Coastal Commission moves to protect Pacifica Bowl in unanimous 9-0 vote

Reprinted from California Coastwatcher

For years North Pacifica LLC and the City of Pacifica have tried to develop a sand dune and wetlands into a 43-unit residential subdivision, claiming the project was not appealable to the Califnornia Coastal Commission despite the wetlands. After years of litigation, which the City and the developer lost, the Commission voted 9-0 on December 16, 2005 to validate the appeal and accept the matter for future resolution, assuring permanent protection of the significant wetlands onsite and placing any future development of the site in jeopardy. 

On December 16, 2005 the proposal by the City of Pacifica and North Pacifica LLC to build 43-residential units on the property known as the "Pacifica Bowl" came before the Coastal Commission for a determination of whether the project is appealable to the Commission.

Since the City first approved the project in 2002, and throughout the subsequent years of litigation, the developer and the City have argued that the Coastal Commission cannot review the project despite its proximity to the ocean and the existence of wetlands on the property.

Subsequent analysis has shown at least four wetland areas on the property. The permit approved by the City allows grading and vegetation clearance within 100-ft of at least three of the wetland areas, which would violate both the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Coastal Act. Other evidence indicates that the developer has already engaged in unlawful, unpermitted removal of vegetation on the property.

Finally the project came before the Commission on the appealability question on December 16. Dozens of local residents attended the meeting to speak to the Commission regarding the well established wetlands on the site.

In addition, coastal staff in their analysis supported the Commission’s right to hear the appeal, as well as the existence of the wetlands and the permit’s failure to protect the wetlands. The entire staff report can be downloaded at coastal staff report.

The Commission made quick work of the issue, finding that the wetlands onsite are well documented and the project’s appealability to the Commission obvious and certain.

Following the Commissions unanimous support for appealability, one wonders why the developer spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years litigating the question when simply allowing the appeal in 2002 would have rendered the project reviewed and finally decided years ago. Now the developer is starting over, having invested way too much money in a project that will have to be significantly altered, if it can be approved at all.

In the end the Commission voted 9-0 to hear the appeal, with Commissioners Shallenberger, Wan, Caldwell, Kruer, Reilly, Neely, Clark, Secord and Potter all in support.