced to just wait for the CCC appeal process that is there to uphold the law of the state and perhaps leading to litigation is appalling.
The CCC is there to protect the Public Trust and those living in the Coastal Zone knew where they live are bound by the laws of the Coastal Zone that the majority of the people of California voted for and vilifying the CCC for imaginary property rights is misleading and continues to cause harm to the city.
What is sad is that those who have real fears of losing their homes are not realizing that their anger should be directed at Pacifica’s staff and council for doing the bidding of real estate lobbyists like SMCAR and SMART Coast for developers and not coming up with solutions to help its own citizens with nature based solutions versus hard armoring that will not work. Be honest with Pacificans and help the people who’s homes are vulnerable and not developers for new development that further puts us in danger.
In the Staff report for LD-I-20: Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site: CCC staff recommends keeping their original suggested modification from March 2023 that states “some low density” instead of the staff drafted alternative modification that proposed a specific density range. Staff strongly believes that a specified density is necessary to address community concerns regarding potential future development of the site and to assure that the City’s internal land use documents, e.g. General Plan, and LUP are consistent with regard to density designations.---Once again the city is misrepresenting what the community “concerns” are about. The Pedro Point Community Association and the vast majority of the feedback the city has received from individuals on this parcel clearly state that the “concerns” are that residential should not be considered at all at this due to the present hazards, ESHA and protected species. The further concerns are that how the city came to the conclusion that residential is a good idea when the present conditions clearly point to a Conservation (C) LUD/zoning.
The violations to the Coastal Act, CEQA and California Code of Regulations renders the whole of the LCLUP and potentially the whole 2040 GP fatally flawed and would require a new EIR and considerable revisions to both the LCLUP and the required alignment with the 2040 GP. The city needs to stop hiding behind blaming the CCC and be accountable for following the law which is the Coastal Act and quit pretending the CCC is some out of control bureaucratic entity; The Coastal act has been law since 1979 and the citizens of Pacifica need to be educated instead the hostile environment this staff and council created which has mis-informed its residents and continued blaming the CCC for the city’s continued poor planning which only moves from one emergency evacuation to another without future planning that helps all of us. The staff and council always talk about this great relationship it has cultivated with the CCC, but in action it has never actually been there and is revisionist history that is why we are still working on this LCLUP for over 10 years and still are nowhere closer to resolution of a plan that is from 1980.
Noting that on multiple occasions the CCC Staff has requested additional data due to the extensive changes to the 1980 LCP for specific sites, including the Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site and the Quarry from the City of Pacifica and that multiple concerned citizens and community organizations have provided the latest environmental hazards and biology reports including those from USGS and the CCC itself, none-the-less the city continues to disregard this data. By ignoring the presented hazard and environmental restraints data for these undeveloped sites, including flooding (which includes the annual formation of a lake on the San Pedro Ave site (see exhibit A), ground water hazards, erosion, soil stability and SLR, liquefaction, tsunami danger, federally designated wetlands, as well as ESHA and protected species habitat the city is in violation of multiple CEQA and state laws. The city instead continues to attempt to change these property’s LUDs to residential and planned development although all scientific data dictates they should be designated Conservation. The City’s DRAFT Local Coastal Land Use Plan’s “Environmental and Scenic Resources” and “Natural Hazards” chapters ignore all this data for these sites and also ignores the erosion data for the area known as Aramai Point which invalidates the Land Use Designations (LUD) for these areas and may jeopardize the whole 2040 GP with these willfully misinformed policies.
On the San Pedro site the CCC has already determined “this undeveloped site is known to contain wetlands and ESHA supporting California Red Legged Frog habitat, and the presence of such coastal ecological resources could significantly constrain the development potential of this site.” (see exhibit B).
By not acknowledging the ESHA it is a violation of Coastal Act (CA) Section 30240. The latest hydrology data from USGS also shows the groundwater hazard at both the Quarry and San Pedro sites with a very shallow water table (see exhibit C). The city is required to use the latest data available for the GPU and its EIR. The CA (Section 30121) and California Code of Regulations section 13577 would require these two sites to be designated wetlands as “lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically…with shallow water <and> Areas where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface at some time during each year may be identified as wetlands.” This is also required in CA sections 30230, 30231 and 30233. Since the city has chosen not to utilize this data it is in violation of CEQA and other state laws and therefore may invalidate the whole 2040 GP.
CEQA Guidelines, Section15125(a)(3) explicitly prohibits use of future plans and permits as the baseline and the two preceding sections (a) (2) and (a) 1 clarify the correct baseline conditions should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.
Due to the violation of this CEQA guideline the current DRAFT LUD/LCLUP is in violation of CEQA. The city is aware that it should be using existing conditions to determine the new LUDs, which would heavily favor Conservation. Section 15125 backs this view and "ensuring all biological constraints are considered" is not adequately addressed as existing conditions in the Quarry (See exhibit D for Western Pond turtle), Aramai Point and the Pedro Point site would dictate otherwise and this potentially applies to the whole of the 2040 GP and its associated FEIR. Additionally, as policy the city’s GP/LCP/EIR erroneously allows a deferred analysis as “site-specific as part of proposed development review” for hazards and biological studies to be done at the time a project is proposed. The city has chosen to defer biologic and hazard analysis as policy throughout the LCLUP and the 2040 GP which potentially invalidates the whole of the 2040 GP update where the city has chosen to change LUD/zoning from the 1980 GP/LCLUP. The city is advised that this policy is in violation of CEQA and may end up invalidating the whole 2040 GPU. By changing LUDs without proper CEQA/CA review the city is also purposely setting itself up for a “taking” of private land and would therefore violate its fiduciary duty to protect the city from potential liability.
Also, the city’s Sea Level Rise risk assessment to the year 2050 is inadequate due to the lack of acknowledging scientific data that we should be planning for a 100-year time horizon as dictated by design life policies.
The Coastal Act dictates how to manage development with coastal resources and public access guarantees across a physically dynamic environment. It is also the ultimate intent of the CCC to safeguard the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources that are of paramount concern to present and future residents of the state, along with the necessity of protecting the ecological balance of the Coastal Zone by preventing its deterioration and destruction. Exempting the Coastal Act with the proposed SSRAs removes a substantial law that gives the CCC the ability to mitigate impacts to public access guarantees, lower-cost recreation opportunities, critical habitats such as wetlands, and sea level rise preparedness efforts. Simply because an area is being proposed for residential zoning does not mean that the zoned parcel is devoid of natural resources or public access opportunities that the city and CCC must consider prior to changing of zoning. It also does not mean that such a zoning change may avoid the impacts of climate change such as the inevitable rise in sea levels. After all, the Coastal Act purports that sound and timely scientific recommendations are necessary for coastal planning and development decisions and that the CCC should, in addition to its own expertise in significant applicable fields of science, interact with members of the scientific and academic communities, especially with regard to issues such as the cumulative impact of Coastal Zone development. By essentially exempting the Coastal Act through SSRAs it fails to give the public the legally mandated opportunity to utilize scientific information to analyze the potential cumulative impacts that future and additional Coastal Zone developments pose.
Pacifica’s LCLUP and related CEQA review is fatally flawed and requires a full re-draft due to the current draft’s CEQA and Coastal Act violations. These errors need to consider the impact of building seawalls that will lead to erosion to the adjacent non-hardened bluffs beyond these seawalls as well as the effect seawalls will have on beaches north and south of these seawalls and any environmental degradation seawalls will cause. The piecemeal placement of seawalls will cause significant damage to the adjacent beaches and bluff areas do not have hard armoring. The degradation of coastal environmental and recreational assets along the coast is a violation of both CEQA and Coastal Act and these violations need to fully reviewed and rectified before this seawall plan can continue.
The proposed LCLUP are in violation of the Coastal Act including:
• The violation of CEQA Section 21081. Where by its implementation the monitoring program for hard armoring is moot because the seawalls themselves cannot avoid significant effects on the environment.
• Coastal Act (CA) Section 30240(a): ESHA must be protected against any significant disruption of valuable habitat, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed. The LCLUP has not fully mapped ESHA in this area of the CZ, including in the Undeveloped San Pedro Site. The city is also required to standardize ESHA buffer zones along the beach/bluff interface which has not occurred.
The city is also ignoring groundwater data at this site that could show soil degradation in along Pacifica’s coast. The latest hydrology data from USGS shows the groundwater hazard through its coSmoS database that would create an erosion hazard and become a public nuisance.
The violations to the Coastal Act, CEQA and California Code of Regulations renders the whole of the LCLUP invalid and would require a new EIR and considerable revisions to the LCLUP and the 2040 GP.
By ignoring the potential hazard and environmental restraints data in the LCLUP including ground water hazards, erosion, soil stability, SLR and potential protected species habitat the city is in violation of multiple CEQA and state laws, including the Coastal Act.
Please also see comments previously submitted by the Pedro Point Community Association (PPCA) which include input from CEQA and environmental legal experts.
Regards,
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
Exhibit A: consistent flooding of Undeveloped San Pedro Ave Site Pedro Point Field flooding Oct 24th, 2021
Exhibit B: CCC Biologist Report findings at San Pedro Ave site with ESHA and protected species Exhibit C: Hydrology and Ground modeling by USGS OCOF CoSMoS Exhibit D: Documented sighting of Western Pond Turtle by private citizen (to be listed by USFWS for protected status)
1 From: Beckmeyer, Sue
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 2:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: I support Coastal Commission Staff Modifications From: serge de grandpre < >
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 8:32:06 AM
To: _City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: I support Coastal Commission Staff Modifications [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica City Council,
I am writing in opposition to the City of Pacifica’s Land Use Plan update, which is over reliant on seawalls. Seawalls make erosion worse. They fix the back of the beach as seas rise and threaten to drown our beaches.The City should accept Coastal Commission staff’s original suggested modifications to the LUP Update from March 2023, which will address the long-term impacts of sea level rise in a manner more protective of our public beaches, bluffs and waves. I support more effective adaptation alternatives consistent with California Coastal Commission recommendations and the Coastal Act, which include community-led relocation of infrastructure, implementation of living shorelines and avoidance of hard armoring.
I oppose the City’s suggested “Alternative Adaptation Strategies” and “Special Resiliency Areas.” The proposed alternative policies would provide a carve out from state law, the California Coastal Act, that otherwise prohibits seawalls for new development built after 1976. This is a well established policy that has protected the coast from beach destroying seawalls for nearly half a century. Not only is this proposed carveout unlawful, it condemns our beaches and waves to drown for private benefit. The City’s proposed mitigation is NOT adequate. We must not sacrifice our beaches at Rockaway and Sharp Park for promises of “improved amenities” - what good are amenities if there is no beach left to access?
As a local beachgoer, I support long-term solutions that benefit my right to beach access, protect coastal resources and habitats, and preserve the coast from rising seas as required by the California Coastal Act. The City’s current proposal will instead erode our beaches over time and make access impossible. The plan could be devastating for popular surf and recreational beaches such as Linda Mar, Rockaway and Sharp Park Beach. By failing to consider alternatives, it also dooms the beaches fronting Beach Boulevard, Esplanade and Palmetto to permanently drown as seas rise.
One third of the City’s six miles of coast are already armored. More coastal armoring will fundamentally alter our remaining waves and beaches by exacerbating beach erosion and eventually drowning our beaches and waves.
I urge the City of Pacifica to accept the entirety of Coastal Commission staff’s suggested modifications to protect our public resources and preserve our precious coast.
2 Sincerely,
serge de grandpre
san carlos, CA 94070
United States
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.