|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
OWN VOICE ARTICLE. VIDEO ~ Cherie Chan (Pacifica) & Gregg Dieguez (Montara)
Pacifica Puts Profits Over People (Well, Except For One Land Owner)
In another stunning victory for parasitic profiteering and climate denial, the Pacifica City Council ignored the pleas of its citizens and voted 4-1 Monday night to approve a Local Coastal Plan (LCLUP) which denies the Climate Crisis while also taking away critical wetlands reserved primarily for recreational opportunities.
The Council also denied a Brown Act Appeal filed by citizens because of the City’s back-door dealings with a private land-owner. As a result, substantial changes were made to the approved use for a critical 5.2 acre wetlands adjacent to Pacifica State Beach at Linda Mar (from recreational to residential uses) with no opportunity for informed public comment. First there was the billionaire at Martin’s Beach, and now there’s SAMCAR’s 3 favorite Pacifica council members, restricting Linda Mar State Beach access, spoiling views, and refusing to plan for Sea Level Rise. (SAMCAR ~ San Mateo County Association of REALTORS)
The Pacifica Local Coastal Plan, last updated in 1980, serves as the backbone of Pacifica’s land use policy in the Coastal Zone west of Highway 1. The City started updating the General Plan in 2009 which was stalled in 2014, primarily due to neighborhood opposition over the proposed land use change on the 5.2 acre wetlands, formerly owned by the Catholic Church and sold to its own real estate agent in a private deal for $550,000.
While the neighborhood has consistently rejected this taking of a vital visitor-oriented property, it is now eligible for conversion into 35+ homes in a tsunami evacuation zone, within a coastal neighborhood with only one entrance and exit. Hundreds of resident letters have been ignored, including massive and damning expert testimony from a Coastal Ecologist, a Geologist, and an Attorney
What is stunning about the decision is not merely the manipulation of coastal protections for all to favor real estate interests, it is that the City is not learning from obvious reality. The City’s own Planning Department noted that it had not had an opportunity to update its Local Coastal Plan since 2014, because Coastal Erosion had necessitated the demolition of apartments along Esplanade Avenue. Just this past August, the city accepted a $188,000 Grant from the California Coastal Commission to study Sea Level Rise. Rather than learn from these recent experiences and return with a sustainable General Plan, the City has resubmitted a Local Coastal Plan which continues to deny the Climate Crisis, and plans for dumping more sand and unfunded sea walls as potential solutions for Sea Level Rise, while green lighting more development in key, vulnerable properties.
Worse yet, the City continued to take back-channel meetings with the land owner, including making complete changes to the existing land use designation – while characterizing them as mere clarifications – on the day of the Planning Commission meeting. And in a dramatic conclusion, the City has the audacity to propose that no Environmental Review will needed, because their actions are unlikely to result in any changes to the environment.
The Council then signed a Resolution certifying that the LCLUP is fully in conformity with the Coastal Act, and finding that approval of the LCLUP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Wasn’t the Coastal Act supposed to prevent building houses on the coastline?
Note the implications for coastal protections all along our Coast. First, the developers get the rules changed. Then they avoid conforming with CEQA. Voila! Profits for them and costs and congestion for the rest of us. Residents in Moss Beach are seeing this same script followed for the Cypress Point housing project.
So, if you enjoy going to the beach, or enjoy watching surfing, or enjoy a view of the beach, or think that building on an eroding coastline is a waste of everyone’s time and money, then click and shout this article and forward it to every one who surfs, or lives in Pacifica, or cares about responsible government. On the other hand, if you loved those videos of Pacifica homes falling into the ocean, or watching Pacifica get denied critical statewide funds for its failure to comply with state law, Never Mind.
– Cherie Chan (Pacifica) & Gregg Dieguez (Montara)
Pacifica City Council Agenda and Video for 2/24/2020
[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.coastsidebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-02-24-Pacifica-City-Council-Full-Agenda-1287.pdf” title=”2020-02-24 Pacifica City Council – Full Agenda-1287″]
More InPerspective from Gregg Dieguez
InPerspective: How Development Will Undermine Your Water, Sewer and Fire Security
InPerspective: Insights, Infrastructure, and In General Topics on Sustainability by Gregg Dieguez
InPerspective Editorial ~ Cypress Point (MidPen) Craziness
InPerspective: The Dirty Truth About Sewer Finances
InPerspective: The Cost of Connect The Coastside
Author: Coastside Buzz
Me
I was one of the people speaking at the 2/24 meeting. It was necessary for me to call out Council Member Sue Vaterlaus who has a deep seeded bias against the residents of Pedro Point. I don’t say this lightly and it pains me to even write it. A majority of the City Council continue to ignore the requests of the residents of this small oceanside community. We have one way in and one way out. The field in question is in a tsunami evacuation area, sits at the bottom of a small mountain and catches all the water runoff. We need a City Council that will not just give benefit to one landowner who purchased the property knowing exactly what the land use designation was and then giving a finger to the residents.
I grew up in pacifica, 60s and 70s, wonderful times in a beautiful place, with surfing and fishing my prime interests. Few crowds or rules was the norm. A kid had the freedom to roam and appreciate the things that had real value. It wasn’t long until I was exposed to the so called pacifica planning commission? , never did see any true planning on their part, no heart soul or value for the riches pacifica possessed . Yes , possessed , because on recent visits it’s clear the good old days are long gone, permit parking, a beach that reeks of sewage, endless traffic congestion, planning? ha , a complete and total joke, with one-sided cash lined pocket interest only. The one last jewel, glittering gem , is the old boat docks ! I hope that will last forever.. Yeah, more BS dog box housing , that’s a step in the right direction… So glad I escaped when I did. With luck this decision will end up in the courts. Vote these jerks off the city council too… chuck arana
Now people are just seeing the SCAM of the City Council and Planning Department.
What a shame.SamCar must have really loaded certain pockets.
It will be that way an is the reason those 4 particular
people were Voted in.
It will always be 4 to 1 NO when it doesn’t fill those 4 pockets.
I know I was made homeless by their decision a few years back when it was NO on something at least it was 3 to 2.But they have since eratacated those 2 members.
What a shame to this beautiful city.
What’s happen to the CCC backbone????
I attended the meetings that Cherie is referencing. I saw a blatant disregard for the extensive expert biological and legal opinions regarding this coastal property. I see that, being members of SAMCAR, three of the City of Pacifica Council Members appear to pledge unwavering fealty to the real estate interests, while putting at risk the City of Pacifica, and the citizens/tax payers, who will have to pony up to pay for the the financial obligation to mitigate the damage to property and risks to persons living on this property due to damages caused by foreseeable environmental action. This issue received by far the most public comments in letters to the City and presentations at Pacifica Planning Commission and City Council meetings opposing residential development. Dozens of letters were submitted opposing residential development on this property. In spite of this overwhelming public concern the pro-development Council members voted in favor of the property owners. The property has been zoned for visitor-serving commercial development since before the property owner purchased the property. No plans for development on this land have been submitted for review. The opportunity for return on investment has never been infringed upon yet the City Council members claim that to prevent this change of land use would be a ‘taking’. This claim is not supported.
I couldn’t have said it any better myself, Danny. That meeting was a frustrating farce! Only Major Deirdre Martin seemed to hear any of what we said. The others had already made up their (closed) minds.