ATT M_Public Comment Received From 2025-10-01 through 2025-11-26

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: 570 Crespi wetland, PC meeting Oct 6
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 11:40:11 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
For the sake of one or two condominiums, Pacifica may choose to sacrifice the last acre of Lake Mathilda, one of our two major wetlands. What’s left of Mathilda’s original 18 acres is now penned in on three sides by development. If the 570 project moves forward as is, there will be a retaining wall essentially butted up against the fourth side of this wetland, leaving no room for Mathilda to breathe, i.e., no buffer zone.

The buffer zone protects the integrity of a wetland. With no buffer zone Mathilda will likely disappear. While the general rule for wetlands is to leave a 50’ to 100’ buffer zone (see Pacifica’s own LCLUP), neither the stated owners (who don’t even own the property yet) nor the city (which does) acknowledge the necessity of any buffer zone.

A very small 17’ buffer zone can easily be realized by removing one condo - or much better, a 34’ buffer zone by removing two condos. A wider buffer allows for ground water rise due to sea level rise in the future.

It is irresponsible to plan for construction and base the disregard for a buffer on the presence or absence of endangered species. The reality is that during the WWEB construction ground water was being pumped. Pumping and construction virtually assured that for the two years of observation there would be no California Red Legged Frogs in the area. But there are limitations to basing decisions only on the presence or absence of endangered species.

The resident chorus frogs are not a threatened species, therefore no need to worry about their home, even if Mathilda disappears. This kind of reasoning is what has led to the disappearance of 95% of these very special wetland ecosystems in California.

Commissioners, please consider a small compromise that would give Mathilda a chance to survive. Remove one to two condos from the stated plan and include a buffer. Protecting what’s left of our historic ecosystems is at least as important as increasing the size of our city.

Thank you,
Stan Zeavin
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.

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: 570 Crespi - PC Public Hearing October 6
Date: Saturday, October 4, 2025 1:28:51 PM
Attachments: Mathilde EIR commentmg 20250915.docx
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
What do you value about the history of Pacifica? What do you value about the environment of Pacifica? What do you consider to be your responsibility to preserve or protect either the environment or the history of our very unique town?
The value of wetlands was not understood in the 1900s or the 1950s or when the AT&T building and parking lots were built or even the Crespi Center. However, we now know how the many different kinds of wetlands function to benefit the entire healthy environment. There are now agencies that safeguard their health and work to preserve their essential functions. We can no longer claim ignorance.

Sadly, the City of Pacifica has ignored the essential functions of the Mathilde Wetland, excluding it from the General Plan definition of wetlands. Focused on creeks and beaches we, myself included, missed that exclusion. Now, it is not too late to reconsider the broader importance of wetlands to more than just species threatened with extinction.

The 570 project as presently configured will turn the Mathilde Wetland into a private backyard. The project will ERASE HISTORY and permit the death by a thousand cuts to this last remnant of the original 18 acre lagoon.

Your choice is to honor our history or erase it permanently.

Thank you for your consideration,
Margaret Goodale
48 year resident
San Pedro Valley
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.

From: Peter Loeb
To: Public Comment
Subject: comment re: 570 Crespi Drive
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 6:21:53 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
To: Pacifica Planning Commission
Date: October 6, 2025
Re: Agenda item 1, 570 Crespi Drive, meeting of October 6, 2025 The 570 Crespi project should include a 50 foot setback from the wetland. To quote from the Green Foothills letter:
“The construction appears to lead directly up to the boundary of the emergent wetland with a wood deck and concrete pathway brushing the border. Pacifica’s LCLUP, recently approved by the California Coastal Commission in April of 2025, sets up an implementation guideline of a 100-foot buffer around environmentally sensitive habitats and wetlands, which is not to be reduced to less than 50 feet. While this location sits outside of the coastal zone, as a document that is meant to guide decisions the LCLUP gives the city a good set of baseline policies to follow throughout Pacifica. “Figure 3-13 from the Project Description provides a closeup depiction of what the boundaries will look like between the construction in the northern portion versus the wetlands in the southern part. The figure clearly depicts the wetland delineation line overlapping with Building C, and fails to incorporate an appropriate buffer in other locations of the project design. This would go against general practice that other cities take around their wetlands, and Pacifica’s own LCLUP. Buffer zones help mitigate issues around flooding that can be common when building around wetlands, something that infrastructure surrounding 570 Crespi Dr have already experienced.” [Emphasis added.] Looking at the site plan in the agenda packet, building construction clearly goes right up to, and into, the wetland delineation.

Not only is it a zero setback, it’s a minus zero setback. The building construction encroaches into the wetland.

Please include a 50 foot setback of the buildings from the wetland in the project design.

Peter Loeb
Maitland Road
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.

From: Peter Loeb
To: Public Comment
Subject: comment re: 540 Crespi Drive
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 6:21:59 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
To: Pacifica Planning Commission
Re: Agenda Item 1, 540 Crespi Drive, meeting of October 6, 2025 Date: October 6, 2025
I don’t understand how the Pacifica Planning Commission can be considering approving an EIR and recommending a development agreement for a development on land that the applicant does not yet own and that the city of Pacifica is currently negotiating the price and terms of the sale of the land with the applicant. The city via its own Planning Commission is actively considering action on the EIR and the development agreement, while the price and payment terms of the sale of Pacifica city land to the developer are unknown at this time and the agreement is not finalized. This appears to be a conflict of interest – the Planning Commission is considering actions that can also affect the outcome of the negotiations for the sale of the land on which the development is proposed. It’s important that the Commission and the public know the purchase price and payment terms of the completed sale before they can consider the EIR and development agreement for development of the property.

The Pacifica Planning Commission is deliberating on a development while the sale of Pacifica city land for the development is still in process. The plan may need to be modified before it is final. The right way to do this - the horse before the cart - is to complete the sale of the land, then finalize the development plan and the approvals.

This is procedurally backwards. Complete the sale of the city land to the developer, then the city’s Planning Commission and City Council can deliberate about the EIR, rezoning, text amendment, and development agreement about that land that has been sold.

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: 570 Crespi - Planning Commission - Oct. 6
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:16:22 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Commissioners,
Please postpone discussing approval of the 570 development until AFTER the unresolved issue of sale of the 540 Crespi public land parcel is completed. The public is entitled to know the worth of our public lands.

The second unresolved issue is that the project as currently presented for approval does not meet the accepted guidelines for wetland buffers.

Both these issues must be resolved BEFOR approval of this development can be validly discussed.

Thank you,
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.

From: Claudia de Luna
To: Public Comment; [email protected]; [email protected]; Claudia de Luna Subject: One Small Change, A Wetland Saved (570 Crespi development) Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:39:18 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Pacifica risks destroying the last acre of Lake Mathilda, one of its two remaining major wetlands, for the sake of one or two condos. Of the original 18 acres, only a fragment remains, now surrounded on three sides by development. The 570 project would add a retaining wall along the fourth, leaving no buffer zone for this fragile ecosystem.

A buffer zone of 50–100 feet, as recommended in Pacifica’s own LCLUP, is essential to a wetland’s survival. By removing just one or two condos, a 17–34 foot buffer could be restored—enough to allow for sea-level rise and preserve habitat. It’s shortsighted to dismiss the buffer’s importance based solely on the temporary absence of endangered species.

Please consider this small compromise to give Mathilda a chance to survive. Protecting what remains of our historic wetlands is as vital as any new development.

Thank you,
Claudia de Luna
Pacifica Resident
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.

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: 570 Crespi - PC - Oct 6
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:39:39 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Is it true that the purchase price for the section of 540 Crespi to be incorporated into the 570 development is contingent on the prior approval of the old development plans? If it is, it looks suspiciously as if the developers are willing to negotiate the purchase price only after their original plans are approved.

At best tonight's meeting could be a waste of the city's time and money. At worst it seems that the owners of 570 Crespi are in control of this whole process. Something smells very fishy.

Please do not rule on any part of this issue before ownership of the 540 Crespi segment is decided and the price is made public!
Stan Zeavin
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.

From: Bill
To: Public Comment
Cc: stan zeavin
Subject: Crespi development
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:39:56 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
In behalf of the Pacifica Shorebird Alliance, I oppose the approval of the proposed 570 Crespi development unless reasonable buffers are included to protect the wetland.

A buffer zone between the development and wetlands is essential.

Bill Collins
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.

From: Cindy Abbott
To: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Devine, Daniella; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting, Oct 6, Agenda #1 Protect and Restore the Historic Lake Mathilde Wetlands - Vote NO to Habitat Destruction
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 11:55:04 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Tonight you have the opportunity to protect and restore the last part of the historic Lake Mathilde Wetlands. What was a primary feature of the San Pedro Valley, has been impacted by generations of development.

One portion of this important wetland though remains, the south part of the lot at 570 (and 540) Crespi Drive.

Pacifica's General Plan 2040 clearly reflects the conflict between this project and Pacifica's own policies. The General Plan 2040 -- that several of you just approved and recommended to the Pacifica City Council to also approve -- includes the following:

CO-I-4: Wetland Preservation: Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and California Coastal Act.

CO-I-5: Limitations on Diking, Filling or Dredging: Only permit the diking, filling or dredging of... wetlands... where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.

CO-I-7: Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands: Ensure that any diking, filling or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity.

The project description and drawings reflect the conflict and significant flaw in the project. The condominium units (part of the residential condominium buildout) do NOT leave the southern portion of the project "undisturbed" . There is NO required buffer between the wetlands delineation line and Building C or in other areas of the project design. This is in conflict with general practices in other municipalities, the Pacifica General Plan, AND the also recently approved LCLUP. (Note: We recognize this area is outside of the Coastal Zone, however with both the General Plan and LCLUP policies, the current project conflicts with overall guiding City of Pacifica planning documents.)
Over the years this development has been contemplated, the important wetlands remnant has already suffered from illegal grubbing.

Additionally, the project also removes trees without appropriate replacement and will impact the use of limited public parking spaces, and create traffic safety concerns in an area that is already prone to accidents.

Step back and consider the ramifications on the habitat, risk to the project when rains happen and it floods, and protect the history and preserve the Mathilde wetlands.

Thank you,
Cindy Abbott
West Sharp Park
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.

From: Cherie Chan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 1, 570 Crespi Appeal
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 12:04:33 PM
Attachments: 0 AgendaItem11 Crespi 2022-06-27.pdf
SMCTA SRTS Audit Cabrillo ES Final.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
I write today in support of the appeal of Margaret Goodale, the original appellant. While I understand this application may have been pushed forward illegally and may be subject to a legal or procedural challenge, I am resubmitting my objections, again, along with additional information which demonstrates just how profoundly unsafe a new, highdensity project construction project will be in this area. If the hearing on this issue is held tonight to a future dates, please include these comments, along with their attachments in future packets.

The Report Lacks Data on School Safety
As it is, trucks parked on City land already illegally obstruct safe street crossings (see photo) and put the 600 children of Cabrillo School at risk daily as they attempt to walk and bike to school.

As a condition precedent, before extensive construction occurs, the street in front of and approaching the project must be made safe, as described in Map 3 of the attached Safe Routes to School Reports report, titled “SMCTA SRTS Audit Cabrillo ES_Final.pdf” Any construction must closely abide by, fund, and support the recommendations listed adjacent to the construction site. Otherwise, the builder and the City must be made liable for making an already unsafe situation where children are known to travel even more unsafe.

Biological Reports are Missing
I am reattaching the professional comments of Coastal Biologist Peter Baye and the list of Potential Endangered Species generated by US Fish and Wildlife Service at the project location, as these are missing from the record.
40% of this Property is City Land: No Less than 40% of the Units Must be Affordable.

From what I can tell, 40% of this property actually belonged to the City, but was sold to developers through closed-door interactions.

The availability and affordability of land for development has a significant impact on the supply of affordable housing. The aim of the Surplus Land Act (the "Act") is to increase the availability of real property in California for affordable housing development by requiring the prioritization of affordable housing when selling or leasing public lands no longer necessary for agency use. Government Code § 54220 et seq.

The statute addresses the shortage of sites available for affordable housing development as a matter of statewide concern." Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 683, at 693. In recent years, the applicability and efficacy of the Act, originally enacted in 1968, has been addressed and adjusted through case law and legislative amendments.

Even if a non-profit developer was not interested in taking on this project, probably due to very real hydrological constraints,
In 2014, AB 2135 added Government Code Section 54222.5. Under this provision, when the local agency issues a notice of availability and an interested party responds to develop housing on the site for low- and moderate-income households, at least 25% of the proposed development must be income restricted for lower income households. This bill also added Section 54233, which requires that if the property is not successfully sold or leased during the defined 90-day negotiation process, the land is sold or leased outside of the scope of the Act, and at least 10 residential units are developed on the property, at least 15% of the units must be income restricted for lower income households. In 2019, the Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed the applicability of the Act, holding that the Act applies to both charter and general law cities. Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019).

While recognizing the municipal interest in disposing of surplus government property, the District Court concluded that "the well-documented shortage of sites for low- and moderate-income housing and the regional spillover effects of insufficient housing demonstrate 'extramunicipal concerns' justifying statewide application of the Act's affordable housing priorities.”
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cherie Chan <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:56 AM
Subject: Public comment, June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>, _City Council Group <[email protected]>, Public Comment <[email protected]> Cc: Stan Zeavin <[email protected]>
(Hello! attachment 0, a PDF-formatted copy of this letter, is included here. Attachments 1-4 will be broken out in separate emails to comply with server size limits) Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
Dear Council Members,
I am adding to the letter I submitted to the Planning Commission in support of Margaret Goodale’s appeal on May 9, 2022 at 2:43 PM, and bringing to your attention again for the record. I hope you will take the Appellant’s concerns and those of other concerned citizens seriously.

Summary of Prior Request
In that letter, I made two modest requests which would mitigate some of the already documented and well-known safety concerns at this intersection, and help alleviate a critical shortage of childcare services and youth-oriented recreational opportunities in Pacifica. 1)
Please conduct a detailed, accurate traffic study as it affects a very nearby school with simple recommendations for mitigation, as already submitted by the San Mateo County of Education.
2)
Disclosure of Public Land sales to private developers or an allocation for Affordable Housing consistent with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Affordability Requirements. (Minimum 40%).

Subsequent discussions from the minutes of that meeting support the ability of the City to enforce these suggestions; yet, the above suggestions are unfortunately, not included in the decision before you today.

Evidence of Biological Resources Must Be Considered
You will hear tonight from esteemed local naturalist and long-time Pacifican Margaret Goodale who has filed the appeal of this decision before you. I have very little to add in this regard[5], as she knows more about wetlands and its animals than I could ever absorb.

However, I did note that that the application has submitted new testimony after the Planning Commission Meeting.
[6] Here, the applicant attempts to introduce new evidence from a Madrone Ecological Consulting substantiating the applicant’s original “unconventional” report from Wood Biological Consulting. The consultant honestly and transparently shares that Madrone’s review was only with respect to the riser area in question: the Consultant “did not visit the site or take data of our own to determine the accuracy of the data in the field.”
I am attaching a memorandum from Dr. Peter Baye, a well-known Coastal biologist: we openly and notoriously wander the same paths in Pedro Point and Linda Mar, including this project site. In this memo, Dr. Baye has provided substantial evidence to “correct erroneous biological assessments on which the City of Pacifica may be relying for permit decisions regarding wetland impacts and endangered species.” Dr.

Baye provides substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

As recently determined,[7] the “City [of Pacifica] solely relied on the developer’s experts who criticized Plaintiffs’ experts, which is insufficient. Without any specific findings of credibility by the City Council, Planning Commission or City staff, the City failed to meet its burden.”[8] Please send this project back to the Planning Commission for a proper review, detailed traffic studies and further consultation from the school and environmental community before proceeding with a sale of public lands and a new development project which will forever remove Pacifica’s last vestiges of Lake Mathilda and its surrounding wetlands.

Sincerely,
Cherie Chan
Resident on San Pedro Avenue, Parent at Cabrillo School Attachments:

This Letter in word format: 2022-06-27_AgendaItem11_Crespi 1_Pacifica Safe Routes to School Summary Report
2_BayeLetter
3_San Mateo County Superior Court CEQA Ruling for CPUP
4_Crespi-19-HomesSpeciesList
[1] See minutes of Planning Commission Meeting on page 447 of Agenda Packet: “Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated “that, if they look at the summary in the table at the beginning of the staff report and the analysis of the parking exception, they have not included those spaces and identified that the project would be short five off street parking spaces from its relevant number of required parking spaces. He stated that there are some additional nuances in terms of covered parking, etc., that make it not exactly “apples to apples” comparison. He stated that, in simple terms, the project would be short five spaces and it is short of Municipal Code requirements but the Commission may recall other mixed use projects that were approved in the past and quite often the parking exceptions requested for those projects are considerably higher and this developer has made an earnest effort to include as much onsite parking as they feel they can reasonably do."
[2] The “Traffic study” lacks site-specific details, and incorrectly cites the streets PM peak hours as between 4 and 6 pm. Any casual observer who spends a day at Fog City Java would note that peak hours are much earlier; unfortunately, Fog City Java closes at noon, because there is so little traffic during the report’s purported and unsupported peak times.
[3] Agenda Packet at page 449.
[4] Agenda Packet at page 446.
[5] Except for a list of Potential Endangered Species generated by US Fish and Wildlife Service at the project location, Attachment 4 of this letter.
[6] Agenda Packet Page 1165, Attachment K. It should be noted that the applicant’s own retained consultant characterized the prior expert hired by the same applicant’s approach as unconventional. [7]
San Mateo County Superior Court: Order on Plaintiffs / Petitioners Motion For Judgment On Writ Of Mandate Of First Cause Of Action Under CEQA. Coalition Of Pacificans For An Updated Plan et al, vs. City Council Of The City Of Pacifica et al. June 20, 2022.
[8] Id. At page 12, lines 6-9.

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 2:43 PM Cherie Chan <[email protected]> wrote:

Re:

I am writing today in support of Margaret Goodale’s appeal of the proposed development of 19 new homes on 570 Crespi.

I am also a parent of two children at Cabrillo School, a second-grader and a Kindergartener. The proposed development is kitty-corner to Cabrillo School across Crespi Drive, which already faces severe traffic constraints. Any development approved by the City should include:

1. A detailed traffic study conducted by an independent consultant which builds upon existing studies and includes direct outreach to the entire school community. If this large development is allowed to move forward, traffic calming measures must be paid for by the developer. At a minimum, during the duration of construction, a traffic calming and safety mitigation plan must be utilized. In addition, Cabrillo parents should be granted temporary, 20-minute parking access or passes to alleviate the known parking shortage around Cabrillo School.

2. The sale of public land to private development interests without a substantial allocation for affordable housing units or a substantial space for child-friendly spaces be reconsidered, especially in light of the Child Care Crisis also affecting families in Southern Pacifica.

Traffic Calming
I chose to attend Cabrillo School because it is the school closest to my home, and envisioned biking to school most mornings. Unfortunately, I, like many other parents, have found that accessing Cabrillo school from the west is simply not safe.

In June 2012, Alta Planning + Design, with funds from the San Mateo County Office of Education, found that 77% of families drive their children to school by car, with only 7% walking, and 2% biking. The most frequently-cited reasons were 1) Unsafe Intersections, 2) Speeding Traffic Long Route, and 3) Too much traffic along the route.

The report can be accessed from the Pacifica School District Website as well as here:
https://sites.google.com/a/pacificasd.org/saferoutespacifica/home/cabrillo The report made several recommendations to improve the safety for families to reach their school.

Unfortunately, many of these recommendations have not been implemented. Specifically the report included a recommendation to “Take steps to establish the existing Community Center parking lot as a park-and-walk” at page 9-1. This could be accomplished at almost no cost, and reduce the dangerous conditions at Cabrillo School, particularly during pickup and drop-off. In addition, given the foreseeable construction-related delay which will be ongoing at this site, a paid crossing guard, paid by the developer, must be included during the very peak traffic times while construction is ongoing. Peak traffic times are 8 am to 8:30 every morning, and between 1pm and 1:30 Wednesday afternoons, when the entire school community enjoys its early-out days and children are playing in front of the school.

More recently, school administrators have also highlighted the insufficient parking around Cabrillo (see below). Adding this large development at an impacted intersection will only compound an already unsafe access problem.

Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
1 Dear Council Members,
I am adding to the letter I submitted to the Planning Commission I support of Margaret Goodale’s appeal on May 9, 2022 at 2:43 PM, and bringing to your attention again for the record. I hope you will take the Appellant’s concerns and those of other concerned citizens seriously.

Summary of Prior Request
In that letter, I made two modest requests which would mitigate some of the already documented and well‐known safety concerns at this intersection, and help alleviate a critical shortage of childcare services and youth‐oriented recreational opportunities in Pacifica. 1) Please conduct a detailed, accurate traffic study as it affects a very nearby school with simple recommendations for mitigation, as already submitted by the San Mateo County of Education. 2) Disclosure of Public Land sales to private developers or an allocation for Affordable Housing consistent with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Affordability Requirements. (Minimum 40%).

Standing: Why am I Writing?
As I indicated earlier, I walk, bike, or park near or past the proposed construction site 180 days per year, twice a day, to bring my two children, ages 6 and 8, to and from Cabrillo Elementary School, where I am also a frequent volunteer and PTO board member. I chose Cabrillo School because it is the only school within walking and biking distance, a critical measure of supporting Strong Towns.

The map below was included as part of a 2012 Pacifica Safe Routes to School Report prepared by Alta Planning + Design, sponsored by the San Mateo County Office of Education. It provides details of my family’s safest route to school, highlighted in orange in the photo below. The project in question is highlighted in lime green. On several occasions, my children or I have been nearly hit on this “safe route” due to the chaotic conditions at that intersection: the city is now contemplating the addition of 19 new housing units as well as a new 3, 000+ ft. business without first addressing the simple traffic mitigation steps recommended in the 2012 report.

Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
2 Even on the best of days traffic to and from school is unsafe, congested, and unmonitored, particularly at the intersection of Roberts and Crespi. As you can see from this recent photo below, (at the yellow circle, above, at the same corner as the proposed project) parents are already illegally parked in the Emergency Egresses in red and blocking the gate marked “Do Not Block”, because there is no available parking nearby and no safe place to stop.

Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
3 Figure 1 Photo Taken June 8th, 1:10 pm. Cars with nowhere to go have completely filled and blocked the Emergency Exit Adding 19 units with below‐requirement parking which has been appears to violate building code (see page 1222 of 1685 in your agenda packet: doors likely cannot open if cars are actually parked in the garage) will further exacerbate an already untenable parking shortage at my children’s’ school1 (and affect hundreds of other families) to maximize developer profits and wetlands degradation (see comments of Margaret Goodale and Dr. Peter Baye)
Please Adopt the Low‐Cost Reasonable Recommendations from the County’s Safe Routes to School Report at the Project Site as a Condition Precedent to the Start of Construction Please consider the safety needs of Pacifica families before you approve this new development without implementing the County’s safety suggestions. In my May letter, I included the County’s recommended safety proposals at the corner of Crespi and Roberts Road, as a link, but will also include it as an attachment, for the record.

This report, dated in 2012 spells out several safety concerns at the corner of Roberts and Crespi including two simple, low‐cost mitigations actions which the Planning Department Report that the Developer’s deficient traffic study2 fails to address.  Specifically, the report highlights that a child had 1 See minutes of Planning Commission Meeting on page 447 of Agenda Packet: “Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated “that, if they look at the summary in the table at the beginning of the staff report and the analysis of the parking exception, they have not included those spaces and identified that the project would be short five off street parking spaces from its relevant number of required parking spaces. He stated that there are some additional nuances in terms of covered parking, etc., that make it not exactly “apples to apples” comparison. He stated that, in simple terms, the project would be short five spaces and it is short of Municipal Code requirements but the Commission may recall other mixed use projects that were approved in the past and quite often the parking exceptions requested for those projects are considerably higher and this developer has made an earnest effort to include as much onsite parking as they
feel they can reasonably do.
2 The “Traffic study” lacks site‐specific details, and incorrectly cites the streets PM peak hours as between 4 and 6 pm.  Any casual observer who spends a day at Fog City Java would note that peak hours are much earlier; Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
4 already been hit by a car at that very intersection (Report at page 17).  Yet, the City fails to implement these very low‐cost improvements as suggested by the Safe Routes to School program ten years ago.

Some low‐cost mitigations bear repeating here, in hopes they are taken seriously this time.

At page 17 of this report, the County recommended a very low‐cost mitigation to stripe high‐visibility school zone crosswalks at the north and east legs of the Roberts Road/Crespi and remove the west leg of the intersection as shown in the photo below because the west side of the intersection is already known to be unsafe.

In addition, page 19 of the 2012 Safe Routes to School report includes a recommendation to “Take steps to establish the existing Community Center parking lot as a park‐and‐walk.” As I noted in my prior letter, allowing parents to park at the public Community Center lot, free of charge, for a limited duration to drop off and pick up their children safely would ease an already untenable parking shortage which will be exacerbated by the addition of this new development, particularly during the construction phases. The Planning Commissioners and Interim Developer had already noted that “the Community Center Lot is rarely full”3 perhaps because the public is required to pay a fee merely to drop off their children to school safely.

Granting Cabrillo families the temporary use of the city‐managed parking lot to drop off their children safely is a reasonable compromise to prevent the further endangerment of our community’s children which will be exacerbated with this new construction.

Sale of Public Lands for Private Gains
In the Planning Commission Minutes4 the Planning Commissioners ask about the sale of public lands for private gains. In response, our volunteer Commissioners were given the following vague answer:

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t want to delve too deeply into the purchase and sale agreement as it isn’t subject to Planning Commission’s review, but there is a separate price that they city has negotiated for purchase of the land. The amount shown of $272,000 in the development agreement is separate from the purchase price for the city-owned land and is an additional amount of money on top of the three below market rate units that the city’s ordinance requires and would be constructed with this project and are not the same amount of money and the city is not selling its portion of its land for $272,000 as a separate amount payable for unfortunately, Fog City Java closes at noon, because there is so little traffic during the report’s purported and unsupported peak times.
3 Agenda Packet at page 449.
4 Agenda Packet at page 446
Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
5 affordable housing purposes.

Certainly, it is within the purview of the City Council to ask these questions, even if Planning Commissioners were denied an answer. As was discussed in detail during this same May 2022 City Council meeting in which Appellant Goodale was to testify, Pacifica Parents face dire child care shortage.

Cabrillo parents do not have access to child care in Linda Mar: their best option is to be bussed to the Boys and Girls Club in the back of the Valley which is now under threat of closure. Selling off public within walking distance to a public school and adjacent to community center without at least public disclosure of the terms or proper allocation towards Affordable Housing requirements of this sale may be a violation of the Surplus Lands Act (AB 1486, Ting, 2019) and Assembly Bill 1255 (Robert Rivas, 2019), which requires cities and counties to inventory and report surplus and excess local public lands.

Furthermore, it precludes our City from investing in its most valuable asset, its citizens and its children.

Evidence of Biological Resources Must Be Considered
You will hear tonight from esteemed local naturalist and long‐time Pacifican Margaret Goodale who has filed the appeal of this decision before you. I have very little to add in this regard5 , as she knows more
about wetlands and its animals than I could ever absorb.

However, I did note that that the application has submitted new testimony after the Planning Commission Meeting.6
Here, the applicant attempts to introduce new evidence from a Madrone Ecological Consulting substantiating the applicant’s original “unconventional” report from Wood Biological Consulting. The consultant honestly and transparently shares that Madrone’s review was only with respect to the riser area in question: the Consultant “did not visit the site or take data of our own to determine the accuracy of the data in the field.”
I am attaching a memorandum from Dr. Peter Baye, a well-known Coastal biologist: we openly and notoriously wander the same paths in Pedro Point and Linda Mar, including this project site. In this memo, Dr. Baye has provided substantial evidence to “correct erroneous biological assessments on which the City of Pacifica may be relying for permit decisions regarding wetland impacts and endangered species.” Dr. Baye provides substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

As recently determined,7 the “City [of Pacifica] solely relied on the developer’s experts who criticized Plaintiffs’ experts, which is insufficient. Without any specific findings of credibility by the City Council, Planning Commission or City staff, the City failed to meet its burden.”8

Please send this project back to the Planning Commission for a proper review, detailed traffic studies and further consultation from the school and environmental community before proceeding with a sale 5 Except for a list of Potential Endangered Species generated by US Fish and Wildlife Service at the project location, Attachment 4 of this letter.
6 Agenda Packet Page 1165, Attachment K. It should be noted that the applicant’s own retained consultant characterized the prior expert hired by the same applicant’s approach as unconventional. 7 San Mateo County Superior Court: Order on Plaintiffs / Petitioners Motion For Judgment On Writ Of Mandate Of First Cause Of Action Under CEQA. Coalition Of Pacificans For An Updated Plan et al, vs. City Council Of The City Of Pacifica et al. June 20, 2022.
8 Id. At page 12, lines 6‐9
Public Comment of Cherie Chan in Support of Appellant Margaret Goodale June 27, 2022 Agenda Item 11, 570 Crespi Appeal
6 of public lands and a new development project which will forever remove Pacifica’s last vestiges of Lake Mathilda and its surrounding wetlands.

Sincerely,
Cherie Chan
Resident on San Pedro Avenue, Parent at Cabrillo School Attachments:

From: Cherie Chan
To: Public Comment
Cc: Stan Zeavin
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 1, 570 Crespi Appeal
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 12:08:09 PM
Attachments: Dr BayeLetter Crespi.pdf
USFWS Crespi-19-HomesSpeciesList.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Due to size limitations, I am attaching these two files to my comments.

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.

From: Cherie Chan
To: Public Comment; Stan Zeavin
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 1, 570 Crespi Appeal
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 12:18:42 PM
Attachments: image.png
[CAUTION: External Email]
Final attachment:

As noted, construction crews already park at this City-owned site with complete disregard for public safety.

Here is a truck parked, without a driver on Thursday, February 27th at 8:04 am, blocking pedestrian and bicycle access between the Community Center at the proposed project site, forcing all pedestrians into the middle of Crespi Avenue.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 12:06 PM Cherie Chan <[email protected]> wrote:

Due to size limitations, I am attaching these two files to my comments. --
Cherie Chan
(510) 703-3748
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.

From: Michael Foley
To: Public Comment
Subject: file no. 2016-004
Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 4:34:20 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
To whom it may concern,
I am in my late 70s and two to health issues I was unable two intend a meeting on Monday, October 6, 2025 in the city council chambers. I also realize that these comments should've been sent sooner. I have been a home owner in Pacifica for more than 30 years and I hope someone will address these questions.

Regarding the building of the two-story mixed use commercial and residential building at 570 Crispy Drive and on a portion of 940 Crespi Drive,
I have several questions
.
!. For years this area has been referred to as a, "flood zone”. Building anything there was alwaysout of the question.

Why is this building being allowed now, and who is involved in this process? Is everything legal and above board?

2. Adding 19 residential units and a mixed use commercial building will compromise traffic in the morning during commuting hours. This neighborhood has enough people right now. If we were going to add more housing I would suggest duplexes and quadplexes as a better solution. Instead of housing all the people in one area they would be spread out, lessening their impact on the community.

3. The most obvious place for a new housing in the south end of Pacifica would be where the now closed Sea Bowl bowling alley sits. Housing there would not interfere with the traffic on Crespi or on Lindamar. My question is why isn't that area being considered for a new housing?
Thank you,
Michael Foley
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.

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: 570 Crespi wetland, planning commission meeting 11/3/25 Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 10:59:03 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
For the sake of one or two condominiums, Pacifica may choose to sacrifice the last acre of Lake Mathilda, one of our two major wetlands. What’s left of Mathilda’s original 18 acres is now penned in on three sides by development. If the 570 project moves forward as is, there will be a retaining wall essentially butted up against the fourth side of this wetland, leaving no room for Mathilda to breathe, i.e., no buffer zone.

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: 570 Crespi wetland consideration, from M Goodale Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 11:43:44 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Commissioners,
I ask that you seriously revisit the Green Foothills letter of early October from Lennie Roberts.

Also, please think about the broader significance of wetlands and the importance of separating development from wetland conditions for the safety both of the development and the wetland.

Removing Conservation status from the wetland in favor of the less restrictive Open Space designation is a serious mistake.

Rather than looking only at the mitigations proposed and dismissing the likelihood of ESA protected species, consider the whole of the Mathilde wetland. It is short-sighted to narrowly limit your consideration to only those species already in danger of extinction.

As noted on Page 4.1-28, “Wetlands are considered sensitive environmental resources protected at federal, State, and local levels. Wetlands provide unique habitat functions and values for wildlife, and provide habitat for plant species adapted to wetland hydrology. Throughout the State, the quality and quantity of wetlands has dramatically declined.“
According to current estimates 95% of wetlands are gone statewide. Only 5% of our original wetlands remain as we expand our human footprint. Mathilde is an example of this loss. Less than one acre remains of the documented historic eighteen acres.

The City of Pacifica General Plan 20407 and the City of Pacifica General Plan Update and General Plan Update EIR provide information and definitions for “intact native habitats…(including).... arroyo willow scrub, emergent marsh, seasonal wetland…(and) wetland criteria…”
All the aquatic resources in the 570 Crespi study area are wetlands and are normally considered a special status community.

Various Implementing Policies offer analysis of “development that would significantly disrupt habitat values” (Page 4.1-17). Examples are:

Implementing Policy CO-I-26 says “establish no-disturbance buffers” (around sensitive habitats).

Policy CO-I-30 Fuel Modification. “Ensure that new development is sited and designed to minimize the need for fuel modification and vegetation clearance in order to avoid or minimize the disturbance or destruction of habitat and existing hydrology.”
On Page 4.1-20 Standards of Significance. One of those standards is whether development may “Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident…or established native wildlife.”
One solution to those problems is a “construction-free buffer zone.” This memorandum offers detailed mitigation efforts based on the possibility of the presence of FESA listed or other special species and dismisses the likelihood of the any possibility of CRLF presence.

As evidence for the non-use of Mathilde by CRLF, in the 2023 UPDATE, WOOD notes on PAGE 11 –“Permanent ponded water for the minimum duration of 11-20 weeks required for larval development was not observed during two years of construction of the City’s wet weather equalization basin.” Ponding during that time period is not a reliable indicator of usual conditions or of CRLF presence, of course, because ground water was being pumped both prior to and during the WWEB construction. Disruption of the entire area would have virtually guaranteed that for the two years of biologist monitoring there would be no frogs intrepid enough to attempt the area.

Elsewhere the study notes: ”unusually large precipitation events or seasonal cumulative totals can cause ponding to persist for several months, as occurred following the greater than normal precipitation total for the winter of 2022 to 2023.” With climate change occurring, such storm events will occur more often.

Wood Biologic’s exploration of the route that could be taken by RLF from San Pedro Creek to the Mathilde wetland is detailed, but the opinion that the route is unlikely does not make it impossible. Only an expert with the experience and the appropriate permit from CDFW can make that determination. CRLF travel over Mori Point from Laguna Salada to the Quarry rock washing ponds has been well documented since the 1940s.

Even after the disruption of construction of the WWEB and continuing today, a remarkable Chorus Frog population and nursery exist on the site. Deer visit to feed and Great Blue Herons enjoy the shallow water and are “established native resident(s).” Red-shouldered Hawks hunt in the uplands from adjacent rooftops. Frogs also utilize the upland areas which will be inaccessible to them after the construction of the temporary protective fencing and the permanent retaining walls installed at the exact edge of the wetland boundary.

The Lake Mathilde Wetland is unquestionably a “sensitive environmental resource … and provide(s) unique habitat functions and values for wildlife.” All the careful protections that are legally applied to endangered and threatened species are also appropriate for threatened wetlands.

My perspective on what the CDFW identifies as “reasonable and prudent alternatives” would be to protect the wetland. Comply at least with the buffer required in Pacifica’s GP which is much less than the minimum of 30 feet up to 150 feet that is considered reasonable by many agencies and jurisdictions.

The 570 Crespi current design plans place a retaining wall at the immediate edge of the delineated wetland boundary.

A development setback of just 17 feet, the width of one condo, would give a nod toward compliance with the buffer proposed in our Pacifica GP and allow a bit of upland habitat. This small buffer would also reduce the likelihood of standing water against the retaining wall during the increasingly wet and frequent storms that, given the certainty of ocean warming, sea level and ground water rise, and climate chaos, are our future.

Thank you for your consideration,
Margaret Goodale
48 year resident
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.

From: Stan Zeavin
To: Public Comment
Subject: Mathilde wetland at 570 Crespi, M Goodale
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 11:48:47 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Planning Commissioners
What do you value about the history of Pacifica? What do you value about the environment of Pacifica? What do you consider to be your responsibility to preserve or protect either the environment or the history of our very unique town?
The value of wetlands was not understood in the 1900s or the 1950s or when the AT&T building and parking lots were built or even the Crespi Center. However, we now know how the many different kinds of wetlands function to benefit the entire healthy environment. There are now agencies that safeguard their health and work to preserve their essential functions. We can no longer claim ignorance.

Your choice is to honor our history or erase it permanently.

Thank you for caring about Pacifica,
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.

From: Updegrave, Samantha
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: 11/3/25 570 Crespi project New public hearings item 1 Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:54:12 AM
From: Suzanne Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:42 AM
To: _Planning Commission Group <[email protected]> Cc: Suzanne Moore <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 11/3/25 570 Crespi project New public hearings item 1 [CAUTION: External Email]
Honorable Commissioners, 570 Crespi Project designers, and neighbors, I appreciate that this project has made strides to protect our historic wetlands and reimburse this community for our surplus land at 540 Crespi. I believe public land should be used for public good.

I would hope that Commissioners would ask for clear, transparent, and equitable plans for the construction and sale of the 3 below-market rate units and make that a part of the written agreement.

I also hope that Commissioners might use their influence with the City to create a robust path to reach out and incentivize nonprofits to build in Pacifica. Current City staff may be unaware; but in 2023, as 540 was declared surplus land, local housing advocates had reached out to a nonprofit to discuss construction of 19 below-market rate family units at the site. There was interest; but without a clear path for moving forward, the opportunity was lost.

Again, I believe public land should be used for public good. Please advocate for our City to develop a dedicated housing outreach team to encourage nonprofit development.

Thank you.
--
Suzanne Moore
Home
Cell
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.

From: Cindy Abbott
To: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Devine, Daniella; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting, Oct 6, Agenda #1 Protect and Restore the Historic Lake Mathilde Wetlands - Vote NO to Habitat Destruction
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 11:43:16 AM
Attachments: Tentative Map 570 Crespi project 11 2025.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commission,
Below is one of several public comment letters sent over a number of years about the project proposed for 570 Crespi Drive (and purchase of a portion of public property at 540 Crespi Drive). Oddly, the project now includes a new zoning text amendment that provides for the back of 540 Crespi Drive (the publicly owned property) be deemed as “Conservation Area”.

While it is appreciated that the value of the historic Mathilde Wetland will be appropriately rezoned, the boundary of that rezoning is not appropriate. The environmentally detrimental project continues to abut the wetland/conservation area, and provides no appropriate buffer to the sensitive wetland area. The maps and visuals for the project reflect literally no buffer. (See Tentative Map For Lot Merger and Condominium Purposes, 570 Crespi Drive in the packet and attached here).

The staff report notes that the historic Mathilde Wetland is not federally recognized. Anyone standing by the wetland though can find evidence of plant life and wildlife that reveals the area as a wetland.

Let’s look back at this project… what began as a multi-use commercial and condominium project that would bring 9 new housing units to the area, more than doubled in scope to the current 19 units. The project should not be approved without going back to the smaller project that doesn’t impact the wetland.

In addition to asking about the wetland setbacks – and hopefully requiring the movement of the back buildings (see email below) please also consider:
·
The Community Center parking lot and driveway
realignment has not been publicly studied as to its safety or impact on the community-at-large. Why would agreement be given to reduce the number of onsite parking spaces? AND to lease an actively used public driveway that is for
public/community center use? This highly utilized public area is already challenged with limited parking and has a significant number of walkers and bikers who go traverse the area on their way to the community center, local school and beach.
·
Why is city owned public property being sold for private development? What potential is there for this area of public property – adjacent to the community center that is space constrained and could benefit the public with the use of portable structures for use by youth and other public programming? This has never come to robust public discussion, being buried in the details of this project.

Again, let’s take this project back to the initial concept: 9 units of housing and needed commercial space AND protections for the wetland and public community assets.

Thank you,
Cindy Abbott
West Sharp Park
On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 11:54 AM Cindy Abbott <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Tonight you have the opportunity to protect and restore the last part of the historic Lake Mathilde Wetlands. What was a primary feature of the San Pedro Valley, has been impacted by generations of development.

One portion of this important wetland though remains, the south part of the lot at 570 (and 540) Crespi Drive.

CO-I-4: Wetland Preservation: Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and California Coastal Act.

CO-I-7: Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands: Ensure that any diking, filling or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity.

Step back and consider the ramifications on the habitat, risk to the project when rains happen and it floods, and protect the history and preserve the Mathilde wetlands.

From: Alexandra Mendoza
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Devine, Daniella Subject: Fwd: 570 Crespi Dr comment letter
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:34:03 PM
Attachments: 570 Crespi Dr Comment Letter.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
After reading through the staff report for tonight's discussion of 570 Crespi Dr, I wanted to correct staff's comment on page 57 that mentions there were no additional public comments to the recirculated Biological Resources section. I wanted to bump my submission that I sent to the public comment email on September 15th with my letter on behalf of Green Foothills for the project.

Best,
Lexi
photo Alexandra Mendoza (She/Her)
Environmental Associate
Green Foothills | (650) 968-7243 | greenfoothills.org
Join the movement for local nature. Sign up for alerts. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Alexandra Mendoza <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:21 AM
Subject: 570 Crespi Dr comment letter
To: <[email protected]>
Hello,
Attached is Green Foothills comments for the recirculated Biological Resources section of the DEIR for 570 Crespi Dr.

Please let me know if you have any questions or any issues with the document.

Best Regards,
Lexi
photo Alexandra Mendoza (She/Her)
Environmental Associate
Green Foothills, 3921 E Bayshore Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 968-7243 | greenfoothills.org
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 September 15, 2025
Brianne Harkousha, Community Development Deputy Director City of Pacifica Planning Division
1800 Francisco Boulevard, Pacifica, CA 94044
Email: [email protected]
Re: 570 Crespi Dr Project
Dear Ms. Harkousha,
Green Foothills submits the following comments for the partially recirculated Biological Resources section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Green Foothills is a local nonprofit organization that works to protect local nature and farmland in San Mateo County, Santa Clara, and San Benito Counties, including the San Mateo coast since 1962.

The proposed project at 570 Crespi Dr in Pacifica plans to build one commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums, on a newly merged 1.68 acre parcel. As described in the partially recirculated DEIR, the southern portion of the parcel has been deemed a wetland while the northern portion does not qualify. The following are comments that Green Foothills has on the biological resource section of the DEIR, but do not represent a comprehensive list:

The project conflicts with implementation and guiding policies in Pacifica's General Plan 2040.

CO-I-4: “Wetland Preservation: Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and California Coastal Act.” CO-1-5: “Limitations on Diking, Filling or Dredging: Only permit the diking, filling, or dredging of…wetlands…where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.” CO-I-7: “Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands: Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity.” The above policies are just some of the guidelines in Pacifica’s General Plan that encourage wetland conservation and restoration. The project at 570 Crespi Dr directly contradicts these goals. The size and location of the buildings on the parcel would directly impact the adjacent habitat, ignoring the well known fact that promoting healthy landscapes also requires that surrounding land encourage habitat health. The city has a unique opportunity to restore a portion of the historic Lake Mathilde and provide important species habitat, for both special status species such as the California red-legged frog as well as non special status species. Additionally, as we continue to face climate change, preserving these sensitive habitats to help promote resilient cities becomes increasingly more urgent.

There should be implementation of buffer zones between the wetlands and buildings. 2 The 19 condominiums and one commercial condominium are all planned to be built on the northern portion of the site (as seen in Figure 3-3 in the Project Description chapter of the DEIR), leaving the southern portion “undisturbed.” The construction appears to lead directly up to the boundary of the emergent wetland with a wood deck and concrete pathway brushing the border. Pacifica’s LCLUP, recently approved by the California Coastal Commission in April of 2025, sets up an implementation guideline of a 100-foot buffer around environmentally sensitive habitats and wetlands, which is not to be reduced to less than 50 feet. While this location sits outside of the coastal zone, as a document that is meant to guide decisions the LCLUP gives the city a good set of baseline policies to follow throughout Pacifica.

Figure 3-13 from the Project Description provides a closeup depiction of what the boundaries will look like between the construction in the northern portion versus the wetlands in the southern part. The figure clearly depicts the wetland delineation line overlapping with Building C, and fails to incorporate an appropriate buffer in other locations of the project design. This would go against general practice that other cities take around their wetlands, and Pacifica’s own LCLUP. Buffer zones help mitigate issues around flooding that can be common when building around wetlands, something that infrastructure surrounding 570 Crespi Dr have already experienced.

Despite being isolated, this parcel presents an opportunity to provide a “stepping stone” in wildlife movement in an urbanized area.

The recirculated DEIR claims that the project would have a less than significant impact to wildlife movement since it is fragmented and isolated from other similar landscapes, also emphasizing that there are other plots around the city more conducive to being a wildlife corridor. While the definition and baseline that the DEIR uses is commonly used, this definition lacks the necessary flexibility and approach needed in more urban settings. Many times in urbanized cities it is hard or impossible to be able to physically connect two pieces of land due to various constraints, such as ownership or jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, it is important to expand the definition of what determines a parcel’s importance in aiding wildlife movement, looking instead at a site's ability to provide an important stepping stone between fragments and helping prevent isolation of larger areas. Surrounding parks, backyards, and green spaces realistically play a key role in species movement in urbanized settings. The DEIR fails to acknowledge this nuanced definition of wildlife corridors in urban cities like Pacifica, therefore it improperly determines this impact as less than significant.

Green Foothills thanks you for taking the time to read and consider our comments.

Respectfully,
Alexandra Mendoza
Environmental Associate
Green Foothills
From: Cindy Abbott
To: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Redfield, Chris; Davis, Marjory; Godwin, James; Devine, Daniella; Public Comment
Subject: Mathilde Wetlands - images
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 6:51:30 PM
Attachments: Mathilde Wetlands (1).pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
See attached. Re Planning Commission Nov 3, 2025, Public Hearing Item 1 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 CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Pacifica City Council
December 2, 2025